Culture and Religion

A world view where the guide for society is based on human nature,
 not on ancient scriptures.  Home  or Topic Groups


Is the Sun Conscious

the post included a link to Rupert Sheldrake's 2018 presentation with the title"Is the Sun Conscious - Rupert Sheldrake".

my comment:

I disagree with a consciousness in non-life forms.

All life on this planet is based on DNA,  a mechanism for a protein to self-replicate.
This allows genetic material to be passed to offspring.
The amoeba can divide to create another while the paramecium can either divide or join with another for an offspring. Many multi-cell organisms require 2 partners for an offspring which is a mix of genetic material.

This means every life form passes on its genetic material to a new generation. For simple life forms this includes all the physical characteristics (to be duplicated). For higher life forms this includes behaviors and even memories.
Mice from a parent who solved a maze will do the maze better than others. Alcoholism can be passed on to children.

All characteristics and behaviors are adaptive and hereditary. Similar social behaviors are observed in many social animals because the group is better adapted to survive with those behaviors; examples are ants, bonobos, crows, dogs, elephants, meerkats, and humans. The ancestor of a polar bear is a brown bear but the polar bear is an adaption to a very different environment.
All life reacts to its changing environment, sometimes requiring physical or behavioral changes.

These characteristics and behaviors emerge as a reaction to the changing environment.
These emergent changes are not a result of a consciousness or decision. Any changes continue in the offspring.
An unsuccessful adaptation puts the offspring at a disadvantage. This adaptive process is not driven by decisions but rather by the reactions to the changing environment.

The wooly mammoth went extinct by its inability to adapt very quickly, not due to wrong decisions.

Even in humans, the first reaction to a surprise is always emotional; later the reaction is analyzed whether another reaction would have been better. Reactions in life forms will occur regardless of consciousness.  Higher life forms can learn, observed in animals when they learn to use a tool to solve a problem; learning can be observed even in a crow.

Life on this planet adapts simply due to the DNA mechanism.

An inanimate object like a  rock or billiard ball is only reactive never exhibiting consciousness or memory. When they collide the result is driven by their nature not consciousness. The result is either a mutual bounce or deflection, or one fractures (determined by its physical nature). There is neither a decision nor a consciousness involved in the result.
The planet Earth simply reacts to outside forces, never making a decision. When knowing exactly all the external forces the next behavior of the planet can be predicted, though the prediction is limited by the extent of that knowledge.
All planets and the Sun move about the barycenter (system's center of gravity) so all motions interact. This resonance is not  from consciousness; this is the result of many mutual forces.

The Sun is an integral part of a large system where all the pieces are exerting and reacting to forces - simultaneously.

The Sun exhibits no consciousness as it reacts to its changing physical environment.  The Sun is an entity inseparable from its environment. Proposing the Sun has consciousness is proposing the Sun can choose behaviors in conflict with its integrated environment.
I disagree with this perception of independence in an inanimate object.

The Ganymede Hypothesis proposes the planets can arise from a brown dwarf. This is a physical process, not a decision by a consciousness.

Galaxies and their clusters form from the interactions of intergalactic plasma filaments.
These formations could arise from a)  a natural process involving known forces, or b) a decision by a consciousness.
IMO the selection of (b) is not justifiable. This is no different than dark matter, or a god.

The names of the planets were mentioned.
Most people prefer a sense of order in their lives rather than accepting the natural chaos.
When the ancients witnessed catastrophes, the result was the observed actors were deemed responsible. Assigning mythical behaviors to those planets makes this explanation plausible because people are used to dealing with people not planets.
With the catastrophe explained, order was restored to the universe when this explanation was accepted.

Assigning consciousness to the Sun or the universe is just assigning them the attributes of a god who is conscious and making decisions.

To me, the complexity of the natural chaos does not require an unseen consciousness to manage that chaos.

The speaker admits a belief in God.  That belief is being projected to where it does not belong (for some), to inanimate objects, like the Sun.

Hit back to go to previous page in history.

Here is the list of topics in this Cosmology Topic Group .

Ctrl + for zoom in;  Ctrl - for zoom out ;  Ctrl 0 for no zoom;
triple-tap for zoom to fit;  pinch for zoom change;  pinched for no zoom