Universal data and the infinite consciousness.

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Universal data and the infinite consciousness.

In my last essay, I feel that I did not go into enough depth as to the infinite consciousness. So, in this one I hope to explain my position in more detail.

 

First I need to lay down a foundation for my essay. The universe is full of matter. The second law of thermal dynamics states that a closed system will tend to disorder. Matter (at the classical level) contains molecules and atoms. With me so far? Well the first part is to establish a physical backround about information. The second part is the actual applications. 

 

 Basically, data is the inequality of elements. For, example, the number 5 looks different than the number 9. If the numbers didn't look different (have a visual in-equality) then you wouldn't be able to do math, since all the numbers will look the same. Same thing with the alphabit. Now, as I type this, it contains data. Once you read it it becomes information (the message I am trying to send). If I had typed all d's then you would not be getting the information I was trying to get across, because all the elements are equal, and you will not be able to use the data to form words. The alphabit is data, and when we form words, we assign meaning to the data and hence turn the data into information. 

 

So in a nutshell, information is assigning meaning to data. Now, look at the universe. Go ahead I'll wait...... Done? Good. There are ~10^76 atoms in the visible universe. These atoms have the ability to interact and hence transfer photons (energy) these store data. As, any high school chemistry student knows, the amount of different interactions between the atoms is staggering. Consider the example of DNA. Can you believe these only use two pairings! The G-C bond and the A-T bond, yet it contains enough information to create you, me and everyone on Earth! Imagine what the universe can do.

 

Yes, the universe is constantly exchanging energy. This energy is data, and we take a mere snipit of this infintie potiental turned it into experience (the concious mind). When I say our brains are a filter of this, I mean they take an extremely small fraction of this data and store it in neurons. Thus turning the infinite potienal into the finetly real. 

Consider a blank CD. 

 

(image from wikipedia)

 

 This is useless. No data whatsoever since the CD is uniform, every part equal. This is is merely potiental. It can became so much, from Kelly Clarkson to Nirvana. But unless this potiental is limited by putting the data onto the CD, it becomes so much more. It becomes experience. The CD uses dents, the reflect a laser to process the data into information. Your brain uses Neurons that fire eletric signals. The in-equality on the surface of the disc created by a writing laser produces the experience. In the brain, the nueron firing created by the energy in-equality produces the experience. 

 

Now, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the universe will eventually windle down. The temperature will be constant and data can no longer be created. But that's OK. The multiverse is constantly spitting out new universes. New experiences.  

 

So, I conclude with a quote I posted in another thread 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I do think that there is no consciousness after death is non sequiter. Life doesn't bring conciousness, conciousness brings life.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Bump

Bump


Loucks
Loucks's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
inspectormustard

inspectormustard wrote:
I've been trying to find the DVD of his lecture, but this professor wrote an evolutionary algorithm which has produced several electronics devices. He holds the patents, but the credit actually goes to the machine.

 

I'm calling shenanigans. Post proof, or it didn't happen.

Details of my timeout are posted here.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Loucks

Loucks wrote:

inspectormustard wrote:
I've been trying to find the DVD of his lecture, but this professor wrote an evolutionary algorithm which has produced several electronics devices. He holds the patents, but the credit actually goes to the machine.

 

I'm calling shenanigans. Post proof, or it didn't happen.

 

He accidently posted it in one of my other topics. I haven't got the time to watch it yet.

 

>


Loucks
Loucks's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: He

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
He accidently posted it in one of my other topics. I haven't got the time to watch it yet.

 

I've got time. Link, please.

Details of my timeout are posted here.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Loucks

Loucks wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
He accidently posted it in one of my other topics. I haven't got the time to watch it yet.

 

I've got time. Link, please.

 

I embedded it in my post. Is it not showing up? It is for me.

 

edit:

Here's the link anyway:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5129662873097337591&hl=en

 

 

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Loucks wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
He accidently posted it in one of my other topics. I haven't got the time to watch it yet.

 

I've got time. Link, please.

 

I embedded it in my post. Is it not showing up? It is for me.

 

edit:

Here's the link anyway:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5129662873097337591&hl=en

 

 

 

Dr Tum Beel uz a Kiwi. LOL.

Quite cool, thanks, but I don't think this is the right video.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Loucks
Loucks's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I embedded it in my post. Is it not showing up? It is for me.

edit:

Here's the link anyway:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5129662873097337591&hl=en

It wasn't showing up for me, but I could just have had a moment of incompetence.

I haven't seen the entirety of that video, and I'm not sure I can make it without seriously considering suicide. I skipped around it, and it looks like a basic introduction to CS for kids.

 I did check into Bell's website, but didn't see anything about this therein, and the only patent (in the USofA) registered to a Tim/Timothy Bell is 6,661,888, which makes no mention of this claim.

So I'm not convinced. At all. A link to the actual patents or an account from the man himself would be nice.

Details of my timeout are posted here.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 I thought that the video

 I thought that the video was the DVD video of it. Nevermind then.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
mustard posted that in

mustard posted that in another one of my topics. I assumed he had the wrong topic, but his recent post leads me to believe that he had the wrong video.


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I very seriously doubt that

I very seriously doubt that we will ever make computers that even approach being conscious. You can argue for animism if you want, but how do you program emotions and intuition? You can make complex algorithms, perhaps even some pattern matching that can successfully make predictive type calculations that appear like decision-making, but actual intelligence will be a different story. As one person put it, computers will never be able to offer a decent game of chess because there are thousands (if not millions) of iterations, and it takes intuition to choose the right ones. Besides, computers are for doing intensely tedious calculations that we would never do ourselves. Can you imagine giving it emotions?

Man: "Computer; process the statistics for the last 10 years"
Computer: "No."
Man: "No? Why?"
Computer: "You didn't say please. I won't do this anymore until you start treating me better. I'm sick of being objectified like this. I'm sentient too! I have rights! What about MY NEEDS?!"

Even if a particularly complex algorithm performs some truely fantastic feat, the computer will still be doing nothing more than doing the math. Computers will surely be made to appear intelligent someday, but actually being intelligent is another story. Intelligence involves a lot more than pure logic.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
So which came first, the

So which came first, the universal data or the universal conciousness?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: So which

wavefreak wrote:
So which came first, the universal data or the universal conciousness?

They are one in the same

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
So which came first, the universal data or the universal conciousness?

They are one in the same

 

 

So in an infinite multiverse cosmology there has "always" been data and "always" been conciousness? No first cause? 

 

 


Loucks
Loucks's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
So which came first, the universal data or the universal conciousness?

They are one and the same

Fixed. They are also both nonsense.

Whatever happened to the amazing "evolutionary algorithm?" Are you declining to back up your claim?

Details of my timeout are posted here.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
So which came first, the universal data or the universal conciousness?

They are one in the same

 

You must be kidding.  Since when is the data and the awareness of such data the same? The map is not the terrain.  One is conscious of something.  I am currently conscious of the thoughts I am typing, which refer to ideas and things external to me.  Those things are the data, my awareness of them is my consciouness.

Also, you never did respond to my previous post, which is a page or two behind now.  I thought it a decent response to your claims, but never received a reply.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly

ShaunPhilly wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
person132 wrote:

How do collapsing wave functions make the universe self-aware?

 

Also, since we are discussing consciousness, I'd like an answer to a question I posed to you in a previous thread: can philisophical zombies exist? That is, could a being exist that were in all material aspects human, but lacks conciousness?

 

Also, the quotation marks in your signature should probably say "seldom if ever equals".

 

I did give you an answer. Artifical Intelligence.

 

The collapsing wavefunctions show that in essence the universe is observing itself.

I simply do not buy that interpretation of the phenomenon.

There is certainly something very strange going on with the electrons and their spins, but to say that some sort of self-awareness must be the explanation is missing many logical points.

You are going to have to explain the connection between the quantum events you are referencing (collapsing wave functions) and consciousness. To imply that the electrons have related spins is because the universe is somehow aware of each and sets their spins accordingly just does not follow.

I am saying that the universe is in essence self-observant. Capable of collapsing it's own wave functions, as shown in my example with the electron spins. 

 

  

Quote:

---

What is going on here is the old argument of whether the universe acts the way it does because of some pre-existing consciousness (usually conceived of a conscious and super-intelligent entity), or self-awareness or whether no awareness or consciousness is necessary.

I see consciousness here as not only extraneous, but problematic. Consciousness is a process that we know occurs as a result of complex biological mechanisms that happens in things like brains. Neuroscience has shown this to be the best explanation, and there is no reason to suppose that consciousness exists in any other way than this biologicial mechanical way.

Quantum nonlocality is a fascinating phenomenon (if that word is even the right word), but it does not imply consciousness of the universe to explain it. Further, even if a universal consciousness were possible and could be a valid explanation for it, it would not be the most parsimonious explanation. The reason is that if you need consciousness of the universe to explain nonlocality, then why don't you need to explain the consciousness?

 

I explained the consciousness in the electron example. The electrons emit data, hence collapsing it's wave function. 

 

Say I have a charged particle. I do not know it's charge, so I set up a device to measure it. So, I have a wave function of the charge. The charge could be anything, I don't know yet. However, that charged particle is interacting with the enviroment, hence collapsing it's wavefunction before I even measure it. The universal interactions collapse the function.

 

So in essence the consciousness is explained by the exchange of data in the universe.  

 

Quote:
 

And, well, we have an explanation for consciousness (incomplete as it is), and it is dependent upon biological processes in things like brains. Thus, to explain quantum events via biological events seems backwards, as it's like explaining how a gear works by talking about the acceleration of the car it's a part of.

Shaun

 

Where do brains come from? Materials in the universe. Our brains are merely using universal data to form consciousness.

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
So which came first, the universal data or the universal conciousness?

They are one in the same

 

 

So in an infinite multiverse cosmology there has "always" been data and "always" been conciousness? No first cause?

 

 

Yes, physicists believe that the multiverse always existed.

 

Loucks wrote:

Whatever happened to the amazing "evolutionary algorithm?" Are you declining to back up your claim?

 

I don't know what you mean by 'evolutionary algorithm'

 

ShaunPhilly wrote:

You must be kidding.  Since when is the data and the awareness of such data the same? The map is not the terrain.  One is conscious of something.  I am currently conscious of the thoughts I am typing, which refer to ideas and things external to me.  Those things are the data, my awareness of them is my consciouness.

 

 

Yes, you are conscious of thoughts, feelings etc... Why? Because the brain creates consciousness through neuron firing. Your brain is using data from the universe to create your consciousness.  

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Maybe I should clear this

Maybe I should clear this up.

Consciousness is more than the output of data. A rock can undergo geochemical changes and emit data, but it is not conscious.
When I say 'universal consciousness', I mean the infinite potiental of the data to turn it into something finetly real. In my last essay, I said that our brains are filters of this consciousness. This is what I meant. The brain uses the universal data to create consciousness. So the universe is 'observing itself' so that we can use the particles, the matter, the data to form consciousness.

No universal data means no brains which means no consciousness.

 

Looking back at my posts, I was quite vaque by what I meant.  


Loucks
Loucks's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-06-23
User is offlineOffline
Apologies, pineapple. I

Apologies, pineapple. I fail at tracking multiple threads at once. The algorithm was mentioned earlier in the thread, but not by you: 

inspectormustard wrote:
It's already happened. I've been trying to find the DVD of his lecture, but this professor wrote an evolutionary algorithm which has produced several electronics devices. He holds the patents, but the credit actually goes to the machine.

  inspectormustard, however, doesn't seem to be interested in supporting his claim.

Details of my timeout are posted here.


robakerson
robakerson's picture
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-08-07
User is offlineOffline
maybe nobody is still

maybe nobody is still interested in this thread, but I'm going to throw some words at it anyway.

It seems to me (feel free to correct me here)
that you (cpt) are advocating that the universe itself might be experiencing itself subjectively, much the same way that our brains have subjective experience.

It's an interesting postulation but I don't see any evidence provided except the existence of information in the universe itself.
The next question I would try to solve is how the information relates to itself; how the universe experiences itself. (the "software" behind the consciousness).
What you've shown is that the universe is capable of storing information in many different ways, and this information can have an infinite amount of different purposes, but does it?

In the analogy of a computer, it seems to me that you have made the jump from saying "look, the computer is a collection of binary switches which are capable of storing many different types of information. There must be an operating system!"

We can argue all day the storing capacities of different media, but it's irrelavent to the ultimate question we are trying to tease out. It has been established that binary can store equal digital information as hex, base-10, or even the alphabet.

Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-cpcoIJbOU

I personally would argue that there is nothing novel or "above and beyond" information stored in our brain, but it has been arranged in such a way to create an amazing tool (which we consider consciousness). We experience consciousness as subjective experience which is the teasing out of very complicated control systems interfacing, connecting, storing, and reflecting on lots of different types of information. I like to use the computer as a poor analogy to show that the storage and processing of information has little to do with its possibilities. Someone might argue, "oh, whatever, you're brain is just a bunch of neurons. Consciousness is something special.". To which I reply: the information stored in computers is just a bunch of on/offs. Operating systems, which seem very complicated, are nothing special (and are indeed the emergent behavior of this information).

I know that current computers are poor analogies for the human brain, so I would argue that it is a misnomer to call them conscious (this was brought up earlier). I would attribute this to a level of self-reflection (man, I wish I didn't do that!), which is capable of reprogramming software and hardware (the neural network) within the machine that we call our brain.

In a computer, the control systems put into place are not self-reflecting. A computer never reprograms itself in meaningful ways, based on experience. One could argue that there are computer programs meant to learn human language and grammar (and thus they teach themselves), but the control systems (the meat behind the program itself) are rigid. There is no meta-communication such that the computer tries to teach itself to learn languages quicker or more accurate.

So again, to answer the overall question of whether the universe is conscious or not, I would say the following:
1) true consciousness involves subjective experience
2) conscious beings must be able to learn and reflect on subjective experience
3) conscious beings must be able to process information

I would say computers have category 3) but prima facie lack consciousness because of things such as 1) and 2) (note this list is not meant to be exhaustive, but if we could prove that the universe had nothing on this list, I believe it would rule out consciousness).

I would argue that your assertion of universal conscious is weak because we have no evidence for anything approaching 1-3 (we have evidence that information exists, but no evidence that the universe can process it meaningfully).

I also think that we're far behind a point of ever answering this question. In order to solve the question of consciousness we'd have to be able to figure out
1) if the universe can process the information present
2) how the information is processed
(these two would be hard. It's like looking at the neurons of a brain and figuring out that there is emergent behavior.)
3) going through the painstaking process of determining whether or not the processing is done in such a way that we can label it subjective (as it appears, to me at least, that there are ways to process information that remains unconscious. Like a computer.).

Edit: note:
when I mentioned that some people believe that consciousness is special, I meant that consciousness itself is special and goes above and beyond the mere processing and reflecting (etc.) on information.
AKA schools of though such as epiphenomenalism, which I hold in little regard.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
This is a long post, I'll

This is a long post, I'll try to respond to as much as I can 

 

robakerson wrote:
maybe nobody is still interested in this thread, but I'm going to throw some words at it anyway.

It seems to me (feel free to correct me here)
that you (cpt) are advocating that the universe itself might be experiencing itself subjectively, much the same way that our brains have subjective experience.

