Consciousness.....a basic rule of physics

[lupus_in_fabula]

I think someone's been watching too much Babylon 5.

That shouldn't be possible!

 

[Scazon]

I left the Solipsist Society when it split - as you will remember, the resulting factions were the Solipsist Worker's Party, and the Solipsist Action Group (Marxist-Leninist)- but the major issue was whether the universe could exist with less than one, or more than one, consciousness. The issue resolved itself when the SAG(ML) accidentally stepped in front of a bus, and the Solipsist Worker won the lottery.

I have revised my opinions since, and I'm going to join the Procrastinationalists when I get round to it.

 

[Twiler]

....You are not you....

This contradicts the law of identity (A=A), and can't be a part of any reasonable statement.

If we are the universe, why do we not know all that our neighbours know? What separates our minds?

 

[Dancing David]

Thinkers:

I have a true reality statement for you. You are the universe. You are not you. You are the universe. Every bit of matter and energy that compose you (your consciousness) is the same as any other bit of matter and energy of the universe.

Yes.

If you think you are special, somehow disconnected from the rest of the universe, you are living a dillusion.

Yes. I would not use the word delusion.

Your consciousness is the universe understanding itself.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

If you were a chicken, you would simply be the universe aware. Any form of concsiousness will do. It is fascinating to me that consciousness gets as complicated as it does. The universe outdoes itself it seems. And I am sure it can get even better.

You were produced by the universe which you are a part of.

Yes.

This production was not an accident, as accidents don't exist in the universe.

Assertion without evidence.

Everything has a reason, an explanation.

Not really, everything is interdependant and therefore might be labled as having a cause, but not always a reason.

You, your consciousness has an explanation.
[/qyote]
Yep, a brain.

For existence, there must, I repeat must, be awareness. Nothing can exist without awareness.

that depends on the defintion of existance.

Proof.... The universe produces consciousness.

Do you mean:

Poof .... The universe produces consciousness?

BTW consciousness is a rubric for a bunch of other things.
Sensations, perceptions, thoughts, emotions, memories, associations and habits , they all exist. Consciousness does not.

Do you thinkers know that the universe could certainly exist without consciousness, yes you know this, only while you are conscious though. That is the point....only when you are conscious do you know.

they are two interpentrating sets one depends upon the other, the universe is not evidenced to be dependant upon consciousness. If wars kill consciousness they don't seem to shatter reality.

What would you know if there was no consciousness at all in the unverse. thinkers.....what would you know.

Not much, how about you?

 

[reverebison]

This contradicts the law of identity (A=A), and can't be a part of any reasonable statement.

If we are the universe, why do we not know all that our neighbours know? What separates our minds?

Twiler: You and I and everyone else, are each one part of the universe. We are the same type of parts, yet we are each unique. We are forever seperated from the rest. We may try and touch, see, smell the other parts. But we can never be them. We are basically born alone and die alone.

Often, we seem desperate to be one with other parts,which is alwyas a fruitless effort. When we touch our spouse, we try our utmost best to connect. We kiss, we touch, we even have sex. All attempt to join. All attempts to connect with each other. As satiisfying as they often are, they never truly succeed.

 

[Hokulele]

Often, we seem desperate to be one with other parts,which is alwyas a fruitless effort. When we touch our spouse, we try our utmost best to connect. We kiss, we touch, we even have sex. All attempt to join. All attempts to connect with each other. As satiisfying as they often are, they never truly succeed.

Nope, that's reproduction.

Our utmost best to connect was the ritual cannibalism found in some Polynesian cultures.

 

[Piscivore]

Yes. I would not use the word delusion.

He didn't, he said "you are living a dillusion"- meaning something like "quite the fine pickle you are in". I'm hard pressed to argue against that.

 

[godless dave]

but there is one other law of nature that to my knowledge has not yet been fully appreciated, although I am sure it has been contemplated by many.


FOR EXISTENCE, YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS

What is your basis for concluding this is a law of nature?

 

[The Man]

Not this one. Existence is only substantive to a conscious entity..

Oh, I would argue with that

Substantive meaning “a noun”.

Supports your apparent assertion.

Substantive meaning “independent”

Opposes your apparent assertion.

As your statement is apparently ambiguous, I take it that you might intend your assertion to be as well.

Only to a conscious entity.

So the existence (or specific presence) of gravity only has consequences “to a conscious entity”?

If there is no consciousness there is no difference between something and nothing. I posit no claims as to how long consciousness has existed or will exist. That there has been or always will be consciousness is irrelevant. My point is only hypothetical given that there is no consciousness.

Irrelevant, not at all, if there “has been or always will be consciousness” then you’re hypothetical point is irrelevant. Actually, your point is only hypothetical given consciousness; given no consciousness (and thus no hypotheticals), again, it is your point that is irrelevant.

 

[The Man]

Do you thinkers know that the universe could certainly exist without consciousness, yes you know this, only while you are conscious though. That is the point....only when you are conscious do you know.

Fortunately the universe is not dependent on what we know or think we know (as has been demonstrated countless times), but what we think we know must depend on the universe and that does not change whether we are conscious or not.

 

[The Man]

Often, we seem desperate to be one with other parts,which is alwyas a fruitless effort. When we touch our spouse, we try our utmost best to connect. We kiss, we touch, we even have sex. All attempt to join. All attempts to connect with each other. As satiisfying as they often are, they never truly succeed.

Well I do not know what you have been trying to do, but for me and my girlfriend if it’s truly satisfying then it’s truly a success.

 

[Hokulele]

Existence is only substantive to a conscious entity.

I see it as a little more of a gray area. The best single example I can think of is blindsight. I believe you mentioned reading Ramachandran in the past, and he devoted parts of both of his popular science books to the issue of blindsight. In short, there are two visual pathways in the brain, only one of which passes through the visual cortex. When this path is knocked out, that person is effectively blind from a conscious point of view. They cannot register what they "see". However, the second pathway is still in effect, it just can't communicate with the "conscious" areas of the brain. A person with this type of blindsight can correctly locate things spatially, determine the orientation of objects, and interact with those objects.

The one example that stuck in my mind was the woman who experienced this later in life (so she had already had experience with the world of conscious vision). She could recognize common objects if she could hold them, but could not see and recognize anything visually. However, when the researcher held up a pen, she could easily reach out and take it from his hand in order to determine what it was by touch.

Conscious recognition apparently isn't necessary for living in and interacting with the universe as we know it.

 

[Twiler]

Twiler: You and I and everyone else, are each one part of the universe. We are the same type of parts, yet we are each unique. We are forever seperated from the rest. We may try and touch, see, smell the other parts. But we can never be them. We are basically born alone and die alone.

Often, we seem desperate to be one with other parts,which is alwyas a fruitless effort. When we touch our spouse, we try our utmost best to connect. We kiss, we touch, we even have sex. All attempt to join. All attempts to connect with each other. As satiisfying as they often are, they never truly succeed.

See, this is the difference between you and me. You think two mutually exclusive statements can be true, I don't.

Anyway, what is the significance of all this? Why should these ideas inspire any difference in our behaviour?

 

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Even if we assume that mater exists externaly from our minds it has no meaning outside of our minds. If no conscience ever existed, what would be the difference between something and nothing?

...wth

You are being quite anthropocentric. Only minds ascribing meaning doesn't imply every counterfactual configuration space without minds is indistinguishable.

 

[reverebison]

What is your basis for concluding this is a law of nature?

Godless:

An unconscious universe cannot exist. Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact. The same for consciousness.

You are a part of the universe, that you cannot deny.

FOR YOU, nothing existed before you were born. Nothing will exist FOR YOU after you die.

Now put that easy to understand statement into the context of the entire universe.

Do you think it a mistake or accident that the universe produces conscioiusness? As I have stated, the universe does not make mistakes. Consciousness is just an integral part of the universe as any other law of physics. Existence and consciousness are linked and one cannot exist without the other.

 

[Henners]

Godless:

An unconscious universe cannot exist. Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact. The same for consciousness.

Or, as my old Papa, Zaphod, used to put it:

An unconscious coffee table cannot exist. Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact. The same for coffee tables.

He often applied the same proof to demonstrate that the entire universe must be purple, for otherwise the Queen would have nothing to wear.

 

[KingMerv00]

Godless:

An unconscious universe cannot exist. Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact. The same for consciousness.

I don't understand how you can assert that. Gravity exists yes. But I can imagine a universe without gravity. It would be a big gas cloud made of light elements. A universe without consciousness is even easier to imagine.

 

[The Man]

Godless:

An unconscious universe cannot exist. Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact. The same for consciousness.

No, we do not have accept the fact that “Gravity just exists” but we can demonstrate the effects of what we call gravity and attempt to find the cause of those effects. Can you demonstrate the cause and effects of consciousness? Until you can, you can not claim it as a “law of nature” or an indispensable part of this or any conceivable universe.

You are a part of the universe, that you cannot deny.

How does that make me or consciousness an indispensable part?

FOR YOU, nothing existed before you were born. Nothing will exist FOR YOU after you die.

So let’s just ignore the pre-requirement of your parents, some specific activity, particular biology and the universe in general “FOR YOU” before you were born.

Now put that easy to understand statement into the context of the entire universe.

The universe had parents? Lucky for this universe that they weren’t using a contraceptive.

Do you think it a mistake or accident that the universe produces conscioiusness? As I have stated, the universe does not make mistakes. Consciousness is just an integral part of the universe as any other law of physics. Existence and consciousness are linked and one cannot exist without the other.

Not being a mistake does not make something indispensable or an “integral part” some things are just or become superfluous without any mistakes.

 

[godless dave]

Godless:

An unconscious universe cannot exist.

Why not?

Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact.

We accept it because we see evidence that it exists.

The same for consciousness.

We see evidence that consciousness exists in humans, and possibly in some dolphins and chimpanzees. In other words, we only see consciousness in a small subset of animals on one planet.

You are a part of the universe, that you cannot deny.

I never have.

FOR YOU, nothing existed before you were born. Nothing will exist FOR YOU after you die.
Now put that easy to understand statement into the context of the entire universe.

It doesn't transfer, because there is no evidence the universe is conscious.

Do you think it a mistake or accident that the universe produces consciousness?

It's sort of like an accident. It doesn't seem to have been intentional.

As I have stated, the universe does not make mistakes.

The concept of a "mistake" only makes sense in a context where there is intent.

Consciousness is just an integral part of the universe as any other law of physics.

Consciousness isn't a law of physics at all, and it's no more an integral part of the universe than photosynthesis is.

Existence and consciousness are linked and one cannot exist without the other.

What is your basis for concluding that?

 

[westprog]

No. I recently read "The Infinite Book" by John Barrow, where he talks about the universe possibly being infinite in space. He is a Professor of Mathematics with some credibility. I will have another look at the book.

It's a fraud. It actually finishes page 328.