Could consciousness pervade the universe ?

[Calibeliever]

We are focusing a lot here on human consciousness, which isn't entirely what this is about. We could start by asking asking if any self organization is a type of consciousness. Chaos theory talks about this. In one well known example: most agree that natural selection is too simple a model for evolution. Mathematically alone, it doesn't pan out. Also, there are extreme examples of adaptation in short periods of time that natural selection simply can't account for. It can be strongly argued that the individual organism(s) adapting aren't consciously forcing their own mutations, so what's behind it? The idea that life is self organizing has been proposed for a very long time, but rarely can anyone propose an explanation of how without resorting to invoking a supreme being. Assuming that's not the case, that leaves some process that at least mimics consciousness, yes? We see self organization everywhere in nature, what's driving it? If it's just complex math we haven't yet worked out, then what's to stop us from going all the way down that path and reducing all consciousness to math, even our own? 

I once had a professor argue that a volcano had consciousness. It was mostly tongue in cheek of course, but he did a fairly convincing job. His point wasn't to prove that volcanoes can think, it was to show how narrow our field of vision is when we relate everything experientially. He picked an absurd example because most people start with the idea that rocks aren't capable of consciousness and have difficulty being moved from that place, so he had to work extra hard to try and do it . 

Anyway, I felt like the real point of this is to broaden our vision of what consciousness is, rather than to prove whether something is or not. Move away from our anthropomorphization of everything and look with different eyes. Fascinating stuff, to me.

[Habitat]

20 minutes ago, Calibeliever said:

Also, there are extreme examples of adaptation in short periods of time that natural selection simply can't account for.

What are some good examples of this ?

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Don't get me wrong. I like all the cool discoveries, I just don't need to know everything. Because what's correct right now, won't be later. So I'm just getting agnostic about all of it, because that is the only bliss state I have. Since I am the only me that will ever exist. I do matter. I just never wanted to admit it...

Meh, no matter what we do the world rolls with us. I just wonder why most people can't simply be literal. All this wild philosophy just seems like silly child games I have become bored of. I don't matter, and I'm ok with that. 

What's correct now will be correct later. Because knowledge is expanded upon, many think it is rewritten all the time which is not right. Expanded and added to sure, but we haven't had a major rewrite for centuries. We haven't learnt everything by any means, but there's no reason to think everything we do know is wrong or will be rewritten.

Religion reminds me of a child tea party with imaginary friends. I can't unsee that analogy and it's a very accurate one. I think that's a silly thing for adults to undermine knowledge with. 

Science, unlike everything else is the one thing we can rely on. 

[psyche101]

9 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

And we all know what happened to the Joker in the end!!!

The poor misguided soul, thought he could walk around doing and saying whatever he wanted and still walk away scot-free. But as we all know, life just never pans-out like that.

 

BTW

I see him as a hero 

[XenoFish]

18 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Meh, no matter what we do the world rolls with us. I just wonder why most people can't simply be literal. All this wild philosophy just seems like silly child games I have become bored of. I don't matter, and I'm ok with that. 

What's correct now will be correct later. Because knowledge is expanded upon, many think it is rewritten all the time which is not right. Expanded and added to sure, but we haven't had a major rewrite for centuries. We haven't learnt everything by any means, but there's no reason to think everything we do know is wrong or will be rewritten.

Religion reminds me of a child tea party with imaginary friends. I can't unsee that analogy and it's a very accurate one. I think that's a silly thing for adults to undermine knowledge with. 

Science, unlike everything else is the one thing we can rely on. 

Who are we to say people can't believe? I question my right to do this. Science is nice and all, but it's a religion to some. Just worshipping at the throne of the atomic god. I can also understand why people believe in spiritual things. Sure, some religions are garbage. Not all of them. Christianity gets hell around here, but it is far from the worst ideology on the planet. The worst one kills followers for not believing and atheism condemn those who believe. 

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Maybe you should change that. I know I need to.

Meh. Nobody would care anyway. Better things to do. 

[psyche101]

 

3 hours ago, Habitat said:

That is just a "spontaneous generation" theory, where "random happenings" are the cause.

If you are saying spontaneous event actioned by random catalysts don't exist, then you are wrong. Just go outside and look at the sky. I'm looking at the same one. Tell me when and where a cloud will form. Or doesn't that happen either? Maybe you thinks that's god at work or something hey?

Quote

You have effectively abandoned cause and effect.

No I haven't, you have rejected it to champion superstition. You have hobbled yourself with your own childish Morse code musings. 

Quote

This is the "Uncaused Cause" idea that is no different to the religious fundamentalist God, which is assumed to be uncaused, but causes everything downstream.

If the events are recorded and as per the paper measured and observed how is that uncaused? It happened and was recorded. It hasn't "unhappened" in the meantime. How are the catalysts I described philosophical in nature like the God idea.

Quote

All your "clever" speculations, and you are back where you started.

No, I'm just so far ahead that I can't get back to your level. Even when I offer simple easy to grasp explanations as above, you still invoke magic. Is that because this defies your stupid "paranormal cannot be captured" childishness? You never got of that start line. You have rendered yourself incapable of doing so with generous helpings of deliberate ignorance. I find your thinking small 

[Crazy Horse]

4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Even if the universe is conscious, does that really change anything? I don't see where it would if it was true. 

But it changes everything!

To know, and to actually realise this higher power, is a huge gift to give to oneself. I happen to call it Spirit, you could give it a more scientific name like "the Morphic Field", its matters little to me personally. I quite often ask for guidance, or comfort in times of need, and it never fails. Its really quite remarkable.

The potential and the opportunities are quite breath-taking if you think about it?

[Habitat]

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

If the events are recorded and as per the paper measured and observed how is that uncaused?

Then you are stuck with the endless regression of causes, the very reason people have posited an "uncaused cause".

[Crazy Horse]

8 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Not really. Do you honestly think humans are worth saving? I see no good coming from our furthered existence. Just more hate, strife, and increasing level of general stupidity. 

And I see the exact opposite happening around me, and to my-self, on a daily basis.

And yes, I see the potential for humanity as something worth fighting for.

The question becomes, how to proceed forwards without being caught-up in this tangled web of ignorance? This general stupidity arises from a general ignorance, which in turn is only possible via a closed minded approach to life. Personally, I listen to an idea, if it rings true, I try it for my-self, and if it works I will continue to use it until it becomes my second nature!

Add and substract. Add what works, and substract what doesn't.

 

 

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

We are focusing a lot here on human consciousness, which isn't entirely what this is about.

Well, it is actually. The author mentions panpsychism and if that could explain consiouness. It's that same wrong claim that consiouness is a complete mystery that we hear from philosophy and it's adherents. 

2 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

We could start by asking asking if any self organization is a type of consciousness. Chaos theory talks about this. In one well known example: most agree that natural selection is too simple a model for evolution. Mathematically alone, it doesn't pan out.

Examples? You have to forgive me for doubting you here.

2 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

Also, there are extreme examples of adaptation in short periods of time that natural selection simply can't account for. It can be strongly argued that the individual organism(s) adapting aren't consciously forcing their own mutations, so what's behind it? 

You are referring to punctuated equilibrium right?

It seems you have been getting your information from creationist sources. Evolution does account for punctuated equilibrium. 

2 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

The idea that life is self organizing has been proposed for a very long time, but rarely can anyone propose an explanation of how without resorting to invoking a supreme being.

That's evolution thriving from abiogenesis. 

No supreme being required.

2 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

Assuming that's not the case, that leaves some process that at least mimics consciousness, yes?

No. Consiouness is a complex vast set of evolved responses 

2 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

We see self organization everywhere in nature, what's driving it?

Have a look at the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe. That's not organised at all, and could only be so inefficient through adaptions.

2 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

If it's just complex math we haven't yet worked out, then what's to stop us from going all the way down that path and reducing all consciousness to math, even our own? 

I wonder why people see consiouness as separate to our physical being 

How does that make sense anyway?

2 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

I once had a professor argue that a volcano had consciousness. It was mostly tongue in cheek of course, but he did a fairly convincing job. His point wasn't to prove that volcanoes can think, it was to show how narrow our field of vision is when we relate everything experientially. He picked an absurd example because most people start with the idea that rocks aren't capable of consciousness and have difficulty being moved from that place, so he had to work extra hard to try and do it . 

It's a shame his is not at this forum. I have a feeling it would be more difficult than a class room. It would be interesting.

2 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

Anyway, I felt like the real point of this is to broaden our vision of what consciousness is, rather than to prove whether something is or not. Move away from our anthropomorphization of everything and look with different eyes. Fascinating stuff, to me.

What's wrong with starting where the best minds on the planet have been uncovering links of information rather than extending failed philosophies?

[Crazy Horse]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Not really how I saw him.

Life pans out like that every day. Read the news. 

Now you are just lying to yourself.

The news is chock-a-block full of selfish folk who thought they could do wrong things and get away with it.

Some folk may think they have got away with "murder", so to speak, but karma is real, and infallible, and is only waiting for the right moment!

 

 

[Crazy Horse]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

BTW

I see him as a hero 

Why do you see him as a hero?

[psyche101]

7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Then you are stuck with the endless regression of causes, the very reason people have posited an "uncaused cause".

Catalysts are not an endless regression. They are random depending on what occupies their personal space. 

You're upset because it smashed your silly paranormal theory of the impossible to capture event. Random events like virtual particle interaction with states and conditions that are recorded as in the paper I linked you to are real and have been captured 

Your thinking is too small for that big picture. I honestly wonder if you are even capable of grasping the information at all. 

But if I need Morse code decoded, you will get my first call OK

[Habitat]

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Catalysts are not an endless regression

Catalysts are uncaused ?

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Who are we to say people can't believe? I question my right to do this.

Why?

Do you question the right of people who make stuff up, rewrite religious ideas and plagiarise anything that shoehorned into a personal view?

Nah. They don't have the right and are taking the argument to us. They have assulted logic reason and common sense. 

Quote

Science is nice and all, but it's a religion to some. Just worshipping at the throne of the atomic god.

I just can't see how you see it like that. If people could book meetings with God and see miracles actually happen, then I'd put them on a level ground.

Quote

I can also understand why people believe in spiritual things.

Dead set, I reckon a great deal of that is just laziness. The rest is appeal to certain wants, and that's why even Christianity is splintered. In most cases, it's just easier. It's not hard to be an expert in superstition. It promises a great deal but doesn't deliver. I'm over fifty and have seen a lot of BS and lies. That's the real world.  People living BS is just a sad story to me. I'm over that false crap and I have to say I'm disappointed that so many of the species took that easy way to pretend they actually understand the universe. That's weak and lazy. Weak and lazy people like that are a burden to the species.

Quote

Sure, some religions are garbage. Not all of them.

I think religion is a huge dissapointment. Those pioneers who came up those philosophies were trying to work out the world around them (which seems to strongly coincide with the attention schema theory of consiouness) and they used the only tools available to them. Their minds. Those first guesses were steps into academia. They were wrong, and that's not a bad thing, it's a starting point. 

IMHO, today's adherence by many to those first guesses would make those thoughtful pioneers facepalm. That's letting them down by not carrying the torch, but sitting down with it. 

Quote

Christianity gets hell around here, but it is far from the worst ideology on the planet. The worst one kills followers for not believing and atheism condemn those who believe. 

But how many cannonballs and sword blades carried the Lord's name for more gain?

It's tolerant in society today only because the word of God is abhorrent and ridiculous. So many modern people have reformed that ideology. If you go to Africa you will see Christians beheading Muslims. We still see groups like Westboro adhering to purist versions of the Bible. So really, modern day Christians are somewhat heretics. 

Why keep rehashing a failed idea? Because the BS promises it's representatives make are just too tempting for the average person. Preachers are like politicians for religion and it's lies like that afterlife. 

[psyche101]

35 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Catalysts are uncaused ?

No, Random caused by events that are randomised due to endless space. You know how the ballon expansion model works (or an I assuming to much of you there again!). The variables are too wide to accurately calculate but conform to known laws. 

As I said. I'm looking at the same sky as you are. Tell me where a cloud will form at 5:30 pm. That will prove either my point or yours. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by psyche101

[psyche101]

51 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Now you are just lying to yourself.

The news is chock-a-block full of selfish folk who thought they could do wrong things and get away with it.

Some folk may think they have got away with "murder", so to speak, but karma is real, and infallible, and is only waiting for the right moment!

When's Karma coming for OJ then? 

Stuff and nonsense.

 

Look up how many Australian men suicide based on divorce court and family law decisions. That's a crime that few even know exists, and nobody cares about.

Edited January 21, 2020 by psyche101

[psyche101]

48 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Why do you see him as a hero?

Because he didn't give up.

[+joc]

3 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

what consciousness is

All we know is Human consciousness.  So...then...it is about Human Consciousness.  We are aware of not only our own selves but of practically every species of life on the planet...and the awareness of the Cosmos.  It is Human consciousness that drives the argument because Cosmic Consciousness is just a waste of time.  Might as well be having a conversation about Gilligan and The Skipper.

[Habitat]

10 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Random caused by events that are randomised

Or unknown caused by events that are unknown ?

[psyche101]

6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Or unknown caused by events that are unknown ?

What's unknown about temperate, states and charges?

How about that cloud. Can you tell me where it is, or are they god farts or something?

[Rlyeh]

8 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Lets go straight for the jugular and point on that Quantum Mechanics allows for (and its experimentally proven) that an atomic particle can exist for one person at a location but not another. Hence, the location of the atomic particle is not an absolute truth.

What experiment has proven one person can detect an atom but another can't?

[Crazy Horse]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

When's Karma coming for OJ then? 

Stuff and nonsense.

 

Look up how many Australian men suicide based on divorce court and family law decisions. That's a crime that few even know exists, and nobody cares about.

Is OJs life finished yet, does he live a contented, happy and joyful life right now, will he regret his actions once his last breath is taken? Just because a person appears to have escaped karma, it means nothing. Karma lands when the conditions are right, perhaps that is at the point of death, perhaps that is at the point of re-birth. 

And, nobody cares about men killing themselves? What utter tosh. 

 

[Crazy Horse]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Because he didn't give up.

He didn't give-up killing and robbing until karma came a knocking and humbled his sorry ****.

Martin Luther king never gave up, nor did Gandhi, or Christ or Buddha.

Let me tell you something. Anyone who is on the wrong path, karma will gently remind them of it. If that person continues, then the reminders get louder. If they still continue, then a serious illness, a car wreck, a marriage break-up, or something terrible for that person arrives as the wake-up call. Karma knows exactly which buttons to press. Anybody who has any level of mindfulness will realise karma for themselves. I know this to be true.