Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[YmirGF]

In my way of thinking the whole universe is intelligence, we are all born intelligent, and then we are all made dump by society, to become intelligent again we need to drop all that society has thrown on us, this includes, religion, what parents taught us, what education has taught us, and what culture has given us. To see a true intelligent person we need to see one that hasn't been conditioned, such as small children, and natives who live naturally .

This strikes me as a fairly extreme view and one that is intellectually barren.

 

[godnotgod]

This strikes me as a fairly extreme view and one that is intellectually barren.

True intelligence is in place before thinking; before the conditioned mind. It is our natural mind. Conditioned mind is the extreme view in that it alters the way the naturally intelligent mind sees reality to make it fit the concepts about reality it has acquired during the lifetime of the individual.

 

[YmirGF]

True intelligence is in place before thinking; before the conditioned mind. It is our natural mind. Conditioned mind is the extreme view in that it alters the way the naturally intelligent mind sees reality to make it fit the concepts about reality it has acquired during the lifetime of the individual.

It's fun inventing things as you go, isn't it?

 

[godnotgod]

It's fun inventing things as you go, isn't it?

So what are you trying to say? That intelligence is acquired via social conditioning?

 

[YmirGF]

So what are you trying to say? That intelligence is acquired via social conditioning?

I don't really buy into the whole "social conditioning" shtick, sorry.

To me, intelligence is the ability to solve complex problems creatively. I will agree that some will be inherently better than others at this, but it is something that can be honed over time and theoretically anyone can learn to utilize their intelligence more effectively. There is no need to go out of one's mind to utilize ones inherent intelligence (pun intended).


From my standpoint, you have a very narrow view of the ramifications of "mind", hence you feel a need to go beyond it.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't really buy into the whole "social conditioning" shtick, sorry.

.

I see. So you agree that intelligence is already in place before social learning.

'shtick'? Now you're sounding like Spiny with his knee jerk responses about 'new age', both of which, I might add, are conditioned responses of the thinking mind. You don't buy into 'social conditioning', because the very mind that is conditioned refuses to admit that it is. Not to worry. It's typical behavior called 'denial'.

 

[godnotgod]

From my standpoint, you have a very narrow view of the ramifications of "mind", hence you feel a need to go beyond it.

You see it that way because you fail to understand what is meant by 'beyond mind'. There is no need to go beyond anything; that was never the point. But having said that, Ultimate Reality lies beyond the rational mind. Just the way it is.

Mind itself is a narrow view by definition. It is the attempt to conceptualize reality, which is non-conceptual by nature. Not saying it isn't useful as a tool for navigation, technology, etc., but it is extremely limited when it comes to understanding the true nature of reality.

 

[godnotgod]

To me, intelligence is the ability to solve complex problems creatively. I will agree that some will be inherently better than others at this, but it is something that can be honed over time and theoretically anyone can learn to utilize their intelligence more effectively. There is no need to go out of one's mind to utilize ones inherent intelligence (pun intended).

Did you not get psychoslices's point about intelligence not being the intellect?:

'There is nothing dead in the universe, its just our perception, the whole universe is one intelligence, and everything is one, if we see the world in a duality, then we will not truly see the intelligence, and also intelligence isn't knowledge or intellect.'

 

[YmirGF]

Did you not get psychoslices's point about intelligence not being the intellect?:

'There is nothing dead in the universe, its just our perception, the whole universe is one intelligence, and everything is one, if we see the world in a duality, then we will not truly see the intelligence, and also intelligence isn't knowledge or intellect.'

Of course I understood what he was saying, I just consider it to be a somewhat vapid opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course I understood what he was saying, I just consider it to be a somewhat vapid opinion.

LOL, if you truly understood what he was saying, you wouldn't be calling it 'vapid' or 'extreme'.

So what makes you say that?

 

[YmirGF]

LOL, if you truly understood what he was saying, you wouldn't be calling it 'vapid' or 'extreme'.

So what makes you say that?

Not quite correct, GnG, as usual. What is boggling to me is that somehow disagreeing with given positions, say yours and his, equates with not understanding said positions. There is an unsaid arrogance in the idea, as if the idea itself cannot possibly be wrong and if you see anything wrong the error lies in your thinking, as there is no possibility that the original idea is faulty. To me, that's as juvenile as insisting that the universe is intelligent.

 

[Looncall]

There is nothing dead in the universe, its just our perception, the whole universe is one intelligence, and everything is one, if we see the world in a duality, then we will not truly see the intelligence, and also intelligence isn't knowledge or intellect.

Evidence, please.

 

[godnotgod]

Not quite correct, GnG, as usual. What is boggling to me is that somehow disagreeing with given positions, say yours and his, equates with not understanding said positions. There is an unsaid arrogance in the idea, as if the idea itself cannot possibly be wrong and if you see anything wrong the error lies in your thinking, as there is no possibility that the original idea is faulty. To me, that's as juvenile as insisting that the universe is intelligent.

I never said anything about right or wrong. You said you 'understood' psychoslice's statement that
'intelligence isn't knowledge or intellect.', and then you labeled it extreme, vapid, barren. How is that understanding? I asked you what you meant, and then you protest about agreement/disagreement. Why can't you simply explain why you think the way you do? Labeling statements and then just walking away tells us nothing.

 

[YmirGF]

I never said anything about right or wrong. You said you 'understood' psychoslice's statement that
'intelligence isn't knowledge or intellect.', and then you labeled it extreme, vapid, barren. How is that understanding? I asked you what you meant, and then you protest about agreement/disagreement. Why can't you simply explain why you think the way you do? Labeling statements and then just walking away tells us nothing.

Why can't you explain, in depth, your own experiences? You tell us nothing. Double-standard much?

To answer your question though, to show you how this is done,

'There is nothing dead in the universe, its just our perception, the whole universe is one intelligence, and everything is one, if we see the world in a duality, then we will not truly see the intelligence, and also intelligence isn't knowledge or intellect.'

is simply his own perception, followed by an assertion that is without any meaningful basis and is therefore intellectually bankrupt. In effect, it tells us nothing. It sounds nice though.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course I understood what he was saying, I just consider it to be a somewhat vapid opinion.

How so?

Why can't you explain, in depth, your own experiences? You tell us nothing. Double-standard much?

To answer your question though, to show you how this is done, is simply his own perception, followed by an assertion that is without any meaningful basis and is therefore intellectually bankrupt. In effect, it tells us nothing. It sounds nice though.

Better than that, he's saying that we see Reality through the filter of our perception, which distorts it. What's so difficult to understand? I don't buy your smug 'of course blah blah blah, because it is obvious you DON'T understand.

My own experiences have nothing to do with the discussion. Even if I could explain it step by step in black and white detail, what benefit would that be to anyone? It's not my experience that is of any import; it's the reader's understanding that is.

If the statement is meaningless and without basis, then just say so, instead of pretending you 'understand'. But then please do go on and tell us WHY you think it is meaningless and without basis. Don't just assume we should accept your dismissal as authoritative. At least I don't.

You don't seem to be getting the difference between conditioned view and unconditioned view. To say that the dead universe view is perception is from the standpoint of unconditioned view. He explained that. Now don't go and tell me you 'understand'. I don't believe you.

 

[YmirGF]

You don't seem to be getting the difference between conditioned view and unconditioned view. To say that the dead universe view is perception is from the standpoint of unconditioned view. He explained that. Now don't go and tell me you 'understand'. I don't believe you.

So.... now you want me to explain things in terms I don't accept as being valid? Seriously?
To me, this supposedly "unconditioned view" is largely self-flattery and little more than pretentiousness run amok.

 

[godnotgod]

So.... now you want me to explain things in terms I don't accept as being valid? Seriously?
To me, this supposedly "unconditioned view" is largely self-flattery and little more than pretentiousness run amok.

You're the one who claims to 'understand'. If that is the case, why all the fuss? You say 'I understand' and then you say 'I don't accept it as valid'. How can you claim to understand if you don't accept his statement as valid? What you're really saying is 'I don't understand so I don't accept it as valid, and here's my POV', but your POV has nothing to do with the original content.

 

[Thief]

You're the one who claims to 'understand'. If that is the case, why all the fuss? You say 'I understand' and then you say 'I don't accept it as valid'. How can you claim to understand if you don't accept his statement as valid? What you're really saying is 'I don't understand so I don't accept it as valid, and here's my POV', but your POV has nothing to do with the original content.

Bang your head on the wall til it bleeds.....then YOU will understand.

oh that's right ....YOU don't exist.

I understand.

 

[psychoslice]

This strikes me as a fairly extreme view and one that is intellectually barren.

Only because you cannot understand that, but that's Ok, I wont hold that against you.

 

[psychoslice]

Evidence, please.

Its it's own evidence, you are only seeing what you see from a perspective, but this isn't all there is, you have to see the bigger picture to realize this.