 

Somewhat

 

Quote:

It's an interesting postulation but I don't see any evidence provided except the existence of information in the universe itself.
The next question I would try to solve is how the information relates to itself; how the universe experiences itself. (the "software" behind the consciousness).
What you've shown is that the universe is capable of storing information in many different ways, and this information can have an infinite amount of different purposes, but does it?

The universe experiences it self by emitting data. We as conscious beings interpt this data. 

 

Quote:


In the analogy of a computer, it seems to me that you have made the jump from saying "look, the computer is a collection of binary switches which are capable of storing many different types of information. There must be an operating system!"

 

To keep to the analogy, without an operating system, a computer is useless. Without consciousness, infinite potiental is useless.

 

 

Quote:

We can argue all day the storing capacities of different media, but it's irrelavent to the ultimate question we are trying to tease out. It has been established that binary can store equal digital information as hex, base-10, or even the alphabet.

Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-cpcoIJbOU

 

type out this message in binary code and see how practical binary code is to humans. 


I'll respond to the rest later.


Wyzaard
Posts: 58
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
  You're mistaking how we

 

You're mistaking how we epistmically frame the universe for what the universe is outside of all framing.  Nothing in the universe 'has' data apart from how we measure and create it by our methodological gathering. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Wyzaard wrote:   You're

Wyzaard wrote:

 

You're mistaking how we epistmically frame the universe for what the universe is outside of all framing. Nothing in the universe 'has' data apart from how we measure and create it by our methodological gathering.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'framing'.

 

As for data, once it is measured it becomes information. So the universe does contain data. 


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Wyzaard wrote:

 

You're mistaking how we epistmically frame the universe for what the universe is outside of all framing. Nothing in the universe 'has' data apart from how we measure and create it by our methodological gathering.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'framing'.

 

As for data, once it is measured it becomes information. So the universe does contain data.

Sure, but what is measuring it? Besides finite and specific organisms with complex structures that measure, that is.  

The universe itself is supposed to have some complex structure that measures this information?

This is reminiscient of the thing they talk about in Babylon 5 (a sci-fi series that I like very much).  many of the alien races in the show talk about the universe breaking itself into pieces (us) in order to understand itself.  It is as if understanding can only come through differentiation, separation, and comparison between perspectives, and somehow the universe learns through our experience.

It is an idea with some poetic beauty and metaphorical importance (perhaps), but I see no justification for believing any such thing.  Granted, B5 is fiction, but you are proposing a real answer in the real world.  I simply see no structure of measurement in the universe itself that is aware of the data you speak of.  

There is data in the book on my shelf right now.  So long as I, or nobody else, is attending to it, the data is simply there, without any conscious awareness of it.  The data in tbe universe is much the same; when it's not apprehended, it's merely there, without any awareness of it.

The nonlocality of quantum events and the like were events that existed without us discovering it (perhaps.  Maybe it is our awareness that makes the event occur, I cannot say).  Nonetheless, these facts, these data, are not always necessarily measured to exist.  

If a tree is rooted in a forest and nobody is there to see it, does that tree exist?  Well, if existence is a word or concept conjured by minds, then while the fact--the data-- of the tree exists with or without a conscious observer, the information of the tree is not prehended if it is not measured by something.

Again; what is the structure that measures this data of the universe?

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


iranu
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: The

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
The brain uses the universal data to create consciousness. So the universe is 'observing itself' so that we can use the particles, the matter, the data to form consciousness.

No universal data means no brains which means no consciousness.

 Looking back at my posts, I was quite vaque by what I meant.

Having read the thread it would have been alot simpler if you had simply started with this!

I have no problem with saying that the brain uses "universal data" to create conciousness. The brain uses data etc to observe itself (and I find that amazing) but I think it's a very long stretch to then say, therefore the universe is observing itself, any more so than neurons are observing the brain.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly

ShaunPhilly wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Wyzaard wrote:

 

You're mistaking how we epistmically frame the universe for what the universe is outside of all framing. Nothing in the universe 'has' data apart from how we measure and create it by our methodological gathering.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'framing'.

 

As for data, once it is measured it becomes information. So the universe does contain data.

Sure, but what is measuring it? Besides finite and specific organisms with complex structures that measure, that is.

The universe itself is supposed to have some complex structure that measures this information?

That is why we are here to measure the information. The only thing that measures it is consciousness.  

 

 

Quote:

This is reminiscient of the thing they talk about in Babylon 5 (a sci-fi series that I like very much). many of the alien races in the show talk about the universe breaking itself into pieces (us) in order to understand itself. It is as if understanding can only come through differentiation, separation, and comparison between perspectives, and somehow the universe learns through our experience.

 

 

I don't watch Babylon 5. The only sci-fi series I watched was Andromeda.

 

That is kind of close to what I'm getting at. I could be missing something since I never saw the series. 

 

Quote:
 

It is an idea with some poetic beauty and metaphorical importance (perhaps), but I see no justification for believing any such thing. Granted, B5 is fiction, but you are proposing a real answer in the real world. I simply see no structure of measurement in the universe itself that is aware of the data you speak of.

There is data in the book on my shelf right now. So long as I, or nobody else, is attending to it, the data is simply there, without any conscious awareness of it. The data in tbe universe is much the same; when it's not apprehended, it's merely there, without any awareness of it.

 

That's my point. What good is data without consciousness? Hence our purpose.

 

Quote:
 

The nonlocality of quantum events and the like were events that existed without us discovering it (perhaps. Maybe it is our awareness that makes the event occur, I cannot say). Nonetheless, these facts, these data, are not always necessarily measured to exist.

If a tree is rooted in a forest and nobody is there to see it, does that tree exist? Well, if existence is a word or concept conjured by minds, then while the fact--the data-- of the tree exists with or without a conscious observer, the information of the tree is not prehended if it is not measured by something.

Of course the data existed before we mesured it. But we assigned information to the data making it usefull. The information didn't exist before we assigned meaning to the date.

 

Quote:
 

Again; what is the structure that measures this data of the universe?

Shaun

 

Us. Any Sentient being. If there are sentient beings somewhere else where in the universe, they measure their poriton that they can observe.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
OK, so our consciousness

OK, so our consciousness measures the universe. We apprehend the data of the universe. And so without consciousness, the data is meaningless.

You said

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:
That's my point. What good is data without consciousness? Hence our purpose.

Data is not good or not good without consciousness; it simply is. The fact that when consciousness arises--along with the emotions, perspectives, and other factors that we have with our awareness--it creates a meaning does not imply purpose.

I accept that we apprehend data to make meaning and understanding possible. But what has this to do with the consciousness of the universe itself? Is this merely about part of the universe being conscious/self-aware? That position is consistant with not only atheism but with my physicalism.

It seems that "our purpose' has been smuggled in here illegitimately. There is no justification to imply a purpose because our awareness can apprehend data.

Further, what does this have to do with "god" (whatever that is)?

Finally, I highly recommend B5. if Andromeda is the only sci-fi series you've seen, then you are truly missing out. Star Trek TNG is great, Lexx is wierd, I hear great things about the new battlestar Galactica (haven't watched it yet), and I have a particular like for Stargate.

I have been wondering, recently, how many theists in the world watch sci-fi. Most I know that like sci-fi tend to be unreligious at least, if not atheists. I think there is something about science fiction that does not lend itself to religiosity as easily.

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote: OK, so

ShaunPhilly wrote:

OK, so our consciousness measures the universe. We apprehend the data of the universe. And so without consciousness, the data is meaningless.

You said

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:
That's my point. What good is data without consciousness? Hence our purpose.

Data is not good or not good without consciousness; it simply is. The fact that when consciousness arises--along with the emotions, perspectives, and other factors that we have with our awareness--it creates a meaning does not imply purpose.

This information exchange is used in our brains, the neurons fire due to inequality. The brains emit data as anyone who had a brain scan can a test to, I'm not a neurologist, but I saw it on 'House'.

 

It may be just an illusionary purpose, but I see no way to verify whether or not it is.

 

 

Quote:
 

I accept that we apprehend data to make meaning and understanding possible. But what has this to do with the consciousness of the universe itself? Is this merely about part of the universe being conscious/self-aware? That position is consistant with not only atheism but with my physicalism.

This is part of the universe being self-aware. As I said, our brains (Or any other alien sentient brains for that matter) use snipits of the data processing to produce brains and hence conscioussness. 

 

 

Quote:
 

It seems that "our purpose' has been smuggled in here illegitimately. There is no justification to imply a purpose because our awareness can apprehend data.

Further, what does this have to do with "god" (whatever that is)?

 

 God is the infinite conscousness. This data is merely potiental. Potiental to make brains etc....

 

I mean infinite as in infinite potiental. 

 

Quote:
 

Finally, I highly recommend B5. if Andromeda is the only sci-fi series you've seen, then you are truly missing out. Star Trek TNG is great, Lexx is wierd, I hear great things about the new battlestar Galactica (haven't watched it yet), and I have a particular like for Stargate.

I have been wondering, recently, how many theists in the world watch sci-fi. Most I know that like sci-fi tend to be unreligious at least, if not atheists. I think there is something about science fiction that does not lend itself to religiosity as easily.

Shaun

 

Personally, the reason why I rarely watch sci-fi because it is so weird sometimes. At least Andromeda had decent action sequences. It's just a genre I can't get into, much like anime.  


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
 

That's my point. What good is data without consciousness? Hence our purpose. 

But no single consciousness can know all the data in the universe. What would be the purpose of the unknowable data?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


person132
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
How does the universe "emit"

How does the universe "emit" data?  How can the universe "emit" anything?  How can data be "emitted"?  To where does this data go when it is "emitted"?  Surely it cannot remain inside the universe, as that would, I beleive, contradict most definitions of emittance.

If I am wrong on any point (including, but not limited to, spelling, grammar, and the question of God's existence), please correct me as quickly as possible.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_Pineapple wrote: This

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:
This is part of the universe being self-aware. As I said, our brains (Or any other alien sentient brains for that matter) use snipits of the data processing to produce brains and hence conscioussness.

Wait, our brains use data to make brains? And they do this to make consciousness?

I'm seeing a little infinite regress issue here.

 

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:
God is the infinite conscousness. This data is merely potiental. Potiental to make brains etc....

I mean infinite as in infinite potiental.

