Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Robert.Evans]

It's a mentally derived value superimposed over nature. In reality, there is no such thing as 'physicalness', or 'non-physicalness', in nature. They're just mental concepts.

“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.”
― Albert Einstein




What!? 'defined portion'? LOL. Did you invent that phrase yourself? Now tell me: who is it that is defining 'I' as a 'defined portion'?




It doesn't. But there is no such 'I' that is conscious, just as there is no individual wave that is not ocean water. The wave is the ocean itself. You, without the self-definition called 'I', is the universe itself. Both are pure consciousness being manifested as' universe' and 'Midnight Rain'.



Underneath all distinct forms is a universal energy-consciousness that is manifesting all forms. Only the universal energy-consciousness is real; the manifested forms are void of abiding substance except for the manifesting consciousness, which self-sculpts into the illusory 'I'. IOW, all form is empty; all emptiness is form. The differences you mention are only superficial. Both ocean wave-form and formless ocean itself are made of the same substance: water.

That is good.
It reminds me of atoms and there being no literal matter, even though we percieve it. That is massive !! is it not?
Have you heard of Donald Hoffman. I think that is his name. He says that everything we see is like an icon on a screen, and each icon is individual. There is no public icon. What is public is what we can't see which is what the icon expands from.
Thus reality that we see is our own.

 

[Midnight Rain]

It's a mentally derived value superimposed over nature. In reality, there is no such thing as 'physicalness', or 'non-physicalness', in nature. They're just mental concepts.

“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.”
― Albert Einstein

It depends on what you mean. If I had claimed that something was physical and that was in some way totally different in substance from energy then yes. But as of yet I don't see how this contradicts what I have said.

What!? 'defined portion'? LOL. Did you invent that phrase yourself? Now tell me: who is it that is defining 'I' as a 'defined portion'?

What distinction can you make that you are not a chair?

It doesn't. But there is no such 'I' that is conscious, just as there is no individual wave that is not ocean water. The wave is the ocean itself. You, without the self-definition called 'I', is the universe itself. Both are pure consciousness being manifested as' universe' and 'Midnight Rain'.

But the wave acts a certain way that is not the same across the ocean. That wave has wave energy. When it crashes and dissipates then that energy called a "wave" will be no more. The water itself is part of a whole but it would not be accurate to call the whole ocean a wave.

Underneath all distinct forms is a universal energy-consciousness that is manifesting all forms. Only the universal energy-consciousness is real; the manifested forms are void of abiding substance except for the manifesting consciousness, which self-sculpts into the illusory 'I'. IOW, all form is empty; all emptiness is form. The differences you mention are only superficial. Both ocean wave-form and formless ocean itself are made of the same substance: water.

I get that you say that but I don't get how you have come to that conclusion. Simply knowing that you and I are part of a larger universe doesn't inherently mean that it is a universal consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

I exist as a defined portion of the universe. It doesn't mean that I am not part of a whole. It also doesn't mean the fact that "I" am conscious would translate to universal consciousness. No more than the temperature of my body is a universal quality of some universal temperature.

So I still don't get what you mean here about saying "I" do not exist. "I" in the larger sense am one with the universe but I still understand that I am distinctly different than something else. I am a system of energy following guidelines that has sentience. Sort of like a slinky falling down the steps.

According to you, you exhibit 'physicalness', or 'materiality', and yet, are in possession of non-physical consciousness. Show me two things: How the material brain both creates and then contains non-material consciousness. And if it contains it, show me where consciousness leaves off and the non-conscious world begins.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It reminds me of atoms and there being no literal matter, even though we percieve it.

Have you tried dropping a brick on your foot lately?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Show me two things:

We're still waiting for you to tell us about your personal experience of cosmic consciousness. Until you do that your pronouncements here are just empty words, a smoke screen.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Pure comedy, I must admit.

What a nasty sense of humour you have.

 

[godnotgod]

It depends on what you mean. If I had claimed that something was physical and that was in some way totally different in substance from energy then yes. But as of yet I don't see how this contradicts what I have said.

The physical-ness of things is only apparent. It doesn't actually exist in reality. It is an apparent reality according to perceptual reality, but not to Ultimate Reality, which is pure consciousness.

What distinction can you make that you are not a chair?

There is no chair, though what we call 'chair' and 'human' are both manifested by universal energy-consciousness. It is that universal energy-consciousness which we actually are. Now, can you answer the question: who is it that is defining 'I' as a 'defined portion'?

But the wave acts a certain way that is not the same across the ocean. That wave has wave energy. When it crashes and dissipates then that energy called a "wave" will be no more. The water itself is part of a whole but it would not be accurate to call the whole ocean a wave.

'Wave' is something the ocean is doing, just as you are something the whole universe is doing. The whole ocean is not a wave, but the wave is the whole ocean. Both are water. Look beyond the form. There is no part of you that is not 'universe', even your consciousness. Because of the illusory 'I', we only think ourselves to be a separate observer. There is no such thing. You yourself are the universe, looking at itself through your eyes. But to realize this, 'I' must first be seen and understood for its illusory quality.

I get that you say that but I don't get how you have come to that conclusion. Simply knowing that you and I are part of a larger universe doesn't inherently mean that it is a universal consciousness.

The universe is not composed of 'parts'. What you think of as 'parts', are empty forms, behind which is only a singular seamless Reality that is pure consciousness. Just get 'I' out of the way for a while and then you'll see it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is no chair, though what we call 'chair' and 'human' are both manifested by universal energy-consciousness.

Prove it. Or at very least explain it clearly and make a coherent case for it. Explain how a "chair" has conciousness - have you felt it? Explain what "universal energy-consciousness" is. It seems like a new term you have introduced, so have you moved the goalposts again, or is this really the same as "cosmic consciousness" and "universal consciousness", and if so why have you now added "energy"? Please explain how energy is different from consciousness.

Even better, just tell us about your personal experience of cosmic consciousness.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Here's who we should be listening to...

 

[godnotgod]

No. What gives us the mass is the energy created by the fluctuations of the particles popping in and out of existence. It is still energy but is explaining how energy and mass are the same thing. It still adds up to E=MC^2.

Yes, of course, but in reality, there is no mass; only the appearance of mass, which is really energy. Hence the article pointing to 'matter' as being virtual, rather than actual, all of which ultimately points to a universe that is an illusion. IOW:

'The universe is the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'
Vivekenada

 

[Midnight Rain]

According to you, you exhibit 'physicalness', or 'materiality', and yet, are in possession of non-physical consciousness. Show me two things: How the material brain both creates and then contains non-material consciousness. And if it contains it, show me where consciousness leaves off and the non-conscious world begins.

We are conscious and for what reason I don't know. We are all able to "observe" the universe around us on the atomic level (even smaller I dare say) but we do not have intelligence that is able to discern what it means. The complex brain we have is made of atoms that are able to observe other atoms and through specialized cells convert it into useful information. That is sentience.

In a way our brain is always conscious till it does.

The physical-ness of things is only apparent. It doesn't actually exist in reality. It is an apparent reality according to perceptual reality, but not to Ultimate Reality, which is pure consciousness.

It exists as much as the energy does. It very much exists. Its not simply an illusion but a property.

There is no chair, though what we call 'chair' and 'human' are both manifested by universal energy-consciousness. It is that universal energy-consciousness which we actually are. Now, can you answer the question:

who is it that is defining 'I' as a 'defined portion'?

So do you exist? Because if you don't exist and I don't exist then how are we arguing? My sentience is not an illusion (or maybe it is dun dun duuun) but not in the way you are talking about.

I am a defined portion because I am an entity that is able to be defined. I can pick up a single rock on the side of the road and see that it is not some continuous solution called the "road". Our sun is separate from our planet but we all make up the solar system. Our solar system is separate from other solar systems but we all make up the galaxy. So on and so forth. I can define myself because I display different properties than other things around me. I have sentience enough to see and understand what is around me and understand that I am both part of the universe but not necessarily part of everything else.

