4 ms·
> the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it. And it's learning about itself. Yes, thank you for stating what some might consider a
by titzer 5y ago
> the universe is conscious, because our conscious minds are part of it. And it's learning about itself.
Yes, thank you for stating what some might consider a tautology or frivolous fact, but is actually, utterly profound.
Generally, people have no trouble believing that they, themselves are conscious. But what part of them is conscious? All of it? Their toes and fingers? Clearly not...they are mechanical, I/O devices with just nerves, no brains. Same for most of you: your organs, muscles, tissues, blood. Not conscious. But what about your brain? Is it all conscious? Is the tiny part of your brain devoted to audio processing conscious, with a little person who speaks English inside? Clearly not. There are lots of mechanical parts. Is there then some "special" part of your brain that is the consciousness, and the rest is not conscious? Or is just the sum of the brain's parts conscious? Either way, it doesn't matter, it's the same principle; we ascribe a property of a part of a person, consciousness, part of the brain, to the whole person--we regard a person's hand or face with the reverance we regard for their brain, their face thinks and their hands feel with the full power of their consciousness.
So, too, the universe thinks with parts of itself, human and animal brains...
Every time I ponder this I arrive at Gaia. How can we deny that nature is conscious when it is so full of conscious things! Look at all the wondrous brains around! In animals, in insects, and now we see plants sense and respond to stimuli. All these pieces are conscious, and we must conclude that the sum of the biosphere is a conscious thing. It is truly a superorganism, a pan-organism.
- tick_tock_tick 5y agoEvery time someone brings up consciousness I like to bring up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8. Split brains imply some very interesting ideas around of consciousness.
- wruza 5y agoTwo thoughts. First, consciousness may exist by itself, e.g. is a book that describes itself in a complex enough way conscious? It wouldn’t even require the flow of time or a reader, but once you read it, it’s clearly self-aware. That’s a hard notion of consciousness. Second, the easy, down to earth answer to “what is conscious” (iow, where do “beings” end) is where a structured perception ends. Your hand is a part of you because of a broadband link to it. It ends at the skin and hair. Lack of signal and control separates you from everything else. Organized groups have much less bandwidth and while still “pan-“, that’s much lower level of consciousness. Sometimes they synchronize well enough, but that’s just a correlation.
- titzer 5y agoThis is a very interesting line of reasoning, particularly the "high bandwidth connection" kind of criteria. Our native five senses can be augmented with high-capacity links to all kinds of sensors and actuators. Where is the boundary when we can plug things into our brains with as much bandwidth and precision of control as our native limbs? Cyborgs... Ok, too much Ghost in the Shell for now. :)
- theroncross 5y agoHow do you know your liver isn't conscious?
- slothtrop 5y agoThe lit I've come across on the subject of consciousness broadly likens it to something illusory (much like identity), not a thing in itself. I don't imagine a machine is capable of experiencing what could be described as being "thrown into the world". The high self-awareness bringing up the question, "why am I in this body, rather than some place else? How is this special unique experience of now-ness selected for what it is, could it have been otherwise?". Watts nitpicks this idea and says we are "born of the world", not thrown into it. The most fluffy unscientific notion I could entertain is that consciousness is tapped into, like a well. But I lean toward it being a complete illusion.
- tapas73 5y agoregading conciousness being an illusion. Does it not imply a spectator? (illusion has to trick somebody)