<p>If we assume the computationalist point of view <a href="http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/msb.html" rel="nofollow">see e.g. here</a>, then because it's hard to see any nontrivial computations being performed on the local level, you would not think that the galaxy can be a conscious entity in a local sense (i.e. that it generates a consciousness that is experiencing the local environment). But this leaves open the possibility that a consciousness is generated in a non-local sense. E.g. consider ourselves sitting in front of our computers discussing this topic right now here on Stackexchange. </p>

<p>According to the computationalist theory of mind, my subjective conscious experience would be unaffected if my brain were replaced by any other machine that runs the same software. Now, whatever is going on in my brain today is only affected by the things that were going on yesterday but in a sphere with a radius of one light day. So, if you consider that sphere and apply the time evolution operator one second forward, then this is the same as running my brain as it is today one second forward, up to applying the fixed time evolution operator that maps the state of the universe one day forward.</p>

<p>This means that my consciousness right now could be argued to have existed already yesterday, albeit in a non-local form which simply experiences the World as it is now and not the local state of yesterday. By this same logic, you could argue that if the galaxy later would give rise to conscious organisms, then these conscious experiences already exist, albeit that they are subjectively experiencing the future. However, this is then not simply due to the gravity between the stars but also all the relevant physics that needs to be invoked to calculate how these organisms would arise from the initial state.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-05T17:14:36.827Z
2014-10-05T18:44:07.680Z
2014-10-05T18:44:07.680Z
Count Iblis
<p>This looks like it's going to be a "No, it's not possible, because . . ." answer, but hopefully it answers your question. Your proposal is that the Milky Way is a brain, and that the stars are like neurons, correct? I'm not a biologist or neuroscientist, but I <em>do</em> know one characteristic of neurons that helps them do their job: They rely on chemical and electrical impulses.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron" rel="nofollow">Neurons</a> work by transmitting electrical signals along pathways called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse" rel="nofollow">synapses</a>. These signals can be either (nearly) continuous or in regular or irregular "pulses" - i.e. the strength of the signal goes up, down, or disappears. The point here, though, is that signals between neurons are generally not continuous. The gravitational force between two stars, on the other hand, is generally the same, barring a catastrophic event. In other words, the gravitational "signals" from stars don't function like those from neurons.</p>

<p>There are other differences between stars and neurons, too. One is that neurons cannot regrow in significant quantities, whereas <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation" rel="nofollow">stars are forming all the time</a>. Generally in an organism, the neurons in a brain are of similar ages; this is clearly not the case for stars. Another difference is that neural networks are relatively fixed, whereas stars are constantly moving around.</p>

<p>I'll conclude by repeating what I mentioned in a comment, which is that the idea that the universe is a living organism has been around for some time. Another idea is that the universe is actually a giant computer (or just <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy" rel="nofollow">Earth</a>, if you're a sci-fi fan). The problem is that while most people would disagree with these large-scale hypotheses, we may never know for sure if they are right or wrong.</p>

<p>I hope this helps.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-05T17:34:26.187Z
2014-10-05T17:34:26.187Z
HDE 226868
<p>The number of neurons in the human brain is equated with the number of stars in the Milky Way. Could the Milky Way act as a consciousness of its own, with the gravitational strength between the stars acting as weights of the network?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-05T15:44:19.113Z
Directed at the question - definitely not. Interesting, yes, but not plausible.
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-05T15:47:34.410Z
This question appears to be off-topic because it is highly speculative.
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-05T16:07:27.877Z
By the way, the idea *has* been proposed, although on a universal scale.
HDE 226868
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-10-05T19:35:14.893Z
It would be a bit slow, with multiple years between two average "neuron-stars" signaling each other. It'd be a stupid galaxy :)
LocalFluff
<galaxy><gravity><universe>
Brain vs galaxy
Numberknot
# Brain vs galaxy

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-10-05)

The number of neurons in the human brain is equated with the number of stars in the Milky Way. Could the Milky Way act as a consciousness of its own, with the gravitational strength between the stars acting as weights of the network?

**Tags:** galaxy, gravity, universe
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Directed at the question - definitely not. Interesting, yes, but not plausible.  
> **username_1**: This question appears to be off-topic because it is highly speculative.  
> **username_1**: By the way, the idea *has* been proposed, although on a universal scale.  
> **username_2**: It would be a bit slow, with multiple years between two average "neuron-stars" signaling each other. It'd be a stupid galaxy :)  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-10-05. Score: 1

If we assume the computationalist point of view [see e.g. here](http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/msb.html), then because it's hard to see any nontrivial computations being performed on the local level, you would not think that the galaxy can be a conscious entity in a local sense (i.e. that it generates a consciousness that is experiencing the local environment). But this leaves open the possibility that a consciousness is generated in a non-local sense. E.g. consider ourselves sitting in front of our computers discussing this topic right now here on Stackexchange.

According to the computationalist theory of mind, my subjective conscious experience would be unaffected if my brain were replaced by any other machine that runs the same software. Now, whatever is going on in my brain today is only affected by the things that were going on yesterday but in a sphere with a radius of one light day. So, if you consider that sphere and apply the time evolution operator one second forward, then this is the same as running my brain as it is today one second forward, up to applying the fixed time evolution operator that maps the state of the universe one day forward.

This means that my consciousness right now could be argued to have existed already yesterday, albeit in a non-local form which simply experiences the World as it is now and not the local state of yesterday. By this same logic, you could argue that if the galaxy later would give rise to conscious organisms, then these conscious experiences already exist, albeit that they are subjectively experiencing the future. However, this is then not simply due to the gravity between the stars but also all the relevant physics that needs to be invoked to calculate how these organisms would arise from the initial state.


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-10-05. Score: 1

This looks like it's going to be a "No, it's not possible, because . . ." answer, but hopefully it answers your question. Your proposal is that the Milky Way is a brain, and that the stars are like neurons, correct? I'm not a biologist or neuroscientist, but I *do* know one characteristic of neurons that helps them do their job: They rely on chemical and electrical impulses.

[Neurons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron) work by transmitting electrical signals along pathways called [synapses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse). These signals can be either (nearly) continuous or in regular or irregular "pulses" - i.e. the strength of the signal goes up, down, or disappears. The point here, though, is that signals between neurons are generally not continuous. The gravitational force between two stars, on the other hand, is generally the same, barring a catastrophic event. In other words, the gravitational "signals" from stars don't function like those from neurons.

There are other differences between stars and neurons, too. One is that neurons cannot regrow in significant quantities, whereas [stars are forming all the time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation). Generally in an organism, the neurons in a brain are of similar ages; this is clearly not the case for stars. Another difference is that neural networks are relatively fixed, whereas stars are constantly moving around.

I'll conclude by repeating what I mentioned in a comment, which is that the idea that the universe is a living organism has been around for some time. Another idea is that the universe is actually a giant computer (or just [Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy), if you're a sci-fi fan). The problem is that while most people would disagree with these large-scale hypotheses, we may never know for sure if they are right or wrong.

I hope this helps.


---

