If No Consciousness Exists, By What Right Does The Universe?

[Cyperium]

Imagine a time in the universe before any consciousness exists, to imagine it you have to picture it and have some kind of reference frame for it. You look upon it. Now, take that away, because consciousness doesn't exist.

What is now the difference between the universe existing and simply nothing existing?

Resist the urge to try to imagine the universe existing, cause that reference doesn't exist at that time.

My proposal is that of the strong anthropic principle. I think that consciousness is indeed needed for the universe to exist. Perhaps consciousness has always existed and may be the fundamental part of existence itself. Not necessarily human consciousness as we perceive it, but a kind of consciousness.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

But before I was born I could think of a time before I was born.

If I'd call out it would answer.

 

[Seattle]

The Universe exists whether there are people or not. There is no life on the Moon and yet it exists.

 

[origin]

Imagine a time in the universe before any consciousness exists, to imagine it you have to picture it and have some kind of reference frame for it. You look upon it. Now, take that away, because consciousness doesn't exist.

What is now the difference between the universe existing and simply nothing existing?

Resist the urge to try to imagine the universe existing, cause that reference doesn't exist at that time.

My proposal is that of the strong anthropic principle. I think that consciousness is indeed needed for the universe to exist. Perhaps consciousness has always existed and may be the fundamental part of existence itself. Not necessarily human consciousness as we perceive it, but a kind of consciousness.

That is absurd. What an over inflated sense of importance. Do you have any idea of the size of the universe?? Any idea at all??
We are insignificant.

 

[C C]

Imagine a time in the universe before any consciousness exists, to imagine it you have to picture it and have some kind of reference frame for it. You look upon it. Now, take that away, because consciousness doesn't exist.

What is now the difference between the universe existing and simply nothing existing?

Resist the urge to try to imagine the universe existing, cause that reference doesn't exist at that time.

My proposal is that of the strong anthropic principle. I think that consciousness is indeed needed for the universe to exist. Perhaps consciousness has always existed and may be the fundamental part of existence itself. Not necessarily human consciousness as we perceive it, but a kind of consciousness.

Absence of a cognitive system to generate evidence (from environmental information) that the universe existed is not the same thing as how it existed/exists minus sensory representation and rational apprehension or technical description.

 

[geordief]

Seems to me that the (inert) universe contains consciousness as a potentiality.

Then again it may well equally contain the lack of consciousness as another potentiality.

All (or much)may be revealed when/if we discover other sentient entities elsewhere in the universe that seem to have arisen entirely independently of the life forms we are already acquainted with.

Or if it can be shown that this is vanishingly unlikely....

 

[Cyperium]

But before I was born I could think of a time before I was born.

If I'd call out it would answer.

I don't understand that last sentence; "if I'd call out it would answer", but there was consciousness around before you were born. The universe was around before any of us was born. However, consciousness anywhere and more importantly at any time necessitates the conditions that made it arise everywhere.

The Universe exists whether there are people or not. There is no life on the Moon and yet it exists.

Consciousness anywhere necessitates the conditions that made it arise everywhere.

That is absurd. What an over inflated sense of importance. Do you have any idea of the size of the universe?? Any idea at all??
We are insignificant.

I don't think it is the size that matters. That size means nothing without consciousness. What an empty place it would be without any consciousness. In fact, I think it wouldn't be at all.

Absence of a cognitive system to generate evidence (from environmental information) that the universe existed is not the same thing as how it existed/exists minus sensory representation and rational apprehension or technical description.

I beg to differ. It might very well be that the universe is reliant on a technical description of what it is, in fact, we uncover more and more of that description, it has surprised mathematicians how much of the universe that we have been able to uncover using descriptions (mathematical relations in this case) and how little that just is without relying on any description (the fundamental constants for example).

Either way, I think the universe needs consciousness to have a reality in which it can exist.

Seems to me that the (inert) universe contains consciousness as a potentiality.

Then again it may well equally contain the lack of consciousness as another potentiality.

All (or much)may be revealed when/if we discover other sentient entities elsewhere in the universe that seem to have arisen entirely independently of the life forms we are already acquainted with.

Or if it can be shown that this is vanishingly unlikely....

Might be that this potential consciousness needs to be manifested somewhere at some time in order to make the potential of the universe manifest. The idea being that there has to be a distinction from what exists and nothing, and consciousness is that distinction. Cause what distinguishes the universe from nothing at all if there is no awareness of it? In what reality does it exist then?

 

[Michael 345]

Either way, I think the universe needs consciousness to have a reality in which it can exist

Me thunks (sic) thou art confusing exist

exist

have objective reality or being.

WITH

perceived

become aware or conscious of (something) come to realize or understand.

Definitions from Oxford Languages

If physics worked the way you described nothing would be in existence, which does not appear to be the current situation

Why? There must be a few million people with no perception of vast sections of reality ie stuff which exists. Many of these non perceptions would overlap

Hence, according to yourself, these non perceptions actually would not exist

I suppose you could claim one person's consciousness of something cancels out another person's non consciousness of the same something. I would answer back WHY?

Why does consciousness have preference over non consciousness?

And I am certain there is much in the Universe which exist of which, currently, we have no consciousness of its existence

To bad it will never be discovered because every person on earth has non consciousness of its existence

Coffee time

 

[Write4U]

What is now the difference between the universe existing and simply nothing existing?

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
― Philip K. Dick,

Either way, I think the universe needs consciousness to have a reality in which it can exist.

You have this backwards. Physical reality needs to exist for the potential of emergent consciousness to become explicated. Consciousness is an emergent result of a physical pattern.

All biological patterns are proof of an emergent consciousness (awareness of environment) in parallel with complex biological patterns, such as heliotropism and earliest bacteria.

Many researchers have found the evolution of the eye attractive to study because the eye distinctively exemplifies an analogous organ found in many animal forms. Simple light detection is found in bacteria, single-celled organisms, plants and animals. Complex, image-forming eyes have evolved independently several times.

Major stages in the evolution of the eye in vertebrates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

In your scenario, how do you propose that the universe acquires awareness of itself unless there is something physical that is observable to begin with?

Consciousness anywhere necessitates the conditions that made it arise everywhere

Which contradicts your statement that consciousness precedes physical reality.

Consciousness does not exist independent of physical patterns. There is no Magic!

 

[Michael 345]

Strange coincidence

I came across Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)

Based on a very quick check this

If No Consciousness Exists, By What Right Does The Universe?

seems to be a thunk along same lines

EDIT

Had spare few minutes to read a bit more, seems CTMU is a version of defining god into existence

 

[Write4U]

I came across Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU)

This from the link:

In Chris’s words “Reality is a language that is talking to itself about itself”.

This appears to me as a misleading statement. Not that it is necessarily wrong, but that it uses bad "language".

In effect what is proposed is : Reality is an emergent self-referential organization of fundamental values into self-organizing patterns. (Chaos Theory)

The language it uses is the language of natural mathematical processing functions, constants which guide the self-referential dynamics into evolving complex patterns. But as has been demonstrated self-referential organization does not need to be conscious.

Newton’s Third Law: Action & Reaction; Whenever one object exerts a force on a second object, the second object exerts an equal and opposite force on the first.

His third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. If object A exerts a force on object B, object B also exerts an equal and opposite force on object A. In other words, forces result from interactions

https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/newtons-laws-of-motion/#

Mathematical values and functions are in essence a semi-intelligent self-referential operating platform. A perfect example can be found in the evolution of AI, which is an artificially constructed pattern with self-referential information processes.

Understanding the Self-Referential Problem

The problem with self-referential reasoning is most easily understood by defining the term according to its two primary components: self-reference and reasoning.
1. Self-reference: Refers to an instance in which someone (or something, such as a computer program or book) refers to itself. Any person or thing that refers to itself is called “self-referential.”
2. Reasoning: In AI systems, reasoning is a process through which an agent establishes “beliefs” about the world, like whether or not a particular action is safe or a specific reasoning system is sound. “Good beliefs” are beliefs that are sound or plausible based on the available evidence. The term “belief” is used instead of “knowledge” because the things that an agent believes may not be factually true and can change over time.

https://futureoflife.org/2019/03/21...ng-ai-an-interview-with-ramana-kumar-part-2/#

From this we can conclude that "evolution by natural selection" is a form of self-referential pattern forming with increasing complexity and "ability to do work", without the necessity of conscious motivation.

 

[exchemist]

Imagine a time in the universe before any consciousness exists, to imagine it you have to picture it and have some kind of reference frame for it. You look upon it. Now, take that away, because consciousness doesn't exist.

What is now the difference between the universe existing and simply nothing existing?

Resist the urge to try to imagine the universe existing, cause that reference doesn't exist at that time.

My proposal is that of the strong anthropic principle. I think that consciousness is indeed needed for the universe to exist. Perhaps consciousness has always existed and may be the fundamental part of existence itself. Not necessarily human consciousness as we perceive it, but a kind of consciousness.

It seems to me this makes the widely prevalent, and in my view wrong, assumption that "consciousness" is an entity, a thing. I believe this is a category mistake.

What we call consciousness seems to be simply the activity of the brain, not an entity at all. It is an activity, a process, that goes on in living organisms with a well-developed nervous system.

At any rate, I have seen no evidence that consciousness is anything more than that.

 

[geordief]

It seems to me this makes the widely prevalent, and in my view wrong, assumption that "consciousness" is an entity, a thing. I believe this is a category mistake.

What we call consciousness seems to be simply the activity of the brain, not an entity at all. It is an activity, a process, that goes on in living organisms with a well-developed nervous system.

At any rate, I have seen no evidence that consciousness is anything more than that.

Is there any demarcation point between the brain and the environment ?

Does your definition /understanding of "consciousness" bleed into its surroundings?

The brain can be anywhere in the body .Can the body be anywhere in the environment?

 

[Michael 345]

Is there any demarcation point between the brain and the environment ?

The skull

Does your definition /understanding of "consciousness" bleed into its surroundings?

No

The brain can be anywhere in the body .Can the body be anywhere in the environment?

The brain can be anywhere in the body

NO

Can the body be anywhere in the environment?

Lots of places in the environment would kill you

 

[exchemist]

Is there any demarcation point between the brain and the environment ?

Does your definition /understanding of "consciousness" bleed into its surroundings?

The brain can be anywhere in the body .Can the body be anywhere in the environment?

I don't follow you. When you boot up your PC, the operating system of the computer starts to function, creating activity in the processor. I see consciousness as the activity of the brain. The brain is an organ with a definite anatomical location.

 

[geordief]

I don't follow you. When you boot up your PC, the operating system of the computer starts to function, creating activity in the processor. I see consciousness as the activity of the brain. The brain is an organ with a definite anatomical location.

I have heard/understood that the brain is synonymous with the nervous system(and,from memory that some animal's brain is situated somewhere other than the head)

There is no hard and fast demarcation between the brain and the nervous system is there?


Is it a bit like in topology where a teacup transforms into a doughnut?

Sure the brain is at the centre of the nervous system but I think I have heard that parts of the nervous system can function in a brain like way

 

[geordief]

The skull



No



The brain can be anywhere in the body

NO

Can the body be anywhere in the environment?

Lots of places in the environment would kill you

I think/hope I am using all the terms in a functional way rather than any concrete way (I normally accuse myself of "literalism")

 

[Write4U]

geordief said: ↑ Is there any demarcation point between the brain and the environment ?

The skull

I think/hope I am using all the terms in a functional way rather than any concrete way

You cannot use any terms in a functional way in this instance. Michael is correct in identifying the skull as the literal demarcation point between the brain and the environment.

The brain is a self-organized lump of bio-molecules completely isolated from the exterior. It is a "brain in a box". it cannot see light, it cannot hear sound, it cannot smell odor. It is indeed a central processing system of secondary information.

Sure the brain is at the centre of the nervous system but I think I have heard that parts of the nervous system can function in a brain like way

That is not correct.

The senses experience excitation which is converted into electro-chemical information. The neural network is the transportation system of that electro-chemical information. The brain is the processor of that information (in the case of an octopus, it has 8 individual smaller semi-autonomous brains, connected to the main central brain).

The information itself is of an electro-chemical nature, received, which the central brain must process and compare with information stored in memory, in order to make a "best guess" of what that information represents.

What we call consciousness seems to be simply the activity of the brain, not an entity at all. It is an activity, a process, that goes on in living organisms with a well-developed nervous system.

I agree. Consciousness is an emergent extra-sensory product of the combined brain processes of electro-chemical sensory information.

Consider the biochemical self-organizing pattern of the brain;

Stunning details of brain connections revealed
Date: November 17, 2010
Source: Stanford University Medical Center

In particular, the cerebral cortex -- a thin layer of tissue on the brain's surface -- is a thicket of prolifically branching neurons. "In a human, there are more than 125 trillion synapses just in the cerebral cortex alone," said Smith. That's roughly equal to the number of stars in 1,500 Milky Way galaxies, he noted.Nov 17, 2010

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117121803.htm#

 

[exchemist]

I have heard/understood that the brain is synonymous with the nervous system(and,from memory that some animal's brain is situated somewhere other than the head)

There is no hard and fast demarcation between the brain and the nervous system is there?


Is it a bit like in topology where a teacup transforms into a doughnut?

Sure the brain is at the centre of the nervous system but I think I have heard that parts of the nervous system can function in a brain like way

Oh I see what you mean. Certainly the optic nerve is supposed to do some neural processing, I think. But it's a detail. The point is I have never seen anything to suggest that consciousness is anything more than the activity of the processor in a nervous system. For instance, if you shut down this activity, consciousness ceases.

 

[geordief]

Oh I see what you mean. Certainly the optic nerve is supposed to do some neural processing, I think. But it's a detail. The point is I have never seen anything to suggest that consciousness is anything more than the activity of the processor in a nervous system. For instance, if you shut down this activity, consciousness ceases.

Fair enough.