Nah, I liked your posts, and this general topic really is pretty interesting. I may be guilty of bogging down too much on very specific points like whether it's possible or not to imagine a universe with no minds and etc. when there are more interesting avenues to go down.

My guess is that it would be better to frame this specifically around consciousness as a phenomenon rather than whole/part relationships in general. I'm not convinced that sedimentary rocks composited from multiple types of mineral face this quandary, even if I can't prove that they don't "feel". In any case, the "transcendental unity of self-perception" (as Kant put it) is definitely one of the more mysterious characteristics that a theory of consciousness has to try to explain. The whole "hard problem of consciousness" is interesting to me, and I'm not entirely persuaded by any perspective on it which I've read.

P3 is false.

Sodium (chemical symbol NA) is explosively flammable. Chlorine (Cl) is poisonous. Therefore table salt (NaCl) is explosively flammable and poisonous.

Hydrogen (H) is flammable and Oxygen (O) is flammable. Therefore, pure water (H2O) is flammable.

The syntax of consciousness (whatever that is) is inherent in reality as a whole because we know it inheres in us, and we inhere in reality.

If it weren't, then reality as a whole is ultimately incoherent, and we already know it is coherent (science!).

I also don't know exactly what you mean by the "syntax of consciousness", but that sounds a bit like a restatement of the anthropic principle. I almost mentioned that before.

I don't think anyone has a problem with that idea either, it would just seem to mean something much different from "the universe is self-aware".

It would mean that the syntax of the universe as a whole is also the syntax of human consciousness, so if that were true in what possible way could you say the universe is not self aware?

That's fairly straightforward. When I think of the self-awareness of humans I think of the phenomenal experience of consciousness, my awareness of myself as a "self", i.e. a subject and decision making agent, but also of my awareness of myself as just one among the objects of my consciousness, i.e. i'm also aware of myself as an object, my self-image, as it were. I'm even aware of myself as an object of other people's consciousness; I know something about how others perceive me.

As far as I know the universe has no similar experience of itself as a unitary consciousness, or as a subjective agent, or as an object of any other consciousness. This is more or less what was being pointed out by calling P3 a composition fallacy, or asking about the non-self-awareness of rocks.

Like I said, I don't know what you mean by "syntax of consciousness", but the word syntax suggests to me something like that the universe is capable of producing conscious beings. Hence the reference to the anthropic principle: one thing we can be sure of is that the universe is structured ("syntax") in such a way as to allow us to exist, since we know we exist. But the universe having the potential of producing self-aware beings is not the same as the universe being self-aware in the above sense.

The syntax that produces self aware localized agents is the syntax of reality as a whole and equivalent to the syntax of your consciousness. In what sense then is that syntax different between your consciousness and reality as a whole? You seem to be saying it's the same, ok, but saying it's also different. How is it different? Why/How is your consciousness so special, separate, and distinguishable from reality itself? Seems kind of narcissistic tbh.

I'm not saying the universe experiences itself in precisely the same way that humans experience themselves. I've never been a universe. Humans aren't (wholly) the universe. I'm saying the universe necessarily experiences itself because humans experience themselves and the syntax that gives rise to self-experience is shared between humans and the universe as a whole.

I don't think I can respond to any of those questions unless we do more to define "syntax". I already suggested how I would use it, i.e. as something like a structural pre-requisite of consciousness inherent in the universe. But "the laws of the universe (syntax) are such as to allow consciousness to arise in some beings" doesn't imply that the entire universe is conscious. It's sort of like the laws of physics allow for thunderstorms to develop in earth's atmosphere, but it doesn't follow that it rains every day.

Nothing I said implied that my consciousness is separate from reality. As far as how it can be distinguished from non-self-awareness, I think I answered that above. As far it being special, I think there are open questions in philosophy of mind about the ontology of phenomenal consciousness, and depending on how those questions are answered consciousness will be either more or less "special" ontologically. I don't think my answer about self-awareness depends on answering those questions.

Otherwise, I think consciousness is "special" at least in the sense that we are unaware of other beings whose consciousness is comparable to humans, at least in sophistication. But I also think one way or another consciousness arises out of complex physical processes, and I wouldn't expect that humans are special in the sense that only humans can be self-aware.

If the universe is in fact an interconnected whole as opposed to the mereological sum of everything that exists, then something like what you’re saying works, imo. But only in the sense that our self-awareness is the universe’s and not in a sense that there is a self-awareness separate and distinct from ours experienced by the universe.

That puts an interesting spin on things. Suppose sometime in the future we’re convinced a super-computer is self-aware. Wouldn’t we conclude that self-awareness is a property of the universe?

How would you know that unless you had the universal reference frame? Seems to be a self-refuting statement, doesn't it?

You're taking your point of view and using it to infer opposite things about the universe as a whole, while at the same time (some people are) claiming it's the fallacy of composition to do so.

When we say “The universe is everything that exists,” what we mean is that the term “universe” is defined as everything that exists. Placing “the” in front of that term doesn’t create something tantamount to a Mrs. Universe who is aware of herself. Of course she may exist, but we can’t just cause her to necessarily exist merely by placing an article in front of a term to make a proposition sound better.

The only experience you have of being a universe is your experience of yourself. So it makes more sense to extend something similar to what you experience to reality as a whole than it does to infer the opposite.

This is not self-evident. I'm not even sure that statement even makes any sense at all. "Experience of being a universe"? Please provide an argument. Thanks.

You're part of the universe and the universe is defined as the collection of all its parts.

So you are part of the universe experiencing itself. You have nothing but your experience of the universe to go on when making inferences about the universe.

So why would you just assume that the universe is dead, material objects in space and time instead of reasoning from the only thing you actually know about the universe (yourself-a living material object)?

It doesn't even make sense to assume that the universe is different from your experience of yourself. All our inferences about the universe as a whole beyond our experience of ourselves are based in what we classically have wanted to be true, not what we know to be true.

You remind me of a proverb: "a rock cannot fly, my mother cannot fly, therefore my mother is a rock."

Your point makes no logical sense. Self awareness is the result of evolution and our brains developing over millions of years, the sense of self awareness is an illusion, unless you consider it as a soul like entity, not in any way connected to our physical and neurological attributes, in which case I think the logical argument can't even be made because then you already reject objective knowledge and fact.

Who has ever defined the universe as the sum of its parts? You don't define a cake as "flour, eggs, sugar, time in oven" but as something functional or material, that is also the same with the universe, it is "that, which is, the WHOLE" (not each part, individually). There are credits in a movie but credits aren't a movie.

And regarding the functional the universe is what exists in a physical and material sense, with limits and possibilities and LAWS.

And that is key. The human consciousness exists as something separate from natural laws, not as something that is integrated in material existence - despite being the result of processes. For something to be self aware it needs to be not purely mechanical. Self awareness arises from connecting and sequencing experiences through memory, conceptualisation (language) and other cognitive functions, something that is not doable without a brain. When you are brain dead you're not self aware.



A rock isn't self aware, so then the universe can't be either, can it? Nobody - or nothing - are truly aware of themselves, we understand patterns and tendencies and we learn, but we are only aware of what's going on because we have social conventions such as language and the capacity to view ourselves from the perspective of the other.

Self awareness had to be existing in physical and material form for you to make that inference, and even then it would not hold logically.


Saying the universe is self aware is essentially saying God exists, because there is nothing but an omnipotent, non-material entity that could be aware without meeting the physical requirements for awareness (a huge brain and mental and social processes).

It is no new idea that God doesn't exist as a specific entity but thst he lives in everything and that the universe is self aware, but you simply can't draw the conclusion logically like you do in your opening post.

Awareness is an ongoing process of synthesis, it is not stable in the sense it would have to be to be in any way viable in a grand scheme of things.

A self aware rock is inferably aware it is rock. You are also aware it is a rock. Nothing about rocks having self awareness changes that which they have of self to be aware of, which is rock.

Whatever you argue that a rock can’t be self aware, how can one be aware that a self aware rock is nothing more than a rock and be able to conclude it can’t be self aware since it’s self awareness would be indistinguishable from that which is it’s self to be aware of? -which is rock.

The self aware universe, is far from profound, though with uncertainty and mystery, it’s rather boring because that which the universe is, is that which it is to be aware of- a self aware rock is a rock. That’s what it is to be aware of. Big deal. A rock. Human self awareness, that’s way more curious. We can imagine rocks may be self aware and we have to handle being self aware of that. Rocks, do they have those issues?

Advaitans would disagree.

Just because no one has ever defined the universe as the sum of its parts, does not disprove what DoDN is saying




A leg isnt self aware, so then the human cant be either, can it?

