Does the Universe have consciousness?

If the cells in your body were conscious would we know or would we just think they were acting out there normal functions as we do now, would they know we were conscious or would the change in scale prevent them (and us)?

similarly if the universe was conscious how would we know?
My own guess is maybe (because I have thought about this on and off for years), if the complexity of a neural net breeds consciousness as an emergent property then why wouldn't the universe which is more complex than we are be conscious?
 
I find it difficult to imagine how the universe could be possibly be the equivalent of a large scale neural network, unless you don't mind the idea that it might take millions or perhaps billions of years for a single thought to coalesce (given restrictions on the speed of physical propagation). You'd have to posit some sort of nonlocal information processing/exchange.
 
Rav's: "You'd have to posit some sort of nonlocal information processing/exchange."

Might I suggest a quantum . . . or better yet . . . a "subquantum" venue . . . .?
 
Quantum nonlocality doesn't provide a way to sneak information around faster than the speed of light. Anything beyond that is far too wildly speculative for me to have a serious opinion on.
 
The interesting thing here is that , while I don't thing that the Universe has a consciousness , the Universe has a life force which has an intelligence and the capability of further intelligence

We can see this conspicuously in the packs of animals , such as wolves etc, and as well as communities of insects, such as ants

The whole seems to act greater than the individuals on there own
 
river said:
The interesting thing here is that , while I don't thing that the Universe has a consciousness , the Universe has a life force which has an intelligence and the capability of further intelligence
Click to expand...

Isn't that saying the universe has a consciousness?

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Isn't that saying the universe has a consciousness?

jan.
Click to expand...
I can see a distinction there. Sometimes its in the little words ;). The distinction is between the universe having a life force that produces conscious individuals who can reproduce and prosper, and the universe has a consciousness. Just an opinion, but the distinction is between there being consciousness within the universe and the universe having a consciousness.
 
quantum_wave said:
I can see a distinction there. Sometimes its in the little words ;). The distinction is between the universe having a life force that produces conscious individuals who can reproduce and prosper, and the universe has a consciousness. Just an opinion, but the distinction is between there being consciousness within the universe and the universe having a consciousness.
Click to expand...

I can see your point, but how can we distinguish between the two?

If the universe itself has no consciousness within it's very essence, but has consciousness within it, a separate phenomenon, with creative potential doing the work so to speak, then I see no reason why we can't say ''the universe has consciousness.

Once the body of a living being is said to have no consciousness, it is classed as a dead body, and as such cannot produce or create anything. Can we not draw the same conclusion with the universe(al body)?

jan.
 
OP, are you asking if there is conciousness in the universe box, or as to a God? I am conscious and part of the universe.
 
@ Asguard,

Cellular awareness is the precept for Dianetics. I am not endorsing it, but it is a unique concept.

Ron Hubbard wrote a book about Dianetics. His premise is that before we develop brains single and multi-cell organisms can associate danger with circumstance.

example: A orgasm floating into cold acidic water may associate the acid danger with cold water.

Hubbard expands on this to believe that these reactive cells have continued to exist even though we have brains now. So in his world we have Consciousness, Subconsciousness, and The Reactive (cellular) mind.

If in pain, Childbirth, surgery, trauma, shock, etc., Our cells may pick up verbal triggers that can cause panic or other conditions in us when repeated.

example: A child who is bitten by a dog. He experiences quite a bit of pain and some unconsciousness during this. However, also recorded in the reactive mind are the details of her environment, where she was, what it looked like, what she heard, etc. Everything.
Reexperiencing the pain
Later, as a child or an adult, she sees a similar dog to the one that bit her, or maybe even just hears a dog and is in a similar place - the reactive mind restimulates. She can reexperience the pain in that engram, both physical and emotional.
Another important principle of the reactive mind is that sound in engrams can act as hypnotic commands

Using emotional responses based on verbal ques a large group of people began to clear these cellular engrams through repetitive use of the trigger words in safe environments.

Once "Cleared" these people felt more spiritually aware and formed a religion called "Scientology", go ask John Travolta, or Christie Allie.

Scientology is based upon the idea of cells being able to associate dangers with environments. This is why nobody is allowed to speak during surgery with a Scientologist patient. It could allegedly create engrams.

I am not a scientologists, and have never been cleared, however I cannot see the harm in it and may go get cleared some day for fun. It can cost anywhere from $200-$2000 depending on who is doing the clearing ("auditing" is correct term from their stance).

Just food for thought. I don't know if cells can sense danger based on changes in environment.

This is not my idea or premise and was originally presented by Ron Hubbard, and then a dang religion sprang up from it. Go figure!
 
Jan Ardena said:
I can see your point, but how can we distinguish between the two?

If the universe itself has no consciousness within it's very essence, but has consciousness within it, a separate phenomenon, with creative potential doing the work so to speak, then I see no reason why we can't say ''the universe has consciousness.

Once the body of a living being is said to have no consciousness, it is classed as a dead body, and as such cannot produce or create anything. Can we not draw the same conclusion with the universe(al body)?

jan.
Click to expand...
I agree with your reasoning leading to concluding that we can say that the universe has consciousness, with one question. When you say, "with creative potential doing the work". Is that a recognition that the universe will generate life and life will evolve to conscious beings, not just the once that we can objectively confirm, but across the greater universe, and across the potentially infinite existence of the universe?

I do have trouble equating the end of consciousness upon the death of an individual with the fact that there is no common counterpart with the universe because of the nature of the universe to generative new life given the appropriate hospitable environments. It may not be quite the same, but I fall back on the fact that individuals can participate in reproduction after death if they make the appropriate deposit (sperm/egg bank, lol).
 
Rav said:
I find it difficult to imagine how the universe could be possibly be the equivalent of a large scale neural network, unless you don't mind the idea that it might take millions or perhaps billions of years for a single thought to coalesce (given restrictions on the speed of physical propagation). You'd have to posit some sort of nonlocal information processing/exchange.
Click to expand...

That exchange was this. "Love." "Perfection." How long did it take for Love and his lady to produce Thought? On a Faith, he was one of the first angels. Bravery is the baptist.
 
quantum_wave said:
I agree with your reasoning leading to concluding that we can say that the universe has consciousness, with one question.

1. When you say, "with creative potential doing the work". Is that a recognition that the universe will generate life and life will evolve to conscious beings, not just the once that we can objectively confirm, but across the greater universe, and across the potentially infinite existence of the universe?

2. I do have trouble equating the end of consciousness upon the death of an individual with the fact that there is no common counterpart with the universe because of the nature of the universe to generative new life given the appropriate hospitable environments. It may not be quite the same, but I fall back on the fact that individuals can participate in reproduction after death if they make the appropriate deposit (sperm/egg bank, lol).
Click to expand...


1. More of a recognition that the consciousness that animates the universe is responsible for the generation of life within it.
2. Think of the universe as a body, much like that of our own, it tend to make more sense.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
1. More of a recognition that the consciousness that animates the universe is responsible for the generation of life within it.
2. Think of the universe as a body, much like that of our own, it tend to make more sense.

jan.
Click to expand...
I'm understanding you, and am willing to acknowledge that there can be a comparison drawn between the universe and a consciousness that animates the universe, and our body and our individual consciousness. Presumably the consciousness that you would attribute to the universe would then be responsible for the fact that intelligent beings exist.

Making that comparison is a good way to make your point about how to distinguish individual consciousness from universal consciousness, if I can call it that without construing your meaning. However there is an evidential issue that confronts me. Human consciousness is self apparent to each of us, but it is not so apparent that the universe has a separate consciousness, and the evidence is very subjective. What you may consider sufficient evidence might not be convincing to others. Having irrefutable evidence would be ideal, lol. But we cannot dismiss the invocation of faith, and in fact we all invoke faith of one sort or another all the time, in my opinion. I know I do.
 
quantum_wave said:
However there is an evidential issue that confronts me. Human consciousness is self apparent to each of us, but it is not so apparent that the universe has a separate consciousness, and the evidence is very subjective. What you may consider sufficient evidence might not be convincing to others. Having irrefutable evidence would be ideal, lol. But we cannot dismiss the invocation of faith, and in fact we all invoke faith of one sort or another all the time, in my opinion. I know I do.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that ''faith'' needs to be invoked. I'd say it's more a case of personal interest. :)

How do you determine that ''human consciousness is self apparent to each of us''?

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
...

How do you determine that ''human consciousness is self apparent to each of us''?

jan.
Click to expand...
Human consciousness is self apparent to those who on an individual basis would say they are conscious, not because someone told them they were, but because they can tell they are, i.e. it is apparent to them. Those who would disagree they have consciousness would not be excluded form the set of those who I would say are apparently conscious, however, because to me the act of denying consciousness requires consciousness.
 
Jan Ardena said:
So what is that thing you call ''consciousness''?

jan.
Click to expand...
You now what it is, and I don't have any rigorous philosophical explanation. It is an awareness of events after the fact, I suppose. Do you want to know what I mean by awareness? Being conscious of something, lol. I know, the circular reasoning, but it will suffice unless you want to know the physical mechanisms of consciousness, and for that I am far from an authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top