Submitted by simsquatched t3_104kji6 in philosophy
Comments
aesu t1_j38bbbc wrote
I've felt both, but it still doesn't lead me to believe consciousness is a universal property of matter. I mean, maybe there is some fundamental aspect of reality that facilitates consciousness, but I don't think matter is conscious in the sense we are.
I feel like pansychism and adjacent ideas are really a way of coping with the abundance of evidence we've gathered over the last 100 years that we are entirely biological and nothing survives our death. That's hard to deal with. It's why we invented the idea of an afterlife. Being alive is often nice, and it's sad to think it ends forever.
But it does end, even if there is some unifying consciousness, or whatever. You still will cease to exist, cease to enjoy beautiful sunsets, views of earth from space, ice cream, sex, spiritual moments. You will be annihilated, just like if you've experienced anaethesia; you cease to exist. There is no conscious experience that we can relate to, on any level. All time and space are gone. It's not even blackness. You're just gone. It's horrifying. I've experienced it. The most traumatic moment of my life so far was waking up from anaesthesia. The feeling of complete oblivion. Of being born out of nothing. That indescribable feeling that a million universes could have been born and died, or a microsecond could have passed. You just weren't there. It's so hard to describe, so all consuming. I still have nightmares and ruminate often on that oblivion. It's waiting for us all. It's not like sleep. It's like before you were born. You wont know a thing about it, and that's what makes it so awful. And you will never return, for all infinity. This is it. You could die this minute, and that's it.
It's horrifying, I'm now having an existential crisis and flashbacks to the time I came out of anaesthesia, and I absolutely understand why people choose to ignore reality and believe in an afterlife, and I also understand why those who choose to, or are forced to acknowledge reality, look for new and elaborate ways in which we might actually not be staring down oblivion.
BrightThru2014 t1_j38p825 wrote
I mean this earnestly — I don’t think what you’re describing is necessarily an irrefutable certainty, at all. Look at existence in the first place, we are sentient beings on a rock existing in a vast expanse of nothingness. That doesn’t make any logical sense. Our scientific understanding of the world around us is beyond primitive. You don’t need religion to think that there’s more to this than what we can physically observe.
Matrixneo42 t1_j3abab0 wrote
I’ve actually seen and felt proof of things that we don’t have normal explanations. There’s definitely more than meets the eye.
masterofallvillainy t1_j39rij3 wrote
I'm not sure what logic has to do with the reality we have. I get that people would use logic to try and understand the universe. But with obvious gaps in our knowledge and understanding. It makes sense that we can't make perfect sense of it.
Plus with reality operating under it's own laws and properties. It's possible we'll never be able to make logical sense of the universe.
Logic is also not absolute. And is fallible.
BrightThru2014 t1_j3a0reg wrote
I think that’s my point precisely actually — hence why the above poster is mistaken in viewing his opinion as the absolute truth regarding consciousness.
masterofallvillainy t1_j3a1lld wrote
I have a different take on it. He said what he thinks and explains his reasoning. Nothing absolute about that.
johnjohn4011 t1_j39ui06 wrote
Right. "Logic" is just a totally subjective self feedback loop, essentially reducible to unprovable assumptions. Nothing more.
SecondAlibi t1_j39wrt9 wrote
Sure, but there aren’t beings pondering consciousness on the uninhabitable planets. It’s the law of large numbers. So far life’s success rate is something like 0.000000000001%.
BrightThru2014 t1_j3a0uqp wrote
It’s actually statistical zero.
Heapsa t1_j39l9ug wrote
We don't know why things are, and mostly only understand how they are. Aswell as how to make them work in specific ways. Wouldn't be surprised to find out there's much more going on than we perceive. Like here we are trying to measure existence with a tape measure- wrong tool for the job.
blackeyedangel_ t1_j399jqi wrote
To me, I find it convincing that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter. Matter is ‘aware’ on some primitive level of other matter, and interacts with it in such a way. You could also say that the universe interacts with itself in such a way. I believe evolution has harnessed this universal ‘awareness’ through the brain/nervous system, creating an ego. The ego ties all of our matter to a singular conscious entity (ourselves) for the purpose of understanding our body’s relationship with its environment (to sustain its life). When we remove the ego to a degree with the use of psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, DMT), people are said to experience a more fragmented, universal form of consciousness which transcends the human body. I really do see the weight in panpsychism, but I admit my excitement could very well be influenced by an underlying fear of/inability to properly grasp death. The conscious becoming unconscious seems more and more absurd the more I ponder it.
Mustelafan t1_j38iijs wrote
I don't ignore reality and I still believe in an afterlife 🤷♀️
aesu t1_j38p2va wrote
How do you incorporate the idea of an afterlife with the reality we're part of an unbroken lineage of self assembling carbon chains? Have you constructed a theory of afterlife which is compatible with this basic fact, or are you ignoring it?
Mustelafan t1_j38rlwq wrote
As a dualist I recognize the existence of phenomenal conscious experience alongside physical existence, and as a theist (not of any religion) I believe this conscious experience could persist beyond death. Consciousness is contingent on our physical bodies while we're alive but it's not a logical necessity that it must always be that way. I'm not trying to convince you of theism or dualism, I'm just stating that it's possible to believe in both an afterlife and the existence of a physical universe.
Also Nietzsche's concept of eternal return could count as a sort of physicalist afterlife, no? Provided that the universe turned out to be cyclical? You could also return as a Boltzmann brain or something. Iunno, physicalist afterlives are weird.
aesu t1_j38woeu wrote
> but it's not a logical necessity that it must always be that way.
I agree with this 100% in principle. Which is why I asked a specific question. One which you didn't even address. That is my point. You have to ignore specific observable facts of our reality, to hold the belief that molecules, and the structures they form are redundant constructs, and that although it is not a logical necessity they are not, it is an observable reality that they evolved into greater complexity over billions of years, without any phenomenological change in their nature.
Or you can construct a logically, or even empirically consistent theory of reality which is consistent with both your assertion and these observables. That's fine, but until you do that, or even acknowledge the observable nature of reality, you are actively ignoring it.
Mustelafan t1_j390p0f wrote
I'm not sure we're operating with the same definitions and/or understanding of physics here. By 'phenomenal conscious experience' I mean qualia. Qualia is a (by?)product of brains but not necessarily a property of physical matter, hence why I'm a dualist. I'm not sure how a molecule would change phenomenologically because I don't attribute such conscious phenomena to them in the first place. All of the afterlife stuff has nothing to do with observable (physical) reality, but is an addition to it; it's the statement that observable reality is not the total sum of reality.
>Or you can construct a logically, or even empirically consistent theory of reality which is consistent with both your assertion and these observables.
That's what I've done. This is what I've been trying to say; you can fully accept a scientific understanding of the physical world and also incorporate a belief in non-physical phenomena (through the direct observation of one's own arguably non-physical consciousness/qualia), and through some reasoning and epistemological coherentism deduce the existence of an afterlife.
RanyaAnusih t1_j38k28v wrote
Nobody knows reality. There is nothing to ignore. You just think you know something
aesu t1_j38qcgf wrote
There's observables, upon which we build all of our technology and engineering, because they are not a product of our subjective beliefs or imagination. While it is absolutely possible that everything we know about chemistry and biology is completely wrong, and genetic engineering, all medicine, toxins, etc work by sheer coincidence between what we think we observe, and what actually is there, we can at least say, the more stuff works, and the more we can build upon what we think we see, the more likely that what we see is what's actually there. And, given the extraordinary body of observables, and derived technologies in medicine and biology, the likelihood we've made accurate observations is extraordinarily high, and grows every day we don't see any falsifying data.
RanyaAnusih t1_j38to1g wrote
Just the word observables is problematic. We dont even know what are space or time to begin with, nor consciousness. It would be a huge coincidence if human brains have the potential of understanding the nature of reality. Either we are special or we arent. It can't be both
aesu t1_j391ibc wrote
>upon which we build all of our technology and engineering
Not knowing what space or time "is" does not negate what we do understand. We can build stuff which works based upon it. There are known knowns, and they do prohibit alternatives. For example, no matter how mysterious space or time turns out to be, it will not ever negate the existence of the moon, or the golgi apparatus, or dna, or any other highly observed structure emerging from and existing within it. Human brains understanding of reality has nothing to do with anything. The point of observables is that they do not emerge from our mind, they are there before our minds even evolved, and will be there long after we've gone. That will be true no matter how detailed our observations have become.
I have no clue what you mean by
> Either we are special or we arent. It can't be both
RanyaAnusih t1_j392veb wrote
All your observations are filtered and modeled by your mind. That things work means only that you have a model that can predict, nothing more; Just because you have an equation for it does not mean gravity is any less bizarre or "explained"
Just your use of the words before and after implies an understanding of the concept of "time" which we havent.
You know, nothing is solved but there is a reason Albert Einstein had to ask his colleagues if they seriously believed the moon is not there when nobody looks at it.
Reality is just not that simple
aesu t1_j399cx0 wrote
I'm not talking about my observations. Of course my personal observations are subject to bias. That's why empiricisms foundation is producing repeatable, testable, independent observations.
Although many things are not observed yet, because we lack the instrumentation capable of doing so, that does not negate that which we have already observed. Planes fly. Computers function. Medicines work. Chemical engineering is possible. The nuclear bomb works. And on, and on and on. Every single invention we have is the result of repeated, independent empirical observations. You can't just say maybe everything we know about chemistry or biology, or nuclear physics is incorrect, but by coincidence, everything will build with that knowledge, works. I mean, you can, but at that point you're just rejecting any common reality. Which is fine. maybe you are plugged into a simulation, and everything is an illusion. But, if that's the case, why bother with all the mysticism and god of the gaps, and just say that.
RanyaAnusih t1_j39bhb7 wrote
Im also not talking about your personal observation. All of us come from the same species so of course our brains will decode reality almost the same and we will all agree. For a truly unbiased perspective, you would need a different entity. As a colorful example think of the movie Arrival if you have seen it.
That something works, just means it works. There is nothing more to conclude. Just like when a mouse pushes a lever and someone always gives it a piece of cheese after doing so
As i said, the mysticism comes from admitting thai it would be a huge coincidence if humans have access to fundamental truths just based on their limited reason and logic. We already know that there are truths that presumably escape your pets, so why assume it ends with us. That is what i mean in saying that humans are either special or they aren't; we cant just put ourselves on a pedestal of knowledge and at the same time claim we are just another animal
aesu t1_j39iei9 wrote
Are you suggesting all our inventions, which work, as far as we know, specifically because they were designed to work based upon our robust empirical knowledge of the physical reality upon which they work, are actually working by coincidence?
For example, genetic engineering doesn't work because our incredible, and entirely unfalsified library of empirical knowledge of chemistry and biology allows us to precisely manipulate genes to produce expected proteins, and expected results, but because by sheer coincidence all these observations happen to be entirely consistent with a completely different system, and all of our direct observations, include electron microscopy, are erroneous, while, again, being, by a coincidence in the order of quintillions to one, entirely consistent with actual reality?
Things we do not yet know about reality cannot negate what we do already know, and testably and consistently works. No matter what we learn about quantumn physics, time, space, etc, will stop chemistry from working the way we know it works. No discovery will magically change the structure or function of proteins, or the structures they form.
idiveindumpsters t1_j3a4tg0 wrote
Your experience is not the same for everyone. Mine was quite different. I was surrounded by peace and love. I had a group of beings surrounding me with a love and joy that I had never experienced on Earth. I just wanted to go with them. It was a euphoria that I can’t even describe. I heard people in the room say my name several times, but I just wanted to go go go. They kept trying to pull me back and I just kept trying to stay unconscious. When they finally woke me up, I was so very disappointed.
I really think that you were in hell. Hell is the absence of love. In my opinion the only way to “heaven” or the plane where the love is, is through Jesus. BUT there may be lots of other ways. I’m not saying that I have all the answers because obviously none of us really know much of anything. I think you might find some peace in some sort of religion. Do some research on different philosophies, if you haven’t already.
Caring_Cactus t1_j3a8a12 wrote
If you look at our cells in our body, together they form this individual. Tons of cells are born and die everyday, that does not mean the individual ceases to exist.
Maybe higher complex thoughts are surrendered at times, but at its core where matter forms connections together is still there.
d34nxvi t1_j39ub17 wrote
I actually think the fact that it just ends isn’t that bad. Like you said until you gained the consciousness and knowledge to contemplate your being, there was nothing.
Somehow you came to consciousness and as yourself. Not one of the other billions of people on this rock that has that same insane ability. Knowing how lucky we are to have it in the first place makes me ok knowing it’ll end. It’s sad it will but it would be sadder to waste it always thinking about it ending. Sadder still to not realise how lucky you are to have it in the first place, which you obviously do.
The anaesthesia does sound really weird though.
aesu t1_j39woei wrote
Intellectually this all tracks, but the emotional reactio to coming out of the oblivion of anaesthesia, and knowing I never wanted to go back to that oblivionz and how sweet life is, still haunts me. I still have nightmares about dying. The irony is, in my nightmares, I'm panicked because I'm about to die and lose consciousness, but I'm not even really conscious in the dream state. I'm unconsciously repeating my conscious dread.
decalkomanya t1_j3apvb9 wrote
I had this realization over a year ago. Couldn’t stop crying or having panic attacks. Being conscious is such a cruel thing, it’d be easier to have never been.
[deleted] t1_j3akpzc wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j38in8f wrote
[deleted]
EyeYouRis t1_j38vd8u wrote
Well, we don't have much better empirical evidence of consciousness.
Either way, I'm not sure that portion of the article is really framed as proof in and of itself.
​
>The Fundamental Nature of Reality
>
>I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.' Max Planck (Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist and originator of Quantum Physics)
>
>A paper recently published by The Institute of Noetic Sciences, founded by Edgar Mitchell, proposes 'that the hard problem arises because one or more assumptions within a materialistic worldview are either wrong or incomplete.' Simply stated, we have assumed matter precedes consciousness, when in fact it may be the other way around, consciousness may be fundamental and primary to all else.
>
>Many great thinkers have contemplated the idea that the physical world is somehow secondary to a hidden non-physical world. It is strangely reminiscent of Plato’s Theory of Forms which suggests that the physical world is not as real as the world of ideas. ‘Ideas in this sense, are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations’. Modern scientists have stated that the universe is a hologram, and simulation theory seems to be mentioned in popular culture with increasing frequency.
>
>The paper published by IONS contains several competing theories that deviate away from the materialistic worldview, these are referred to as non-local consciousness theories. Rather than consciousness being generated solely and purely from the brain, or locally, originating 'from physical substrates like neurons that have evolved to be more and more complex over time through adaptation, leading to the emergence of consciousness', these theories suggest consciousness emerges non-locally, or not purely from the brain, although 'both types of theories attempt to explain the underlying brain mechanisms of consciousness.'
>
>'Neuroscience today says consciousness is generated by and localized in the brain because it emerges from brain activity. Alternatively, [they] propose that consciousness may not originate in the brain, although some aspects of human perception of consciousness may be dependent on the brain. [They] also suggest that awareness extends beyond the brain. These non-physical, non-local properties of consciousness may be due to a non-local material effect, to consciousness being fundamental, or something else we have not yet discovered.'
[deleted] t1_j38mlrq wrote
[removed]
flynnwebdev t1_j36fm8q wrote
Feeling isolated can have several possible causes: psychiatric or psychological disorder, personality disorder, ignorance or rejection of the panpsychic nature of reality, lack of physical interaction and connection with others (a basic human need), etc…
Mustelafan t1_j36qpk0 wrote
Okay, I feel "isolated" and I reject the "panpsychic nature of reality". Once again, where is the evidence that panpsychism is correct?
nymph-hunter t1_j36r5ye wrote
Nowhere, the same is true with any type of dualism like panpsychism, but it's also true with any type of monism like materialism or idealism. Ontology do be like that for now.
Protean_Protein t1_j373ixu wrote
No.
throwaway12131214121 t1_j37irzd wrote
Yes? How’re you gonna gather evidence for something as impossible to measure as consciousness
Protean_Protein t1_j37ucyq wrote
The same way they’ve figured out how to measure all kinds of other things in medicine—from what happens when things go wrong, or from correlates. E.g., Ramachandran’s work on sensory illusions, or Sacks’ work, or, like, anesthesiology. It’s not simple or easy. It’s extremely difficult and confusing and basically a giant mess. But that doesn’t mean it’s mysterious.
throwaway12131214121 t1_j3809r6 wrote
That research makes all sorts of philosophical assumptions about consciousness. For example, even the idea that other humans are conscious at all is an assumption.
That doesn’t make it invalid, they’re necessary for the field of medicine if you want to come to any type of conclusion about how to minimize human suffering, which is the whole point of medicine.
But we’re not talking about medicine, we’re talking about philosophy, and those assumptions don’t hold any water in this context.
Protean_Protein t1_j381olw wrote
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Someone get David Chalmers on the line… I’ll hold.
kfpswf t1_j372byt wrote
The boring response to this is that you won't experience this oneness directly unless you have significant changes in the working of your mind. As long as your ego or identity is strong, you will run around in circles trying to grasp at that oneness. But in reality, the only thing needed is softening of that ego that wants to prove it wrong.
nymph-hunter t1_j374mpz wrote
An experiential insight of how the mind works can do wonders on how you live your life but it's just that, a better understanding of what you really are. It's super important imho, but even if you were the most accomplished monk, I don't see how you can draw from that ontological conclusions about the nature of reality.
kfpswf t1_j377b5l wrote
Everything is a subjective experience, so if the ontology of reality is inexorably changed for me, it still counts. Spiritual endeavour are about finding equanimity in your existence, and defining a purpose for yourself. Not postulating theories of science.
I love Advaita Vedanta for this. It separates the world into a transactional reality, which is the world we're all so familiar with, and a transcendental reality, that is completely subjective, indescribable. So all my spiritual realizations are placed in the bucket of transcendental reality. And scientists can happily go about making discoveries in the transactional reality without ever affecting my "beliefs".
nymph-hunter t1_j37a3j7 wrote
Thanks for the distinction, I use the terms 'conceptual' and 'nonconceptual' realities when talking about these matters and I'm pretty sure we are pointing to the same thing.
Mustelafan t1_j38lfga wrote
I'm probably operating with different definitions than all you panpsychists. For me mind means 'qualia' and 'oneness' or 'unity' would imply we all share qualia. I've done psychedelics before and I don't think any amount of them will ever make me start seeing through other people's eyes. Sure, we're all united in that we all experience qualia, we're all living beings, whatever, but that's a pretty meaningless statement. Furthermore, I don't see why everyone thinks having an ego is a bad thing. It's not synonymous with being selfish. I value independence and see no compelling reasons why I ought not.
I'm a dualist and a theist and to be totally honest panpsychism seems like hippie nonsense even to me. The intense feelings of love and unity and 'ego death' that people get from psychedlics - and being an astronaut, apparently - seems to me like a form of manic delusion caused by an overwhelming flood of emotion. It's like religious ecstasy and people thinking they've spoken to God. It's just, iunno, unbecoming. I mean absolutely no disrespect by my phrasing by the way, I'm just not sure how else to put it.
kfpswf t1_j38qu1n wrote
>I'm probably operating with different definitions than all you panpsychists.
I'm not a panpsychist.
>For me mind means 'qualia' and 'oneness' or 'unity' would imply we all share qualia.
And you'd be wrong. This is something that western philosophy and science are kind of behind on. The mind can be understood far more easily as a separate entity from consciousness.
> I've done psychedelics before and I don't think any amount of them will ever make me start seeing through other people's eyes.
That's a shame, isn't it? Empathy is how you remove differences between each other, not by simply stating a premise. It's not that psychedelics won't show you this, but you are so conditioned to not give any credence esoteric ideas.
>Sure, we're all united in that we all experience qualia, we're all living beings, whatever, but that's a pretty meaningless statement.
I find it ridiculously humorous that you just brush away the oneness as being a matter of fact, when in fact a direct experience of this oneness is what changed an astronaut forever. It isn't just a meaningless statement, it means that all the distinctions that we can draw up amongst humans, animals, or any living being for that matter, are completely subjective.
>Furthermore, I don't see why everyone thinks having an ego is a bad thing. It's not synonymous with being selfish.
Ego isn't bad, it is just unruly and often compels you to do things that are counterproductive to your life. What is recommended is that you grow out of your egoic habits/thought patterns.
>I'm a dualist and a theist and to be totally honest panpsychism seems like hippie nonsense even to me.
I'm not a panpsychist, so I don't know why you keep referring to it. What seems like hippie nonsense is the same nonsense Buddha spouted. I'm sure he was heck of a hippie. And it doesn't end there. Stoicism has a metaphysical aspect that sounds almost like the same hippie nonsense that offends you. Perhaps Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius should have taken notes from reddit. > I value independence and see no compelling reasons why I ought not.
You have no idea how encumbered you are by the weight of your ego. True independence is not being bogged down by the vagaries of your mind. And who ever told you that by giving up your ego, you are giving up your freedom of being an individual?! It is called liberation in spirituality for a reason. It is a liberating experience.
>The intense feelings of love and unity and 'ego death' that people get from psychedlics - and being an astronaut, apparently - seems to me like a form of manic delusion caused by an overwhelming flood of emotion.
There are instructions in Buddhism on how to cultivate this all encompassing love. it isn't a manic delusion I can assure you. It is a controlled practice where you can remove layers of your identity until you reach the same Oneness that psychedelics can induce. Samadhi is a very well know stage of deep meditation.
>It's like religious ecstasy and people thinking they've spoken to God. It's just, iunno, unbecoming. I mean absolutely no disrespect by my phrasing by the way, I'm just not sure how else to put it.
Unbecoming would be an excellent word to describe it. You undoing the knots of your identity until you stand face to face with what is in you.
Mustelafan t1_j38yejz wrote
>I'm not a panpsychist.
Apologies then, but you seem quite keen on defending it.
>The mind can be understood far more easily as a separate entity from consciousness.
Elaborate? I'm interested.
>That's a shame, isn't it? Empathy is how you remove differences between each other, not by simply stating a premise. It's not that psychedelics won't show you this, but you are so conditioned to not give any credence esoteric ideas.
I don't see it as a shame. My empathy works pretty well. And you frankly have no idea how 'esoteric' my beliefs are. I'm willing to entertain any idea; when I entertained panpsychism I found it incoherent and unconvincing.
>I find it ridiculously humorous that you just brush away the oneness as being a matter of fact, when in fact a direct experience of this oneness is what changed an astronaut forever.
People change constantly. Astronauts are people too. Why should I find this particularly compelling?
>It isn't just a meaningless statement, it means that all the distinctions that we can draw up amongst humans, animals, or any living being for that matter, are completely subjective.
I wouldn't say all distinctions, but even so I don't see this as any sort of major revelation. Perhaps for an anthropocentrist, which is something I'm very far from.
>Ego isn't bad, it is just unruly and often compels you to do things that are counterproductive to your life. What is recommended is that you grow out of your egoic habits/thought patterns.
I think a little unruliness makes life more interesting. Counterproductivity, chaos, suffering, a bit of destruction - all spices of life. The egoless and the egoed are perfect foils for each other. Alas, I prefer discussions of metaphysics and epistemology to axiology; more potential objectivity to work with. I was just expressing an aside.
>I'm not a panpsychist, so I don't know why you keep referring to it.
Er, this entire comment chain is about panpsychism.
>What seems like hippie nonsense is the same nonsense Buddha spouted. I'm sure he was heck of a hippie.
Probably.
>Stoicism has a metaphysical aspect that sounds almost like the same hippie nonsense that offends you.
I don't know enough about stoicism to comment, but sure, possibly.
>You have no idea how encumbered you are by the weight of your ego. True independence is not being bogged down by the vagaries of your mind. And who ever told you that by giving up your ego, you are giving up your freedom of being an individual?!
Evidently I don't even know what an ego is, but I don't feel any particular weight or encumbrance in my life beyond what's necessary to keep my feet on the ground and provide traction to keep moving forward. Floating isn't really my thing.
>It is called liberation in spirituality for a reason. It is a liberating experience.
I felt liberated enough saying I was no longer convinced of atheism. I don't think I can handle any more liberation.
>it isn't a manic delusion I can assure you.
Sorry but the deluded never believe they're deluded lol. It's part of the definition.
As fun as this is though I'm mostly just here to discuss panpsychism, not the values of unity and ego death and the Buddha etc. I'd be here all day otherwise.
bxsephjo t1_j36sdl7 wrote
“ If consciousness is fundamental and primary to all else, rather than an emergent property of complex matter, then, in a strange twist of fate, this would mirror many of the great religious teachings throughout the ages.”
I wouldn’t call it a strange twist. I think our history of religious teachings is the reason the idea has so much of a foothold in the first place. Just because we can imagine consciousness existing outside the brain does not give the theory any credence.
kfpswf t1_j37lzri wrote
>I wouldn’t call it a strange twist. I think our history of religious teachings is the reason the idea has so much of a foothold in the first place.
You can't simply ascribe it to "history of religious teachings" without answering why people from Abrahamic faiths usually end up buying into these esoteric philosophies, primarily from the East, when Abrahamic faiths and Dharmic faiths are at such logger heads regarding their core tenets.
I'm from an Abhrahamic faith as well, and I practice Advaita Vedanta now. I can tell you first hand that non-duality was anything but familiar to me. In fact, I found it completely strange, requiring effort to get out of my past conditioning. Of course I later learned that non-dual philosophy isn't limited to Dharmic faiths, that even Abrahamic faiths have profound non-dual philosophies, albeit considered heretical by mainstream.
>Just because we can imagine consciousness existing outside the brain does not give the theory any credence.
I don't know what consciousness centered philosophy you are talking about, but in Advaita, consciousness doesn't exist as an abstract entity in the universe. It requires a biological body to manifest.
I'm sure your take is perhaps based on the claim that universe is conscious, so you assume that this means the entirety of the universe is a conscious entity. That's completely incorrect. If we can use same language, we could also describe the universe as being electrified or magnetized. It simply means that electricity and magnetism are properties of the universe that can manifest under right conditions. Similarly, consciousness is a property of the universe that can manifest under the right conditions (a living biological pod).
The reason this is central model in non-dual philosophies is because, to subside the ego, it is necessary for you to adopt a different identity than that of being the ego. Consciousness is a good neutral ground for you to be able to observe the mind. But unwittingly, this also turns your subjective experience into an enigma. This is what the astronaut experienced.
Godtrademark t1_j3895kn wrote
Ah found the Schopenhead
kfpswf t1_j38a883 wrote
Close. I'd consider myself a Vedantin in essence.
ChroniXmile t1_j38oxtp wrote
“That’s completely incorrect”. Show me where in the universe magnetism and electricity do not exist? Or gravity? The idea that consciousness requires a “biological body” only means that it requires electricity. How can you assume consciousness and matter are separate while claiming a non-duality philosophy.
kfpswf t1_j38ss3m wrote
>Show me where in the universe magnetism and electricity do not exist? Or gravity?
You're right. They exist everywhere, but manifest as electric current or magnetic flux in special cases where certain conditions are met. In other words, these un-manifest phenomenon become manifest.
Similarly, un-manifest consciousness pervades all universe, but manifests in certain conditions, namely, a living biological body.
>The idea that consciousness requires a “biological body” only means that it requires electricity.
Certainly. Consciousness requires all the bells and whistles of the laws of universe. It requires electricity for the nervous systems. It requires fluid dynamics for continuous replenishment of nutrients via vascular system.
>How can you assume consciousness and matter are separate while claiming a non-duality philosophy.
Because we are discussing physical reality, and in this realm, you do need to break-down components to understand a model. But if you are talking about metaphysical reality, then yes, everything is consciousness. In fact, you'll not know anything besides your consciousness your whole life.
ChroniXmile t1_j393z13 wrote
Electricity is never “un-manifest”ed. It is required for atoms to bond and is present in everything that is matter. Furthermore electricity is present even in non-matter space by fields, where it enjoys the freedom to be and simultaneously to not be aka non-duality via the quantum nature of time.
To say consciousness requires a body is just a religious idea of humans being special. In fact, contrary to the astronauts idea of great religious teachings, this would mean biological creatures are not special and do not partake in special gifts from the gods like consciousness. Similar to how people believed the Earth was the center of the solar system or universe. We move on our own accord? Where do we go? Nowhere, because it’s an illusion of movement. Like the example of a train moving at the speed of light, and a passenger walks from the back to the front… he does not break the light barrier because he is not really moving anywhere.
[deleted] t1_j4u8onp wrote
[deleted]
EyeYouRis t1_j37zgle wrote
That quote is about if it turns out that consciousness IS in fact fundamental and primary (not emergent).
Your point seems to support the view that it would be a strange twist of fate...
bxsephjo t1_j38gs4i wrote
Dang you're totally right... I guess only my last sentence there is the point left to make
cometomequeen t1_j37conc wrote
Valid point, and well said
AmirHosseinHmd t1_j372582 wrote
Why is that so-called "epiphany" presumed to be the canonical, authoritative experience, somehow informative of some deep truth as opposed to merely a momentary illusion?
Why is it assumed to be any more "valid" than the ordinary kind of conscious experience?
Sure, the former is rarer, and it's often accompanied by a sense of awe and profundity, but none of that gives any credence to it, really.
kittnnn t1_j377cal wrote
We want to believe there's some meaning to all of this, so we grasp on to whatever we can.
We might consider that human brains become more susceptible to superstition when damaged, and we might also consider that cosmic rays impact and damage our bodies with much more energy outside of low earth orbit. But that is a sad and scary thing to contemplate, so we choose the narrative that lets us sleep at night.
who519 t1_j37p57u wrote
I think there is a counter argument that many hope there is no meaning at all. The very idea of meaning scares the shit out of them, because if they have wasted their lives, they will not just enter a dreamless sleep when their biological life is over, but instead wake up face to face with the choices they have made.
HitomiAdrien t1_j38b4wz wrote
This
aesu t1_j38opvz wrote
I've yet to meet any of these people. Also, the people who seem most sure the meaning of life is some sort of testing ground to see who gets to hang out with god, are the most arrogant, morally repugnant people I know. I get the strong impression they don't actually believe it, else they'd probably spend more time helping the needy, and less time policing other peoples sex lives.
who519 t1_j38sg7k wrote
They are all over Reddit, many Atheists are horrified by the possibility of an afterlife. As for who is morally repugnant, unfortunately there are some on both sides of the argument. As for your assertion about Earth being a testing ground for those who hang out with God, I suggest you look into some eastern religions, or even better look at the accounts from those who have had near death experiences. What they come back with is very similar to Mitchell's epiphany, a sense of oneness and love and there is judgement, but it is only of the self and does not come from a higher authority.
aesu t1_j3903b0 wrote
My point was that it is an admission of insincerity of belief if someone claims to believe they are going to suffer for eternity as a result of transgressions in this life, and then willfully and persistently commits those transgressions.
Taking your point of a more abstract sense of an afterlife, why would there be a judgment mechanism? What would that even mean. In this context of everything being conscious and connected, why would there be a judgment mechanism? Judgment is an evolved trait of some tiny fraction of highly evolved biomass on one of quadrillions of quadrillions of planets. Literally a heuristic procedure for regulating interaction between social group members along lines of reproductive advantage for the group.
What would an amoebas, or a trees essential consciousness be judging itself for in the afterlife, for example? It has no context outside of regulating prosocial behavior among highly intelligent lifeforms.
who519 t1_j39gg0x wrote
You missed my point entirely, there is no judgement but your own. You view your life and you see both the good and bad you have done. There is no score, only the realization that you could have done better or worse. The people who experience this, express it more as a learning experience than a judgement. You express disdain for amoebas and trees without knowing a single thing about their experience as beings. It is arrogant to determine because those two examples aren't like us that they could not have a conscious life.
aesu t1_j39j9pk wrote
How does this apply to any of our ancestors? Beyond some more intelligent and prosocial birds, and prosocial mammals, what possible context could there be to this for most animals? What does this mean for matter which has not been consumed by self replicating carbon chains?
I have not expressed disdain for anything. I'm trying to understand the context of such a mechanism outside of highly developed pro-social animal behavior. And why does the brain even exist, if it can apparently function without itself?
who519 t1_j39myzd wrote
In non-local consciousness theory the brain is a receiver. So without the brain the body would not be able to function any better than a radio with no signal.
Why wouldn't the same consciousness apply to our ancestors, or dogs, or lizards or anything else? Why is the only conscious experience you can conceive that of modern humans? Several different species have shown all kinds of conscious indicators.
kfpswf t1_j37oo6g wrote
>Why is that so-called "epiphany" presumed to be the canonical, authoritative experience, somehow informative of some deep truth as opposed to merely a momentary illusion?
These experiences can literally change your entire persona and course of life. And you think they don't deserve some form of respect?...
>Why is it assumed to be any more "valid" than the ordinary kind of conscious experience?
This epiphany you are talking about are called direct experiences in spirituality. That means, you are observing something without the added distortions of the mind. For example, a picture of a mixed race couple can invoke different reactions based on who you show the picture to. So what do you think is the difference between a racist bigot who froths at his mouth in anger looking at the picture, and let's say someone who merely wishes the couple well in life?... The difference is that the mind of the bigot is conditioned to react with hatred and bile. This added judgement by the mind is not what you would call a direct experience.
Although the example of bigotry is an extreme one, this is the reality of all our ordinary experiences. They are colored by our learned judgements, misconceptions, and identity. This is exactly what the astronaut lost in that moment. A complete dissolution of his judgements and identities. In that moment he saw how all our differences are made up, how our existence is interconnected, and how we are all children of Earth. You'll shed tears if you ever end up having such an experience. Perhaps you should then ask yourself this very question you pose in this thread.
>Sure, the former is rarer, and it's often accompanied by a sense of awe and profundity, but none of that gives any credence to it, really.
None of your experiences are real, but whatever changes they bring about in you are very much real. You can either learn to appreciate such experiences as being glimpses of unfiltered truth, or continue to wonder why such experiences are spoken with reverence.
AmirHosseinHmd t1_j3al4lz wrote
>That means, you are observing something without the added distortions of the mind.
That is an unfounded assumption. There's no reason to suppose that. Why couldn't such an "observation" be the result of yet another distortion that actually evokes the feeling that there are no distortions?
Sounds like a more plausible hypothesis to me, given the profound susceptibility of the human mind to error at every level of cognition.
​
>You can either learn to appreciate such experiences as being glimpses of unfiltered truth
Once again, you've failed to substantiate why such experiences are "glimpses of unfiltered truth", and that thus remains a mere claim and nothing more.
​
>You'll shed tears if you ever end up having such an experience.
Sure, I might very well end up having a similar experience at some point, one that I would describe as life-changing, and might ultimately be compelled to conclude that they are in fact informative of some deeper reality, but that won't mean anything either, I'm just another person, with the same mental and intellectual deficits that plague everyone else.
There are people, on this planet, right at this moment, who are having what they would describe as profound spiritual experiences which are actually suggestive of mutually-exclusive worldviews.
Someone right now is likely talking to Jesus (or so they imagine), or Muhammad, or Mahdi if they happen to be a Shia Muslim say. I've actually met some of these people firsthand and they are 100% convinced of what they saw, and what they think what they saw meant, yet as a matter of pure logic, at least some of these people have to be experiencing some form of delusion, they can't all be right.
Therefore, you can't look at this phenomenon (of spiritual experience) that manifests itself in radically different ways, and lazily conclude that whatever an individual instance seems to suggest on the surface must be true because it simply felt profound, or that you ended up crying because of how intense it was.
fixprettyy t1_j37iek7 wrote
Your comment is one way to interpret this writing. It is highly pessimistic and reads like you lack comprehension skills... I say this as an English major.
It is not that the writer is invalidating the average human experience, it is actually highlighting just HOW connected the average and rare consciousness are. Each experience you have is "valid" even when you take a shit on the toilet that no one knows about, but it's up to the conscious mind (i.e., the reader) to interpret each of these experiences to give them validity... If you read this article and only took away your above comments/questions. I suggest you reread it or dive deeper into Alan Watts or Carl Sagan, both of which are mentioned in the writing. They each have wonderful outlooks on life and the human experience.
I wondered, how many links to understand we are missing in readings like this. We know that the writers had to have recognized so many connections in their minds in order to have these "new" epiphanies and we just get to read what they were able to put into words... If only we could see into their minds.
AmirHosseinHmd t1_j3aohn3 wrote
>Your comment is one way to interpret this writing. It is highly pessimistic and reads like you lack comprehension skills... I say this as an English major.
Thank you for beginning your response with an unnecessary, meaningless personal attack. I've been on the receiving end of a rather surprising amount of hostility and overly condescending comments after I posted mine; which I find pretty ironic, given that it's coming from people who purport to be enlightened, which in large part is supposed to make one's mind more or less immune to all-too-human emotional attachment to schools of thought and tribalistic thinking. The irony is palpable.
​
>I suggest you reread it or dive deeper into Alan Watts or Carl Sagan, both of which are mentioned in the writing. They each have wonderful outlooks on life and the human experience.
I have actually listened to a fair bit of those guys' material; and although they don't really belong in the same category, they did share this poetic view about the cosmos and reality in some ways, but their metaphysical convictions actually differed greatly, as Carl Sagan was an atheist, naturalist, scientist and Alan Watts was effectively a Buddhist; and in a hypothetical debate where the two get to the nitty-gritty of their respective philosophies, I'm sure they would end up disagreeing with one another strenuously on a fair amount of crucial points, but nonetheless, I do appreciate both.
But once again, regardless of the aesthetic qualities of these ideas and these "spiritual" experiences, I happen to believe they are highly dubious and not to be relied upon for discerning the nature of consciousness or whatever.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I've yet to be presented with a clear argument, or anything for that matter that isn't just another way of saying "You just don't understand it you lowly stupid peasant! You lack the capacity to even begin to fathom the sheer profundity in all of this!"; which I would say is indicative of a superiority complex more than anything.
[deleted] t1_j4u954e wrote
[deleted]
MandelbrotFace t1_j36lh0v wrote
Does anyone feel like consciousness isn't really a thing in itself? Like it's a necessary illusion created in the brain in order to be aware and accept information?
I was chatting recently with a friend about consciousness and the sense of self. I suggested that if we could go back in time to when he was born, and he was transported somewhere else, to another country and raised by a different family then maybe it would be the equivalent of a completely different person and consciousness (basically the same as if a different baby was born). It wouldn't be 'him growing up somewhere else', it would literally be an entirely different 'consciousness' and sense of self operating in that body.
It is amazing that when matter in the universe is left for long enough, it eventually creates a self aware object that wants to study itself and everything around it. What a crazy ride reality is.
[deleted] t1_j36zp8f wrote
[deleted]
BraveFrakingToaster t1_j37tuwv wrote
That’s been my sticking point for years. When we press on “consciousness” The definitions become so untestable and vague that it feels like it’s just a modern place holder for a soul or spirit. That which makes us distinctly human.
aesu t1_j39adz9 wrote
WebFront t1_j37fazk wrote
I really struggle to understand what consciousness is supposed to be. Panpsychism has the same ring to me as "consciousness is an illusion". And both mean nothing to me. Except of course I think I am conscious 🤔? if 2 people swap concuisnesses what would change about them? I'd say nothing. It seems to be just a brain function that allows for us to self-relate (which makes sense if your survival is based on building models that explain the past and predict the future in relation to yourself).
MandelbrotFace t1_j37sgmi wrote
That's exactly what I've thought about the swapping consciousnesses ... It's not like you can be 2 consciousnesses to compare in the same body; in the switch there would be no difference. This makes me question exactly what it is!
Part of me thinks it's only a phenomenon of the physical brain but then I think what if something could be perfectly duplicated down to the most fundamental sub atomic level. Duplicate an inanimate object and we have no problem with the idea that the duplicate is in every way identical to the original. Duplicate a person and what becomes of the consciousness? I would think they would be separate and diverge from that point of duplication, with the duplicate having all the memories etc of the original, and also assuming they are the original. But they would be separate. Maybe consciousness is inherent to instances of matter itself and linked in some hidden way like time is to space. I mean... I'm waffling now, but it's mind boggling to think about
defaltusr t1_j36wi3z wrote
But what we all dont know, is consciousness
- Really the end of it or is there something above consciousness that we cant grasp and understand? Like a „mindless“ bedbug will never be able to comprehend consciousness outside its limited brainfunctions.
- really a winning trait. In the end maybe the „consciousness feeling“ is a loosing trait, destroys itself and goes back to „mindlesness“. Like in that episode of love death and robots.
kittnnn t1_j377z2x wrote
The article glossed over this possibility, but it really does seem to be the truth. I have a theory of mind about myself as a separate entity, and have tinkered with my brain over the years to see how it reacts. And I've come to believe that consciousness doesn't really exist. The narrative in my head follows the chemistry in my body, not the other way around. You only need to experience mental illness or psychoactive chemicals to see this in action.
raintree234 t1_j37h2g2 wrote
I’ve had this thought related to race. If I was born a different race, I’m sure (or am I sure?) my life would be different.
MandelbrotFace t1_j37pyqq wrote
Your life would definitely be different ... But would it even be you at all? Would your internal thoughts and preferences, even intelligence be the same as they are now? Really interesting to think about.
raintree234 t1_j38iqhd wrote
First of all, this makes my mind hurt a little...!
But then come thoughts of destiny, am I/was I destined to be who I am?
Or the old science fiction time travel premise of being the "same person" but in a different time and place.
I also think about these things when I vacation. I ponder what it would be like if I had grown up in this place. Granted, I am typically in a pleasant location. I rarely have these thoughts when in the "bad part of town" :)
darudesandstrom t1_j37dcl3 wrote
Amazing, if this is the only universe that ever was, mundane if this is one out of an unfathomable number of universes.
kfpswf t1_j37izpw wrote
>and raised by a different family then maybe it would be the equivalent of a completely different person and consciousness (basically the same as if a different baby was born).
Consciousness remains the same in whatever body you observe it. What does differ is the conditioned individual, AKA the ego. And you're absolutely right, the conditioned individual is completely unreal. And your example is apt for demonstrating this. If Hitler was an orphan raised by an adoptive Jewish family, he might have turned out to be a completely different person in history. It's not as if there's an archetype of Hitler as an anti-semite existing somewhere outside of existence.
Most of us who fantasize about winning a million dollars, or going back in time to relive life, do so with the assumption that you would end up being the exact same person we are. But in reality, even a small event can completely change the course of history, so how can the individual hope to also remain the same.
2xstuffed_oreos_suck t1_j38ywu7 wrote
How can you know that consciousness remains the same in whatever body you observe it?
[deleted] t1_j4u9gc6 wrote
[deleted]
Ill_Spread_6434 t1_j35oe1v wrote
Great read- what do you think came first the chicken of matter or the egg of consciousness ?
zaceno t1_j36dqsw wrote
Regardless of my own personal beliefs I think it’s important to recognize that this question of the primacy of mind or matter is in fact a question of belief as there is no way (as of yet) to conclusively dismiss either theory.
This “problem” stands in reproach to the staunch materialist atheists who take such pride in being so purely logical and scientific (and by implication smarter & better). The simple fact is that their outlook is based on belief too.
evolvaer t1_j36plsh wrote
Mmm yes I concur.
kfpswf t1_j3745zo wrote
>Regardless of my own personal beliefs I think it’s important to recognize that this question of the primacy of mind or matter is in fact a question of belief as there is no way (as of yet) to conclusively dismiss either theory.
You can have an unintended experience that can jolt you out of your current beliefs. Isn't it what this article is about? A highly decorated astronaut, who had no such predilection to spirituality, yet an indescribable experience turned him towards it.
Or take Richard Alpert (Ram Dass) who was a Harvard professor of psychology, yet went on to become a baba because of the experiences he had on psilocybin, and the resolution he found for his own inner turmoil in Hinduism?
How do you explain that with the assertion you've made.
>This “problem” stands in reproach to the staunch materialist atheists who take such pride in being so purely logical and scientific (and by implication smarter & better). The simple fact is that their outlook is based on belief too.
The word you're looking for is "dogma". And yes, the materialist atheist are as dogmatic as the religious nuts when it comes to their vehemence. I should know, I was one of them.
EyeYouRis t1_j37y9fy wrote
Lol I know you didn't mean this, but I feel like I need to say that I don't think being "purely logical and scientific" supports materialism at all.
At this point, there is no concrete empirical evidence of consciousness and I think something like panpsychism is the least logically flawed explanation of consciousness, at least in theory.
zaceno t1_j38fria wrote
Seconded
Cardellini_Updates t1_j3ts746 wrote
You can ascribe panprotopsychism to Lenin - who saw the capacity of reflection as fundamental in manner - and that philosopher was the materialist to end all materialists. I believe Engels comes out with much the same stripes (Anti-Duhring)
Dennet - as a mechanical materialist - called materialism the quest to always find cranes building taller cranes. When you find something tall, a high level of organization, you look for how it was built up from below. This contrasts against religious / idealist thought - where a skyhook swoops in a gives you structure from the heavens, build by the ordained hand of God (Intelligent Design for example - very bad theory!)
I think we have sufficient evidence against miracles, FWIW.
Marx extends similar thinking to politics and economy - rather than derive society from ideas, one derives our ideas from our society - and the objective factors dominate over the subjective factors ("Social being determines Social Consciousness").
Albeit Marx is also a dialectics guy, as is Lenin and Engels obv -and this contrasts against my earlier accussation of Dennett as a mechanical materialist. (This FYI has very important results for how Dennett describes consciousness as illusory, versus how Marx&Co see biological evolution having developed the unique causal powers of consciousness, a result whivh cannot be reduced as a quantitative sum of its elements)
My take on being a materialist, is there is that which is unaware of its being, unconsciousness, comes before, and outnumbers, any conscious results - this blind essence swirls into causal nodes without planning, where reality then interacts with itself without planning - within this swirl, things fold into themselves, reality is condensed. And in this point of compression, ordered without⁶ a plan to have been orderly, reality may then engage in reflection - holistic management that rides nonconconscious chaos.
This is simply the next level of propagating being. It happens just the same in many places - much how hydrogen condensed to trillions of stars -, and so these protoconsciousness nodes, in a sense, are reduced to being considered nonconconscious once we raise our analysis up a level - and consider how yhe plurality of those nodes are now brought into unplanned and chaotic organization that each node fails to understand its place in.
But the same coalescing of order out of chaos repeats. From chaos, order again, and a qualitatively new level of analysis to consider. Atoms, to cells, cells, to animals, animals, to social packs, social packs, to modern civilization.
To restate: Out of chaos, order emerges, where the order is the manner in which the unconscious activity organizes to regular, holistic determination by the whole on the whole - conscious reflection. And that this is the building block of consciousness - enabling higher levels of activity to emerge - from the bottom working all the way to the top (and our thoughts).
>At this point, there is no concrete empirical evidence of consciousness
We have an interaction with reality. You are reading this now. We call this consciousness. This is sufficient evidence that something is occurring, with sufficient standardization - the evolution of brain states accords to discrete realizations of data, concentrated to a single experience, that enable our brain to engage global executive functions, problem solving, long term planning.
You can think! You exist! This is data!
blimpyway t1_j36r8vz wrote
Or maybe neither. Consciousness could simply be the inwards reference frame.
Something akin to outwards reference frame yet having an opposite direction.
Brandyforandy t1_j36fm8t wrote
Consciousness is the universe looking back at itself! Always loved this quote. Why? Because if that's true then the universe itself want us to explore it.
defaltusr t1_j36wlco wrote
I dont think the universe wants anything. It just is, and by some random fluke life poped up
Brandyforandy t1_j36xe7a wrote
Why don't you think the universe want something?
defaltusr t1_j36xwsw wrote
Because I dont think the universe is conscious.
Its like a program running itself in a defined set of rules. And somehow the predetermined rules made it possible that some of its matter became alive
Brandyforandy t1_j36ys56 wrote
We are part of the universe, and conscious.
AmirHosseinHmd t1_j3711sa wrote
Yes, and but doesn't make the universe conscious.
Why is that distinction so hard to understand?
It's like saying cars move, and cars are part of the city, so the city is moving. No, despite the poetic value of that claim, it's simply absurd.
kfpswf t1_j37f98x wrote
>Why is that distinction so hard to understand?
There are layers/hierarchies of abstraction built into our everyday life that we take for granted. The most dangerous of these abstractions is the belief that you are somehow different from the universe.
>It's like saying cars move, and cars are part of the city, so the city is moving.
As I said, there are hierarchies of abstraction we use in day to day life. So the next time you hear someone say "the traffic is easing", know that there's no single block called "traffic" that is easing, but rather the individual cars.
>No, despite the poetic value of that claim, it's simply absurd.
It's not absurd at all. If anything, it's the most rational thing you can say.
The identity you hold of being a conscious individual is just an illusion. In reality, there's just laws of the universe that drive all the biological entities that inhabit earth. And the agent that enables any individual activity at all is consciousness. This consciousness emerges in matter in specific configuration. So, consciousness is something that happens to matter.
My question to you is, if the universe is what we call the observable field of matter around us, is it incorrect to say that consciousness is universe observing itself?... Of course, you'll have objections to the freedom I've used in equating matter with the universe, but it is the exact perspective shift that is required for spiritual liberation.
Tat tvam asi! You're it.
Brandyforandy t1_j371t5o wrote
Why do you think it's similar to cars moving in a city?
growtilltall757 t1_j37dql8 wrote
I think your proposition is interesting to ponder. What would it mean if the universe were conscious? It's alluring, and I like thinking about the boundless possibilities, especially for raising our ability as a species to thrive via broadly realized equanimity.
Its just not robust enough to be convincing. Humans can accept and integrate concepts even if it's simply that they like the idea, one of our quirks I guess. It has a problem that it jumps to a conclusion with no argument.
We are part of the universe, and (we are) conscious. (Missing argument) Therefore the universe is conscious.
Cars are part of the city, and (they are) moving. (Missing argument) Therefore the city is moving.
Obviously the city is not moving, but it contains movement. Typically we would use different grammar to indicate the more accurate statement, the city contains moving cars.
The farthest logic can take us without filling in the missing argument is that the universe contains conscious entities.
If you have an argument as to why consciousness is different than other attributes of things in the universe it might fill in the argument. But if the component parts of a system assign their characteristic qualities of consciousness, movement, color, temperature, and many more complex characteristics to the higher systems of which they are a part, then we are even less able to describe something on the scale of the universe.
[deleted] t1_j38srk6 wrote
[deleted]
FreightCrater t1_j37ggey wrote
What you're suggesting is magic btw.
defaltusr t1_j381qvq wrote
Well apparently its physics
FreightCrater t1_j38cgq8 wrote
What do you mean by "matter became alive"? What is alive? Where does our mental life live? The "big problem of consciousness" is real and unsolved. We do not know where consciousness comes from but to suggest that it is nothing and comes from nowhere isn't that helpful.
edit: also, semantically, everything in the universe, is the universe
Bl4nkface t1_j372aek wrote
For the universe to want anything, it would need to be conscious as a whole. You can't say that a whole wants something just because there are smaller parts of it who have desires. That's like saying the world wants to buy iPhones just because there are humans in the world who want to buy iPhone. It's an attribution error.
Brandyforandy t1_j374lt6 wrote
What if there are other consciousnesses in other parts of the universe? We might be just a perspective. You can't deny that we are part of the universe and that we are conscious. Our brains are said to be the only part of the human which is conscious, but we don't say that the brain is an entity of it's own. Our brain would not be able to survive without our bodies and we would not be able to survive without the universe. Because there isn't really a distinction between them.
I believe that saying we are a separate entity from the universe is incredibly arrogant and ooze of self-importance. It's like saying animals don't have consciousness when every indication point to that they do. We are just a small speck in this wide, wide cosmos. An unique speck, but a speck non-the less.
Bl4nkface t1_j377yuc wrote
I'm not saying we are separate from the universe. I'm saying that it's not logically correct to infer something about the universe based on the characteristics of parts of the universe (for example, living beings).
Another analogy: Even though you and me are part of Reddit and we both are interested in philosophy, you can't infer that Reddit itself is interested in philosophy.
Brandyforandy t1_j37wphu wrote
Why do you not think consciousness, and life is the part of the universe looking back at itself?
Osafune t1_j387zid wrote
Different person here but I think "part of" is the key phrase here. Is life part of the universe "looking back at itself?" Well, yes it is. But life is only part of the universe. The universe itself as a whole is not conscious and "looking back at itself." Just like Reddit as a whole is not necessarily interested in philosophy just because some individual members are.
Brandyforandy t1_j38vjr6 wrote
I don't think it was ever said the universe as a whole is conscious, only that we represent the consciousness of the universe.
Osafune t1_j38ynkr wrote
What you were saying ("the universe itself want us to explore it", "the consciousness of the universe") was implying otherwise to me.
I mean, I would only consider those statements I quoted to be true in a poetic or metaphorical way.
Brandyforandy t1_j39ef0h wrote
'The universe itself want us to explore it' was meant in a poetic and exploratory way. In a more factual way I would say 'We are the universe exploring itself, therefore the universe want to explore itself, because we are part of the universe' If that were not true we would not have the urge of curiosity and exploration, novelty. I am fully aware that we developed this through evolution, and i argue that it is not we as a species who have evolved, but the universe who evolved into a more advanced phase.
BonusMiserable1010 t1_j37i234 wrote
I am beginning to think that human consciousness can be reconcilable if there is no attempt made for transcending human-ness; but, a serious attempt made instead for obtaining a good and informed human existence. I think this also means accepting that human consciousness is not fundamental and primary to all else; there is nothing exemplary about humanity and its particular kind of consciousness despite what our history suggests.
Rustcuck t1_j38b6ci wrote
Guy got high on his own stuff. Common mistake
[deleted] t1_j36as14 wrote
[removed]
throwaway12131214121 t1_j37l7v8 wrote
Our consciousness changes when our brain enters different physical states, even states that it hasn’t evolved to be in(such as those created through the use of psychoactive drugs). You can even remove chunks of the brain and, so long as it doesn’t kill the person, they can remain conscious, though their consciousness is altered. Even someone who is sleeping is conscious, though differently from being awake.
This is why I think consciousness is a property of all physical phenomena and not just of the brain - we know altered brains are still conscious.
Most physical phenomena don’t have the ability to collect sensory data or form memories or learn, which is what the brain has evolved to do, but, while there’s no evidence and no way to collect evidence of this, given the information we have about consciousness, it seems more intuitive that physical phenomena would generate some form of experiences than the alternative simply by way of being physical phenomena.
Maybe when you open a dresser the dresser ‘experiences’ itself being opened, in some sense. Maybe by changing the channel on the tv the TV senses the signal of the remote and has an instinctive response of changing its internal data, which it experiences.
Grim-Reality t1_j37n4pt wrote
It wasn’t that profound at all, and it doesn’t introduce anything new or significant.
lightweight12 t1_j39ms61 wrote
But he hung out with Uri Geller! And Uri could bend spoons with his mind! Sad to hear that in a search for answers he fell in with Uri and his scam.
ToeFondler t1_j37pt2s wrote
This seems stupid.
outrageousaegis t1_j38jrrb wrote
Not to get all Foucauldian or anything, but I wonder how our cultural understanding of the presumptive answer to this question (matter comes first) is influenced by power. Seems like we’re mostly English-speaking here, most of us probably from the US or another European country, or at least one that has reaped the benefits of a global capitalist order built on colonialism and imperialism. Undoubtedly, the people who have maintained power in our world get a bigger say in knowledge production and have since knowledge was produced (person who killed someone else gets to produce knowledge, the killed person does not). It makes sense that people who survive and thrive in power would claim that the material world comes first because the belief and articulation of a consciousness-first world would leave more open-ended ethical questions that one would be keen to answer.
nLucis t1_j3ahxmq wrote
the volume of profanity in the opening paragraph makes it hard to take seriously.
marcinruthemann t1_j36btj5 wrote
So feeling of unity is the proof? But other people feel isolated. So which feeling is the right feeling when it comes to evidence for some form of panpsychism?