A leg is not part of the processes that have anything to do with awareness. I can control what my body is physically capable of, I can't control it with my self awareness. If I break my back it's not that I forget how to use my legs, but that the physical foundation to move them (I.e. nerves) stopped working. My leg can also do things I'm not in control over. I can't make my leg hair grow more or less or fall off, it's a physical and chemical process which is outside my awareness.

Self awareness is caused by processes in the brain combined with social processes (one must be aware they are aware to be self aware, just like much research apparently suggests animals et cetera are capable of relative complicated emotions, but they can't reflect on them and understand them because they are not reflective beings as they can't mirror each other). The ability to control one's leg is not a matter of self awareness, any living being can do that.

Self awareness is a matter of continuing mental processes. We are aware that we are aware, but we cannot be truly self aware without the other and language, memory et cetera, something which is based on mental processes in a material brain. And when these processes are not continuing and ongoing, we are not self aware (like when in deep sleep).

For the universe to be self aware it would to have some kind of conceptualisation of its parts and understanding, and it would have to be a living thing or essence (I.e. God). And it would be a divine creature because nothing that has to abide to the laws of physics could be self aware without a brain and these mental processes.

You can't make an inference like this, you are considering self awareness as some kind of metaphysical thing when it is caused through a material thing (brain) and reactions and processes within and essentially a thought which isn't material. What happened to the universe until human beings came along and became self aware? Time would not matter because 1 second or a billion years is all the same unless there are people to be aware (and time isn't perceived really across species). A being which entails all of the universe is not capable of being aware because it is an ongoing process and time does not exist outside of the universe and is even shared within the universe. If we see the universe as a person time is essentially change, and one cannot change or have awareness if everything is locked in time and space. Some believe that the universe is permeated by a proto-conscious potential, but that does not make it self aware - though I mean it possibly could be, I'm not saying it isn't, just that it 1) is not related to the ongoing process which is human consciousness and 2) you can't infer it logically, some physical and chemical local reactions and developments are greater and/or have different qualities than the sum of their whole. https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...ous-ncna772956

I'm also pretty sure one of the old Greeks argued that since we are self aware, something that created us must also be self aware. But that also falls back on God. And if OP's logic was bulletproof there would be no argument as to whether or not God (of something similar) existed, logically, at least.

I know I completely lost track some places here, sorry about the mess.

I am not sure how your text applied to my point. I was simply pointing out that your argument about the rock not being self aware meaning that the universe is not self aware, is a false argument.


You are arguing that if a part of the whole isnt self aware, then the whole isnt self aware ( "A rock isn't self aware, so then the universe can't be either, can it?")

I am applying your argument to something else ("A leg isnt self aware, so then the human cant be either, can it?") and showing that your argument is incorrect in that case.

I wasnt arguing for or against self aware universes, I was pointing out that your argument was false.

No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that just because some beings are self aware, it doesn't mean the external frame of our existence, because if you can logically infer that everything is self aware because we are, you can equally infer that it isn't because a rock or an ant isn't self aware.

Anyways, it is a bad argument, you are right about that. Nevertheless the leg argument isn't valid, either, because one's leg has nothing to do with one's self awareness. The leg plays absolutely no role in regards to self awareness, therefore the argument is not valid. An equivalent would be saying that a seat can't run, does that mean the engine the car can't run either? The two things have no relation other in the case of this thought experiment.

My point is that there the specific chemical processes that are ongoing, for example in my leg, do so independent of my self awareness. There is no reason to believe that just because we are self aware, the "background of existence" must be as well.

"My leg argument" wasnt mine. It was applying YOUR argument in order to show that your argument is incorrect. By using the leg argument , I wasnt arguing for or against a position, I was showing you that your argument is incorrect

I'm sorry if I'm a little slow, I've had a few drinks tonight.

I'm not sure I'm following. My point is that there are processes happening within our bodies, that we cannot control, and that is because they are local processes that are in no way related to or dependent on us being self aware. If you turn that around: there's not reason to believe the universe is aware just because something inside of it is.

The criticism is based on the *structure* of your argument and not the content.

"A part isn't self aware, so the whole can't be either, can it?"

All of the extra work of trying to discern what part of the body is doing the self-awareness-ing is irrelevant and missing the point. You're asking a question and answering it without realizing that it's possible to structure another question in the same way and reach a different conclusion. The question does not help to advance your argument.