[Lowell Gustafson]

If a non-biologist can jump in here . . . .   I too am fascinated by a single cell being able to sense light, food, or danger.  Some have flagellum that permit “purposeful” movement.  It seems as though we start here and move along a spectrum of increasingly complex sensory / response capabilities.  But earth does not try to get out of the way when a meteor approaches.  A mountain does not try to stay in the sunlight for a little longer on a nice day.  As fabulous as a single cell’s abilities are, I can’t follow the jump to seeing the universe as conscious.

[Lowell Gustafson]

Thanks so much to Jennifer for hosting this fascinating exchange of views as we struggle to understand and articulate our best current understandings of these complex topics.

The discussion about the specific meaning  of metabolism is helpful.  Jennifer also reminds us of Eric Chaisson’s idea of energy densities.

As you remember, his estimated power densities are:

Generic Structure                        Approximate Age (10 9 year)           Average Φ m (10 − 4 watt/kg)

Galaxies (Milky Way)                       12                                                                     0.5
Stars (Sun)                                           10                                                                     2
Planets (Earth)                                     5                                                                   75
Plants (biosphere)                               3                                                                900
Animals (human body)            10 − 2                                                          20,000
Brains (human cranium)         10 − 3                                                        150,000
Society (modern culture)           0                                                                500,000

The ideas of increasing complexity and emergent properties in addition to energy densities are also often used.   Portions of the universe seem to have moved from a level of complexity best analyzed by physics, to that of chemistry, then to biology, then to ecosystems, social systems, and finally (showing my bias) the most complex level: the humanities.

It is not only that there are increasing energy densities, it is also useful to consider the alternate possible routes that these flows can take. Increased energy densities produce and sustain higher complexity.  I don’t think there are too may alternatives for electrons when H2 is formed.  The steps in increasing complexity of electrical and chemical exchanges from the emergence of atoms to communication among neurons are many and not completely understood.  Along the way, there seem to be many emergent properties.

By the time we get to humans, electrical impulses in the brain seems to be able to take a great many different paths.  The possibilities of this conversation are even more varied.  I doubt that H2 gets bored by endless repetition of movement of electrons; I doubt that flatworms get bored either.  However, we would lose interest in this discussion if new ideas were not introduced.  Boredom and interest are emergent properties in consciousness.

Only a small portion of matter becomes more complex and more conscious, while most remains at lower levels of complexity.  There are still enormous clouds of hydrogen and helium that have been floating since the Big Bang, I think.  There are still huge numbers of prokaryotes who have never found any good reason to develop greater complexity.

Most hydrogen in the universe is just floating about.  A tiny proportion of it has become able to be fascinated by this conversation.  I am grateful that I get to be among that portion.

[Lowell Gustafson]

Thanks Duane.

Are there any differences between black holes or systems of galaxies and a prokaryote cell, and if so, what are they?  Are there any differences between what is seen as the consciousness of the universe and how people think, and again, if so, what are they.  I’m looking for ways of making distinctions.

Best,

Lowell

[Lowell Gustafson]

Thanks for this, Davidson.  What you are saying about empathy, inclusive structure, and the increasing complexity of social nature does seem to me to get at the heart of how to reframe what religion can mean in our time.  

[Author]

Posts