godnotgod
Thou art That
You and me both. Have you tried a muzzle?
I have. But every time I try to fit you with it, you start your incessant barking and thrashing about. What exactly is it you are trying to say?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You and me both. Have you tried a muzzle?
You can call it what you want but my point is that it exists. Frequencies and energies exist.
Einstein was one who first started pointing out that matter is interchangeable with energy. That means everything at it's core is energy.
Right, but energy doesn't exist as some-thing; it flows; it is a process, not a thing perse, that 'exists'. There is no such thing as a wave, for example, or a river, or a whirlpool.
When did I deny the universe can be intelligent? You start to see intelligence emerge in lifeforms but not so much with inanimate objects.
You prefer spirit, non-material. Well 'something' is the only thing I know to talk
Wouldn't the [intelligent] universe include both?
Only if you want to redefine intelligent. Computers pass that test but there is something more.
Reminds me of that theory that it is the result of a sound and everything is a frequency based off it.
Originally Posted by godnotgod
And yet, you cannot do even a miniscule amount of what gravity can do, but you are intelligent.
What does that have to do with the forces not being intelligent.
For that matter, a blade of grass can synthesize its own food without a brain, but you cannot even with a brain, and you are considered intelligent.
You want to compare us to a rock and how intelligent it's gravity is?
Do you deny the universe, which contains and nurtures you, intelligence, while claiming it for yourself?
When did I deny the universe can be intelligent? You start to see intelligence emerge in lifeforms but not so much with inanimate objects. Gravity is a repercussion of matter existing.
Respectfully, godnotgod, what the heck is the above supposed to mean? Gravity is "directed"? Says who? And in what sense are you meaning this?As an intelligent being, for you to do what gravity can do would require quite a bit more intelligence than that of gravity, or of that which directs gravity, since, with the intelligence you now possess, you still don't understand how it's done.
That intelligence has nothing to do with it?But that is already what we do as 'intelligent' beings, do we not? Comparison, in fact, is exactly how we determine that we are intelligent. So if a blade of grass, which has no brain, can synthesize its own food, and you, with a brain, cannot, what does that tell you?
Respectfully, godnotgod, what the heck is the above supposed to mean? Gravity is "directed"? Says who? And in what sense are you meaning this?
That intelligence has nothing to do with it?
I have.
In true Choprian fashion you come across as someone who knows what s/he is taking about, but then you go into your gibberish mode and lose all credibility. What exposes Chopra, and people like him, as a charlatans and woo woo masters is the insistence that mental spoon bending is a trivial example of mind and matter as inseparably one and that it can be understood if one understands non locality and non local correlation and the inseparability of mind and matter as different expressions of consciousness.Your comment seems to imply that a brain is required for intelligence to occur. Is that so?
Like mentioned on this thread before, meaningless babble should not be confused with actually saying something worthwhile.
Then you should probably try tranquilizers, because if you don't find some way to calm yourself down, you're going to give yourself a conniption.
Maybe a bigger hammer will do the trick.
I'm pretty sure your skull is far too thick for any size hammer to make any difference.
Because I think intelligence is a very well-defined thing that the universe does not have?Unless we redefine our notion of what intelligence is, which is what idav has suggested. But my question remains: why is it that you, who consider yourself intelligent, deny intelligence to the universe from which you emerged, and which nurtures your intelligence at every turn?
Because I think intelligence is a very well-defined thing that the universe does not have?
Quote:
As an intelligent being, for you to do what gravity can do would require quite a bit more intelligence than that of gravity, or of that which directs gravity, since, with the intelligence you now possess, you still don't understand how it's done.
But that is already what we do as 'intelligent' beings, do we not? Comparison, in fact, is exactly how we determine that we are intelligent. So if a blade of grass, which has no brain, can synthesize its own food, and you, with a brain, cannot, what does that tell you?
And yet, the 'inanimate' can behave as if it does possess intelligence. In fact, not only intelligence, but creativity and orderliness. When you look up into the night sky, the stars seem to be in exactly the right places without appearing deliberately placed, for example. Humans have a tough time attempting that in art, for example. Human 'intelligence' is responsible for much of the disruption of the natural environment, while nature itself seems to 'know' how to behave so that everything is in well-nigh perfect harmony a harmony that repeats itself cyclically.