4 ms·

Or they are a case for this idea of the universe itself being conscious and beings tap into that via neurological mechanisms we do not understand well. It may

Or they are a case for this idea of the universe itself being conscious and beings tap into that via neurological mechanisms we do not understand well. It may be a base level of complexity / capability is needed to tap into the "field of consciousness", which could explain bees, these things, and other seemingly too small living systems doing more than their apparent weight class would indicate is possible.

moralestapia 5y ago
Do you have some resources you'd like to share around this? Would love to read about it.
- ddingus 5y ago
  https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956 https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna... I have seen this idea pop up a few times and find it intriguing. I have read much better, but struggle to find links right now. That said, this backgrounder / brief type piece should point you to the rabbit hole. To me, in the most general sense, it's similar to the idea of the universe being cyclic, rather than having some definitive beginning and or end. It may just always be. In this context, consciousness may be an emergent artifact of how living systems function, or maybe it's a thing of it's own, or... Who knows? I don't, but I consider basic branches of thought like this important, if nothing else to stimulate possible lines of thought easily passed by otherwise.
  - moralestapia 5y ago
    Thank you, I always had some thoughts in this direction, but never read about it somewhere else (never put time into it). I definitely think there's a lot more beyond what we are able to sense or even grasp (if that's the appropriate word); in a similar fashion to these sort of Flatland examples, about how 2D beings are unable to grasp our 3D world, perhaps only slices of it at a time ... What if consciousness is (or lives in) some sort of different dimension that we only get a glimpse of. What if, on that higher dimension, consciousness behaves like matter, has a definite structure, etc... Ammazing stuff to think about.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      I agree! Perhaps one of us stumbles on a new branch of understanding one day. Have fun.
- malloryerik 5y ago
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/ And for a fun magazine read: https://www.noemamag.com/the-conscious-universe/ https://www.noemamag.com/the-conscious-universe/
eloff 5y ago
There's no reason to believe this is true about the universe, but it is a fun idea to think about. We know so little about consciousness, intelligence, and the brain in general. It is amazing how much insects seem to accomplish with so little.
- ddingus 5y ago
  Just read past this again, and you probably won't see my reply, but our brief exchange had triggered another fleeting thought perhaps worth sharing. There is no reason to believe... I'm not sure what context you were speaking in, but I have a fairly conservative frame I work with, and that is we know almost nothing. The scientific method does bring us understanding and that's basically a monkey see, monkey do kind of thing where we understand doing a is going to yield b. Understanding is predictive to a point, and at that point, error exceeds understanding for whatever reason, and we simply don't understand enough to proceed, which drives new science and ultimately, new and improved understanding. None of that actually invalidates prior understanding. Where understanding is predictive, and it has been validated against the authority; namely, mother nature, it's good understanding! And that all means knowing the limits of understanding is as important as the understanding itself is. Applying our understanding outside it's scope can be worse than ignorance. Perhaps this is all well trodden ground for you, and I apologize in advance, but it did also highlight "reason to believe", and I just generally don't. For me, there just isn't a lot of room for "believe" in all this. Knowing things is a tall order. Confidence in understanding may just be a technical, formal expression of believing too. Where we lack understanding, it's a guessing game. We may make pretty good guesses, depending on what understanding we do have and our own nature, intuition and such, and that's fine, even ideal depending on what the scenario is. Maybe I would go down this road saying something more like, "I suspect" or "these ideas are suggestive", hinting at whatever basis I might have to give an idea greater weight or worth, but indeed! There is no reason to believe anything is true about the universe on basic principle, knowing our current limits and how we arrive at pretty much anything useful. Later, below you used "unlikely" which suggests to me we get after thoughts like this in a similar way, and it's OK if not, but somehow I felt compelled to just get these reasoning basics out there, out of my head. Happy New Year, and thanks in advance for entertaining me.
- 5y ago

moralestapia 5y ago

Do you have some resources you'd like to share around this? Would love to read about it.

ddingus 5y ago
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna772956 https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/universe-conscious-ncna... I have seen this idea pop up a few times and find it intriguing. I have read much better, but struggle to find links right now. That said, this backgrounder / brief type piece should point you to the rabbit hole. To me, in the most general sense, it's similar to the idea of the universe being cyclic, rather than having some definitive beginning and or end. It may just always be. In this context, consciousness may be an emergent artifact of how living systems function, or maybe it's a thing of it's own, or... Who knows? I don't, but I consider basic branches of thought like this important, if nothing else to stimulate possible lines of thought easily passed by otherwise.
- moralestapia 5y ago
  Thank you, I always had some thoughts in this direction, but never read about it somewhere else (never put time into it). I definitely think there's a lot more beyond what we are able to sense or even grasp (if that's the appropriate word); in a similar fashion to these sort of Flatland examples, about how 2D beings are unable to grasp our 3D world, perhaps only slices of it at a time ... What if consciousness is (or lives in) some sort of different dimension that we only get a glimpse of. What if, on that higher dimension, consciousness behaves like matter, has a definite structure, etc... Ammazing stuff to think about.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    I agree! Perhaps one of us stumbles on a new branch of understanding one day. Have fun.
malloryerik 5y ago
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/ And for a fun magazine read: https://www.noemamag.com/the-conscious-universe/ https://www.noemamag.com/the-conscious-universe/

eloff 5y ago

There's no reason to believe this is true about the universe, but it is a fun idea to think about. We know so little about consciousness, intelligence, and the brain in general. It is amazing how much insects seem to accomplish with so little.

ddingus 5y ago
Just read past this again, and you probably won't see my reply, but our brief exchange had triggered another fleeting thought perhaps worth sharing. There is no reason to believe... I'm not sure what context you were speaking in, but I have a fairly conservative frame I work with, and that is we know almost nothing. The scientific method does bring us understanding and that's basically a monkey see, monkey do kind of thing where we understand doing a is going to yield b. Understanding is predictive to a point, and at that point, error exceeds understanding for whatever reason, and we simply don't understand enough to proceed, which drives new science and ultimately, new and improved understanding. None of that actually invalidates prior understanding. Where understanding is predictive, and it has been validated against the authority; namely, mother nature, it's good understanding! And that all means knowing the limits of understanding is as important as the understanding itself is. Applying our understanding outside it's scope can be worse than ignorance. Perhaps this is all well trodden ground for you, and I apologize in advance, but it did also highlight "reason to believe", and I just generally don't. For me, there just isn't a lot of room for "believe" in all this. Knowing things is a tall order. Confidence in understanding may just be a technical, formal expression of believing too. Where we lack understanding, it's a guessing game. We may make pretty good guesses, depending on what understanding we do have and our own nature, intuition and such, and that's fine, even ideal depending on what the scenario is. Maybe I would go down this road saying something more like, "I suspect" or "these ideas are suggestive", hinting at whatever basis I might have to give an idea greater weight or worth, but indeed! There is no reason to believe anything is true about the universe on basic principle, knowing our current limits and how we arrive at pretty much anything useful. Later, below you used "unlikely" which suggests to me we get after thoughts like this in a similar way, and it's OK if not, but somehow I felt compelled to just get these reasoning basics out there, out of my head. Happy New Year, and thanks in advance for entertaining me.
5y ago