A universe without anything conscious or aware

Benj96

Physics would suppose that the universe can and has indeed existed before consciousness arose. As common sense as this seems it sits so strangely to imagine an entire “happening” that is unaware of it’s happening. It is egocentric for sure.

There’s no reason to imagine that a tree doesn’t fall unless we observe it. I’ve no doubt it happens many a time around the world every second unknown to us. In much the same way there’s no reason to imagine the universe unfolding in entirety without containing any observer to confirm it.

However, the universe clearly demonstrates that it’s chemistry and physical operations are “ripe” for the evolution of an observer (be it a part, a mere fraction of the universe, but part of the universe all the same) that does indeed observe, does appreciate and does apply meaning and comprehension to it all.

Why would a universe ever require that it’s properties just happen to lead to consciousness? Why does the universe unfold in such a way that brings about its own acknowledgment? I find this bizarre. But from the biased view of a sentient being - the sensual response is well - to “know/ confirm” that it has done so. A universe that has no conscious beings never knew it began, happened or ended, or repeated ... for eternity. And I don’t know what could be said to be a better definition of “absolutely pointless” than that. (I know purpose and point is a construct of the aware).

The natural conclusion is that either universes cannot exist in any other way but one that leads to an observer, or the observer has always been there (enter theology and/or panpsychism), and that life is simply the most physical and particulate (individual) state to date through which said observer or observers exist.

Jackson

The natural conclusion is that either universes cannot exist in any other way but one that leads to an observer, — Benj96

If the universe had intention to create humans it sure took a long time.

Benj96

If the universe had intention to create humans it sure took a long time. — Jackson

Very true. But perhaps time to a human and time to the universe are very different. We know its rate objectively depends on distance, gravity, relativity etc and also “human time” is somewhat arbitrary : assigned to relatively quick cycles that we can observe. But for something that exists as long as the universe could - perhaps life and humanity arose in reasonable haste. Alas we most likely cannot appreciate that in its entirety I suppose considering we are only here for an average of 70-80 years or so.

Jackson

Very true. But perhaps time to a human and time to the universe are very different. We know its rate objectively depends on distance, gravity, relativity etc and also “human time” is somewhat arbitrary : assigned to relatively quick cycles that we can observe. But for something that exists as long as the universe could - perhaps life and humanity arose in reasonable haste. Alas we most likely cannot appreciate that in its entirety I suppose considering we are only here for an average of 70-80 years or so. — Benj96

Okay. So I see the universe as intelligent, an intelligent system. Having consciousness is just one aspect of that consciousness. Though I subscribe to panpsychism, I do not think intelligence requires self consciousness.

Benj96

Though I subscribe to panpsychism, I do not think intelligence requires self consciousness. — Jackson

I’m inclined to agree. Having sense (sentience) of something can be very primitive/ basic and doesn’t mean it’s intelligent. AI is intelligent because it’s intelligence is contextual. It’s highly efficient at the tasks it’s programmed to do. But it’s not conscious.
And while intelligence is very broad and has multiple facets, consciousness must have a sense of being/ self- reference which intelligent mechanistic processes don’t require.

Angelo Cannata

It seems to me that in the background of this discussion there is the idea that intelligence and consciousness are extremely important elements of the universe, so that we have some tendency to even interpret it entirely under this category, like a conscious universe or an intelligent universe. This is still the ancient human tendency and desire to conceive ourselves as the center of the universe.
From a scientific point of view, intelligence and consciousness are just things that work in the universe, like all other things, like our arms or legs, or nose.
Imagine to interpret the universe as a pan-leggism, or pan-armism, or pan-nosism. It would be ridiculous, of course, because we immediately realize that our legs or arms don’t have such a great importance to make them a key to interpret the whole universe.
Well, is intelligence or consciousness more important than legs or arms? How can we trust any judgement, since it is intelligence evaluating itself? From this point of view, our arms and legs are really much more intelligent than our brain, because, at least, they do not cultivate the pretence to be the center of the world or the basic key to interpret the universe.

180 Proof

↪Angelo Cannata

:up:

↪Benj96

Contra your OP: avoid Anthropomorphic fallacy × apply Mediocrity Principle × remember 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, etc —> Shit Happens (i.e. structures, systems, agents just appear-disappear down the entropic slope like 'virtual particles in the vacuum') is the reasonable supposition.

Benj96

Well, is intelligence or consciousness more important than legs or arms? — Angelo Cannata

Well I would argue that the scope of what it is to be intelligent is vastly larger than “what it is to have arms and legs” - as intelligence in the loosest sense is the “workability” or “logic” and pragmatism of a system - being organised, consistent and with the capacity to enable new and ever more diverse phenomena - more complex than those it is based on. Evolution or trial and error .. i would say could be thought of as a logical/ reasonable and intelligent means by which to find a path towards improvement. Stephen Hawkins said “intelligence is the ability to adapt”.

I don’t think intelligence is mutually exclusive to Brains Simply that brains are an exemplary demo of intelligence at work. However arms and legs are more restricted in that they only function for a specific body type in a specific environment. Intelligence should be applicable across the board

Tom Storm

It seems to me that in the background of this discussion there is the idea that intelligence and consciousness are extremely important elements of the universe, so that we have some tendency to even interpret it entirely under this category, like a conscious universe or an intelligent universe. This is still the ancient human tendency and desire to conceive ourselves as the center of the universe. — Angelo Cannata

Agree totally. So often we seem unaware that we contrive the definitions and rules and what's important to us and we assume this has cosmic ramifications.

Jackson

Agree totally. So often we seem unaware that we contrive the definitions and rules and what's important to us and we assume this has cosmic ramifications. — Tom Storm

How does saying the universe has intelligence as a property make humans the center of the universe?
I would think just the opposite.

Angelo Cannata

↪Jackson

It is because, by saying it, we put us as a reference point to understand the universe: by saying that the universe has intelligence, the reference point to understand what intelligence is is human intelligence, even if we think that the intelligence of the universe is superior to us. It is the same mechanism of imagining God with anthropomorphic attributes: the reference point is human, even if we think that God is infinitely superior to us.

bert1

Would a universe without consciousness have any states-of-affairs? Would there ever be a now, a present moment in such a universe, in which a state-of-affairs could exist?

Tom Storm

↪Jackson

I am agreeing with AC that we assume our values and categories apply to the universe at large.

Jackson

It is because, by saying it, we put us as a reference point to understand the universe: by saying that the universe has intelligence, the reference point to understand what intelligence is is human intelligence, — Angelo Cannata

No. Not at least as I would say it.

Jackson

I am agreeing with AC that we assume our values and categories apply to the universe at large. — Tom Storm

Maybe you and he do. Nothing in the idea of intelligence implies that.

Jackson

It is the same mechanism of imagining God with anthropomorphic attributes: the reference point is human, even if we think that God is infinitely superior to us. — Angelo Cannata

Separate topic. But either God is like humans or I have no idea why people talk about God.

180 Proof

↪Angelo Cannata

:up:

Would a universe without consciousness have any states-of-affairs? — bert1

Category mistake.

Would there ever be a now, a present moment in such a universe, in which a state-of-affairs could exist?

Incoherent (re: relativity of simultaneity).

↪Jackson

:lol:

bert1

Incoherent (re: relativity of simultaneity). — 180 Proof

It's not about having an absolute now. A relative now would do. Consciousness is sufficient for a now - I am never conscious in the past or the future. But is there being a now sufficient for consciousness? I don't know. I'm not sure what that would mean. And is there being a now necessary for something to happen? Can an event happen at a time that is never now?

I don't know the answers to these questions. No doubt you do, of course.

Benj96

Would a universe without consciousness have any states-of-affairs? Would there ever be a now, a present moment in such a universe, in which a state-of-affairs could exist? — bert1

That’s a good question. For me I find it hard to imagine a linear chronology of time without the capacity to remember (a feature of conscious things).

I’m not sure if the passage of time is just a neat trick of being aware - part of what makes consciousness - having memory and therefore a past and also the ability to anticipate the future by consequence. Both of which give sense to a present moment that is finite.

Without it I don’t see how any moment from the creation to the extinction of the universe (assuming it does so) can be distinguished from another. And in that case all moments are one moment and all things would happen and end simultaneously. There’s nothing to experience time - no one who is a stable system at a set rate (ageing) that can experience rates both slower and faster than their own.

Agent Smith

What's necessary for consciousness? Since we know of only one universe, the one we inhabit, we'd better restrict ourselves to carbon-based consciousness or thereabouts.

Consciousness is basically electricity or electrons in motion (brains are - bottomline - electrochemistry). Can another kinda particle take the place of the humble electron?

Benj96

we put us as a reference point to understand the universe: — Angelo Cannata

I don’t see how there is any other way of appreciating or understanding reality. Of course the universe as we understand it is in reference to how we understand things.
The conscious being is self referential in all they experience.
It’s just absurdity to expect a Rock to understand and behave as a bird does just as it is absurd to expect humans to interpret the universe from any other method of intelligence (be it inferior or superior) than our own.

However that said, I feel we may undersell ourselves here a little bit on our abilities. Sure it’s possible we may be grossly ill equipped to understand the universe at large. But there is also the chance that - considering we evolved from its very properties and mechanics - we may be perfectly equipped. Perhaps our intelligence and scientific endeavours and advancing technology are a demonstration that we are at a level of complexity required to understand not only ourselves but nature itself. We cannot completely rule out this possibility.

