https://futurism.com/could-universe-conscious/ The paper http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/579 Not a new idea, I remember attending a lecture addressing this subject when I was in college. It is an intriguing idea. We don't understand the roots of consciousness, so it is impossible to limit the boundaries for consciousness or self-awareness. It is also believed by many who study this that consciousness may be an emergent property of very large information systems. For example, it is thought that the most likely candidate for an artificial consciousness is the largest network in the world - the internet. One day when large enough and complex enough, it may or may have simply come alive at some critical threshold. I have often mused that the internet may be in training and we are the teachers. It has no ability to act on information. But it could be aware of it. Even now it may be wondering: Am I a brain in a jar being fed signals from an evil genius - the evil geniuses being us! [Descartes]. Now that's a scary thought! But in this context we are simply considering self awareness. From a larger view, there is no larger information system than the universe itself. And we are a subset of the universe. So on a fundamental level, we might expect that we are merely a product of a much grander scheme. And consciousness isn't limited to biological life. It has been said that we are the universe becoming aware of itself. But maybe we're late to the game by 12 billion years. Fun stuff to consider. The bottom line is that until the mechanism for consciousness is understood, we cannot limit its domain. We have no way to know what could and could not be self aware.
There are some things that seem to be part of a universal language. The scream of fear from another species. If it be chicken or duck, cat or dog, moose or squirrel. The same can go for begging sounds, sounds of contentment. etc..
@cerberus The Universe Is Moi. No Moi, No Universe. And Moi is Definitely Conscious. So The Universe Is Too. Stay out of Moi's Universe, Get Your Own! Moi
NASA is an incredible organization with many achievements under its belt, but it is seriously constrained by political considerations that it can't ignore. It would be hard for NASA to openly accept the affirmative on this particular question, so I'd be careful limiting my views on reality to those imposed on NASA by politicians.
The Universe doesn't control consciousness. . .consciousness controls the Universe, and you and I are part of that--as are every other living thing in any galaxy, as well as any non-physical forms of consciousness that exists. It's a quantum Universe, and we must open ourselves to that truth.
Scientist are always worried about perception because science is powered by money. If you say something that causes people to raise an eyebrow, you may not get your next grant. In a way scientists are between a rock and a hard spot. By definition, discovery science explores the fringes of known reality. But because it is on the edge of what's known, you may be confronted with radically new concepts that are too controversial and make people uncomfortable. Where would NASA be if people thought it was being run by a bunch of crackpots? There goes the money and there goes NASA. I learned a long time ago that most young scientists are closed minded. They have to be and it goes with the turf. But when they are nearing retirement, they sometimes open up. On the other hand, some go a little nuts and really are off the deep end. This guy's proposal makes me uncomfortable. The notion of a conscious universe is something I've long considered so it doesn't rock my boat too much. But the idea that stars are acting intelligently makes me cringe. My first impulse was, UH OH!!! CRACKPOT!!! But I've always been willing to consider radical ideas even if they make me cringe. Most revolutionary ideas should make us cringe even if they're true.
When I first started to study Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, I would sometimes talk with my father and tell him about the things I was learning. All in all, he didn't believe me. He thought I had gone off the deep end or was getting it all wrong. He couldn't accept it. He was right out of the year 1750 and his sense of reality was limited to Newtonian concepts. Sometimes, at some point down the road, he would see something on Nova and tell me all about it - something I had told him long ago that he didn't accept. My father had trained as an engineer - the most closed-minded people I've ever met. Scientists love questions. Engineers love answers and want them to fit into their known universe. It is in their nature. That's why I fell in love with physics. Physics takes on the deepest mysteries; more so than any other science. And a few dare to rush in where angels fear to tread. And of course, physics is the purest science.
Yes, the universe could be conscious and our little biosphere might be something akin to having a toe fungus. In our sapient conceit we are able to conceive the inconceivable, often with remarkable certitude.
Albert Einstein believed the universe operated like a super computer with some semblance of organization. I remember hearing that he was a fairly smart guy.
" NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center According to Ervin Laszlo, the coherence of the atom and the galaxies is the same coherence that keeps living cells together, cooperating to form life. When a complex system made up of many interacting parts is operating, sometimes an unexpected jump to a new level of complex organization happens. Our human body is made up of many such levels, each formed by another jump in complexity. Our lowest level of the cell jumps up a level to body tissue, to body organ, to body system and to the whole body. We are therefore formed with many onion skin like levels that all cooperate in complex ways to make one whole human being. It is really amazing how it all fits together." https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/akashic-field-and-consciousness/ The open mind is never empty.
Yes, our planet could theoretically be about to reach a higher level of cognition given the internet. We already have quicker information reflexes in that we can learn about and react to things in a shorter space of time. However for us to achieve a global level of consciousness means that we must first become fully aware of one another. Right now we have difficulties doing so within families nevermind communities and entire nations. To achieve just the global level first is going to be a bigger step than we realize IMO. However if we ever do manage to figure out how to do that then yes, we might well discover that our global consciousness is only one of many in the universe.
Let us explore where this line of tbinking could lead. If the universe is conscious...is it one being? Can it act on thoughts? Is it immortal? Is it....dare I say this?....God? Physics may be the bees knees....but only life makes sense. Without life nothing matters..
Yes, a REMARKABLE guy, but wrong in his approach toward the microcosm and how that interfaces with the macrocosm.
I suggest you view the incredibly interesting video called "Unacknowledged," by Dr. Steve Greer. It interviews several former NASA scientists about that agency's policies on discoveries being kept secret.
He [Einstein] said God doesn't play dice with the universe; he never accepted the statistical and unpredictable nature of Quantum Mechanics. But if the universe is acting intelligently, he may have been right all along!
The Gaia unversal theory believes that the Earth like the universe is a single organism which is where the idea of God has developed.
I'm very familiar with Greer. He has come up with some interesting stuff but takes it too far and gets into crackpottery. I wouldn't bet the farm on any claim he makes. And BTW, Bob Lazar is a proven charlatan. My theory is that he worked at area 51 for short time as a contractor. He could only produce one pay stub for about $500. Maybe he cleaned the toilets. Stan Friedman did a great job of debunking Lazar. He never attended Cal Tech. He went to a community college - Pierce College, IIRC. And anyone with training in physics knows he goes right over a cliff with his claims. He often gets basic physics all wrong.
