A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

Nonsense. You are clearly a new-ager, like your hero, the charlatan Chopra. You misrepresent authentic teachings and muddle them up with pseudo-science.

So now you want to dictate to me who and what I am so you can foist your own Shadow on to me, thereby making yourself appear superior. It's the midget wearing elevated shoes to make himself appear taller than he really is. That is why you continue to follow me around these forums, nipping at my heels like a little chihuahua, a real pest.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, if the universe was conscious wouldn't it have feelings, wouldn't it be trying to meet an end goal or something like that, just like what conscious beings are doing? Nothing in physics says that is how the universe behaves. Personally I think that that theory is just us projecting ourselves onto things which have no business being conscious.

We, as humans, are outgrowths of the Universe, in the same manner that oranges are outgrowths of the orange tree. But there is nothing that says the Universe must have a goal or purpose for its existence other than the sheer joy of its own Being. The end goal of dancing is to dance, not the place where you end up when the music stops. We don't listen to symphonies just for the climax, do we?

You seem to be saying that man's behavior is the model that the Universe should be following, when man should be harmonizing with the flow of the Universe. After all, we are conscious extensions of a conscious Universe, are we not? One of the problems here is the notion that the Universe is some sort of unconscious machine with parts. It is not. It is an organic entity. It evolves and grows, and gives birth to conscious beings.. I think this idea of the universe as a machine comes to us from Judaism, in which the universe is an artefact, a made 'thing', such as a clay pot. We, too, are made things, we as pot, and God as potter. We even refer to animals and men as 'creat-ures' that are only animated via the breath of God. Then science came along and got rid of the Maker, and kept the Laws and the dead artefacts, which only have consciousness when, at some magical point, freak chemical reactions occur at some critical mass, and ta da...Conscious humans emerge! It's just a sleight of hand by science, because consciousness has been present at all times, and is in fact responsible for not just the Big Bang, but for all that followed. And I do mean all.

 

[ArtieE]

A wave is comprised of water. It is, in reality, the ocean itself, which is also water.

A wave is some water molecules behaving in a certain way so that we call them a wave. When those water molecules stop behaving in that way together they stop being a wave. The brain is a collection of molecules behaving together in such a way that they produce consciousness and the brain can think "I am". When the molecules of that brain go their separate ways no more brain that can think "I am". Just like the wave.

 

[ArtieE]

Is there a 'water whirler' called 'whirlpool' that whirls water? No. There is only whirling water, caused by gravity and other factors

Which we call a whirlpool.

beyond what you call 'whirlpool', just as there are factors beyond what you call 'I'

The "I" is a result of the interaction of the molecules in the brain, just like the whirlpool is a result of the interaction of the water molecules in the ocean. Ocean = brain.

 

[godnotgod]

I am not sure f I stated here, or in another thread, but I have said that there are "no consciousness", "no mind", "no ego" and "no emotion" without the brain. And I still think that's true.

Smash the TV set. Are there still TV signals in the air?

What I didn't say is this:

The brain can control the communication, whether it be through any one of the perceptions or senses, or through intuitions.

My problems are not with human communication. So how we communicate and if we are conscious to the "communicating" is not really my point.

I truly don't give crap about your nonlocality communication, because it doesn't address the issue about the consciousness I was talking about.

No, my issue is with your belief is that the universe is "conscious", the so-called "cosmic consciousness". I have no interests in local or nonlocal communication between one person to another, hence I think your YouTube video is rubbish.

I already told you: that video is based on real science which you choose to call rubbish. You are in denial. You asked for evidence, but when I go to the trouble of getting it for you, you deny it and put it into the trash. I provided the link to the science publication. Read it. Open up your mind.

That experiment is just evidence that consciousness is nonlocal, meaning universal in nature. IOW, the consciousness you think is yours alone is the consciousness of the universe, but you don't know that because you are wrapped up in self.

• What I am interested in why you think or believe that the universe is conscious?
  [*]How does the universe be self-aware?
  [*]Do you have evidences that the universe is conscious?

Because you are a conscious outgrowth of the Universe, just as the wave is an outgrowth of the limitless sea. You are, in fact, the universe itself, looking at itself through your eyes.​

The video don't even come close to answering my questions, OR validating your claim about the universe being conscious.

As I said, it is just one piece of evidence that points to a conscious universe, a consciousness that is nonlocal. You cannot deny the validity of the experiment.

To give you an example, you wrote:


Yes, there are "things" that are conscious, like us humans on earth. I don't know if there other life in other planets, but it is quite possible and probable, but let's stick to what we can and explain rather than worry about other planets...but I getting sidetracked here.

And yes, this planet is part of the universe. But just because we are self-aware and conscious, doesn't in any prove your that the universe is also self-aware and conscious.

You make the distinction between yourself and the universe, but that distinction is only in your mind. In reality, where is the distinction; where is the point of separation? There is none. Separation is just an idea in your head. Nothing is separate from anything else. That is why it can be called The Uni-verse.

There are no such 'things' IN the universe; those very 'things' are the Universe itself.

You are making leap with this between our consciousnesses and the universe.

I am leaping not one iota. Consciousness is as close to you as your eyeball. It is not YOUR consciousness. That is your delusion. It is simply consciousness, and it permeates everything, everywhere, all at once. Your ego just attaches to it and thinks it owns it. Does the wave own the water it is made of? No. It is the water of the universal ocean.

ak.yonathan made an apt and very valid point with box-filled-with-apples analogy, doesn't mean the box itself is an apple.

...but apparently you think it does. You seemed to think the apples and box are one and the same, just as you think the universe and consciousness are one and the same. You think the universe is conscious because you are conscious.

No, you and he are just wrong, because the analogy he and you are making is an erroneous one, as both I and ben are pointing out. Yes, the apples are in the box, and no, the apples are not the box. But we are not IN the universe; we are what the Universe is made up of, along with everything else, and are therefore the universe itself. The universe, unlike the box, is not a physical vessel that contains things like apples; it is both the box and the apples together with the space in between them. It is all one event, the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality we call 'The Universe'. Think Big Mind, and get out of that little cramped provincial space you call 'I'.

That's simply you projecting your belief on the universe. That's you thinking all your argument is real and true, but what you really have don't is create your own illusions.

You have not brought a single logic in this thread, just your own delusion of superiority and grandeur...and yet you think the ego "I" as an illusion.

Hate to break to you, godnotgod, but the whole point of Buddhism is letting that ego go, but from what I can see you are as egotistic as they come. You have not close to reaching bodhi, especially when you keep bagging me about sun, garlic and coffin.

I am so sorry to inform you, my dear, but there is no such ego that one can let go, and even if there were, who is it that is letting it go?

Goodnight, sweetie.

'Golden Slumbers fill your eyes;
smiles'l wake you when you rise'

Don't be afraid of The Glorious Sun.

Let the Sun shine in.

 

[godnotgod]

Which we call a whirlpool.

Yes, but it's not actually a thing that is a whirlpool. In reality, it is only whirling water. You are mistaking an action for a thing.

The "I" is a result of the interaction of the molecules in the brain, just like the whirlpool is a result of the interaction of the water molecules in the ocean. Ocean = brain.

But there is no such 'I', just as there is no such 'whirlpool'. It's just a concoction; pure poppycock; a willow the wisp; a self created principle; a frozen concept we only CALL 'I'. See?

 

[ArtieE]

http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Grinberg1994.pdf

It was interesting but I must have missed something,,, where does it say consciousness isn't a product of the brain or exists outside the brain?

 

[godnotgod]

A wave is some water molecules behaving in a certain way so that we call them a wave. When those water molecules stop behaving in that way together they stop being a wave. The brain is a collection of molecules behaving together in such a way that they produce consciousness and the brain can think "I am". When the molecules of that brain go their separate ways no more brain that can think "I am". Just like the wave.

Erroneously conceived analogy.

While both wave and ocean are water, and ocean does not BECOME or CREATE wave, as both at all times are water, it is not the same as molecules in their relation to consciousness, because you are saying that molecules BECOME or CREATE consciousness. You then make the further leap to say that this chemically created consciousness then begins to think. Not only does it think, but it now has evolved a sense of self. So your analogy not only fails, but is a superstructure built on flimsy foundations.. Come now, think about it. Why would nature create such an awkward concoction, when the simplicity is that consciousness does not need to be created at all. It just is. It does not need to become, because it already IS what it is, and what it is does not change. IOW, the nature of consciousness is that it is uncreated, unconditioned, and changeless. All that is created, conditioned, and changing is pure illusion.

 

[ArtieE]

Nothingness being Pure Consciousness

Which of course is logically impossible. If you have nothing you haven't got consciousness either.

 

[godnotgod]

It was interesting but I must have missed something,,, where does it say consciousness isn't a product of the brain or exists outside the brain?

The experiment proves that the brain is capable of non-local signal-less communication. The two subjects were first conditioned, then separated. Subject A's brain was subjected to stimuli to which Subject B's brain responded, in a manner similar to Alain Aspect's experiment with entangled photons which, when separated miles apart acted as if they were connected.

If you don't understand the document, then watch the video:

 

[godnotgod]

Which of course is logically impossible. If you have nothing you haven't got consciousness either.

Consciousness is not a material 'thing'. It is No-thing. It is the invisible silent world.

 

[ArtieE]

I am simply saying that the Universe is conscious. If anything, I am merely an extension of the conscious Universe, just as the wave is an extension of the vast sea.

Your analogy doesn't work since the vast sea isn't one huge wave and one wave isn't a single extension of that one huge wave. One wave is just a localized phenomena in a vast sea without waves. Just like your consciousness is a localized phenomena caused by a brain in a vast sea of non-consciousness.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, but it's not actually a thing that is a whirlpool. In reality, it is only whirling water. You are mistaking an action for a thing.

Never said a whirlpool was a thing. It's what we call whirling water.

But there is no such 'I', just as there is no such 'whirlpool'. It's just a concoction; pure poppycock; a willow the wisp; a self created principle; a frozen concept we only CALL 'I'. See?

It is a product of the interactions of the molecules in this brain. Never said otherwise. The "I" exists as a product of interactions of the molecules in the brain just like the whirlpool exists as a product of the interactions of the molecules in the ocean. Never said otherwise.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Maybe your world is dominated by Newtonian mechanics, but not mine. Your statement is totally ridiculous. I am free, thanks to Zen.

Utter nonsense. You are chained by your deep attachment to new-age dogma.

The Zen approach is diametrically opposed to your convoluted metaphysical belief system, which is a sort of pseudo-Hinduism, inspired by your hero, the charlatan Chopra.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So now you want to dictate to me who and what I am so you can foist your own Shadow on to me, thereby making yourself appear superior. It's the midget wearing elevated shoes to make himself appear taller than he really is. That is why you continue to follow me around these forums, nipping at my heels like a little chihuahua, a real pest.

What you don't understand is that attacking and insulting people who challenge your new-age dogma just makes you look even more foolish and egocentric.

If you would stop preaching and start listening you might learn something here, but I am not holding my breath on that happening.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The dictionary definition of antrhopomorphism is:
the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.

I am not doing that. I am simply saying that the Universe is conscious. If anything, I am merely an extension of the conscious Universe, just as the wave is an extension of the vast sea.

Consciousness is a human attribute which you are projecting onto the universe, and this is a clear example of anthropomorphism . Your knee-jerk denial of this observation is very revealing.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that the universe is conscious, it is just a Chopra-inspired new-age belief, and one to which you have obviously become very attached. "Cosmic Consciousness" has clearly become your Precious....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

HAL, your mind is slipping.

Again you respond with sarcasm when your new-age dogma is challenged. Typical.

Clearly you are not responding to my observation because you know it is accurate. Consciousness having no inherent existence ( sunyata ) contradicts your new-age beliefs like "Cosmic Consciousness" and the big bang being an "event in consciousness".

I'm not sure whether you are deliberately misrepresenting sunyata or just clueless about what it means, but in any case it contradicts the new-age beliefs you are so attached to.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Your mind is a muddle, so that's how you see the world. You cannot see that the 'world' of Newtonian physics and that of Quantum physics is one and the same world. There are not two worlds. You still live in duality. Get out.

New-age rhetoric. I am talking about what we actually experience and are conscious of. We see trees, not quarks. We experience an electric shock, we don't see a flow of electrons. And if we drop a brick on our foot it hurts.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That is why you continue to follow me around these forums, nipping at my heels like a little chihuahua, a real pest.

Your arrogance and egocentricity know no bounds. You repeatedly hijack threads to preach your new-age dogma, and then you attack and insult people who challenge your bizarre pronouncements. You are clearly on an attention-seeking ego-trip, but you are so far up yourself that you don't even realise it.

Somebody as egocentric as yourself preaching about the ego being illusory is the height of irony. It is laughable.

 

[ArtieE]

The experiment proves that the brain is capable of non-local signal-less communication.

So what?! I have never said such communication wasn't possible between brains! This has nothing to do with the universe being conscious!