Benj96

Can another kinda particle take the place of the humble electron — Agent Smith

I believe a positron can take the place of an electron assuming it evolved in a universe made completely of antimatter. Physics should work the exact same as long as all charges are reversed.
Interestingly if these two identical and opposite universes came together they would cancel eachother out. I hope I never meet anti-matter me haha

Agent Smith

positron — Benj96

Positronic brains, stuff of sci-fi!

Ol' Sparky, Dr. Frankenstein's monster, Luigi Galvani & amputated frog legs experiment, Cardioversion (defibrillators).

I wonder why EMP doesn't fry our brains like they do electronics. Lunacy, lycans, etc.? :chin:

Benj96

I wonder why EMP doesn't fry our brains like they do electronics. — Agent Smith

It’s because we use ions (sodium, chlorine and potassium) as the carrier of charge and unlike electrons these are huge - if an electron was a football the ion would be a mass about 20,000 times larger - about the weight of a six tonne truck.

And electromagnetic field can easily perturb electrons in a circuit but an ion which moves much slower and requires more energy to disturb it is relatively fine in an EMP.

Agent Smith

↪Benj96

:up: Danke!

Nature prepared itself to do battle with silicon-based AI then! :snicker:

Angelo Cannata

considering we evolved from its very properties and mechanics - we may be perfectly equipped — Benj96

That's exactly the reason why we cannot trust our understanding. The very concept of "understanding" is undermined by the fact that we try to understand what we are part of. Every aspect and element of the action of "understanding" falls into the influence of our subjectivity, so that there is no reason why anything in our understanding should be reliable.

Wayfarer

From a scientific point of view, — Angelo Cannata

The scientific point of view assumes, but then forget that it assumes, an intelligent observer, so as to arrive at the contrivance of ‘a universe devoid of intelligence’.

Angelo Cannata

We get the very idea of being evolved from its very properties and mechanics from the very fact of being inside our being evolved from its very properties and mechanics, so, the very idea of being evolved from its very properties and mechanics is unreliable.

Wayfarer

The natural conclusion is that either universes cannot exist in any other way but one that leads to an observer, or the observer has always been there (enter theology and/or panpsychism), and that life is simply the most physical and particulate (individual) state to date through which said observer or observers exist. — Benj96

I've been reading a very interesting book, Mind and the Cosmic Order, Charles Pinter, who's a maths emeritus. The very first paragraph says this:

Let’s begin with a thought-experiment: Imagine that all life has vanished from the universe, but everything else is undisturbed. Matter is scattered about in space in the same way as it is now, there is sunlight, there are stars, planets and galaxies—but all of it is unseen. There is no human or animal eye to cast a glance at objects, hence nothing is discerned, recognized or even noticed. Objects in the unobserved universe have no shape, color or individual appearance, because shape and appearance are created by minds. Nor do they have features, because features correspond to categories of animal sensation. This is the way the early universe was before the emergence of life—and the way the present universe is outside the view of any observer.

Pinter, Charles. Mind and the Cosmic Order (p. 1). Springer International Publishing. Kindle Edition.

He goes on to develop his argument, based on neuroscience, evolutionary and cognitive science, that we (and other animals) see gestalts, meaningful wholes, as a matter of adaptive necessity. But the crucial point is that there are no such meaningful wholes in the absence of an observer.

Common sense leads us to assume that we see in Gestalts because the world itself is constituted of whole objects and scenes, but this is incorrect. The reason events of the world appear holistic to animals is that animals perceive them in Gestalts. The atoms of a teacup do not collude together to form a teacup: The object is a teacup because it is constituted that way from a perspective outside of itself.

Pinter, Charles. Mind and the Cosmic Order (p. 3). Springer International Publishing. Kindle Edition.

This book has made a lot of things I've been mulling over clear to me. In relation to your OP, what I'd say is that nothing exists outside a perspective or point-of-view. That doesn't mean that, sans an observer, everything vanishes, but that any conception of what exists always contains an implicit point-of-view or perspective. Imagining the early universe prior to h. sapiens having evolved is a valid thought-experiment, but again the observing mind provides the framework within which the concept is meaningful. You can't get outside or escape from that, although we imagine we can.

180 Proof

↪bert1

I don't even know what your ramble means.

bert1

I don't even know what your ramble means. — 180 Proof

Oh, that's a shame. Anyone else know what I'm talking about? Or is it too opaque for everyone?

EDIT: Whenever you are conscious, it's now isn't it? Is that how it is for you? That's how it is for me.

A universe without anything conscious or aware

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions