It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by Doc Velocity
I see what you’re saying but I still disagree because you’re equating a property of a part with the whole; the Universe can no more be described as conscious because we are than I can be described as transparent because the lens in my eye is. Although we are part of the Universe we are still distinct from the whole, including in the processes that produce consciousness (as far as we can know).
I am disagreeing with you when you say “The entire Universe is conscious” which it isn’t or at least can’t be construed to be through the logic inferences you set out.
That the Universe is capable of producing consciousness and discreet parts of the Universe are conscious are both clearly evidenced statements but to say that the entire Universe is conscious is not.
reply to post by bsbray11
So what is consciousness in your opinion? If it’s not self awareness, thoughts or any other mental process then what is it and how does that fit with any scientific or common use definition of consciousness?
I don’t get what you are saying, a rock doesn’t have any of the properties that we normally associate with consciousness but nevertheless it’s still conscious?
reply to post by saabacura
If you can determine that a desk must have an intelligent creator because of its complexity why doesn’t that creator, itself, require a creator? If it doesn’t then complexity must be possible without intelligent guidance which negates the original assertion; if it does then you start an infinite loop of creators which equally invalidates the starting point.
Non the less.... A creator is required to create the creator... The endless loop that you may think, must end one way or the other.