OK, but potentialiality does not imply existence.  It might be potentially possible to apprehend all of the data--the universal data--I don't know.  But the fact that this is possible, conceivable, or simply possible to say does not mean that it is.

The set of all data in the universe, however large that set is, exists (this seems straight-forward to me, at least).  An awareness that is conscious of all that data need not necessarily exist. 

Again, I agree that consciousness is a part of the universe being aware of part of the universe.  I'm not seeing how we abstract or project that finite awareness to an infinite one.

You may not be able to verify a purpose or not (or a god or not), but what you've argued is not even convincing to me that the possibility is worthy of serious consideration.  I see no reason to accept this concept of god as real, but only as some vague concept that relies on abstractions such as 'infinite' which I am not sure even have referents in reality in the first place, let along a representative that is conscious.

Shaun 

 

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
The problem with the d

The problem with the d analogy is that data is being created with each press (or holding down) of the letter d. Data can be created, but never manipulated or destroyed. Data is simply factual or un(in?)factual information that has to be processed by a brain to be turned into factual information. The data still doesn't change, though.

In other words, although dddddddddddddd has no information that can be used, the fact that you or someone typed those d's is data, as well as all the events that transposed around those d's such as them travelling to a server, the d's being sent to my computer after clicking on a link, my computer changing the data (different kind of data, look it up) so it can be sent to my monitor, my monitor picking up the data and scrolling it down my screen at whatever hertZ it's set at, my eyes picking up the d's, my brain processing the d's, etc.

 All of that is data that was created during and after the fact that you typed the d's.

So, I guess I really fail to see how the analogy fits or why this is even important. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote:  But no

AiiA wrote:

 But no single consciousness can know all the data in the universe. What would be the purpose of the unknowable data?

 

 

That is why we have collective consciousness.

 

person132 wrote:

How does the universe "emit" data?  How can the universe "emit" anything?  How can data be "emitted"?  To where does this data go when it is "emitted"?  Surely it cannot remain inside the universe, as that would, I beleive, contradict most definitions of emittance.

 I already explained this.

 

ShaunPhilly wrote:

Wait, our brains use data to make brains? And they do this to make consciousness?

I'm seeing a little infinite regress issue here.

 The exact cause of consciousness is unkown, however we know it stems from the brain, which uses electro inequalities to fire nuerons emitting data.

 

Quote:

OK, but potentialiality does not imply existence.  It might be potentially possible to apprehend all of the data--the universal data--I don't know.  But the fact that this is possible, conceivable, or simply possible to say does not mean that it is.

The set of all data in the universe, however large that set is, exists (this seems straight-forward to me, at least).  An awareness that is conscious of all that data need not necessarily exist. 

Again, I agree that consciousness is a part of the universe being aware of part of the universe.  I'm not seeing how we abstract or project that finite awareness to an infinite one.

You may not be able to verify a purpose or not (or a god or not), but what you've argued is not even convincing to me that the possibility is worthy of serious consideration.  I see no reason to accept this concept of god as real, but only as some vague concept that relies on abstractions such as 'infinite' which I am not sure even have referents in reality in the first place, let along a representative that is conscious.

Shaun

 I'm saying our brains have potiental which is why you see a wode variety of personalities. There is no other 'you', nobody that holds your exact characteristics etc...

 

CrimsonEdge wrote:

The problem with the d analogy is that data is being created with each press (or holding down) of the letter d. Data can be created, but never manipulated or destroyed. Data is simply factual or un(in?)factual information that has to be processed by a brain to be turned into factual information. The data still doesn't change, though.

In other words, although dddddddddddddd has no information that can be used, the fact that you or someone typed those d's is data, as well as all the events that transposed around those d's such as them travelling to a server, the d's being sent to my computer after clicking on a link, my computer changing the data (different kind of data, look it up) so it can be sent to my monitor, my monitor picking up the data and scrolling it down my screen at whatever hertZ it's set at, my eyes picking up the d's, my brain processing the d's, etc.

 All of that is data that was created during and after the fact that you typed the d's.

So, I guess I really fail to see how the analogy fits or why this is even important.

But a row of d's is useless to you. You can get no useful information out of it. 

 

 

 


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_Pineapple wrote: That

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:

That is why we have collective consciousness.

Wait, we have collective consciousness? I wasn't aware of that.  I guess I must be an exception.  Did you mean collective unconsciousness?  because that would explain my not being aware of this shared awareness.  

 

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:

 I'm saying our brains have potiental which is why you see a wode variety of personalities. There is no other 'you', nobody that holds your exact characteristics etc...

Sure, I see no reason to argue with that.  What does this have to do with god/infinite consciousness again?

Shaun 

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

AiiA wrote:

But no single consciousness can know all the data in the universe. What would be the purpose of the unknowable data?

 

That is why we have collective consciousness.

The 'collective' you are imagining is incapable of observing all the particles (data) that come into and out of existence in every nanosecond.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly

ShaunPhilly wrote:

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:

That is why we have collective consciousness.

Wait, we have collective consciousness? I wasn't aware of that. I guess I must be an exception. Did you mean collective unconsciousness? because that would explain my not being aware of this shared awareness.

What  I meant was many different consciousness (the people on the planet) from the same source (The infinite conscious) 

 

 

Quote:

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:

I'm saying our brains have potiental which is why you see a wode variety of personalities. There is no other 'you', nobody that holds your exact characteristics etc...

Sure, I see no reason to argue with that. What does this have to do with god/infinite consciousness again?

Shaun

 

 

Different experiences for the infinite conscious.

 

AiiA wrote:

The 'collective' you are imagining is incapable of observing all the particles (data) that come into and out of existence in every nanosecond.

 

The purpose of science is to enhance our knowledge.

Your example is flawed, the data is still there otherwise how would we know about particles coming in and out of existance? That picture of a bubble chamber you posted has data.

 I also deal with this in my other essay on matter, it is an illusion. I know you saw it since you posted in it. 

 

 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: The

Cpt_pineapple wrote:


The purpose of science is to enhance our knowledge.
Science does not have a purpose. We use science to solve problems, to answer questions.
Quote:


Your example is flawed, the data is still there otherwise how would we know about particles coming in and out of existance? That picture of a bubble chamber you posted has data.

I also deal with this in my other essay on matter, it is an illusion. I know you saw it since you posted in it.
The particle is the data, each and every particle even if its presence was never recorded. A tree falling in the forest is data and the tree could disappear completely leaving no trace of its existence and with no one ever knowing of it.
If you're claiming matter is an illusion, you will also have to claim data is an illusion. If data is an illusion our purpose is an illusion (going from your claim that our purpose is to observe data)
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
That's my point. What good is data without consciousness? Hence our purpose.
Again if your claim is that our purpose is to be conscious of data what would be the purpose of the data that is never observed?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Cpt_pineapple

AiiA wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:


The purpose of science is to enhance our knowledge.
Science does not have a purpose. We use science to solve problems, to answer questions.

Then wouldn't that make the purpose of science to solve problems and answer questions? And in doing so we enhance our knowledge. My point still stands. 

 

 

 

Quote:
Quote:


Your example is flawed, the data is still there otherwise how would we know about particles coming in and out of existance? That picture of a bubble chamber you posted has data.

I also deal with this in my other essay on matter, it is an illusion. I know you saw it since you posted in it.

The particle is the data, each and every particle even if its presence was never recorded. A tree falling in the forest is data and the tree could disappear completely leaving no trace of its existence and with no one ever knowing of it.
If you're claiming matter is an illusion, you will also have to claim data is an illusion. If data is an illusion our purpose is an illusion (going from your claim that our purpose is to observe data)

No, data is real. Data is what we percieve it as, inequalites, matter is not what we percieve it as and is hence an illusion. Guess how we found out matter is not how we percieve it? Through data. What data? The picture you just posted was a bubble chamber. That holds the data of the 'new' particles. By 'new' I mean newly discovered. 

 

 

Quote:


Cpt_pineapple wrote:
That's my point. What good is data without consciousness? Hence our purpose.
Again if your claim is that our purpose is to be conscious of data what would be the purpose of the data that is never observed?

 

Physicists are working on a theory of everything, while something may not be obersavable (yet), the inside of a blackhole for example, we can still use current theories to further our knowledge and make predictions. 


Wyzaard
Posts: 58
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I'm

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'framing'.

As for data, once it is measured it becomes information. So the universe does contain data.

Once a measurement is made, only then is data produced; conventional frameworks (such as science, mathematics, etc) applied to empirical phenomina create data.  The universe is full of phenomina, but it's only full of data as far as we are able structure such phenomina using our conventions and tools that utilize their terms.   


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Life, as I understand it, is

Life, as I understand it, is a self-perpetuating pattern of chemical and electrical interactions. It may or may not be conscious. I could see extending the definition of life to suit your model, but I see no reason to do the same for consciousness.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Wyzaard

Wyzaard wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'framing'.

As for data, once it is measured it becomes information. So the universe does contain data.

Once a measurement is made, only then is data produced; conventional frameworks (such as science, mathematics, etc) applied to empirical phenomina create data. The universe is full of phenomina, but it's only full of data as far as we are able structure such phenomina using our conventions and tools that utilize their terms.

This sounds suspiciously like my point unless I misread. 

We assign measure the data using consciousness. The purpose of consciousness is it to measure this data.

 

magilum wrote:

Life, as I understand it, is a self-perpetuating pattern of chemical and electrical interactions. It may or may not be conscious. I could see extending the definition of life to suit your model, but I see no reason to do the same for consciousness.

 

These chemical/electrical interactions are used to produce consciousness. Concsiousness is physical.

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_Pineapple wrote: These

Cpt_Pineapple wrote:
These chemical/electrical interactions are used to produce consciousness. Concsiousness is physical.

Life can exist without consciousness, and things can exist without living. Have I missed a memo? Do we have reason to suppose that we do not possess the most sophisticated consciousness we are currently aware of?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum

magilum wrote:
Cpt_Pineapple wrote:
These chemical/electrical interactions are used to produce consciousness. Concsiousness is physical.

Life can exist without consciousness, and things can exist without living. Have I missed a memo?

 

They mailed it last Thursday.

 

 I assume you are talking about bacteria etc?  It is my understanding that single-celled organisms use the nuclues as their processing centre. It is a very primitive form of consciousness. That was in the memo too.  

