When did “consciousness” enter the Universe?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thought I'd try this out to see where it went.
I have some questions that I’m wondering how you all might answer.

The basic question I'm asking is "When did “consciousness” enter the Universe?"

Was it at the moment of the Big Bang?
Did consciousness exist before the Big Bang?
Did consciousness evolve into existence in parallel with the first creatures here on Earth?
Does the Universe itself have a consciousness that exist because the Universe exists?
What does science say about when consciousness entered the Universe?
The religious? What would you say?
The spiritual minded folks? Same question.
Any other ideas?

Depends precisely what you mean by 'consciousness'. If you mean simple awareness, such as having an internal map of self and self-in-the-environment, it could well have started in the Cambrian, when clear evidence of increasingly sophisticated vision and predator-prey co-evolutionary relationships appears.

 

[jacknife]

Thought I'd try this out to see where it went.
I have some questions that I’m wondering how you all might answer.

The basic question I'm asking is "When did “consciousness” enter the Universe?"

Was it at the moment of the Big Bang?
Did consciousness exist before the Big Bang?
Did consciousness evolve into existence in parallel with the first creatures here on Earth?
Does the Universe itself have a consciousness that exist because the Universe exists?
What does science say about when consciousness entered the Universe?
The religious? What would you say?
The spiritual minded folks? Same question.
Any other ideas?

I don't see how it could exist before the big bang and as for after who knows? Life very well could have started and evolved on a planet other then earth before hand. And who knows what paths and cycles evolution took there.

 

[Phred]

Since you asked what would I say, I say consciousness entered when God breathed the breath of life into mankind as represented by Adam. It was mankind's destiny to commune with God, and it was through that consciousness that he would accomplish it. But mankind fell and did not live up to his potential.

So God isn't conscious?

 

[dlamberth]

So God isn't conscious?

That's the question I have as well.

 

[SelfSim]

So if we all die, then the universe...ceases to exist?

Well if no-one's left, there'd be no one to pose that question now would there?

 

[SelfSim]

@SelfSim is a conscious entity Jim, but not as we know them.*

*See his response to your post for supporting evidence.

Its sad how you use mockery to cover up for an inability to go where the evidence leads.

 

[SelfSim]

You have entered the selfsim rabbit hole. He's discussing from a different paradigm of the nature of reality than the rest of us.

The paradigm is called objective reality which is produced from the scientific method.. (as distinct from beliefs about what reality 'must be').

Its almost like he's using a different language. I'm not even saying he's wrong. Just that the discussion always means something different to him than to the rest of us.

@dlamberth's issue is that he is not recognising the source of the consciousness he confers upon the universe. His own conscious mind is projecting its own properties onto what he believes is something independent from his own mind (ie: the universe).

Believing consciousness can exist independently from a mind/brain is a belief resulting from the excursion into the initial belief that many things can exist independently from one.
Its a commonly held belief and its a big one .. but its still just another belief.

 

[Phred]

Yawn! Got any more bed-time stories?

In the beginning...

 

[durangodawood]

..... the initial belief that many things can exist independently from one.....

I find I have to exert the old belief muscles much harder to go full MDR than the orthodox way, which is like: there's a real world out there and our models reflect it to some extent.

At any rate, your peculiar (because you seem to be the only one holding it) orientation to reality is gonna be an ongoing obstacle to participation here, where everyone else wants to discuss things in the orthodox terms.

 

[jacknife]

I find I have to exert the old belief muscles much harder to go full MDR than the orthodox way, which is like: there's a real world out there and our models reflect it to some extent.

At any rate, your peculiar (because you seem to be the only one holding it) orientation to reality is gonna be an ongoing obstacle to participation here, where everyone else wants to discuss things in the orthodox terms.

MDR?

 

[Bradskii]

Well if no-one's left, there'd be no one to pose that question now would there?

That's why I'm asking it now.

And as to whether the universe itself is conscious...well, we're bits of the universe. We form part of it. So yeah. There's a little spark of it tucked into a non descript part of a minor galaxy. I'm the universe contemplating itself.

 

[durangodawood]

MDR?

Mind dependent reality.

 

[jacknife]

Mind dependent reality.

Oh I see thank you.

 

[SelfSim]

That's why I'm asking it now.

Its great news to see you're recognising that there's still a mind left in that universe, (which supposedly, had all life extinct in it originally).

And as to whether the universe itself is conscious...well, we're bits of the universe. We form part of it. So yeah. There's a little spark of it tucked into a non descript part of a minor galaxy. I'm the universe contemplating itself.

Or, you're an individual human exploring its perceptions, (which includes the one you just spoke of), then trying to rationalise that. (With no need for invoking the existence of anything independent from those perceptions).

 

[SelfSim]

I find I have to exert the old belief muscles much harder to go full MDR than the orthodox way, which is like: there's a real world out there and our models reflect it to some extent.

Then abandon the beliefs which seem to call for your greater efforts there. The MDR hypothesis is an objectively testable one, which produces abundant objective evidence for it, and none contradicting it. Its just science .. and not some insane belief.

At any rate, your peculiar (because you seem to be the only one holding it) orientation to reality is gonna be an ongoing obstacle to participation here, where everyone else wants to discuss things in the orthodox terms.

The core of @dlamberth's issue is crystal clear if one goes to the effort of 'trying on' the MDR hypothesis viewpoint. The only obstacle there, is that many are just too entrenched in not accepting the consequences of it and want to go on arguing endlessly that: 'my belief is better than your belief'.

 

[Bradskii]

With no need for invoking the existence of anything independent from those perceptions.

But gee, it comes in really handy when I do.

'I'm not sure if the fridge exists, dear. Or if it does whether it might actually contain a few cold beers. On the off chance that you're not simply a manifestation of my personal perceptions then while you are in what I hope is our kitchen and not a figment of my imagination, could you get me one of those assumed-to-exist IPAs? Because I believe I could use a beer. At least, I think so...'

 

[durangodawood]

But gee, it comes in really handy when I do.

'I'm not sure if the fridge exists, dear. Or if it does whether it might actually contain a few cold beers. On the off chance that you're not simply a manifestation of my personal perceptions then while you are in what I hope is our kitchen and not a figment of my imagination, could you get me one of those assumed-to-exist IPAs? Because I believe I could use a beer. At least, I think so...'

This is what I'm talking about. It takes a terrific exertion of belief to overcome our default animal mode that reality out there is real and tastes good.

 

[dlamberth]

It might be a good idea to define it up front. I've got an idea that people will have different definitions. The standard definition might be 'self awareness'. But then we have the problem of determining what creatures have it so we can work out when it likely emerged.

Good idea, but I don't think consciousness can be defined. I tried to form the questions as wide as I know how to keep the discussion open.

 

[SelfSim]

'I'm not sure if the fridge exists, dear. Or if it does whether it might actually contain a few cold beers. On the off chance that you're not simply a manifestation of my personal perceptions then while you are in what I hope is our kitchen and not a figment of my imagination, could you get me one of those assumed-to-exist IPAs? Because I believe I could use a beer. At least, I think so...'

Who said anything about personal manifestations and figments of your imagination? Certainly not me. Those terms mean other things than when I say the kitchen, the fridge and the beer I'm in need of, all exist. If you don't think they do, then I'd advise seeing a psychiatrist(?)

You're interpreting all this from your fixed (believed) viewpoint that things exist inside and outside of my mind. That's not what the MDR hypothesis is about and in fact it explicitly excludes those notions because they're just based on the Big Belief (ie: mind independent existence).

 

[SelfSim]

This is what I'm talking about. It takes a terrific exertion of belief to overcome our default animal mode that reality out there is real and tastes good.

Your taste sensation happens once your taste receptors feed data to your brain where, once the beer is consumed, it gets interpreted and expressed as 'being good' and 'is real'. That's what those words mean in that situation.
Same process happens for all of your other sensory data.

The bit about all that data coming from something independent from your mind's perceptions and thence the descriptions employing those words, is just the Big Belief because there is no objective test which can be applied, that demonstrably returns the evidence which would permit decoupling the perceptions from other perceptions our brains concoct .. like adding more beliefs.