1) Human beings are part of the universe
2) Human beings have properties
3) Properties of parts of the universe are properties of the universe
4) Human beings are self-aware

Conclusion: The universe is self-aware

(3) is pretty obviously false.

"Man is created in the image of God".

How so? If a part of the universe has a property then the universe has that property. You mean not holistically?

How can the universe be one thing and not that thing at the same time?

The universe is at the very least partially self-aware-->we are the universe perceiving itself

I am right-handed. Therefore, therefore the universe is right-handed?

Right handed, and left handed, and every other real property

It's a bit of a mindjob, but in some sense the universe does have hands and the properties of handedness, because you have hands and handedness and are part of the universe.

To say that the universe doesn't have hands or handedness as one of its contained properties is to say hands and handedness are separate from the universe, when clearly that's false.

What I'm getting at is the (false) dualism that pervades philosophical conversations. Most people assume or at least talk as if they are separate from the universe, or that the universe is a thing separate from them.

Really, you are contingent on the universe, and the universe is contingent on you (it would be an entirely different universe without you).

Properties are predicates of an object. A part of an object can have a predicate that the whole doesn’t have. For instance, let's say I have $100 in my wallet. Thus, the money in my wallet does not have the property of being divisible into three parts with no remainder. However, parts of the money in my wallet, eg $99, do have this property.

Similarly, you can say that a part of the universe is self-aware, but it doesn't thereby follow that the universe is self-aware. More generally, the universe is not identical to all parts of the universe. It is exactly because the universe can't be one thing and not that thing at the same time that we can't validly make the derivation in your OP.

So if I'm 6 feet in length, then so is the universe?

By "mindjob" you mean that it's "mind-babble." One can utter meaningless sentences and pretend that it's deep.

No, it doesn't say that at all. The universe doesn't "have" hands. It "contains" hands. And that doesn't mean that hands are not a part of the universe or separate from it.

I don't see any evidence that this is true.

I wouldn't say it's "entirely" different without me. I believe that many aspects of the universe would remain constant even if I didn't exist. You can try to get all butterfly effect and wonder whether if I didn't exist then you might not exist, or whatever.

I believe that gravity would function identically if I wasn't a part of the universe. Do you agree or disagree?

This is idiotic.

Is the universe an object in it's own right? Does it have predicates?

I would say the universe has the property of divisibility, which can apply to things in an equally divisible or unequally divisible way.

The universe is precisely defined as everything it contains, or another way, the boundary-space that contains everything. The things within the universe are part of the universe: the universe wouldn't be the universe without them

The universe is defined as all that which the universe contains (what else would the definition be?). its not JUST a hand. The universe is a boundary space with properties that must translate to the things that are part of that boundary space. Otherwise the things that are part of the universe would be able to have different properties from the things that make up the universe, an impossibility.


It would be a different universe altogether. The definition of the universe as it is contains as one of its predicates: that which contains Aaron W.

So? You are not addressing the objection. I'm not contesting your definition of the universe as the set of all objects. Rather, you are relying on a principle, that any predicate which applies to any member of a set also applies to the set itself. My money in my wallet example proves that this principle is false. Thus, your argument is unsound. If you disagree, either show that you are not relying on this principle, or that this principle is actually true.

The universe is more precisely defined as all that is real

My problem with your example is you are being unreasonably specific in your application of your predicate. Divisibility as a property contains sub properties of evenly and unevenly. Evenly and unevenly dont make sense as properties in themselves and are contingent on the actual predicate: divisible. Unevenly divisible is one possible instantiation of being divisible.

In other words, the set of all that is divisible contains that which is either evenly divisible or unevenly divisible.

As per your example: subsets of $100 are divisible iff $100 is divisible.

(More rigorously w/r my original argument: if humans are self aware then the universe must be aware. Since the universe is defined as all that which is real>the universe can only be aware of itself>the universe is self aware)

At what point are you separating "have" from "contains"?

Does a dog have legs, or does it contain legs?

Does the earth have dogs, or does the earth contain dogs?

Does the universe have planets, or does the universe contain planets?

Lol. Have a merry Christmas.

You too!

Contains is fine.

However, the universe containing planets and dogs and earths and legs means that the universe is also partially those things, since the universe is both that which it contains and all that it contains.

So the universe, containing consciousness, is also at least partially conscious. Since the universe is all that is real, the only thing the universe can be conscious of is itself. So the universe is conscious of itself.

my questions were to Aaron

Good question. I'd say that there's no specific point, much like the heap fallacy. But the further along the chain of proximal possession you are, the less likely it is to "have" something and the more likely that it is to "contain" it. I'll also note that "contain" seems to implicate an "interior" of some sort, which may be adding to the structural use of the word.

If we were living in the interior of the earth, we would be more apt to say that the earth "contains" dogs rather than the earth "has" dogs.

If I lose a finger, am I a different person altogether?

Put another (better) way
1) reality is all that is real
2) consciousness is part of reality
3) consciousness is real (1,2)
4) the medium of consciousness is reality itself
C: reality is conscious of itself (3,4)

Apologies

It depends on how you identify yourself as a person.

Reality which consists of all that is real can be no more than the aggregate of its parts, whereas a person arguably/colloquially is.

This has the exact same problem of identity. You're saying that a property of a part is also a property of the whole. Again, if I am 6 feet in length, that does not imply that the universe is 6 feet in length.

The human body completely "replaces" itself in the sense that the physical matter that I consisted of as a baby are no longer a physical part of what is currently understood as me.

So at some level, I don't identify myself as a person based on any physical aspect of me. But if that's the case, what is the reality of my existence?

If a particle and an anti-particle collide and annihilate, then the universe would contain one fewer particle and one fewer anti-particle. Are those particles real or not?