Is the Universe alive and intelligent?

[Domen]

Chaos and entropy

What we call chaos is actually better organized than man-made order (Terry Pratchett).

 

[Borachio]

^The so-called 'big-bang theory' (as said it has the stupidest name of all time for a known theory) is unimaginative and its premise is self-defeating. When you cannot get to the edge of a limit, you try to develop new ways of cancelling the limit or expanding the notion of the limit so as to further science. You don't come up with a theory with the claim that we cannot know anything beyond a certain point cause axiomatically none of the notions we use (eg time, space, expansion etc) exist before that point. That is a horrible axiom.

A bit like some people trying to open a door for 10 years, not making it, and thus now publishing 100 books with the claim that the door axiomatically cannot open anyway.

Yeah. But then if you postulate an infinite Universe you're left with the mystery of why the night sky isn't blazing with light.

And such stuff. Don't ask me to explain. I'm only repeating what I've heard.

 

[Mouthwash]

I think it's the only logical explanation for our own consciousness: that somehow matter itself is alive and intelligent.

And therefore the Universe is also alive and intelligent.

If the Universe is made of unthinking matter it's a bit of a puzzler how consciousness has arisen in us, who are also composed of unthinking matter. If we are. Which it might make more sense to suppose we aren't.

You might enjoy this thread on Philosophyforums (yes, that really is David Chalmers).

 

[Tarquelne]

You don't come up with a theory with the claim that we cannot know anything beyond a certain point cause axiomatically none of the notions we use (eg time, space, expansion etc) exist before that point. That is a horrible axiom.

When the facts seem to call for it, you do.

This is what separates scientists from interior designers. Interior designers are allowed to be governed primarily by what they find aesthetically pleasing. Scientists are not.

And IIRC they don't so much say none of the notions can exist before that point. Just our particular instances of them. The things you list might have existed in other universes, or previous universes. There are speculative theories, and they're based on actual, if far from incontrovertible, evidence.

Before the big bang the ALL might have all been pudding, which IMO seems likely. But at the moment we don't have any "actionable" ideas how we might find out.

Borachio:

I think it's the only logical explanation for our own consciousness: that somehow matter itself is alive and intelligent.

the mystery of why the night sky isn't blazing with light.

Two wiki links for you:

In response to the first statement, Emergence.

The night-sky-mystery thing is called Obler's paradox.
And you remember rightly - the mainstream resolution to the paradox relies on the big bang.

 

[Borachio]

In response to the first statement, Emergence.

Sure.

Bedau notes that weak emergence is not a universal metaphysical solvent, as weak emergence leads to the conclusion that matter itself contains elements of awareness to it. However, Bedau concludes that adopting this view would provide a precise notion that emergence is involved in consciousness, and second, the notion of weak emergence is metaphysically benign.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Ahem.. If the Universe is alive, then who created the Universe? Also, what's the chance that this very Universe is just a dot on a Galactus?

 

[brennan]

Brains are conscious.

Universes are not brains.

 

[El_Machinae]

Until we figure out what causes consciousness, it's tough to say what the universe is. It's hella tough deciding where 'I' end and 'the universe' begins. My consciousness seems to be a product of my light cone, and I assume that nearly anywhere can contain a viable consciousness if matter is arranged correctly.

So, everywhere is 'potentially conscious'.

 

[Farm Boy]

Interior designers are allowed to be governed primarily by what they find aesthetically pleasing. Scientists are not.

I frequently have serious doubts as to the practical truth of this.

 

[warpus]

I think it's the only logical explanation for our own consciousness: that somehow matter itself is alive and intelligent.

And therefore the Universe is also alive and intelligent.

Not all matter is alive and intelligent, only a very small subset is.

Then again there are people on this very forum who think that rocks and atoms are sentient.. but somehow I doubt you are one of them, Borachio. Which makes me think that you didn't think what you wrote through

 

[Borachio]

Eh?

Me, think about something?

Seriously, though, if atoms and molecules aren't sentient to any degree at all, how is it that consciousness arises?

For the strong emergent theorists, there's just this magical moment, before which there's no consciousness and after which there is consciousness. I'm honestly not happy with magical thinking myself.

So, I tend to the weak emergent theory: that somehow, in ways that are not yet understood but definitely do not involve magic, the properties of atoms and molecules are such that consciousness can arise from them. And, in some very limited sense, they are conscious themselves.

This is all highly speculative. So we just go with what seems to make the most sense, and feels right, to us. Which might be different for everyone. Suck it and see, as they say.

(Or something. I really should study this matter more carefully before I start spouting, shouldn't I?)

 

[Kyriakos]

Eh?

Me, think about something?

Seriously, though, if atoms and molecules aren't sentient to any degree at all, how is it that consciousness arises?

For the strong emergent theorists, there's just this magical moment, before which there's no consciousness and after which there is consciousness. I'm honestly not happy with magical thinking myself.

So, I tend to the weak emergent theory: that somehow, in ways that are not yet understood but definitely do not involve magic, the properties of atoms and molecules are such that consciousness can arise from them. And, in some very limited sense, they are conscious themselves.

This is all highly speculative. So we just go with what seems to make the most sense, and feels right, to us. Which might be different for everyone. Suck it and see, as they say.

(Or something. I really should study this matter more carefully before I start spouting, shouldn't I?)

Welcome to the 5th century BC:

"How can a collection of individual grain make a sound when it is dropped to the floor, when any speck of grain alone never will make a sound which multiplied would equal the one of the larger group?" One of the paradoxes by Zeno. Aristotle merely argued that smaller sounds cannot be noticed (which is obviously 'true' insofar as the human hearing organs require a minimum level of movement to reach them so as to be translated into a sound for us), but Zeno seems to have been arguing that if you claim that the tiniest bits of a whole do not have even in the tiniest way that which is psesent in the homogenous whole, then you have to explain how they can be termed as a division of the latter).

Later on Anaxagoras presented his own idea of 'homoiomeries', which where the tiniest particles of any kind of matter, which themselves only can be divided to more of the same substance. The plot thickens (or gets infinitely divided, anyway)

 

[warpus]

Seriously, though, if atoms and molecules aren't sentient to any degree at all, how is it that consciousness arises?

That is a mystery, you're right. But what isn't a mystery is whether atoms and molecules are sentient. They just aren't.

For the strong emergent theorists, there's just this magical moment, before which there's no consciousness and after which there is consciousness. I'm honestly not happy with magical thinking myself.

No, I don't like this hypothesis either. There is no magical moment.

So, I tend to the weak emergent theory: that somehow, in ways that are not yet understood but definitely do not involve magic, the properties of atoms and molecules are such that consciousness can arise from them. And, in some very limited sense, they are conscious themselves.

I don't see how you can jump from A to B here.

The saying: "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" might help explain where I'm coming from here. You are making an unwarranted jump in logic.

 

[Borachio]

^ Yeah. OK. As I say, and as you've noticed, I haven't thought very carefully about this at all.

I'll let you know later. Maybe.

 

[warpus]

^ Yeah. OK. As I say, and as you've noticed, I haven't thought very carefully about this at all.

I'll let you know later. Maybe.

I see the emergence of sentience out of non-sentience as not a process that flips a switch from fully non-sentient to fully sentient. Instead I see it as an incredibly gradual shift that takes quite a while and lacks that magical "flip" moment.

So how does the consciousness arise out of non-consciousness then? I dunno, and I don't think anyone else knows either, but it doesn't mean that the constituent parts have to be conscious in any way. Consciousness seems to arise out of complex meta structures in our brains, who knows what the hell is required for it or how exactly it happens.

 

[brennan]

Seriously, though, if atoms and molecules aren't sentient to any degree at all, how is it that consciousness arises?

If Hydrogen and oxygen are not water, how is it that water arises?

(i.e. Fallacy of composition)

The attributes of a system can include attributes that are not present in the individual parts.

Consciousness appears to be the subjective experience of at least a certain form of complicated information processing.

 

[Borachio]

Well, that's nice.

And everything hinges on "a certain form" of complicated information processing.

I'm none the wiser.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

http://www.newscientist.com/article...aking-cosmologists-think-like-biologists.html

This annoys me.

Is the Universe alive?: The radical idea that our Universe may be evolving like a living creature is making cosmologists think like biologists.

Operative word being: like. Headline is presented as if it answers the question.

 

[warpus]

Is my potato alive?

The radical idea that my potato might be evolving like a living universe is making warpus think like a philosopher.

 

[Borachio]

Certainly potatoes are alive! That's an absurd question. (If you don't mind me saying so.)

They tend not to be alive once you've cooked them, though.

It's a fairly good bet that potatoes aren't intelligent, cooked or uncooked. Scary idea!