Does the universe care?

[The Grand Nudger]

-is there any money in it?

[Mudhammam]

I can see the reasoning but it's pretty nonsensical to equate self with Universe. As you said, you're a part of the Universe, and should add to the statement, "Part of the Universe cares": a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very SMALL part of the Universe cares. And that part is you.

Edit: Now that I've gone back and read pg. 2, it seems like everyone pretty much already said the same.

[Anomalocaris]

Please elaborate, the reason I posted this is to sort of ponder on the thought and get some other opinions and ideas and open a line of discussion. Thank you for the response.

The fallacy of composition is when someone infers something of the whole when it is only true of some part. In this case you are trying to imbue the entire universe with a consciousness and ability to care because a part of the universe possesses consciousness. There is absolutely no reason to accept the proposition 'the universe is conscious'.

Yet we say so and so in conscious, when 99% of that person carries on no function that can even remotely be said to approximate the appearance of consciousness.

We consider emergent properties of a small fraction of the structures within just one organ of the organism with the organism as being enough to say the organism as a whole exhibit this same property.

The space, time, planets, and stars do not contemplate themselves or anything else, just as your fingers and toes do not contemplate themselves. But we deem humans, toes and all, to be contemplating and self aware organisms, So we are part of the universe, it doesn't seem absurd to say ours is a contemplating and self aware universe.

[Cato]

Yet we say so and so in conscious, when 99% of that person carries on no function that can even remotely be said to approximate the appearance of consciousness.

We consider emergent properties of a small fraction of the structures within just one organ of the organism with the organism as being enough to say the organism as a whole exhibit this same property.

The space, time, planets, and stars do not contemplate themselves or anything else, just as your fingers and toes do not contemplate themselves. But we deem humans, toes and all, to be contemplating and self aware organisms, So we are part of the universe, it doesn't seem absurd to say ours is a contemplating and self aware universe.

Are you just having a go or are you seriously confused about the difference between an entity containing consciousness (the universe, a train, a stadium, a classroom, etc.) and an entity being conscious (a human)?

As far as toes and fingers are concerned....
Let's assume a human, Bob. Bob includes more than just his consciousness, including his fingers and toes. Saying Bob is conscious is a matter of convention and it is reasonably assumed that nobody is inferring that Bob's toes and fingers are having a conversation. Nor is it reasonable to assume that when we say Bob we are only referring to his consciousness. There is also a functional difference that you are not considering. Bob can think and cause his fingers and toes to move. Bob cannot simply think and cause your fingers and toes to move. Hell, Bob cannot cause anything outside Bob to happen without the external application of force.

The universe contains consciousness; it is not conscious. Unless one is simply being figurative, it is absurd to claim that the universe is self aware.

Taking your meaning then it would also not be absurd to state "the universe is pink". The universe contains pink; therefore, the universe is pink. Or is it blue? No, red. Since the universe contains everything it can be anything and everything simultaneously; therefore, your position becomes nonsense.

[Mudhammam]

The Universe is homosexual. No it's straight. Actually bi. No, transgender.