Reviewing notes I wrote to myself years ago and found one I want to foist upon the group to consider. I am going to put it here in the form of a statement of fact and then comment later after everyone has had a chance to consider it.

The universe is self-aware.

sounds like a universal version of gaia, the belief that the earth is self aware. some say there is a universal mind simular to the christian belief in god, but without the christian trappings.

Greetings DA, et al,
I should think that a feedback system involving a non-local, macro-scale 'Quantum Hologram' is, simply, causal, intuitive. Ascribing consciouness, self awareness, would seem, however, to be a leap of faith and not-quite-science;)~

It would be interesting to develope a hypothesis about a universal gaia. What type of mechanisms would be involved. Is there a way, and how would we detect it? Or detect any part of it's existance.

Lightspeed and causality. It would be a veeeeery sloooow processor. Interviews bounced off geosynchrounous satellites are notoriously choppy.

Not a criticism but my suspicion is confirmed. Given a simple statement of fact the initial reaction would be one of abandoning science and moving into an area of philosophy or theology.

That the universe is self-aware is just a simple statement of fact unless you wish to posit that the atoms/molecules from which you are constructed, are separate and apart from the universe.

If you take a scientific view and objectively examine the facts ... quarks and electrons have self-organized into atoms ... that have self-organized into molecules ... that have self-organized into lifeforms that are capable of looking at the night sky and asking questions about their existance. There is no need for philosophical or theological nonsense. The facts are quite sufficient unto themselves.

What I find fascinating is that the knee-jerk reaction of humans is to somehow see themselves as different, and apart, from every other collection of bosons and fermions.

Now who's using the forum as a psychology experiment?

I am ... given that you have already acknowledged it was an experiment.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

True. Two instructors at the University of Washington recorded anecdotal observations with respect to mammalian psychology.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

Done. A hypothesis was formulated. Can't discuss it here as experimentation will continue in other web forums. But it shouldn't be hard to guess.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

Done. A specific behaviour was predicted to be overwhelmingly prevelent in the sample.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions

Done. Thank you everyone.

Pure science Rose meeting the test of the scientific method?

Now how about Kate telling us what she's doing with this site? ;-)

unless I'm mistaken, its been theorised that tachyons move faster than light. Ive never heard anyone claim a speed for them. perhaps though is faster than light, tachyons even. that would allow much faster thought. then again, it would be consieveable that something like this would not notice time as we do.

Tachyons are a great science fiction device, but they've never been proved to exist.

If the universe is self aware, it probably functions with a very slow awareness, and transient beings like ourselves will not exist long enough for it to take any notice of us. The whole of human existence is like the blink of an eye compared to that of the universe.

dehammer wrote:
"unless I'm mistaken, its been theorised that tachyons move faster than light"

You are correct. And while science has never seen a tachyon they have been observed in numerous Star Trek episodes.

Consider that time stops for a photon. A tachyon might, in theory, be a photon traveling backward in time. Seen any lately?

if im not mistaken, there are a lot of things that have never been seen that have been theoriezed about, but that have not been disproven.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

(this last one includes the theory that they can go backwards in time.)

there is also the theory that some neutrinos are actually tachyons

no, i have not seen any, but niether have i ever seen a proton or electron, yet i dont see anyone argueing that they dont exist.

The universe is not self-aware.
Religion is made up by man and possibly by other intelligent beings if they exist.

dehammer wrote:
"if im not mistaken, there are a lot of things that have never been seen that have been theoriezed about, but that have not been disproven."

So far no one has disproven the fact that the invisible purple rhinoceros created the universe either. But you are as likely to find that it is so as that there are tachyons.

Lurker wrote:
"The universe is not self-aware."

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

I will not be hurt if you are unaware that I responded or are, at least temporarily, not in this universe. ;-)

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.

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. Unless you are a better physicist than those who have come up with the theories, i don't think you would have the knowledge base to compare the theory with your "theory" of the existence of the pr. I can say you don't exist and have as much of a authority in the manner as a computer language teacher has of saying that a physicist theory accepted by many of his piers isn't possible. Aren't you the one that says that pier acceptance is the keystone of if something is acceptable. if your not one of his piers, i don't think your on the level needed to decide that it does not exist. Ive shown you a few of the links i found that say its an acceptable theory, so why not show me a link to someone just as reliable to say its not. Just because your only contact with the theory is from SF, this does not mean it originated there or that that is the main area it was from.

let me explain a little bit about SF (from a writers point of view as well as a hard core fan). if it does not exist in science, you can use it if it does not go against known science. IF it does exist in science, then you have to stay as close to the theory as possible. The theory of tachyons predates its use in SF. therefore any use not consistant with the theory would have rendered the story unacceptable by SF fans. I have seen stories by good writers that completely died because they tried to use things like tachyons incorrectly. SF fans will accept a lot, but not science fiction that does not follow science.

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. a true scientist will not ignore possibly valid theories just because they sound like religious things. example, they have found something in the bible to be correct, not because it was in the bible, but because there were things that it mention that is known to have happen. a few biblical scientist, in an effort to prove the bible, have found things that might not have been found otherwise for sometime if at all. unfortunately for them, the proof of the bible did not come out of their attempts.

actually, they have found that there is some, and i do emphises some, evidence that the cells in the body do have something to do with thought. limited, but some. the fact that cutting off the brain will kill the body, only proves that the brain controls the body functions of complex systems like the heart, lungs, etc. since, unlike the brain, no one has ever been able to map out the mind, there is no way to definitively say that the cells don't have anything to do with consciousness. there has been evidence that plants respond to being talking to or shouting at, and they dont have a brain.

before you claim something is impossible, how about some proof. otherwise its just your opinion or your religion talking.

Danismyname wrote:
"Well just because we are part of the universe doesn't mean that the entire universe is self-aware"

Just because a salmon is a salmon doesn't mean all fish are salmon. Wow!

Those that know me know what I am thinking.

Dan ... education is a wonderful thing. Embrace it.

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.

dehammer wrote:
"here's a couple examples of your links."

I don't see any links? Does anyone else see them?

dehammer wrote:
"we were talking about male witches. you cliamed we are called warlocks"

I did not. I never said that. I posted a link to Wikipedia that begins:
"Warlocks are, among historic Christian traditions, said to be the male equivalent of witches"

If you have an issue with Wikipedia take it up with them. I'm bored with your game so go ahead ... get in the last word, sentence, and paragraph. YOYO!

those were the links you gave. i did not show them. i was discussing them.

i dont have a problem with wikipedia, what i do have a problem with is that you did not read the ariticle enough to see that its only christians that claim that. yet you claim you are not a christian. why would you accept the christian only definition of it instead of the true definition of it, the one that everyone but the christians use.

incase you have not really been paying attension, the only change in perspectives ive had since i started was that i was originally of the opinion that the supervolcanos were going to destroy the human race. Rics helped me out in understanding that they were not that powerful.

YOU on the other hand do vacilate quite frequently.

"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."

I'm not saying that an assemblage of consituent parts can't form together and display attributes that non of them individually possess. I don't think that that statement lends any evidence to your argument that "The universe is aware" and I don't have any issue against it. Howerver, I am attaking the premise that: If a part posesses a property (Me posessing awareness) then the whole posesses the property as well (The universe is aware).

In my example using the blocks, I hopefully showed that using your reasoning only amounts to a confusing way of talking about things. Let me review that argument briefly.

Build a tower out of muli-colored blocks. One block is grean, one red etc. By your reasoning I should say the tower is green. But the tower is not green it is multi-colored. So saying the tower is green, really means that the tower has a green block in it.

Now examine the website logo.


By your reasoning The logo is orange. But it really only has parts of it which are orange. Of course by your reasoning as well the logo is green. So I can say two seemingly contradictory statements about the logo, and according to your reasoning they are both true. I think it is less confusing and more accurate to say the logo contains orange and green.

The same applies to the universe as well. By your reasoning the universe is aware because it contains with in it things that are aware. Now I can also say the universe contains things that are not aware therefore the universe is not aware. So there we have again two contradictory statements that are according to you both true. I say that's confusing, and that it is clearer to say the universe contains within it things that are aware, and things that are not aware.

Now the point of all this is to show that your statement that the "the universe is aware" is not a fact, but a logical argument subject to philosophical scrutiny. I find that under that scrutiny your argument doesn't hold up. I reject your premise because it a)Leads to contradictory statements and b)makes communication less clear instead of more clear.

What specific issues with this argument do you disagree with?

At this point I'll concede that I am a part of the universe becasue I don't think that I need to to argue against it at this point.