Conceptualizing Cosmic Consciousness

Pantagruel

Human consciousness unfolds at scales between centimeters to meters, and seconds to decades. Through the mechanisms of culture and technology, these scales can be expanded, although these expanded conscious experiences are not direct awareness, but are mediated and facilitated by the operations of the intellect. Experiences of awareness of a flower, or the Grand Canyon are not exactly like experiences of awareness of the interaction of subatomic particles, or of stellar formation. Although the more complete the specific information and the more accurate our understanding the more intellectual awareness approaches the threshold of direct awareness.

It is conceivable that consciousness exists in the universe in forms not bound to human or even biological existence. If there were direct awareness of events at the cosmic and the quantum scale (which is the limit towards which intellectual awareness itself proceeds), to what extent would that awareness be representable or translatable into human scales of awareness? Thus myths, religions and mysticisms may be symbolic and metaphoric representations of features of higher-order consciousness, but, for us, these must be pared-down and truncated compared to the actual experiences they represent. An amoeba that is moved from a hostile to a benign ph environment by a human observer might have a mythological sense of a higher being in the same way that we have creation myths. But the amoeba can no more grasp the complete nature of its unfolding reality at the scales of its perceptual and cognitive limits than we can grasp the complete nature of our unfolding reality at the scales of ours.

edit:
For example, the intellectual certainty attending cogito ergo sum may be a projection of the direct awareness of a more expansive consciousness. And while we cannot comprehend the entire meaning of this intuition in the context of biologically constrained thought, it might be complete and sufficient when biological limits are removed or otherwise transcended.

javi2541997

If there were direct awareness of events at the cosmic and the quantum scale (which is the limit towards which intellectual awareness itself proceeds), to what extent would that awareness be representable or translatable into human scales of awareness? — Pantagruel

Language could be an important tool to help us to find out cosmical awareness. I think it is only representable in our human scales if we understand it. We are not able to understand it if we do not share the same language. So (probably I am wrong) I think we have to start in the point which can allow us to understand the cosmos better than we usually do. Then, if we ever get more precisely data from the universe we would have more chances to translate it in our scale of awareness.
You put good examples as mythology, cogito, etc... but I think one of the limitations is time.
Universe seems to be timeless. At least it looks like that the consciousness of passing time is not around there.

attending cogito ergo sum may be a projection of the direct awareness of a more expansive consciousness. — Pantagruel

This was the example I was thinking too! :eyes: :clap:

Pantagruel

↪javi2541997

I think that to the extent that our understanding expands, our awareness likewise expands, in the direction of transcending the boundaries of the physical. And yes, I'm certain language is one of the tools that facilitates that expansion. The trick may be not to allow that expanding awareness to be bound to expectations or preconceptions that may no longer be applicable.

Agent Smith

As I see it, our conception of cosmic consciousness (oooh!) is limited to only scaling up what is possible with human consciousness; leaps in consciousness - taking the mind to the next level - is, to my reckoning, beyond our ken. That is not to say we can't speculate; we can and we should. After all something's better than nothing, oui mes amies?

Pantagruel

As I see it, our conception of cosmic consciousness (oooh!) is limited to only scaling up what is possible with human consciousness; leaps in consciousness - taking the mind to the next level - is, to my reckoning, beyond our ken. That is not to say we can't speculate; we can and we should. After all something's better than nothing, oui mes amies? — Agent Smith

But doesn't reason actually work in the direction of transcending one level towards another, as I attempted to describe? A highly trained musician can actually perceive elements in a performance that untrained listeners cannot. There is an experiment where a cat's brain does not even register a particular tone (that is within it's audible range) until the tone has been paired with an associated significant stimulus (like food). In A Neurocomputational Perspective Paul Churchland suggests that attaining a sufficient insight into the mechanics of the mind might generate an associated direct awareness thereof.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Jack Cummins

↪Pantagruel

Have you read 'Cosmic Consciousness', by Bucke
I would recommend it, and it looks at lives of those who achieved exceptional consciousness, including Blake, the Buddha, and many famous figures. I know that Wayfarer has read it because he wrote about it, so it is a shame that he has left the forum.

One other book which I have found very good is Colin Wilson's final book, 'Superconsciousness'. He focuses on peak experiences and, in his writings in general, he speaks about creative people who saw the world differently, including some of the Existentialists and artists. He often sees consciousness as a form of waking up from a robotic state, following the thinking of Guirdieff.

Agent Smith

But doesn't reason actually work in the direction of transcending one level towards another, as I attempted to describe? A highly trained musician can actually perceive elements in a performance that untrained listeners cannot. There is an experiment where a cat's brain does not even register a particular tone (that is within it's audible range) until the tone has been paired with an associated significant stimulus (like food). In A Neurocomputational Perspective Paul Churchland suggests that attaining a sufficient insight into the mechanics of the mind might generate an associated direct awareness thereof. — Pantagruel

Possible; I just feel we don't/can't do leaps; graduated progress is the usual deal.

Alkis Piskas

↪Pantagruel

I'm quite interested in this subject.
However, and unfortunately, I am a little confused with the use of "consciousness" and "awareness". It would be good if you started by offering a definition of both, and how they differ or resemble.
I really wonder why people don't do that, esp. when complex concepts or ones the meaning of which is known to differ --sometimes a lot-- from one individual to another[/b] are involved. Examples/applications of the key terms are also often needed, depending on the complexity of the subject, to make these concepts better --if not at all- understood in the context they are used.

How else can a topic be expected to be understood in the way the person who posts it intends to and means it? And how can a sensible and productive discussion take place when each interlocutor understands the key terms/concepts in a different way?

Isn't all this too logical?

It is conceivable that consciousness exists in the universe in forms not bound to human or even biological — Pantagruel

In what way and form does consciousness exist in the Universe?
I really can't see that. Not in the way I understand consciousness.

If there were direct awareness of events at the cosmic and the quantum scale (which is the limit towards which intellectual awareness itself proceeds), — Pantagruel

In what way and form does awareness exists about events at that level?
I really can't see that. Not in the way I understand awareness.

I can't see a lot of other things for the same reason.

Lack of definitions make me also ask in what way do consciousness and awareness differ for you? Esp. when consciousness is generally considered as a state of being aware of something ...

Pantagruel

Possible; I just feel we don't/can't do leaps; graduated progress is the usual deal. — Agent Smith

In the field of evolutionary biology progress by leaps is known as "saltation" - there are some interesting phenomena documented with respect to population genetics, but it is pretty technical/statistical so it requires some interpretation.

Pantagruel

However, and unfortunately, I am a little confused with the use of "consciousness" and "awareness". It would be good if you started by offering a definition of both, and how they differ or resemble. — Alkis Piskas

I think, in the context of my post, the whole thing is about conceptualizing consciousness; I would say that is the point. Whatever we are experiencing as consciousness in our biologically constrained form, I think it is a mistake to think that we can authoritatively define it. We can authoritatively experience it, but the significance of cogito ergo sum may not be the same for me as for you.

So, for me, the common-sense or ordinary language usages of both consciousness and awareness are sufficient, for those reasons. Splitting hairs about what is or isn't conscious, if there are unconscious processes, etc., isn't the focus of my descriptions. I assume that everything which is constitutive of consciousness is consciousness, even if some people call it unconscious, or id, or superego.

Pantagruel

↪Jack Cummins

Yes, I'm all-in with peak-experiences Jack. I was an ultra-runner until I my knee gave out. Running 24 hours straight and finding yourself completely alone in primeval forest under an ink-black sky awash with stars on a moonless night 30 km from the nearest population centre is one of the more controlled peak-experiences I've pursued.

Thanks for the reading recommendations, appreciated as always my friend!

Pantagruel

Maybe this is why some systems focus on identification. That is identification, a factor in conditioning, may preclude entrance to a higher level of consciousness. — ArielAssante

Can you clarify and expand on that a bit for me?

Alkis Piskas

I think, in the context of my post, the whole thing is about conceptualizing consciousness; I would say that is the point. — Pantagruel

So, maybe then you are questing the nature, mechanism, etc. of consciousness. Because you are already using the term and concept of "consciousness" as something known, given. Because to talk on any subject you mast start by defining. And this definition is what I am talking about.
For example, to talk about "fear" you must first define it, identify it so that both you and other people who are reading/hearing you know what you are talking about. Then, and only then, you can start talking and seeking about the nature of fear, how and where does it occur, etc. See what I mean?

Then, I believe that one must not assume a priori, as something known and given that the nature of consciousness --whatever that is-- is physical. For one thing, because simply this has not been proven.

So, you must then ask, is consiousness something physical, non-physical or both? Does this makes sense? (I hope yes! :smile:)

I think it is a mistake to think that we can authoritatively define it. — Pantagruel

I don't hink so. You can alsways start with a commonly accepted definition of consciousness, which is a state of being aware and perceiving something. You can bring in another, also common, one as a very basic definition. This is a base --and necessary-- point on which to build the exploration f consciousness. You must build on some foundation. You can't build on the air or on confusion --which, as I mentrioned, was what a felt reading this topic. This is my opinion. And I believe it makes sense.

Then, since perception is a basic element of consiousness, it must be always taken into consideration in its "exploration". This, and other things that will be found to be connected to consciosness will help having more control on the process. Don't you agree?

180 Proof

↪Pantagruel

"Cosmic consciousness" seems to me an incoherent concept at best – category error? ad hoc anthropomorphism? Feuerbachian projection? – especially given the phenomenological conception that 'consciousness is intentional, or conscious of (more than just itself)', and yet, besides chaos (of which cosmos might be just a phase-state), there is only the cosmos itself. In my little book, therefore, this notion is just another woo-of-the-gaps like e.g. panpsychism. So tell me what I'm missing. :chin:

Pantagruel

↪180 Proof

That seems too basic a point to contest. The concept of universal mind is ubiquitous in the collection of writings on animism, panpsychism, the whole notion of embodied or embedded consciousness, the systems philosophy writings of Ernst Laszlo. I am reasoning from the standpoint of a person or people who have some intuitive understanding and agreement with the notion and are attempting to expand their understanding characterizing it further. So it wouldn't be the time for me to teach you to appreciate the intuitive beauty of panpsychism.

180 Proof

↪Pantagruel

Isn't it quite apparent that inferring "the universe is conscious" from the universe is inhabited by at least one species of "conscious" beings is a compositional fallacy?

Pantagruel

Isn't it quite apparent that inferring "the universe is conscious" from the universe is inhabited by at least one species of "conscious" beings is a compositional fallacy? — 180 Proof

As mentioned, you really can't teach someone to appreciate the beauty of something. If the idea of a cosmic consciousness doesn't simultaneously satisfy your intellectual and aesthetic intuitions then it doesn't. However it is certain that increased understanding can lead to an increase in the appreciation of beauty. As musicians, whose love of music leads them to devote energy to improving their theoretical and technical expertise, which in turn expands their awareness of the beauty of music.

If I felt as you do, I might follow the discussion and try to appreciate whether the energy being expended in characterizing the idea has merit. Rabbi's dispute fine points of the Torah, whether or not there is specifically a Hebrew God or any God. Does that mean all their mental efforts are worthless? Solving puzzles is a trivial pastime, but people who solve a lot of puzzles can become very good at...solving things.

edit: perhaps it is a question of which ideas can engender the most beautiful constructs? I have always felt eloquence to be one of the most valuable dimensions of philosophical argument. Witness Huxley, Dewey, and of course, Bergson.

Pantagruel

Isn't it quite apparent that inferring "the universe is conscious" from the universe is inhabited by at least one species of "conscious" beings is a compositional fallacy? — 180 Proof

It is an hypothesis, not a fallacy. It's only a fallacy if it is positively determined to be categorically false.

Pantagruel

So, you must then ask, is consiousness something physical, non-physical or both? Does this makes sense? (I hope yes! :smile:) — Alkis Piskas

I think this is your main question? I think that this has been an historical dividing line. However the trans-physical can encompass the physical, but not vice-versa. If you are a hard-materialist-cognitivist, my trans-physical conception of nature can incorporate any physicalist interpretation without conflict.

Pantagruel

As soon as the play, which was Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, began, Partridge was all attention, nor did he break silence till the entrance of the ghost; upon which he asked Jones, "What man that was in the strange dress; something," said he, "like what I have seen in a picture. Sure it is not armour, is it?" Jones answered, "That is the ghost." To which Partridge replied with a smile, "Persuade me to that, sir, if you can."

Henry Fielding, Tom Jones

180 Proof

↪Pantagruel

Well then it's an unfalsifiable "hypothesis" – at most, (perennialist) poetry. And the "appeal to aesthetics" with respect to ontology, however, makes "cosmic consciousness" just another empty name like "god" :sparkle:

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Pantagruel

Well then it's an unfalsifiable "hypothesis" – at most, (perennialist) poetry. And the "appeal to aesthetics" with respect to ontology, howecer, makes "cosmic consciousness" just another empty name like "god" :sparkle: — 180 Proof

Precisely what my thread was not created to debate.

Pantagruel

↪ArielAssante

I am familiar with classical S-R theory, but nowhere have I ever encountered the concept of identification with respect to it. I googled, but couldn't find any references either??

I am absolutely embracing the view that there are different degrees of consciousness though, yes.

180 Proof

↪Pantagruel

Agreed. There's nothing to debate – no propositions in dispute

Alkis Piskas

the trans-physical can encompass the physical, but not vice-versa. — Pantagruel

I've never heard the term "trans-physical". So I looked it up in two dictionaries. The both say "of or relating to the body". But then, the common term "physical" is also defined as "related to the body". So, your sentence above means "what relates to the body can encompass what relates to the body, but not vice versa". If I'm wrong please correct me.

If you are a hard-materialist-cognitivist, my trans-physical conception of nature can incorporate any physicalist interpretation without conflict. — Pantagruel

I'm anything else than a "hard-materialist" or even just a "materialist".

Pantagruel

↪Alkis Piskas

The prefix trans- means across, beyond, or on the other side. So transphysical encompasses and extends the physical.

Since 95% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, which are characterized mostly by the properties that they do not share with ordinary matter and energy, the traditional bedrock concept of materialism has become pretty tenuous, I think. What does it mean to be substantial? Concreteness and tangibility have more substance in the context of logical reasoning than the description of reality.

Pantagruel

Well then it's an unfalsifiable "hypothesis" – at most, (perennialist) poetry. And the "appeal to aesthetics" with respect to ontology, howecer, makes "cosmic consciousness" just another empty name like "god" :sparkle: — 180 Proof

Compare it with the search for extra-terrestrial life then. No evidence for life of any kind has ever been discovered anywhere in the universe beyond the confines of earth. Yet many people and organizations devote lots of resources searching for it in what is considered credible scientific research. And even more people than conduct the actual research believe that it exists, many with great passion.

This could itself be construed as a search for a cosmic intelligence. Which is indeed the theme presented at the conclusion of the Stargate Universe series, where the analysis of exceptionally detailed cosmological data reveals a message embedded in the deepest fabrics of reality. In a sense, isn't that what drives all inquiry, the search for a deeper meaning?

Alkis Piskas

The prefix trans- means across, beyond, or on the other side. So transphysical encompasses and extends the physical. — Pantagruel

OK, but this is just a literal-etymological analysis. This is not an answers to What does "trans-physical" mean? I, on the other hand, brought up the definition from two dictionaries. If you don't know yourself what it actually means, you shouldn't talk about it and waste people's time.

Pantagruel

↪Alkis Piskas

You wasted your own time.

By the way, with all respect to your prestigious online internet sources, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, which is 2 volumes and 7000 pages and is in my library, defines trans- as a freely productive prefix, which is how it was used. It does not contain the word transphysical. I am quite content that context of the usage accurately reflects the sense I am conveying.

Conceptualizing Cosmic Consciousness

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions