Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Rick O'Shez]

But I don't think that is the analogy It is seen as a small room with lights that fill all the room and therefore become one.

But that would suggest that cosmic consciousness illuminates the universe, rather than being intrinsic to it.

 

[savagewind]

'Interact' is the key word here. They interact to create one light.

If you were in a darkened room with your back turned to the door, and x number of people walked in with lighted lanterns, how many lights do you see?

The light would change in intensity as they walk in so you would KNOW there are more lights than one.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't know why I am even going to argue this, but if it was a big room, and the light were spots, it could be seen as ten separate lights I'm sure. But I don't think that is the analogy It is seen as a small room with lights that fill all the room and therefore become one. It is like the waves on the ocean which are part of the one ocean. I think it is a good analogy showing One Consciousness.

No, Robert, it's a lousy analogy. If you have 10 dim wits in a room, does their collective intelligence add up to brightness/intelligence? (Not likely, as you began with 10 dim wits.) That said, dim bulbs, in contrast to utter darkness, might think themselves to be quite bright, but alas, they are still dim bulbs.


Oddly, I'd expect people who have tapped into the this amazing Universal awareness to be able to make far better analogies and arguments.

 

[Midnight Rain]

'Interact' is the key word here. They interact to create one light.

If you were in a darkened room with your back turned to the door, and x number of people walked in with lighted lanterns, how many lights do you see?

Interaction does not mean one single light. In fat they are a mesh of countless single rays of lights in actuality. Sourced from 10 lights. I would be able to independently see 10 different lights with my back turned simply by looking at my shadow.

 

[YmirGF]

Interaction does not mean one single light. In fat they are a mesh of countless single rays of lights in actuality. Sourced from 10 lights. I would be able to independently see 10 different lights with my back turned simply by looking at my shadow.

There, there. Don't confuse the poor child with facts. It's supposedly a great analogy.

It's like watching someone flogging a dead horse with the thin hope that each successive flog will finally reanimate the corpse.

 

[YmirGF]

Still waiting for godnotgod to give his first hand accounts of so-called "cosmic" consciousness, that isn't really cosmic, but why ruin a good meme with facts.

 

[godnotgod]

No, Robert, it's a lousy analogy. If you have 10 dim wits in a room, does their collective intelligence add up to brightness/intelligence? (Not likely, as you began with 10 dim wits.) That said, dim bulbs, in contrast to utter darkness, might think themselves to be quite bright, but alas, they are still dim bulbs.


Oddly, I'd expect people who have tapped into the this amazing Universal awareness to be able to make far better analogies and arguments.

Only a dim wit would make this kind of argument because he can't immediately see the simplicity of the analogy, and wants to make more of it than he should.

 

[godnotgod]

Still waiting for godnotgod to give his first hand accounts of so-called "cosmic" consciousness, that isn't really cosmic, but why ruin a good meme with facts.

Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor.

 

[YmirGF]

Only a dim wit would make this kind of argument because he can't immediately see the simplicity of the analogy, and wants to make more of it than he should.

Surely your tapping into this legendary Universal Consciousness should precipitate better analogies than this half-baked drivel.

 

[YmirGF]

Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor.

That you, Captain Cliche.

 

[godnotgod]

Interaction does not mean one single light. In fat they are a mesh of countless single rays of lights in actuality. Sourced from 10 lights. I would be able to independently see 10 different lights with my back turned simply by looking at my shadow.

You must be SuperWoman.

Now what if I bring in one lantern with 100 LED's? Now how many lights are there? And is each photon also a single light?

 

[YmirGF]

So, are you going to tell us about your first hand view of the moon or are you content with simply barking at said moon.

 

[godnotgod]

Surely your tapping into this legendary Universal Consciousness should precipitate better analogies than this half-baked drivel.

In the case of the Fake Bodhisattva, I can't for the life of me come up with a single alternative.

 

[godnotgod]

So, are you going to tell us about your first hand view of the moon or are you content with simply barking at said moon.

You've been regurgitating this drivel since Day One. Is it Joy you get from such anal repetition? Is that your tail wagging? To date, I have not complied with your request. Haven't you gotten the message by now?

 

[godnotgod]

That you, Captain Cliche.

You're very welcome, Fake Bodhisattva!

 

[Midnight Rain]

You must be SuperWoman.

****! I thought that not wearing a mask would work as a disguise....

Now what if I bring in one lantern with 100 LED's? Now how many lights are there? And is each photon also a single light?

The fact that I told you that there are rays of light and that there are sources of light makes this a bad analogy. Light is energy which is not matter and therefore doesn't have a definite shape or form. So we can analyze the waves, photons or rays of light ad infinitum or we can look at the source of any particular light. Unless you are simply saying that all light is still light therefore there is one "light" or one substance that is "light" then I don't see where you are going with this.

The source of the light is what was the defining problem and I feel this analogy has become so stretched and warped that now we are simply fighting over the analogy rather than the actual argument.

 

[godnotgod]

There, there. Don't confuse the poor child with facts. It's supposedly a great analogy.

It's like watching someone flogging a dead horse with the thin hope that each successive flog will finally reanimate the corpse.

In your case, it seems to have worked. No one would ever guess you to be just an overinflated ego dragging around a dead corpse. Clever!

 

[godnotgod]

****! I thought that not wearing a mask would work as a disguise....
The fact that I told you that there are rays of light and that there are sources of light makes this a bad analogy. Light is energy which is not matter and therefore doesn't have a definite shape or form. So we can analyze the waves, photons or rays of light ad infinitum or we can look at the source of any particular light. Unless you are simply saying that all light is still light therefore there is one "light" or one substance that is "light" then I don't see where you are going with this.

The source of the light is what was the defining problem and I feel this analogy has become so stretched and warped that now we are simply fighting over the analogy rather than the actual argument.

You see what happens when the rational mind over-analyzes what it sees? If you didn't get it on the first shot, you probably never will. You're making much too much of it. Just cut to the chase, OK?

 

[godnotgod]

So, are you going to tell us about your first hand view of the moon or are you content with simply barking at said moon.

Look! The Moon!

 

[godnotgod]

Interaction does not mean one single light. In fat they are a mesh of countless single rays of lights in actuality. Sourced from 10 lights. I would be able to independently see 10 different lights with my back turned simply by looking at my shadow.

The Sun is radiating countless rays of light, but we see only one light. Even better, countless stars are emanating light, but we see such starlight as one light on Earth.