Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?

[archangle]

This thread makes my brain hurt.

thats good. You are one step closer to seeing past the things in front of you. You will begin to see there are no things at all, only events. Example: the "thing" we call 'fire", or a "rainbow".

nice!!!!

[Cato]

Can an universal "awareness" emerge from the "pieces that we see? The answer is far more probably "yes" than "no". In fact so much so that it is silly not to assume it. as silly as assuming there were no planets elsewhere in the 1970's.

You would do better to substantiate this claim rather than preemptively call all those who will disagree with you silly. Wild speculation.

[Chas]

I see mind as a pattern of activity on a physical substrate, although that's a simplification. Mind emerges from the complexity.

Let's talk about this.

If mind is emergent on complexity, then the question is: complexity of what? Everything in the universe is related. And the universe includes all brains, so the complexity of the universe is necessarily greater than that of all brains. This indicates a possibility (or in this case semantic necessity) of a universal consciousness.

Why is it that some collections of matter are thought of as singular agents with many parts, and others are thought of as just a bunch of stuff happening? Why are the energetic interactions between brain cells considered more complex than those between galaxies?

Non sequitur, equivocation.
To equate the local complexity of a brain with the complexity of all brains is truly fallacious.

[Cato]

I see mind as a pattern of activity on a physical substrate, although that's a simplification. Mind emerges from the complexity.

Let's talk about this.

If mind is emergent on complexity, then the question is: complexity of what? Everything in the universe is related. And the universe includes all brains, so the complexity of the universe is necessarily greater than that of all brains. This indicates a possibility (or in this case semantic necessity) of a universal consciousness.

Why is it that some collections of matter are thought of as singular agents with many parts, and others are thought of as just a bunch of stuff happening? Why are the energetic interactions between brain cells considered more complex than those between galaxies?

Fallacy of composition. Just because my heart pumps blood does not mean that my body as a whole pumps blood.

Organic molecules and cells are more complex than collections of stars because of the atomic, molecular, and cellular interactions required to produce a brain. Gravity and fusion give spectacular results; however, the level of sophisticated interaction found in the brain can hardly be said to exist in the larger cosmos.

[archangle]

Can an universal "awareness" emerge from the "pieces that we see? The answer is far more probably "yes" than "no". In fact so much so that it is silly not to assume it. as silly as assuming there were no planets elsewhere in the 1970's.

You would do better to substantiate this claim rather than preemptively call all those who will disagree with you silly. Wild speculation.

fu

point to one "wild speculation" in my post.

---

Let's talk about this.

If mind is emergent on complexity, then the question is: complexity of what? Everything in the universe is related. And the universe includes all brains, so the complexity of the universe is necessarily greater than that of all brains. This indicates a possibility (or in this case semantic necessity) of a universal consciousness.

Why is it that some collections of matter are thought of as singular agents with many parts, and others are thought of as just a bunch of stuff happening? Why are the energetic interactions between brain cells considered more complex than those between galaxies?

Non sequitur, equivocation.
To equate the local complexity of a brain with the complexity of all brains is truly fallacious.

how about local "earth" complexity compared to "universal" complexity? one has a clear limit, one has an unknown limit. What would that suggest?

[pocaracas]

FFS, universal awareness?!
Like this?

---

---

Come on... -.-'

[Rampant.A.I.]

Can an universal "awareness" emerge from the "pieces that we see? The answer is far more probably "yes" than "no". In fact so much so that it is silly not to assume it. as silly as assuming there were no planets elsewhere in the 1970's.

You would do better to substantiate this claim rather than preemptively call all those who will disagree with you silly. Wild speculation.

fu

point to one "wild speculation" in my post.

There you go.

[Chas]

Non sequitur, equivocation.
To equate the local complexity of a brain with the complexity of all brains is truly fallacious.

how about local "earth" complexity compared to "universal" complexity? one has a clear limit, one has an unknown limit. What would that suggest?

I don't understand your question.

[archangle]

Can an universal "awareness" emerge from the "pieces that we see? The answer is far more probably "yes" than "no". In fact so much so that it is silly not to assume it. as silly as assuming there were no planets elsewhere in the 1970's.

fu

point to one "wild speculation" in my post.

There you go.

Oh maybe I misunderstood "wild speculation".

no ... it clearly is not "wild speculation". Thinking that the "pieces" we see around us probably add up to something more than we know.

I would actually say it is sheer science ignorance to say they don't.

---

how about local "earth" complexity compared to "universal" complexity? one has a clear limit, one has an unknown limit. What would that suggest?

I don't understand your question.

That's the problem with philosophy

Think of it in context of your belief. That "awareness emerged from complexity". From our vantage point the earth seems to have a limit to its complexity. Compare that to the complexity of the "known" universe . What might emerge from that "universe" set of interactions that we can't "see" yet?

then look at a complexity verses volume situation. The brain vs. the sun for example. Now the universe has a prediction of 14, or so, billion year size, and as of yet, an unknown complexity. hmmm.

then, along with your line of thought, the notion that the universe is build on a hierarchy of structure. from pure energy to "us". Would it be wild speculation that there is a "next step" in this structure?

What do you think it means in term of the possibility of the emergence of "a living" universe?

[Chas]

I don't understand your question.

That's the problem with philosophy

Think of it in context of your belief. That "awareness emerged from complexity". From our vantage point the earth seems to have a limit to its complexity. Compare that to the complexity of the "known" universe . What might emerge from that "universe" set of interactions that we can't "see" yet?

Most of the universe is actually very simple.

then look at a complexity verses volume situation. The brain vs. the sun for example. Now the universe has a prediction of 14, or so, billion year size, and as of yet, an unknown complexity. hmmm.

The human brain is many, many orders of magnitude more complex than the sun.

then, along with your line of thought, the notion that the universe is build on a hierarchy of structure. from pure energy to "us". Would it be wild speculation that there is a "next step" in this structure?

Why, yes, that would be wild speculation.

What hierarchy of structure?

What do you think it means in term of the possibility of the emergence of "a living" universe?

Nothing. There is no evidence for it and no evidence of a possible mechanism.