Hypothesis for an Intelligent and Conscious Universe

The solution example is this.

I/We [you] =(-a) anti-positive statement, idea, question.

Conscious = message received (-b) anti-negative - (-a)

It is consciousness seeking itself for the ultimate solution of itselfs. So this must mean something. However it does not have to either. The infinite universe theory (it's on the web, look it up-sirE) has some valid points which we could discuss.

reply to post by Tindalos2013

Are you applying the rules of formal logic? Perhaps a little more explanation is required to allow people to understand you.

Interestingly, since Google searches are not case-sensitive, anyone trying to google 'sirE' will simply get results for 'sire', a very common word.

As it stands, sir or madam, your post contains no useful content whatsoever. Kindly elaborate.

reply to post by Astyanax


?Would you like to discuss the IUT.

reply to post by Tindalos2013

I'm simply asking you to explain what your earlier post means. Are you going to?

Consciousness is the something providing the awareness of itself. We are asking the questions about its role in the Universe. It does not know what it is so questions are raised. By us. Is it intelligent because we are intelligent or is it just a projection that it is aware of itself.

reply to post by Tindalos2013

Thank you for the reply. I don't think we're asking questions about the role of consciousness in the universe. That is a broad subject, with metaphysical and teleological aspects that go well beyond what we are considering here. We are simply asking whether it is possible for the universe to be conscious and intelligent.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

But while that is true, it is also rather trivial.

I respectfully disagree. The idea that the universe is conscious and intelligent is not in any way trivial. Rather, I think it's actually very significant.

Clearly you have on your mind the more exciting possibility that the universe itself is a sort of brain, intrinsically conscious, which has thoughts and perhaps acts on them too.

Well no, I believe you're putting words in my mouth (or mind). I never suggested that the universe was a brain capable of thought or actions. That was you who has made that leap, interestingly enough. I actually don't think that consciousness is a product of the brain. Or in other words, consciousness does not need the brain to arise.

That idea, I'm afraid, runs into some prohibitive physics.The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. A signal sent from any point within it to another sufficiently distant point will never reach it. And even within the 'observable universe' (that is, the portion of the universe from which light has had time to reach Earth since the Big Bang), it can take literally billions of years. That's a long time to take to complete a thought.

Ok, again, you're basing your argument on the idea that the universe is a brain and is capable of making thoughts. It's a cool idea, but not one I align myself to. When I refer to consciousness in this thread it's not about being able to produce thoughts and act on it. It's more about the state of complete awareness of the world outside and within oneself.

So if the universe is intelligent and conscious, it's still in the process of having its very first thought. Meanwhile, all kinds of uncontrolled hell is breaking loose and the universe can do nothing about it.

I'll refer back to my above statements re: the thought idea. Not sure what you mean by "all kinds of uncontrolled hell braking loose", but it's quite apparent that everything in this universe has order and is governed by process. You can see it on just about every scale of existence going back as far as we can see in time. In a sense there's nothing really "uncontrolled" about it.

Some may argue that there was never any Big Bang, and the universe (conscious or not) has always been here. To them I say, look up into the sky. The evidence for the Big Bang is in front of your eyes, plain as dirt.

I'm not sure what I think on this, except that I don't know. The big bang sounds like a great theory but we approach problems about what caused it in the first place, and why. It looks on surface to be a completely random event that gave way to infinite chaos. But the more I look at it the more I'm beginning to realize how wrong that idea is and just how deliberate reality seems.

Others may argue that the principle of nonlocality, derived from quantum mechanics, may make it possible for this vast universal intelligence to communicate with itself. However, nonlocality does not allow for faster-than-light communication. Neither, I'm sorry to say, do the hypothetical 'wormholes' that space-opera writers sometimes rely on to get their heroes from Betelgeuse to Tau Ceti in a couple of days.

Well supposing we entertain your idea that the universe is acting like a brain capable of thought. Then it would be one incredibly huge brain where perhaps the time scale would be much different than what we know it to be.

The idea that the material universe has intrinsic, pervasive consciousness is therefore untenable.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I'm still waiting for a worthy argument that goes against this very notion.

We are living proof of it. You agreed with that premise yourself.

The universe, therefore, acts in a logical way; randomness exists, but it is contained within a framework of rules. You might say that the universe is working out logical problems, and is therefore some kind of computer. The results of these workings-out, that is to say changes in the universe, are logical outcomes of the rules according to which the universe is run. You might call this a kind of intelligence; the same rudimentary intelligence a thermostat has.

I would (not might), call it intelligence. How can you not? Everything the universe does, as I said above, has order and purpose to it. Seemingly random events do not at all appear random in the broader sense. Logic is an integral part of nature and the laws that govern it. It is not derived from random, unintentional means. But somehow this is not intrinsically determined by the universe or the creating force behind it?

And to compare it to the "rudimentary intelligence of a thermostat" is hilarious! Seriously, I'm LOL right now.

(continued)

(continued from above)

reply to post by Astyanax

We don't, particularly. It just seems like that because we exist at the centre of our own perceptual spectrum – as any sensory system obviously must. In fact, the scale of the universe is so wide that an intelligent atom or an intelligent star could make the same claim with as much justice as any of us.

So an intelligent atom could view galaxies trillions of miles away? And a star would be able to view something as tiny as proton? Not so sure...

Isn't it also curious that it's in our nature (our DNA) to learn and explore as much as we possibly can about the universe; ourselves?

Not really. Curiosity has proved its survival value in the evolutionary struggle. A few members of our species have ended up with more curiosity than they strictly need for survival and reproduction, but genetic drift is more than enough to explain that.

We can certainly get into a debate about this.

I'm not just being dismissive. I'm trying to make a serious point. The idea that the universe as a whole is conscious arises, psychologically speaking, out of the ancient superstition that we are at the centre of the cosmos, the most important thing in it. Copernicus quashed that superstition five hundred years ago

Well no, more accurately Copernicus squashed the idea that the universe revolves around the earth. We technically have no idea where our place in the universe is. It could very well be at the center.

And it's not a superstition. That's being dismissive.

Originally posted by jiggerj

That the universe is in fact intelligent That the universe is in fact conscious. Our very existence is proof of the first two points.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

In my kitchen I see flour, salt, water, yeast... How do these things prove that there is bread in the kitchen? So, how is our existence proof of an intelligent designer? I see fish in the ocean, lakes and rivers; is this proof that the creator is a fish?

Did you mix the ingredients together, put them in a bread pan and bake them in an oven at a specified temperature for a specified amount of time? If you followed that exact process then you would have bread wouldn't you. The ingredients by themselves don't constitute bread. They require a certain amount of intelligence to put them together under the right conditions to achieve the desired result. Ya dig?

We are the universe looking back at itself and learning about itself. We make the universe self aware.

Our entire solar system isn't even a speck of dust in the universe, and you want to claim that we, on one tiny little planet are not only important to the universe, but that we make the entire universe self-aware? This is the egregious example of mankind's arrogance. We, my friend, are as close to nothing as anything can get.

You are right. I would take it a step further and say that we exist in absolute invisibility on the grand scale of the universe. Like a proton. Can't see it, but we know they're there. All working together to provide a backdrop to this existence.

You seem to be assuming that we are the only ones in existence in the universe. Why is that? I, for the record, never suggested such a notion, and don't believe that. If you do, then you're the one guilty of exhibiting such an egregious act arrogance. Not me.

We are part of what makes the universe self aware. Just like what ever it is that's working within us to make ourselves self aware. It's not the only thing that's responsible for it. It's a number of things working in tandem. Which is the way this entire friggin thing works- it's a bunch of things working together.

And yes, from a physical standpoint I can see why you'd think we are as close to nothing as anything can get. And look at what exists in the realm of seemingly "nothingness". A little tiny planet with billions of species of living things many of which are intelligent or exhibit intelligence in some way. The universe actually took the time to consider ALL the details. Why not stop at VY Canis Majoris? Why keep going all the way down the scale with such detail and purpose? I mean even little ole ants have a purpose and can function as a colony and build huge structures.

I feel bad for people with your view of the world.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by circlemaker

 

Who defines what is aware and what isn't?

People with nothing better to do. Awareness is not defined, it is simply perceived as such, and often falsely.

Often falsely? How so?

I would say there are levels of awareness.

That's a bit species-chauvinistic. A codfish has enough awareness to function perfectly – as a codfish.

Perhaps that's what he means by different levels.

I suggest looking for ways to disprove that the universe lacks consciousness.

Why would you suggest that? It makes no sense and seems to show a lack of understanding for the basic principles of consciousness. Without it the universe does not exist, you do realize that right? The universe produced consciousness, so how can it be disproved to have it? You do see the fallacy that exists in the fabric of your statement don't you?

reply to post by Tindalos2013


This is an interesting way of looking at it. And you're right there doesn't necessarily have to be any meaning to any of it. But I don't buy into that.

We ask the question: Why did this all happen in this way?

The answer: For no reason.

If you that's what you think, that this was all just a happenstance from a totally random event, then that answer probably suffices.

However as you might be able to tell, I don't think this was a random event at all. None of this seems to be just a coincidence.

I'd be curious to learn more about your thoughts of an infinite universe.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Why is it so important for you to believe that the universe is conscious?

I'd like to explain a little bit of something I've been working on. I've explored Universal Harmonics, sacred geometry, cymatics, and all sorts of different odds and ends that lend flavor to the common theories of how the universe operates and whether or not there actually is a design to the whole deal. And I've come up with what I call the "random code generator" theory. It may or may not be an original concept, but that's beside the point.

See, I've read, watched, and examined the Kabbalah and how the fruit of life and the tetragrammaton and all that good stuff works together to provide a geometric representation of something like a binary code. This entire universe is an entire series of Encyclopedia Britticana, written entirely in binary. And the chemical universe we are familiar with is but a translation, like translating binary in French or English. Sacred geometry is pieces of the syntax that determine the process of translation, establishing what pieces of binary translate into what chemical expression. But because we don't know what the rest of the code is supposed to look like, we can't really say exactly what pieces of geometry go where or how.

Anyway! Enough digressing. Simply put, this binary code is one of an infinite number of autonomous attempts. Every time a universe is born, a random series of binary sequences is thrown together, or perhaps even individual values are thrown together. The longevity of any given universe depends entirely upon the stability of the randomly assembled code. Anything that results from the randomly assembled code is as unintentional as the code itself. Since the nature of the universe itself is translation, it only makes sense that we should have the ability to translate at an advanced level - if only because this particular code is stable enough to give us such an opportunity. But as of this moment in time, it can be argued that we are a phenomenon in a vast web of phenomena in an endless series of phenomena based on an infinite amount of possibilities all waiting to happen...or perhaps, all happening at once. If we could see the entirety of existence, we might discover that we are simply a failure still waiting to complete. We could be a long-lasting disaster, or a brief burst of life in the gigantic radar of possibilities. It meshes quite well with the multiverse theories, actually. Since we can't see the larger picture, we cannot determine that this universe is a success. We can only determine that it appears to be succeeding thus far.

So if you're looking for meaning in life, the answer is rather simple: make one. Make your own meaning, your own purpose, your own direction. Decide what you want to see in life, and be it.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Why is it so important for you to believe that the universe is conscious?

I don't believe it. I know it. It can not be denied. We are, as I've stated, living proof that it is conscious. To attempt to discount it is an exercise in futility IMO.

It's important for me, just as it's important for you to explore universal harmonics and sacred geometry et al. Like it is for scientists working at the LHC. Like it is for the folks working at NASA on the Kepler mission, or Hubble. It's to learn more about what it means to exist here. Mine is but one of thousands or millions or billions of ways to approach it, but certainly not the only way.

But as of this moment in time, it can be argued that we are a phenomenon in a vast web of phenomena in an endless series of phenomena based on an infinite amount of possibilities all waiting to happen...or perhaps, all happening at once. If we could see the entirety of existence, we might discover that we are simply a failure still waiting to complete. We could be a long-lasting disaster, or a brief burst of life in the gigantic radar of possibilities. It meshes quite well with the multiverse theories, actually. Since we can't see the larger picture, we cannot determine that this universe is a success. We can only determine that it appears to be succeeding thus far.

You seem to believe that there is a multiverse. Which would then imply that ours is not infinite. I'm not sure what to think on this. Clearly there's not enough evidence to be able to make an educated guess either way. For now, and for the purpose of this thread, I believe that our's is the only one.

I will say I have questions about mutli verses existing on the basis of the choices we make. That there are, in essence, different versions of our universe that exist simultaneously within this universe. However this is probably food for another thread entirely.