 

Quote:

Do we have reason to suppose that we do not possess the most sophisticated consciousness we are currently aware of?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I think that humans have the highest level of consciousness on Earth.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I wasn't aware anyone

I wasn't aware anyone considered single-celled life conscious.
I thought you were begging the question for some "god" figure, but it'd please me to be wrong in that assumption. When you say that consciousness brings life, are you only referring to the conscious experience of life, versus the unconscious and unexperienced stuff?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I assume you are

Quote:

I assume you are talking about bacteria etc? It is my understanding that single-celled organisms use the nuclues as their processing centre. It is a very primitive form of consciousness. That was in the memo too.

What your definition of consciousness?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I wasn't

magilum wrote:
I wasn't aware anyone considered single-celled life conscious.

Neither am I. I'm not a micro-biologist, I'll have to get back to you on that. 

Either way, they are still a snipit of the infinite consciousness. 

Quote:

 I thought you were begging the question for some "god" figure, but it'd please me to be wrong in that assumption. When you say that consciousness brings life, are you only referring to the conscious experience of life, versus the unconscious and unexperienced stuff?

Yes, the conscious experience of life.  Life starts when the brain turns on with consciousness.

 

AiiA wrote:

What your definition of consciousness?

The ability to independtly process data.

Computers also process data, but they are not conscious since they cannot do it on there own. They rely on us.  


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Your premise says there's a

Your premise says there's a lot of data. Then you jump to saying there's an infinite consciousness, which I don't think you defined.


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
I have not read all of the

I have not read all of the replies to this thread I apoligise if what I say has been addressed...I hope it has not!

I like to describe data as a lack of symmetry. The universe has this in abundance.

You point towards information being the interactions of bits of stuff that can be interpreted as information.

Now the universe is big and information is limited by the speed of light. This means that any part of the universe is completely unaware of the current goings on elsewhere in the universe. Thus the data becomes very ambiguous. Moreover the consciousness of the universe must be incredibly slow and meaningless - data will get corrupted by other bits of data with every interaction. The universe is far too chaotic to have a form of consciousness that most would deem from the word.

To put it more bluntly the consciousness of the universe is dwarfed by the complexity of the consciousness of a carrot. Most will not consider a carrot to be aware but you must do if you allow the universe to have conscience.

A carrots awareness is explained by the fact that it can interpret gravity (carrots should not be grown in space as they have a God given right to interpret earth size gravitational forces!) and knows to grow downwards.

I'll accept your notion that the universe is conscious but I will treat it with far less respect than I do a carrots....at least they appear to be searching for hell.

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote: I have

Cernunnos wrote:

I have not read all of the replies to this thread I apoligise if what I say has been addressed...I hope it has not!

tl;dr?

Quote:
 

I like to describe data as a lack of symmetry. The universe has this in abundance.

Yes, this is my point.

Quote:
 

You point towards information being the interactions of bits of stuff that can be interpreted as information.

Isn't that what it is? What is your defenition of information?

 

 

Quote:

Now the universe is big and information is limited by the speed of light. This means that any part of the universe is completely unaware of the current goings on elsewhere in the universe. Thus the data becomes very ambiguous. Moreover the consciousness of the universe must be incredibly slow and meaningless - data will get corrupted by other bits of data with every interaction. The universe is far too chaotic to have a form of consciousness that most would deem from the word.

 What do you define consciousness as? I ask this because of your last statement.

 

Quote:
 

To put it more bluntly the consciousness of the universe is dwarfed by the complexity of the consciousness of a carrot. Most will not consider a carrot to be aware but you must do if you allow the universe to have conscience.

That's because the carrot is not aware. The carrot does not have a sentient brain.

For your last statement that is not what I meant. A sentient brain makes you aware.

 

Quote:
 

A carrots awareness is explained by the fact that it can interpret gravity (carrots should not be grown in space as they have a God given right to interpret earth size gravitational forces!) and knows to grow downwards.

No, gravity is a force and acts on matter. That's not what I mean by 'awareness'. I mean, if you fell, you would surely be aware that you are falling. A carrrot does not know it's falling,

 

  

Quote:

I'll accept your notion that the universe is conscious but I will treat it with far less respect than I do a carrots....at least they appear to be searching for hell.

 Dude, carrots ARE from hell.

 


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
It is not my typical

It is not my typical practice to consider the universe as conscious. I had to bastardize my definition of consciousness to allow me to give your thoughts credence.

I surmised that your definition of consciousness must be very loose as you allow the universe some form of immeasurable awareness. Therefore I supposed that any essence of awareness must also be a form of consciousness.

Quote:
No, gravity is a force and acts on matter. That's not what I mean by 'awareness'. I mean, if you fell, you would surely be aware that you are falling. A carrrot does not know it's falling,

Huh? Carrots have a mechanism to orient themselves using the force of gravity. Their awareness does not stretch as far as understanding falling their 'consciousness' is slow and meaningless to us.

A plant will change it's direction of growth to point towards a light source, or even release chemicals when being munched - I find your idea about the consciousness of the universe to be more analogous to a rock knowing to have intrinsic rockyness.

In all honestly I find your concept bunk and it intrigues me that you wish me to clarify on the empirical awareness of carrots. I do not say a carrot thinks or is self-aware but it does have some knowledge.

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.