Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

heraldscotland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 244 posts

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#61

Post by hydrolox »

ricksunny wrote: post #20

Boltzmann brain: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (1x08) actually had an episode on this: https://screenrant.com/strange-new-worlds-boltsman-brain-sta...

the thing with the Boltzmann brain is that, even though it sounds compelling (in a philosophy thought experiment / random thought kind of way), I think there's one main criticism that shuts it down. If the brain is having all these experiences/thoughts itself, it came up with the idea of a Boltzmann brain, and the laws of physics, and logic, etc. So therefore, the laws of physics that Boltzmann brain is using the justify the Boltzmann brain are completely made up by it, and can't really be used as a valid argument.

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#63

Post by titzer »

User23 wrote: post #46
titzer wrote: post #39

The arguments to fine-tuning are utterly remedial. I can't believe that no one in their orbit ever brought up the anthropic principle [1]. We are not randomly distributed over possible universes; we are embedded in a universe that is by definition capable of supporting our existence (and indeed giving rise to it). It doesn't matter how stupidly improbable it is. Observer effect is off the charts! Second, in evolution…

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…

The pattern of wrinkles on the back of your hand is absolutely unique. The space of possibilities is larger than the number of atoms in the universe. And yet there is no why for the wrinkles on the back of your hand. Nothing chose it. Nothing is perfect about it. Not every improbable thing was chosen.

The anthropic principle doesn't explain a goddamn thing! It rejects the notion that we need an explanation for some things, because they could as well as been randomly chosen and we'd still be here all the same with absolutely no why whatsoever.

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#64

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

everdrive wrote: post #53

There seems to be a very mystical branch of consciousness theory. In my opinion, it is completely misguided. Consciousness, as far as I can tell, is a specific evolved mechanism, and like the eye, has probably convergently evolved to serve different purposes. (mammals & birds --> primarily for child care, and then later for social dynamics. Squids --> no idea!) In some sense, the search for consciousness where it doe…

Is there a useful definition of "consciousness" that is empirically testable with some sort of instrument such that you can point it at a squid and say "yep, that one has consciousness!" ?

I ask because I've never heard such a definition nor has anyone actually ever told me what the instrument is that detects this. Until then, I figure there's no such thing as consciousness... it's just what superstitious monkeys say now that they feel silly talking about "souls" which is the old word that used to be used for this superstitious concept.

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#65

Post by CuriouslyC »

The 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 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. That's a tall order.

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#66

Post by pvg »

titzer wrote: post #39

The arguments to fine-tuning are utterly remedial. I can't believe that no one in their orbit ever brought up the anthropic principle [1]. We are not randomly distributed over possible universes; we are embedded in a universe that is by definition capable of supporting our existence (and indeed giving rise to it). It doesn't matter how stupidly improbable it is. Observer effect is off the charts! Second, in evolution…

None of the ideas posited here are new

That's comes with the 'general purpose nerd messageboard' territory, it's in some way true for almost everything posted. It's got lengthy caselaw:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#67

Post by thelittleone »

harel wrote: post #35

I suppose on a purely philosophical aspect it's as plausible as any other explanation of Gods that we came up with. If I continue this thread on a (pseudo semi baked) science and more philosophy, I could "argue" that us being made from particles of the universe, combined with the idea of particles being entangled and sharing "existence", are in fact "The" consciousness of the Universe and our feeling of Oneness is in…

Perhaps consciousness is an attributeless void where being aware of it is possible but describing it is not.

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#68

Post by tsimionescu »

nico wrote: post #60
tsimionescu wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and if certain Ancient Greek beliefs are right, thunder is smithed by the god Hephaestos in his forge under mount Etna for Zeus to throw at his enemies. Is there any reason whatsoever to believe either of these?

> Is there any reason whatsoever to believe either of these? Not a reason, but there are many people that have had experiences that align with panpsychism It's not necessarily something that you have to believe, like a made-up story. Instead, it's something that you can experience for yourself (either through yoga, meditation, breathing, psychedelics or other forms of attaining different states of consciousness) Edit…

You're giving a (very weak) reason - personal experience while in altered states of mind. Of course, people doing at least some of these practices also personally experience all sorts of other false things, many which they themselves don't believe when outside the altered state, such as vivid hallucinations.

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#69

Post by kouru225 »

In 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 story they tell you will (essentially without fail) fall under one of these 3 categories, and you can also categorize which one the children tend to favor based on stages of development. Very young children tend to favor animism and participationism, while older children (who are becoming more self-aware of their dependence on their parents) tend to favor creationism of some kind.

Re: Could the cosmos, in fact, be conscious?

#70

Post by fidrelity »

randogeek wrote: post #29

The author should brush up on his history. This is panpsychism and it is a very old idea, going back to Spinoza. Einstein was a adherent of that idea as well, in his own way. As to it's truth of it, that's somewhat above my pay-grade.

Goff being one of the most popular modern panpsychists you're save to assume he's aware of its history.

I guess he uses the term less these days because it's too easily dismissed as something esoteric.

Post reply on HN