The Universe and Self (eternal)

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

If something is more than a relationship, then it can exist on its own. Otherwise, it is in tandem, meaning it is a partnership.

The question is essentially asking if the Universe exists outside of our perception of it. Would the Universe exist if there were nothing to observe it?

I personally see a difference. Perhaps there isn't...what do you think, Ozzie?

I don't think there is a difference. But it creates a useful but dangerous illusion of agency to think of ourselves as separate in moment's of "self-consciousness" as Doppelganger put it. If we were aware of all that is consciousness in the present, I'm sure we could do away with the "self" aspect and still function fine in harmony/tandem with the universe.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

I don't think there is a difference. But it creates a useful but dangerous illusion of agency to think of ourselves as separate in moment's of "self-consciousness" as Doppelganger put it. If we were aware of all that is consciousness in the present, I'm sure we could do away with the "self" aspect and still function fine in harmony/tandem with the universe.

But what if there were no consciousness?

[Kungfuzed]

We are the universe. We are not separate from it.

"We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself." Carl Sagan

If there were no consiousness, all of eternity would pass by in the blink of an eye and no one would have ever known of the universe. There would be no one present to say that it didn't exist. And the universe wouldn't have the consiousness to declare that we don't exist. But since the universe exists, and we are it's consiousness, we can deny each other and ourselves in one voice.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

But what if there were no consciousness?

At best would be less self-conscious, at worst you would be dead.

[wizanda]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

But what if there were no consciousness?

A Quark has Consciousness

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by wizanda

A Quark has Consciousness

A quark has life. How do you know a quark has consciousness. If a quark could speak you would not understand him.

[wizanda]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

A quark has life. How do you know a quark has consciousness. If a quark could speak you would not understand him.

Yeh can sort of, they go:
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

MMMMMMMMMMMM

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Etc...like squiggles of sound, or spirit.....

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

At best would be less self-conscious, at worst you would be dead.

But there would be no "best" or "worst." There would be no "me."

That's the difference, re #11.

Edit: Or, as Aristotle might say, there would be half as many things in the universe.

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Kungfuzed

We are the universe. We are not separate from it.

"We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself." Carl Sagan

If there were no consiousness, all of eternity would pass by in the blink of an eye and no one would have ever known of the universe. There would be no one present to say that it didn't exist. And the universe wouldn't have the consiousness to declare that we don't exist. But since the universe exists, and we are it's consiousness, we can deny each other and ourselves in one voice.

This is essentially what I'm getting at. If there were nothing to observe the universe, it may as well not exist. But is that the same as not existing?

Is then the meaning of life to observe the universe so that it may exist?

[Guitar's Cry]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

At best would be less self-conscious, at worst you would be dead.

Sorry. I meant what if there were no consciousness in the Universe. Or is that what you meant as well?