Why a Conscious Universe is a sensible solution.

This is my first novel post here. Since I feel the need to explain my causes to disbelieve the commonly known the first segment is about MY experiences. You can skip this if you care to. It's in double ((-)). The proposal I proffer is following and set apart by +++.
((I am going to give a quick overview as to what I have directly observed that has made me question reality as being described by the peer reviewed.
When I was ten (fifty seven years ago, kids) I was reading the Sunday Philadelphia Bulletin. They had two magazines, one was the American Weekly, blown in. This particular Sunday they had an article on testing your ESP. Ten cards, five duplicates, were to be cut out and two participants would then sit back to back. One would lay down all five cards randomly and the other would attempt to duplicate the order. I did this with my kid sisters. I carefully kept the results data on a note pad. One sister sat where she could monitor our compliance with the protocols. The results were as follows. In twenty trials with my elder sister (7 y/o) we matched perfectly in 18 trials and had two with 3 correct. My youngest sister (4/5 y/o) and I scored 16 perfect trials with four being held as three correct.
Since each error results in two misplacements, three out of five is still substantial. The perfect replications were 120 to 1 odds. We are talking all of the grains of sand in the Universe odds here for this outcome.
I had taken a self-hypnotism course, Silva Mind Control, which had an exercise that had you write three names on a piece of paper of folks who had physical problems. You would give this to someone who you didn't know in class and they would be obligated to send good vibes out to the afflicted. If possible, the person in the induced state of meditation, would attempt to identify the person. This could be the ailment(s), appearance, personality, etc.
A truly skeptical dude gave me his list. I read the first name and backed down into semi-consciousness. I felt a wave of secondhand emotions, pain and persona. The pain was located throughout the lower torso and this dude while dealing with it like a champ. Great human being, always upbeat, kind considerate and good humored. I began crying, something that I had rarely done even when having broken bones. I was talking aloud giving this spiel about what a great guy he was and how he suffered. I had to drag myself back to full awareness because I couldn't stand the whole thing.
When I was focused, the unbeliever was aghast. I had NAILED this Texas guy's issues and personality. I did not know either the submitter or the 'object' prior to this. I couldn't go on because I was in such emotional turmoil. Tough to put this off as a coincidence.
I saw a UFO. I had been fishing with my father-in-law and was returning to Little Torch Key in the Big Pine Channel. It was winter season, late in the day, with absolutely clear skies. I saw an airplane. It had four engines barely perceivable but confirmed by a faint contrail. It was going West. If you are familiar with the Keys' Airports four engine jets can't land on the length of them. Mexico had to be the next stop and the closest airport from which it could have left from was Miami/Homestead. It was quite high and cruising. I thought I would watch it (My Father-in law was piloting) and see if the sun would glint off its wings. I saw something out of the corner of my eye
It was perfectly round. on the sun lit side it was a reflective gold color, on the shadowed side it was a slightly mottled umber. If the plane was as high as I thought (Some experience in USAF) it was a minimum five miles up. The haze effect was identical with this sphere, suggesting the same altitude for it. It was spherical with NO external features. It had about three times greater (perhaps more) girth than a four engine jet. It was trailing the jet about four to five miles behind with an identical speed and direction. As it moved on the demarcation of shadow and light smoothly moved across it, precisely like a sphere. I watched it for over ten minutes. It never wavered, dipped, dodged, gyrated NOTHING. It was like it was being towed.
The problem with towing? NO plane can tow an object like this at the speed demonstrated at any altitude. Let alone trying to explain how a sphere 500+ feet in size would not deform from aerodynamic forces.
Before anyone starts in I discussed this with the Prez of the Florida Amateur Astronomers who came up with Sun Dogs. Since Sun Dogs do not appear overhead or move toward the horizon, meh.
From these odd moments I have doubted nearly explanation made by authority as to what everything is.))

I would prefer that no comments be made about these experiences here. You may directly message me. If you troll, I will not be kind.

+++ The Universe is conscious of itself. It has it's own purposes. It displays itself from directly observed events by the scientific community, spiritualists and even skeptics.

It is the former of the Quantum Foam. It is a tool by which it shapes, forms and informs us all. It's its hammer from which we are annealed.

I have no idea as to why it decided on this device or if it's a constituent of itself. Since information theory states that no system can fully, completely know itself, I suspect that another field exists supporting this Universe.

For the folks who aware of Quantum Effects, spooky action at a distance, the PEAR experiments, precognition displayed by the Global Consciousness Project and innumerable anecdotes (such as above) about re-incarnation, statistics, free will, etc. I will appease you by combining all of it into my grand scheme (for the conspiritists).

The Universe's base is a flux which could be described by some as chaotic. It is not for if this was truly chaotic nothing could exist. How could it? In order for macro formations to be established and maintained it has to be stable in ways not yet established to/by us. It must 'remember'.

Now, why would it remember? To serve a purpose. I propose that by utilizing every means available that you can observe that the Universe seeks to evolve. I do not know why it seeks this. Yet every scientist talks about how systems evolve toward greater complexity. In order for this to occur you must have a relatively stable platform from which the new arrives. Without a platform how can you propel?

The stability of the platform demands that adjustments need to be made for the Observer Effect and other perceived oddities. Odd to us but all part of allowing developments. Goodbye to two-slit anomalies. Goodbye to pre-cognition anomalies demonstrated in fMRIs. Time does not exist to the Universe. There is only the now which has to retain some stability to advance evolution. It retains awareness of every event and fits all of it into the current now through regulating mechanisms. Some of these appear to produce paradoxes but this is because we do not apprehend the grand scheme. It fits because it must.

The Universe will alter reality as it deems necessary. It conserves it's energies through prediction of outcomes and how it alters now.

Next page please.

a reply to: largo

I would prefer that no comments be made about these experiences here. You may directly message me. If you troll, I will not be kind.

Your thread is a mess, and full of subjective rhetoric, but you want to limit the comments that come your way?

Too bad. Open Season.

Next page please.

I beg you, just stop.

a reply to: largo
So the Quantum Sea will repel outliers eventually while accepting an adjustable mean. In order for the Universe to advance itself, free will, within the constraints of statistics, is allowed. There are no absolutes and everything eventually prepares for return to the mean of the new (still adjustable) now. Fluctuations of every stripe pressing advancement of the virtuous evolving are preserved.

What the Universe demands is movement toward an increasingly complex non-mechanistic future state. It does not automatically know where it's going due to the insecurity of the nearly chaotic, not fully formed present. It acts like it elicits novelty without concern to a mash up because of the regulatory aspects ensconced in nature. It wants freedom of expression. It wants to be marginally secure because, once again you can't continually change toward evolvement if there is no fairly reliable now.

I believe that we are of the essence. Our bodies are constructs that came about because consciousness wants to have an expression in this playground. It seems to want even more means to express itself in this Universe. It doesn't mind making mistakes. It doesn't care about individuals (most) or anything else that doesn't mesh with it. It can have randomness expressed. (Think killer asteroids!) The Milky Way will continue to evolve without a care as to the return of microbes as the rulers of Earth.

While we (actually everything) may be a concern, it has plenty of irons in the fire. Adjusting the now, keeping a platform for changes are the primary concerns. Since we are of it, in our entirety, we have importance as long as we contribute to the goal. Otherwise we will exterminate ourselves and the Universe will roll out the next, improved model. It is demanded that we change to the better or become extinct.

This ain't a rose garden. It's an Universe.

This is a brief explanation and certainly I am seeking to NOT bore you. By reading philosophy, I recognize that most of it is self-important, circular reasoning, balderdash. I want to be dashing, brief and conclusive in my logic derived from observation. I do not speculate here about motives, no more than I do of psychotic reasoning. I am ignorant of far more than I know and hopefully this is in the manner of Socrates.

You may beat me repeatedly and help me grow through adversity. Thanks.

originally posted by: BestinShow
a reply to: largo

I would prefer that no comments be made about these experiences here. You may directly message me. If you troll, I will not be kind.

Your thread is a mess, and full of subjective rhetoric, but you want to limit the comments that come your way?

Too bad. Open Season.

Next page please.

In the past few months articles have appeared in Scientific American about the crisis in physics involving string theory and super symmetry since the results form the LHC are lacking and journals concerning new support for an Euclidean Universe which undermines the Expansion Theory. Yet it all rolls on.

If you are familiar with the 'anomalous' discoveries concerning statistically validated events, the one Theory that fits is a Universe that is a simulation. I prefer to think that this is actually an organic event. You don't question evolution, but how does it happen? What is forcing the issue in every instance. There must be rule being enforced. How do you explain the magic of a Bell Curve? Statistical outcomes are being allowed. It is what free will is based on.

My concept is that the Universe asserts itself in this way. There are no exceptions observable.

You are a troll. You are part and parcel of the 'mean'. I seek to be different because there are no popular explanations for my life or what I see. Folks like you are conceptually hide bound and ridiculous in that outfit but it is fashionable. Style on!

a reply to: largo

You appear to have no understanding of what a Troll is. A troll is not someone who merely disagrees with your idea, belief, or position in debate. This is a discussion forum, and if you do not wish for your post to be commented on honestly, then you should not have posted it at all, since this is not a forum for people to be able to spout whatever they choose without reply, or rebuke where appropriate.

Now, I do not deny that a conscious universe is possible, but I would suggest that to discuss it in the manner you seem to wish to involve yourself with, it might be wise to see if a moderator will have your thread moved to a more appropriate forum, perhaps the Grey Area.

The reason that I suggest this, is that your post contains no actual science, and no testable theories of any kind. This is the science and technology forum that you have posted in, and this thread contains content which does not actually fit with that theme at all.

The Grey Area however, is for the sort of highly speculative subject matter and discussion that would better suit the subject of this thread, and your attitude toward fair appraisals of the worth of your "theory".

Never seen such a promising subject so absolutely ruined by a poor OP.

Anyone who doesn't believe in group consciousness has never seen a school of fish or flock of birds.

And if group consciousness exists, then universal consciousness is not that great a leap.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
Never seen such a promising subject so absolutely ruined by a poor OP.

Anyone who doesn't believe in group consciousness has never seen a school of fish or flock of birds.

And if group consciousness exists, then universal consciousness is not that great a leap.

A school of fish or a flock of birds may simply be reacting quickly to physical cues from the fish/bird directly in front of it. There does not need to be a connected consciousness involved -- at least not in the way I think you mean.

If you very carefully watch a school of fish turning, you can see that their is a very slight delay between the turn made by the lead fish of the school and the trailing fish of the school. The same goes for swarming birds. In the swarm of birds below, you can actually see the wave of movement through the swarm, as the birds react to cues from adjacent birds:

And to the OP --
Your comment about trolling basically amounted to "I don't want to hear anyone who disagrees with me, because if you do disagree in a post, I will become uncivil toward you and your post".

That's not very ATS-like.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thanks. The fact that you would take the time to single out my obscure post on this obscure going-nowhere thread leads me once again to believe there is something to this - I will be doing more research on this now, look forward to the coming thread.

originally posted by: PlanetXisHERE
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thanks. The fact that you would take the time to single out my obscure post on this obscure going-nowhere thread leads me once again to believe there is something to this - I will be doing more research on this now, look forward to the coming thread.

Your post offered a more coherent idea than the OPs. It was easier to respond to your post in a pointed manner.

That was easier than digging through the OP's anecdotal stories and his recitation about universal consciousness and cosmic connections and try to find an "essence" to his post to which I could respond that didn't just sound like I was spewing a bunch of rhetoric we have all heard before.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Types of speculated Universes

www.mathaware.org...

Tom Cambell simulated Universe

www.downloadyoutube.co...:%20-We%20Live%20in%20a%20Virtual%20Reality,%20PRESS%20START%20&%20Pl ay%20the%20Game%20of%20Life.html

PEAR

en.wikipedia.org...

Rebuffing Expanding Universe and Big Bang and Red Shift relation to both.

www.bigbangneverhappened.org...

Global Consciousness Project

noosphere.princeton.edu...

Buckyball (macro) Double Slit with some nice Q and A postings

www.physicsforums.com...

Universal Quantum Effects

www.youtube.com...

If this listing is insufficient, just ask for more. Each is easily linked to further research if you want to do this independently (and draw your own conclusions?).

A word of explanation as to WHY I would cite my odd experiences. They formulated extreme skepticism to any mainstream authority, ANY. These experiences did not fit into a commonly held world view. These refutations of the norm aided me in choosing a different paradigm. I have many thousands of hours invested in exploring the proposals which explain statistically valid, that is non-woo-woo speculations, in order to assist me to understand the events cited.

I always assume (I know, I know. Actually I don't.) that anyone I speak to has the general back ground to fill in the blanks. Mea Culpa. I did warn in the preamble that YOU DID NOT NEED TO READ that initial portion. It had no bearing on the proposal. They are personal anecdotes and are not scientifically valid. None the less they impacted me causing the search for meaning in what we perceive.
I had other weirder things happen which still fit this now personal conception.
The Universe allows for free will, statistics and wants to evolve. It fits everything within this framework and uses Occam's Razor like a meat clever to religion, current Cosmological Musings, Quantum Anomalies, Parapsychology and time anomalies, re-incarnation and Mechanisitic views of the Universe. I know of no other model existant which pulls this superficially diverse stuff into a single model.
Since I do know this could be wrong I welcome criticism.
When you do postings on a forum whose rules dictate for new posters (which was stated) that your post needs to be short, the readers may be challenged. I did not do this well.
I hope the addendum is of benefit since this has raised some interest and hackles.
Incidentally, when a favor is asked publicly, it doesn't make you the better person to ignore it.
Thanks anyway for at least allowing yourself to be confused by me. I fully appreciate the effort needed to sort this crap out.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I said that the actual subject was fair game in this thread. See addendum. Lots of links which can be further explored.

Misconstruing what was stated to fit your conception of appropriate decorum here, why? How can you criticize anecdotal experiences. I don't even expect others to believe they are real. An assemblage of anecdotal evidence gives rise to theory. My examples were merely justifying my personal motivations to arrive at this conception.
I thought it was worthwhile enough to gather opinions/beliefs which would either overturn this postulation or cohere with the premise.
The poor wording does diminish readability. It is too brief but I find that much of Philosophy is unreadable due to excessive rhetoric, examples and 'professional' vocabulary.
I did try to avoid it but with an initial post, forum rules dictate brevity.
I do thank you for making a difficult read.

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE
The proposal you like has no verified observations.
I assure you it is not supported by them.

Anytime you jump ship because YOU see the iceberg, any person should at least shout out a warning.
This is a speculation and completely outside the explanations commonly accepted on any number of subjects because they suck at giving complete, consistent results in the observations made. They rarely exert themselves to look over the horizons that they define. They are limited and, to me, useless.
I want to get to the basis of reality and us. These formalized, many peer accepted, views fail.
So much like what I speculate about, I want to evolve.
This is one platform to do so.

See addendum for some of the research concerning this matter.

And thanks for taking the time to think about this stuff. I hope you eventually find it gratifying.
That usually happens after you adjust to the water temperature.

a reply to: TrueBrit

His critical, derisive post was filed before the posting was completed due to forum constraints.

How is that not a troll?

a reply to: largo

Largo

From your posts, I have an impression that you are attempting to communicate a "sense of things" at which you have arrived through a long life of personal experiences and thought processes based on those experiences and study into the nature of out of the ordinary belief structures. From my experience, this is an extremely difficult task. Our limited human language which has evolved from our limited conceptual framework often does not allow communication of this sort as the conceptual framework has not been solidified enough yet for new words and phrases to be developed. Any of that make sense?

If, I say if, I have gleaned any sense of what you are attempting to impart here, it is that this conscious universe not only partially expresses itself through us but as well, develops along with and through our own development? If so, I like it.

OP, I'm not sure where you want to go with this thread but this idea is not something quite new in the history of the world. Maybe it's not taught in schools, but unless I'm mistaken, most spiritualities and esoteric traditions consist in trying to find your place in a universe where there exist a greater consciousness (or at least order) than your own.

Of course opinions on the subject can still be very diverse, as diverse as there are individual outlooks; is this consciousness all-encompassing or not, eternal or not, omnipotent or not, omniscient or not? Is this universal consciousness the source of all things, the goal of all things, or both? Is the universe evolving to become aware of itself, or is a global consciousness pre-existing and all life is merely trying to tap into it?

No one knows obviously, and millenia of thougts or practical experiments all failed to settle the question once and for all.

In the end, the vast majority of humanity does believe in a greater consciousness than itself (it would be quite hybris to reject this idea altogether anyway), but the fact is that unfortunately this intuition is purely subjective so far and unless you could successfully replicate experiments showing more than significant proofs of a greater consciousness, the scientific community will not take position on the subject and it will remain a purely personal stance regarding the meaning of the universe (science doesn't really deal with meaning, since meaning is a human construction).

I guess my question is this; I like your idea and somehow share this view on certain points, but what next? You know you can't force that opinion on anyone since it requires a subjective experimentation with the subject, and even then, that idea is actually already quite common in humanity (just not in western, modern science, and for a good reason) so is this thread supposed to bring something new that I don't get?

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts
Considering that the human species have only been around for an infinitesimally short period of time (for only about 500,000 years) compared to the universe, I find it hard to believe that human consciousness is that important to the universe.

What about other species of early humans -- say when we were more similar to ape-like creatures? Did they have a universal consciousness? What about the dinosaurs? Was there an interconnected dinosaur consciousness that lasted for a few 100 million years. Heck, what about during the first 3 billion years of life on Earth, when Earth was devoid of complex life, and was mostly very simple life or single-celled? How did the universal consciousness work with that simple life?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'm not sure I understand your question? Nowhere I ever said that IF (hypothetical) there exist a universal consciousness (thus related to the universe, not mankind) it would care about humans?

In fact I explicitly said this;

Is the universe evolving to become aware of itself, or is a global consciousness pre-existing and all life is merely trying to tap into it?

If a universal consciousness does exist, it exists independently of the existence of life. That's the pantheist definition of god.

If what you talk about if the "global consciousness of mankind", then we are talking about the noosphere which is another concept.


If anything I said the subject is so complex yet nebulous everyone has probably a different outlook and opinion about it. A vast majority believing in a universe with a meaning (thus a consciousness since meaning is a construction of the mind), and the rest believing in a purely mechanistic universe.

The universe is as conscious as a rock.

Unless one can prove me that galaxies play simple cards with each other (and that the Galaxy Bond007 always has a royal flush), then the hypothesis that the universe is conscious is moot.

If by "conscious" you mean "no useful information transmission (and thus technically brain dead)" then yeah, I suppose you're right.

originally posted by: swanne
The universe is as conscious as a rock.

You are a part of the universe and you are conscious, so that statement is actually false.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

You have a thumb and it is part of your fingers. Your statement implies all your fingers are thumbs.