There aren't many around I discuss this subject with since the Wise Ol' Cabbie hied off to possible celestial parts unknown, but here goes. For the atheists out there--honest folks, as you are, I once was--this Bud's for you...

/gadfly philosopher voice on

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/07/12/536752502/is-the-universe-conscious

>Is The Universe Conscious?

>The possibility of a conscious universe seems to fly in the face of our deep-seated materialist worldview, whereby everything that exists is due to material particles and their mutual interactions, the very successful reductionist view of physics. Philosophers such as Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers have criticized such strict position, beginning with the difficulties we have in understanding our subjective experience of reality from a "it's all about neurons and synapses" mechanistic approach.

>But how could one test such an unorthodox idea? Recently, New York City College of Technology physicist Gregory Matloff published a paper offering a potential empirical test. He argued that cool stars (like the sun) circle the center of our galaxy in a sort of fast volitional motion propelled by interactions between their molecules (they have a few) and the vacuum energy fluctuations that permeate the universe. This motion, he suggests, could explain the effects that astrophysicists currently attribute to dark matter, a hypothetical type of matter that only interacts with ordinary matter (like us and planets) through the gravitational force.

(as a "wannabe scientist," I like that willingness to question the existence of "dark matter," and by extension, "dark energy")

>To me, what's fascinating is that consciousness is what makes the universe exist. Just think that before humans came to be, and discounting other potentially smart creatures out there, the universe was just doing its thing, expanding, stars being born and dying, entropy increasing overall. But as matter organized itself into living things in our planet, it eventually reached a level of complexity that allowed for self-awareness, the ability to know that thyself is a self.

?

+100!

I read that same article this morning.
It was pretty well done, and balanced.

Overall, it pretty much pooh-poohed the "universe is conscious" folks as having ideas without evidence and no way to test them. :)
While still presenting their ideas.

"The key question here, of course, is why should one correlate unidirectional jets of stars with some kind of proto-consciousness at the galactic level? Couldn't there be a more mundane explanation for the effect? The fact that there isn't a good explanation now doesn't mean one should invoke something as far-fetched as a galactic consciousness. The same logic applies to UFO sightings, more easily attributed to odd atmospheric phenomena or experimental flying machines than to visiting intelligent aliens from another stellar system."

"...a defender of pansychism would be hard-pressed to explain how quantum nonlocality would act as the "messenger" for some kind of cosmic purpose. Or, even harder, to propose a test or mechanism for such."

Thanks, cabbie, for bringing it up here :)

>Is The Universe Conscious?

COMMENT: What would that mean? We experience consciousness as having a center, as personal, as having subjective identity, with a singular and limited perspective. (Read Thomas Nagel's book, The View From Nowhere) Can one image the universe itself as a "conscious self," or "person." I have never been able to wrap my head around this rather "Eastern" concept of a conscious "Oneness." And I am a meditator!

______________________________________

>The possibility of a conscious universe seems to fly in the face of our deep-seated materialist worldview, whereby everything that exists is due to material particles and their mutual interactions, the very successful reductionist view of physics. Philosophers such as Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers have criticized such strict position, beginning with the difficulties we have in understanding our subjective experience of reality from a "it's all about neurons and synapses" mechanistic approach.

COMMENT: If you read the philosophers identified here, you will note that their conclusions are not whimsical, or speculative. They argue that science itself (as well as human experience) undermines the materialist view of realty. As such, they are substantive arguments. They do not rely upon a futuristic scientific experiment to establish the viability of their position. Such an experiment might confirm such a view; or even better help to explain the nature of consciousness. But again, the limitations of the strict materialist worldview are now well known and appreciated. (By the way, the cited book by Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos, is a very accessible read for those interested in this subject.)
________________________________________

>But how could one test such an unorthodox idea? . . .

COMMENT: I do not think the proposed test would provide support for a universal consciousness theory. There may be, and most likely would be, another materialist explanation for such a phenomenon.
__________________________________________

>To me, what's fascinating is that consciousness is what makes the universe exist.

COMMENT: There are some (even scientists) who believe this quite literally. Technically, that it is consciousness that collapses the QM wave function literally creating objective reality. It seems to me that consciousness plays some correlative role with the material world, but a role short of such an extreme view.
_________________________________________

(cont.) Just think that before humans came to be, and discounting other potentially smart creatures out there, the universe was just doing its thing, expanding, stars being born and dying, entropy increasing overall. But as matter organized itself into living things in our planet, it eventually reached a level of complexity that allowed for self-awareness, the ability to know that thyself is a self.

COMMENT: This quite awesome fact, shouts back the metaphysical question (i.e. the meta-question) as to why the universe was so exquisitely fine-tuned (after the big bang) with complex laws having parameters that could generate life and consciousness. One can see why that for some such a picture suggests design, and why some sort of controlled religious perspective is not by any means irrational.

Thanks for this post. Interesting stuff.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They do not
> rely upon a futuristic scientific experiment to
> establish the viability of their position.

Philosophers never do.
Which is why I don't put much stock in philosophy :)

> COMMENT: This quite awesome fact, shouts back the
> metaphysical question (i.e. the meta-question) as
> to why the universe was so exquisitely fine-tuned
> (after the big bang) with complex laws having
> parameters that could generate life and
> consciousness. One can see why that for some such
> a picture suggests design, and why some sort of
> controlled religious perspective is not by any
> means irrational.

Still irrational, since it's essentially an argument from both ignorance and incredulity. Oh, well :)
"Design" and "fine-tuned" should be accepted when there's evidence for them -- not because we don't know enough, so those become explanations-without-evidence to replace "we don't know."

Cheers, Henry.

Philosophers never do.
Which is why I don't put much stock in philosophy :)

COMMENT: Well, one thing I have noticed in my reading. Good philosophers know science; and good theoretical scientists know philosophy. (After all much of theoretical science is philosophy!) These particular philosophers have a good understanding of science.

_____________________________________________

> COMMENT: This quite awesome fact, shouts back the
> metaphysical question (i.e. the meta-question) as
> to why the universe was so exquisitely fine-tuned
> (after the big bang) with complex laws having
> parameters that could generate life and
> consciousness. One can see why that for some such
> a picture suggests design, and why some sort of
> controlled religious perspective is not by any
> means irrational.

Still irrational, since it's essentially an argument from both ignorance and incredulity. Oh, well :)
"Design" and "fine-tuned" should be accepted when there's evidence for them -- not because we don't know enough, so those become explanations-without-evidence to replace "we don't know."

COMMENT: First, the words "fine-tuned" as applied to the laws of nature was applied by scientists, not theologians. And, these words were chosen because they best explained the facts as determined by those scientists! The suggestion that the universe "appears to be designed" for life is also a scientific conclusion, not a theological one. There are a number of authors I could cite for this if you need them.

The argument from ignorance (as a fallacy) assumes a conclusion from an inference where the lack of some bit(s) of knowledge is offered as a premise. The argument from incredulity (as a fallacy) assumes a conclusion from an inference from a premise that some other explanation cannot be believed. As examples from theology: (1) Since we don't know what came before the big bang it must be God; and (2) Since the universe is so awesome, it cannot be explained as the result of purely natural events. (So far, I believe we are in agreement. :)

But, neither of these fallacies are at work in either the linked article, or my comments above. There are sound reasons, including scientific reasons, to believe that something other than the well-known laws of physics is at work in the universe; i.e. some other transcendent, fundamental principle. (Admittedly, it is a bit of a reach to call that something "God" in the traditional sense.)

It is NOT a fallacy to make this point, because the premises do not use as an inference, either directly or indirectly, either the lack of knowledge, or incredulity as to other explanations. Rather, the premises cite known facts about the universe; particularly the specific subtleties of the laws of nature.

I would also point out, that if the question at issue is whether the known laws of physics are all there is, or whether there must be some additional transcendent reality; and you subscribe to the conclusion that such laws are complete, you cannot then make a "God of the gaps" type argument against your opponent without begging the question. To say that someone is just filling in scientific gaps implies that every part of reality is susceptible to the known laws of physics, and therefore any gaps just needs to be filed in by science. But this is the very question at issue.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: Well, one thing I have noticed in my
> reading. Good philosophers know science; and good
> theoretical scientists know philosophy. (After all
> much of theoretical science is philosophy!) These
> particular philosophers have a good understanding
> of science.

Many philosophers probably do know science.

But they're not *doing* science.
If they were, they'd be scientists, not philosophers. :)

I disagree entirely that "much of theoretical science is philosophy.

The theoretical scientists come up with testable hypotheses based on existing knowledge, extrapolation, and "what if" scenarios. Then they do science to verify/falsify their hypotheses.

Some philosophers do the first part, though there's generally FAR more speculation than reliance on existing knowledge.
Essentially none do the second part.
Hence my comment above :)

> First, the words "fine-tuned" as applied to the laws of
> nature was applied by scientists, not theologians.

Doesn't matter who used the words.
Still an argument from ignorance/incredulity.
Scientists do that sometimes too, though philosophers (and religious folks) far more often.

