On the universe and consciousness
[NOTE: Today’s news is so depressing and appalling that I wanted a respite from it by going big. This is about as big as it gets.]
Maria Popova writes:
In our recent On Being conversation, NASA astrophysicist and exoplanet researcher Natalie Batalha said something that stopped me up short: as sentient beings endowed with awareness, we are “the universe itself becoming aware.”
When did I first come upon that thought? I don’t know, but it was probably at least 50 years ago, and it was an ancient thought back then. It struck me as profound and yet simple, as many profound ideas are. Whether you believe in a deity or not, and/or a teleological process, it seems to at least be descriptive of the basics.
Consciousness is something we all possess as human beings as long as we remain healthy, but it is a mystery. Animals have some sort of consciousness, but how much and of what nature? Are they self-conscious?
This is a matter on which science and religion and philosophy all speculate. As food for thought, here’s a piece in which an Orthodox rabbi discusses the entire question. It’s worth reading in its entirety, but I’ll excerpt this bit:
Everywhere we look, whether under the sea, under a rock, up in the sky or in a galaxy far away, the same rules and the same constants apply. And if one of those dimensionless constants would be just a little bit off – if the gravitational constant would be just a smidgen more or less, or if the combination of the electron charge, the speed of light and Planck’s constant would be just a little off – there would be no hope for any integrated information at all. No life. No observer. Zero consciousness.
So is there any reason why the universe as a whole should not be considered conscious?
Okay, I can hear you saying, “That’s not proof that the universe is conscious. It’s just evidence.” But then, as I pointed out earlier, nobody has proof that anyone is conscious other than himself. Just evidence.
I would say you’re on stronger ground assuming that the whole universe is conscious than assuming that an individual is conscious.You’re on stronger ground assuming that the whole universe is conscious than assuming that an individual is conscious. Ask yourself: Which makes more sense – that conscious human beings gradually emerge over time out of the dynamics of dumb matter; or that a great consciousness articulates itself within particular instances of much smaller consciousnesses, and eventually that of us puny human beings?
And what makes more sense, a universe where everything just happens to follow the same rules, and no two particles dare be in the same state – even though they have no knowledge of what each other is doing, since they are just dumb particles – or a universe where a single consciousness holds everything in place, as an enormously diverse, thoroughly integrated set of information?
If that sounds just way too unscientific, I’ll throw in a quotation from one of the most significant physicists of the 20th century, without whom quantum physics might never have been imagined, Max Planck:
“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
There’s much more at the link.
–
“There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
This is somewhat parallel to LDS doctrine, as explained in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and generally summarized as “spirit is matter, only more refined.”
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Matter
“In the twentieth century, atomic theory has embodied a number of fundamental nuclear particles and powerful mathematical theories. Some, falling outside human intuition, account for properties of matter newly discovered in this century. Concepts have led to the development of unified quantum mechanical and quantum dynamic theories for both matter and light. The conservation law of Lavoisier has been extended to include all equivalent forms of matter and energy and still constitutes one of the primary pillars of modern science.
It is significant that the teachings of the restored gospel on the eternal nature of physical matter, along with a parallel in the spiritual realm, embody these conservation principles.
These are key statements: “The elements are eternal” (D&C 93:33). “The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity” (Joseph Smith, in HC 3:387).
Addressing the issue of creation ex nihilo, Joseph Smith asserted in one of his final sermons: “Now, the word create…does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos-chaotic matter, which is element…. Element had an existence from the time [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end” (HC 6:308-309).
Extending the concept of the eternal nature of matter to the substance of spirit, Joseph Smith revealed, “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (D&C 131:7-8).
Parley P. Pratt, an apostle and close associate of Joseph Smith, wrote, “Matter and spirit are the two great principles of all existence. Everything animate and inanimate is composed of one or the other, or both of these eternal principles….
Matter and spirit are of equal duration; both are self-existent, they never began to exist, and they never can be annihilated…. Matter as well as spirit is eternal, uncreated, self existing. However infinite the variety of its changes, forms and shapes; …eternity is inscribed in indelible characters on every particle” (HC 4:55).
In strict analogy to principles governing physical matter, the revelations to Joseph Smith stress that eternity for spirits also derives from the eternal existence of spiritual matter or elements. The preeminent manifestation of the eternal nature of both physical and spiritual matter is found in the eternal existence of God and ultimately his human children as discrete, indestructible entities.
In this unique LDS doctrine, matter in all of its many forms, instead of occupying a subordinate role relative to philosophical paradigms, assumes a sovereign position, along with the principles and laws governing its properties and characteristics.”
See also http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Spirit
For those with a more secular bent, I can recommend the blog “Conscious Entities” (http://www.consciousentities.com/) by Peter Hankins, who wrote a book entitled “The Shadow of Consciousness: A Little Less Wrong.”
