Philosophy Is the universe conscious?

If all humans are made up of the universe and if some humans are 'conscious', then some of the universe is 'conscious'?

The logical order is two premises and one conclusion.

 

Certainly no way to know (at least now).

 

It is unknown wether the universe is a consious being. But the universe is what binds us.

So Its more like a home, really.



- Kaiyon

 

It may be, but knowing that it is would ruin all mystery. Mysteries are better unsolved in some cases, and in my opinion, this is one of those cases.

 

If humanity were like that, then humanity would be, "naked as a grape, eating bugs on a stick."

 

This is worse than algebra, come again.. I think the world is concious
or it wouldn't rotate[ i Know i'm stupid]

 

Aren't we all complicated.Your are not alone.heh heh.

 

Ternaryman- As I said, SOME mysteries are better left unsolved. Imagine the time and effort it would take to realize whether or not the universe is concious. It's limitless. Not to mention to trillions of dollars it would take to search our galaxy alone for any sign of 'conciousness'. Do you know how close the nearest galaxy to us is? It would take about 4 years to get there....Traveling at the speed of light. There is no way to know, so just pondering it may be the best solution.

 

It's only a question...is it valid or invalid?

 

I think the universe is conscious.

Why the word universal is as commonly used as the word humanity?

 

is the universe conscious? its a valid question, why not? But the other stuff is not valid.

If humans are made up of the universe and if humans are 'conscious'
humans are not made up of the universe. humans are made up of some of the stuff that is in the universe. saying humans are a subset of the universe is an incorrect use of subset, as far as i undestand. so your 1st premise is wrong, there for any conclusion is not necesarily correct.

it may be correect for another reason, though. My opinion is that the universe is not conscious because it is not an evolved structure like the brain, or a designed one like a computer, or it doesnt look like one. we only understand consciousness as something our brain does, you would have to come up with a fantastic theory of how the universe would be able to have a consciuousness when it doesnt have a structure for it.

i think your question is an example of anthropomorphism, which means projecting human characteristics onto things that are not human.

i think i would ask some questions which might help you to decide if the question is worth while:

what do you mean by conscious when you are not talking about a person?
why do you think it might be conscious?
would it answer any unsolved mysteries if it was conscious?
what would they efect be of the universe being conscious? (how would we tell?)

 

I'd say invalid, and perhaps even unsound because not everyone is conscious, take for instance people in comas or even those who are asleep.

Pretty much the argument there goes like this:

A is B
A is C
So, B is C

Changing the argument around here's what I got, which makes no sense:

Cats are furry things
Cats are animals
So, furry things are animals

I might need to dig up my reasoning textbook for this ^^;

 

Because universal can mean all.

...Please, PLEASE study up. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=416
THAT is why.

 

Humans are made up of the stuff of the universe, of which through the hierarchy of things is, indeed, the universe itself.

How are humans not a subset of the universe? Do humans possess the universe or does the universe possess the humans? Who has hierarchal possession? Elaborate on what a subset is then... Every property within a human is derived from the universe, so is it not safe to say that humans are a subset of the universe?

Are you trying to say that the universe is equivalent to a human?

You might be correct.

big toe is part of me
big toe is moveable
me is moveable

All communists are subversives,
and all communists are critics of capitalism,
therefore, all subversives are critics of capitalism.

 

Yay! Free classes by Nephilim!

Someones are just blablering in here. Anyway, finding the answer to this question with traditional methods is simply impossible. You may think that we are superb beings in the universe but we are just meaningless.

But if you think that each person is a different universe itself you may get an answer.

 

Ok, lets stop and review.

My body is made up out of cells.
My butt is made out of cells.
I am concious.
My butt is not.

Just because it's made of the same material (or in the case of the people in relation to the universe, made of things consisting portions of it) does not mean they share properties.

 

My body is made up of matter from the universe.
The universe is not made up of matter from my body.
The concious state of the universe has nothing to do with matter regarding my body nor this planet.

What do we know about the universe? Very little, actually. We know the 'butt' of the universe, therefore we can't know if the universe is concious or not.

 

What I am arguing is that if the derived set contains a element x, then its prerequisite set should also have element x. In your statement, both set body and set butt are derived from set cell, but a difference in derivation would amount to the differences between set butt and set body, but the prerequisite set cell would still maintain all properties of set body and set butt. That is because set cell contains all properties of every cell, since set cell is not defined any further.

 

Alright, lets try this another way.

Each human body contains many, many bacteria within it.

Is my particular collection of bacteria a fan of pornography?



There's a giant slab of granite. You can make a sundial out of it. So because the sundial can tell time, can you tell time with the giant slab of granite?

 

The derived set would retain symmetry from the set or sets it was derived from, but the amount of symmetry might be dependent upon the amount of input from a set. If two sets A = {x} and B = {y}, a union of both sets would be AB = {x,y}. The set AB could only be arrived upon because of the equal input of set A and B.

If set sun dial has property x, then the prerequisite set should also have property x in order to arrive upon the derived set. If two sets A = {x} and B = {y}, a union of both sets would be AB = {x,y}. The derived set AB requires the necessary prerequisite of set A and B to become set AB.

Properties do not necessarily have to be active do they?