0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
most likelly yes, for me the prove for the concious of the universe, comes with the dinnosaus when complex life, whitch seems to be universe final goal, came to reproduce using eggs... I mean if you think about it the true sons of earth are by any means reptiles. i mean you think about it sounds redicuous, but if you put aside human logic and emotions, and look to the frame with a blank mind, the semelhance a egg and his development has with the planets themselves is impressive, and even to this very day birds are still using the same process to reproduce, and have being very sucessfull at evolve... Thing about a planet, crost, manttle, outer core, all that with the single objective to provide shelter and warm to the gem on the center of it, it also needs a enviroment subjected to heat, and so seems to be the relation with planets to their stars, eventually hatching the crost, forming more complex elements and black holes leading to another different worlds, but noneless smaller and different copies of the universe birt itself... I mean look around you, there is a pathern on every thing, and at the lower scale we, complex life are the result... So if you ask me if the chicken knows what their egg needs, and take care of them, and so where the dinnosaurs, and I picked up the reptiles cause they seem to be the most primitive concious life to have existed in the early days so one could say that their concients where not given by ancestors concept, but taught how to be by the planet itself, something like "here, hey dinnosaurs, this is the way I reproduce my stars, you exist within me, you should do the same", and who could say it didn't work for milions of years... The big question should be did the universe expontainely created itself or it was produced? As a experiment you train your dog, it doesn't need to know the awnser it just need to see what please its owners the most... It's a perspective, and any of us could have many points of view and we all don't know, whitch creates a mind blow fact, if none of us, concietious beings can cactually know, the universe concious became what we decided it to be, and every single one of us would be correct, and due the infinite amount of possibilities, we all would be correct at the same time, and universe concius would "trully" become, what we want to see.. If whe need to see with eyes and sensors, not at all, it will be there anyway, and inevitable life in the cosmos would reapear, evolve and colonize again and again, and whith the right knoledge, you, me and any concious beings can shape and give born to worlds, and thises worlds like ours, earth itself, has become what we planed for it, one could say that from the name to the surfaces functions the planet only exist duea and trought our individual and coletive concious... The question you should be asking yourself should be, what would have become of earth if, since the begining, threes wouldn't have died and acumulated, if fishes do not eath the plancton and the plancton its own share and so it goes, it would basiclly have changed many events that occured on earth during billions of years, would Earth is still exist? I mean the blue water planet, or the oxigen that they and we didn't breat by not have existed would have chained other trillion of different possible scenarios that would in the big scale have killed earth? The execive minerals that the trees wouldn't have filtered, the co2 that they wouldn't have trapped, the water all the living beings wouldn't have drink... If Earth would have be affected by all this non-events? Sure...It's most obvious that the main purpose of complex life is to have means to observe the enviroment and shape it, change it, the planet is mater and our bodies are made from the same stuff, we where born from the planet, from the cosmic system, and are concious? Self-aware? Do you have a name? Do you have a familie or others entities that you care about and do you shape your enviroment? Well the human artificial concept is the miss understanding, we are made of mater, no mater if we are very comples, we came from the planet, we are both made from the same stuff, we are than the same as planets that are not rounded and have arms, brains, hands, feets, but noneless made of mater and born from it, so I mean look around you... You born from Earth and if all life cease to exist, menas that the planet failed, death is a example, your body will be burried, doesn't mean that your conciense didn't existed and without records one could never prove, but than again you sepulture would have a name wrote on it, a physical prove that you have being concious at some point in time, and so could bethose planets out there, maybe they are just like dead bodies now, doesn't mean that they wheren't alive and so may other still can became, as long there is heat out there someone would be observing, thus existing...
It's alright man, you're right it's not native still getting used to it, I wrote down in 10 minutes, corrected now.. But gladly you took in considerations, the thing is there is no universe, like a infinite vast space, what are out there are local spheres with different temperatures, thus different density, one inside the other, there is no universe, there are spheres in infinite lower scales and also higher scales... The question from the human perspective should be "Does the conscious observer needs a universe to exist?"
Only if being exist is interpreted as being consciously observed.So, what is sure is that the universe needs a conscious observer for it to be consciously observed. AFAIK, no conscious observer was around before cambrian explosion, but that doesn't mean that the earth didn't exist back then.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2016 06:21:53Only if being exist is interpreted as being consciously observed.So, what is sure is that the universe needs a conscious observer for it to be consciously observed. AFAIK, no conscious observer was around before cambrian explosion, but that doesn't mean that the earth didn't exist back then.There were plenty conscious observers before the Cambrian explosion , why pick that particular epoch for the emergence of consciousness for the entire universe?
Quote from: Alan McDougall on 26/06/2016 13:00:01Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2016 06:21:53Only if being exist is interpreted as being consciously observed.So, what is sure is that the universe needs a conscious observer for it to be consciously observed. AFAIK, no conscious observer was around before cambrian explosion, but that doesn't mean that the earth didn't exist back then.There were plenty conscious observers before the Cambrian explosion , why pick that particular epoch for the emergence of consciousness for the entire universe?I just wanna make sure we are using the same definition of consciousness. Only then we can go to discuss further.Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.
The only evidence we have of the existence of conscious observers is limited to some very unstable chemistry happening in the recent history of one quite small planet, so it would be absurd to suggest that the existence of the entire universe depended on this cosmically insignificant event within it.
Do you need a conscious observer internal to yourself to exist?Edit: You can't say bacteria unless you can count them as a conscious observer.
Beginning with the Big Bang followed by the Inflationary Period over vast amounts of intervening time, it would be without merit to suggest that some form of consciousness was ever present from that first moment until now. My answer to the question would be an unequivocal (NO)
It is Descartes one step removed. "I think therefore the universe is."
Yes our concept of consciousness is the same!
Quote from: Alan McDougall on 26/06/2016 16:33:19Yes our concept of consciousness is the same!So which of these list do you think are qualified as conscious observer? what makes the difference?-human-chimpanzee-rat-lizard-spider-worm-jellyfish-venus flytrap-apple tree-bacteria-virus-computer with alphago-iphone 6s-curiosity rover-automatic car-solar cell-photon multiplier-thermometer
Fixation is no substitute for observation.
Does the universe need a conscious observer for it to exist?Your Thoughts?Alan
"Observation" has shown scientifically that on the fundamental scale at least particles react to being observed.
Quote from: Alan McDougall on 27/06/2016 08:50:36"Observation" has shown scientifically that on the fundamental scale at least particles react to being observed.So you admit that, on your scale, a photon multiplier is conscious. That raises a very important ethical question: if murder is bad, can I scrap my car, or eat vegetables, with a clear conscience? The only rational alternative answer to your original question is "obviously not".
The only possible answers I could get is that, time and not universe, is the product of our conscious, is occurs a long the observer is alive and stops and cease to exist at the moment the conscious die...
Quote from: alancalverd on 27/06/2016 09:50:33Quote from: Alan McDougall on 27/06/2016 08:50:36"Observation" has shown scientifically that on the fundamental scale at least particles react to being observed.So you admit that, on your scale, a photon multiplier is conscious. That raises a very important ethical question: if murder is bad, can I scrap my car, or eat vegetables, with a clear conscience? The only rational alternative answer to your original question is "obviously not".Your answer is highly rational, it makes as much sense as most of dear 'Boxes" statements do, and you can do a lot better than post such inane nonsense.Nonsense remains nonsense regardless of the source of the nonsense, be it from God, Albert Einstein or a moderator on the particular forum, nonsense is nonsense period! Alan
I beg to differ.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 27/06/2016 13:01:38I beg to differ.I do as well.......................Suggesting that consciousness was present at the Big Bang sounds a great deal like NONSENCE too!
Quote from: Alan McDougall on 25/06/2016 17:37:23Does the universe need a conscious observer for it to exist?Your Thoughts?AlanYou surprise me Alan. This is a perfectly valid question which should have been placed in the b]Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology[/b] where questions like this belong. This forum is for new theories, and this is not a theory but a question. A good question in fact.The answer to your question is no. It's inconceivable for a universe to exist which depends on the existence of such an observer. Such observers are created by such universes by the process of evolution. If such a universe can't exist before they're created then they couldn't be created. You don't believe that the universe didn't exist before someone was around to take notice of it, do you? If you did then where did such observers come from? Why do you think they'd be required to exist for the universe to be able to exist. Recall the history of the universe from the Big Bang onward. Not even life existed before there were suns which went supernova which created the elements from which we are constructed.
How can you possible know that?, who says the big bang was the beginning of all existence or the universe is everything that exists and "there is no need too "shout" to get your point over.?
or some form of no-material reality beyond human comprehension caused the universe to exist by contemplation.
Quote from: Alan McDougall on 27/06/2016 16:13:09How can you possible know that?, who says the big bang was the beginning of all existence or the universe is everything that exists and "there is no need too "shout" to get your point over.?I really didn't mean to offend anyone Alan so I'll offer my apology to all those who may have taken it that way.Quote from: Alan McDougallor some form of no-material reality beyond human comprehension caused the universe to exist by contemplation.To repeat a reply you made to one of my offerings: "How can you possibly know that?"
My limited logic seems to insist that everything must have had a beginning?
Is that so silly of me?
Pete we just do not know what existed at the Big Bang or if anything existed before it.
Consciousness is not something you can package in a box, ...
...it is something with which we can contemplate all of existence and range in back in time in thought, from the moment of creation until the end of time
With our consciousness we can reach out into the depths of truth and extend our awareness far out into the vast boundless universe'
Our thoughts are not physical objects, love is more than a physical construct of the brain, compassion and loyalty to the point of dying in the place of your buddy during warfare is not a physical thing.
Evolution has its place, but the likes of Adolf Hitler used this theory as justification for his master race philosophy, leading to the Holocaust death camps which were a prime an example of devolution, not positive evolution.
Just imagine the colossal waste of human potential due to this unspeakable evil, how many great minds were destroyed by this monstrous ideology.
We are conscious entities contained in a physical body that are our clothes we wear during our physical existence on planet earth. I am not an atheist and have a real reason for rejecting my previous position as an angry atheist.
Quote from: Ethos_ on 28/06/2016 01:45:37Quote from: Alan McDougall on 27/06/2016 16:13:09How can you possible know that?, who says the big bang was the beginning of all existence or the universe is everything that exists and "there is no need too "shout" to get your point over.?I really didn't mean to offend anyone Alan so I'll offer my apology to all those who may have taken it that way.Quote from: Alan McDougallor some form of no-material reality beyond human comprehension caused the universe to exist by contemplation.To repeat a reply you made to one of my offerings: "How can you possibly know that?"I do not know it! It is just a belief which I will not try to prove, other than I think that there must be an "Uncaused- Cause" of all existence, something that started the whole thing, call it God or the primordial consciousness or non-material spirit, or first thought, or the alpha point moment, that pervades and sustains all of reality. Maybe it is the supplier of an inexhaustible source of energy that cycles back between itself and creation in an everlasting loop.Or we are left with the uncomfortable idea of "Infinite Regression' which answers nothing. My limited logic seems to insist that everything must have had a beginning?Is that so silly of me?
You have started mentioning ''God'' in a few posts now, I think your intentions are not of a science purpose and you are slowly slipping into showing your true ''colours''.
You are ''spamming'' the forum with your posts more than I ever have
and I am the biggest ''troll'' there ever was.
Are you lonely?
Of course it doesn't. Hell, based on the knowledge we currently have on hand, the universe managed to exist for billions upon billions of years with no consciousness there to observe it.From what we know, consciousness is a relatively new development within the cosmos, and the cosmos itself couldn't care less about it. Hell, if anything, the universe as a whole seems hell bent on eradicating it! The universe is a hostile place, largely non-conducive to the evolution of consciousness. Think of how many natural ways there are for us to perish on our planet alone? Then you take some external causes, and the possibilities for our destruction are infinite! There are so many ways for us to be obliterated within our universe, for life to be completely eradicated. Because the universe couldn't care less about us or our consciousness. The universe couldn't care less about life. Humans are insignificant nothings as far as the universe as a whole is concerned. So no, the universe also couldn't care less about there being a conscious being there to observe it. And if there was some consciousness there that conceived creation to begin with, I would find it beyond likely that it wouldn't have made the universe so downright hostile towards anything that might also achieve it. That's one of the biggest points those overly religious nuts always fail to consider. Why if a universe was created for us, would it be so downright hostile of an environment towards us? Just one of those little logical things that gets in the way of their ideology. But that's a discussion for a different day I guess.
If wasn't hostile we wouldn't have a imunologic system, "evolved", we wouldn't be able to become humans in the first place, Repitiles forever... It's really unlikely that the creator was a repitale nor a humanoid, but in terms of awarenes, we humans are more related with universe than a reptile... So once and again, as much more hostile, the worst for weak life, but the better for the dominant species, us... And I will go further, even if outhere are aliens evolved, flying around with super fast ships, what in hell make one thing that they are smarter than us? I really doubt that any civilization out there, would have evolved the society so dependant on money as our is, they where probably not subjected to oxigen blue atmosphere making things difficult... For them fly a space ship could be as is to us to drive a car, we don't need to know how it work, we simple do... Do anyone serious believe that aliens would need money, hand craft to build machines to build other machines the way we did? Dig down the planet to refine minerals and all that, of course you could create a few ships, but do you really believe more complex than ours? With our systems and also the human very complex and strong body? Its a little bit apart of the question about consious after death, but we certainly missing a secund species point of view to compare, as long we don't interact with another inteligent self aware species that can at least talk, we can't possible know for real, only imagine the anwser... Of course there is life out there, inteligent too, but even if one travels trought here, they woud be more conected with the universe than us, doesn't necessarily mean that they understand things as we do, and they can't build as good too, humans are a way above the scaduale... They had bilions of years, we are like the short powerfull version, their too old already, as they say DNA canot be transformed into something different only enchanced, ours is still prety new if you thing about it... That's why we have to be conscious for the universe and preserve and enchance planets in the future, colonize, don't listen to those depressive humans that hate humans they don't know what they talking about, do they expect to find such peacefull and warmt aproche out there?
If wasn't hostile we wouldn't have a imunologic system