Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Are we the universe experiencing itself?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 12:35:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was just thinking, that it is possible that the universe functioned in a way which lead to consciousness, so it could be aware of itself, through us. Maybe human beings are the vessel in which the universe can become aware of its own existence. Maybe the more knowledge humans have about the universe, the more knowledge the universe has about the universe, because we are a part of it and we are simply the vessel used for this knowledge to be gained.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 1:47:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I wouldn't know Heidegger from my left foot, but some of what you're saying seems like it may be remotely connected to some of his views. Again, I emphasize how utterly little I know/understand Heidegger.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 4:07:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 12:35:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking, that it is possible that the universe functioned in a way which lead to consciousness, so it could be aware of itself, through us. Maybe human beings are the vessel in which the universe can become aware of its own existence. Maybe the more knowledge humans have about the universe, the more knowledge the universe has about the universe, because we are a part of it and we are simply the vessel used for this knowledge to be gained.

There's at least a billion other people that think this, it's a Hindu belief.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 4:14:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 1:47:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
I wouldn't know Heidegger from my left foot, but some of what you're saying seems like it may be remotely connected to some of his views. Again, I emphasize how utterly little I know/understand Heidegger.

Let me give you Heidegger in one sentence.

He was a disciple of Nietzsche, phenomenology, existentialism, big time advocate of Nazism, and Ernst Cassirer walked all over him when they debated.

I think that's all you really need to know.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 8:19:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We are Of the universe..

but we're not the universe..

so, no... we're not the universe experiencing itself.

We're of the universe.. experiencing the universe.

The universe isn't (as a whole) conscious, and doesn't (on the whole) have experiences...
Particular parts of the universe are things which can experience.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 9:01:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 12:35:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking, that it is possible that the universe functioned in a way which lead to consciousness, so it could be aware of itself, through us. Maybe human beings are the vessel in which the universe can become aware of its own existence. Maybe the more knowledge humans have about the universe, the more knowledge the universe has about the universe, because we are a part of it and we are simply the vessel used for this knowledge to be gained.

The Fool: Now you are thinking.. outside the box..!! props!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 10:25:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 8:19:18 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
We are Of the universe..

but we're not the universe..

so, no... we're not the universe experiencing itself.

We're of the universe.. experiencing the universe.

The universe isn't (as a whole) conscious, and doesn't (on the whole) have experiences...
Particular parts of the universe are things which can experience.

I agree we're not the whole of the Universe, but we are a part of that which the Universe is; so, in sense we do represent the Universe; just as your hand is a part of you and represents you, at least in part.

Secondly, to say the Universe isn't conscious takes a very narrow view of that which it means to be conscious. To me consciousness means communication, and, yes, things communicate at the sub-atomic and molecular levels; protons attract neutrons, and certain elements form bonds to create complex molecular structures and organisms. I know this doesn't fall in line with an anthropologist's view of linguistics and communication, but this doesn't negate the fact, that, it's still communication.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 4:43:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 12:35:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking, that it is possible that the universe functioned in a way which lead to consciousness, so it could be aware of itself, through us. Maybe human beings are the vessel in which the universe can become aware of its own existence. Maybe the more knowledge humans have about the universe, the more knowledge the universe has about the universe, because we are a part of it and we are simply the vessel used for this knowledge to be gained.

The Fool: I definitly believe something to that notion is true. Any explanation which refers to Random pop-ups or that things Just EMERGE, Or Just happen or is Supernatural or defined into existence, are false explanations. They are lazy cop outs!. They are all JUST BECAUSE answers. Which is not answer at all!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 7:48:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 10:25:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I agree we're not the whole of the Universe, but we are a part of that which the Universe is; so, in sense we do represent the Universe; just as your hand is a part of you and represents you, at least in part.

Secondly, to say the Universe isn't conscious takes a very narrow view of that which it means to be conscious.
To me consciousness means communication, and, yes, things communicate at the sub-atomic and molecular levels; protons attract neutrons, and certain elements form bonds to create complex molecular structures and organisms. I know this doesn't fall in line with an anthropologist's view of linguistics and communication, but this doesn't negate the fact, that, it's still communication.

Communication is the transfer of ideas from one thinking thing to another... so.. Non-thinking things (elements, molecules) don't do this.

Further, though I think Communication (in people) plays a large part in Spurring us to Greater degrees of consciousness.. Communication =/= consciousness. A thing can have a level of consciousness without ever communicating to anything else. Consciousness = having an understanding of something
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 7:53:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 9:38:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 8/26/2012 8:19:18 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
but we're not the universe..

