Philosophy Is the universe conscious?

My computer is conscious since it won't anyone enter to it without writing the correct password. It knows that I have vital information in there and will protect it forever.





No, it is not conscious.

 

I think, by definition, conscious means "aware of it's own existence and thought processes". A plant may react to different stimuli, but this is most likely instinct. I don't think a plant actually realizes it's own existence and that it's reacting a certain way to the environment - it just does it really.

Edit: although, can a computer be conscious too, will it ever be possible through AI? There's a thread in debates about this: http://www.boards.jp/forums/showthread.php?t=10915

 

what a nice way to think about yourself :sad:

Human beings are consious because they are aware of their existence. To be aware of something you have to be able to think. People can think so they are consious

In my opinion the universe is nothing but an infinite space with number of galaxies in it. It is not a living thing, it cannot think and therefore it cannot realize its own existence.

 

if the definition of conscious means then a dog isn't conscious???? it's aware of it's own existence but it isn't aware of it's though processes.
it isn't racional. i think that a plant is conscious but it hasn't got curiosity and it isn't racional and as it has a fixed position it is only worried in collecting suplies to survive.

this all depends in what way we define conscious.

 

definition of coscious: Aware, sentient, able to feel and think; the ordinary waking state.
www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/virtue/SVGlossary.html

The dog is conscious, as it is a living thing and it has a brain to think with and it realizes its own existence. Plant doesnt have a brain to realize its existence with, it just grows.

 

Ternaryman has arrived once again!

Now to look back at my argument.

I propose four assumptions that could be incorrect. It is all basic set theory; so, it isn't anything difficult. If any of this is wrong, please tell me!

Assumption1: The universe is a universal set and a finite or infinite set.

Assumption2: Universe is a family of sets, in which human is a piece of that family and human is a finite set, containing a finite amount of elements.

Assumption3: Human is also a family of sets, in which a piece of that family is consciousness, which is also a finite set containing a finite amount of elements.

Assumption4: If x is a element of B and B is a subset of A, then x is a member of A


Conclusion: Let x be an element in consciousness. Since consciousness is a subset of human, x also is a part of human. Because human is a subset of universe, every element x within human is a member of universe. Accordingly universe includes every member of consciousness.

This states that the universe is conscious through its subsets.

Now on to the philosophy of this. In our universe there are two extremes, which can be said to be inverse of each other. These extremes are attracted to their corresponding opposite, seeking to become that opposite and repeled by their similiar elements, seeking to lose those elements. It requires a force to instigate this gain or loss of elements. For instance a set of real stone would desire its inverse being an abstract stone. When it is chiseled into a sun dial, it can be said to have gained some abstract elements and lost some real elements. This leads to the central theme of the universe, which is balance. Everything can be said to be equivalent when taken as a whole. Basically that block of stone chiseled into a sun dial would gain an equal amount of abstract elements as it has lost real elements. What this amounts to is that the block of stone chisled into a sun dial would be equivalent to each other, in which the preceding object would have to have property x for the resulting object to have that property.



All of this requires several assumptions to be true. It requires that the universe have two extremes, it requires that the extremes attract opposites and repel similiarities, it requires that there actually is some sort of force that instigates these attractions, it requires that the universe be balanced( a very iffy thought when considering that matter has no equivalent unless there is an anti-matter universe somewhere to restore balance), and it requires that inverses be equivalent. If any of these is wrong, then I may very well be wrong in my conclusion.

Where the hell is Nephilim_X????