Is The Universe A Conscious Mind?

[Hugh Johnson]

You said its' existence is "purely hypothetical." When the existence of something is not proven, not even to some extent as the formulation "purely hypothetical" implies, it doesn't exist, as far as semantics and common sense discourse are concerned. Maybe you should work on your comprehension of basic semantics. I already explained why scepticism leads to solipsism. I am not going to explain it again. Read my post or do a quick google search.



When 100 people stand in front of a tree, and they all see the same thing (with slight variations in perception), and agree that it conforms to the commonly accepted mental concept of a tree, why is that? There obviously seems to be a common source that leads to the conceptualization of a highly similar object in their mind. Every sane person that accepts basic common sense philosophy will agree it's because they all perceive the same thing in the world.
Can you please stop asking me to provide a proof for the existence of the material world like you're a broken record? I already explained that's impossible. Common sense philosophy and empiricism are built on the 1st axiom that the material world exists because it is by far the best hypothesis, and science would be meaningless without it. The most elementary common sense and the most sophisticated science all share the same conviction: the objects we perceive through the senses have a reality that is independent of us. Those are not my original thoughts, this premise has been accepted by everyone from Locke, Hume, Russell, Einstein, Popper to Peat. You can either accept it, too, or remain mentally stuck in your cartesian solipsism.

There is a difference in saying something is hypothetical, and something not existing. Other than that you require blind faith, which I don't do. If a hundred people see a tree falling on a computer screen, there is still no tree or falling, just pixels changing colors.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

I never said I was trying to either prove or disprove anything. I'm way too young and dumb to have opinions on grand metaphysical matters like that. I was just saying regardless of whether it's true or not, believing in something like that will numb you to life -- it's good that you won't feel lows, but you won't be able to feel real highs either. It's a very "old-person", serotonin-driven view of life. A youthful, dopamine-driven view of life is much more alert/emotionally involved. The former viewpoint might be wiser than the latter, but the latter viewpoint is more energetic/associated with high metabolism even though it might be said to be more "foolish".

You actually have no understanding of the effects of what I am discussing and obviously have no personal experience of it.

 

[DavidGardner]

So does anyone have any thoughts on what the article actually discusses? The idea that the universe is a self-aware, self-regulating organism. Kind of nullifies the debate over whether the material world exists outside of consciousness, if the universe itself-- which is what we really mean by the material world --is conscious.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

So does anyone have any thoughts on what the article actually discusses? The idea that the universe is a self-aware, self-regulating organism. Kind of nullifies the debate over whether the material world exists outside of consciousness, if the universe itself-- which is what we really mean by the material world --is conscious.

Sorry about starting the debate. It was never meant to distract from that discussion.

However, it does not nullify the debate. Think about this, if there is a conciousness, which everyone experientially knows, and a material world imbued with the conciousness then there are two realities. Fair enough, however they most both exist in a overarching reality that includes them both for the two realities to interact. Now, the materialist view is that the conciousness arises from neural functions or something. Which I would argue is empirically disproven even under materialist paradigm. So we are at a half way point where they try to include the material world into their model of the world via panpsychism or similar ideas. However, I see no reason to believe there are two realities and a yet unobserved and unobservable supreme reality behind them.

There is a difference between saying something is concious and something consists of conciousness.

 

[Kartoffel]

Now, the materialist view is that the conciousness arises from neural functions or something. Which I would argue is empirically disproven even under materialist paradigm

You're ridiculous. Please show us how it's been disproven. A few years ago there was a news story about a guy that shot himself in the head to demonstrate that consciousness exists independently from his brain. I wonder when he will finally return to tell us, if it worked.*

* Please do not try this at home

 

[Tenacity]

You're ridiculous. Please show us how it's been disproven. A few years ago there was a news story about a guy that shot himself in the head to demonstrate that consciousness exists independently from his brain. I wonder when he will finally return to tell us, if it worked.*

* Please do not try this at home

His manifesto was thousands of pages long, if I remember right. You can find it online.

 

[Kartoffel]

His manifesto was thousands of pages long, if I remember right. You can find it online.

Really? I actually just made that up to avoid making a direct suggestion like **** in the head, and see if your consciousness still continues to exist.

 

[Tenacity]

Really? I actually just made that up to avoid making a direct suggestion like **** in the head, and see if your consciousness still continues to exist.

I thought you were referring to Mitchell Heisman.

"Mitchell Heisman, a 35-year-old who held a bachelor's degree in psychology from Albany University. His suicide note was notable due to its unconventional format; at 1,905 pages, spanning topics concerning (and not limited to) human nature, society, religion, technology, and science, the suicide "note" was more akin to a grand philosophical tome. Heisman published his book, Suicide Note, online for free download, within a day of finally shooting himself on the Harvard University Campus."

 

[Hugh Johnson]

You're ridiculous. Please show us how it's been disproven. A few years ago there was a news story about a guy that shot himself in the head to demonstrate that consciousness exists independently from his brain. I wonder when he will finally return to tell us, if it worked.*

* Please do not try this at home

Of course you decided to do a guilt by association fallacy. Truthfully, I expected nothing better. Should you be interested in the topic, you would have done the research already instead of resorting to aggression and fallacies to defend your indefensible worldview.

 

[Kartoffel]

Of course you decided to do a guilt by association fallacy. Truthfully, I expected nothing better. Should you be interested in the topic, you would have done the research already instead of resorting to aggression and fallacies to defend your indefensible worldview.

So, where is your proof? We're still eagerly waiting. You're the one with the indefensible worldview here throwing around with nonsense like the material basis of consciousness has been disproven. This whole forum would be a joke, if that were true.

 

[charlie]

I actually just made that up

So basically you cannot be taken for your word. Sad.

 

[Kartoffel]

So basically you cannot be taken for your word. Sad.

Oh please. I can, and I actually always back up what I claim with empirical evidence. I already mentioned why I made up a story this time - because I know that directly suggesting to someone to commit suice should never be taken lightly, even if the context and irony seem clear.

 

[DavidGardner]

So we are at a half way point where they try to include the material world into their model of the world via panpsychism or similar ideas. However, I see no reason to believe there are two realities and a yet unobserved and unobservable supreme reality behind them.

There is a difference between saying something is concious and something consists of conciousness.

So is your metaphysical viewpoint a non-dualist version of idealism? In other words, do you think that consciousness is the sole basis of reality?

 

[danishispsychic]

mushrooms will pretty much teach you everything you need to know. blend with fresh orange juice to make then even more #peaty

 

[DavidGardner]

From an experiential standpoint, maybe. But they won’t teach you how to articulate it. We have too many big heads here that need to be able to explain things with as many words as possible.

 

[haidut]

I'd like to point you to Rupert Spira's argument against panpsychism. Panpsychism implies that there are two realities, matter and spirit, yet those two realities must exist have an underlying framework, so it is an incoherent idea.

In human experience and even in our sciences we can actually only know things that are in our consciousness. In other words the existence of the material world is purely hypothetical because we do not know anything about our consciousness except that all we experience and have ever experienced happens inside it.

I am probably butchering his argument though, but I hope it is close enough.

The author's argument is NOT panpsychism and he explains its limitations related to the bottom-up approach to consciousness. His proposition is cosmopsychism - i.e. all matter is conscious because the Universe as whole is conscious. He gives the analogy with the table as an illustration.

 

[haidut]

I trust that panpsychism is correct because it was the idea that buddhists came up with after spending years studying consciousness through introspection, which is the only way that consciousness can be studied.

The article is not about panpsychism but cosmopsychism. There is an important difference - i.e. the former is bottom-up approach while the latter is top-down.

 

[DavidGardner]

The article is not about panpsychism but cosmopsychism. There is an important difference - i.e. the former is bottom-up approach while the latter is top-down.

Are they necessarily mutually exclusive though? The articles refers to panpsychism as attributing a very simplistic form of consciousness even to subatomic particles. Does Cosmopsychism preclude this possibility or does it just expand upon it by also attributing consciousness to the universe as a whole?

 

[Gone Peating]

mushrooms will pretty much teach you everything you need to know. blend with fresh orange juice to make then even more #peaty

so what is everything that you need to know

 

[johnwester130]

Is this why there is synchronicity ?

One person in the world discovers something, and then someone else does at the same time