Is the universe conscious of itself...

[gnostic]

So how does that work...why is existence meaningless?

If the universe (OR everything in the universe - including stars, planets, mountains, seas, you and me, a grain of sand, etc) and Brahman are one and the same, then -

changeless

A) the universe is always changing, evolving. Stars die out, and materials from the old stars make new stars and planets (birth). People are born, lived and died.​

formless

B) There are formless (or at least we don't know yet if there are any form to dark matters) and formed masses in the universe. Both exert forces (gravitational forces) on other masses.​

omnipresent

C) Omnipresent is made-up word, to describe presence being ever-present, and yet apparently invisibly, but more likely this Brahman is nonexistence and wishful thinking.​

infinite

D) Again, how do anyone know Brahman is infinite? More likely, more wishful thinking.​

distinctionless

E) Whatever that may mean... Is it just another word for "formless"? If-so, then Aupmanyav is just repeating himself, with different word. But like all others before - meaningless.​

indifferent

F) Indifferent to "what", exactly?​

'what exists' (Brahman) does not replicate, since it has no need to replicate.

And, G) leaving Aupmanyav's first point last. If "existing" don't replicate, then nothing will exist.
​

Each of the word don't describe much of anything, just pointless exercise of word-plays on what Brahman could possibly be, because Aupmanyav is describing the indescribable...hence, ultimately "meaningless".

I could be understanding Aupmanyav, so I am not really sure what's "what" is he talking about, but this thread is about the views if the universe is conscious or not, so I am assuming Aupmanyav is talking about the existence of the "universe". Well, at least I hope he is, otherwise I have wasted my time here.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A) the universe is always changing, evolving. Stars die out, and materials from the old stars make new stars and planets (birth). People are born, lived and died.
B) There are formless (or at least we don't know yet if there are any form to dark matters) and formed masses in the universe. Both exert forces (gravitational forces) on other masses.
C) Omnipresent is made-up word, to describe presence being ever-present, and yet apparently invisibly, but more likely this Brahman is nonexistence and wishful thinking.
D) Again, how do anyone know Brahman is infinite? More likely, more wishful thinking.
E) Whatever that may mean... Is it just another word for "formless"? If-so, then Aupmanyav is just repeating himself, with different word. But like all others before - meaningless.
F) Indifferent to "what", exactly?

And, G) leaving Aupmanyav's first point last. If "existing" don't replicate, then nothing will exist.
​

Each of the word don't describe much of anything, just pointless exercise of word-plays on what Brahman could possibly be, because Aupmanyav is describing the indescribable...hence, ultimately "meaningless".

I could be understanding Aupmanyav, so I am not really sure what's "what" is he talking about, but this thread is about the views if the universe is conscious or not, so I am assuming Aupmanyav is talking about the existence of the "universe". Well, at least I hope he is, otherwise I have wasted my time here.

Nice, appreciate your post. One needs two things to understand this, science and some grounding in Hindu philosophy. I do not know how much you know about the latter. You are describing 'maya', illusions.

A) You are taking what your senses or scientific say as the truth. But is that the truth? We were able to record 'gravity waves' recently. They say it made Earth and spae bob up and down. But are we not always bobbing up and down. Something or the other is always happening in the universe, nothing new. That is the nature of Universe/Brahman.
B) There is perhaps no mass in the universe, it is physical energy everywhere. Does energy has a special form, though it can and does take all the forms.
C) Can you find a place in the universe where physical energy does not exist? If not then physical energy/Brahman is omni-present.
D) "Arguments have been put forward that the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the global universe is infinite and flat, but the data are also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space and the Picard horn." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe
The work is going on and we are not exactly sure.
E) The distinctions are in worldly objects. There is none in physical energy/Brahman which constitutes them.
F) Indifferent to the state of humans. Physical energy/Brahman has no empathy with humans.
G) I am not sure. I will wait (I may not be able to wait till the answers come, but future generations will perhaps know). The question boils down to whether the universe is eternal or arises from 'absolute nothing'.

Brahman was indescribable when it was mentioned as such two or three thousand years ago, but now we know a little of the puzzle and are hopeful that more information will be available in coming years. I would term the last five years as fruitful because of confirmation about Higgs Boson and Gravity Waves. Regards.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

If the universe is Brahman, the Dream of Brahman, then all is therefore Maya, illusion. No matter what our senses show us, no matter what experiences we have, no matter how intense or repeatable, no matter what data we collect, no matter how detailed--it is all an illusion, all a part of the Dream.

Saying (and actually, the doing that was involved) "We discovered the Higgs boson" or "We detected gravity waves" is just a part of the illusion, the Dream; we really haven't detected anything, because "we" and "that" are the same--part of Brahman, part of the Dream, part of the Illusion. Arguing over whether the cosmos is matter or energy or whatever is pointless, because even though we experience it, it is all an illusion, a dream that does not really exist. [edit: at least not in the sense we usually mean]

At least, that's how I understand the concept.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If the universe (OR everything in the universe - including stars, planets, mountains, seas, you and me, a grain of sand, etc) and Brahman are one and the same, then -

A) the universe is always changing, evolving. Stars die out, and materials from the old stars make new stars and planets (birth). People are born, lived and died.​

B) There are formless (or at least we don't know yet if there are any form to dark matters) and formed masses in the universe. Both exert forces (gravitational forces) on other masses.​

C) Omnipresent is made-up word, to describe presence being ever-present, and yet apparently invisibly, but more likely this Brahman is nonexistence and wishful thinking.​

D) Again, how do anyone know Brahman is infinite? More likely, more wishful thinking.​

E) Whatever that may mean... Is it just another word for "formless"? If-so, then Aupmanyav is just repeating himself, with different word. But like all others before - meaningless.​

F) Indifferent to "what", exactly?​

And, G) leaving Aupmanyav's first point last. If "existing" don't replicate, then nothing will exist.
​

Each of the word don't describe much of anything, just pointless exercise of word-plays on what Brahman could possibly be, because Aupmanyav is describing the indescribable...hence, ultimately "meaningless".

I could be understanding Aupmanyav, so I am not really sure what's "what" is he talking about, but this thread is about the views if the universe is conscious or not, so I am assuming Aupmanyav is talking about the existence of the "universe". Well, at least I hope he is, otherwise I have wasted my time here.

Are you familiar with the expression..."you can't see the forest for the trees"....well sit back and become aware of the forest and let the trees take care of themselves..
Brahman can not be circumscribed by any space, can not be confined by any time, can not be described by any words, and can not be known by any knowledge....Brahman is analogous to the forest....but descriptions and knowledge with the confines of finite time and space arise endlessly within Brahman...and as you observe, are mainly vanity.....these are the trees of the forest....

So the eternal Brahman never changes...but its manifestation is changing endlessly.....which is the physical universe...of which you endless chatter on about as if you think you are describing the forest..but instead are only describing the trees observed within the forest...

 

[Darkstorn]

Mind**** option:

Imagine how the "universe" is for a microbe. Sure, they are not conscious. Or at least not on a level we would understand... Or could measure. The point is: For a microbe inside our bodies, their whole universe is the boundaries of our body. The same for a microbe in a tree etc. Our universe is whatever we see of a larger system; But it could also be part of an even larger system.

We can easily measure things that are smaller than us: Since we can hold them and subject them to a multitude of different tests etc. But even still up to a point: There could be a level of existence smaller than quantum level. Actually, it's more than possible since almost all accepted theories posit that while there's no such thing as an infinitely small point(the concept of a singularity in the special relativity theory refers to a breakdown of the math; which could be essentially the same point as the quantum wave form collapse), you could still zoom in *infinitely* and find ever smaller and smaller and smaller elements. It would never end.

Now, flip it around: We have a similar problem when measuring things bigger: At some point it becomes immeasurable by the virtue of being so immense: We wouldn't see, feel or experience it even. The universe itself is the end point of our knowledge when it comes to things bigger than us: So far we can measure that it contains galaxies that contain planets etc. But what of things that contain the thing that contains galaxies etc?

The universe does work on a set of laws, as if it was a complete system: Like a microbe is. Or a human body. Or a planet. Or a galaxy. It is entirely possible that the system that makes up the universe is part of an even larger system: And it is equally possible that the system is conscious than it is not.

So we've come to this: We could be the cancer sells of a massive giant being undergoing chemo. Oh shi...

(i do have a real point too... It's that it's possible that the universe is not only conscious, but also conscious of itself. It is also possible that it is not.)

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

(i do have a real point too... It's that it's possible that the universe is not only conscious, but also conscious of itself. It is also possible that it is not.)

The question is, is there any possible test we could devise to determine if the universe is conscious, or conscious of itself? I don't see this as something we humans can ever hope to be able to test.

 

[Darkstorn]

The universe's scale prevents proper measurement of it as a whole; The only, and i do mean only way of doing it would be to measure it outside of the universe: Not from within.

So i don't think it will ever be measured unless the universe specifically chose to make its consciousness visible and measurable.

 

[Etritonakin]

The question is, is there any possible test we could devise to determine if the universe is conscious, or conscious of itself? I don't see this as something we humans can ever hope to be able to test.

I think it could be possible to determine whether or not certain things required consciousness/decision in order to exist, given enough data about that of which they are composed -just as we can know certain things can not exist without humans (or similar), but on a more basic level.

That which we are able to experience is at least a portion of that which has always existed -yet in a new arrangement -but perhaps too small a portion to provide enough data at present.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So i don't think it will ever be measured unless the universe specifically chose to make its consciousness visible and measurable.

You are on the right track...there is a test of worthiness to be passed before certain 'door's are opened...in a way analogous to falling in love...one must want union with the beloved beyond all other things...only then will the beloved feel and thus become aware of the power and source of the love...and respond in kind....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The universe's scale prevents proper measurement of it as a whole

If that were true, we wouldn't have any idea about the origin of the universe, how long it has existed, at what rate it is expanding, etc.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If that were true, we wouldn't have any idea about the origin of the universe, how long it has existed, at what rate it is expanding, etc.

You don't...that's why it is true...what you have is a theory about the origin of the physical observable universe ....and if or when it is falsified...then the theory about a beginning will need to considered taking the new evidence on board...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

.one must want union with the beloved beyond all other things...only then will the beloved feel and thus become aware of the power and source of the love...and respond in kind....

That sounds a little desperate, rather needy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That sounds a little desperate, rather needy.

Love happens....it's when one learns they are not in control...

But for love to endure...it has to be mutual..and must leads to union....and in the case of man and the cosmos.. this Sufi piece expresses it so beautifully...

Lord....I contemplated You so often,
that I finally became you.
Little by little you drew nearer,
Slowly but slowly I passed away. - A Sufi Master

 

[Aupmanyav]

If the universe is Brahman, the Dream of Brahman, then all is therefore Maya, illusion.

It is not wholly like that. Behind 'maya', Brahman exists. And there are ways to tear down the veils and perceive the truth - Viveka, discrimination.

The question is, is there any possible test we could devise to determine if the universe is conscious, or conscious of itself?

What will the universe do by being conscious? It is not required to be (conscious).

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It is not wholly like that. Behind 'maya', Brahman exists. And there are ways to tear down the veils and perceive the truth - Viveka, discrimination.

Thank you; I was certain my understanding was incomplete.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thank you; I was certain my understanding was incomplete.

Do you have a sharp Occam's Razor? Have you read Buddha's 'Kalama Sutta'?
These things help in tearing down the veil.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I like to think so for the former; I have not for the latter (on my list of things to read over the next century or so...unfortunately, that list keeps growing...)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta. The page is short.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta. The page is short.

thanks!