Consciousness

[NotBlinded]

I don't believe there is any "stuff"...only processes.

My view as well.

 

Forces and energy making it seem like being "things."

I'm glad I'm not the only looney one here.

 

I'm just kidding, but it's nice to have others understand. I'm not saying it's not okay to not understand or even agree but...oh heck, you know what I mean. I just don't want to offend anyone, well, except Christians of course.

[Ouroboros]

I'm glad I'm not the only looney one here.

 

I'm just kidding, but it's nice to have others understand. I'm not saying it's not okay to not understand or even agree but...oh heck, you know what I mean. I just don't want to offend anyone, well, except Christians of course.

Amen.

 

I've learned over the years that sometimes it's impossible to explain some things to other people, but then you find someone having the same point of view, and suddenly it's very easy to understand each other.

[oddbird1963]

 

Here is the problem, many of you are taking an English translation of a Greek word and then going to an 21st century English dictionary to find the definition of that English word. That is a mistake as it doesn't give you an indication of what the author meant to convey. If you really want to be honest about this discussion, you would do a study of the Greek word used for faith in the particular passage and then study it in the context of that passage rather than quote mining the Bible as many of you seem to be doing.

 

The idea of faith in the Bible does not mean a mere blind assent to an idea or person. It means that one is persuaded by the argument or the authority (justified) of the person giving the argument. It is no different than what many of you claim on this site for the scientific data that you cite. None of us has done the research ourselves to prove the data to be accurate, we trust the authority of the source to be accurate. In other cases, when using logical arguments, we are persuaded by the logic following to its conclusion. We then test the premises to determine whether they are true. It is mere ad hominem to claim that all Christians believe what they do because of a mere blind assent or leap of faith.

 

If you are claiming that this is true for Christians then I will assume that it is true of you as well. If it is good enough for Richard Dawkins...or Daniel Dennett...or whomever you may cite. Unless you do the primary research yourself and prove that the evidence is correct, then you are really doing no better than to assent to an authority figure.

 

In short, I'm not buying your arguments and assertions. I'm also not buying your faulty exegesis and etymology.

 

LNC

 

It's your dictionary citation being referenced here. That's all that was commented on. So who's etymology is faulty? And it is your source that really doesn't support what you define as faith.

 

Nobody here is trying "to claim that all Christians believe what they do because of a mere blind assent or leap of faith." What we are saying is that your definition of faith is flawed, not required in your own dictionary citation and not the kind of faith that was taught in the Bible.

 

And trying to make the biblical faith a "faith based on evidence" or what have you, is eisegesis if there ever was a case for it.

[Kuroikaze]

Quote mining??? I told you that it was a definition from Dictionary.com, how is that quote mining? Maybe you need to explain what you mean by quote mining?

 

You picked one definition over the other, ignoring the one that best fit the context. You will notice that I quoted every definition in my post and highlighted the pertinent one to avoid just this sort of failure.

 

I'm sure that you do find Christians who use faith as a cover for unsound reasoning and I find atheists and skeptics who use faith in the same way, it is just that they put their faith in scientism rather than in the Bible or Christianity.

 

Pffft, Scientism is just a word that people in your camp made up to attempt to insult a group of people you don't like. It is a straw-man in entirety. For one I do not recall every claiming to be a positivist, if you had been listening you would know that I am not.

 

I would agree that people who hold to a young earth do so contrary to the best evidence, but I also find atheists who hold to the idea that the universe is past eternal, which is also contrary to the best evidence.

 

Except that this is a strawman, atheists are not, by and large, saying this. We are saying there is not enough information about the nature of existence to make claims about the nature of it's ultimate source. You have been told this before, but you continue to make this stupid argument.

 

I know you are not stupid so I conclude that you are simply being duplicitous, probably even to yourself.

 

So it cuts both ways. If you believe that this is a good definition of faith, then I will begin to apply it when skeptics make assertions that go against the best data. I will also use if of people who claim that God does not exist as that is clearly a faith statement that cannot be empirically proved

.

 

I am fine with applying that definition of faith across the board, because I do not engage in this type of thinking as you suggest.

