# Universal data and the infinite consciousness.

Cpt_pineapple
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
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.

Wyzaard
Posts: 58
Joined: 2007-06-08
Offline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: This

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

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.

Errr... no.  Data is created by conventions framing empirical phenomina; and in a sense, 'consciousness' is one such conventional term, framing our perspective... it's not something in and of itself, however... nor does it imply 'purpose'.

richard955
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-07-20
Offline
All I see in your essay is

All I see in your essay is that you interpret reality as a computational device. With information storing / processing and transfer being done by the matter and energy within.

This, of course, leads to life being a high level software running on this computational device. And consciousness the most complex software we know of, running in our brains made up of neurons.

In short: the univese is a computational hardware and everything that goes on with matter and energy is information processing (software).

But I don't understand where the "universal consciousness" comes from.

A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.

ninja artist
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-08-22
Offline
things in the universe only

its hard to explain this, so please try to understand.

things in the universe only have the potential to react with other things in the universe, and dont necessarily mean that it is altogether somekind kind of giant intelligent brain, it just means that some things can react with other things,

- and that the "process" can be ongoing,  allowing other reactions to combine with those reactions, thus becoming more complex.

as long as everything follows the rules of the universe it is "free" to grow in complexity....

but not necessarily for any goal, other than allowing itself to become more complex and balanced/self sustained as the rules allow...

these processes are self sustaining,(and are allowed to be mostly separate from other processes because of the rules which make that so), and can be self sustaining only as long as they can keep reacting~ energy.

edit: so from this we can deduce, that a "god" would have thrown out all this junk and energy into the universe at the big bang, and eventually some of the junk will react with other junk and self sustain/balance with each other, as self sustaining/balanced junk meets other junk which it can join with, it becomes a more complex balanced/self sustained combination pf junk....

so think of self sustained/balanced junk layers now.

atoms->cells->organisms-> earth->solar system->galaxy->universe

side note: we humans have "free will" but are still just adhering to the laws of the universe as nothing more than self sustained/balanced junk

ps: i tried to use the best words i availably could come up with to explain the concept, please dont take offense or assume i meant anything by it.

richard955
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-07-20
Offline
ninja artist,

Where you responding to someone particular?

That is a wierd description of our universe, but ok, I'll be open minded about it . How do you deduce the 'god' part?

From what you say all I see is

Quote:
junk
(matter & energy) and
Quote:
some things can react with other things
(natural processes). And that is the worldview the evidence warrents.

A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.

ninja artist
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-08-22
Offline
the way im trying to

the way im trying to describe this- is in a way that the universe was formed with no particular goal in mind. therefore i use the word "junk" to demonstrate this.

so in the beginning all this junk came into existence.
and energy.

and then everything settled down into what it is today.
it is this huge and organized system, only because the rules that define how things will react with each other has made it settle that way.... so kindof like a cosmic domino effect, god gave the push to start the dominos. and everything is just using that gods push to interect with each other, the other dominos...  so compare that analagy to the more complex (domino effect) we see happening all around us.

keep in mind that an object in restwill stay in rest until acted upon by an outside force.

also stabilized junk will remain stabilized until its dominos all fall down and fall into inert separate pieces, or is acted upon by an outside force(or to its inert pieces)... then thirdly it could just be added to and made a more complex stabilized junk as the rules allow.

Cernunnos
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
Offline
Quote: keep in mind that an

Quote:
keep in mind that an object in restwill stay in rest until acted upon by an outside force

An object is only ever at rest relative to another object. An object will remain in unifrom motion (constant speed in a straight line) unless acted on by a force.

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
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
Cernunnos wrote:

Cernunnos wrote:

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.

Do you think self-awareness is the only prerequisite for consciousness?

Quote:

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.

No, carrots didn't decide to go to the ground, they just do. It's called natural selection. The ones that didn't go into the ground dies off.

Quote:

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.

Evolutionary process. Granted, the plant interputs data to orient itself to the light source, but it is not our level of consciousness.

Quote:

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 never made the claim that a carrot is self-aware.

[edit:clarity]

ninja artist
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-08-22
Offline
youd have to explain that in

Quote:

keep in mind that an object in restwill stay in rest until acted upon by an outside force

An object is only ever at rest relative to another object. An object will remain in unifrom motion (constant speed in a straight line) unless acted on by a force.

youd have to explain that in a different way cerunnos... it doesnt seems like a point was made the way i understand it.

Hambydammit
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
Offline
So, I'm still completely

So, I'm still completely baffled.

1) There is matter and energy.

2) It interacts.

3) This interaction can become data when conceptualized by a sentient being.

///////////

X) Therefore, the universe is conscious.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

ShaunPhilly
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
Offline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Do

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Do you think self-awareness is the only prerequisite for consciousness?

It was my understanding that self-awareness is the core of what consciousness is.  I'll suggest, again perhaps, that you read (or at least look up information about) Antonio Damasio's recent work The Feeling of what happens.

Essentially, there is core consciousness, which is the alertness and awareness of what is happening right now, and extended consciousness which brings in prior experiences (memory) and anticipation of possible (or likely) future events.

Thus, consciousness is awareness of what one experiences, and in some cases that in combination with what one has experienced and anticipates to happen in the future.  It's simply being aware, through sense perception organs, of what happens in the world around the conscious being.

What sense-perception organs does the universe have?

What is around the universe of which it is aware?

Granted, we are also conscious of what goes on, to some small degree, what goes on within our bodies, but mostly it is a sense of the world outide of the perceptual gear.

I see no analogue with the universe.

Your proposal that there is a universal consciousness simply does not hold up to this scrutiny.  Data existing does not necessarily imply awareness of said data.

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.

Cernunnos
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
Offline
Quote: Do you think

Quote:
Do you think self-awareness is the only prerequisite for consciousness?

I was considering consciousness to be an awareness of surroundings. This does not even require awareness of self.

I used a carrot as an example of how simple consciousness can be. I find a term like infinite consciousness to be misleading as most would consider the 'consciousness' to be comparable to their own.

Quote:
No, carrots didn't decide to go to the ground

Try growing a carrot upside down. If you succeed it is just giving you the finger!

Quote:
I never made the claim that a carrot is self-aware.

Agreed. I was refering to the hyperbolic 'infinite consciousness' as bunk.

Is your claim that an infinite consciousness persists throughout the universe or that the universe exhibits the faculty for consciousness to arise. If the latter why the fanciful misnomer of infinite consciousness?

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
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
Hambydammit wrote: So, I'm

Hambydammit wrote:

So, I'm still completely baffled.

1) There is matter and energy.

Yup.

Quote:

2) It interacts.

3) This interaction can become data when conceptualized by a sentient being.

The interactions are data, the data becomes information when conceptualized by a sentient being.

Quote:

X) Therefore, the universe is conscious.

The data is being processed.

When I say infinite consciousness, I mean infinite potential.

Guess were we got consciousness from? The universe.

Shaunphilly wrote:

What sense-perception organs does the universe have?

Us.

Quote:

What is around the universe of which it is aware?

What could be around the universe?

Unless of course, you are applying multiverse theory. In any case if there was a multiverse, it would in theory exchange data with this one.

Cernunnos wrote:

I used a carrot as an example of how simple consciousness can be. I find a term like infinite consciousness to be misleading as most would consider the 'consciousness' to be comparable to their own.

Oh, okay, I thought you were implying carrots were self-aware O_o.

Quote:

Is your claim that an infinite consciousness persists throughout the universe or that the universe exhibits the faculty for consciousness to arise. If the latter why the fanciful misnomer of infinite consciousness?

See my response to Hamby

ShaunPhilly
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
Offline
I wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I wrote:

What sense-perception organs does the universe have?

Us.

No, we have sense-perception organs within us, thus we are conscious. In order for us to be considered sense-perception organs for the universe, we would have to be organic parts of the universe. Our relationship of the universe is not similar to that of an organ in a body, it's more like a parasite in a body, if anything like that at all is a fair analogy. The parasites within us, if they have any level of consciousness, are not sense organs for us.

The information that we get from our perceiving--being aware of--the universe around us is not in any way given to the universe. The information is, at best, shared via language with other sentient beings. The universe itself is not aware of this information. It contains the data and the information itself within it, but does not manifest consciousness as a whole (or even in large parts, like galaxies of clusters of galaxies).

So the potency of information is contained in the universe; so what? This is not infinite, necessarily. The potential for conscious experience is surely great, but it is limited to sections of the universe with the processing equipment to turn data into information (to use your terminology).

Again, what does this have to do with 'gods'?

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
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
Offline
ShaunPhilly

ShaunPhilly wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I wrote:

What sense-perception organs does the universe have?

Us.

No, we have sense-perception organs within us, thus we are conscious. In order for us to be considered sense-perception organs for the universe, we would have to be organic parts of the universe.

We are part of the universe. We are essentially stardust that became sentient.

Quote:

Our relationship of the universe is not similar to that of an organ in a body, it's more like a parasite in a body, if anything like that at all is a fair analogy. The parasites within us, if they have any level of consciousness, are not sense organs for us.

To keep with the analogy, there are some parasites that offer mutual convience. For example, bacteria in our stomach help break down food. They benefit, we benefit.

Now,what does this have to do with God and the infinite consciousness?

Well, as they say, "we are the way for the universe to know itself.' I don't know who said that, I think it was Sagen. That is why I said we are 'sense-perception organ' of the universe.

Quote:

The information that we get from our perceiving--being aware of--the universe around us is not in any way given to the universe. The information is, at best, shared via language with other sentient beings. The universe itself is not aware of this information. It contains the data and the information itself within it, but does not manifest consciousness as a whole (or even in large parts, like galaxies of clusters of galaxies).

Ahh, but it is. The universe is aware through us and other sentient beings. See above.

Quote:

So the potency of information is contained in the universe; so what? This is not infinite, necessarily. The potential for conscious experience is surely great, but it is limited to sections of the universe with the processing equipment to turn data into information (to use your terminology).

That is why I believe there to be a multiverse. Each with different laws, different experiences.

Quote:

Again, what does this have to do with 'gods'?

Shaun

See above, I hope I explained it clearly enough.

That is the basic idea behind my sig. That is why we are here. I don't know whether or not Einstien did believe, but I think the quote still fits.

I had to shorten it due to character limits, but here's the full:

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is fundamental emotions which stands at the cradle of true art and true science.  Whosoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed ~Albert Einstein

richard955
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-07-20
Offline
I think the core of your

I think the core of your argument is in this:

Quote:

When I say infinite consciousness, I mean infinite potential.

Guess were we got consciousness from? The universe.

I understand "infinite potential" as: many interesting things can happen in our universe. Sure, that is why we are here.

I agree with you if by "We got consciousness from the universe" you mean that consciousness is an emergent property of the complex arrangement of matter in our brain, which occured due to the laws of the universe.

Do you agree?

A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.

Cernunnos
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
Offline
If the concept is to be

If the concept is to be infinite potential for consciousness I think you need to clarify exactly how the universe/multiverse is infinite and how this infinite existence of stuff is able to repeat itself (structure).

If the method you use to comprehend the term infinite necessitates infinite time or events then your ideas are tangled with your experience of the nature of stuff in this instance of fundamental universal concepts. If you are to describe objective reality you can not depend on a particular point of view. To determine if the potential is indeed infinite I would suggest looking at the stability of nothing (perfect symmetry) as the laws (you need to consider) can not depend on any particular moment or direction in space or time.

Time is thought of as a dimension with broken symmetry in that traversing time is in only one direction, symmetry is broken as one direction has been singled out. Thus your rather grand point of view would have to deal with the properties of invarient time to determine perpetual potential of stuff. ie the nature of the objective universe is contingent with developing from perfect symmetry.

ninja artist wrote:
An object is only ever at rest relative to another object. An object will remain in unifrom motion (constant speed in a straight line) unless acted on by a force.

youd have to explain that in a different way cerunnos... it doesnt seems like a point was made the way i understand it.

Saying an object is in the state of rest is meaningless without providing a reference to what it is at rest relative to. I could say my computer is at 'rest' but it is really at rest relative to the surface of the earth. Stuff does not have a natural state of being at rest (or tend to) but one of being in uniform motion...no energy is required to continue moving in a straight line at constant speed!

I was making a correction rather than a point with my comment.

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.

God is Here (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
Offline
Scared

I believe that people who reject god are scared out of their minds that there is somethng that they cant overpower or even begin to understand.

Man up and accept it, dont try and geek your way out of religion, more people believe in god than people who dont.

keep worshiping your Atheist religion,  Christianity isn't a religon is a relationship.

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
Offline
Unsubstantiated claim,

Unsubstantiated claim, appeal to popularity and redefining religion. If atheism is a religion, off is a tv channel.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team

ProzacDeathWish
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
Offline
God is Here wrote: "....

God is Here wrote:

".... your Atheist religion,  Christianity isn't a religion ..."

Does anyone else see the amazing contradictions ?

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.

BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
Offline
God is Here wrote:I believe

God is Here wrote:

I believe that people who reject god are scared out of their minds that there is somethng that they cant overpower or even begin to understand.

Man up and accept it, dont try and geek your way out of religion, more people believe in god than people who dont.

keep worshiping your Atheist religion,  Christianity isn't a religon is a relationship.

Well, let me ask you this: I believe my time in this world is finite, and I'm ok with that. If I'm ok with my ultimate powerlessness to prevent my nonexistence... what else is there to be afraid of?

More people believed the sun went around the earth than vice versa before Copernicus. That didn't make them right.

Please demonstrate how I can worship 'I don't know if there is a god or not, so I can't believe there is one', before claiming atheism is a religion.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid

magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
Offline
God is Here wrote:I believe

God is Here wrote:

I believe that people who reject god are scared out of their minds that there is somethng that they cant overpower or even begin to understand.

Man up and accept it, dont try and geek your way out of religion, more people believe in god than people who dont.

keep worshiping your Atheist religion,  Christianity isn't a religon is a relationship.

inspectormustard
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
Offline
Loucks wrote:Apologies,

Loucks wrote:

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.

Sorry. I lose track of any thread that does so much while I'm away. Still looking for that group's DVD, scouring the internets for a rip of it as well. What they did was implement a genetic algorithm in LISP. Here's the how-to:

Also, here's an MIT article on the same:

Furthermore, almost anything you can build with genetic algorithms you can improve by adding in neural networks - we're just not there yet.

And to address my mistake with the cardinality of rationals and integers. . .there's no excuse. I should have compared integers to reals instead. Feel free to replace every instance of "rational" and "fraction" with "real" in that post.

Finally:

God is Here wrote:

I believe that people who reject god are scared out of their minds that there is somethng that they cant overpower or even begin to understand.

"Rejecting god" would mean acknowledging a god's existence and choosing to act against it. Atheists do not believe that there is a god. I think you may be in the wrong place - maybe you should try the satanists? That is, the ones who actually worship satan, not the philosophically satan-like people. If actually believed in your god then we wouldn't be atheists because we would be afraid of said god. Of course, this probably doesn't make any sense to you.

God is Here wrote:

Man up and accept it, dont try and geek your way out of religion, more people believe in god than people who dont.

There's no need to "geek" our way out of religion. It does a pretty good job of imploding on its own. I mean, talking snakes and apples of doom? Please. Also, if you're some sort of Christian, more people worldwide believe in a different god than you do. The question is, why don't you believe in the majority's god?

God is Here wrote:

keep worshiping your Atheist religion,  Christianity isn't a religon is a relationship.

As mentioned before: if atheism is a religion then off is a tv channel, bald is a hair color, and unemployment is a job.

I vote for giving God is Here a troll hat for derailing the thread.

Brian37
Posts: 15734
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
God is Here wrote:I believe

God is Here wrote:

I believe that people who reject god are scared out of their minds that there is somethng that they cant overpower or even begin to understand.

Man up and accept it, dont try and geek your way out of religion, more people believe in god than people who dont.

keep worshiping your Atheist religion,  Christianity isn't a religon is a relationship.

You don't get it do you? You take things personally about your own religion in a thread about Captain Pinapple's pet whim that the universe is a giant brain(or computer program).

YOU ARE BOTH IN THE SAME FRIGGEN BOAT. It is nothing personal, if you haven't got squat, and all you have is a |"gap" don't bitch at us about your ineptitude of not being able to prove the claims you make. Captain has been on this board a long time and as hard as he tries to convince us with his Star Trec fantacy, at least he does not take it personally.

This is not about YOU ! It is not about your right to believe anything. It is about evidence. Captain and you are in the same boat. His whims are merely newer whims than your ancient fictional myth but are BOTH "gap" arguments.

Believing that the universe is cognative is as absurd a claim as believing that 3 day old dead human flesh can survive rigor mortis and is as provable as Harry Potter flying around on a broomstick.

Don't complain about us when we don't blindly buy any gap argument. We don't blindly buy his arguments and we certainly won't blindly buy yours.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Paisley
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
Offline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:In my

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
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.

Just FYI. The term "infinite consciousness" is a euphemism for God.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead