Should Humanity claim to posses meaningful and lasting “consciousness” based on trivial and ......?

Question

...... self-proclaimed existential evidence (e.g. “I think, therefore I am.”), while clearly lacking the ability to fundamentally influence the fate of the Universe/Being?

Answer 1

Of course not. That's why we have science.

Answer 2

We can only hope that humanity is unable to fundamentally influence the fate of the Universe/Being. But if we agree that is the case, I don't see why it should discount a claim of "consciousness." Must that level of influence be apparent to make such a claim? If humanity is trivial on a universal scale, then any of our claims must be trivial, as well.

Answer 3

Meaningful is what you think ~

Lasting is a time~

Consciousness~ what you want to think

trivial~ drama

Forget about what you think you know you need to pull a new book of the shelf and get to know what life is all about..

Answer 4

it's not self-proclaimed existential evidence, other animals exist, we perceive them, but they are not conscience of their existence, they do see themselves as existing, and not everything in the universe 'fundamentally' influences it, matter is neither created nor destroyed, our physical bodies and our intelligence (contribution to sciences dedicated to the universe and astronomy) do influence the Universe, we contribute to the endless cycle that has no beginning or end, we don't exist because we think we do, our thoughts are acknowledgement of our existence not cause

Answer 5

But of course, the "i think, therefore I am" is only one view. I'm just happy that humanity, as a whole, has chosen to continue to examine and question their existence.

Answer 6

Consciousness has nothing to do with affecting the universe. It is the awarness of it.