Submitted by simsquatched t3_104kji6 in philosophy
Brandyforandy t1_j36fm8t wrote
Consciousness is the universe looking back at itself! Always loved this quote. Why? Because if that's true then the universe itself want us to explore it.
defaltusr t1_j36wlco wrote
I dont think the universe wants anything. It just is, and by some random fluke life poped up
Brandyforandy t1_j36xe7a wrote
Why don't you think the universe want something?
defaltusr t1_j36xwsw wrote
Because I dont think the universe is conscious.
Its like a program running itself in a defined set of rules. And somehow the predetermined rules made it possible that some of its matter became alive
Brandyforandy t1_j36ys56 wrote
We are part of the universe, and conscious.
AmirHosseinHmd t1_j3711sa wrote
Yes, and but doesn't make the universe conscious.
Why is that distinction so hard to understand?
It's like saying cars move, and cars are part of the city, so the city is moving. No, despite the poetic value of that claim, it's simply absurd.
kfpswf t1_j37f98x wrote
>Why is that distinction so hard to understand?
There are layers/hierarchies of abstraction built into our everyday life that we take for granted. The most dangerous of these abstractions is the belief that you are somehow different from the universe.
>It's like saying cars move, and cars are part of the city, so the city is moving.
As I said, there are hierarchies of abstraction we use in day to day life. So the next time you hear someone say "the traffic is easing", know that there's no single block called "traffic" that is easing, but rather the individual cars.
>No, despite the poetic value of that claim, it's simply absurd.
It's not absurd at all. If anything, it's the most rational thing you can say.
The identity you hold of being a conscious individual is just an illusion. In reality, there's just laws of the universe that drive all the biological entities that inhabit earth. And the agent that enables any individual activity at all is consciousness. This consciousness emerges in matter in specific configuration. So, consciousness is something that happens to matter.
My question to you is, if the universe is what we call the observable field of matter around us, is it incorrect to say that consciousness is universe observing itself?... Of course, you'll have objections to the freedom I've used in equating matter with the universe, but it is the exact perspective shift that is required for spiritual liberation.
Tat tvam asi! You're it.
Brandyforandy t1_j371t5o wrote
Why do you think it's similar to cars moving in a city?
growtilltall757 t1_j37dql8 wrote
I think your proposition is interesting to ponder. What would it mean if the universe were conscious? It's alluring, and I like thinking about the boundless possibilities, especially for raising our ability as a species to thrive via broadly realized equanimity.
Its just not robust enough to be convincing. Humans can accept and integrate concepts even if it's simply that they like the idea, one of our quirks I guess. It has a problem that it jumps to a conclusion with no argument.
We are part of the universe, and (we are) conscious. (Missing argument) Therefore the universe is conscious.
Cars are part of the city, and (they are) moving. (Missing argument) Therefore the city is moving.
Obviously the city is not moving, but it contains movement. Typically we would use different grammar to indicate the more accurate statement, the city contains moving cars.
The farthest logic can take us without filling in the missing argument is that the universe contains conscious entities.
If you have an argument as to why consciousness is different than other attributes of things in the universe it might fill in the argument. But if the component parts of a system assign their characteristic qualities of consciousness, movement, color, temperature, and many more complex characteristics to the higher systems of which they are a part, then we are even less able to describe something on the scale of the universe.
[deleted] t1_j38srk6 wrote
[deleted]
FreightCrater t1_j37ggey wrote
What you're suggesting is magic btw.
defaltusr t1_j381qvq wrote
Well apparently its physics
FreightCrater t1_j38cgq8 wrote
What do you mean by "matter became alive"? What is alive? Where does our mental life live? The "big problem of consciousness" is real and unsolved. We do not know where consciousness comes from but to suggest that it is nothing and comes from nowhere isn't that helpful.
edit: also, semantically, everything in the universe, is the universe
Bl4nkface t1_j372aek wrote
For the universe to want anything, it would need to be conscious as a whole. You can't say that a whole wants something just because there are smaller parts of it who have desires. That's like saying the world wants to buy iPhones just because there are humans in the world who want to buy iPhone. It's an attribution error.
Brandyforandy t1_j374lt6 wrote
What if there are other consciousnesses in other parts of the universe? We might be just a perspective. You can't deny that we are part of the universe and that we are conscious. Our brains are said to be the only part of the human which is conscious, but we don't say that the brain is an entity of it's own. Our brain would not be able to survive without our bodies and we would not be able to survive without the universe. Because there isn't really a distinction between them.
I believe that saying we are a separate entity from the universe is incredibly arrogant and ooze of self-importance. It's like saying animals don't have consciousness when every indication point to that they do. We are just a small speck in this wide, wide cosmos. An unique speck, but a speck non-the less.
Bl4nkface t1_j377yuc wrote
I'm not saying we are separate from the universe. I'm saying that it's not logically correct to infer something about the universe based on the characteristics of parts of the universe (for example, living beings).
Another analogy: Even though you and me are part of Reddit and we both are interested in philosophy, you can't infer that Reddit itself is interested in philosophy.
Brandyforandy t1_j37wphu wrote
Why do you not think consciousness, and life is the part of the universe looking back at itself?
Osafune t1_j387zid wrote
Different person here but I think "part of" is the key phrase here. Is life part of the universe "looking back at itself?" Well, yes it is. But life is only part of the universe. The universe itself as a whole is not conscious and "looking back at itself." Just like Reddit as a whole is not necessarily interested in philosophy just because some individual members are.
Brandyforandy t1_j38vjr6 wrote
I don't think it was ever said the universe as a whole is conscious, only that we represent the consciousness of the universe.
Osafune t1_j38ynkr wrote
What you were saying ("the universe itself want us to explore it", "the consciousness of the universe") was implying otherwise to me.
I mean, I would only consider those statements I quoted to be true in a poetic or metaphorical way.
Brandyforandy t1_j39ef0h wrote
'The universe itself want us to explore it' was meant in a poetic and exploratory way. In a more factual way I would say 'We are the universe exploring itself, therefore the universe want to explore itself, because we are part of the universe' If that were not true we would not have the urge of curiosity and exploration, novelty. I am fully aware that we developed this through evolution, and i argue that it is not we as a species who have evolved, but the universe who evolved into a more advanced phase.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments