If There Were No Consciousness What Would Be The Point Of Material Existence?

It's a hard concept to wrap your mind around...if there were no life in the universe and only inanimate material objects interacting with each other what would be the point of existence? Is a point or purpose even necessary? What say you, ATS?

Consciousness or no, I don't seen any evidence that existence needs a point.

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
It's a hard concept to wrap your mind around...if there were no life in the universe and only inanimate material objects interacting with each other what would be the point of existence? Is a point or purpose even necessary? What say you, ATS?

To expand on that, according to current quantum theory, without an observer, the universe technically would not exist. As without an observer to collapse the wave function, the "universe" would simply exist as a wave of probability until something/someone finally observes it.

There would be no purpose, there can only be purpose with 'an awareness' that can 'be' 'aware' of 'purpose'. Most likely do to the nature of material, energy, time, and being, the awarenesses most direct purpose, will be to do what is necessary to maintain aware. Reality is a genius. I dont know how many times it had to try, or how many times its succeeded, but somehow, some hows, it has formulated into this massive systems of planets and stars, the planets of which have formulated on them, material conglomerations of consciousness. To be or not to be. If eternally it was promised that there would never have been and never be any single consciousness ever, then nothing would ever be known, or done, or felt, etc. It is pure wonderful splendor and inspirational graciousness, that reality is so perfect as to create such the formulation to allow, not only one or two conscious entities to exist, but quintillions, and not only can they play simple games and not only are they more advancly constructed than of stick figures, but they can do everything you have ever known humans and animals to do, and much much more.

No, a point isn't necessary.

As young children we like to imagine that a benevolent creator crafted this world intelligently and purposefully. Each animals has a purpose. Each thing has a reason.

Insightful people who observe the world, however, begin to see that things are there for a reason. But not because someone willed it to be. Niche's occur, creatures fill them. Balance is struck.

Whether there is a purpose for it or not....who knows. It really doesn't matter anyway. A grand purpose is something that you see from 50,000 feet up. I live in the here and now, at ground level. I wouldn't even be able to resolve a grand purpose from this lowly spot.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
It's a hard concept to wrap your mind around...if there were no life in the universe and only inanimate material objects interacting with each other what would be the point of existence? Is a point or purpose even necessary? What say you, ATS?

To expand on that, according to current quantum theory, without an observer, the universe technically would not exist. As without an observer to collapse the wave function, the "universe" would simply exist as a wave of probability until something/someone finally observes it.

As quantum physicist Brian Greene explains an observer doesn't necessarily mean a human or animal observer but can also mean mechanical observations or measurements such as those by a thermometer so if two inanimate objects interact with each other that could be a form of obsetvation and could collapse the wave function without any awareness or consciousness.

Consciousness creates meaning.

Without consciousness... all would be truly meaningless.

Not that anything necessarily means anything inherently... but our human consciousness is a "meaning machine,," arbitrarily assigning meaning willy-nilly.

What that really means? Dunno...

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexanYou say it really doesn't matter but to some of us it is a consuming interest and it matters greatly.

The vast amount of EcoSystems would suggest there is a purpose to all of this.


Things like Photosythesis point towards a design, rather than a random occurrence.

it would be just as pointless, or as meaningful, as it is now.

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
It's a hard concept to wrap your mind around...if there were no life in the universe and only inanimate material objects interacting with each other what would be the point of existence? Is a point or purpose even necessary? What say you, ATS?

To expand on that, according to current quantum theory, without an observer, the universe technically would not exist. As without an observer to collapse the wave function, the "universe" would simply exist as a wave of probability until something/someone finally observes it.

As quantum physicist Brian Greene explains an observer doesn't necessarily mean a human or animal observer but can also mean mechanical observations or measurements such as those by a thermometer so if two inanimate objects interact with each other that could be a form of obsetvation and could collapse the wave function without any awareness or consciousness.

Well Brian Greene is a poopyhead and ruins all my fun. Yeah.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

It's a hard concept to wrap your mind around...if there were no life in the universe and only inanimate material objects interacting with each other what would be the point of existence? Is a point or purpose even necessary? What say you, ATS?

There already is no such thing as consciousness. In every medical, psychological or neuroscientific setting, "consciousness" is determined by viewing, interacting with, and experimenting on the human organism, and not something called "consciousness".

a reply to: MissSmartypants

Don't get me wrong....i am in the "consuming interest" camp. In particular, the role of consciousness in the individual, in the system, and in the universe.

But once I have that information, if i ever were to, I am not sure what it would do for me.

Then again, upon the discovery of the electron, it was likely hard to imagine what could be done with that information, too. And look now....the world is run by the electron.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
it would be just as pointless, or as meaningful, as it is now.

So is self awareness just a survival mechanism that allows something as fragile as life to exist? In other words does awareness simply allow us to perceive pending danger and threats to our existence and avoid them?

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

I think the answer is "no".

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
It's a hard concept to wrap your mind around...if there were no life in the universe and only inanimate material objects interacting with each other what would be the point of existence? Is a point or purpose even necessary? What say you, ATS?

To expand on that, according to current quantum theory, without an observer, the universe technically would not exist. As without an observer to collapse the wave function, the "universe" would simply exist as a wave of probability until something/someone finally observes it.

So...if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, there is no sound of the tree crashing to the earth.

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

I think the answer is "no".

If the percussion from the sound wave produced by the falling tree cause a pebble to roll of off a rock then "yes". The pebble would be the observer in that case.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

The pebble would be the observer in that case.

Are you saying that the pebble is not an inanimate material object, that it is conscious and aware?

if there were no life in the universe and only inanimate material objects interacting with each other what would be the point of existence?

a reply to: MissSmartypants

Vibrations caused from friction will always cause a sound, whether there is an observer or not. In the double slit experiment, if nobody observes which slit the particle goes through, it could've gone through either slit A or B, but it still doesn't go through both. If you don't observe something, it goes from being a confirmed what to an unconfirmed what if, or a maybe, but you still can't think crazy theories about it just because you didn't observe it happenining.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

"Sound waves" are merely interference patterns. "Sounds" are the perception of those interference patterns manifested by the brain of the "observer".

I've been told that I have rocks in my head but I don't think that pebbles qualify as observers.