What is demonstrable is that the "laws" (more correctly stated as "properties") of the universe allow for the existence of stars, planets, galaxies, solar systems, and life.

Saying those properties are "fine-tuned" implies someone or something doing the "tuning," and there is of course no evidence of any kind of such a someone or something, or that any "tuning" has been done. It could be that all universes that could possibly exist have the same properties. It could be that out of billions of possible universes, only our does. It could be that someone or something did "fine-tune" them. We don't know which if any of those it IS.

> But, neither of these fallacies are at work in either
> the linked article, or my comments above. There are
> sound reasons, including scientific reasons, to
> believe that something other than the well-known laws
> of physics is at work in the universe; i.e. some other
> transcendent, fundamental principle.
> (Admittedly, it is a bit of a reach to call that
> something "God" in the traditional sense.)

Here, let me re-word that for you so it's reasonable:

"There are sound reasons, including scientific reasons, to speculate that there may be something other than the well-known laws of physics at work in the universe. Of course, speculation isn't fact, or even a working hypothesis, and calling any such speculation "transcendent" or "fundamental" is wholly unsupportable. As is calling such speculation "god."

There, that's better.
And it more clearly illustrates the fallacies used.
Peace.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2017 08:35PM by ificouldhietokolob.

I disagree entirely that "much of theoretical science is philosophy.

COMMENT: I do not think that theoretical physicists and cosmologists would disagree with my statement. By definition, they are attempting to understand the underlying reality behind their scientific theories; e.g. the so-called "theory of everything." Moreover, they speculate as a matter of course regarding such things as the nature of black hole singularities; multiple universes, quantum fields, etc. I am not suggesting that all of this is entirely removed from physics proper, but much of it is based solely on mathematical models, which are not verifiable or replicable; standards you have always insisted upon for "evidence." Moreover, much of it is metaphysics; i.e. beyond the physical laws as currently known and understood, or determinable in principle. To that extent it is philosophy.
________________________________________________

The theoretical scientists come up with testable hypotheses based on existing knowledge, extrapolation, and "what if" scenarios. Then they do science to verify/falsify their hypotheses.

COMMENT: No they don't. See comment above. String theory has been the dominant theory in theoretical physics for decades. It involves multiple dimensions and a scale of "matter" that is outside of the ideal scientific methodology as you describe here. There is little that is "testable" about string theory, or theories of multiple universes, for example.
_________________________________________________

Some philosophers do the first part, though there's generally FAR more speculation than reliance on existing knowledge.
Essentially none do the second part.

COMMENT: Philosophy is not science, I agree. But what philosophy adds to science is NOT just idle speculation. Philosophy provides a consideration of the logical and conceptual subtleties of scientific theory that is often missed by scientists themselves. There are numerous examples of this.
_____________________________________________________

What is demonstrable is that the "laws" (more correctly stated as "properties") of the universe allow for the existence of stars, planets, galaxies, solar systems, and life.

COMMENT: The distinction between "laws" and "properties" is an example of where philosophy can provide important logical insight. A natural law in science represents a reoccurring and established relationship between scientific "entities" based upon mathematical quantities within a theory. A "property," on the other hand, is just what a scientific entity, like an electron, happens to have. Thus, and electron interacts with a photon based upon quantum laws of physics. An electron's mass and electric charge are properties that it happens to have, not laws. How properties and laws interact, and more particularly how they came to emerge from the big bang, are subjects of theoretical physics, and, again, largely encompassing metaphysical speculations based upon mathematical models. The fact that they combined, as you say, to produce stars, planets, galaxies, life, etc. is just a trivial fact that is not controversial.
___________________________________________

Saying those properties are "fine-tuned" implies someone or something doing the "tuning," and there is of course no evidence of any kind of such a someone or something, or that any "tuning" has been done.

COMMENT: Yes. Saying that they are "fine-tuned" does carry the implication of a designer. But the facts of the fine-tuning are just facts. As with other scientific facts, they demand an explanation. If the "designer" was nature (like an evolutionary designer) then we need to try to understand the designing mechanism involved, of which we currently have no idea. Moreover, as I stated before, the fact that the details of such fine-tuning are so statistically improbable is precisely what encourages theological speculation as to an intelligent designer. But the theologian in this instance is not pulling the God explanation out of thin air, the problem starts with scientific facts.
______________________________________

It could be that all universes that could possibly exist have the same properties. It could be that out of billions of possible universes, only our does. It could be that someone or something did "fine-tune" them. We don't know which if any of those it IS.

COMMENT: O.K. But these are all metaphysical possibilities. And some sort of transcendent designer (God) is one possibility. And if you say no to that possibility you are begging the question as to God's existence.
______________________________________

"There are sound reasons, including scientific reasons, to speculate that there may be something other than the well-known laws of physics at work in the universe. Of course, speculation isn't fact, or even a working hypothesis, and calling any such speculation "transcendent" or "fundamental" is wholly unsupportable. As is calling such speculation "god."

COMMENT: Actually, I kind of like this suggestion, especially your acknowledgement of the first sentence. But once you acknowledge that there are "sound reasons" to postulate the existence of laws other than what is currently understood, you open the door very wide. For example, we currently do not understand consciousness, mind, or, for that matter, the nature of mathematical reality. What laws might there be that encompass the understanding of such "entities." They clearly are not encompassed by current physical laws. (Check your physics textbook!) To call them transcendent does not mean that they are supernatural, it just means they are different in principle. To call them fundamental, means that they are not reducible to the laws of physics, which your first sentence seems to acknowledge. (I anticipate that you might object to my inclusion of mathematics on my list, but it is well-established that most mathematicians are "Platonists" of some sort, even though I understand that you are not. For other readers, I note that a "Platonist" in this context is someone who believes that mathematics has some form of existence (metaphysical) outside of (transcending) the human minds that discover and use the underlying mathematical relationships.

Cheers also to you. I note that we most often disagree; and no doubt sometimes get on each other's nerves. Notwithstanding, I appreciate your thoughts--even if I think they are wrong. :)

I have a friend who did a degree at Oxford in Physics and Philosophy.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/physics-and-philosophy?wssl=1

The theory underlying the course is that the two disciplines are inextricably connected. Oxford also offers degrees in Mathematics and Philosophy and in Computer Science and Philosophy. In effect, the university is returning to Aristotle's vision of the universe in which science and philosophy are essentially the same endeavor.

Now that I look more closely at that page, it is really interesting. It outlines how the bachelor's degree is taught, the mixture of courses for each year, and foreshadows what is done in the master's degree program.

The first two years are generally in pure science/math and philosophy courses. The third and final year blends the two disciplines more thoroughly, with offerings (in the three departments) that include

Philosophical logic
Philosophy of cognitive science
Philosophy of mathematics
Philosophy of logic and language
Philosophy of science
Knowledge and reality or Early Modern philosophy
Philosophy of mathematics
Philosophy of special relativity.

This is some heavyweight stuff. . .

Well I would posit that self awareness is likely our most useful gift from a benevolent universe......particularly that awareness which is afforded by a peek through the so called 'johari window':

http://www.selfawareness.org.uk/news/understanding-the-johari-window-model

I kind of feel that we are how the universe sees itself (by we I mean all sentient lifeforms). So the universe does have a mind, at least in us.

Maybe our universe is like a big brain. Maybe it's not space that's lumpy but time, time and space being products of consciousness. This whole thing could be a game in the mind of God, or the everythingness of being. Mind games on a SNAFU planet where life is supposed to be crazy. Salvation isn't the point.

Millions of years ago, a monkey wanted to know. So, here we are. Knowing leads to more wondering.

Sounds to me like some pseudo science where someone has come up with some speculation to support his believe that "consciousness is what makes the universe exist"

I will give my view from one who is a 'mediator' and one who has experienced a number of 'metaphysical' events.

Universal Conscious and a conscious universe are two different things to me based on my 'metaphysical' studies.

'Oneness' with God and everything else in the universe makes for the 'universal consciousness'. Therefore, everyone has access to all 'information' past and future (with some qualifications) and based on certain abilities.

The universe would under this theory have some consciousness but so would rocks, etc. But that doesn't mean a 'superior' intelligence/energy, etc. is not, to some extent, 'controlling/maintaining' the universe and everything else.

spiritist:

It is very easy to toss out concepts and mystical language in an attempt to express a metaphysical idea or theory. The problem is to make such ideas coherent; particularly if the concepts you use are supposed to reflect normal everyday use of language.

Your statement: "'Oneness' with God and everything else in the universe makes for a 'universal consciousness.' is incoherent, when there is no attempt to define or distinguish either "Oneness," or "God." Then, you offer an inference regarding "information" that is also not defined, and in any event clearly does not follow from your previous statement. Your final sentence adds further to the confusion.

In short, and respectfully, this entire post is incoherent. Now maybe the reader needs some sort of spiritual insight to grasp it. That's fine, but don't pretend that it makes any sense to those of us who want to understand your view as expressed in ordinary logic and language, because it doesn't.

I, for one, would like to understand your perspective as someone who apparently has spiritual insight. But please, if you genuinely want people to understand your point, you need to come down to earth.

You have expressed something I have encountered with many people trying to express "a metaphysical idea or theory."

They often claim to have experienced something an proceed as if their one explanation of what they experience is the only explanation. I have no doubt that they did experience something, I do question their claims as to what it means. Just because someone can not explain or understand something does not mean that spiritual "magic" is the only or correct explanation.

Also, they seem to think that because they claim something as "metaphysical", then logic is no longer necessary.

Yes and Yes. Thank you.

Henry, before I admit you are right, 'you' were the one that first mentioned the term of 'oneness' ----- without explanation of course. Funny about logic, you or your atheist buds can use any term they want without explanation but with someone with a 'larger view' of reality and 'beliefs' ----- lets critique everything. You seemed to be a lot more patient on the 'XXXXXS' that try to change the definition of common words when its fellow 'atheists' involved.

Also, the 'subject' includes terms that really need to be defined and is really more complex than I expected, for me and my ability to communicate, to have much dialog on.

I was out of town and read this post quick ---- too quick as the wifi came in and out (not reliable). So, I gave a response based on books (verbiage) I have read, thinking this is what many who I have studied said but I didn't clearly mention that ------ my fault.

Looking closer, this 'topic' is too complicated for me to really address based on 'my beliefs' and 'experiences' with very much confidence. I do need to stick to more specific 'terms and questions'.

What I find is few if any people really get into the 'specifics' of anything as no one appears to really know. Scientists studied remote viewers and tried to determine how they accessed the 'target' for around 10 years with little reported results when they worked directly for the government.

It is easy to say 'we' are 'connected (somehow equating to what some term oneness)' with 'God and everything else'. This connectedness then allows for obtaining all sorts of 'answers/information, premonitions, dreams, visions, past life recalls, etc.'.

I know explaining 'connected' and 'allows for obtaining' are significant but I am not prepared to go further because this is not really what the OP was about and I would have to have more specific questions. Then all I could promise is my 'beliefs' mainly and possibly reference what some people, I respect, have said.

Thanks for reading and commenting on what I wrote.

As for the other related comments. Here is 'clearly' part of the problem. How can anyone with 'spiritual insights' attempt to relate to the intelligent people here, that clearly show some interest, while dealing with many who clearly will say 'almost anything from who knows where, many times totally unrelated' to discredit the 'basics/my beliefs' before I get into any deep explanations? You said what I said was 'incoherent' and the others got 'far more out of what I said' than 'what I actually said' ------ go figure!

It is clear to me their 'posts' were 'delusional'. You failed to mention that. Why should anyone deal with people that post 'delusional' information. Specifically, Bang stated: "They often claim to have experienced something an proceed as if their one explanation of what they experience is the only explanation. Just because someone can not explain or understand something does not mean that spiritual "magic" is the only or correct explanation. Also, they seem to think that because they claim something as "metaphysical", then logic is no longer necessary." With dumb and dumber or done and done stating: 'Yes and Yes".

I would ask them to please point out where I inferred my 'statements' were the 'only' explanation and 'spiritual magic' is the 'only correct explanation'. Also, were did I say 'logic' is not 'necessary'? If these statements don't apply to me or what I said, why are they posted????

Again 'clearly DELUSIONAL statements' from 'XXXXXXXs'.

Why 'some' people on this board go out of their way to make themselves look foolish is 'beyond me'!!!!!!!!!

I will continue to evaluate how far I go in explaining things and how serious I get on board like this in the 'supernatural' area. I am really into 'awareness' so hopefully some of my comments can help bring about greater 'awareness' in some people on this board.


PS If Henry is still looking at this thread. You seem to be a 'disgruntled meditator'. Isn't it 'intuitively obvious' to you that when you label yourself as an 'atheist' (whatever that means to you and the associated emotions) that blocks so much you could possibly pick up 'spiritually'? In order to gain 'spiritually' from meditation I believe one has to have an 'open mind' to basically 'everything and anything'. You don't have to 'believe or label yourself' based on initial 'experiences' but you need to 'seek' or how do you expect to 'find' anything. And if your 'universe' is already 'defined' why 'seek' or why meditate. If you think meditation is relaxing ----- fine. But, I believe you are really missing the 'possibilities' by 'you' limiting yourself!



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2017 03:21PM by spiritist.

Henry Bemis,
I enjoyed your post but I'm confused about your definition of "define" especially as it relates to your standard of "normal everyday language," in which people don't usually stop to define terms. And since in normal everyday language the response would be: "what do you mean by information?" or something like that, your post seems incoherent to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2017 01:36PM by thexedman.