 

Again, the statement "I do not see sufficient evidence to conclude there is a god" is NOT logically equivalent to "God does not exist"

 

I do not understand how you can be so dense as to not see the distinction here?

 

Part of the problem here is the inherent vagueness of the word god. The word has too many meanings. If we are talking about god in some nebulous deistic sense I would never claim to be able to prove that he/she/it does not exist. In fact in this sense god has so few definable characteristics I am not sure we can say much of anything about this.

 

Now if we are talking about a god from a specific religion like the Christian or Muslim god, I would say I CAN prove that those do not exist, since the religions make claims about their god which are logically contradictory, but this is another topic since we are not talking about specific religions here.

[chefranden]

1. I don't mean to be mean, but this seems to lack meaning. Are you saying that matter detects consciousness? If so then consciousness must be something other than matter, something extra.

 

Chef, you're not mean. We all have a right to our understandings.

 

I don't believe there is any "stuff"...only processes. It's all consciousness dancing around being you and being me and being trees and being bees, etc...

 

When I said that one can't happen without the other one, I was hinting at this unity. Much the same way that a magnet has different poles but is still one magnet. It's all one process that appears to be separate. This "illusion" makes some people postulate a separate entity. I'm not one of those people.

 

Consciousness = everything: Isn't that just special?

 

I some regard I agree with Watts that the universe is intelligent i.e. that it knows how to get stuff done. But I would disagree that it knows that it knows how to get stuff done. In some sense the universe knows how to make some stuff that knows that it knows, but the universe doesn't know that it knows how to make some stuff that knows that it knows. Apparently this thread is supposed to be about the bits that know that they know.

 

I'm using stuff as a more amorphous term than matter in order to avoid the indivisible BB like bits that may or may not be at the bottom of it all. Stuff is whatever is there in whatever pattern, and whatever it is doing. Maybe physics will find a BB maybe not, but it won't matter. Some of the stuff will be able to know that it knows some things without being able to know other things like what it is.

[NotBlinded]

Consciousness = everything: Isn't that just special?

 

I some regard I agree with Watts that the universe is intelligent i.e. that it knows how to get stuff done. But I would disagree that it knows that it knows how to get stuff done. In some sense the universe knows how to make some stuff that knows that it knows, but the universe doesn't know that it knows how to make some stuff that knows that it knows. Apparently this thread is supposed to be about the bits that know that they know.

I'm pretty sure that Watts is saying that it doesn't know how it knows. It just does it, like we just operate our liver or a centipede moves its legs in unison.

 

I understand that this thread is about the bits that know that they know, but that leads down a path that narrowly describes consciousness, IMO.

 

I'm using stuff as a more amorphous term than matter in order to avoid the indivisible BB like bits that may or may not be at the bottom of it all. Stuff is whatever is there in whatever pattern, and whatever it is doing. Maybe physics will find a BB maybe not, but it won't matter. Some of the stuff will be able to know that it knows some things without being able to know other things like what it is.

Yes.

[Antlerman]

I some regard I agree with Watts that the universe is intelligent i.e. that it knows how to get stuff done. But I would disagree that it knows that it knows how to get stuff done. In some sense the universe knows how to make some stuff that knows that it knows, but the universe doesn't know that it knows how to make some stuff that knows that it knows. Apparently this thread is supposed to be about the bits that know that they know.

 

I'm using stuff as a more amorphous term than matter in order to avoid the indivisible BB like bits that may or may not be at the bottom of it all. Stuff is whatever is there in whatever pattern, and whatever it is doing. Maybe physics will find a BB maybe not, but it won't matter. Some of the stuff will be able to know that it knows some things without being able to know other things like what it is.

This is what I have been saying all along. Self-awareness is not the totality of consciousness, but one highly developed aspect of it. It is present in one form or another all the way down, and all the way up - again, in one form or another, some more shallow, some more deep. Self-awareness is a deeper form of it. But where does consciousness come from? Where does the Universe come from?

