Of course. It's turtles all the way up.
Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?
121–130 of 244 posts
Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?
#122The most fundamental argument for panpsychism is that it obeys Occam's razor FAR better than the "emergent animate matter" hypothesis. Panpsychism requires that the universe updates its state by conscious choice, which we already know happens, so from the perspective of Occam's razor we would actually need to explain why it DIDN'T happen for non-animal matter. Additionally, if we go with the emergence hypothesis, we…
It's important to distinguish choice/will and consciousness. Conscious experience can happen in an entirely deterministic context..they are orthogonal concepts.
Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?
#123The most fundamental argument for panpsychism is that it obeys Occam's razor FAR better than the "emergent animate matter" hypothesis. Panpsychism requires that the universe updates its state by conscious choice, which we already know happens, so from the perspective of Occam's razor we would actually need to explain why it DIDN'T happen for non-animal matter. Additionally, if we go with the emergence hypothesis, we…
> we have to explain the mechanism by which permutations of the states of matter can create a new dimension of "feeling" and "awareness" where one did not already exist. You mean, like a newborn baby? That's not a "tall order," that's an everyday affair.
A newborn baby is an example of physics at work, rather than an underlying physical law.
Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that you can’t have productive discussions about things that you haven’t solidly defined?
We know what consciousness is. It's our self-awareness. We don't know where it comes from our how to test it, because each individual can only observe their own consciousness.
All we know is that we have it because its not about what the word means. It's about how we apply the category of "conscious" to things. It's a way of either distancing or bringing ourselves closer to things.
We might as well just ask "Is the universe like us?"
Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?
#125The most fundamental argument for panpsychism is that it obeys Occam's razor FAR better than the "emergent animate matter" hypothesis. Panpsychism requires that the universe updates its state by conscious choice, which we already know happens, so from the perspective of Occam's razor we would actually need to explain why it DIDN'T happen for non-animal matter. Additionally, if we go with the emergence hypothesis, we…
> we have to explain the mechanism by which permutations of the states of matter can create a new dimension of "feeling" and "awareness" where one did not already exist. You mean, like a newborn baby? That's not a "tall order," that's an everyday affair.
The newborn baby is "just" an assembly of atoms and molecules. What is it about this particular assembly that makes it so special? That's the key question. It might very well turn out that there is something very special about animate life forms that can only exist inside animate life forms - particular arrangements of molecules, or perhaps a heritage that encodes some quantum states we don't understand, or some feedback loop inside of the baby's brain, or maybe all of it; and these things don't exist inside of a rock or a star or a galaxy (beyond, of course, all the babies that exist inside the galaxy, and outside of the question, did the galaxy will the babies to exist, and is a baby an expression of the galactic sensory apparatus?)
Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?
#126In the first volume of Masks of God, Joseph Campbell points out that you can break all creation myths down to 3 categories: Creationism (where there is a god that created the universe), Animism (where the universe itself is alive), and Participationism (where the universe is the result of some interaction). He then points out that if you ask random children to make up the story of how the universe was created, the st…
what if the universe was never created, and always was?
Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
The anthropic principle has equal explanatory power to “because it did.” Making up a story about a cosmic crow shitting out the universe has equal explanatory power and it at least offers a reason. And obviously we know the crow shit it out because if it didn’t we wouldn’t be here! Also you failed to explain why the universe is organized such that random processes exhaustively explore the state space of potential con…
>Also you failed to explain why Simply: Reality doesn't have "why"s. Reality has forces and fields or equivalent systems.
Where did forces and fields or equivalent systems come from?
If your answer is some variant on "just because" then you don't have a better theory than some kind of necessary causality or contingency, in fact you have a mere absence of contemplation altogether.
I never imagined "don't think about it" as being the metaphysical basis of the scientific enterprise though and it's hard to imagine science getting as far as it has if it were.
Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?
#128We never bothered to define consciousness with any scientific rigor, so why not? It's common for things that are everywhere, to also be nowhere at all. Could the cosmos, in fact, be smurpity-badoingo?
Could Pet Rocks Be Conscious?
I mean, really. I feel like having a method of sensation and an ability to react to those sensations is a fundamental basis for "consciousness" and if you can point to the sun or the Local Cluster's sensory apparatus, I may listen to the rest of your (the Editorial You, not the commenter this reply is attached to) argument.
Otherwise, we're just pointing at complex things and saying "does haz Conscience lol?"
Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?
#129The most fundamental argument for panpsychism is that it obeys Occam's razor FAR better than the "emergent animate matter" hypothesis. Panpsychism requires that the universe updates its state by conscious choice, which we already know happens, so from the perspective of Occam's razor we would actually need to explain why it DIDN'T happen for non-animal matter. Additionally, if we go with the emergence hypothesis, we…
> Panpsychism requires that the universe updates its state by conscious choice, which we already know happens Can you clarify what we "already know happens"? Even for humans, it's not clear that "conscious choice" exists and causes changes in state, because we don't know what the mechanism is that can cause a state change other than state at time T-1.
Starting from evolution as the cause for the fact that our physical bodies present sensation to our awareness, I have to assume there’s a reason for that to happen.
The obvious answer is that pleasure, pain, ideas, memories, etc. all exist to drive the behaviors that are advantageous in evolution.
It’s possible that there’s a deterministic set of gears in how sensation drives behavior, but the role of experience in driving physical action would be at least one of those components.
So if we take evolution as the cause of life as we understand it, then consciousness is at least a component of physics itself.
Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Panpsychism requires that the universe updates its state by conscious choice, which we already know happens Can you clarify what we "already know happens"? Even for humans, it's not clear that "conscious choice" exists and causes changes in state, because we don't know what the mechanism is that can cause a state change other than state at time T-1.
Isn't it assumed that everything is deterministic apart from what is done by the somewhat magical, "free will"?
Not since we were forced to accept quantum physics.