It’s definitely something to consider, though. It STILL does not help with knowing what the heck “consciousness” actually IS — But we don’t know why energy either attracts itself to itself {opposite charges attract} or repels itself {like charges repel}. What’s THAT all about? And what is gravity?
Oh, there’s lots we can measure and predict and STILL not understand.
I often think our “consciousness” kind of grows out of the nearly infinite feed-back loops among the neurons of our brains, arranged “just so” that we know who we are, each one of us — which makes me wonder, once we create enough world-wide-web feedback loops, if the Internet will become sentient, whether we try to make it so, or not.
If “consciousness” is a quality of every thing and non-thing that exists in he universe — being there in small parts that become self-aware as they aggregate — hmmmm, the feedback loops thingy still works … Maybe it’s proto-consciousness, requiring a critical mass and specifically formed structures before it becomes self-aware. After all, in a coma, we still have a lot of brain activity running a body, but no awareness that we can measure.
Interesting to think about — and yet, STILL {even though i LIKE to contemplate whether the universe might be an aware creature, it is still in the realm of conjecture and play. No way, currently, to know.
Mr. OBrien, "....-which makes me wonder, once we create enough world-wide-web feedback loops, if the internet will become sentient, whether we try to make it so or not." You ask an extremely interesting question here. No doubt you would enjoy two novels by the late Fred Hoyle: THE BLACK CLOUD and especially A FOR ANDROMEDA. He was the greatest Cosmologist of the 20th century.
Mr. Hartmann, like Mr. OBrien, I am moved also to ask the question: we still do not know what consciousness is. Even if I grant that you are correct and there is consciousness in everything; I still wonder about what Mr. OBrien asks: What is consciousness?
I think you and Mr. OBrien have created an example of what in Mathematics is called the Russell Frege Paradox. I first considered it as an undergrad at the Univ. of Mich. many years ago. Without stating it in its math. form of Set Theory, I can present a linguistic/non-mathematical analogue:
There is one universal statement or axiom and it is: everything changes.
In my youth I argued with my religious brother in law about his god. He said his god had no limits. I asked him if his god could create a stone so heavy that god could not lift it. If god could not lift the stone, then he has a limitation. If god cannot create such a stone, then that inability is his limitation. This is another example of a Russell Frege paradox. An example that theologians argued about long before Russell or Frege were born. Russell claimed to have found a way out of this paradox. But I cannot state it without using set Theory, which I will not try to get into here. Suffice to say that all Russell was saying is that such paradoxes are not permissible in our system of Logic. I am not certain that constitutes a resolution to the Paradox.
One could say that because I cannot find empirical evidence to disprove your claim that consciousness is universal; there are no grounds upon which I should reject it. But this kind of argument creates more problems. Prior to Neil Armstrong, nobody had been to the surface of the Moon; thus, the claim that the Moon is covered with green cheese deserved the same claim to veracity as the claims of geologists who said that it was not.
I neither agree nor disagree with you on this claim of universal consciousness.
However, I think the belief that consciousness exists only on the Earth is Epistemologically and Cosmologically similar to the ancient claim that the Earth was the center of the universe. It is so narrow and limited as to be absurd. Just as absurd is the notion that life spontaneously sprang into existence out of inanimate chemicals here on Earth. The development of life, especially intelligent life is quite UNlikely on planets because of the huge force of gravity which planets create. This huge force must be overcome if the inanimate chemicals are to arrange themselves in the form and proper sequence to produce intelligence. It is not reasonable to believe this spontaneous development could occur. It is more reasonable to believe that life and intelligence exists inside the immense interstellar clouds. There are vast volumes inside them with little or no concentration of gravity. There are vast volumes in them with temperatures much beneficial to life. There are almost unimaginable amounts of raw materials in the form of the correct elements and molecules to form the structures of living organisms. The energy required is supplied by the countless stars which are great sources of energy in more than one form, especially radiation. And by the way, what is the source of ALL energy
and therefore all life here on our planet?
It is more reasonable to believe that life has been deposited on the surface of this planet as it passes through interstellar clouds. Furthermore, all the necessary building blocks to continue the reproduction of life on the planet has also been deposited by passage through such clouds. The next question that seems to be begged is; does the cloud contain consciousness? I believe the answer to that is yes. It can be demonstrated by a combination of both empirical evidence and mathematics.
First we must examine Darwin's notion of evolution from a purely mathematical perspective. When we do this it becomes obvious that he was wrong about how evolution works. Evolutionary changes cannot occur as a process of "natural selection" because it is not mathematically possible. Edward Blyth came up with a theory of evolution long before Darwin or Wallace, and he was probably closer to the truth. But he has been neglected, and even reviled perhaps, in some circles as a religious nut. Let me present two bits of evidence that something is wrong with evolutionary theory as we currently understand it.
1) First an empirical example.
In American Museum Novitates No. 706 March 1934, Frank E. Lutz and E. N. Grisewood published 'Reactions of Drosophila to 2537 Angstrom Radiation.' They produced the 2537 angstrom light with a mercury arc lamp. Radiation of 2537 Angstroms from the sun does not penetrate the ozone layer so it does not reach the Earth's surface. This is fortunate for humans because this wavelength of light is not visible to the human eye but it is harmful to the human eye. The question which is obvious to us should be: how is it that the fly's eye can see and "react" to a wavelength of light which has never reached the Earth from the sun? The Darwinian theory says that human abilities, and all creature's abilities have "evolved" through a process of "natural selection" over time. How can these drosophila have evolved a reaction to a stimulus which has, on Earth, never occurred naturally? Something is wrong here. Should we say there are exceptions to "natural selection"? And if so, how many? How many exceptions should we accept. Or should we reject Darwin's version of evolution? There is more to be said if we look into the literature.
2) Second, a mathematical example.
There is a problem with permutations and combinations if we believe in Darwin's version of evolution based on natural selection. Genes are changed (or mutated) because radiation of a cosmic origin causes the reproduction of the next generation's DNA to be scrambled into a new form. The next generation's genes are different because of this scramble, or jumble, or mix up. or whatever you want to call the mutation. Most of the new forms are not advantageous for the next generation, so they are less likely to be passed on. In fact most of the mutations are downright harmful, so they contribute to the disappearance of the genotype and phenotype in the future. Darwin claims that those new types which are favored by environmental conditions are more likely to survive and pass on their mutated genes to the future. The two most important types of favorable conditions are 1) availability of nutrients in the environment and 2) ability to successfully reproduce offspring. We must ask ourselves; How many possible combinations of new genotypes are possible when each mutation occurs? Let us consider only blood types and nothing else, and we shall see that there is simply not enough time for the proper kind of blood to be evolved if the mutations are simply left to chance, to probability. There are 20 kinds of amino acids in hemoglobin and in most other proteins. There are 141 amino acids in the alfa chain in our genes. The number of different ways that chains which are 141 amino acids in length can be formed from 20 different kinds is: (20) to the 141st power. This number is more than all the atoms in the known universe. So, what is the probability that by shear probability a new genotype and phenotype could appear which is favorable to survival under Earthly conditions? So close to zero that it might as well be zero. The only way we can believe that nevertheless, against such unimaginably unfavorable odds (zero, really) the correct genotype appears which favors survival; is to believe that there is PURPOSE built right into the evolutionary process. No matter how far out this proposition sounds; I believe there is some consciousness, some intelligence in the universe which gives evolution this purpose. In fact, purpose presupposes consciousness. I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god. But it seems to me that there clearly exists a non-human consciousness. I believe it exists in interstellar clouds. Not in the atoms and particles exactly, but it is there.
Eastern philosophies have always believed every particle has three aspects: consciousness, energy and matter. In 1888, in her The Secret Doctrine, Helena Blavatsky wrote: “Yet this cosmic dust is something more; for every atom in the universe has the potentiality of self-consciousness in it and is, like the Monads of Leibnitz, a Universe in itself and for itself. It is an atom and an angel.” (page 55, Abridgement of The Secret Doctrine: Preston and Humphrey).
This proto-consciousness, as you accurately put it, may have no more similarity to its expression as human consciousness then an acorn to the oak tree.
Oh boy...first I have to address the comments by Pat and Gerald. Pat thinks we don't know what consciousness is Gerald seems to hold a similar view. Look, consciousness is a word, a descriptor, a representation. A synonym for consciousness is awareness. To claim that we don't know what it is seems absurd to me and it reminds me of a sort of false conceit that often pervades academic circles in which experts claim ignorance and limits to knowledge in an effort to prove their open-mindedness and humility. I've experienced that way too often and it always strikes me as insincere. It's not that big of a mystery (as to what consciousness is), but over that last few decades spirituality and science has conflated a lot of things together along with mysticism and the result is confusion.
Gerald, I recommend reading The Trancedent Brain by Alan Lightman, specifically for his explanation of the number of connections and sub connections in the brain compared to computers and the internet. Spoiler alert, the human brain has waaayyyy more. Also, your explanation of gene mutation is too simplistic, too incomplete, but your conclusion seems reasonable.
Another point; we usually conceive of consciousness as something embodied, contained within a biological entity, humans most often in our case. The distinction between a biologic entity and its environment may not be as separate as it appears to be. That is a subject too big and complicated to go into now though.
If anyone wants to dig deeper into the subject of panpsychism, the the works of Ken Wilber are must read material. Beware though, the big bald guy (Ken Wilber) did go off the deep end into some crazy cult crap nonsense, but the first half or more of his work is absolutely brilliant.
Lastly, I remember Thom interviewing Neil deGrasse Tyson. Thom asked him about this stuff and the answer was...well, I felt embarrassed for Thom. But, they both kind of missed the opportunity to explore the subject in a more sophisticated manner.
Eastern philosophies have always believed every particle has three aspects: consciousness, energy and matter. In 1888 in her The Secret Doctrine, Helena Blavatsky wrote: “Yet this cosmic dust is something more; for every atom in the universe has the potentiality of self-consciousness in it and is, like the Monads of Leibnitz, a Universe in itself and for itself. It is an atom and an angel.” (page 55, Abridgement of The Secret Doctrine: Preston and Humphrey).
This proto-consciousness, as you accurately put it, may have no more similarity to its evolved expression as human consciousness than an acorn to the oak tree.
It’s definitely something to consider, though. It STILL does not help with knowing what the heck “consciousness” actually IS — But we don’t know why energy either attracts itself to itself {opposite charges attract} or repels itself {like charges repel}. What’s THAT all about? And what is gravity?
Oh, there’s lots we can measure and predict and STILL not understand.
I often think our “consciousness” kind of grows out of the nearly infinite feed-back loops among the neurons of our brains, arranged “just so” that we know who we are, each one of us — which makes me wonder, once we create enough world-wide-web feedback loops, if the Internet will become sentient, whether we try to make it so, or not.
If “consciousness” is a quality of every thing and non-thing that exists in he universe — being there in small parts that become self-aware as they aggregate — hmmmm, the feedback loops thingy still works … Maybe it’s proto-consciousness, requiring a critical mass and specifically formed structures before it becomes self-aware. After all, in a coma, we still have a lot of brain activity running a body, but no awareness that we can measure.
Interesting to think about — and yet, STILL {even though i LIKE to contemplate whether the universe might be an aware creature, it is still in the realm of conjecture and play. No way, currently, to know.
But fun to think on.
Mr. OBrien, "....-which makes me wonder, once we create enough world-wide-web feedback loops, if the internet will become sentient, whether we try to make it so or not." You ask an extremely interesting question here. No doubt you would enjoy two novels by the late Fred Hoyle: THE BLACK CLOUD and especially A FOR ANDROMEDA. He was the greatest Cosmologist of the 20th century.
Mr. Hartmann, like Mr. OBrien, I am moved also to ask the question: we still do not know what consciousness is. Even if I grant that you are correct and there is consciousness in everything; I still wonder about what Mr. OBrien asks: What is consciousness?
I think you and Mr. OBrien have created an example of what in Mathematics is called the Russell Frege Paradox. I first considered it as an undergrad at the Univ. of Mich. many years ago. Without stating it in its math. form of Set Theory, I can present a linguistic/non-mathematical analogue:
There is one universal statement or axiom and it is: everything changes.
In my youth I argued with my religious brother in law about his god. He said his god had no limits. I asked him if his god could create a stone so heavy that god could not lift it. If god could not lift the stone, then he has a limitation. If god cannot create such a stone, then that inability is his limitation. This is another example of a Russell Frege paradox. An example that theologians argued about long before Russell or Frege were born. Russell claimed to have found a way out of this paradox. But I cannot state it without using set Theory, which I will not try to get into here. Suffice to say that all Russell was saying is that such paradoxes are not permissible in our system of Logic. I am not certain that constitutes a resolution to the Paradox.
One could say that because I cannot find empirical evidence to disprove your claim that consciousness is universal; there are no grounds upon which I should reject it. But this kind of argument creates more problems. Prior to Neil Armstrong, nobody had been to the surface of the Moon; thus, the claim that the Moon is covered with green cheese deserved the same claim to veracity as the claims of geologists who said that it was not.
I neither agree nor disagree with you on this claim of universal consciousness.
However, I think the belief that consciousness exists only on the Earth is Epistemologically and Cosmologically similar to the ancient claim that the Earth was the center of the universe. It is so narrow and limited as to be absurd. Just as absurd is the notion that life spontaneously sprang into existence out of inanimate chemicals here on Earth. The development of life, especially intelligent life is quite UNlikely on planets because of the huge force of gravity which planets create. This huge force must be overcome if the inanimate chemicals are to arrange themselves in the form and proper sequence to produce intelligence. It is not reasonable to believe this spontaneous development could occur. It is more reasonable to believe that life and intelligence exists inside the immense interstellar clouds. There are vast volumes inside them with little or no concentration of gravity. There are vast volumes in them with temperatures much beneficial to life. There are almost unimaginable amounts of raw materials in the form of the correct elements and molecules to form the structures of living organisms. The energy required is supplied by the countless stars which are great sources of energy in more than one form, especially radiation. And by the way, what is the source of ALL energy
and therefore all life here on our planet?
It is more reasonable to believe that life has been deposited on the surface of this planet as it passes through interstellar clouds. Furthermore, all the necessary building blocks to continue the reproduction of life on the planet has also been deposited by passage through such clouds. The next question that seems to be begged is; does the cloud contain consciousness? I believe the answer to that is yes. It can be demonstrated by a combination of both empirical evidence and mathematics.
First we must examine Darwin's notion of evolution from a purely mathematical perspective. When we do this it becomes obvious that he was wrong about how evolution works. Evolutionary changes cannot occur as a process of "natural selection" because it is not mathematically possible. Edward Blyth came up with a theory of evolution long before Darwin or Wallace, and he was probably closer to the truth. But he has been neglected, and even reviled perhaps, in some circles as a religious nut. Let me present two bits of evidence that something is wrong with evolutionary theory as we currently understand it.
1) First an empirical example.
In American Museum Novitates No. 706 March 1934, Frank E. Lutz and E. N. Grisewood published 'Reactions of Drosophila to 2537 Angstrom Radiation.' They produced the 2537 angstrom light with a mercury arc lamp. Radiation of 2537 Angstroms from the sun does not penetrate the ozone layer so it does not reach the Earth's surface. This is fortunate for humans because this wavelength of light is not visible to the human eye but it is harmful to the human eye. The question which is obvious to us should be: how is it that the fly's eye can see and "react" to a wavelength of light which has never reached the Earth from the sun? The Darwinian theory says that human abilities, and all creature's abilities have "evolved" through a process of "natural selection" over time. How can these drosophila have evolved a reaction to a stimulus which has, on Earth, never occurred naturally? Something is wrong here. Should we say there are exceptions to "natural selection"? And if so, how many? How many exceptions should we accept. Or should we reject Darwin's version of evolution? There is more to be said if we look into the literature.
2) Second, a mathematical example.
There is a problem with permutations and combinations if we believe in Darwin's version of evolution based on natural selection. Genes are changed (or mutated) because radiation of a cosmic origin causes the reproduction of the next generation's DNA to be scrambled into a new form. The next generation's genes are different because of this scramble, or jumble, or mix up. or whatever you want to call the mutation. Most of the new forms are not advantageous for the next generation, so they are less likely to be passed on. In fact most of the mutations are downright harmful, so they contribute to the disappearance of the genotype and phenotype in the future. Darwin claims that those new types which are favored by environmental conditions are more likely to survive and pass on their mutated genes to the future. The two most important types of favorable conditions are 1) availability of nutrients in the environment and 2) ability to successfully reproduce offspring. We must ask ourselves; How many possible combinations of new genotypes are possible when each mutation occurs? Let us consider only blood types and nothing else, and we shall see that there is simply not enough time for the proper kind of blood to be evolved if the mutations are simply left to chance, to probability. There are 20 kinds of amino acids in hemoglobin and in most other proteins. There are 141 amino acids in the alfa chain in our genes. The number of different ways that chains which are 141 amino acids in length can be formed from 20 different kinds is: (20) to the 141st power. This number is more than all the atoms in the known universe. So, what is the probability that by shear probability a new genotype and phenotype could appear which is favorable to survival under Earthly conditions? So close to zero that it might as well be zero. The only way we can believe that nevertheless, against such unimaginably unfavorable odds (zero, really) the correct genotype appears which favors survival; is to believe that there is PURPOSE built right into the evolutionary process. No matter how far out this proposition sounds; I believe there is some consciousness, some intelligence in the universe which gives evolution this purpose. In fact, purpose presupposes consciousness. I am an atheist. I do not believe in a god. But it seems to me that there clearly exists a non-human consciousness. I believe it exists in interstellar clouds. Not in the atoms and particles exactly, but it is there.
Thom, you made my heart ♥️ sing 🎵!!!!!!
Eastern philosophies have always believed every particle has three aspects: consciousness, energy and matter. In 1888, in her The Secret Doctrine, Helena Blavatsky wrote: “Yet this cosmic dust is something more; for every atom in the universe has the potentiality of self-consciousness in it and is, like the Monads of Leibnitz, a Universe in itself and for itself. It is an atom and an angel.” (page 55, Abridgement of The Secret Doctrine: Preston and Humphrey).
This proto-consciousness, as you accurately put it, may have no more similarity to its expression as human consciousness then an acorn to the oak tree.
Came across this at 04:00. Wow.
Oh boy...first I have to address the comments by Pat and Gerald. Pat thinks we don't know what consciousness is Gerald seems to hold a similar view. Look, consciousness is a word, a descriptor, a representation. A synonym for consciousness is awareness. To claim that we don't know what it is seems absurd to me and it reminds me of a sort of false conceit that often pervades academic circles in which experts claim ignorance and limits to knowledge in an effort to prove their open-mindedness and humility. I've experienced that way too often and it always strikes me as insincere. It's not that big of a mystery (as to what consciousness is), but over that last few decades spirituality and science has conflated a lot of things together along with mysticism and the result is confusion.
Gerald, I recommend reading The Trancedent Brain by Alan Lightman, specifically for his explanation of the number of connections and sub connections in the brain compared to computers and the internet. Spoiler alert, the human brain has waaayyyy more. Also, your explanation of gene mutation is too simplistic, too incomplete, but your conclusion seems reasonable.
Another point; we usually conceive of consciousness as something embodied, contained within a biological entity, humans most often in our case. The distinction between a biologic entity and its environment may not be as separate as it appears to be. That is a subject too big and complicated to go into now though.
If anyone wants to dig deeper into the subject of panpsychism, the the works of Ken Wilber are must read material. Beware though, the big bald guy (Ken Wilber) did go off the deep end into some crazy cult crap nonsense, but the first half or more of his work is absolutely brilliant.
Lastly, I remember Thom interviewing Neil deGrasse Tyson. Thom asked him about this stuff and the answer was...well, I felt embarrassed for Thom. But, they both kind of missed the opportunity to explore the subject in a more sophisticated manner.
Consciousness means nothing more than AWAREness
To be aware is to KNOW
to know is to EXPERIENCE and RECOGNIZE
to recognize is to DISCERN
to discern is to IDENTIFY AS SEPARATE
to identify as separate is to DIFFERENTIATE
to differentiate is to be aware of INEQUALITY
which takes us back to ME-A-SURE ⚖️
which takes us to pattern or deSIGN ☯️
which takes us to SIGN 🪧
which takes us to SIGNal 🚨
which takes us to PULSE, VIBRATE, FREQUENCY and RESONATE.
Magnetic resonance is a RESPONSE from quantization.
Quantization is to DIVIDE and ME-A-SURE into a part or a GROUP.
To group is to FORM
which means to ARISE
which means to have ATTENTION
which means to OBSERVE
which means to WATCH
which means AWAKE
which leads us right back to where we started
When you're awake, you're AWARE.
Eastern philosophies have always believed every particle has three aspects: consciousness, energy and matter. In 1888 in her The Secret Doctrine, Helena Blavatsky wrote: “Yet this cosmic dust is something more; for every atom in the universe has the potentiality of self-consciousness in it and is, like the Monads of Leibnitz, a Universe in itself and for itself. It is an atom and an angel.” (page 55, Abridgement of The Secret Doctrine: Preston and Humphrey).
This proto-consciousness, as you accurately put it, may have no more similarity to its evolved expression as human consciousness than an acorn to the oak tree.