[NotBlinded]

I some regard I agree with Watts that the universe is intelligent i.e. that it knows how to get stuff done. But I would disagree that it knows that it knows how to get stuff done. In some sense the universe knows how to make some stuff that knows that it knows, but the universe doesn't know that it knows how to make some stuff that knows that it knows. Apparently this thread is supposed to be about the bits that know that they know.

 

I'm using stuff as a more amorphous term than matter in order to avoid the indivisible BB like bits that may or may not be at the bottom of it all. Stuff is whatever is there in whatever pattern, and whatever it is doing. Maybe physics will find a BB maybe not, but it won't matter. Some of the stuff will be able to know that it knows some things without being able to know other things like what it is.

This is what I have been saying all along. Self-awareness is not the totality of consciousness, but one highly developed aspect of it. It is present in one form or another all the way down, and all the way up - again, in one form or another, some more shallow, some more deep. Self-awareness is a deeper form of it. But where does consciousness come from? Where does the Universe come from?

[Shyone]

But where does consciousness come from? Where does the Universe come from?

Two questions with no connection whatsoever.

 

Consciousness comes from growing complexity of life forms evolved to survive in a particular set of circumstances.

 

The universe comes from quantum fluctuations. Or something similar. Or we don't know. but not from evolution.

[Antlerman]

But where does consciousness come from? Where does the Universe come from?

Two questions with no connection whatsoever.

 

Consciousness comes from growing complexity of life forms evolved to survive in a particular set of circumstances.

Which of course doesn't take into account what Chef posted, or what I did. You localize it to biology. Does biology include matter? Does biology create matter? Does biology include consciousness (in what ever level) in the same way as it includes matter? Or does biology create consciousness, the same way it creates matter?

 

Once again, you limit consciousness to suit your bio-centric point of view.

 

The universe comes from quantum fluctuations. Or something similar. Or we don't know. but not from evolution.

Read what Chef wrote. That sounds like consciousness exists prior to biology. Again, we aren't talking mind here.

[Shyone]

But where does consciousness come from? Where does the Universe come from?

Two questions with no connection whatsoever.

 

Consciousness comes from growing complexity of life forms evolved to survive in a particular set of circumstances.

Which of course doesn't take into account what Chef posted, or what I did. You localize it to biology. Does biology include matter? Does biology create matter? Does biology include consciousness (in what ever level) in the same way as it includes matter? Or does biology create consciousness, the same way it creates matter?

 

Once again, you limit consciousness to suit your bio-centric point of view.

 

The universe comes from quantum fluctuations. Or something similar. Or we don't know. but not from evolution.

Read what Chef wrote. That sounds like consciousness exists prior to biology. Again, we aren't talking mind here.

Mind = brains. No biology, no brains.

 

I see nothing magical or surprizing in chemical reactions. Yes it relates to matter because matter is what is. If there were only energy and no matter, there might still be intelligence. If there were nothing at all, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

If you wish to view biology as a "child of the universe" or a product, that doesn't change the fact that it is still biology and confined to earth and subdivided into species. Rocks are not intelligent, and the majority of the universe is made of rocks. Just rocks (defined broadly as unintelligent matter).

 

Lots of rocks are no more intelligent than a single rock regardless of the volume of the rocks.

[Antlerman]

Lots of rocks are no more intelligent than a single rock regardless of the volume of the rocks.

...said the pebble to the planet.

 

Lots of people don't make them more intelligent either. But a human is a whole lot more intelligent than a mole, or a tick, or a cell, or a rock. I never brought up volume. Why did you?

 

Here's the rule: Lower level = greater span, or volume, but less depth. Higher level = less span or volume, and greater depth. There are far fewer humans than there are insects, or plants, or rocks. Look at it like a pyramid. the base is wide, but its depth is shallow. By the time you get towards the top, its span is less, but its depth is much, much deeper, including all the lower levels - like atoms, like molecules, like cells, like bodies... Rocks, more rocks are less in depth than people. And so with consciousness. Not "thinking" like a human brain. (How many times to repeat that> )

[Shyone]

Lots of rocks are no more intelligent than a single rock regardless of the volume of the rocks.

...said the pebble to the planet.

 

Lots of people don't make them more intelligent either. But a human is a whole lot more intelligent than a mole, or a tick, or a cell, or a rock. I never brought up volume. Why did you?

 

Here's the rule: Lower level = greater span, or volume. Higher level = less span or volume. There are far fewer humans than there are insects, or plants, or rocks. Look at it like a pyramid. the base is wide, but its depth is shallow. By the time you get towards the top, its span is less, but its depth is much, much deeper, including all the lower levels - like atoms, like molecules, like cells, like bodies... Rocks, more rocks are less in depth than people. And so with consciousness.

I have never made myself clear on this, but let me give it another try.

 

I know, you know, we know what "intelligent beings" and "intelligence" is, and to the extent that we can know that something is sentient, it must manifest something. I won't believe that something that should not be intelligent is in fact intelligent simply because someone says it is.

 

The only thing I ever seem to get for an "argument" that the universe in conscious is either an appeal from ignorance or circular reasoning. As I said earlier, we can recognize consciousness and distinguish it from dumb matter. Can't we? If you can't, that is the end of my participation in this thread.

 

Now, other than referring to that which we already know is conscious, what else in the universe would tend to indicate some level of consciousness and not just dumb matter following basic physical laws on a larger scale?

 

I'm not saying that astronomic phenomena are not interesting, but I can't see that there is evidence of intelligence. Condensing gases, fusion reactions, gravity related movement... There is nothing intelligent there. There is nothing conscious there.

 

So what is it? Are you saying that there may be distant conscious beings in other solar systems or galaxies? Is that it? But we don't know, so that is not an argument for consciousness. Are you saying that a spiral galaxy is conscious? In what way? What does it do except orbit, consume hydrogen in stars, and follow simple newtonian physics?

 

Are you saying that, if we knew the true breadth of the universe beyond our tiny corner that we might then understand how the universe is conscious? That is an argument from ignorance.

 

The idea of volume and rocks was an attempt at simplification and scale. Put humans at a conscious scale of 10, rocks would be at 0.

 

Zero is zero regardless of size, shape, color or brightness. Rocks are not organized in a way that produces consciousness. There is no process for it. Same with any aspect of the universe outside of this tiny speck. A rock is to a star is to a galaxy, is to a cluster of galaxies. They are not organized to produce consciousness, and they manifest no signs of consciousness.

 

Only some personification of matter could make something unconscious into something conscious.

 

I was reminded the other night about a story of a house. The house was built, went through phases, and was attributed a personality, and it eventually was destroyed (died). It was a very touching story (not about Amityville, btw). You could almost imagine that the house was alive and conscious.

 

But that is fiction, and so is the fiction about the universe being conscious.

[NotBlinded]

Rocks are not organized in a way that produces consciousness. There is no process for it. Same with any aspect of the universe outside of this tiny speck. A rock is to a star is to a galaxy, is to a cluster of galaxies. They are not organized to produce consciousness, and they manifest no signs of consciousness.

And yet here we are...manifesting out of this organization of dumb rocks. It's a miracle! Pffftt...

[Rev R]

And yet here we are...manifesting out of this organization of dumb rocks. It's a miracle! Pffftt...

 

like a turtle coming up for air in an ox yoke

[Shyone]

Rocks are not organized in a way that produces consciousness. There is no process for it. Same with any aspect of the universe outside of this tiny speck. A rock is to a star is to a galaxy, is to a cluster of galaxies. They are not organized to produce consciousness, and they manifest no signs of consciousness.

And yet here we are...manifesting out of this organization of dumb rocks. It's a miracle! Pffftt...

Circular logic. Here we are. And that is the only way that there is intelligence; a unique phenomenon in an isolated speck of the universe, and you would say that the entire universe is intelligent.

 

I issued a challenge. Without circular reasoning referring back to us, explain how exactly is the universe intelligent or conscious? Are we it? Then the universe as a whole is not intelligent anymore than my pet rock.

 

How does the universe manifest any consciousness? "Galaxies go round and round"?

[NotBlinded]

Rocks are not organized in a way that produces consciousness. There is no process for it. Same with any aspect of the universe outside of this tiny speck. A rock is to a star is to a galaxy, is to a cluster of galaxies. They are not organized to produce consciousness, and they manifest no signs of consciousness.

And yet here we are...manifesting out of this organization of dumb rocks. It's a miracle! Pffftt...

Circular logic. Here we are. And that is the only way that there is intelligence; a unique phenomenon in an isolated speck of the universe, and you would say that the entire universe is intelligent.

 

I issued a challenge. Without circular reasoning referring back to us, explain how exactly is the universe intelligent or conscious? Are we it? Then the universe as a whole is not intelligent anymore than my pet rock.

 

How does the universe manifest any consciousness? "Galaxies go round and round"?

Ummmmm....what?

 

Show me anywhere that intelligence exists in an unintelligent enviornment. I think it requires a leap of faith to say that intelligence can arrive just willy-nilly in an unintelligent environment. Please don't take offense at what I'm going to say, but this is where you and LNC wholeheartedly agree. You both think that the universe and the earth itself is nothing but stupid matter. At least he inserts intelligence into the mixture because we don't see something coming out of nothing.

 

Where is the circular logic Shy? Is it because I see a growth of intelligence in the entire process that leads up to humans? Maybe it's you that wants to see human intelligence in rocks in order to call it intelligent? You seem to be projecting your understanding of intelligence (human) onto other matter. We are matter. We are intelligent. It seems to be a matter of degree not content (if that's the right word). From my point of view, you are using circular reasoning in order to come to the conclusion that rocks don't exhibit any intelligence because they don't act like humans.

 

And, how do you know that the universe isn't intelligent if you don't refer back to yourself as a standard for measuring intelligence?

 

"The earth isn't just a rock infested with living organisms any more that your skeleton is bones infested with living cells." Alan Watts

 

Where does the universe manifest any consciousness? Is this where you want me to say us so it can be seen as circular? How are you judging what is conscious Shy?

 

And remember, I you and there is nothing personal here.

[NotBlinded]

And yet here we are...manifesting out of this organization of dumb rocks. It's a miracle! Pffftt...

 

like a turtle coming up for air in an ox yoke

OMG, I know that is profound but I can't understand it. I'm pm'ing you.

[Shyone]

Rocks are not organized in a way that produces consciousness. There is no process for it. Same with any aspect of the universe outside of this tiny speck. A rock is to a star is to a galaxy, is to a cluster of galaxies. They are not organized to produce consciousness, and they manifest no signs of consciousness.

And yet here we are...manifesting out of this organization of dumb rocks. It's a miracle! Pffftt...

Circular logic. Here we are. And that is the only way that there is intelligence; a unique phenomenon in an isolated speck of the universe, and you would say that the entire universe is intelligent.

 

I issued a challenge. Without circular reasoning referring back to us, explain how exactly is the universe intelligent or conscious? Are we it? Then the universe as a whole is not intelligent anymore than my pet rock.

 

How does the universe manifest any consciousness? "Galaxies go round and round"?

Ummmmm....what?

 

Show me anywhere that intelligence exists in an unintelligent enviornment. I think it requires a leap of faith to say that intelligence can arrive just willy-nilly in an unintelligent environment. Please don't take offense at what I'm going to say, but this is where you and LNC wholeheartedly agree. You both think that the universe and the earth itself is nothing but stupid matter. At least he inserts intelligence into the mixture because we don't see something coming out of nothing.

 

Where is the circular logic Shy? Is it because I see a growth of intelligence in the entire process that leads up to humans? Maybe it's you that wants to see human intelligence in rocks in order to call it intelligent? You seem to be projecting your understanding of intelligence (human) onto other matter. We are matter. We are intelligent. It seems to be a matter of degree not content (if that's the right word). From my point of view, you are using circular reasoning in order to come to the conclusion that rocks don't exhibit any intelligence because they don't act like humans.

 

And, how do you know that the universe isn't intelligent if you don't refer back to yourself as a standard for measuring intelligence?

 

"The earth isn't just a rock infested with living organisms any more that your skeleton is bones infested with living cells." Alan Watts

 

Where does the universe manifest any consciousness? Is this where you want me to say us so it can be seen as circular? How are you judging what is conscious Shy?

 

And remember, I you and there is nothing personal here.

Humans, humans, humans. Aren't we special!

 

The point is this. When we find that there is an abundance of intelligent species in the universe, we may say that "the conditions are right" for developing intelligent species. It has nothing to do with purpose or consciousness outside of the particular life forms.

 

I'm saying that on the scale of the universe, or a galaxy cluster, or a galaxy, or a solar system, consciousness is meaningless.

 

Every single argument I have seen for "The universe is conscious" always comes back to us. This species on this planet, or perhaps conscious worms, but still only life on this planet.

 

I know WE'RE conscious, but to claim that because We're conscious that the universe is conscious is hubris. It's tantamount to claiming that the universe exists just for us.

 

Aren't we special?

[Rev R]

Every single argument I have seen for "The universe is conscious" always comes back to us.

 

As it naturally would since we are our own reference point for such things.

[Shyone]

Every single argument I have seen for "The universe is conscious" always comes back to us.

 

As it naturally would since we are our own reference point for such things.

But it isn't being used as a "reference point." It is being used as THE point. We are conscious, so the universe... whatever.

 

If we are the reference, and we define consciousness as manifested by purposeful action (which implies a lot), and we eliminate natural phenomena such as rain, snow and earthquakes (as three of uncountable examples), then the universe just does not manifest consciousness.

 

I'm saying that the universe does not manifest conscious behavior, and consequently, it has no intrinsic purpose, nor does it exhibit purposeful behavior.

 

If someone examines some natural phenomenon and say, "that is purposeful, that the rain waters the plants", then someone should read "Demon Haunted World" and a couple of other science books. Really now, attributing purpose to physical systems that have no mechanism to do other than follow simple physical laws is just nuts.

[NotBlinded]

The point is this. When we find that there is an abundance of intelligent species in the universe, we may say that "the conditions are right" for developing intelligent species. It has nothing to do with purpose or consciousness outside of the particular life forms.

Indeed. That is what I say also. I don't recall every postulating purpose here or that humans are special, just an evolution of consciousness from rudimentary to what it is now. Humans aren't that special, we may be just a passing point in evolution and there will be other life forms that evolve that could surpass our intelligence if the conditions are right.

 

I'm saying that on the scale of the universe, or a galaxy cluster, or a galaxy, or a solar system, consciousness is meaningless.

How can you say that without reference to your own consciousness? Do you know what it's like to be in a rudimentary state of consciousness?

 

I think we're talking over each other here.

 

Every single argument I have seen for "The universe is conscious" always comes back to us. This species on this planet, or perhaps conscious worms, but still only life on this planet.

Maybe that's because you only see certain life forms on this planet as having the ability to be conscious? It doesn't matter if we exist as we do now or not, there must be some form of intelligence/consciousness innate in matter to even have the potential to be.

I know WE'RE conscious, but to claim that because We're conscious that the universe is conscious is hubris. It's tantamount to claiming that the universe exists just for us.

 

Aren't we special?

Damn it. I'm not saying we're special at all. We are a symptom of the entire universe...nothing more, nothing less. If we weren't already existing as a potential, we wouldn't be, but that wouldn't stop the entire show. God, if we could just mind-meld each other!

 

It doesn't exist just for us, we could be something else entirely different (hell, we may be, who knows?), but that wouldn't stop what is going on. How am I saying we are special in anyway other than being a part of the entire thing?

 

Someone slap me...please.

[NotBlinded]

But it isn't being used as a "reference point." It is being used as THE point. We are conscious, so the universe... whatever.

No. I see you doing this as a way to dismiss consciouness in other things besides humans.

 

If we are the reference, and we define consciousness as manifested by purposeful action (which implies a lot), and we eliminate natural phenomena such as rain, snow and earthquakes (as three of uncountable examples), then the universe just does not manifest consciousness.

 

That's a little circular don't you think? We define consciousness and then claim the universe doesn't manifest it except in certain cases in which we have already defined.

 

And, how can you possibly know this? Again, you are talking about consciousness in a highly developed form such as humans and what humans require in order to develop human consciousness. This is not what I'm saying. The universe is what it is regardless of humans. Yet, this universe had humanity as a potential to begin with. Who knows what other potentials are in the mix? Screw humans...we're not that important, yet we are a part of it.

 

I'm saying that the universe does not manifest conscious behavior, and consequently, it has no intrinsic purpose, nor does it exhibit purposeful behavior.

As compared to what...humans?

 

If someone examines some natural phenomenon and say, "that is purposeful, that the rain waters the plants", then someone should read "Demon Haunted World" and a couple of other science books. Really now, attributing purpose to physical systems that have no mechanism to do other than follow simple physical laws is just nuts.

Maybe it's because you may be seeing an outside entity causing rain? That's what I gather from the title of the book. I haven't read it (shut up!). I agree that is nuts.

[Shyone]

But it isn't being used as a "reference point." It is being used as THE point. We are conscious, so the universe... whatever.

No. I see you doing this as a way to dismiss consciouness in other things besides humans.

 

I don't dismiss consciousness in other things besides humans. I mentioned conscious earthworms. I mean that We (the collective conscious forms of earth) are conscious. And that's it. It can't be extrapolated to the solar system, galaxy, cluster or universe. It can be considered "in the set" of the universe (everything) but the set of red things within a larger set of everything does not mean that the set of everything is red.

 

If we are the reference, and we define consciousness as manifested by purposeful action (which implies a lot), and we eliminate natural phenomena such as rain, snow and earthquakes (as three of uncountable examples), then the universe just does not manifest consciousness.

 

 

That's a little circular don't you think? We define consciousness and then claim the universe doesn't manifest it except in certain cases in which we have already defined.

 

 

And, how can you possibly know this? Again, you are talking about consciousness in a highly developed form such as humans and what humans require in order to develop human consciousness. This is not what I'm saying. The universe is what it is regardless of humans. Yet, this universe had humanity as a potential to begin with. Who knows what other potentials are in the mix? Screw humans...we're not that important, yet we are a part of it.

 

We define it if we wish to discuss it. Language. Words have definitions, and the definitions are meant to make the words useful. I am asking if there is some way, given the definition of consciousness, that the universe manifests consciousness - other than using what we already know are conscious. If the answer is only, the potential is there, I agree with that. I think we are agreeing with each other.

 

If "Life may exist on other planets" is all we mean by the universe has the potential for conscious life forms, that's what I think too. Why take grandiose phrases that really mean something different and apply them to situations where you either have to leave terms undefined or redefine them entirely?

 

I'm saying that the universe does not manifest conscious behavior, and consequently, it has no intrinsic purpose, nor does it exhibit purposeful behavior.

As compared to what...humans?

 

If someone examines some natural phenomenon and say, "that is purposeful, that the rain waters the plants", then someone should read "Demon Haunted World" and a couple of other science books. Really now, attributing purpose to physical systems that have no mechanism to do other than follow simple physical laws is just nuts.

Maybe it's because you may be seeing an outside entity causing rain? That's what I gather from the title of the book. I haven't read it (shut up!). I agree that is nuts.

 

Now you're just teasing me, but I already love you.

[NotBlinded]

I don't dismiss consciousness in other things besides humans. I mentioned conscious earthworms. I mean that We (the collective conscious forms of earth) are conscious. And that's it. It can't be extrapolated to the solar system, galaxy, cluster or universe. It can be considered "in the set" of the universe (everything) but the set of red things within a larger set of everything does not mean that the set of everything is red.

Oh no you don't. I am not committing the fallacy of composition if I claim that everything in the set has this property.

 

Now to finish reading your post...

 

As an edit, I could take my understandings a little further with the inclusiveness of consciousness, but I have to save a little something for latter. I won't mention it unless you call me out on saying that we are a "part" of the whole thing.