You're right in the sense that we don't know the end game to our existence, at least not yet. Perhaps we are just one big failure. But what is failure in the grand scheme of the universe? To understand it we'd have to know what the intent of the existence of our universe is. Which goes back to the question of why?

The fact that we are able to even consider this question as it relates to our existence is very telling to me.

Your piece about the universe functioning as a binary code is interesting. One of the main debating points in the thread I referenced was the origin of the genetic code in DNA. The question being that the very essence of a code is not the result of random events, but a derivative of mind. Which implies an intelligent influence. Life as we know it, all of it, was encoded into DNA, the origins of which are still unknown. Yes evolution and natural selection seem to throw water on this idea, but my question is, why evolution to begin with? Why the need to survive and replicate? What governs this process? It's a deep conversation, a topic which this thread wasn't necessarily intended to broach.

So if you're looking for meaning in life, the answer is rather simple: make one. Make your own meaning, your own purpose, your own direction. Decide what you want to see in life, and be it.

Thanks for the advice I guess. We're all on this mission together, whether we realize it or not.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Cool reply; thanks. Did you notice I gave you three different models there? I wasn't really committing myself to any of them. Like I said, the first is trivial – trivial in the mathematical sense, meaning it arises obviously from the basic definition of the problem, not trivial in the sense of being unimportant. Being the eyes and ears of the universe makes me feel quite important, really, even if I accept that the universe has trillions – septillions? okay, squillions – of other eyes and ears.

You don't have to believe that mind arises out of matter, but if mind is going to have any kind of interaction with matter (meaning that mind can put physical processes into motion – exercise free will, make things happen) then to the degree that it relies on physical processes to achieve its ends it must wait on physical processes to work themselves out, and that takes time.

You seem to have thought of this, since you suggest that the self-conscious universe may be able to move freely in all directions in time (taking time as a dimension). In that case, of course, it could go back in time and create itself! A nice closed Vedic loop, and answers everybody's favourite puzzlers about What Happened Before The Big Bang, etc. Well, it's certainly a possibility (I'm feeling generous tonight) but if the universe were constantly intervening in its own temporal processes you'd be seeing miracles everywhere.

Besides, if you invoke one unfalsifiable possibility to justify another, we end up piling speculation on speculation. Is the universe conscious? If it is conscious, is it then intelligent? If it is intelligent, is it bound by time? And as the tower of questions grows higher it grows wobblier, because we really don't have answers to steady the first tier, never mind the second or the third. It's okay to think about, but you can't really discuss it, because there's nothing concrete to discuss.

That leaves us with the third option, the one you scorned – the intelligence of a thermostat. I'll have you know I am acquainted with some very smart thermostats, but enough about my love life. The thing is, this really is an intelligent universe, and one in which life plays a central role in at least some of its processes. I have a pretty materialistic view of intelligence (which, I think we can agree, is not the same as consciousness), so for me we're pretty much all thermostats on that level, never mind if we also possess disembodied intellects or even (that generous feeling again) disembodied souls. I must confess I prefer this option, though it has the disadvantage that we don't know what the other options are; there may be dumb universes with just enough intelligence – okay, self-organising capability – to survive, but they wouldn't be much fun to live in. Come to think of it, maybe we're living in one of those. Would you consider an hypothesis for a rather stupid but conscious universe?

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Ah, I see we're in a longer conversation.

So an intelligent atom could view galaxies trillions of miles away? And a star would be able to view something as tiny as proton? Not so sure...

We can't view these things either, except through instruments that mediate and magnify their traces. Why should intelligent atoms (or rather, intelligent atomic-scale beings, if they could exist) or beings the size of stars not build analogous instruments?

Copernicus squashed the idea that the universe revolves around the earth.

Actually, there's a bit more to it than that: Copernican Principle | Principle of Mediocrity

That's being dismissive.

After six hundred years of having those damn' principles dinned into us by nature, I'm being dismissive?

Next Post

Often falsely? How so?

People have attributed awareness to everything from the Sun to their teddy bears.

Perhaps that's what he means by different levels.

Exactly. A bit chauvinistic, no? Who am I to place myself above codfish in the grand scheme of things?

Astyanax: I suggest looking for ways to disprove that the universe lacks consciousness.

Photon Effect: Why would you suggest that? It makes no sense and seems to show a lack of understanding for the basic principles of consciousness.

