(Sometimes we begin with a philosophical abstraction, then find our way back to the relevant text.)
"-self" indicates identity between the subject and the object of a sentence, e.g.:
this statement contradicts itself
this argument refutes itself
facing mirrors reflect themselves
an organism protects itself
this individual is conscious of himself
he thinks a lot of himself
I must remind myself
Maybe by extension from this use, "self" also means "subject of consciousness." I think that it makes sense to say that the universe is conscious of itself through organisms with central nervous systems. Each such organism is both an individual self and a member of the universal self which, however, is not just another individual self. An individual who intuits his oneness with the universe thereby realizes his identity with the universal self and might also believe that he communes with a supreme individual self. There are different ways to conceptualize ultimate experiences.
In Genesis, post-organic intelligences proliferating through the galaxy become nodes, not cells, of a growing galactic brain. Never absorbed, they remain conscious individuals although ones that can divide and reunite. Each is an interaction between organisms and machines. The "organisms" maintain themselves, reproduce and are conscious at different levels although their life is based mainly on quantum interactions, not on carbon.
Continuous communication between nodes generates:
"...the galactic brain. That unity, that selfhood that was slowly coalescing, might spend millions of years contemplating a thought; but the thought would be as vast as the thinker, in whose sight an eon was as a day and a day was as an eon." (p. 103)
(Biblical echo.)
It sounds as if, unlike the universe, the galactic brain is a vast individual self whose members are also individual selves. Furthermore:
"Already now, in its nascence, [the galactic brain] affected the course of the universe." (ibid.)
However, we are not told how consciousness in a single galaxy affects the rest of the universe.
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Putting aside the issue of whether it's possible for there to be AIs coalescing into galactic brains, what I would object to here is: "I think that it makes sense to say that the universe is aware of itself through organisms with central nervous systems." No, what actually happens is that self aware INDIVIDUAL intelligent beings are aware that they exist and the existence of the universe. But stars, planets, comets, rogue planets, etc., are not intelligent beings or aware of existing. To say otherwise is to attempt being mystical of mere THINGS. It's to attempt "repersonalizing" nature, which I cannot agree with.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The universe becomes conscious of itself through animals and human beings, not through stars, planets etc. They remain the universe unconscious of itself.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry, but no. Only individual beings, PERSONS, can be aware of the universe. The universe, AS SUCH, is not aware of itself.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is aware of itself through us. Some people do see it that way.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But, quite simply, that is not TRUE. Nor does it makes sense to say, for example, that the Andromeda Galaxy is aware of itself because some humans knows it exists.
Ad astra! Seam
Sean,
Quite simply it is TRUE. Both of us can make statements like that!
The Andromeda galaxy, like individual stars and planets, is the universe unconscious of itself, except in any organisms with central nervous systems that might inhabit its planets.
"The universe knows itself through us" is simply one way of expressing the relationship between being and consciousness. Another way, which you prefer, is to say that only organisms can be conscious.
Reality is continuous but internally differentiated. It appears to us as a sky above and a ground below with various objects occupying the apparently empty space between them. ("In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth...") In fact, the apparently empty space is full of atmosphere, electromagnetic radiation, a gravitational field and cosmic rays but, if we saw all that, then we would not see through it and thus would not see anything. The one reality must appear (to itself) as many if there is to be any consciousness. The single reality generates within itself consciousness of itself. To say that the universe is the universal subject of consciousness is just one way to express this.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still believe it is literally wrong to say "The universe knows itself through us." And I do prefer, because it's more accurate, "...only organisms can be conscious." And they have to be intelligent beings if they are to know the universe exists. The way you seem to prefer stating it comes too close to either being confusing or anthropomorhizing the universe.
So I still say the universe, as such, is not aware of itself thru us.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I think that this is just a choice between two ways of saying something. The universal self is not an individual self.
Can we agree that the universe is a single reality which generates within itself consciousness of it? Then I have no problem about saying that the universe is the (universal) subject of consciousness but we can in any case agree that the conscious organisms are individual subjects.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I would prefer to say the universe is a single reality within which can be found intelligent beings aware of it.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That is a perfectly valid way of stating the relationship between being and consciousness. There is no need, at this level, to argue that just one expression of the relationship is valid.
Paul.
Post a Comment