'Wave' is something the ocean is doing, just as you are something the whole universe is doing. The whole ocean is not a wave, but the wave is the whole ocean. Both are water. Look beyond the form. There is no part of you that is not 'universe', even your consciousness. Because of the illusory 'I', we only think ourselves to be a separate observer. There is no such thing. You yourself are the universe, looking at itself through your eyes. But to realize this, 'I' must first be seen and understood for its illusory quality.

You are missing the point. The wave is not an illusion. It can be defined as something functional. It is made of the water and in the picture of the whole is part of the ocean. But it does not mean that waves cannot be defined. For example there can be multiple waves. They are all part of the ocean but they are not the wave. And to be fair the ocean is the medium in which the wave is transferred. It isn't something that the ocean "does".

The universe is not composed of 'parts'. What you think of as 'parts', are empty forms, behind which is only a singular seamless Reality that is pure consciousness. Just get 'I' out of the way for a while and then you'll see it.

The universe is very much composed of parts.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Yes, of course, but in reality, there is no mass; only the appearance of mass, which is really energy. Hence the article pointing to 'matter' as being virtual, rather than actual, all of which ultimately points to a universe that is an illusion. IOW:

'The universe is the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'
Vivekenada

So long as there is the appearance of mass it means there is mass. Mass is having defined shape with other qualities that I can get into if your interested. Mass does exist. Its just not what we thought it was 100 years ago.

 

[metis]

I agree with HHDL. The factual knowledge derived via modern science is far superior to how man thought of the world long ago. But what men who went beyond factual knowledge saw then compared to today is the same. Why should the nature of Reality change just because situations change and evolve?

Because no one is omniscient.

 

[metis]

We're still waiting for you [godnotgod] to tell us about your personal experience of cosmic consciousness. Until you do that your pronouncements here are just empty words, a smoke screen.

After repeated requests for explanation, we all should note that he refuses to address it, which should tell us something. Logically, there is simply no way that anyone could experience "cosmic consciousness".

 

[godnotgod]

So long as there is the appearance of mass it means there is mass. Mass is having defined shape with other qualities that I can get into if your interested. Mass does exist. Its just not what we thought it was 100 years ago.

The appearance of something is not that something. Again, why do you think the experiments are referring to 'matter' as being virtual?

 

[godnotgod]

Because no one is omniscient.

The nature of Reality is independent of our being omniscient.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Again, why do you think the experiments are referring to 'matter' as being virtual?

It wasn't "experiments", it was how one scientist described it in a very old magazine article. If you really believe matter is "virtual" then try dropping a brick on your foot and see how virtual the pain feels.

You still haven't explained how any of this relates to cosmic consciousness by the way.

 

[godnotgod]

You are missing the point. The wave is not an illusion. It can be defined as something functional. It is made of the water and in the picture of the whole is part of the ocean. But it does not mean that waves cannot be defined. For example there can be multiple waves. They are all part of the ocean but they are not the wave. And to be fair the ocean is the medium in which the wave is transferred. It isn't something that the ocean "does".

But wave and ocean are not two distinct things; they are inseparable. Since wave cannot exist without ocean, the ocean must be doing 'wave'. On top of that, there is no such thing as a 'wave'. 'Wave' is just energy-form. It does not exist as a static thing. For it to be a wave, it must always be 'waving'. IOW, 'wave' is not a thing, but an action, and therefore, an illusion, just as 'I' is an illusion.

There is no whirlpool that whirls.

There is no river that flows.

There is no 'it' that rains.

No thinker of thoughts.

No experiencer of the experience.

There is only this present consciousness, without an agent of consciousness called 'I'.

 

[Midnight Rain]

The appearance of something is not that something. Again, why do you think the experiments are referring to 'matter' as being virtual?

I don't think you are grasping what "matter" is. Matter is defined as particles that have the qualities of matter. It means they are subject to things like Newtonian laws of physics. They cannot move the speed of light. They can hold defined positions. They have defined shapes. Ect.

The fact that "matter" may be on the smallest of levels is irrelevant.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

wave' is not a thing, but an action, and therefore, an illusion, just as 'I' is an illusion.

No, "wave" is the label we give to the perception of water in motion. "I" is the label we give to the perception of thoughts in motion.
Go and sit by the sea for half an hour and really look at some waves. Drop all this theorising and really experience the present. Then you will see.