As simple as possible to summarize the best way you can, first, please. Feel free to expand after, or just say whatever you want lol. Honest question.

  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Consciousness exists. This implies that either consciousness is some emergent property of sufficiently complex interconnected systems, or it’s some universal force that complex interconnected systems “channel”.

    If it’s emergent, it seems less presumptuous to assume that the most complex interconnected system of all, the universe itself, would develop consciousness. That universal consciousness might as well be called “God”. If it’s a universal force, it might as well be called “God”. Anyway you slice it, a universal consciousness seems inevitable from a sober metaphysical analysis.

    Lots of people have ascribed lots of culturally specific attributes to the universal consciousness which are obviously quite silly. The core statement that “I am that ‘I am’” is really the only meaningful attribute we can identify.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      If it’s emergent, it seems less presumptuous to assume that the most complex interconnected system of all, the universe itself, would develop consciousness.

      Is the universe the most complex interconnected system? Complexity implies not random. It seems to be nearly perfectly random. Not understanding something is not the same thing as it being complex.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          It forms structures, but it’s exactly what you’d expect from a random process. We expect some points of higher and lower density, not pure uniformity, in randomness. The structures we see are just the results of random processes. If you zoom out far enough it looks just like noise, as you’d expect from randomness.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            We expect some points of higher and lower density, not pure uniformity

            Which is precisely what we see. I’m not sure where you’re getting the impression that it’s totally random noise, every scientific and mathematical field is based on the universe having consistent, ordered rules of operation.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Which is precisely what we see.

              Yes, that’s what I said. Pure randomness expects points of higher and lower density, not pure uniformity, as we see, which implies it’s pure randomness.

              every scientific and mathematical field is based on the universe having consistent, ordered rules of operation.

              This has nothing to do with being random noise or not. In fact, random noise requires consistent ordered rules. If that isn’t the case then you get something non-random where the rules change to achieve desired results, which isn’t what we observe.

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  24 hours ago

                  If you throw a handful of sand, there will be almost no pattern to it, but if you look closely there WI be some points with more sand and some with less. You could find interesting looking things in this. When you look at the whole thing though it obviously doesn’t have a pattern to it, except what our brain may find because it tries to find patterns, even when there aren’t any.

                  I wouldn’t call something that’s just noise complex. I guess it sort of is by definition, but not in a way that’s interesting. Normally when I think of “complex” it’s something that has a purpose to it, but we can’t identify easily, not something that’s easy to identify but has no purpose. It’s just a random distribution of matter with the rules of physics applied. It doesn’t create anything that seems to have any purpose.

                  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    18 hours ago

                    That’s not really what complexity is. Complexity has nothing to do with purpose, it’s just about how many “moving parts” a system has. Those elaborate do-nothing machines that don’t have any real “purpose” are nonetheless complex.

                    A random distribution of matter, subject to physical laws, is unquestionably a complex interconnected system. The laws of physics generate planets, stars, nebulae, blank holes, galaxies, superclusters, etc.

                    And I’ll tell you a secret: every single “purposeful” pattern you’ve ever encountered was generated by that distribution of physically reactive matter. The complex interconnected universe, by definition, includes every other system, including the ones that you normally think of when you think of as “complex”.

    • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      If it’s emergent, it seems less presumptuous to assume that the most complex interconnected system of all, the universe itself, wouldn’t develop consciousness.

      I was, no shit, just thinking about this on my break about an hour ago. God or whatever you wanna call them. If there was a way to develop more consciousness by adding more information to the universe. If consciousness emerges to solve complex problems then maybe if we populate/terraform planets then we will have a deeper understanding.

      • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        It makes sense. But why would adding more complexity and information necessarily lead to consciousness? I think there is an assumption that if this much complexity is a consciousness, then more complexity must also be consciousness. I don’t think it has to be the same thing or the same universal consciousness has to exist due to emergence? It can emerge from certain properties, like mushrooms appear in conditions. And then if there is too much of heat or water, it stops emerging. In fact, our planet and existence is on the very edge of a pointy specific and unlikely set of properties tuned just so. It should be said I kind of believe in a universal consciousness anyway but I wanted to discuss this awesome topic

        • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          That’s a good point about it emerging from certain properties and not just and idea of more complexity. I forgot where I first heard about the complexity being tied to consciousness, but it could be a simple property that we are overlooking. It might be a simple process that we are just not aware of. I do agree there is a sweet spot where a lot of these interactions could happen, but if it’s too hot or too cold then nothing.

          Maybe our consciousness wasn’t actually “supposed to” happen. We might just be an accidental by-product of what the universe is actually working towards.