Is the Sun Conscious?

albie

Scholar
A
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Messages
124
I am having a debate with a guy who believes there is scientific evidence that some suns demonstrate consciousness.

Here is his evidence...

http://www.gregmatloff.com/Edge Science Matloff-ES29.pdf

http://www.conscious-stars.com/blog...the-onset-of-stellar-molecular-spectral-lines

The theory is that some stars move too fast to explained by theories on gravity and that these stars have simple molecules at their edges which could carry consciousness. ergo the advanced speeds of these stars are due to volition.

what do you think?
 
In the words of the great Edmund B.

"I would advise you to make the explanation you are about to give... phenomenally good."
 
A hurricane is about as complex as a human brain; the sun vastly more so.
It is not a question of how many interacting parts there are, but how they set up to interact.
 
Just asking questions on behalf of the David Icke forum, Albie? I've looked through your post history, and that is the obvious suspicion.
 
I read both of the links to Greg Matloff's articles, and his theory does not say that the stars move too fast to be explained by gravity, but that colder stars move faster than hotter stars, a phenomenon called Parenago's Discontinuity, and that the dividing line between the two groups of stars lies exactly at the point where the temperature allows for CH molecules to exist.

The theory goes that these molecules makes consciousness possible (!), and hence that consciousness is present in such stars! The general idea is that there is a universal proto-consciousness field that interacts with the conscious stars in some way, and Matloff has some speculations on how this field could interact with the stars (like, for instance, through the Casimir effect).

Parenago's Discintinuity is seen as evidence for the conscious stars, because the universal consciousness moves these stars faster than others. Why on Earth the universal consciousness would spend an effort on this is not clear. Why not slow the stars?

Matloff presents three mechanisms for the increased movement: 1) differential electromagnetic radiation pressure - but he dismisses this one himself, 2) unipolar jets emitted when the stars form (not likely to be caused by consciousness), and 3) a weak psycho-kinetic force (PK) - a concept firmly rooted in the woo-woo world. I have no idea why he mentions that this concept was debated by the proven fraud Uri Geller and James Randi, when he does not use any arguments from the debate. Although it would be fairly important for his argument to side with Geller, he claims that he has nothing new to add.

I have no idea if Parenago's Discontinuity is real or not, but if it real, I cannot see why this should be evidence of consciousness. A simple physical explanation without resort to new physics like PK or other signs of consciousness seems more likely to explain it.

As other evidence for "pan-psycism", he mentions the "self-organizing" of spiral galaxies after having consumed a smaller galaxy. Again, I cannot see why we need to bring new physics into the picture, merely because we do not understand this completely today.

The concept of star consciousness is so vague that it cannot be falsified, and although Matloff presents a number of "predictions" that he claims can verify or falsify his hypothesis, he actually presents nothing to falsify it.
 
albie said:
The theory is that some stars move too fast to explained by theories on gravity and that these stars have simple molecules at their edges which could carry consciousness. ergo the advanced speeds of these stars are due to volition.

what do you think?
Click to expand...

How does being conscious explain traveling velocity?
 
Years ago I read a science fiction story about intelligent beings that had evolved within the Sun, totally unaware of the surrounding solar system.
Pretty decent story, as I recall...

There does seem to be a pervasive belief among the New Age Woo types in some sort of vague “universal consciousness”.
 
Bikewer said:
Years ago I read a science fiction story about intelligent beings that had evolved within the Sun, totally unaware of the surrounding solar system.
Pretty decent story, as I recall...

There does seem to be a pervasive belief among the New Age Woo types in some sort of vague “universal consciousness”.
Click to expand...

Maybe "If the Stars Are Gods?" by Gregory Benford?

However I vaguely remember a different story with this kind of theme...
 
Giordano said:
Maybe "If the Stars Are Gods?" by Gregory Benford?

However I vaguely remember a different story with this kind of theme...
Click to expand...
And goes back way further too, Olaf Stapledon's novel Star Maker included the idea of conscious stars and other astronomical objects back in 1937
 
Of course Father Sun and Mother Moon are conscious. And frustrated that every time they appear together the paparazzi goes ape trying to get pictures.
 
Nope. The sun is not conscious. It acts in completely unconscious ways. Going around, shining its light on things without even bothering to ask them if it's okay to do so. Very unconscious being. Not to say, completely shameless.
 
Last edited:
Sunconscious is either a combination of unconscious and subconscious, or the title of a Stoner Doom Metal album.
 
albie said:
I am having a debate with a guy who believes there is scientific evidence that some suns demonstrate consciousness.

Here is his evidence...

http://www.gregmatloff.com/Edge Science Matloff-ES29.pdf

http://www.conscious-stars.com/blog...the-onset-of-stellar-molecular-spectral-lines

The theory is that some stars move too fast to explained by theories on gravity and that these stars have simple molecules at their edges which could carry consciousness. ergo the advanced speeds of these stars are due to volition.

what do you think?
Click to expand...
No, one might as well ponder the "Water Discontinuity". Above 0C it is a liquid and below 0C it is a solid, therefore water is conscious.

Does that remotely make any sense to you?

Parenago’s Discontinuity is simply a threshold in the very same way.
 
We are a product of the universe and are conscious. Is it then possible that other different products to us in the universe are conscious too? If so, does it always require an organically based human/animal style brain for it to occur?
 
Explorer said:
We are a product of the universe and are conscious. Is it then possible that other different products to us in the universe are conscious too? If so, does it always require an organically based human/animal style brain for it to occur?
Click to expand...

I am conscious. My faeces is a product of mine. Is it possible that it is conscious? It's even organic........... but unfortunately I haven't worked out a way of working "quantum" into the sentence.
 
MikeG said:
I am conscious. My faeces is a product of mine. Is it possible that it is conscious? It's even organic........... but unfortunately I haven't worked out a way of working "quantum" into the sentence.
Click to expand...

Please don't. :rolleyes:
 
Trebuchet said:
42. Not remotely one of my favorites.
Click to expand...

I remember now, the star was a giant lifeform and the spaceship taking some of the hydrogen to use as fuel caused the star to infect the crew somehow to get the stolen part back.

That's the one with the important switch for recovering launched escape pods located outside the airlock just out of reach.
 
albie said:
what do you think?
Click to expand...
Definitely not.
Consciousness is not fantasies about inanimate objects not acting as expected or simple molecules. A PDF presented at a symposium about the science fiction writer Olaf Stapledon is dubious.
Matloff' describes "Parenago’s Discontinuity"
Parenago had discovered that cooler, less massive, redder stars in our stellar neighborhood revolve around the center of the Milky Way galaxy a bit faster than their hotter, more massive and bluer colleagues.
Click to expand...
Look up "Parenago’s Discontinuity" in Google and what we get is a page mostly of Matloff's fantasy that is it caused by conscious stars and
Is the Parenago Discontinuity a real thing? gives a couple of textbook descriptions which basically say that Parenago’s discontinuity does not exist as he first thought. The continuum of velocity dispersions between star classifications has been explained since the 1950's. Stars are scattered by giant molecular clouds and travelling through spiral arms. Smaller stars are scattered more than larger stars.

The blog article is really bad. Assumes Parenago’s discontinuity exists and has no other explanations. An ignorant assertion that molecules existing on cooler stars (G, K, and M) is significant when it is basic physics. A certain amount of energy is needed to spilt molecules up. The cooler a star is the more molecules can exist. So we expect more simple molecules to for cooler stars.
 
Last edited:
The Greater Fool said:
Of course the sun is conscious. We generally wake when the sun is shining, so the sun must be awake all the time.
Click to expand...

HA! Typical foolishness from you round-earthers! When the Sun gets to the edge of the earth, it falls off into the eternal abyss! The next morning, a new Sun is generated for the day ahead!
 
erwinl said:
In the words of the great Edmund B.

"I would advise you to make the explanation you are about to give... phenomenally good."
Click to expand...

Do you have an explanation as to how human brains are conscious?

This should also be "phenomenally good".
 
albie said:
I am having a debate with a guy who believes there is scientific evidence that some suns demonstrate consciousness.

Here is his evidence...

http://www.gregmatloff.com/Edge Science Matloff-ES29.pdf

http://www.conscious-stars.com/blog...the-onset-of-stellar-molecular-spectral-lines

The theory is that some stars move too fast to explained by theories on gravity and that these stars have simple molecules at their edges which could carry consciousness. ergo the advanced speeds of these stars are due to volition.

what do you think?
Click to expand...

Do you remember they heyday of this forum when certain materialists used to claim washing machines and thermostats are conscious?
 
Fudbucker said:
Do you have an explanation as to how human brains are conscious?

This should also be "phenomenally good".
Click to expand...

Here's one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory
Integrated information theory (IIT) attempts to explain what consciousness is and why it might be associated with certain physical systems. Given any such system, the theory predicts whether that system is conscious, to what degree it is conscious, and what particular experience it is having (see Central identity). According to IIT, a system's consciousness is determined by its causal properties and is therefore an intrinsic, fundamental property of any physical system.[1]

IIT was proposed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi in 2004, and has been continuously developed over the past decade. The latest version of the theory, labeled IIT 3.0, was published in 2014.
Click to expand...
 
Of course stars are conscious. How else would they be able to navigate the cosmos, slip themselves into the center of a bunch of old stars turned planets and have them all orbit itself in the same ecliptic? I read about it on the interwebs. I have even heard there are youtube videos that explain it all.
 
albie said:
what do you think?
Click to expand...

Ask the sun.

Seriously. If you can think of a way to ask the sun if it's conscious and it replies, then it's conscious. If you can think of a way to ask it and it doesn't reply, then you can presume it isn't conscious; you can't prove a negative so the default assumption should be that it isn't conscious until its consciousness is demonstrated. And if you can't think of a way to ask it, then whether or not it's conscious doesn't have any effect on you, so it's a pointless question.

Dave
 
All the convection and motion, be like having a blender inside your skull going all the time which might affect your ability to remain conscious for long.
 
With due respects to Gary Larsen, the arguments presented in the linked articles seem to be:

1) Stars cool enough to form molecules in their photospheres (and therefor presumably - but not certainly - in their outer layers) move more slowly than hotter stars.

2) The existence of molecules in the outer layers, despite the fact that such molecules are unable to form macro structures, is presumed to allow the emergence of intelligence.

3) Then a miracle occurs.

4) Stars are quite possibly intelligent.

Note that the first two statements contain unproven speculation, the second being much more speculative than the first.

The third statement, as one might guess, is pretty iffy. It encompasses an unknown mechanism by which the mere existence of intelligence would, purely by existing, provide a mechanism for altering the velocity (at a galactic scale) of such a star. The first paper, for instance, raises the possibility of stellar jets doing the work, ignoring the fact that such jets are always symmetric, and can produce no net thrust. Then reference is made to a PK field. If someone can actually demonstrate the existence of PK, they've got a Nobel in their future, but until that prize is awarded such an explanation has to count as special pleading if you're feeling charitable, and outright woo the rest of the time.
 
WhatRoughBeast said:
The first paper, for instance, raises the possibility of stellar jets doing the work, ignoring the fact that such jets are always symmetric, and can produce no net thrust.
Click to expand...
Well, he does claim the existence of unipolar jets, but even if they exist, and they are able to give little thrust, there is a long from consciousness based on a tiny amount of molecules on the surface to producing and controlling a powerful jet.

And in any case, these jets only exist during the early years of the stars' "life". Are the conscious stars drifting for the rest of their "lives"?
 
OK, here's the best way to find out whether the sun's conscious.

A - Is the sun Alert? Are its eyes open and does it respond to questions?
V - Does the sun respond to Voice? Can it open its eyes, answer simple questions and obey commands?
P - Does the sun respond to Pain? Does it open its eyes or move if pinched?
U - Is the sun Unresponsive to any stimulus (unconscious)?

If the sun is unconscious, the next step is to check for breathing for ten seconds. If regular breaths are observed, place the sun in the recovery position - no need to check for spinal injuries as the sun has no spine - and call the emergency services. If no breathing is observed, call the emergency services and begin CPR with chest compressions.

Dave
 
albie said:
what do you think?
Click to expand...

The simplest question you could ask is what would be the mechanism for signal amplification? In modern semiconductors this is done with transistors. Older computers like ENIAC used vacuum tubes. This can also be done mechanically, but it is a necessary component.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom