Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65

Thread: Is the sun conscious?

  1. #31
    Registered User fudgetusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    200
    Has Matloff proved anything?

  2. #32
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    I don’t think science proves anything. That would be left for mathematicians who inhabit fictions created by their assumptions. What science can do is find ways to make predictions which may or may not be useful.

    In Matloff’s case, he is basing his claim that stars may be conscious on whether they show volitional activity not explained by Einstein’s gravity theory (or Moffat’s modified gravity theory) by looking at Parenago’s Discontinuity. Here is one paper suggesting that is the case: http://www.conscious-stars.com/blog/...spectral-lines

    Of course, there are people who say this is not true. They would maintain that stars follow gravitational laws of nature unconsciously.

    There may be other ways to show that stars are conscious by looking at variability say in sunspots or solar flares and argue that they are neither determined nor uniformly random, hence volitional. Volition or "free will" implies enough consciousness to exercise that volition.

  3. #33
    Registered User fudgetusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    I don’t think science proves anything. That would be left for mathematicians who inhabit fictions created by their assumptions. What science can do is find ways to make predictions which may or may not be useful.

    In Matloff’s case, he is basing his claim that stars may be conscious on whether they show volitional activity not explained by Einstein’s gravity theory (or Moffat’s modified gravity theory) by looking at Parenago’s Discontinuity. Here is one paper suggesting that is the case: http://www.conscious-stars.com/blog/...spectral-lines



    Of course, there are people who say this is not true. They would maintain that stars follow gravitational laws of nature unconsciously.

    There may be other ways to show that stars are conscious by looking at variability say in sunspots or solar flares and argue that they are neither determined nor uniformly random, hence volitional. Volition or "free will" implies enough consciousness to exercise that volition.
    Einstein's theories and equations on gravity have come into question lately because of dark matter. A head scientist from CERN said that Einstein probably has to be considered wrong about gravity. Maybe this strange activity with the stars is explained by this? I would suggest that lack of data is to blame for anomalies. Free will would be down the list of options. But I will read your evidence.
    Last edited by fudgetusk; 11-27-2017 at 10:25 AM.

  4. #34
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    I heard about another modified gravitation theory yesterday. André Maeder has a new gravitation model based on “scale invariance of empty space” that would not need dark stuff: https://phys.org/news/2017-11-dark-energy.html

    Maeder’s model, like Einstein’s and Moffat’s, are deterministic. They do not involve panpsychism. They are very different from Matloff’s model which implies that stars may volitionally account for some of their motions.

  5. #35
    Registered User fudgetusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    200
    Well I've read the evidence. I'm not averse to the idea that consciousness pervades all things. I believe it is possible for our minds to influence the world. I've seemingly experienced this. I believe things that are far stranger than the idea that suns could carry consciousness. But I only believe these things when I have so much evidence that I have no choice. I don't think there's enough evidence to support the fact that these stars are vessels for a mind...yet. Maybe in a few decades or maybe even centuries we may be able to study stars better and have more data. The author suggests PK is being used by this consciousness. Seems to me that if this is all true then God has left us a big clue to his existence. If he's so keen for us to know he exists then I wonder why he doesn't just appear or lift a car in front of people or do something. Maybe he only manifests for people who are ready. Maybe when we become sufficiently wise enough to be able to study stars this will be a signifier that we are ready.

    Ps I have posted your theory on a skeptics forum to see what they say.
    Last edited by fudgetusk; 11-28-2017 at 07:15 AM.

  6. #36
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    I agree that more data is needed as well as people interested enough to look at it.

    To my knowledge most of the panpsychists I’ve mentioned don’t discuss God (except for Sheldrake who is a theist). Skrbina specifically ignores theological panpsychism to focus on the philosophic implications of panpsychism.

  7. #37
    Registered User fudgetusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    200
    I had the idea that God may be a massive quantum computer.

  8. #38
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Why use computer metaphors?

  9. #39
    Registered User fudgetusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    200
    I posted this theory on a skeptics forum. Most responses weren't of use. Someone did provide a link...

    https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...-thing.925023/

    Which he believes disproves the parenago discontinuity. I don't know. I'm no cosmologist.

  10. #40
    Registered User fudgetusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    Why use computer metaphors?
    I'm not using a metaphor. I mean an actual computer. Not with a brand logo and LEDs. But basically acting like a computer.

  11. #41
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    That you find something like that believable and assuming we have no free will then that belief should have some kind of explanation or cause. Why do you believe something like that? It is not something that I find believable. Assuming I have no free will there must be an explanation for my lack of belief.

    I can’t get to physicsforums at the moment, but I will look at it more closely when it becomes available.

  12. #42
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    One of the problems with panpsychism as I was reading it in Skrbina is the “combination problem”. If one can assume that individual quantum reality is conscious, how do these centers of subjectivity combine to get larger subjectivities such as our own?

    Recently I’ve found Freya Mathews, “Panpsychism as Paradigm” http://www.freyamathews.net/download...smParadigm.pdf. She talks of global panpsychism which I think is an improvement over the type I’ve been reading about so far. However, her position requires that one solves the opposite problem, or the “combination problem in reverse”. Starting from a unity how does one get to individual forms of subjectivity?

  13. #43
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    I read the thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...-thing.925023/ It appears that CygnusX-1 is most knowledgeable about the topic. They may have a high “velocity dispersion” but that might not signal a “discontinuity” between the two groups of stars. I think the existence of the velocity dispersion is what Matloff is interested in.

  14. #44
    Registered User fudgetusk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by YesNo View Post
    That you find something like that believable and assuming we have no free will then that belief should have some kind of explanation or cause. Why do you believe something like that? It is not something that I find believable. Assuming I have no free will there must be an explanation for my lack of belief.

    I can’t get to physicsforums at the moment, but I will look at it more closely when it becomes available.
    Not sure what you are referring to here. Did you post this in the wrong place?

  15. #45
    Maybe YesNo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Near Chicago, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,420
    Blog Entries
    2
    Assume you have no free will. Then there is a cause for the beliefs you hold. All I am asking is what is that cause?

    I do think there are influences, in particular, social mood, but I don’t think there is a deterministic cause for our beliefs. At some point they are the result of choices which may not always be conscious, but can be considered to be our choices.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. You cannot defeat your own conscious!
    By Roger.Searing48 in forum Introductions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-26-2015, 02:16 PM
  2. Untitled Stream of Conscious Crap
    By MorpheusSandman in forum Personal Poetry
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-04-2010, 08:55 PM
  3. Can we learn to be critically self-conscious?
    By coberst in forum Philosophical Literature
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2009, 03:00 PM
  4. Stream of conscious, books?
    By shingo in forum General Literature
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-17-2008, 04:40 PM
  5. (Un)conscious Metamorphis
    By forfila in forum Personal Poetry
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-05-2007, 11:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •