Philip Pullman's most recent books. His Dark Materials and The Book of Dust. propose that it is. I think this panpsychism explains a lot. What about you?
yes, the pineal gland I believe considered our third eye. I'm open to exploring a conscious universe as I have experienced something out of the ordinary.
I think most of the stuff in the Universe is too far away from each other to create connections to form a Universal Consciousness. But I'm open to changing my mind if anyone wants to make an argument for it. A consciousness star is certainly dense enough to be able to make connections if there is anything there to create a conscious mind with. But, as for stars choosing to consciously change their emissions, they don't have muscles to do something like that.
As far as ‘stuff’ in the Universe being too far away, that concept arises from our Classical view of how we experience and measure space time, but it may or may not represent fundamental reality. Quantum entanglement may suggest we don’t understand relationships, locality and causality at in a quantum reality since we are not creatures that see, experience or yet understand reality at quantum scales, so I don’t think we can make such an assumption. However, as to the question of a Universal Consciousness, I think we first would need to determine the criteria by which we can understand what give rise to consciousness as is often an attribute we think we possess as a biological species. There is a consensus consciousness exists in us, yet we still cannot unambiguously define or measure it with a consensus among the conscious minds that purportedly possess it. So, how would we begging to make statements regarding its existence at the level of the Universe we don’t still don’t understand?
Well, what I usually encounter in this Universal Consciousness topic is the idea that there is a field of consciousness running throughout the universe ("fields" being physics fields) something being everywhere at once, just waiting for something to tap into it like a brain or something. But at the moment we don't have any evidence of a field of consciousness. Is that because there isn't one? Or, perhaps, we are not at the right stage of development to know about that yet? Who knows? It's anybody's guess.
Oh, yay! Storytime. Do you want to tell us about your experience, either here or in a private conversation? (or not at all) Anyway, I've been interested in ESP and other weird things of the mind since I was a kid and read a book on the subject.
Uh huh. When you figure out how to empirically determine the mystery of consciousness and then how that would be manifested in the quantum nature of reality, get back to us. Otherwise the fantasy is relegated to the same bin as all the other imaginative supernatural products of ‘conscious’ minds that must be ... if only you just believe it is so and possess the ‘secret’ knowledge. Ready for a new bible?
"Common sense" would tend to a no. That said, the very fact that a person is conscious means that consciousness is in the universe. In as much as we are part of the whole, then it logically follows that saying the whole is thus conscious can be considered true. All this is fascinating, but may be confusing. Remember, we can construct ideas and concepts out of our words that may not necessarily mean they have substance. "What would I be if I were not me?", for example.
As humans, we are likely to agree that consciousness exists as a human attribute, and is universal among humans, yet, despite 2,000+ years of discussing it still have yet to achieve consensus on its definition, much less how it arises in the human brain. And further, we’ve yet to agree that it exists in other entities because we lack the ability to measure it. Your logic “that a person is conscious means that consciousness is in the universe. In as much as we are part of the whole, then it logically follows that saying the whole is thus conscious can be considered true” is not a logically consistent statement, but one contrived to fit your subjective opinion, which may or may be shared with others that might agree, but just as many wouldn’t agree, that consciousness in an individual is connected to make a larger whole. Again, provide measurable criteria for identifying consciousness. You don’t have to identify the mechanisms for it to manifest, just provide a specific definition of upon which a consensus can be developed that differentiates what is or is not consciousness. Given no consensus exists, yet most humans would believe they are possess consciousness and believe that of others, but can’t define it in a way that would universally be accepted as definitive, then little more can be said. So yes, confusion results, and doesn’t necessarily lend itself to ‘common sense’. Then beyond the word ‘consciousness’ what does it mean to be unconscious, or not ‘conscious of’, or even answer the question does individual consciousness exist after biological death? Your question, "What would I be if I were not me?" is a salient question asked for millennia. So, ask it. Would you be you if you lost one or more limbs? What if you lost function of parts of your physical brain? Is your definition of ‘you’ depend on your ability to sense the environment (I like reading of Helen Keller in regard to this question), what role does memory play, does experience play? Were you the same you at birth as you are now? Can you really understand not being you, or truly envision a death without continued consciousness? Ultimately, what/who are you? Thinking deeply about that and it’s implications is an interesting exercise, one perhaps where you may or may not reach a satisfactory explanation in your own mind. Fun stuff, then do a bit of hallucinogenics while asking yourself that question. Then, start a religion. BTW, read Descartes's Discourse on the Method, Meditations on First Philosophy, Principles of Philosophy and Rules for the Direction of the Mind as a primer while pondering the question of ‘you’. Then see how confused you become.
I've shared enough... About the pineal gland & exploring this I'm referring to this part of the brain being involved in spirituality, meditation or prayer. I'm open to exploring whether it also have anything to do with phenomena such as telepathy & psychic abilities that are unexplained.... these abilities obviously requiring a universal consciousness
@Aleksander Ulyanov Panpsychism sounds crazy . . . but, then again, so does every other alternative, and panpsychism may be the least crazy explanation: https://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you_explain_consciousness?language=en
consciousness is a step towards sentience, which we can see in ourselves. the basics of consciousness are not seen currently in our "universe" as that term describes things that should be addressed individually.
Interesting. But, I have yet to see a consensus of scientific opinion on the definition of either sentience or consciousness. And then, there is this, https://barkpost.com/good/oregon-court-finds-dogs-are-sentient-beings/ Yet, some want to suggest the Universe is Conscious? Why is it when we don’t yet have answers are explanations arise like GOD, the universe as conscious or intelligent, or another such metaphysical explanation arise? Could it be because given we can’t be definitive with our understanding so any possible explanation that can’t be tested becomes probable? Anything can be said to be possible, but is it probable?
Good points. I wonder if the dog ruling didn't have more to do with simply finding a practical way of reducing cruelty. It does seem somewhat random, though. Similar treatment of other animals hits me as pretty much equally objectionable.
I don’t find a court ruling dogs as sentient, My issue is related to a court ruling on a concept for which there is no definitive agreement on what sentience means and what criteria is used to recognize what is or isn’t sentience. For example, are cats sentient? How about great apes, cetaceans, clever crows, elephants, and other creatures? What is the litmus test?
Distance is negated by quantum nonlocality. Paranormal phenomena occur just often enough to statistically exceed mathematical chance (random probability). Parapsychology identifies the known categories (psychokinesis, precognition, OBE, remote viewing, etc) and considers them scientifically proven to be very real but very rare. Since these fringe phenomena manifest outside the constraints of physical laws (e.g. lead shields don't hinder ESP etc.), they are a hint that there may well be a larger domain of consciousness potential that we are not normally privy to. As living creatures, we should not be surprised to realize that we're not supposed to have tangible access to such potential and that our science can't better address the nature of such matters.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience#:~:text=Sentience is the capacity to,mind as "qualia").
Many years ago I attended a physics lecture during which the guest speaker argued that the entire universe may be conscious. At the time I found the idea fascinating. But what really rung my bell was when a resolution to the Maxwell Demon paradox was found. The key was to recognize that the demon requires information. From this a relationship between energy and information was identified - much like the relationship between energy and mass. From this, a school of thought emerged which considers that information may be the fundamental building block of all reality. One key distinction often missed is that of free will. Just because something is conscious doesn't necessarily mean that it has free will. This is even argued for us! Experts have argued that if consciousness is an emergent property of information and complexity, the internet will likely be the first artificial consciousness. I have often mused that in the truest sense of Descartes' meditations, the internet may be the proverbial brain in a jar and we are the evil geniuses. The internet may be self aware and even believe it acts of its own free will. When in fact it is only acting on the impulses it is fed by computers all over the world.
Don't let the small minded bother you. I am as practical as the next guy and a great believer in science, but far to many people have seen ghosts and shared thoughts for there to be nothing in it. I think our lack of understanding of telepathy etc is just that, a lack of understanding. No different to our lack of understanding of dark energy. Recent work in quantum mechanics has produced computers that communicate across vast distances without any connection, so its only a small step to consider the human brain working on a quantum level and therefore using telepathy. As for a conscious universe? I have a pet theory that there is a quantum consciousness made up of the thoughts of all the people who have ever lived on the earth. That the general direction of these thoughts towards things that helped us survive (being good and helping each other) are what guides us to behave in the same way.
I have long argued that if phenomena like telepathy have any basis in fact, they are not supernatural. There is no supernatural. If such things exist they are natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic records is a compendium of all universal events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future in terms of all entities and life forms, not just human. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the mental plane. It is believed all thoughts, words, intent etc. generates its own unique "frequency or vibration" which is stored in the Akashic Records.[1][2][3] Akasha (ākāśa आकाश) is the Sanskrit word for "aether", "sky", or "atmosphere".[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records
I an inclined to believe there is some mechanism for information that we don't understand. There are many examples from history of so-called geniuses who themselves claimed their genius came from something or somewhere else. For example, the prodigy mathematician Ramanujan claimed a goddess showed him the math for which he is legendary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan Of course the prosaic explanation is that their genius comes from their subconscious. But I have heard stories from history and otherwise that make me question that explanation.
The phenomenon of acquired savants is fascinating. This guy acquired instant musical talent when he hit his head.
