Michael asked:

I was most interested in Jurgen Lawrenz's statement in reply to my previous question, "The most
important thing is that the universe know itself." Or at least this is what I understood your answer to
my question to be. What is your basis for this statement? What if we had a universe that did not
"know itself". What kind of a universe would that be and what would be wrong with that?

============

I suspect that I'm not telling you anything you don't know yourself when I say that philosophy is going
through a very difficult phase. It has been, actually, for nearly 200 years, because that branch called
'exact science' has made such a powerful impact on civilisation that we are (and I include many
philosophers in this) altogether in danger of forgetting the really important things. It is wonderful to
have science and its daughter technology, delivering a lifestyle that is beyond the capacity to even
dream of by the greatest kings and potentates in history: today, such comforts and achievements (like
the Internet) are within virtually everybody's reach. But we have not made equivalent progress in the
mental (psychological, spiritual) sphere, where in a sense we've remained on the level of an
overgrown chimpanzee, as some writers are not shy of putting it.

That's a long preamble to your simple' question; but of course it isn't simple at all. It's purpose was to
make the very important point that scientific research is a methodology, not a philosophy. The
evaluation of that research should still be in the courts of philosophersbut I'll be the first to admit that
philosophers have on the whole turned their back on it and left us in the lurchby 'us' I mean
us-as-a-society or civilisation. Your question is one of innumerable such questions that people
nowadays address to scientists, in the belief that science, so powerful and all-mighty, must surely
know the answer. The trouble is: they don't. It's in fact impossible, in-principle, for research to answer
such questions, as Wittgenstein, who was a research scientist prior to turning to philosophy,
demonstrated nearly 100 years ago.

I wrote all this, even though its seems to be marginal to your supplementary question, because it is a
terrible mistake to give up on science, just because the temptation lies close to hand to ask the wrong
questions of it. Science is like a sharp-eyed watchdog; many dubious ideas that were traded in
philosophy for centuries have been exposed by the clear thinking that science demands, as figments.
But some belief systems seem to be ineradicable; today more than ever ordinary people are addicted
to astrology, parascience and whatnot. So it's important to think clearly about such recondite issues
as your question entails.

Somewhere else in this Q & A segment I answered another question on this topic, which I
recommend you seek out (just search for my name until it is indexed). I deal there with the
possibilities of conscious life elsewhere in the universe and my conclusion is, that one cannot
plausible exclude it because all matter in the universe is structured. It is (if you can accept this) an a
priori condition of existence. No structure, no existence. (For us to be able to assert that atoms
actually exist, is only possible because they vibrate, and in doing so they shed part of their structure,
an activity which translates as detectable energy.)

Now you wonder why I say the universe 'is conscious of itself' and why this is so important. Let me
give you a definition: Self-consciousness entails the ability to account for yourself to yourself. On a
lower level, e.g. among fish or snakes, Consciousness entails the ability to discriminate between a
self and a non-self. You'll need to distinguish clearly between these two. They are the fundamental
modi of consciousness which organisms gain from the possession of nerves, for the simple reason
that the organisation of nervous systems includes a capacity for evaluation: in simpler organisms to
detect and evaluate sensations and perception; in complex organisms like humans the capacity for
evaluating self-generated percepts (like words, symbols etc.). It follows that creatures without nerves
cannot therefore have consciousness, although they must still be able to discriminate between what
inside and outside of their body structure (technically this is referred to as metabolism and
homeostasis); and that is indeed the basic condition of being alive.

Now I'm just coming to the point. For something to exist and for something to be are different criteria
altogether. A bar of iron may be said (by a conscious creature!) to exist; but to be involves the
consciousness I referred to above. In other words, to be entails the knowledge that I am.

Accordingly the matter structure of the universe, although it may in some abstract sense be
acknowledged to exist, cannot be said to be. There is no agency with the power to render this
existence conscious of itself. If I may formulate it in a paradox: the universe does not possess nerves,
hence it cannot be conscious! So the need is for nerves to evolve. Now this, as you know, has
occurred. It is pointless to deny it. Several hundred thousand species on earth managed that feat;
and (as above) I consider it altogether plausible to assume that elsewhere in the universe, similar
evolutionary paths are available on planets with suitable environmental conditions.

You'll appreciate from this that to call the universe 'dead' is merely a metaphor. Something cannot be
dead unless it has been alive. And what is implied in what I said said, is that the universe appears, in
virtue of its bias for structure, to also contain (via carbon atoms) a bias for the sort of structure that
will eventually, in selected environments, evolve into conscious organic entities. On earth, we know
that one species of such organisms evolved the type of self-consciousness which, by extension,
allows us to postulate that the universe has 'cognisance of itself'. It does so, because we are its
agents for this self-knowledge.

Now short of writing a book (I may well do so at some future stage!), I must leave this difficult concept
to stand by itself. But I will leave you with some hints from two philosophers who thought along the
same lines. Erigena, who lived over 1000 years ago, published a vision of God which can on one
level be read as conveying the notion that God, in order to become conscious of himself, needed to
disperse his spirit throughout his creation, that God is conscious of his own being through us. He was
excommunicated for this outrageous idea; but in our context, you need do nothing more than replace
the term 'God' with 'universe'. Erigena himself would probably agree that the two are the same, or two
sides sides of the same concept.

More recently, the German philosopher Schopenhauer theorised that what we call 'Will' and 'Energy'
are really a fundamental force of the universe, the principle of activity itself. Thus the universe
constitutes itself by investing this force in matter (energy) and in organisms (will). I suspect many
physicists, if only they knew of this idea, would find much to agree with. Again, of course, one may
interpret this force as a constituting agency, a means for the universe to acquire both consciousness
and being. (Schopenhauer, a committed atheist, would however deny any connection to God.)

This is a lifelong search, Michael; but I hope that my answer will give you a kind of starting block. With
such 'deep questions' it is always difficult to know where to begin; I would love to think this will obviate
a lot of unnecessary ransacking of a literature chockerblock full with figments and fancies. Just don't
confuse what I write with 'facts'. I simply reflect what, with the best conscience I can muster, is
scientifically tenable and philosophically acceptable.

Jürgen Lawrenz

Sydney