Philosophy Is the universe conscious?

Don't cry neph, I know how hard it must be to always be right...^^

 

You have no idea. It's quite lonely at the top.

 

I suppose losing a snuggle buddy can inflict lonliness on even the most sought after....XD
God neph, even innocent conversations with you make me feel dirty.


As for the universe, All we can do is make assumptions as to what it is, where it came from and whether it is concious or not. So people, assume away.

 

Should I give you a spongebath?

 

Wait, I've been preparing myself for this moment...
DUCK AND COVER!!
*Drops to the floor and rolls under the bed*
O.O

 

Hehe ok, lets get back on topic...

 

If the cell = {3x} and the radiation = {x,y}, then (cell - radiation) U radiation = new cell = {2x,y}, this is assuming that properties cannot appear from nothingness and properties cannot dissapear into something. If the equation is correct, the preceding side requires equal properties to become its future side.

 

-___-

Radiation is not (-x,y). Radiation does not have DNA, or RNA, or any sort of genetic code. Radiation can cause mutation, which can create random changes in a persons genetic code, and like natural mutation add or remove information. Saying radiation has those properties is like saying radiation has cancer.

Time to put the final nail in your arguments coffin.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB110.html

So there you go. Documented creation of properties. It went from ZERO variation to quantifiable variation. You know how bacteria reproduce, right? They're asexual. There was no other force saying "HAY GUYZ I GOT PROPERTY Y IM GONNA GIVE IT TO YOU KTHX".

 

In a deletion, material is lost and the preceding DNA would still have all properties of the derived DNA. Insertion and duplication are similiar, if combined with an unknown input. unknown input + Original DNA = derived DNA.

Also, in order for something to be reduced, a commonality must exist between the objects. In 8 - 2 = 6, the most specific commonality is that both are natural numbers.

 

Nnno, you'd have lost material. That in itself means that a property was lost in the new one (even simply length or piece composition).

You know how DNA works, right? It's a language, right?

You know how if you alter DNA you may end up with new or removed properties, right?

A mutation is an event. Events only need to happen to influence things.


Ok, let's stop and review.

You insist that a property cannot be gained from nothingness.

I illustrate cases showing that with zero outside influence, properties can be created. I also back this up with a source.

You then proceed to show me examples of self-sustained property creation/deletion.

...Am I the only one not getting this? If anything you've helped my case by showing how new properties can come about in something.

Lets step back again and review in summary.

You suggest that because a property has to come from somewhere, and we are concious, on some level the universe is concious as well.

I say no, this is not true, properties can be created later on and are not necesarily inherent simply because the same material is used as another object. I eventually end up providing examples of properties being created.

You then say something about how an original set will have all the properties a child set would have (false, even when looked at in a purely material view) and ramble on about numbers. What never occured to you is that DNA is a code. If I take 0000 0011 in binary, and turn it into 0000 0101, is it going to mean the same thing? No; that's a variation with a new meaning.

You still ignored the whole point I was making, that something can gain new, never-before-present properties based purely on its own natural functions.


Edit: Holy crap, I think ternaryman is the old user Zelgadis. The IP addresses match up, and so do the nonsensical, wordy debate methods!

 

That's irrelevant. Flamebaiting and ad hominems are not allowed, keep this thread civil or it'll be closed.

 

Yes Neph, be nice to whoever he is, and argue nicely.
That Guy is usually pretty laid back, so seeing him post a warning....Well, that means it's serious.

Lucky

 

i think the universe is ( if not consious ) at least it has set course! the way the things move and the energy in the stars! in my opinion i think yes, the universe is consious.

 

if you turn 3 into 5, it requires the preceding operation of 3 + 2 = 5, the preceding piece being equivalent to the successive piece.

How is mathematics not valid? It is through theorems that I have proven that the preceding set retained property x of the derived set.

Yes, properties can be created and destroyed in the derived set, but everyone of them was derived from the preceding set. Whether that preceding set is a combination of inputs or the difference of inputs, the preceding set will have property x to lose or gain it in the derived version.

 

1st generation: 3+2=5
2nd generation: 3+2=5
3rd generation, mutated DNA: 4/2=2

In no generation prior was there ever G3 Operations. Just like those bacteria that could eat materials no prior generation could. The prior generations never had that potential, and the newer one did because its code is different.

Anyway all you basically said was "HAY GUYS AN EQUATION HAS TO BALANCE". No crap, but if you alter an equation its result will be different.

You proved nothing. I provided proof (in the form of confirmed scientific studies) that a new property can be created without that property being in its predecessors. And because of the genetic mutation, it was self-generating.

After a point a trait is no longer available. Heck, let me prove this to you with Mendellian Genetics.

Lets say we have a genetic disease. This disease is recessive, meaning that upon conception two recessive genes (the diseased ones) must be paired. Lets say Suzie is a dormant carrier, with Yy as her gene combo for that. 20 years down the road, Suzie gets married to someone who is also a dormant carrier. However, by a stroke of luck, a disease-free sperm meets a disease-free egg. The result child has the genes YY, meaning there is no disease (whereas both parents were carriers), and unless he or she reproduces with someone who has the disease (either manifested or dormant), that disease can never arise in that family tree ever, and even if she mated with someone who had the disease manifested, it'd have to start out dormant. I agree that both dominant genes were present in the parents; however what if that gene underwent a mutation so that it was dominant instead of recessive? Neither parent had a dominant diseased gene.

Anyway...

Does the phrase "inanimate matter" mean nothing to you? Because that's what the universe is for the most part, aside from space. Even early forms of life were not concious.

If by derived you mean partially based on. However your statement, taken as it is, is false. Alter code and it is no longer the same code; it is new code. For example, you can hardly argue you have the code for lungs in a trout. Additionally, inanimate matter has no code period.

Did you just say something will lose, then gain, a property in zero time? Ok, lets take hex-based colour codes. #FFFF00 is a completely different colour than #0050FF. You will have LOST all your red with that code, for starters.

Like that, DNA is not concious. Prior to that, you had (in all likelyhood) RNA. And prior to that, you had peptide nucleic acids. None of those are concious. Yet we are concious. This is not because any of those have a specific "chance" of conciousness. If you take a series of words and keep altering letters in them, eventually you won't have the same words to begin with.

Lets say I have "Power."
Mutation happens. "Plower."
Mutation happens. "Flower."
Mutation happens. "Flow."
Mutation happens. "Float."
Mutation happens. "Flat."
Mutation happens. "Fat."
Mutation happens. "Fit."

Understand? At this point it's an entirely different word with a whole new meaning. It had a link to power, but that was ages and ages ago. You can't turn it back into power in a single generation.

Edit: Because I'm sick of showing how new properties arise and you refuse to accept validated scientific studies apparently, I'm going to start attacking your theory with its own weakness.

You propose that becaus we are concious, and we are made from things in the universe, the universe must also be concious. So is the universe bisexual? Does the universe have cancer? Ooo ooo ooo does the universe have mental disorders? What about a circulatory system? I bet the universe likes puffy pants i like puffy pants

 

Was that necessary? Goodness Neph, I'm hurt....=(

 

Don't be; this is simply the natural extension of his argument. Bisexuality would give the universe the potential to spawn bi, homo and hetero people.

 

Universe is just a space with galaxies in it, how can it be concious? To be concious there has to be a living being that is aware of its existence. To be unconsious there has to be a living being that is not aware of its existence. As the universe is not a living being it cannot be consiuos or unconsious.

 

How can Human beings be concious? They're just flesh that moves .

You didn't say anything there. The universe is everything, yet why can't it be conscious?

 

like a plant, the universe hasn't got a brain however a plant is conscious of it's position in on the earth and of the elements that it uses like water and food. is the plant conscious if it hasn't got a brain? i think yes and in the same way the universe is conscious!