Reproductive Reality

[Imaginative]

The universe/reality has constructed brains that house our consciousness that is able to know itself through own curiosity about how we fit into the reality we find ourselves in. In doing this, reality is able to construct a copy, using itself as the template by imprinting itself on/in our consciousness.

My logic behind this was the question of why there is life rather than no life, but conscious life in particular. The universe, galaxies, stars; planets would still be there but without any life forms to observe it. What would be the point of that, it’s like a musician composing/creating a symphony in his head but without writing it down, so no one gets to hear it, or an artist that paints master pieces but keeps them locked away from view.

Whatever can be said about the origins of our universe, I think we can all agree that it was a moment of creation, and the same for life. From very basic beginnings, in physics and chemical terms, we now have the magnificence of the universe we observe now and the miracle of life from its earliest evolutionary beginnings.

The origin of the universe can be considered as a birth, but a birth from what? This brings me to my next thought.

The brain can be thought of as a scaffold for consciousness and by definition a scaffold helps to support and maintain a structure whilst it is being built. Everything that makes up an individual’s consciousness, i.e. their nature, personality, world views etc. has come from external sources. Our very individual sense of self is the by product of all these external factors, without them we wouldn’t be the person we eventually become.

So, the point I’m finally trying to get to here is, without self reflective conscious life to acknowledge the existence of a universe, then there really is no point to its existence. What does a universe do, if not to provide the means and conditions for life to exist in the first place? Why conscious life rather than no life? If our consciousness is the outcome of everything external imprinting itself in our brains, then this would also include the concept of a universe that we exist in and its origins.

If we accept the concept that everything has a beginning and an end, cause and effect, that life has to reproduce to carry on existing, then why not a universe. What better way to reproduce than imprinting itself on something that has evolved and been constructed within its own medium. If the universe can be understood and explained by mathematics, physics and information theory, it starts to sound more like a computer programme running everything than any other valid explanation you can think of.

So if a programme as sophisticated as the universe wants to improve then what better way than creating intelligent, more sophisticated, entities like us who are able to self examine, find out how things work from within, and even go so far as to look at the way galaxies are created, star and planet formation, the optimal orbit for life to exist on a planetoid.

The biggest puzzle is why we haven’t seen other signs of life given the vastness of space and the odds of life existing elsewhere. Maybe this is Universe Version 1 and its clever little conscious entities will be the building blocks for the new and improved Version 2.

In the mean time we should strive to push scientific frontiers and increase our knowledge as far as we can possibly go and not succumb to the rising tide of religious fundamentalism. Not everyone can be a scientific visionary but if not for science where would we be now. I can understand the human need for meaning but what’s wrong with the search for truth, surely that’s just as meaningful.

Anyway, thanks for reading my metaphysical meanderings and hope that most of you will be kind with your replies.

 

[drkitten]

Forum wierdness, ignore.

 

[drkitten]

So, the point I’m finally trying to get to here is, without self reflective conscious life to acknowledge the existence of a universe, then there really is no point to its existence.

So what? Why does everything need a point? This is just the teleological fallacy restated.... Voltaire saw the silliness of this argument long ago. From Candide, chapter 1:

Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged.

 

[brettDbass]

So what? Why does everything need a point?

^^^^ This ^^^^

The only "meaning" of the universe's existence is that which we impart upon it by our own mental meanderings. This is one of the fundaments of religion - exploiting man's curiosity to understand the workings of things and turning it into a "but why?" argument. Of course this is, therefore, one of religion's fundamental flaws too. There is only any questioning at all because we have been fortunate enough to evolve into beings that are capable of asking questions.

I'm sure plenty of other people here can explain this better than me anyway.

 

[Tricky]

Welcome, Imaginative.

The universe/reality has constructed brains that house our consciousness that is able to know itself through own curiosity about how we fit into the reality we find ourselves in. In doing this, reality is able to construct a copy, using itself as the template by imprinting itself on/in our consciousness.

Well, constructed implies a constructor. I would say that brains and consciousness have arisen within these circumstances. There are no other circumstances that we know of, so it hardly seems deliberate. You lost me at the "copying itself" bit.

My logic behind this was the question of why there is life rather than no life, but conscious life in particular. The universe, galaxies, stars; planets would still be there but without any life forms to observe it. What would be the point of that, it’s like a musician composing/creating a symphony in his head but without writing it down, so no one gets to hear it, or an artist that paints master pieces but keeps them locked away from view.

You make the unjustified assumption that there must be "a point". The question of "why" will always be unanswerable. We will have to satisfy ourselves with working on "how".

Whatever can be said about the origins of our universe, I think we can all agree that it was a moment of creation, and the same for life. From very basic beginnings, in physics and chemical terms, we now have the magnificence of the universe we observe now and the miracle of life from its earliest evolutionary beginnings.

I wouldn't call it a miracle. Perhaps it was only natural. Life may even have arisen in several places. We certainly don't know if the universe is a miracle. It might have been inevitable.

The origin of the universe can be considered as a birth, but a birth from what? This brings me to my next thought.

No, that's anthropomorphizing. The origin of the universe is nothing like a birth. No parents. No womb. No passing on of genetic code. No baby shower...

The brain can be thought of as a scaffold for consciousness and by definition a scaffold helps to support and maintain a structure whilst it is being built. Everything that makes up an individual’s consciousness, i.e. their nature, personality, world views etc. has come from external sources. Our very individual sense of self is the by product of all these external factors, without them we wouldn’t be the person we eventually become.

The brain has many more jobs to do than just support consciousness. However, I agree with most of this, though the distinction between internal and external is iffy. It appears that a lot of what we are is hardcoded into our DNA. You could call that internal, because only you have your exact DNA or you could call it external because it was assembled from your parents DNA. But certainly most of what we learn comes via our senses.

So, the point I’m finally trying to get to here is, without self reflective conscious life to acknowledge the existence of a universe, then there really is no point to its existence. What does a universe do, if not to provide the means and conditions for life to exist in the first place? Why conscious life rather than no life? If our consciousness is the outcome of everything external imprinting itself in our brains, then this would also include the concept of a universe that we exist in and its origins.

Again with the whys. Make up any reason you like. In the end, they are all nothing but guesses. You can have plenty of reasons to exist, be conscious and think, without the need for a "master plan". It is that is.

If we accept the concept that everything has a beginning and an end, cause and effect, that life has to reproduce to carry on existing, then why not a universe.

I don't accept that. I simply don't know, and it is unlikely that I am going to find out.

As for universes reproducing, I would put that in the category of "things we don't know". All you can ever experience is within this universe. To be it's own universe, the "baby" universe could not be part of this universe, so we could never know anything about it.

What better way to reproduce than imprinting itself on something that has evolved and been constructed within its own medium. If the universe can be understood and explained by mathematics, physics and information theory, it starts to sound more like a computer programme running everything than any other valid explanation you can think of.

All those things are human-designed methods for understanding our universe. Again, it is anthropomorphizing to assume that the universe behaves as we do.

So if a programme as sophisticated as the universe wants to improve then what better way than creating intelligent, more sophisticated, entities like us who are able to self examine, find out how things work from within, and even go so far as to look at the way galaxies are created, star and planet formation, the optimal orbit for life to exist on a planetoid.

You fall into the trap of suggesting that the universe has a purpose and that purpose is "entities like us". That's a bit egocentric for me. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the universe, based on what we know of it, has no life at all. That would suggest to me that life and consciousness are relatively unimportant in the universe. Fusion seems to be a much more major concern. I am reminded of the Ambrose Bierce definition of 'ocean'.

A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills.

The biggest puzzle is why we haven’t seen other signs of life given the vastness of space and the odds of life existing elsewhere. Maybe this is Universe Version 1 and its clever little conscious entities will be the building blocks for the new and improved Version 2.

There are lots of reasons why we might not have detected other life. Think. How long have humans been capable of sending signals into space? Less than 150 years. Being incredibly generous, Lets say humans or sapient animals stay around for as long as the dinosaurs did, about 180 million years (and that is truly generous, because they've only been here for about half a million years so far and only been in the technological age for less than 200 years). At best estimates, the universe is a minimum of 11 billion years old. Lets again be generous and say that life could have existed for roughly half that time. So do the math. 180,000,000/5,500,000,000. That's only about 3% of the time. So what is the chance that our 3% overlaps with another planet's 3%? And of course, this is given that we could send out a signal strong enough to be detected across the universe, which we cannot do at this time. And then what's to say we would understand their signal or they ours?

So you see, life could easily exist (or have existed) elsewhere without our knowing it. Not really that much of a puzzle.

In the mean time we should strive to push scientific frontiers and increase our knowledge as far as we can possibly go and not succumb to the rising tide of religious fundamentalism. Not everyone can be a scientific visionary but if not for science where would we be now. I can understand the human need for meaning but what’s wrong with the search for truth, surely that’s just as meaningful.

Ah! I see you have reached the same conclusion as I. Yes there will be things we will never know, especially the question of "why". So make your own meanings.

Anyway, thanks for reading my metaphysical meanderings and hope that most of you will be kind with your replies.

I hope you regard this as kind. Although I am not agreeing with many of your musings, I think it is safe to say that many of us have pondered the same things. And I like your conclusion.

 

[Nancarrow]

The universe/reality has constructed brains that house our consciousness that is able to know itself through own curiosity about how we fit into the reality we find ourselves in. In doing this, reality is able to construct a copy, using itself as the template by imprinting itself on/in our consciousness.

Welcome to the boards. I'm so glad to hear that you too are from London, it means I won't have far to travel to wrest that bong from you. Quit hogging!

Seriously, as others have pointed out, there's no logical reason for the universe to have a point. "What for" is a very anthropocentric question.

 

[Imaginative]

Hi Tricky, thanks for the welcome

Well, constructed implies a constructor. I would say that brains and consciousness have arisen within these circumstances. There are no other circumstances that we know of, so it hardly seems deliberate. You lost me at the "copying itself" bit.

Sorry about the terminology, yes constucted sounds like a god reference, its hard to phrase questions like this without some kind of inference, I'll try and be more objective. As for the copying part, it was a train of thought that I had, and wanted to throw it in to see if anyone else new where I was coming from.

You make the unjustified assumption that there must be "a point". The question of "why" will always be unanswerable. We will have to satisfy ourselves with working on "how".

I suppose I came to this conclusion because I thought about what use a universe would have without life in it. I can't help putting human reasoning behind this question.

I wouldn't call it a miracle. Perhaps it was only natural. Life may even have arisen in several places. We certainly don't know if the universe is a miracle. It might have been inevitable.

Delete Miracle, insert accident, agree with the rest.

No, that's anthropomorphizing. The origin of the universe is nothing like a birth. No parents. No womb. No passing on of genetic code. No baby shower...

Again, my appologies, I take it back, bad analogy.

The brain has many more jobs to do than just support consciousness. However, I agree with most of this, though the distinction between internal and external is iffy. It appears that a lot of what we are is hardcoded into our DNA. You could call that internal, because only you have your exact DNA or you could call it external because it was assembled from your parents DNA. But certainly most of what we learn comes via our senses.

Yes DNA dictates inherited physical features and fitness for lifespans. I was thinking more like the things we are exposed to, people, books, television, kindness, abuse, morality etc. These are the deciding factors that contribute your personality makeup. I also thought of the tale of the wolf boy story and also another analogy, 'rubbish in rubbish out'. Everything external plays its part and has influence on us in so many subtle ways that we are not aware of.

As for universes reproducing, I would put that in the category of "things we don't know". All you can ever experience is within this universe. To be it's own universe, the "baby" universe could not be part of this universe, so we could never know anything about it.

I agree, but why is it that scientist are allowed to run free with these kinds of ideas, ideas like multiple universes, string theory, branes, none of these have yet been proven. I'm only adding my little contribution.

All those things are human-designed methods for understanding our universe. Again, it is anthropomorphizing to assume that the universe behaves as we do.

How should we think about these things instead our natrual tendency to anthropomorphize ?

You fall into the trap of suggesting that the universe has a purpose and that purpose is "entities like us". That's a bit egocentric for me. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the universe, based on what we know of it, has no life at all. That would suggest to me that life and consciousness are relatively unimportant in the universe.

I like to think of it like this; considering what we know about the universe, how vast it is and the likely hood that we could be the only life in existence, it doesn't phase us as a species, it doesn't reduce us to feel insignificant in relation to it all. Does this say something special about us or is it just a defence mechanism, a form of denial.


Well, Tricky

Thanks again for such a detailed response. Before joining I had read a number of threads and had seen some of the critical replies from people, so considering how ruthless some people are, I am very heppy not to have been cut to ribbons. Although it is still early days on this thread.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I agree, but why is it that scientist are allowed to run free with these kinds of ideas, ideas like multiple universes, string theory, branes, none of these have yet been proven. I'm only adding my little contribution.

Huh? Are you suggesting a rule against scientific imagination? Theories are quite often put forward before there is much evidence to support them. The trick is to keep working.

~~ Paul

 

[Imaginative]

Welcome to the boards. I'm so glad to hear that you too are from London, it means I won't have far to travel to wrest that bong from you. Quit hogging!

Seriously, as others have pointed out, there's no logical reason for the universe to have a point. "What for" is a very anthropocentric question.

Hi Nancarrow

I love my bong, bring your own. Two bongs are better than one.

Seriously, I can't help thinking the way I do, humanising the universe makes it seem more familiar, something to feel part of even though you are not very important in the great scheme of things. I never liked the Nihilist way of thinking, I can't help it, need some sort of meaning in my life, even if it is of my own making.

Anyway, thanks for the response, see ya around.

 

[BJQ87]

In the mean time we should strive to push scientific frontiers and increase our knowledge as far as we can possibly go and not succumb to the rising tide of religious fundamentalism.

So future human beings can see aliens and be enlightened? Sounds like loads of fun but you'll have to count me out of the whole pushing the limits of science thing.

 

[Imaginative]

Huh? Are you suggesting a rule against scientific imagination? Theories are quite often put forward before there is much evidence to support them. The trick is to keep working.

~~ Paul

Hello Paul

No, of course not, I like theories, throw enough of them around and some might have something going for them to take further. Einstien is my hero by the way.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Seriously, I can't help thinking the way I do, humanising the universe makes it seem more familiar, something to feel part of even though you are not very important in the great scheme of things. I never liked the Nihilist way of thinking, I can't help it, need some sort of meaning in my life, even if it is of my own making.

Well at least this is refreshingly honest.

LLH

 

[Dogdoctor]

I have long accepted that your life or mine or anyones life has whatever meaning you give it. There is no inherent meaning to the universe or life. Your post has too many words and flakey metaphors for my taste. Oh and welcome to the boards

 

[Tricky]

Sorry about the terminology, yes constructed sounds like a god reference, its hard to phrase questions like this without some kind of inference, I'll try and be more objective. As for the copying part, it was a train of thought that I had, and wanted to throw it in to see if anyone else new where I was coming from.

I know it is. I apologize for being so cautious. After debating with so many literal-minded people here, I've gotten into the habit of being more precise. Otherwise some woo is going to say, "Aha! Then you admit there is a creator!" I can see now that you're not like that.

As for the "copying" part, I understood it more as I read your post more carefully. I think I see where you are coming from now.

I suppose I came to this conclusion because I thought about what use a universe would have without life in it. I can't help putting human reasoning behind this question.

LOL. Yes, it is a strong inclination for us to see things in human perspective. After all, what other kind have we got? It takes determination to keep from engaging in such "species prejudice".

Delete Miracle, insert accident, agree with the rest.

You're a rare treat, Imaginative. It isn't easy to accept editing.

Again, my apologies, I take it back, bad analogy.

Analogies are like diseases: They're all bad, but some are much worse than others. (Hows that for a bad simile?) Seriously though, it is hard to compare such dissimilar things with any degree of accuracy. I was sort of joking (note the "baby shower" comment), but we have folks here who overuse analogies and folks who fail to see their limitations. I apologize if I was being too harsh on you. It is not inappropriate to speak of "the birth of the universe" or the "birth of the nation". But the mother has to have some pretty nasty stretch marks.

Yes DNA dictates inherited physical features and fitness for lifespans. I was thinking more like the things we are exposed to, people, books, television, kindness, abuse, morality etc. These are the deciding factors that contribute your personality makeup. I also thought of the tale of the wolf boy story and also another analogy, 'rubbish in rubbish out'. Everything external plays its part and has influence on us in so many subtle ways that we are not aware of.

We've had a number of discussions here about the origin of morality. It is pretty much agreed that a lot of it comes from your upbringing, but some of it is also instinctive, such as the trait of a mother protecting her young. That is obviously a "moral" thing to do, and even more obviously, it is instinctive in many creatures.

But you are correct, we are the sum of many many parts, lots of which we don't even realize are parts.

I agree, but why is it that scientist are allowed to run free with these kinds of ideas, ideas like multiple universes, string theory, branes, none of these have yet been proven. I'm only adding my little contribution.

Again, I am sorry if I sounded too harsh. I think others have addressed this. Yes, some of these things have been proposed as possibilities, but I think they are, for lack of a better term, mathematical models, not things for which we have hard evidence.

It is a strong temptation to take an idea like "alternate universes" and run with it. Indeed, science fiction (which I love) would be very much bereft without such extrapolations. Yes, it's cool to ponder about such things, but not to start believing (as some here do) that such musings reflect reality.

How should we think about these things instead our natural tendency to anthropomorphize?

Pure description. Stay away from analogies, especially anthropocentric ones. Easy to say. Hard to do. I recently tried to use the dice game of Yahtzee as an analogy to explain how natural selection is not random even though it has random elements. I got called on it, and I quickly found out how limited that analogy was.

I like to think of it like this; considering what we know about the universe, how vast it is and the likely hood that we could be the only life in existence, it doesn't phase us as a species, it doesn't reduce us to feel insignificant in relation to it all. Does this say something special about us or is it just a defense mechanism, a form of denial.

I think it is very likely that there is some sort of "life" out there, probably even intelligent life. After all, there are so many billions and billions of stars. (Thank you Carl Sagan). But one of the realizations I came to some years ago is that importance is what you make it. I am not in denial about the fact that I am a tiny little speck in a gigantic universe. I can't do anything about that. All I can do is affect the tiny little specks around me and that is enough to give my life all the importance it will ever need. In fact, I'm sure I'll never get done with all the things I want to do. You can't ask for more than that.

Thanks again for such a detailed response. Before joining I had read a number of threads and had seen some of the critical replies from people, so considering how ruthless some people are, I am very happy not to have been cut to ribbons. Although it is still early days on this thread.

You are very welcome. It is true, people get pretty rough in here sometimes, but only rarely to newbies, and only then if they show that they are here to preach their philosophy without listening to others. You are quite obviously not one of those. You have clarified, retracted when necessary and have not become defensive. Please stick around and we'll talk more. It really can be fun (and addictive) in here.

 

[Nancarrow]

Seriously, I can't help thinking the way I do, humanising the universe makes it seem more familiar, something to feel part of even though you are not very important in the great scheme of things. I never liked the Nihilist way of thinking, I can't help it, need some sort of meaning in my life, even if it is of my own making.

Well I agree with the last part of that, but I'm careful to distinguish between meaning-for-myself and meaning-for-the-universe. I need some sort of meaning in my life too, but only in terms of what I want to do with my life. The universe at large can just carry on its merry way, neither of us needs to give a **** what the other's purpose is. It's been an ideal marriage so far!

To clarify: I assign a 'meaning' to my own life, a purpose to my existence if you like, whilst realising that this purpose is not shared by the universe as a whole, and in fact only makes sense for me. Think of a spade. To a gardener, it has a purpose, which is to dig earth. To a garden-tool manufacturer, it has quite a different purpose, which is to be sold to make a living. And to the universe as a whole, it has no purpose, it just IS. Which of them is right? Well all three, in their own contexts.

To the universe, nothing has a purpose, including me, and including the universe as a whole. To me, I have a purpose (to understand the universe), and the universe has a purpose (to give my mind something to do). We're both right, but it would be quite wrong to imagine that the universe is here for me to understand it. It isn't, that's just the personal relationship I choose to have with it.

I'm afraid I won't be able to make this any clearer without the use of that bong...

 

[Nancarrow]

Hmm. Testing. Testing. Ahem [clears throat]

****. ****. Bum. Willy. Arse. *******. Dildo. Bollocks. ****.

 

[Nancarrow]

Seattle!

 

[Iacchus]

I have long accepted that your life or mine or anyones life has whatever meaning you give it.

I, of course am ... Superman!

 

[Meadmaker]

What better way to reproduce than imprinting itself on something that has evolved and been constructed within its own medium.

Thank you. That's good. That's very good. I had never heard anything very much like that train of thought, and I think it's very good.

 

[Imaginative]

As for the "copying" part, I understood it more as I read your post more carefully. I think I see where you are coming from now.

I'm pleased about that, this idea is not something I could just bring up in a conversation within my normal social group. This is what the net is great for, sharing ideas.

LOL. Yes, it is a strong inclination for us to see things in human perspective. After all, what other kind have we got? It takes determination to keep from engaging in such "species prejudice".

Until some alien vistors come along and say 'that's funny, we used to think the same thing'

It is a strong temptation to take an idea like "alternate universes" and run with it. Indeed, science fiction (which I love) would be very much bereft without such extrapolations. Yes, it's cool to ponder about such things, but not to start believing (as some here do) that such musings reflect reality.

Or worse, start a Cult

Pure description. Stay away from analogies, especially anthropocentric ones. Easy to say. Hard to do. I recently tried to use the dice game of Yahtzee as an analogy to explain how natural selection is not random even though it has random elements. I got called on it, and I quickly found out how limited that analogy was.

I'll try not to make that mistake. What I like to do is throw a few ideas around and see how they go down. I can't imagine there are many new Philosphical ideas around, just recycled ones but with a different slant, as DrKitten pointed out with the reference to Voltaire, who I admit, have never read. Has my credibilty gone down a notch now?

All I can do is affect the tiny little specks around me and that is enough to give my life all the importance it will ever need.

Very nice sentiment indeed, I couldn't have said it any better.

Please stick around and we'll talk more. It really can be fun (and addictive) in here.

It's been a nice beginning and look forward to joining in on other discussion threads.

Bye for now.