The universe as a consciousness

Given the way our brains function, namely on a quantum level with interactions between various segments being exclusively handled by exchanges of energy and chemicals; and given the structure of our brains on the micro level being cells that interact to produce changes on larger scales; isn't it valid to assume that the universe with its unfathomable number of galaxies interacting with exchanges of information such as light and gravity and (supposedly) dark matter, is itself a thinking being. It certainly opens a lot of metaphysical and philosophical doors for me and I'm wondering what others views are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you would first have to have a level of interconnectivity in the universe comparable to that found in our brains. There are over around 100 billion synapses in our brains. Each synapse is connected on averge with 7000 other synapses. That is a very high level of connectivity. Does the universe display such connectivity? I'm not seeing it. There's a whole lot of space and time separating events in it. Something happens here and then somewhere else, but they're not really connected, are they? Unless we want to invoke a medium or continuum thru which such connections can happen, like quantum entanglement or synchronicity, I'd say the universe lacks the necessary structure to be conscious. Even were it so connected, it would still require an neural net architecture such that it could learn, each output of connection changing the weightings of the connected nets in an ongoing activity of something like self-updating thought. So no, I'm afraid we are a long way off from a conscious universe. We'll just have to wait for the evolution of the archailects perhaps some 2,000 years hence to even approach THAT prospect.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Relativity implies connectivity. Time dilation and length contraction are always relative to something else. The only constant is the speed of light. It hints at the existence of invisible inter-connections with the speed of light, c, as a characteristic. Would anyone like to dispute this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Planck denizen #1: "Consciousness at that scale? You've got to be kidding! Why, untold civilizations would have arisen and fallen by the time such vast structures and their abominably slow exchanges participated in or carried out even a partial thought. Please post your foolishness elsewhere. This is a serious forum."

Planck denizen #2: "Aw, shucks. You mean 'brains', those ethereal prazzing hyper-macrocosmic strand formations recently discovered, 'taint got nuttin' to do with minds?"

Planck denizen #1: "Oh, the pain -- the burning sensation between my gobodelons, just from having to rallux your vrype. Please___go___now. Ahhhhggggg..."

 

I'm very sympathetic to panpsychism. Although, I'd be uncomfortable saying that e.g. a thermometer thinks. Whatever protoconsciousness things in general may possess, I imagine it must be so alien that attributing qualities to it like thought, emotion, etc, is misguided. Even including animals in the things we consider conscious has been questioned on the grounds that human consciousness--understood a certain way--requires a concept of having a mind as something distinct from the external world. I personally disagree with this, partially because there has been some contention that traditional Chinese culture lacks a Cartesian distinction of the sort, and saying Chinese people or even the Ancient Greeks aren't/weren't conscious seems pretty silly. In either case, I think the story of humanity has partially been one of being increasingly humbled as we learn more about the world around us. So given the trajectory of things it wouldn't be that surprising if our brains turned out not to be so special as to be the sole things capable of manifesting something as apparently strange as consciousness. Our particular way of experiencing the world, on the other hand, is almost certainly a unique manifestation of our nervous systems.

 

I always say that humans will only ever work out whats inside there own brain, and mind.

Science has limitations, and the brain of the observe is it.

 

The universe certainly is a lot like a brain...

http://www.space.com/18630-universe-grows-like-brain.html

Incidentally, if one was to look at the patterns in hidden portals and the electromagnetism of Earth, one would notice the similarities between those portals and synapses.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=...=obT-HM1CZTA2NsO00Y-q7A&bvm=bv.52164340,d.cGE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3_vW5yrNek

 

No. The distances alone make that impossible.

 

What is "distance"? How many points are there between 0 and 1? Can we even actually "touch" anything?

 

Communication is limited to the speed of light.

 

And a car can only drive at certain speeds too. So?

Such limitations don't take into account the nature of the continuum and electromagnetism on an universal scale. Like a brain...

Check this out... from Nasa... you can even see a "synapse" at 2:30...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3_vW5yrNek

 

There is a superficial resemblance to a neural network, but I would hesitate to draw a deeper meaning from it, other than it's fractal nature. If the speed of light is a limitation to communication, then consciousness of a thinking mechanism about what's happening is also limited. It would be like slowing down your nerves so it took tens of billions of years to feel your toes.

 

@ Spidergoat,

We know that is not true if we consider Entanglement.
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/23jan_entangled/

 

We should certainly devise experiments to determine the validity of the hypothesis.

The perception of time is relative to the observer, though. A hummingbird will perceive us as very slow creatures, while a turtle will perceive us as very fast ones. Which one is the correct one?

Also, considering the existence of these portals, particles could then go through these portals and reappear at another portal much farther away, at a much faster speed than what it would take light to go through the same distance.

Finally, it is quite possible that consciousness cannot be transmitted unless there is life involved in the process. As such, it could take billions of years for life to evolve and than spread out through the universe, through these portals, thus creating an universal consciousness.

 

What portals?

 

WOW, Spider goat. You made a post - What portals? - and i made a post - Which laws?.

So i checked the activity stream and saw them one under the other. How odd i thought. Then i said to myself, "i bet they were 3 seconds apart and sure enough the time stamp :17 and :20. Now that is very strange. How do we explain these things?

 

What post?

 

Wasnt that you who made pst 15 asking about portals?

I made a simultaneous post asking "which laws?"

Then i knew the posts were 3 seconds apart, which in this case is close enough to be called simultaneous, given the fact that there could be a few second delay here or there. I just found that very odd.

 

OK, I just didn't see your post. You should have kept it there. Anyway, is there an answer?

 

I did keep it there.

Answer to what? portals?

Seems to be true now. 'course, these are natures laws. We would have to be shown that they exist and to my knowledge that has not happened in any blatant manner. I base this on the simple fact that if you cannot see something (or any senses - aided and unaided) then you will never know about it. Does not mean, as we all know now, it does not exist.

Classic tree falls in forest query. And the answer is yes, the tree does make a noise. That is and has always been my view on that. To me it is like asking if the water does not touch you that means it is not wet.