08 May 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombImmediately after you die you will be comprised of the same atoms. Will you have a consciousness then?
Consider this. I am a conscious being. When i was born, i was comprised of thousands of atoms which combined together to make me. During the course of my life i have replaced these atoms again and again, yet there is an essense that is non physical that remains (my consciousness). I am now a completely different person (literally) than the one who was bo ...[text shortened]... f this line of reasoning is valid when deciding whether the Universe itself could be conscious.
08 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MarinkatombJust to stab at this—
Consider this. I am a conscious being. When i was born, i was comprised of thousands of atoms which combined together to make me. During the course of my life i have replaced these atoms again and again, yet there is an essense that is non physical that remains (my consciousness). I am now a completely different person (literally) than the one who was bo f this line of reasoning is valid when deciding whether the Universe itself could be conscious.
The cosmos is arranged such that conscious (and “self-reflectively” conscious) beings have arisen. That does not entail that the cosmos is conscious in any other sense, nor that there is a “ghost in the machine,” nor that such consciousness is less transient than any other physical aspect of myself. It’s transience is non-apparent under everyday circumstances because the bodily changes you mention occur within the general functioning/process of the system, and part of that functioning is to be conscious from a particular physical perspective—what you call “I.”
Absent that physical perspective—e.g., when your body dies—what is there to call “I”? Who/what is there to say “I”?
(Except for ease of speaking, I wouldn’t refer to consciousness as a noun at all—but rather, being-conscious as going-on.)
If it turns out the other way ‘round—that there is an actual substance of the cosmos called consciousness, or that that is the substance of the cosmos—even that still does not necessarily entail a continuation after death of the individual conscious perspective identified as “I”.
_______________________________
Either way—
Imagine the cosmos—the totality, the all-without-another—as an ocean from which you have arisen, in which and of which you are a stream, a current, a ripple... A stream that is conscious of it’s own perspective of “I”. When you die, that stream disappears—but where does it “go”? What becomes of “I”?
Either way—
“Why should the water be afraid
to drown in the depths of the sea?
And how silly for the flame to fear
annihilation in the fire.”
08 May 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombJust to add something, Many cognitive psychologists believe that the self is illusion. This isn't definite, but it seems the most plausible.
Consider this. I am a conscious being. When i was born, i was comprised of thousands of atoms which combined together to make me. During the course of my life i have replaced these atoms again and again, yet there is an essense that is non physical that remains (my consciousness). I am now a completely different person (literally) than the one who was bo ...[text shortened]... f this line of reasoning is valid when deciding whether the Universe itself could be conscious.
08 May 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombOne problem with that hypothesis, if true, how would we prove it?
Consider this. I am a conscious being. When i was born, i was comprised of thousands of atoms which combined together to make me. During the course of my life i have replaced these atoms again and again, yet there is an essense that is non physical that remains (my consciousness). I am now a completely different person (literally) than the one who was bo ...[text shortened]... f this line of reasoning is valid when deciding whether the Universe itself could be conscious.
If it had consciousness, that would imply communications between smaller units. Suppose we see flows of gas or particles in the universe and try to fit that into a conscious pattern. One problem being the speed of light would limit drastically the amount of information that could flow across units, however far apart they would be. Say a star cluster is the analogue of a single brain cell, then the communications would have to go between certain other star clusters in some manner limited to C, so a single thought could take a billion years if the whole universe was included in such a construction. If it was conscious we would not be able to see such because the time frames would measure billions of years. In my not so umble opinion, such a consciousnes would not have enough time for more than a few thoughts: "Wow, Where am I"? A billion years goes by.
"Oh, I seem to be by myself" Ten billion years later, "I think, therefore I am". Meanwhile the universe is undergoing inflation at an accelerating rate making it all the longer for thoughts to happen. Personally I find it very hard to find a rational for such a consideration.
Then again, maybe such thinking units, individual brain cells, if you will, may be nebulae inside individual galaxies. Then the time frame for information exchange could be in the millions of years, not billions. But that would kind of refute the idea of the universe itself being conscious because that would imply a conscious sub-unit of the universe, not the whole thing.
08 May 07
Originally posted by MarinkatombActually Freaky's quite right (for once...). You assume your consciousness is something which imbues you with a power of sorts, perhaps the freedom to choose or do, perhaps the curse of being aware of the universe around you, whatever. The point is, if you hold a claim to such a quality, but cannot objectify it in some fashion, holding the universe (the godhead of objectification as it were) to the same standards is like trying to hold eels with lubricated hands. Not to mention that you can't be sure what qualities you possess which you can attribute to consciousness, and what reasons there are to believe that the totality of existence has numerous individual consciousnesses within its own consciousness. How does the nature of free will or the lack thereof factor in, for example?
Why?
EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
There, that's got that over with...
08 May 07
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are assuming the consciousness experiences time as we do. We judge time based on our orbit round the sun. Our bodies have evolved to judge time based on the rotation of the Earth. This entity would exist on a super macroscopic scale, perhaps in a far greater Universe that we are completely unaware of (leap of faith i know, but you never know...). I realise this needs backing up, so what i will point out is that Each atom we contain isn't a million miles away from a miniature Universe. Imagine our Universe was just an atom in a far vaster Universe, going on and on....
One problem with that hypothesis, if true, how would we prove it?
If it had consciousness, that would imply communications between smaller units. Suppose we see flows of gas or particles in the universe and try to fit that into a conscious pattern. One problem being the speed of light would limit drastically the amount of information that could flow across ...[text shortened]... scious because that would imply a conscious sub-unit of the universe, not the whole thing.
Ok sorry, tangent. It was fun though....😀
09 May 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm still trying to come up with a way of conducting this conversation without going off on a tangent about the nature of my consciousness and whether it exists or not. It is possible that you are all a figment of my imagination and i am in fact having a conversation with myself but this doesn't really get anywhere. If this is the case then I might as well just drop the subject because i already know the answer. If not, then i'm justified in asking people to stick to the subject i believe. 😉
I hope you still intend to expand on this.