Oh no?

If by the universe you mean the Physical dimensions as we understand them, with everything in them.. Then no.. We are not the universe.. we are part of it.

If instead you mean Everything that exists.. Sure freedo.. Maybe You're the universe.

Not really.. I am... Ok, maybe we all are.

But not when you mean the Space-time continuum deal of which we're all just particular parts... That assumes a framework which says "no, you're not the universe stupid"
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 9:27:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 7:48:58 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Communication is the transfer of ideas from one thinking thing to another... so.. Non-thinking things (elements, molecules) don't do this.

Communication is not necessarily so narrowly defined. In its essence it is the sharing, imparting, or exchanging of information; and, yes, all things do this. There are nonhuman acts of communication among cellular and chemical properties. This is why it is we do not exist in vacua; our lives have an effect on our environments and vice versa.

Further, though I think Communication (in people) plays a large part in Spurring us to Greater degrees of consciousness.. Communication =/= consciousness. A thing can have a level of consciousness without ever communicating to anything else. Consciousness = having an understanding of something

Oral, or verbal, communication is not the only means of exchanging information. Consciousness is made up of our knowledge, or awareness, of ourselves and our environments. This knowledge is only achieved through an exchange of information.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 1:29:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 9:27:27 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/27/2012 7:48:58 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Communication is the transfer of ideas from one thinking thing to another... so.. Non-thinking things (elements, molecules) don't do this.

Communication is not necessarily so narrowly defined. In its essence it is the sharing, imparting, or exchanging of information;

Things Having Effects on other things is NOT their Imparting Information to other things (even if those effects are Regular/based on "laws/Patterns").

and, yes, all things do this. There are nonhuman acts of communication among cellular and chemical properties.

No. Cells have effects on one another... a Cell's Environment has effects on it..
No reason to say Information is being imparted...

Oral, or verbal, communication is not the only means of exchanging information. Consciousness is made up of our knowledge, or awareness, of ourselves and our environments. This knowledge is only achieved through an exchange of information.

This knowledge is Definitely reliant upon Physical processes of interaction which You call Exchanges of Information.. But these interactions themselves are Not ones in which "information" is passed back and forth.

Rather, we Glean information from expercing these processes... The Other end of the equation, the Sun which shines down on us for example, is not Putting forth "information" for us to consider.. It's shedding Light Rays.

The Substance of "Information" is Ideas. The sun, Cells, microbes, etc.. Don't have them.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 1:33:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 1:29:06 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Consciousness is made up of our knowledge, or awareness, of ourselves and our environments.

Knowledge or Awareness of xyz.. This means Having Ideas of the Nature of xyz..

This is an admission to my definition of Consciousness.

This knowledge is only achieved through an exchange of information.

As I said, it is indeed achieved through physical reactions.. of Cells and the like..

However, Information, as Consciousness... Regards Ideas/Understandings.
There is NO idea/understanding at play when a cell splits.. or has a reaction to some external conditions.
This knowledge is Definitely reliant upon Physical processes of interaction which You call Exchanges of Information.. But these interactions themselves are Not ones in which "information" is passed back and forth.

Rather, we Glean information from expercing these processes... The Other end of the equation, the Sun which shines down on us for example, is not Putting forth "information" for us to consider.. It's shedding Light Rays.

The Substance of "Information" is Ideas. The sun, Cells, microbes, etc.. Don't have them.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 1:34:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 7:48:58 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/26/2012 10:25:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I agree we're not the whole of the Universe, but we are a part of that which the Universe is; so, in sense we do represent the Universe; just as your hand is a part of you and represents you, at least in part.

Secondly, to say the Universe isn't conscious takes a very narrow view of that which it means to be conscious.
To me consciousness means communication, and, yes, things communicate at the sub-atomic and molecular levels; protons attract neutrons, and certain elements form bonds to create complex molecular structures and organisms. I know this doesn't fall in line with an anthropologist's view of linguistics and communication, but this doesn't negate the fact, that, it's still communication.

Communication is the transfer of ideas from one thinking thing to another... so.. Non-thinking things (elements, molecules) don't do this.

Further, though I think Communication (in people) plays a large part in Spurring us to Greater degrees of consciousness..

Communication =/= consciousness. A thing can have a level of consciousness without ever communicating to anything else.

Consciousness = having an understanding of something

The Fool: No, Consiousness=sensation/perception/intuition
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 1:35:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 4:14:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/26/2012 1:47:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
I wouldn't know Heidegger from my left foot, but some of what you're saying seems like it may be remotely connected to some of his views. Again, I emphasize how utterly little I know/understand Heidegger.

Let me give you Heidegger in one sentence.

He was a disciple of Nietzsche, phenomenology, existentialism, big time advocate of Nazism, and Ernst Cassirer walked all over him when they debated.

I think that's all you really need to know.

That isn't colored at all.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 2:00:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 1:34:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/27/2012 7:48:58 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Consciousness = having an understanding of something

The Fool: No, Consiousness=sensation/perception/intuition

Sensation =/= consciousness
Understanding that you're having sensations means you're conscious.
Considering what those sensations imply means you're conscious.

Perception = Having an understanding of something = consciousness

Intuition = Having an understanding of something = consciousness
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 2:27:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

"The cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
- Carl Sagan

"We've begun at last, to wonder about our origins. Star stuff contemplating the stars."
- Carl Sagan

"The exploration of the cosmos is a voyage of self discovery."
- Carl Sagan

"We are all connected;
To each other, biologically
To the earth, chemically
To the rest of the universe atomically"
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

"The molecules in my body are traceable to phenomena in the cosmos!"
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 7:09:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 1:35:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/26/2012 4:14:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/26/2012 1:47:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
I wouldn't know Heidegger from my left foot, but some of what you're saying seems like it may be remotely connected to some of his views. Again, I emphasize how utterly little I know/understand Heidegger.

Let me give you Heidegger in one sentence.

He was a disciple of Nietzsche, phenomenology, existentialism, big time advocate of Nazism, and Ernst Cassirer walked all over him when they debated.

I think that's all you really need to know.

That isn't colored at all.

Of course not, I don't even have an opinion about that dirtbag Nazi, I just report the facts.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 7:47:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 2:00:52 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/27/2012 1:34:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/27/2012 7:48:58 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Consciousness = having an understanding of something

The Fool: No, Consiousness=

Sensation =/= consciousness
Understanding that you're having sensations means you're conscious.

The Fool: No understanding is understanding. Its its derives from greek to literaly stand under something to see how it works. Its clearly in the Enlightenment sense as in to have and Idea of something. [Idea] as in a [thought]
thus thinking is to concsciously process Ideas.

Conciousnes= immediate sensation/perception/intuition

An animal doesn't need to know or understand to be conscsiousness.

We tend to call sensory perception sensation now but it was really similar to intuition.

That is were originally get sense as in to make sense or in a sense.

Perception = Having an understanding of something = consciousness

Intuition = Having an understanding of something = consciousness
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 8:28:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 7:09:11 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Of course not, I don't even have an opinion about that dirtbag Nazi, I just report the facts.

Heidegger doesn't have Nazi beliefs. It's like Ron Paul being in the GOP. GOP is neo-fascist organization yet Ron Paul is an honest guy with Libertarian beliefs.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 8:58:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 1:29:06 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Things Having Effects on other things is NOT their Imparting Information to other things (even if those effects are Regular/based on "laws/Patterns").

To inform, basically means to communicate or impart knowledge. How is it your world does not communicate or impart knowledge to you? Communicate is used in various fields of study, from biology to chemistry, to denote the transmission of one thing to another. For instance, an infectious disease is, also, called a communicable disease. Why? Is it because diseases have their own secret language? No. It's because in this sense to communicate means to transmit. In biology, terms such as cellular and intercellular communication are often used; they speak of a cell's interaction with its environment to develop and repair tissue, signal an immune response, and facilitate normal tissue homeostasis. Again, communication is not so narrowly defined, as you would like to think.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 11:56:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 8:58:05 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 8/27/2012 1:29:06 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Things Having Effects on other things is NOT their Imparting Information to other things (even if those effects are Regular/based on "laws/Patterns").

To inform, basically means to communicate or impart knowledge. How is it your world does not communicate or impart knowledge to you? Communicate is used in various fields of study, from biology to chemistry, to denote the transmission of one thing to another. For instance, an infectious disease is, also, called a communicable disease. Why? Is it because diseases have their own secret language? No. It's because in this sense to communicate means to transmit. In biology, terms such as cellular and intercellular communication are often used; they speak of a cell's interaction with its environment to develop and repair tissue, signal an immune response, and facilitate normal tissue homeostasis. Again, communication is not so narrowly defined, as you would like to think.

Used in different senses...

"Communication" used in the sense of the transmission of Information/IDEAS between beings implies Consciousness in those beings.

The world, and it's Affecting me, allows me to garner information/ideas from it. The world Transmits stimuli to me.. It doesn't transmit Ideas/information.

I come up with the Ideas, Organize the stimuli into "information", from the stimuli.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 12:46:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 11:56:56 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Used in different senses...

"Communication" used in the sense of the transmission of Information/IDEAS between beings implies Consciousness in those beings.

The world, and it's Affecting me, allows me to garner information/ideas from it. The world Transmits stimuli to me.. It doesn't transmit Ideas/information.

I come up with the Ideas, Organize the stimuli into "information", from the stimuli.

Everything, whether human language or our environments, is stimuli; ideas are born in our brains; you draw a false dichotmoty between the stimuli that comes from another person's lips and the stimuli all around you.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 1:23:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it is arrogant to say that HUMANS are the universe's consciousness. If the universe were becoming conscious through the process of life, What makes a dogs', or even a bacteriums' perception of it any less genuine? You speak of gathering scientific information so that the universe can know about itself, but I am not convinced that these type of data are what is really of value to the conscious universe. What is more important? Knowing that gravity is attracted to the Earth at 9.8m/s/s? Or the feeling of 10 Gs as a Peregrine Falcon swoops down at 150 mph, barrel-rolls, and then sudden climbs just seconds before hitting the ground? Your anthropocentricism doesn't aid your philosophical position!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
jedipengiun
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:10:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 12:35:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking, that it is possible that the universe functioned in a way which lead to consciousness, so it could be aware of itself, through us. Maybe human beings are the vessel in which the universe can become aware of its own existence. Maybe the more knowledge humans have about the universe, the more knowledge the universe has about the universe, because we are a part of it and we are simply the vessel used for this knowledge to be gained.

I don't think anyone else has said this, and i'm sure it's not wrong.
But is this not committing the fallacy of composition?
A is part of B
A has property X
Therefore, B has property X

Where A is humanity, B is the universe, X is consciousness?

We also have to take into account how, and excuse the french, how shxte we are at perceiving and being aware. Look at negativity bias, unless we are aware that we are bias towards the negative more than we are the positive then we can't change that.
Things that make me happy!

: At 6/22/2012 1:46:11 PM, Kinesis wrote:
: Also, as an Englishman I'm obligated to be prejudiced against gingers and the French.

: At 8/27/2012 10:00:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
: Every self-respecting philosopher needs to smoke a pipe.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:16:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with you, Rob. But I think you'd have to believe that animals consciousness (experience) is less valuable than most humans, or else you'd be a vegetarian, no?
President of DDO
Kevin88
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2015 6:37:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2012 1:23:33 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I think it is arrogant to say that HUMANS are the universe's consciousness. If the universe were becoming conscious through the process of life, What makes a dogs', or even a bacteriums' perception of it any less genuine? You speak of gathering scientific information so that the universe can know about itself, but I am not convinced that these type of data are what is really of value to the conscious universe. What is more important? Knowing that gravity is attracted to the Earth at 9.8m/s/s? Or the feeling of 10 Gs as a Peregrine Falcon swoops down at 150 mph, barrel-rolls, and then sudden climbs just seconds before hitting the ground? Your anthropocentricism doesn't aid your philosophical position!

Clearly you do not have an understanding of what consciousness is. A dog or bacterium unfortunately are not capable of forming a perception of the universe. All life, including human life works toward one thing. That is survival. A dog does not understand its existence as part of the universe. A dogs actions are only a reaction to stimulation from the environment. A dog does not consciously make decisions, but is driven by instinct that it is born with. No different than a humans instinct to breath or sleep. Even as humans, we do not consciously perform these actions. All life is created with instincts necessary for survival. The human consciousness is vastly different than instinct. It is the ability to form an understanding. An awareness of existence. Truly only a series of experiences in which we form an interpretation of. Everything in the universe is made of the same things. We are made of the same materials the planets are made of. The universe is one, ever expanding, group of elements in which we are a part of. Our experience is the only way the universe can experience itself. The universe exists but lacks the ability to see, feel, sense, perceive. Our consciousness is that ability. Workout it, the universe would not know of its existence. This is the meaning behind we are the universe experiencing itself.