Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AmirHosseinHmd t1_j3711sa wrote

Reply to comment by Brandyforandy in The Persistent Problem of Consciousness: an astronaut's epiphany by simsquatched

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.

8

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.

4

Brandyforandy t1_j371t5o wrote

Why do you think it's similar to cars moving in a city?

0

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.

3