Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Monk Of Reason]

OK. So that must mean that those who are determining what delusion is, are not themselves deluded, correct?

We would like to assume that yes.

I was trying to leave the obvious answer of 'waking up' to you. So, we know we have been dreaming when we awaken.

But you can wake up within a dream. There are also several different things that don't "wake up" such as delusions, hallucinations, ect. All can be caused either by the brain directly or after drugs of some kind.

I thought the fact that higher consciousness is without factual evidence was understood. Unlike abduction events, however, the experience of higher consciousness is accessible, verifiable, and repeatable by anyone. It is like the metaphor of Plato's Cave: one must go see for oneself to verify the existence of the Sun. In addition, unlike abduction, the spiritual experience is not subjective; it is impersonal, as its source is not the personal self. It has nothing to do with 'I'.

The reason it is accessible and repeatable is because the Source of Higher Consciousness is always present.

The problem is it isn't verifiable. It may be repeatable but it is just the same subjective experience that a person can have without any way to convey that to others. I guess we could do an MRI scan to see but this still isn't in any way evidence that it actually exist outside of the mind. Do you see the problem? People that are deluded THINK that they are sane. Otherwise they wouldn't be deluded. The way that we can verify that we ourselves are not deluded (though many psychologists suggest that we are all actually deluded but just to an acceptable degree so we remain functional but this is a side note) is by empirical evidence and communication with others. Anything else that we may subjectively experience that cannot be independently verified by a third party or observed in some way should be questioned.

I don't think that is the usual view. It is more that mind is a product of brain, as in 'emergent theory'.

So are you saying that the mind is, in fact, the brain itself, rather than a creation of the brain, which is the scientific view of emergence?

Actually this is the current view. At least the one supported by the most evidence at this time. I think legion would be a much better person to talk to in regard to it as his profession is neuroscience and this would be right down his alley. As a layman and my own research, as well as being corrected by legion more than once, the current statement on the "mind" is that it is just the system while the system itself is physical and portrays certain qualities.

The "emergent theory" as to as much as I know about it, is simply the theory that our level of intellect and sentience has emerged from an ever advancing system through evolution of our brain. This doesn't contradict what I stated but simply was talking about the origins of how our "minds" came about while I responded with what it "is".

 

[godnotgod]

We would like to assume that yes.

So if they are not deluded themselves, they must be in a state of non-delusion, which essentially is an enlightened state, and if an enlightened state is preferable to a delusional one, then in a sense, we can think of it as a 'higher' state of consciousness, as it is free of the suffering associated with delusion. It is via being in this enlightened state, that the delusional state can be identified as delusional, but the opposite is not true. That is why it is delusional: it doesn't know the difference.

But you can wake up within a dream. There are also several different things that don't "wake up" such as delusions, hallucinations, ect. All can be caused either by the brain directly or after drugs of some kind.

OK. But I want to make clear one thing: that it is because of awakening from dream-sleep that we know it to be a dream. IOW, it is awakened consciousness tells us that the dream was illusory.

The problem is it isn't verifiable. It may be repeatable but it is just the same subjective experience that a person can have without any way to convey that to others. I guess we could do an MRI scan to see but this still isn't in any way evidence that it actually exist outside of the mind. Do you see the problem? People that are deluded THINK that they are sane. Otherwise they wouldn't be deluded. The way that we can verify that we ourselves are not deluded (though many psychologists suggest that we are all actually deluded but just to an acceptable degree so we remain functional but this is a side note) is by empirical evidence and communication with others. Anything else that we may subjectively experience that cannot be independently verified by a third party or observed in some way should be questioned.

So the other prisoners in Plato's Cave can't verify the claim of the first prisoner, that a higher Reality that is the Sun can be experienced just by going topside to see?

You seem to be saying that there is no way one can know if one is not delusional on his own. That makes no sense. If you are NOT delusional, then you would obviously know that via your non-delusional view.

Actually this is the current view. At least the one supported by the most evidence at this time. I think legion would be a much better person to talk to in regard to it as his profession is neuroscience and this would be right down his alley. As a layman and my own research, as well as being corrected by legion more than once, the current statement on the "mind" is that it is just the system while the system itself is physical and portrays certain qualities.

Making everything material is simply an evasive and convenient technique that materialism employs to circumvent the hard problem of consciousness, a problem it really doesn't know how to deal with.

Sorry, but I don't put much faith in what Legion says anymore. I see his views as unbalanced and sterile.

The "emergent theory" as to as much as I know about it, is simply the theory that our level of intellect and sentience has emerged from an ever advancing system through evolution of our brain. This doesn't contradict what I stated but simply was talking about the origins of how our "minds" came about while I responded with what it "is".

You might like to take a look at the following essay:

http://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/explore-Materialism.2013.pdf

BTW, did you have a look at the video I posted by John Hagelin? Recommended, and not too long, here:

Does the universe need intelligence to order it? | Page 149 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So if they are not deluded themselves, they must be in a state of non-delusion, which essentially is an enlightened state, and if an enlightened state is preferable to a delusional one, then in a sense, we can think of it as a 'higher' state of consciousness, as it is free of the suffering associated with delusion. It is via being in this enlightened state, that the delusional state can be identified as delusional, but the opposite is not true. That is why it is delusional: it doesn't know the difference.

I disagree. I don't consider being awake to be a higher form of consciousness. I do not think of dreaming as a delusion. It is a different process all together. To be deluded one must be conscious from the get go. A delusion is a belief or "misunderstanding" of the world that does not match up to the way it is as verifiable by empirical observation and reasoning. In many cases it is not only beliefs but thought processes that are faulty.

Dreaming isn't even really comparable. If we want to talk unconscious to conscious and what level is the mind at during sleep then we can talk something else but it would no longer be in the realm of delusions.

OK. But I want to make clear one thing: that it is because of awakening from dream-sleep that we know it to be a dream. IOW, it is awakened consciousness tells us that the dream was illusory.

I don't agree that dreams are classified as delusions no. I think it is obvious that we are at one point unconscious and now conscious.

So the other prisoners in Plato's Cave can't verify the claim of the first prisoner, that a higher Reality that is the Sun can be experienced just by going topside to see?

I don't agree the analogy is accurate. Mainly because I don't believe that there is a sun. It would be like we are in Plato's cave and people believe in the sun but the sun might not actually exist. Though again I don't like the analogy and I don't think that Plato was correct. Aristotle was better when he stated that we can only observe quality rather than substance. This was more or less what Plato was getting at but the idea of a "light" and "perfection" was the wrong way to go about it. He made these leaps and bounds with the assumption that there was more because he felt it necessary. Aristotle proved it was not necessary.

A little more on plato's cave is that he believed that these "shadows' were who we were and that the perfected version of ourselves was what cast the shadows. He believed that we could never be this perfected form but was a product of it. It had nothing to do with higher consciousness.

Making everything material is simply an evasive and convenient technique that materialism employs to circumvent the hard problem of consciousness, a problem it really doesn't know how to deal with.

Sorry, but I don't put much faith in what Legion says anymore. I see his views as unbalanced and sterile.

Or it is what the evidence points to and your position is one of potentially interesting subjective experience that hasn't been tested or verified in any given way shape or form. You don't understand what was going on with you because you yourself already stated it was not of the "mind". However the processes that make up the mind is the only way in which we are sentient in every piece of evidence we have ever seen.

If you don't agree with legion then thats your decision. He has a wealth of information that is supported by evidence and I give his opinion value when we talk about specific scientific questions about neuroscience because of his background and proven knowledge on the forums. But I don't blame you for not taking someone else's words. But look at the evidence presented.

You might like to take a look at the following essay:

http://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/explore-Materialism.2013.pdf

From the guy that wrote Physics with angels? Did a little bit of research on him (litterally just five minutes) and have found a treasure trove of bullcrap. He is ranked with a think tank organization in Switzerland.

His website and books are all uniformly made to try and link god and physics and on the VERY first page of his so called "article" he is already making fallacious or untrue claims.

His top 10 things that scientists take for granted? Lets run through them.

1. True in a sense. Though this breaks down in QM and small objects.
2. We don't know exactly the nature of conscious and unconscious material. All matter reacts which is the basis for transmission of information or consciousness.
3. True.
4. Possibly true. At least it is assumed to be. Though we know that the big bang seems to be messing with this.
5. In a sense. Evolution does drive towards trends which I suppose would be for the self creating purpose of survival. But it is aimless in this regard as it is still just a process not a being.
6. True.
7. More or less true. I don't like the way it was worded.
8. True.
9. Doubtful that it is an illusion. It is held that it has yet to stand up to scrutiny and such claims have yet to be verified in any scientific sense. It may be someone's opinion that it is an illusion but that isn't a scientific claim.
10. True and false. We know the placebo effect works and there are several ways of helping someone that doesn't involve pharmaceuticals. But to say that pharmaceuticals are less than effective compared to homeopathic medicine would be wrong.

 

[Thief]

Conscious or unconscious.....and you can't be sure it's alive?

Sounds like God is going to sneak up on you guys.

 

[Thief]

I'm not concerned with the superficiality of success and failure. Is that important to you?

I sense that you're just parroting others here who have knee jerk labeled my posts as word salad without thinking things through.

If only the salad had some meat in it.

 

[godnotgod]

I disagree. I don't consider being awake to be a higher form of consciousness. I do not think of dreaming as a delusion. It is a different process all together. To be deluded one must be conscious from the get go. A delusion is a belief or "misunderstanding" of the world that does not match up to the way it is as verifiable by empirical observation and reasoning. In many cases it is not only beliefs but thought processes that are faulty.

Dreaming isn't even really comparable. If we want to talk unconscious to conscious and what level is the mind at during sleep then we can talk something else but it would no longer be in the realm of delusions.

I don't agree that dreams are classified as delusions no. I think it is obvious that we are at one point unconscious and now conscious.

I did not say dreams were delusional; I said they are illusory, although dream-sleep is still a form of conscious awareness. It's just that the awakened state is a higher form of consciousness in that it is less illusory than the dream state. That's all. Both states are conscious. The simple point I am making is that the dream state is recognized as such by virtue of the awakened state.

 

[Thief]

I did not say dreams were delusional; I said they are illusory, although dream-sleep is still a form of conscious awareness. It's just that the awakened state is a higher form of consciousness in that it is less illusory than the dream state. That's all. Both states are conscious. The simple point I am making is that the dream state is recognized as such by virtue of the awakened state.

More hypocrisy.
Next post you will say.....all is an illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't agree the analogy is accurate. Mainly because I don't believe that there is a sun. It would be like we are in Plato's cave and people believe in the sun but the sun might not actually exist.

I think you're missing the point entirely. On just this one point, the Cave allegory states that there is a Sun, which we know to be the case. It's not that the people in the cave believe in the Sun; they just don't know it exists. They think the shadows on the walls represent Reality. The prisoner who escapes to see the Sun returns to tell the others, who can verify his claim simply by empirical observation. In the same metaphorical sense, the spiritual experience is perfectly verifiable, as it has been so for thousands of years, by simply going to see for oneself, as many have done. The reports from them have been fairly consistent over time and in various parts of the world, independent of one another.

 

[godnotgod]

More hypocrisy.
Next post you will say.....all is an illusion.

Run along, now.

 

[Thief]

Run along, now.

Not yet.....more word salad.....
I know you got more....
You got nothing else.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I did not say dreams were delusional; I said they are illusory, although dream-sleep is still a form of conscious awareness. It's just that the awakened state is a higher form of consciousness in that it is less illusory than the dream state. That's all. Both states are conscious. The simple point I am making is that the dream state is recognized as such by virtue of the awakened state.

Actually Illusion is an even worse term. I get what you are trying to say but it isn't following with your argument that we can be "more awake" than we are now.

I think you're missing the point entirely. On just this one point, the Cave allegory states that there is a Sun, which we know to be the case. It's not that the people in the cave believe in the Sun; they just don't know it exists. They think the shadows on the walls represent Reality. The prisoner who escapes to see the Sun returns to tell the others, who can verify his claim simply by empirical observation. In the same metaphorical sense, the spiritual experience is perfectly verifiable, as it has been so for thousands of years, by simply going to see for oneself, as many have done. The reports from them have been fairly consistent over time and in various parts of the world, independent of one another.

I fully understand. I have spent a large amount of time both in collegiate and personal arenas researching philosophy of several ancient Greek philosophers. Plato being the second most studied of all of them. And I have come to the conclusion that it is not obvious or apparent that there is a sun. There is no logical reasoning or requirement for a "sun' and there are far better explanations. And if there is no need for a sun and there is no evidence for a sun then why do you assume there is one?

 

[Muffled]

First I have no clue how you responded here.

Your brain doesn't get images without visible light and eye sight.

"photograph that is supposed to come from real time"

So you don't believe in photographs?

I don't think you know how scientists use light from space to gauge time it takes for the light to reach us from distant galaxies or the after glow of the big bang. We also don't just use visable light but also in other bands of the spectrum, X-ray, Microwave, Radio wave, and infrared.

Have you ever gotten and Xray, do you tell the doctor I don't believe my arm is broken?

In case you haven't noticed I believe they color the photographs to indicate the type of light waves are in a galaxy and it is very pretty that way but not the original photograph. a naive person who doesn't bother to read the text might look at the pictures and actually think galaxies are colored that way. This is pretty typical of how science creates an image that isn't really there.

So there are particles and waves running around the universe and someone devises a picture on a theory of how they move but I believethe picture is not real.

I believe an xray can reveal whether I have a broken bone but my body doesn't really look like the xray.

 

[Muffled]

Awesome. Cheers.



Man, this is gonna be a tough one.

Be warned I believe he might want the thread to morph into an intelligent universe but as the title says it is about whether the universe was intelligently created or just happened accidentally.

 

[Kirran]

Be warned I believe he might want the thread to morph into an intelligent universe.

Well that's OK, I got my foot in the door, so I'll have some influence over how it turns out.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In case you haven't noticed I believe they color the photographs to indicate the type of light waves are in a galaxy and it is very pretty that way but not the original photograph. a naive person who doesn't bother to read the text might look at the pictures and actually think galaxies are colored that way.

Yes, that is true, they have graphic artists who work on the images from Hubble. Though the colour balanced is based on the actual data.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

.....so I'll have some influence over how it turns out.

Unfortunately I don't think you will.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, that is true, they have graphic artists who work on the images from Hubble. Though the colour balanced is based on the actual data.

I believe it is rational to represent the images based on the data and certainly the representations of the Big Bang are based on mathematical theory supposedly proven by the God particle, but the reality is that it is just theory and not actual fact.

 

[godnotgod]

Actually Illusion is an even worse term. I get what you are trying to say but it isn't following with your argument that we can be "more awake" than we are now.

If we were not more awake in the awakened state then how is it that we know we know immediately we just awoke from the sleep-dream state? If you get what I'm saying, then what's the problem? It's quite simple, really.

I fully understand. I have spent a large amount of time both in collegiate and personal arenas researching philosophy of several ancient Greek philosophers. Plato being the second most studied of all of them. And I have come to the conclusion that it is not obvious or apparent that there is a sun. There is no logical reasoning or requirement for a "sun' and there are far better explanations. And if there is no need for a sun and there is no evidence for a sun then why do you assume there is one?

It's not an assumption; it's an experience.

 

[Tiapan]

OK. So there's more to it than that. As an intelligent being yourself, what would YOU require, at the bare minimum, to render a 'living object', and more importantly, a conscious being capable of introspection, compassion, and a whole range of emotions?

One thing - Time
and we have had lots of it

 

[godnotgod]

Or it is what the evidence points to and your position is one of potentially interesting subjective experience that hasn't been tested or verified in any given way shape or form. You don't understand what was going on with you because you yourself already stated it was not of the "mind". However the processes that make up the mind is the only way in which we are sentient in every piece of evidence we have ever seen.

The 'evidence' consists primarily of probed responses from the brain which elicit emotions and memories, all of which emergent theory jumps to the conclusion that these responses are 'mind', but in reality, there is no proof that this is so. At this point it is just a hypothesis. We don't know, for example, whether consciousness is the responsible agent for programming the brain in the first place to store these memories for later retrieval and learning, so that we don't have to go through the painful process of burning our finger on a hot stove repeatedly in order to exercise caution in the future, as well as not having to attend, up front, to the autonomic bodily functions such as heartbeat, bloodflow, respiration, digestion, etc.

What you call 'subjective' experiences have been verified, over and over again, by practitioners independent of each other all around the world throughout history. I have has such experiences that, at first I doubted, but later learned that others came to the same conclusions. When I said the experiences were 'not of the mind', I meant they did not come about as a result of the thinking, rational mind. They come about as a result of an experience in consciousness, without mind. The spiritual view of 'mind' is that it is a self-created principle. IOW, it is illusory. We are very familiar with the machinations of mind, and as a result, make efforts to transcend its faulty workings. It is the mind where delusion dwells. Where mind is nonfunctional, where is delusion to be found?

Sounds to me like you equate 'mind' with 'brain' one for one. So why even use the word 'mind'? You should just use the word 'brain'.

During mediation, the point is to subdue the overactive brain so that consciousness can come into play. This can be done in several ways: by counting the breath; by focusing on the hara; or initiating an observer to simply watch thoughts as they arise and subside, without becoming attached to them in any way, as 'my' thoughts.