Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Muffled]

You are creating a model of God via your own mental formations.

I beleive that is like saying a person creates a car because his mind perceives it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I beleive that is like saying a person creates a car because his mind perceives it.

But that is sort of what happens. A car designer will have a mental image and then transfer it to the drawing board, subsequently it will be built by a factory and become a real thing.
The difference with God is that it never gets further than the drawing board.

 

[godnotgod]

If your hand does anything at all....it's because you thought you should...or felt like it.

Your next post is proof pending.

Well now we're back to the original question, which you, after pages and pages, have failed to answer: where is this 'I' that thinks the thought? Where is the thinker of thoughts? Where is the river that flows; the whirlpool that whirls? The rainer of the rain?

There is no hand mover; there is only moving hand.

In a real swordfight, if you were to stop to think about your next move, you might end up dead in that nano second. The real warrior cannot afford that luxury. He must be ready to instantly respond at all times. That which moves the hand is not the 'I' which thinks, but consciousness without an 'I' or thought, which just sees.

 

[godnotgod]

I beleive that is like saying a person creates a car because his mind perceives it.

No it is not. You cannot instantly create a car via imagination, but an idea of God, which is not a physical thing like a car, can indeed be instantly created as real, in the mind, and then projected onto an image which the mind also creates as an 'other'. A car is bound by time and space; God is not. So your analogy fails.

 

[YmirGF]

There is no hand mover; there is only moving hand.

That being the case, does that not fly in the face of an intelligent universe?

That which moves the hand is not the 'I' which thinks, but consciousness without an 'I' or thought, which just sees.

That is where I can only give a limp agreement, simply because, from my own experience that larger identity is very much aware of its own being. True, it's sense of self is hard to relate in physical terms, but nevertheless, it still has that inherent sense of self. The seeing/perceiving/creating is what it does. It is action personified.

My other bugaboo is that from the viewpoint of individualized entity, which is a bit of an oxymoron, but what the heck, the universe does seem conscious. My senses tell me that this may well be projection, but even if it is not, the underlying conscious aspect of reality doesn't always equate with intelligence.

For an example, though I am willing to go out on a limb and say the universe is essentially conscious, calling that consciousness intelligent is quite another thing. There is simply no way to discern the understanding of a proton, let alone strike up a conversation with one. To borrow line I read a very long time ago, and I'll have to paraphrase, but it went something like this. "All that is IS conscious, but I'm not suggesting you go up to a nail and say, Hello, as it cannot relate to your existence."

I guess what I am saying is that from all of my experience down the inner rabbit hole of reality, the vast bulk of reality may well be conscious, but is perhaps barely intelligent, to the point of insignificance. Therefore, to say the universe is intelligent is stretching the truth to the point of meaninglessness.

 

[godnotgod]

That being the case, does that not fly in the face of an intelligent universe?

On the contrary, it fits hand in glove. What it does contradict is the notion of an intelligent design-er.

IOW, we have an intelligent universe without an intelligent universe-maker. Please realize that the universe is not a thing; it is an action. Think: 'intelligence in action'. Even more accurately: 'The Changeless, manifesting change via an illusory 'chang-er', what some call 'maya'.

What you do/are is a total action of the universe, in the same manner that a wave is a total action of the ocean. You only think you are the doer. You are not the doer; you are what is happening, now.

 

[YmirGF]

On the contrary, it fits hand in glove. What it does contradict is the notion of an intelligent design-er.

IOW, we have an intelligent universe without an intelligent universe-maker. Please realize that the universe is not a thing; it is an action. Think: 'intelligence in action'. Even more accurately: 'The Changeless, manifesting change via a chang-er', what some call 'maya'.

What you do/are is a total action of the universe, in the same manner that a wave is a total action of the ocean. You only think you are the doer. You are not the doer; you are what is happening, now.

You make us sound like sock-puppets.

 

[Thief]

Well now we're back to the original question, which you, after pages and pages, have failed to answer: where is this 'I' that thinks the thought? Where is the thinker of thoughts? Where is the river that flows; the whirlpool that whirls? The rainer of the rain?

There is no hand mover; there is only moving hand.

In a real swordfight, if you were to stop to think about your next move, you might end up dead in that nano second. The real warrior cannot afford that luxury. He must be ready to instantly respond at all times. That which moves the hand is not the 'I' which thinks, but consciousness without an 'I' or thought, which just sees.

And now we are eating more word salad.

 

[godnotgod]

You make us sound like sock-puppets.

That's a protest from the wave that thinks itself an independent agent apart from the ocean. I will, however, complement you on your excellent bluff.

No sock puppet, but more akin to a master actor playing his part to the absolute hilt.

 

[godnotgod]

And now we are eating more word salad.

You're correct. It is a matter of linguistics. There is no such 'it' that rains. At least admit that much, so a wedge can be driven for a small shaft of light to enter. Otherwise, show us this so called 'I' that thinks.

 

[godnotgod]

That being the case, does that not fly in the face of an intelligent universe?

That is where I can only give a limp agreement, simply because, from my own experience that larger identity is very much aware of its own being. True, it's sense of self is hard to relate in physical terms, but nevertheless, it still has that inherent sense of self. The seeing/perceiving/creating is what it does. It is action personified.

And that personification is an illusion. It is self-created. Take a closer look.

My other bugaboo is that from the viewpoint of individualized entity, which is a bit of an oxymoron, but what the heck, the universe does seem conscious. My senses tell me that this may well be projection, but even if it is not, the underlying conscious aspect of reality doesn't always equate with intelligence.

At least not what your conceptual mind defines as such. As psychoslice intelligently pointed out, the intelligence of the universe is not the intellect we are familiar with as human intellect. That is rational thought, and the universe, while not being irrational, is non-rationally based.

For an example, though I am willing to go out on a limb and say the universe is essentially conscious, calling that consciousness intelligent is quite another thing. There is simply no way to discern the understanding of a proton, let alone strike up a conversation with one. To borrow line I read a very long time ago, and I'll have to paraphrase, but it went something like this. "All that is IS conscious, but I'm not suggesting you go up to a nail and say, Hello, as it cannot relate to your existence."

You may be using the wrong language. You may lack the savvy to communicate with a proton, but from a human intelligence POV, what would it take for you to create a proton? Or what level of intelligence would one require to create and set up a chromosomal system in which the genes know how to interact with one another? To know how and where to zip and unzip in the correct manner? You don't have that level of intelligence, but something does that is beyond yours.

I guess what I am saying is that from all of my experience down the inner rabbit hole of reality, the vast bulk of reality may well be conscious, but is perhaps barely intelligent, to the point of insignificance. Therefore, to say the universe is intelligent is stretching the truth to the point of meaninglessness.

Meaningless to you and what your rational mind expects, but maybe you're looking at it in the wrong way, that wrong way being the conditioning to which you have been subjected since birth, which creates a dull overlay onto reality, an overlay which dictates that the universe is simply a dead object of observation to be dissected, analyzed, classified, and stored away on a dusty shelf for future reference. When this conditioned overlay is stripped away, the world is still there, but what one now sees is that what we previously saw as Ordinary and Everyday, is, in fact, none other than the Miraculous itself, there all the time, right under our very noses.

It appears to me that you are still attached to form, and still need to penetrate the facade of form. Tell me: who is it that is looking?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My senses tell me that this may well be projection, but even if it is not, the underlying conscious aspect of reality doesn't always equate with intelligence.

It looks very much like projection to me. I think what we're seeing here is mostly misguided anthropomorphism fuelled by over-active imaginations.

 

[YmirGF]

And that personification is an illusion. It is self-created. Take a closer look.

Then again, you could simply be projecting your narrow understanding of personality onto what I am saying, without comprehending what is said. Perhaps that is because of your own inflexible conditioning.

At least not what your conceptual mind defines as such. As psychoslice intelligently pointed out, the intelligence of the universe is not the intellect we are familiar with as human intellect. That is rational thought, and the universe, while not being irrational, is non-rationally based.

If that is the case I see the insistence on using a common term "intelligence" to be pretty dishonest as you are no longer meaning it in a conventional sense. Perhaps you should coin another word.

You may be using the wrong language. You may lack the savvy to communicate with a proton, but from a human intelligence POV, what would it take for you to create a proton? Or what level of intelligence would one require to create and set up a chromosomal system in which the genes know how to interact with one another? To know how and where to zip and unzip in the correct manner? You don't have that level of intelligence, but something does that is beyond yours.

Oh, for Pete's sake, so now you are rattling on about intelligent designer(s). I could have sworn you were telling Thief a few ramblings back that there was no designer. Oy vey.

Meaningless to you and what your rational mind expects, but maybe you're looking at it in the wrong way, that wrong way being the conditioning to which you have been subjected since birth, which creates a dull overlay onto reality, an overlay which dictates that the universe is simply a dead object of observation to be dissected, analyzed, classified, and stored away on a dusty shelf for future reference. When this conditioned overlay is stripped away, the world is still there, but what one now sees is that what we previously saw as Ordinary and Everyday, is, in fact, none other than the Miraculous itself, there all the time, right under our very noses.

What is so laughable about your diatribe is that you automatically assume that I have not drilled down sufficiently. You have little idea of the type of consciousness I enjoy and have enjoyed for a very long time. Again, up to about 10 years ago, I would have largely agreed with much that you say, but then, I got past that. It was a fairly amusing milestone. If you were wise you might actually ask me about it...

It appears to me that you are still attached to form, and still need to penetrate the facade of form.

Tell me: who is it that is looking?

You may not have the capacity to appreciate my answer. It is a rather loud and triumphant, "I AM!"

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you were wise you might actually ask me about it...

Indeed. For me the only interesting part of this thread has been hearing about peoples' personal experiences, and the way they think about them.

 

[YmirGF]

Indeed. For me the only interesting part of this thread has been hearing about people's personal experiences, and the way they think about them.

I think what got my goat this round was that intelligence isn't the intelligence we are familiar with. If that is the case, then it's time to find a new word to describe the sensation as one has pretty well blown one's theory out of the water.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think what got my goat this round was that intelligence isn't the intelligence we are familiar with. If that is the case, then it's time to find a new word to describe the sensation as one has pretty well blown one's theory out of the water.

I suspect that if the goalposts are moved again the outcome will be the same. I don't think it's a discussion that will ever bear fruit.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread, there's a feeling of pointlessness about it.

 

[Thief]

You're correct. It is a matter of linguistics. There is no such 'it' that rains. At least admit that much, so a wedge can be driven for a small shaft of light to enter. Otherwise, show us this so called 'I' that thinks.

I rather thought....it was a matter of intellect.

oh that's right....you don't exist and you don't have thoughts.

 

[Thief]

I suspect that if the goalposts are moved again the outcome will be the same. I don't think it's a discussion that will ever bear fruit.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread, there's a feeling of pointlessness about it.

Too much salad?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

 

[godnotgod]

Then again, you could simply be projecting your narrow understanding of personality onto what I am saying, without comprehending what is said. Perhaps that is because of your own inflexible conditioning.

No, it is because there is no such self to be found.

You said that:

"The seeing/perceiving/creating is what it does. It is action personified."

...which clearly establishes the existence of a self. How can that be misunderstood? I then said that this self is an illusion. If it is real, then show me where it dwells. And BTW, take note of who or what it is that is looking for the self.

If that is the case I see the insistence on using a common term "intelligence" to be pretty dishonest as you are no longer meaning it in a conventional sense. Perhaps you should coin another word.

Both I and psychoslice previously made clear that the intelligence we are referring to is not that of the common human intellect, which is the intellect of Reason. The intellect of Reason is a personal, conditioned view.

Oh, for Pete's sake, so now you are rattling on about intelligent designer(s). I could have sworn you were telling Thief a few ramblings back that there was no designer. Oy vey.

You're not paying attention. I said:

"You don't have that level of intelligence, but something does that is beyond yours."

'something', not 'someone'.

What is so laughable about your diatribe is that you automatically assume that I have not drilled down sufficiently. You have little idea of the type of consciousness I enjoy and have enjoyed for a very long time. Again, up to about 10 years ago, I would have largely agreed with much that you say, but then, I got past that. It was a fairly amusing milestone. If you were wise you might actually ask me about it...

Either you see things as they are, or you don't. You imply here that you've experienced some kind of transformation of consciousness. That can only mean that you previously saw the world one way, which has now been transformed. How did you see it before and after?

You may not have the capacity to appreciate my answer. It is a rather loud and triumphant, "I AM!"

Judging from the way you put this, I seriously doubt if you actually understand what that means. Authentically realized individuals never go around parading themselves in such a manner, as there is nothing to be triumphant over nor loud about.

(I think I am beginning to see the significance of your avatar: ' the mouse that roared', LOL. Question is: does he wear elevated shoes to make himself appear bigger than what he is?...cute.)

Now, if you really did understand what 'I Am' signifies, you would automatically understand what I mean by intelligence. But you don't, so you don't.

But you failed to answer the question: who is it that is looking?