I hope it shows some faint understanding of how to reach a conclusion. Our gnomic friend understands that knowledge advances by trying to disprove things, not to prove them. Disproving that the universe is conscious – as he or she correctly claimed not to have been able to do – essentially means proving that the universe is not conscious. And as everybody knows, you can't prove a negative. So I suggested trying to disprove that it was unconscious. Lack of success would suggest that it was conscious.

Could you think of ways to test whether the universe is conscious or not?

reply to post by PhotonEffect

You seem to believe that there is a multiverse. Which would then imply that ours is not infinite. I'm not sure what to think on this. Clearly there's not enough evidence to be able to make an educated guess either way. For now, and for the purpose of this thread, I believe that our's is the only one.

Eh...no. Not exactly. Take this picture here:



It's a 64 tetrahedron. Now if you look at each individual bar that continues in a straight line, and imagine it representing a plane of existence, or a "layer" of reality, and then imagine all of those sheets fitting together as represented by the geometrical shape in the picture, and imagine that continuing on infinitely...that's something like the multiverse I'm thinking of.

But if you're going to introduce a "hypothesis", you must be open to contradicting evidence. That's how science works.

You're right in the sense that we don't know the end game to our existence, at least not yet. Perhaps we are just one big failure. But what is failure in the grand scheme of the universe? To understand it we'd have to know what the intent of the existence of our universe is. Which goes back to the question of why?

How else would you define the combustion and disintegration of the primordial chaos? I'm speaking from the simplistic perspective of creation, preservation, and destruction. If the universe becomes unstable and loses its ability to maintain cohesive interactivity, with the result that it collapses in upon itself or simply falls apart, I would label that as a "failure".

The fact that we are able to even consider this question as it relates to our existence is very telling to me.

You don't have the qualifications to accurately read into it. You have the wits to open a calculus book and erroneously believe you have reached the correct conclusions from extrapolated tidbits. That is very telling to me.

Your hypothesis was weak to begin with. Using humans as proof of an intelligent universe is the same as using flour for proof that my house is a bakery shop. My house has the potential to produce baked goods. That does not make my household a designated bakery. It simply suggests a number of possibilities, none of which are any more likely than the next without further evidence.

Your piece about the universe functioning as a binary code is interesting. One of the main debating points in the thread I referenced was the origin of the genetic code in DNA. The question being that the very essence of a code is not the result of random events, but a derivative of mind. Which implies an intelligent influence. Life as we know it, all of it, was encoded into DNA, the origins of which are still unknown. Yes evolution and natural selection seem to throw water on this idea, but my question is, why evolution to begin with? Why the need to survive and replicate? What governs this process? It's a deep conversation, a topic which this thread wasn't necessarily intended to broach.

Not necessarily. As I said, an infinite number of possible variations will inevitably produce optimistic results. But in the end, they may all turn out to be failures. Some just last longer than others. if I throw a bunch of Scrabble letters in the air and they fall together to form a word, where was the intelligent influence?

It's a deep conversation, a topic which this thread wasn't necessarily intended to broach.

That's unfortunate. I was under the impression you were looking for an answer.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

I don't believe it. I know it. It can not be denied. We are, as I've stated, living proof that it is conscious. To attempt to discount it is an exercise in futility IMO.

You began this thread as an exercise in futility?

reply to post by PhotonEffect

The ingredients by themselves don't constitute bread.

This was all I was getting at. The rest of your statement is off topic. The OP said humans were proof of a god. No, humans are proof of humans. If a god shows up then he'll be proof of god.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

You seem to be assuming that we are the only ones in existence in the universe. Why is that?

Where in the world did you get that idea from what I've written? The only thing I will assume is that we don't know squat about life in the universe. When I write that we live on a tiny speck, I mean we live on a tiny speck. That's all.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

We are part of what makes the universe self aware. Just like what ever it is that's working within us to make ourselves self aware. It's not the only thing that's responsible for it. It's a number of things working in tandem. Which is the way this entire friggin thing works- it's a bunch of things working together.

There ya go. THAT is an unfounded, illogical, unrealistic assumption. With no evidence whatsoever you blindly accept that the universe is self-aware. On top of that you make us out to play a significant role in all of it. It's all unfounded garbage. However, I will change my mind when the conscious universe pops in for a cup of tea and chat.