/sci/ - Science & Math

But it isn't

What is an turtle is the universe?

>>949705
citation needed.

its turtles all the way down

what if we're all within an electron of a carbon of an amino acid of a polypeptide of a hemoglobin in some guy's body in another dimension

I wish I could fuck turtles in their turtle asses.

Your MOM'S a living universe!

Just fucking TORCHED your ass, OP.

If a turtle could suck your dick, would you?

>>949748
I like to keep my dick away from things with beaks.

>>949714

>>949748
They seem friendly.

What if the universe could suck my dick?

So, if I manage to stick only my dick outside the atmosphere, will the vacuum of space suck my dick?

>>950016
Yes.

And it'd be pretty hot (literally).

Then I'd proceed with killing myself and end this silly existence.

living/nonliving is an artificial distinction.

>>949697 What if the universe is a living being?
Just because a sentence works grammatically doesn't mean it means anything.

>>950024
high five dude

What would the universe being alive imply?

>>950261
that someone was high as fuck

It is true that the makeup of the universe resembles brain cells, but you have to understand that life is really about electricity, which travels at a certain speed. Our brains are able to function properly because the brain is small enough for electricity to travel from one area of the brain to another. There is no evidence that electricity flows through the universe like it does through brain cells.

>>950261
erm, intake of nutrients (or energy) .. takin a shit (excretion) .. must interact with something else that is alive (uhh, nevermind the man behind the curtain) ..

"what is life?" -- ed regis .. great book

>>950297
Quantum entanglement.

>>950300
Is fire alive?

>>946718

he first existential thought I can remember having was thinking that if I weren’t me then I would just be someone else. That seemed entirely too easy to explain for what it really is (do me a favor and read it a couple times;). I suppose it would matter greatly in the definition you put on “me”. Are you the body that moves? Or are you what moves the body? All is well; I trust that you understand the implication here. The point is this, even at a young age I knew that I was more than what I looked like. Children often see things in a different light. The second existential thought I remember is when I was looking out my bedroom window at the mass of stars in the night sky, glimmering through the sparse autumn leaves, as I tried to fall asleep. That night I asked the ultimate observer for a sign that I could take as truth and find comfort in. The wind blew. It took me a long time to realize that that was the sign I had requested. I had resented that fact for a large portion of my life because I was always looking for something I thought you would define as God. At that moment, I gained an awareness of a deeper, fundamental relationship with all things. In my humble opinion, too many people think God is a superhero. In fact, I despise the term. The reason I use it is that no other word has all the connotations that are associated with “God.” Personally, I think “ultimate observer” is a better choice just because of the lack of negative connotations; those depicting a superhero.

If everything is connected, merely because it exists as part of a whole, it makes sense to infer that the only truly unified existence state is that of the whole itself, thus it is the ultimate observer. If everything as a whole is the ultimate observer, or God, and you are a part of everything as a whole, then a part of you is the ultimate observer, or God. It even states in the Holy Bible that we are made in an image of God. If you think this means God is a homo sapiens I would suggest that you adjust your eyesight.

>>950297
we are all one gigantic universal conversation

>>950300
btw thanks for the book recommendation.

You can never observe an object in its entirety without being in the same existence state as that object: whether that object is a rock, planet or chair or your next-door neighbor or goldfish. You can never experience the same existence state as another object unless you (whoever “me” is) are occupying the same space in the three-dimensional touch screen at the same time (the position of that which is within it). Obviously we all exist in the same period; the present. What makes now the present is the difference in position of the parts that comprise the whole from that which was previously experienced. The only thing that makes right now different from, say, right now is that the pieces of the puzzle have shifted.

Everywhere that I look in nature, I see the presence of predator and prey. I have to assume that if the parts of a whole contain certain characteristics then the whole itself must also contain those characteristics. The duality is age old; a single entity containing both good and evil. We have to assume that a certain aspect of God is parasitic in nature. Not in the respect that it means us harm, but because it feeds on the friction created by alternating energy. We feed on the availability of energy. It turns out that relationship between the whole and the parts is not so much one of predator and prey, but more one of synergy and harmony. One of a give and take relationship.

no prob bub. look into "Global Brain" by Howard Bloom too

Unless life has some ineffable supernatural quantity, life/nonlife is arbitrary because it's all just matter and energy in the process of entropy.

Relevant link to thread: spacecollective.com

Its a group of thinkers who believe that humanity is on the brink of a new form, some kind of emergent global ubermind, facilitated by the internet. So they took all those "what if like each person is a brain cell and the internet is a giant brain" ideas and packaged them up pretty nicely.

We are a way for the Universe to know itself.

>>950353
Yessir.
I find the intriguing part of the equation not so much of "what" but more of a "why"

The Mycelium commands that you eat some of it so it can tell you what you must do.

>>950363
ehhh.. ur wording is pretty cryptic there.
seems like you're assuming the universe as a whole - the countable and the uncountable - has an identity.

oppose humans - an organic, carbon-based memory . . or, identity

>>950360
Similar to Global Brain ..
but this book takes it from the big bang to the twenty-first century.

god damned it i never finished the last section of that book

There are two things that are agonizing to me:

why is there something rather than nothing?

why does self-referentiality and metacognition in the human brain manifest a subjective "self" experience?

The first question is impossible to answer, I suppose. The second is probably also unanswerable but bothers me more because if there is no supernatural answer this means that consciousness is not "real" and asking a question like what it means to be conscious is nonsensical. And if self-referential processes can manifest a subjective sense of self, then how do you know what processes have this and don't have it? the fact that we experience is analogous to the anthropic principle and alien life: obviously life is possible because we exist, therefore alien life is possible. Likewise, because we have consciousness, any other self-referential system could have consciousness.

>>950332
>>950336
>>950338
>>950344
Couple pages of this sorta shit .. http://blogs.myspace.com/myk206

>>950373
He was quoting Sagan, it's sad that Sagan was confusing effect with intent.

>>950385
>why is there something rather than nothing?
Threw a spoke in my tire w/ that one .. I like this

>>950395
no he didnt

not like there is a difference anyways

>>950399
Yeah there is, it's like saying that giraffes evolved long necks to reach trees. It is subtly wrong and betrays incorrect thinking.

>>950399
Are you fully aware of the implications of what he said?

>>950406
>betrays incorrect thinking.
huh?

>>950385
>why does self-referentiality and metacognition in the human brain manifest a subjective "self" experience?
Identity, or, Memory
To our senses everything seems separate from ourselves. Natural selection in physical form is over for humans (survival of the fittest). Dawn the age of cognitive evolution. Answers rarely matter if you're asking the right questions.

>>950410
giraffes didn't evolve long necks to reach trees, genetic mutations that led to longer necks enabled a selective advantage. effect rather than intent "giraffes did it to get the leaves." Likewise saying that we are a way for the universe to know itself gives special importance to life and cognition in the universe that is completely undeserved.

In truth he was just saying something that sounded cool because he was a celebrity that traded on that kind of thing.

>>950422
Take your Darwinian shit and shove it up your ASS.

Lamarck FTW!!!

>>950421
I get what you're saying, but it doesn't explain the "presence" here-and-now sensation, though. I am thinking I am gonna have to finally slow through Heidegger's phenomenology to get further in this question. He might be full of shit though, opinions are still split.

The question isn't "Is the universe a living being?", it's "How is the universe a living being?".

Everything is anything from a certain point of view.

>>950016
>>>/g/10492170

>>950446
true story

>>950432
>Heidegger's phenomenology
i am unfarmiliar .. elaborate .. ?

something to do with time or the illusion thereof?

>>950461
Heidegger tried to create a language for objectively defining and understanding subjective "consciousness" and the essence of "being." He influenced existentialism among other things. Some people believe he was solving a problem that didn't really exist, or criticize his opaque writing style.