Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum The Question

dehammer wrote:
"perhaps, if you come up with a theory of how, why, when and where a purple rhinoceros can exist, esp without interacting with the known universe, it might be a plausible theory."

Please don't tempt me. It wouldn't be that difficult. Heck look at what L. Ron Hubbard did with nothing but a college thesis on how to become a millionaire.

DA: "The universe is self aware"

A curious thought. I always had the untenable idea that the Solar System
reacted like a live entity. If you want to claim that the universe is self aware
I think then that logic compels the conclusion that all of its parts are also
aware in order to make the major premise possible. You can not have an
aware entity composed of dead parts?

jjw

jjw writes:
"I think then that logic compels the conclusion that all of its parts are also aware in order to make the major premise possible. You can not have an aware entity composed of dead parts?"

I sure can. And I can because it reflects reality.
Are you alive? All of you? Even the cornea of your eye? Even the outer layer of your skin? Even your hair (not the follicle the hair)? Even your finger nail clippings? Of course not.

That one thing is self-aware in no way forces anything else to be self-aware.

And don't get me started on the current level of artificial intelligence work now being conducted at IBM, Hitchi, Fujitsu, and major universities. Your premise is faulty.

I see your point but I disagree. Citing fingernails and cornea does not work. The nails are and extension of our flesh and we feel with them very well. The cornea can change shape and do everyday work. I can not take them as "dead".

The real issue relates to what the universe is aware of, if it is aware? If the parts are not aware what information does the universe receive?
If gravitation relates to some form of awareness to you then everything that has Mass is aware. I suppose you should finish your thought process and tell us what the universe is aware of?

It looks like an incomplete conjecture to me. To be "self aware" implies awareness of all your parts and appendages, etc. What has the universe to be aware of, us?
jjw

Not disagreeing with your point, but researchers have found that the human heart contains a neural network (and a significant one). It may not just be the brain in your head that has awareness.

http://www.heartmath.org/research/our-heart-brain.html

Blacknad.

jjw wrote:
"I can not take them as "dead".

Maybe you can't. But your physician can. Every biologist I've ever met can. Not accepting reality is just a refusal to acknolwedge your statement: "You can not have an aware entity composed of dead parts" is incorrect.

It is: Just acknowledge it and move on.

I'm going to agree with Blacknad here. Every living cell in the human body is aware of its environment and interacts with it. They may not be capable of reflecting upon philosophical concepts. But they are constantly aware of the levels of neurotransmitters, corticosteroids, ions such as potassium and chloride, and many other realities of their environment.

Apoptosis, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis) a cell committing suicide to protect the rest of the body, is most certainly an act of awareness.

DA Morgan wrote:
*************************************************
?Lets examine your proposition:

1. Are you saying you are not part of the universe?
and
2. That you, and other sentient life-forms, are not self-aware?

* Because if you are part of the universe
* and you are self-aware (I know I certainly am)
* Then so is at least one portion of the universe
* And my proposition stands?
*************************************************

OK, Lets examine this.

1. Are you saying you are not part of the universe?

No, I am not saying that.

and
2. That you, and other sentient life-forms, are not self-aware?

No, I am not saying that

* Because if you are part of the universe

Yes, I am.

* and you are self-aware (I know I certainly am)

Yes, I am. And if you say so, I believe you are too

* Then so is at least one portion of the universe

HERE we agree!! Tiny, tiny parts of the universe are then self aware (you, me and other sentient life-forms). (You said ?one portion?, but I think you meant plural.)

* And my proposition stands?

Here we disagree. Only very small portions of the universe are self aware. NOT the Universe itself.


I agree with Danismyname who wrote:
*************************************************
?Well just because we are part of the universe doesn't mean that the entire universe is self-aware. Take a human for example. The only part of the human that is self aware is the brain. Without it functioning we would just be there. Our limbs and other organs are there to allow us to be able to interact with other objects.

Take away our limbs we can still intereact. Take away our brain and we no longer are able to.
In that sense, just because a piece of something is self-aware doesn't mean everything of the entirety is
too.?
*************************************************

DA Morgan responded to Danismyname:
*************************************************
?Just because a salmon is a salmon doesn't mean all fish are salmon. Wow!
Those that know me know what I am thinking.?
************************************************

I (A Lurker) asks:
Mr. Morgan, for us that don?t know you that well, would you please expand on this?


dehammer wrote (in part):
************************************************
?to me, that sounds like your religion talking. there is no proof that it is not self-aware, just as there is no proof that it is.?
************************************************

Actually I agree with you on this, dehammer. I posted ?The universe is not self-aware.? just to contradict DA Morgan?s proposal that it IS self aware. And I hinted that religion would be behind such belief.

I am far from religious myself, although I find religion and all it stands for, very interesting, yet disturbing given the fact how much suffering it has caused and still is causing.

DA Morgan wrote:
"Apoptosis, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis) a cell committing suicide to protect the rest of the body, is most certainly an act of awareness."

Mr. Morgan, I have been Lurking and occationally posted responses here since, I believe, 1998 or -99. I have seen many examples of you posting links or references which you clearly did not read, or did not read very well to understand the content.

The wikipedia entry you referred to JUST DOES NOT say anything like (and I quote you here)
"a cell committing suicide to protect the rest of the body" and then you proceed to say that this "is most certainly an act of awareness."


What it DOES say is:

"apoptosis is carried out in an ordered process that generally confers advantages during an organism's life cycle. For example, the differentiation of human fingers in a developing embryo requires the cells between the fingers to initiate apoptosis so that the fingers can separate. The way the apoptotic process is executed facilitates the safe disposal of cell corpses and fragments."

No mentioning of awareness or acting this way "to protect the rest of the body".

When you talk of awareness, how do you define it?? Are molecules "self aware" because they bond in certain ways again and again?

A Lurker wrote:
"HERE we agree!! Tiny, tiny parts of the universe are then self aware"

That is all I was asking: Is the universe self aware. I will leave it to others to debate the percentages.

Lurker continues:
"Here we disagree. Only very small portions of the universe are self aware. NOT the Universe itself."

That is a semantic construct. If any portion of the universe, any portion no matter how small, can look out at the night sky, see the milky way, see the andromeda galaxy, and ask the questions ... who am I? where did I come from? where am I going? Then it is self-aware. Your toe nails are not self-aware. That doesn't mean you aren't.

Lurker ... the link to apoptosis was for those that didn't know what it was. The act of a cell committing suicide to protect the body is remarkably well documented in medical literature.

One of the biggest issues in cancer research is that cancer cells disable apoptosis. Normal cells will self-destruct when they become a threat to the organism.

can you provide links to these documented cases.

www.google.com
www.fazzle.com

I won't play this game with you.

If you are sincerely interested in science and education you can find it quite easily yourself.

thats what i thought, its good enough for you to demand people back up statements you dont want to accept, but your not willing to back up your own statements.

I provide links almost always. You provide them how often?

You've played this little game too many times. Sort of like the old story of the child crying wolf. You abused the right to ask so I'm saying no.

Talking science with you is a bit like:
Because ...
But why?
Because ...
But why?
Because ...
But why?

You are a 40+ year old adult with access to the internet. If you are sincerely interested in science you will look it up. If you are not then that pretty much sums up my impression of this game.

In summary ... I will provide links when I post stories. I will provide links when others ask for them. But you have a long history of abusing the privilege. So privilege revoked.

Morgan,

This seems to be your reasoning to me:

The property of a part is also a property of the whole
I have the property of awareness
I am part of the unniverse
Therefore the unniverse is aware

So your statement that "the unniverse is aware" is not a fact. All I have to do is deny your premise. Say that I construct a tower of blocks, each of different color. One green, one blue, one red, and so on. Looking at the first block, it is green. By your line of reasoning the tower is green. That is clearly not the case though. The tower has many different colors of blocks. So your premise really just amounts to a funny way of speaking. Saying the tower is green, really means that there is a green block in the tower. The tower is green. There is a green block in the tower. I prefer the latter.

Could I also despute the statement that I am part of the unniverse? Perhaps I am not part of the universe, but I am contained within the universe.

You are correct TwoSheds but my statement is not correct. Lets use an analogy.

An axle can not be ridden down the road.
A gasoline tank can not be ridden down the road.
A carburator can not be ridden down the road.

Assemble the parts and you can drive down the road and no one would claim that, in the form of an automobile, a carbeurator doesn't drive down the road.

If a collection of quarks and electrons, in a particular configuration, can ask questions about the nature of the universe. Then that is that.

Feel free to dispute whether you are part of the universe? Or whether your protons are better then those in a brick. Or whether your guons do something other guons can not do. But I can assure you that I am part of this universe and I've a strong suspicion the internet you are using to communicate with me is too.

Your car analogy is different. It is saying that the a property of a whole (in this case driving down the road) is a property of the part (the carbeurator). A steering wheel is round. Should we say in turn that the car is round, or that the car contains within it objects that are round.

I don't have anything to say about my proton's or my gluons. But can I dispute that protons are part of the universe? Can I say that protons are contained within the universe, and therefore any properties that they posess are not neccassarily posessed by the universe?

yea, right. most of the links you post refute the arguements that give. since your not bothering to notice, ill point it out. i asked for that because you refused to give it when others requested it. All i did was be blunt about it.

here's a couple examples of your links.

we were talking about male witches. you cliamed we are called warlocks and you provided a link that back you up. problem with the link is that it prove that male witches are called male witches, and warlocks are traitors.

you provided a link to prove that the land was going to drop 6 meters in rebound when the ice of greenland melted rising the sea level up 6 meters and some how this would make the sea 15 meters higher on the land than it is now. problem is, the article specifed that the land under the ice would rebound several meters and much of the 6 meters of water on the ocean would be ballanced this way.

should i go on about your links.

Twosheds wrote:
"Your car analogy is different.

No it isn't. In both cases we are talking about an assemblage of parts where the assemblage is capable of doing things the individual parts can not do.

Protons and gluons are not able to ask questions about the origin of the universe. A collection of them can.

Carbeurators and axles are not able to drive down the road. But a collection of them can.

Can you establish any basis for any of the following?

(A) Humans are not part of the universe
(B) The constituents of a human are as sentient as the assembled human when separated

Didn't think so.