4 ms·

Are we part of the universe? Check. Are we conscious? Check? (probably yes). Does that make the universe transitively conscious? Partially at least, I suppose,

by asow92 9y ago

Are we part of the universe? Check. Are we conscious? Check? (probably yes). Does that make the universe transitively conscious? Partially at least, I suppose, yes it does. As far as the universe as a whole being conscious: Latency is problem, but when you're the universe I imagine you've got a lot of time on your hands.

kfrzcode 9y ago
> Latency is problem, but when you're the universe I imagine you've got a lot of time on your hands. Best sentence I've read all month
danenania 9y ago
Is there a universe outside of our consciousness? This cannot be proven, so if it is to be believed, it must be a matter of faith. Consciousness is the only thing we can be certain of.
- SerLava 9y ago
  It can be proven. Look down at your navel. Did you know about that lint? It was outside of your consciousness. Maybe that lint was it, but probably not.
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    That doesn't prove it - maybe you just decided there was lint there when you looked down.
- JeffreyKaine 9y ago
  I think therefore I am?
  - kazinator 9y ago
    I think, therefore I avoid vacuous statements like "I am therefore I am"; moreover, I think I am.
  - liberte82 9y ago
    It's raining, therefore it is
- golergka 9y ago
  Things that cannot be "proven" still can have vastly different probabilities, according to prior observations.
  - danenania 9y ago
    There are no observations that are not products of consciousness, so there are no prior observations in this case.
- ElatedOwl 9y ago
  Can we be certain of consciousness? How can we be certain that what we perceive as reality isn't some demon feeding sensory information to our brain?
  - danenania 9y ago
    That would still be consciousness--or call it 'perception' if you like. But yes, objectively speaking, this is as likely to be the case as any other explanation.
  - liberte82 9y ago
    We can be certain of - "something's going on". That's about as far as we can take it, but it's something that isn't nothing.
- reggieband 9y ago
  I often think of GE Moore when I see this argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
  - danenania 9y ago
    That argument simply assumes its conclusion by arbitrarily labelling hands as 'external'. The 'existence' of our hands is perceived by our senses and filtered through consciousness. There is no way to prove that they actually exist outside of our minds.
golergka 9y ago
How can you be sure that you are concious and it's not just a usable abstraction running in your software?
- danenania 9y ago
  We can't, but this is just playing with the definition of conscious. To be more precise, the only thing we can be sure of is the phenomenon of consciousness. The true cause of it will always be a mystery.
  - liberte82 9y ago
    I am a strange loop.
everdev 9y ago
"In principle, some purely physical systems that are not biological or organic may also be conscious.” The article is talking less about "does the Universe contain consciousness?" but more about "can non-biological things have consciousness?" The author quotes a scientist who thinks stars that emit jets in a single direction might be doing so consciously. If that's the case, then the scientist raises the question if other non-biological things in the universe might be conscious. It sounds like no one is taking this idea seriously, but some guy wants to test it just to rule it out.
bharath28 9y ago
As far as i can see it, to be conscious is to have a subject experience of reality and (this is i am sure about yet) to have some sense of purpose (however mundane). To talk about the universe being conscious in this sense, seems to be meaningless to me. I get this strange feeling that we are trying to force something that is vastly mysterious (numinous, not divine) into our world view of how lifeforms work on earth. Reminds me of a fascinating discussion with Richard Dawkins from a while ago. If you can ignore the pseudo-scientific babble from Deepak Chopra and the annoying host, Dawkins makes some deeply interesting points worth thinking about. https://youtu.be/BiwLrxPb1fE?t=16m12s https://youtu.be/BiwLrxPb1fE?t=16m12s

by asow92 9y ago

kfrzcode 9y ago

> Latency is problem, but when you're the universe I imagine you've got a lot of time on your hands. Best sentence I've read all month

danenania 9y ago

Is there a universe outside of our consciousness? This cannot be proven, so if it is to be believed, it must be a matter of faith. Consciousness is the only thing we can be certain of.

SerLava 9y ago
It can be proven. Look down at your navel. Did you know about that lint? It was outside of your consciousness. Maybe that lint was it, but probably not.
- akvadrako 9y ago
  That doesn't prove it - maybe you just decided there was lint there when you looked down.
JeffreyKaine 9y ago
I think therefore I am?
- kazinator 9y ago
  I think, therefore I avoid vacuous statements like "I am therefore I am"; moreover, I think I am.
- liberte82 9y ago
  It's raining, therefore it is
golergka 9y ago
Things that cannot be "proven" still can have vastly different probabilities, according to prior observations.
- danenania 9y ago
  There are no observations that are not products of consciousness, so there are no prior observations in this case.
ElatedOwl 9y ago
Can we be certain of consciousness? How can we be certain that what we perceive as reality isn't some demon feeding sensory information to our brain?
- danenania 9y ago
  That would still be consciousness--or call it 'perception' if you like. But yes, objectively speaking, this is as likely to be the case as any other explanation.
- liberte82 9y ago
  We can be certain of - "something's going on". That's about as far as we can take it, but it's something that isn't nothing.
reggieband 9y ago
I often think of GE Moore when I see this argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
- danenania 9y ago
  That argument simply assumes its conclusion by arbitrarily labelling hands as 'external'. The 'existence' of our hands is perceived by our senses and filtered through consciousness. There is no way to prove that they actually exist outside of our minds.

golergka 9y ago

How can you be sure that you are concious and it's not just a usable abstraction running in your software?

danenania 9y ago
We can't, but this is just playing with the definition of conscious. To be more precise, the only thing we can be sure of is the phenomenon of consciousness. The true cause of it will always be a mystery.
- liberte82 9y ago
  I am a strange loop.

everdev 9y ago

"In principle, some purely physical systems that are not biological or organic may also be conscious.” The article is talking less about "does the Universe contain consciousness?" but more about "can non-biological things have consciousness?" The author quotes a scientist who thinks stars that emit jets in a single direction might be doing so consciously. If that's the case, then the scientist raises the question if other non-biological things in the universe might be conscious. It sounds like no one is taking this idea seriously, but some guy wants to test it just to rule it out.

bharath28 9y ago

As far as i can see it, to be conscious is to have a subject experience of reality and (this is i am sure about yet) to have some sense of purpose (however mundane). To talk about the universe being conscious in this sense, seems to be meaningless to me. I get this strange feeling that we are trying to force something that is vastly mysterious (numinous, not divine) into our world view of how lifeforms work on earth. Reminds me of a fascinating discussion with Richard Dawkins from a while ago. If you can ignore the pseudo-scientific babble from Deepak Chopra and the annoying host, Dawkins makes some deeply interesting points worth thinking about. https://youtu.be/BiwLrxPb1fE?t=16m12s https://youtu.be/BiwLrxPb1fE?t=16m12s