Consider a cosmos with no consciousness

I’ve always thought that the “we create our own reality” folks didn’t have much of an argument to stand on. It just seems so darn obvious that the universe stands apart from any conception of it.

How we perceive the cosmos certainly depends on our sensory and cognitive capabilities. However, that there is a cosmos—however it may appear—prior and separate to any perception struck me as self-evident common sense.

In other words, I considered that the universe stands on its own (anthropomorphically envisioned) feet. While we humans are able to create subjective realities within our minds, the grander cosmos outside our cranium is objectively real, existing independent of any consciousness of it.

But a thought experiment is leading me in a different direction: I try to imagine a cosmos with no consciousness. No human awareness. No animal awareness. No plant awareness. No alien life form awareness. No angelic awareness. No awareness of any kind. None at all.

(Note: I consider “consciousness” and “awareness” to be terms pointing to the same mysterious phenomenon, as this Wikipedia article implies).

Now, this is where the thought experiment should end, because it’s already failed. For I’m aware. And awareness, or consciousness, obviously can’t envision a cosmos with no awareness, for the same reason I can’t picture what the world would be like without me in it.

Nevertheless, I keep forging ahead because the experiment is so intriguing, ignoring the impassible existential abyss that’s stopped me in my tracks.

I consider a universe with no life, no awareness, no sentience. It’s easy to do. I think: “What a marvelously simple thought experiment!” The universe appears to me just as it does now, planets, stars and galaxies filling the fabric of space, yet with nobody conscious of it.

Obvious questions then crash the party of my thought experiment: Who is doing the considering of this cosmos with no consciousness? From what perspective is this entity contemplating the universe?

It dawns on me that this entity, namely me, is equipped with eyes that translate a certain wavelength of electro-magnetic radiation into perceptions of which I’m aware. Photographs of distant galaxies, for example, from which I derive some of the raw imaginative material for my thought experiment.

Yet what if I had the body of a bat and sensed with sonar? Or that of a snake with heat-sensing capabilities? The world would look entirely different.

So my envisioning of the cosmos as illuminated by light is terribly anthropomorphic, a fact I’m reminded of every time I walk the dog and watch her spending enthralled minutes sniffing a bush that my smell-impaired brain considers to be nothing special.

Still, my thought experiment has led me somewhere, though not to my intended destination of an imagined cosmos with no consciousness. I’ve understood that different sorts of consciousnesses are aware of the cosmos in different ways. We may not create reality, but our own unique perception of it is indeed created.

However, the question still remains: What is the “it” that any consciousness is aware of? Even if it isn’t possible for any of us to know whether “it” exists independent of awareness, isn’t there an answer that could be known, if it weren’t for that damn existential abyss?

We’re now venturing into the dense jungle of quantum physics, a world that I’ve spent a lot of time exploring, but which still remains mostly a mystery to me. I do know, though, that somehow the quantum domain of reality is intertwined with conscious observation of it.

Physicists agree that there is some intimate connection between the observer, “I,” and the observed, “it,” when it comes to quantum phenomena like photons. Light appears as either a particle or a wave depending on what sort of photon sensing apparatus an experimenter sets up.

But what if there was no conscious observer around to detect any sort of light, whether wave-ish or particle-ish? And the bigger question: What if there was no consciousness anywhere in the cosmos? Would light, or anything else, exist as we know it?

I’m already over my head in the scientific/philosophical sea of quantum physics. If you want to explore these questions with a guide who can actually float on the surface and paddle around, click on over to an interview with renowned physicist John Wheeler: “Does the Universe exist if We’re Not Looking?”

Here’s an intriguing excerpt:

At every moment, in Wheeler's view, the entire universe is filled with such [quantum] events, where the possible outcomes of countless interactions become real, where the infinite variety inherent in quantum mechanics manifests as a physical cosmos. And we see only a tiny portion of that cosmos. Wheeler suspects that most of the universe consists of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter. He sees the universe as a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed.

And here’s the view of another noted physicist, Andrei Linde:

“The universe and the observer exist as a pair,” Linde says. “You can say that the universe is there only when there is an observer who can say, Yes, I see the universe there. These small words— it looks like it was here— for practical purposes it may not matter much, but for me as a human being, I do not know any sense in which I could claim that the universe is here in the absence of observers.

“We are together, the universe and us. The moment you say that the universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness. A recording device cannot play the role of an observer, because who will read what is written on this recording device?

"In order for us to see that something happens, and say to one another that something happens, you need to have a universe, you need to have a recording device, and you need to have us. It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely inaccessible to anybody. It's necessary for somebody to look at it. You need an observer who looks at the universe. In the absence of observers, our universe is dead.”

Wheeler and Linde see the universe as participatory. Humans aren’t passive bystanders on the cosmic stage; we’re active creators of reality.

Makes increasing sense to me, as I gravitate toward the Taoist-Buddhist slope of metaphysical explication. I want my spirituality to be grounded in science. Or at least, not floating separate from modern scientific explanations of reality.

For me, a religion that can’t come to grips with the mystery of how consciousness relates to the cosmos isn’t worth holding on to. For somehow our awareness is part and parcel of the universe that we’re trying to be clearly aware of.

We’re Ouroboros.

Comments

[Rachel]

If there is no observer to observe this questionable reality, than nothing really matters...though it is a very interesting thought experiment. I have pondered this for some time, it is beyond my comprehension.

[Marcel Cairo]

Brian, can you still remember the days when your Saturday nights meant going out and getting crazy, but the kind of crazy that didn't begin with, "does the universe really exist"?

I think we're all getting old too fast. Is there such a thing as "Blog time"? I think we're living in it.

[Bob]

After 30 some years of trying to figure out what God, spirituality, the Universe, etc. is....well, I'll never know. It's all one big wondrous mystery to me and will probably remain just that till my dying day.

What more can a person do than just try to live the life we have now to the fullest...this very moment? Just embrace the moment and enjoy the miracles right before our eyes; it's quite miraculous just to be sitting here breathing this morning and typing this short reponse.

Yep, the only certainty for me is knowing that there is absolutely nothing to be certain about. So, I am getting used to just resting in that uncertainty.

Funny thing is that I entered Sant Mat for all the certain reasons and after 25 years of meditation have come to the conclusion that nothing is certain. That's my big realization!

Another lost soul!! Well, who knows? Certainly not me!

Bob

[Hal K]

It sounds like Wheeler is expecting a theory of everything and even an explanation of why anything exists at all. My view is that there can never be any resolution to these sorts of questions, although progress can always be made. What if not only the past is created through our observations in the present, but if in fact laws of physics are created by observation? What if new refinements of the laws of physics will continue to be added for the rest of time and if they will only exist in precise form as a result of our looking for them? Regardless, a number of physicists now think that there may never be any resolution to their quest for a theory of everything. I provide a couple links in my own modest blog.

[tao]

Bob,

Sounds real good to me me Bob! What more is there to say? And what is there to know anyway? If you just know your Self, then most likely that's all you'll ever need to know. If you don't know your Self, then what good is it knowing anything else?!

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,

Over the past weekend I read John Myrdhin Reynolds' (= Vajranatha's) _Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness_ (Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 2000 [of materials written ~1985-1990]). This was/is a translation and commentary designed to correct the errors of interpretation in Evans-Wentz' 1954 publication of this same Tibetan Buddhist document. It's Dzogchen teaching(s) seems related to your topic, but I am not capable/competent to evaluate it. Perhaps some of your other readers might be appropriately able to do so. (If you are not familiar with this translation/document, I do commend it to your attention.)

In the (translated) document is found (among other things)the following: "If these two [i.e., 'Space' and 'Awareness'] do not become one without any duality, you will certainly not attain Buddhahood." (-p. 11) I do not grasp how to evaluate its assertion.

Robert Paul Howard

[tao]

Robert,

I would also highly recommend John Reynolds book "The Golden Letters", published by Snow Lion; as well as Manjushrimitra's "Primordial Experience" translated by Namkhai Norbu and Kennard Lipman, and published by Shambhala.

Regarding your reference and question about the meaning of: "If these two [i.e., 'Space' and 'Awareness'] do not become one without any duality, you will certainly not attain Buddhahood." -- In reality, space itself is awareness. This means that pure awareness is non-dual and is inclusive of space itself...not just being aware of objects 'in' space. Space is an artifact of awareness. Buddhahood is not awakened ("attained") until the tacit realization that space and awareness are actually one and the same, occurs.

[Edward]

Until a probability wave collapses, there is no actuality. The universe is eternally on the verge of being created, or dying. That instance of consciousness/awareness is everything, has everything.

This winking of what is, in and out of existence, is somewhat predicatable, but as fine a control we want to have over creation and the description of creation, that is how fine the irresolution becomes.

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear gentlemen,

Thank you both for your responses. I regret to say that neither of the commended readings are available within my local library system - but I shall keep them in mind for the future.

The interpretation given for the verse I cited is quite in accord with the understanding I took away from reading Reynolds' translation. While I can repeat the words/concepts as an assertion, however, I simply don't "know" its "truth" (so to speak) "experientially." My "consciousness" remains full of "concepts"/"thoughts"/"definitions" - never approaching the freedom from such which Robert K. C. Forman theorizes as the state one must achieve for experiencing the "mystical" (which I'm told is a pretty nice "state" to "achieve").

Along these lines, kindly excuse my citing from the last paragraph (pp. 213-214) of John R. Searle's _The Mystery of Consciousness_ (1997): "...Consciousness and the experience of consciousness are the same thing. So we can, and indeed must, grant the irreducibility of consciousness without claiming that it is somehow metaphysically not a part of the ordinary physical world. We can, in short, accept irreducibility without accepting dualism. ..." Insofar as "consciousness" can be seen as coming forth from "awareness," this, too, thus seems to be (potentially) consistent with both our present understanding of quantum physics and what is sought in the pursuit of "mystic" "knowing" and/or "experience." But, unfortunately for me, I only "know" of this as claims made by others.

Again, thanks for your responses.

Robert Paul Howard

[Robin Edgar]

Consider a cosmos with consciousness* and a conscience. . .

*God's divine omniscience

[Kush kumar]

I am a student and I have searched a lot about sprituality and have visited many places of worship with having conversed with many religious pupil. But I never got satisfactory answers of my questions, instead they give me theoritical and historical examples with many tales that are not possible at this time on earth with such type of conditions prevaling around us where science demands direct evedience and proof of every thing with peoples of this days being much scientific. I had read several books on this matter to get a direct proof of that, if any supernatural power is really in existence or is governing the whole universe such as of Krshna consiousness movment, namm dharis, radhasoami satsang and related sects, but they all answers in the same ways. whereas a bit satisfying answer that I got was of Radhasoami's that am writing below:-

"Do you know where from the energy to sustain the earth comes from?"
I answered-sun.
"then from where the sun gets its energy from"
I said-from fusion of helium atoms nucleus.
"where dose the atoms,nucleus,electrons,protons and all sub atomic particles got their energies from"
I said-the science is yet to answer these questions and is doing reaserch on this matter and the soon it will answer this all question all the faith of peoples from the spritulity will get of.
"Science can never perfectly answer all the happening of nature the much it will solve the much it will get webbed in it. And remember that the whole science and the whole scientific community accepts that -EVERY ENERGY HAS ITS ENERGITS- which Sir Newton said. So what is the problem in beleving that the whole universe is getting the energy from a unstruck music(divine melody) that is god himself. you can see even before the newton the physical laws existed,before Einstine the theory of reletivity existed, they were all in the nature and God is governing the whole world by these all great laws, and so such are the laws of karmas, the birth and rebirth.

I think this kind of answers are always given in support of existence. I think that there are some of the questions of which we will never have answers, let the science try as much as it can it can never be and this all makes the foundation of the spritulity and our belive in God(such questions only). I think the spritulity starts where the reasoning of the mind ends and the science ends. But I aiso says that there may not be Heaven,hell,astral regions or spritual relams. this all sprituality is about to give calmness to mind and treat most of the tensions of the life like the yoga{meditation) because it is not as practical as our own daily life is.

[tao]

Robert,

The source that you quoted said:

"Consciousness and the experience of consciousness are the same thing. So we can, and indeed must, grant the irreducibility of consciousness without claiming that it is somehow metaphysically not a part of the ordinary physical world."

Some philosophical pundits dothink and assume that consciousness "is somehow metaphysically not a part of the ordinary physical world", but not everyone (and especially not awakened sages) divorces awareness/consciousness itself as being somehow apart from ordinary everyday consciousness. In fact, to do so is a form of subtle duality.

It is not really such a great mystery as it may appear to be to you. There are not two different consciousness-s. However there are clearly different 'states' of consciousness - just as in the case of water being in the different states of fluid, solid-ice, and gas-vapor...and yet is still always water regardless of the state.

[tao]

Kush Kumar wrote:

KK: "I am a student and I have searched a lot about sprituality and have visited many places of worship with having conversed with many religious pupil. But I never got satisfactory answers of my questions,"...

*** tao: That is because the answer to your questions does not reside in religion or philosophy or in spiritual paths, cults, and leaders. ***

KK: "...instead they give me theoritical and historical examples with many tales that are not possible at this time on earth"...

*** tao: That is because they themselves do not have the answer and are thus misleading you into irrelveancy. If they were the sages, they would have directed you towards knowing yourself, rather than useless beliefs and tales. ***

KK: ..."with such type of conditions prevaling around us where science demands direct evedience and proof of every thing with peoples of this days being much scientific. I had read several books on this matter to get a direct proof of that, if any supernatural power is really in existence or is governing the whole universe such as of Krshna consiousness movment, namm dharis, radhasoami satsang and related sects, but they all answers in the same ways."

*** tao: Again, they have not yet awakened to self-knowledge, so they cannot provide any meaninful answers. ***

KK: ..."whereas a bit satisfying answer that I got was of Radhasoami's that am writing below:-"

*** tao: Before you go on to promote Radhasoami doctrine, I will tell you straight up that RS thelogy and cosmology simply does not have the answers that you say you are seeking. They cannot give you "the answer". The answer is Self-knowledge - which can only be awakened and realized with yourself. ***

KK: "Do you know where from the energy to sustain the earth comes from?"

"I answered-sun."

"then from where the sun gets its energy from"

"I said-from fusion of helium atoms nucleus."

"where dose the atoms,nucleus,electrons,protons and all sub atomic particles got their energies from"

"I said-the science is yet to answer these questions and is doing reaserch on this matter and the soon it will answer this all question all the faith of peoples from the spritulity will get of."

"Science can never perfectly answer all the happening of nature the much it will solve the much it will get webbed in it. And remember that the whole science and the whole scientific community accepts that -EVERY ENERGY HAS ITS ENERGITS- which Sir Newton said. So what is the problem in beleving that the whole universe is getting the energy from a unstruck music(divine melody) that is god himself...."

*** tao: This is where the problem of the leap of faith comes in. They are subtley advising you to just accept without any question an idea and a belief about "unstruck music(divine melody)", and a belief in "god himself". Nothing has been proven or directly experienced. ***

KK: ..."you can see even before the newton the physical laws existed,before Einstine the theory of reletivity existed, they were all in the nature and God is governing the whole world by these all great laws, and so such are the laws of karmas, the birth and rebirth."

*** tao: Of course they say (and encourage you to believe)..."and God is governing the whole world by these all great laws...." etc etc. etc But that doesn't prove anything whatsoever. It's just belief and dogma. It is not tacit and direct experiential Self-knowledge. They are merely peddling philosophical beliefs and dogma. ***

KK: "I think this kind of answers are always given in support of existence. I think that there are some of the questions of which we will never have answers, let the science try as much as it can it can never be and this all makes the foundation of the spritulity and our belive in God(such questions only). I think the spritulity starts where the reasoning of the mind ends and the science ends."

*** tao: Well you have apparently bought into the Sant mat rhetoric and nonsense. You still do not have the answer though, and that is because the answer is not in such rhetoric. If you really want to discover the answer, then you must seek in the direction of true Self-knowledge, and don't just be content with spiritual dogma and religious myth. Spirituality definitely does NOT "starts where the reasoning of the mind ends and the science ends", as you say. Spiritual and religious dogma and myth is NOT superior to science. Science is far superior to antiquated religious dogma and myth. However, neither science nor religion is superior to, or compares with, Self-knowledge. ***

KK: "But I aiso says that there may not be Heaven,hell,astral regions or spritual relams. this all sprituality is about to give calmness to mind and treat most of the tensions of the life like the yoga{meditation) because it is not as practical as our own daily life is."

*** tao: It's unclear what you are trying to say.... but this particular so-called "spirituality" that you mention is more about beliefs and spiritual doctrines than it is about "calmness to mind". ***

[James Andrix]

I don't think it is possible to make a conscious machine out of non conscious parts. If this is true then atoms themselves must be experiential in some basic way.
I think that fundamentally anything that takes an input and changes or produces an output is aware of its input. I think atoms are conscious in the sense that they are the result of some process manipulating the information that makes them up, and that process is aware of that information.

[kush kumar]

I belive am much far on the way of searching the ultimate cosmo "the creator of the universe" having visited many of the places of worship, religious people and have conversed with them not once but many time who claim that they are following the right path and they are much practical then any one else in the world but really I didn't find anything more than the borring philosiphy with which they are looking forward. There base of their talk is only that they assumess everything of which they didn't have the answer and even the science don't have . They call their path as real as science but fails to prove that.
I will prove the above statment with as simple as your call is answering class 1st G.K. question.

Go and ask to them that wether that of which they are talking about have ever seen such.
There answer will be a quit hasitating they will say that a lot of people use to see such.
Then ask that wether they can bring such person in your front.
Their answer will be how you are going to be sure that they are speaking the truth if even you dont belive them who are in your front.

...............Then you will see that there are a very less percentage of people among the society who are having such illusions, fellings etc. even less than 0.01 percent. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Then are you going to call this a practical path which is not even assesible to the 99.99% of the society peoples? Are you now not going to classify them in the caetogary of mad peoples or mentals or even not the mentals but pupils with some kind of extra mind works(am sorry to say so but what can I do the truth is always bitter).
****If you are not satisfied with me than can you claim to make me some such visuals or practical can you? If yes than contact me at my address:-

deepakkkush @yahoo.co.in

Instead you will say that I will have to follow the path of which you belive with labour the whole life and then if mine karmas(sins) will be washed then you may be able to see the God (or whatever you call it a spritual experience).
No my dear I dosent want to be fooooooool to follow such path the whole life after of which I will not be sure of getting such grace wich is also in probable condition. First for having the strong faith one visiual and experince is enough(and must) then one can continue on the path with ease to find God. But dont forget to be in contact a phycatrist first with whom you can be treated.
#######If you have the strong objection then contact me please.