Consciousness is notorious, even comically so, for its stubborn resistance to both scientific and philosophical inquiry. Thankfully, Hankins’s blog doesn’t dwell on impossible problems. Instead, he ranges widely. For example, a recent post was on robots in love.
“And if one of those dimensionless constants would be just a little bit off– …….. –there would be no hope for any integrated information at all. No life. No observer. Zero consciousness.”
Balderdash. It would be DIFFERENT, because the conditions would be different. But there’s no basis in claiming that it would not exist.
For a fictional account of how “life” might be very different in a very different universe, read Isaac Asimov’s novel “The Gods Themselves…”
The title comes from a quote by the German philosopher Friedrich von Schiller. “Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.”
We don’t even know what consciousness is, let alone characterize it beyond a surface treatment. For one, does it originate in, or is it expressed through, the perceived three dimensions of our neural cluster?
That said, let us respect a separation of the logical domains. The scientific domain is notably frame-based and extremely narrow.
I think Erich Fromm said that `man is life made aware of itself….’ and on that theme, you could say that humans are nature made aware of itself.
You probably first came across that notion at least implicitly, in Lit class when studying the American transcendentalists.
Karl Marx, a materialist (at least insofar as you may say that because he denied dualism and the idea of the supernatural, he was a materialist) also spoke of man as the consciousness of the inorganic body – thus a kind of emergence of consciousness in the material world through the development of organic life of which it was a seamless, if dialectically subject, part.
Of course there are then at least two distinct idea at play here: 1, that consciousness is an accidental and emergent property of a pointless, intentionless, mindless material (or natural) process called “the universe”. Or 2, that consciousness is either (a) somehow built into the Universe in the rudimentary form of intentionality or teleology, possibly tracing back to a mind; or (b) that the Universe IS a mind or direct manifestation of it.
This of course does not cover all 31 flavors, but kind of gestures toward the main recipes.
By the way, I just looked up Baskin Robbins to make sure I got the original number of flavors right. And seeing a list of them, as well as the current ones, the original look way better to me.
They started with this sort
Black Walnut; Banana Nut Fudge; Chocolate Mint; Cherry Macaroon … which civilized people might enjoy
and now have this sort in order to appeal to elephants in shorts and sandals …
Oreo Cookies’n Cream; Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup; Honey Almond; Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough; Peanut Butter ’n Chocolate …
Which just goes to show that there is no such thing as “progressive” evolution.
Coming soon: Salt Pork ‘n Skittles; Coke ‘n GummyBears; Chocolate-cumin ‘n Frijoles.
It’s hard to know with any certainty what we can with any certainty really know … about what we can ….
“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind.”- Max Planck
As a Christian, I understand that force to be the God of the Bible. God didn’t just create everything we see in the universe, but sustains it. Without His active involvement it would cease. The Bible describes the attributes of God as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Energy, Matter and the Non Material.
The relationship between the Father and the Son, is described in human terms so we can understand the relationship. We’re also told God is Light and while that is understood to be the guiding force showing us the path to a relationship with Him, He also is Energy and the Son is matter– taking on a material form, which will cloth Him forever.
The Holy Spirit describes the non-material nature of God. Does a memory have mass? Does conciousness?
The Bible describes us as non-material beings clothed in a material form, which is in harmony with our understanding of the world.
I followed the link and got this far . “Eukaryote on planet Earth using self-awareness and empathy to experience love and seek knowledge. ”
As you can imagine I had to stop there and could go no further. But you know, to each his own.
Here is a link I found interesting on the “hard problem”. I’m not really sure why Stuart Hameroff thinks it’s the solution as to what consciousness is, or if he does. I need to watch it a couple more times to digest it properly. But it appears he thinks it might somehow locate it in a way that eliminativists cannot eliminate.
“Quantum Consciousness and its Nature In Microtubules.” Dr. Stuart Hameroff. See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx0SsffdMBw
Another approach is, http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/05/rosenberg-roundup.html
I don’t know that I really appreciate some of what is taken as the problem in defining consciousness. It seems to me that sentience is not an adequate synonym for what we mean by consciousness; and that it would be possible to have sentience without much memory or an appreciation of the self as a self, or any anxiety that the self should continue on in existence.
This leads me to think that what me mean when we refer to consciousness includes of necessity a kind of live buffer memory, sufficient to remember memories, and to remember that one is remembering – generating a sense of self. And I think that the biology underlying is too often ignored – the glandular generation of alerts and warnings which are taken note of and leave one with a feeling that this or that outcome is imperative relative to X and Y input … generating a sense of meaning.
In that sense the phenomenologists with all their annoying talk of anxiety, and concern and being-toward-death have something to contribute to a discussion on the subjective organization of the sense of self; wherein the registration of qualia becomes more than a registration and storage of information detected as emerging from a field of view, merely to be stored temporarily.
It is hard to imagine what “consciousness” as the mere and per se experience of uncontextualized qualia would look like to a being completely indifferent to its own moment to moment perpetuation, or to one incapable of storing data for more than a few moments, or to one devoid of “interests” in the form of “feeling” internally and biologically generated imperatives which seemingly rise to awareness from nowhere, only to be melded with outside data.
I guess there is still the question of where this “appreciation” or “apprehension” is located and what exactly what brain/mind act constitutes and accounts for this subjective and real time appreciation.
But that still will leave us asking: would a consciousness with no fear, no wants, no desire, no enduring memory and no sense of self, be what we generally mean by referring to acts of consciousness?
Hameroff has some really interesting comments on refresh rates that is probably highly relevant.
You people using too many high falutin terms. Time to rotate it down to something the average people can comprehend.
The nature of our reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzQ6gRAEoy0
Let’s see if people can comprehend that through the power of the spirit, even the Holy Spirit, instead of their logick and education. Let’s see if people dare.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdojiTkJi_4
Humans and scientists probably thought they had this thing figured out…. hehe.
It’s all coming crashing down: this scientific consensus. They have no idea.
I tried to join in this discussion, but I can’t keep up with this erudite level of philosophical discourse. I’ll let Blake say it for me.
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour . . .
. . .Some are Born to sweet delight
Some are Born to Endless Night
We are led to Believe a Lie
When we see not Thro the Eye
Which was Born in a Night to perish in a Night
When the Soul Slept in Beams of Light
God Appears & God is Light
To those poor Souls who dwell in Night
But does a Human Form Display
To those who Dwell in Realms of day
I was watching the Principle documentary concerning the Copernican Principle being maybe wrong…
A whole lot of cosmic background radiation vocabulary being thrown around, kind of hard to rotate down for people that aren’t specialists or generalists.
Suffice it to say that the current scientific orthodoxy beliefs and theories like Einstein’s relativity, Newton’s theories, and the Big Bang have certain problems and weaknesses when exposed to new data concerning the universe: such as the Axis of Evil in Cosmic Background, that you can look up.
Newton had certain problems he never resolved with gravity, such as calculus problems with the Three Body Problem. Newton’s work only works for two bodies, like adding two vectors.
Einstein patched over Newton’s problems with General Relativity and Special Relativity + Time dilation. That however started getting hard to maintain due to quantum physics, entanglement, information traveling faster than light, etc. Now we have super string theory and dark matter/energy making up 98% of the mass of galaxies, which exists to patch up einstein’s problem.
Eventually this cobbled up cosmology is going to fall down.
AesopFan Says:
April 10th, 2018 at 5:51 pm
To rotate down that material, spirit is classified as another kind of matter, or better yet energy.
Just as there are 3 states of matter: liquid, solid, gas. So there are different kinds of energy, such as plasma which is called the 4th state of matter. Spirit has qualities of both matter and energy, but the work needed more modern experiments to verify and improve.
It basically means people have found a way to test the magical proclamations of the ancients in an experimental and materialistic fashion. No need for Star Wars, Star Trek, or Harry Potter. The ancient science has met the modern science in congruence.
As for consciousness, I suspect a reason for why people are looking around is that quantum neuroscience estimates that the brain cannot hold the sum total information that our memories hold. So they began postulating that the real us is somewhere outside of our physical bodies. The brain then becomes like a radio. It transmits the signals we get from this body back to the Source, like an avatar or remote control drone. The real processing center is somewhere else (the religions would call that the soul or spirit).
A person is in a coma not because his source is damaged, but because when you break a radio, it doesn’t pick up signals any more.
The nature of the soul and spirit are still being investigated by revolutionary scientists. One can read about peer reviewed studies in the paranormal here. http://www.peeranormal.com/
Oh… there’s a lot of stuff “scientists” don’t tell you about what is being reviewed and studied. They probably think the average masses won’t understand it or will be stupid enough as to be misled. I think people who live under priests called scientists, should read the original documentation and sources. WHy do you need priests to interpret the bible for you or rabbis for the Torah? Are humans not yet wise and smart enough to figure this out for themselves?
That’s why they write it in a foreign language with vocabulary that doesn’t make sense: to gate keep it away from the masses. Of course the masses also bear some shared responsibility for being lazy.
Man, does this subject bring up a whole host of issues–just right off the bat, several ancient philosophers, things like traditional Christian religious thought and their view of the Universe and God, the Gnostic view of the Universe, some of the ideas in the Kabbalah, David Bohm’s “implicate order,” “quantum foam,” Jung’s synchronicity, the I Ching and the view of the universe behind it, Fibonacci numbers, the ideas of Tielhard de Chardin spring to mind.