-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does the universe need intelligence to order it?
- Thread starter Robert.Evans
- Start date
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Actually, everything is natural, therefore we don't need to even mention that any particular occurrence is natural. All occurrences are natural. But nothing occurs by itself. A tree cannot grow by itself. A rock cannot fall by itself. There are causes for everything that happens. A person cannot fall in love or get angry without a cause. There is a reason why each star is in it's current location.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Well, yes and no.
Generally, when people qualify something as 'natural', they use the term as a contradistinction to 'man-made'.
Yes, of course it is true that humans are also natural. But our language reflects what we need or want to say. This is linguistics, not logic.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
No.
False view is not part of reality's nature; it's just an illusion. Only true view is real. That is why it can be called true view.
Being asleep, dreaming, is real, but the dream is not. That is confirmed upon awakening. The dream vanishes. False view also vanishes upon realizing true view. There never was a duality because false view is illusory.
You see a rope moving in the wind at dusk. You recoil, firmly believing it to be a snake, only to realize in the next moment that it was only a rope. There never was a snake to begin with. There's no duality of snake vs rope.
On a higher level, you see a universe composed of separate, 'material' things, changing all the time. Upon awakening to an even higher level, you realize there are no separate, 'material' things, changing all the time. There is only The Changeless, The Absolute, projecting itself as The Universe.
'The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'
Vivekenanda
Last edited:
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Illusion then is also 'reality's nature'. What else could it be ?
Confirmed upon awakening ? So now you are saying that waking consciousness is not an illusion ? Actually, I know you aren't, based on zillions of your posts.
Dreaming and awake are both states of mind. Given that all your perceptions, in the waking state, are constructs in your brain, and that all your perceptions, in the dreaming state, are constructs in your brain ... where does that get us ? Maybe we can ask whether the brain is just an illusion ?
Every perception is appearing-and-vanishing. There is no duration between appearing and vanishing. 'Now' is unfindable. Which effectively means that there are no 'moments'...
As I've already pointed out, there are no moments.
Hu's on first, Watts on second ...
Why is illusion a problem ?
What, in my view as you see it, are you trying to correct ?
OK. Even allowing the 'higher level' thing to slip past (maybe come back to that later) ... So ?
What of it ?
He renamed the universe as the absolute.
Where does that get us ?
Why should I care about that ?
What exactly are you selling ?
How can you make my experience better ?
Are you certain that I am confused and in need of this correction ? Explain that to me.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Play.
Sleep with Dreams is the Second Level of Consciousness*. Waking consciousness is a matter of degree. Waking Sleep, or Identification, is the Third Level of Consciousness. It is more awake than Dream-Sleep, but still asleep relative to Higher Consciousness. IOW, it rightfully sees Dream-Sleep as illusory, but does not see its own state as such. It thinks both its Identity and the world to be reality, and that one is fully awake.
It is mind that is illusory, as it is a self-created principle. Consciousness, before mind, is real.
Every perception is appearing-and-vanishing. There is no duration between appearing and vanishing. 'Now' is unfindable. Which effectively means that there are no 'moments'...
As I've already pointed out, there are no moments.
Its a figure of speech. 'Now' is only unfindable in terms of linear time; in terms of eternity, it is always present.
Illusion is not a problem. Seeing it as real and then acting upon it is.
Nothing in your view. What is in need of correction is false view, that sees things as the conceptual mind wants them to be seen, instead of seeing things as they are.
You can continue to have a false view if you wish, or you can choose to see things as they are. The only problem is that false view eventually leads to false action, a prime example being Nazi Germany, along with our current involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't know if you are confused or not. All I am saying is that, a refreshing mountain spring bubbles forth. You, the passerby, can stop to partake of its refreshment, or continue on. Whatever you decide, the bubbling spring will happily go on bubbling forth, without concern for your decision.
I cannot make your experience better. Only you can do that. There is nothing to buy or sell, but only to partake freely of.
*For an expanded discussion of the various levels of consciousness, please see here:
http://selfdefinition.org/psychology/Robert-S-De-Ropp-The-Master-Game.pdf
The entire book is a free .pdf download.
Last edited:
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I owned a copy in the 70s. And Alan Watts.
And I've heard enough. Enough of people like Ken Wilber, and Eckhart Tolle, etc.
We've covered all I feel like saying about it now. It goes nowhere.
The style you are using is loaded with lots of hippy zen rhetoric, and attempts to nail the jelly to the tree and define the undefinable, which I frankly find to be of no use.
Practicing yoga, yes. Trying to nail down realisation intellectually ?
No.
I really don't want to be rude, you are probably a nice fella. But you can't talk someone into 'enlightenment'.
Anyway, it is far more important for people to simply find out the causes of their suffering, and how they cause others suffering. Before that has happened, all this talk of absolutes is a mental foxhole.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
It's not a simple renaming; its identifying the universe for what it actually is, rather than how the conditioned mind thinks it is. I am using the term 'universe' to mean Everything, which includes all multiverses, intergalactic space, and all yet undiscovered galaxies. Being Everything, it is The Absolute. Being The Absolute, there is no relative 'other' to which it can be compared. Therefore, 'Universe' is none other than 'The Absolute':
'Now Swami Vivekananda's statement that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute.
Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time.
And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space.
And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.
Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements.
If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing.
So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms.'
MyStacki
So what significance does that have for the ordinary man? Its full realization transforms consciousness into a higher state of Absolute Joy, rather than vacillation between relative joy and relative suffering, which are the outcomes of false view.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Your post here is the evidence that points to why you cannot make any progress (or simply don't want to). What you're not getting is that all that I've posted is only pointing to something else. Instead of going to take a look, you cling to the pointing finger, and the result is your unenlightened view. No, you cannot 'figure it out' intellectually. It's the intuitive mind that needs to come into play as the pathway to a higher state of light. But even yoga is an obstacle, as one is still seeking what one is already in possession of. Bottom line is that you can stay where you are, but then why are you here making inquiries if you are satisfied with your view?
apophenia
Well-Known Member
OMG
Wrong. Not seeking. Keeping well. Dealing with life's stress. Utilising neuroplasticity in an ongoing way.
I was having a conversation.
It has become an odious lecture from you.
godnotgod
Thou art That
OMG
You had questions. I answered every single one of them, and then you rejected everything as being hippie, zen, gunfight, etc. That is not a conversation. You already have your mind made up. I do agree with you, however, that you can't talk someone into enlightenment. But that is not what I am doing. As for suffering, it is important to see oneself and one's condition in the context of the background of life, and that background is The Absolute, just as the sea is the background to the fish, even though the fish does not know he is in the sea.
As for 'odious':
'Beautiful words are not truthful; truthful words are not beautiful'
Tao te Ching
It may be 'jelly' to you, because you are still looking at it via the conceptual mind, and the conceptual mind hates anything that it can't nail down concretely. All it can really do is to force a square peg into a round hole and then seal up the cracks. We generally call that a closed mind.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
First of all, how could one possibly know that the source did not change? Also, as Ricard hypothesized, how could a causal entity cause change without at least some change with the entity itself? If I'm a painter, for example, there are steps that are taken prior to the finished piece of art.
Simply put, the idea that there's a causal factor that doesn't change is simply beyond anything we experience.
Very well, but we're exhausted, and today is cleanup day. Hope you had a great Christmas as well.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Impossible to say. Consciousness is a form of energy, which is why e.e.g.'s and m.r.i.'s work. Does this energy expand beyond Earth? I have no clue. Are the other conscious energies in other planets and solar systems? I don't know.
But what I do know is that it is unimportant for me, imo, to believe in something that I simply cannot find any objective evidence for. For example, are we a part of a multiverse or is our universe the one and only, and do I really have to take a position of belief one way or another? My response to those two questions is "I don't know" and "no". Why should I guess and then formulate some belief around my guess?
Well that’s a shame. You have convinced yourself you offered a plausible rebuttal, but the fact remains you have offered nothing of the sort.
All you have demonstrated to me is that it really upsets you when your opponent uses the quotes from your own heroes to provide serious problems for your dearly held theories.
Question: What was it that Richard Dawkins said in this quote in his own book that you cannot understand? Where is the slight of hand in those words? Do you think you can answer that instead of jumping up and down with a “Quote Mining!” charge?
Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book - - - "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
[ ed. note: What a cop out -- “the illusion of design.”]
Question: What is it in the Stephen Gould quotes and Stephen Stanley quotes that follow that you are having trouble deciphering the meaning of ? Now mind you, these are bona fide highly credible evolutionist experts (albeit Gould now deceased) and, mind you, they are not questioning evolution, they are questioning the dearly held claims of the larger evolutionist community that species became new species via gradual evolution. They are saying the fossil record shows none of that. To me, that is a serious deal breaker for the theory of evolution, period.
Stephen Gould: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
Steven M. Stanley is an American paleontologist and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He is best known for his empirical research documenting the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record. "The known fossil record," Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will say it again: Show me a man who uses the “quote mining charge” as his only defense, and I will show you a man who has no defense.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Out of all of the knowledge we have here is it impossible to have the universe the way it is in an innate process? Is it impossible or highly improbable? Just by your definitions.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Original question: where does consciousness end and the world begin?
(This assumes a view that we are conscious, but the universe is not.)
What I meant was: does non-material consciousness extend beyond the material cranium, (assuming it originates in the brain, ie; local), and if not, how is it that the material can contain the non-material?
Conversely, non-locality would mean that the brain resides in a sea of universal consciousness, which eliminates the problem of containment.
Last edited:
Sapiens
Polymathematician
No rebuttal is called for, you've done naught but two things:
1) repeatedly quote mined (first Dawkins, the Gould and then Stanley).
2) claimed that if anyone points out that you have quote mined, that they are in the wrong:
"Show me a man who uses 'quote mining' as his defense, and I will show you a man who has no defense."
Sorry, you can can not commit a crime and then excuse yourself with an invented aphorism that goes tot he effect of pointing out your crime is somehow inappropriate.
So, since you made no supported claim, no rebuttal is called for, all that is required is identification of your crime.
/b]
This is absurd, these are not my heroes, but rather (in one case) my professor and in the others, people who I am honored to consider my colleagues, even if I was but a very minor player. But I feel I should take a few moments to show just how despicable quote mining is.
First we need to review what quote mining is. Wiki (the English version) notes:
Fallacy of quoting out of context
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy", is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:
1. As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
2. As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.
In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.
In the cases at hand "thau" has chosen fallacy number two.
So what's wrong with quote mining anyway? After all they wrote/said it, didn't they? The problem is that it is a form of lying.
Have you ever read a movie review like this, that seemed like a rave recommendation: "having 'energy, razzmatazz and technical wizardry' only to find out later that what the reviewer had said was: "I couldn’t help feeling that, for all the energy, razzmatazz and technical wizardry, the audience had been shortchanged"?
Have you ever heard a political ad on TV like the one during the 2000 United States Republican primary campaign, when George W. Bush's campaign screened advertising including a "warning" from John McCain's "conservative hometown paper" that "It's time the rest of the nation learns about the McCain we know." The paper (The Arizona Republic), however, went on to say, "There is much there to admire. After all, we have supported McCain in his past runs for office.
These are examples of Quote Mining, and it has become the goto technique of the religionists in the creation–evolution controversy (like thau). Perhaps it is because it bears so much similarity to a technique that the religionists are used to, the Christian theological method of prooftexting (the practice of using isolated quotations from a document to establish a proposition. Using discrete quotations is generally seen as decontextualised. Critics note that such quotes may not accurately reflect the original intent of the author, and that a document quoted in such a manner may not in fact support the proposition for which it was cited when read as a whole).
Pseudo-scientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply to read scientific periodicals and monographs. They focus on words, not on the underlying facts and reasoning. They take science to be all statements by scientists. Science degenerates into a secular substitute for sacred literature. Any statement by any scientist can be cited against any other statement. Every statement counts and every statement is open to - Radner and Radner in Science and Unreason
Let us examine the details:
Well, here is what my old professor, Dawkins, (I took a class in animal behavoior that he taught) actually wrote:
Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design.
I submit that the sentence that thau left off completely reverses what thau would have you believe and exposes thau as a lying, quote mining, charlatan.
But one such offense is insufficient for thau:
So what did Gould actually say? Here it is:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [see note]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.
So, Gould was saying that it is gradualism he would reject, not Darwinism.
Note: Gould was Referring to Huxley's warning to Darwin, literally on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "you have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum (nature does not make leaps) so unreservedly."
Strike two, thau is a now been shown duplicitous twice over.
Let's see if the third time's a charm:
What Stanley actually wrote was:
Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuated model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) Very weak gene flow among populations of a species (a common phenomenon) argues against gradualism, because without efficient gene flow, phyletic evolution is stymied. (2) Many levels of spatial heterogeneity normally characterize populations in nature, and at some level, the conflict between gene flow between subpopulations and selection pressure within subpopulations should oppose evolutionary divergence of large segments of the gene pool; only small populations are likely to diverge rapidly. (3) Geographic clines, which seem to preserve in modern space changes that occurred in evolutionary time, can be viewed as supporting the punctuational model, because continuous clines that record gradual evolution within large populations represent gentle morphologic trends, while stepped clines seem to record rapid divergence of small populations. (4) Net morphologic changes along major phylogenetic pathways generally represent such miniscule mean selection coefficients that nonepisodic modes of transition are unlikely. Quantum speciation or stepwise evolution within lineages is implied. (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.
The italicized text above is part of a list that Stanley believes supports "quantum speciation", defined by Stanley as: "speciation in which most evolution is concentrated within an initial interval of time that is very brief with respect to the total longevity of the new lineage that is produced. Implicit in this concept is the idea that during the rapid, early phase of evolution, the seminal population has not yet expanded from its small, initial population size."
In the same document Stanley writes that "quantum speciation is a real phenomenon", so there should be no doubt that he believes that evolution has occurred. However, he doesn't believe that evolution happens by changing an ancestral species into descendant species, but rather by descendants branching off from ancestors (remember all the BS about, "if man descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?).
Again, in the same document Stanley wrote: "Major trends in evolution are the result, not of phyletic transition, but of divergent speciation. Most are phylogenetic trends: net changes produced by multiple speciation events."
He comes to this conclusion by examining the fossil record. But the mined quote would have the reader believe that the fossil record doesn't support evolution, where as Stanley believes that it does.
Strike three, liar, liar, liar.
Rings a bit hollow now, eh thau?
Last edited:
First off, there was no need for you to explain “quote mining” to me. But thanks. Quote mining, when used in a deceptive way, is misrepresenting the words in the quote --- which by truncating the text suggests something far different than what was intended by the author. Yes, that happens everywhere, especially in politics. But I did not quote mine because I did not misrepresent.
You refuted nothing, imo, as far as the primary gist of what I was referencing in those quotes. No one, not I, not anyone, is doubting that Gould, Dawkins and Stanley are firm believers in evolution. That was never the point so there was no need for you to provide all the detail proving they do believe in evolution. We got that.
[your comments: Well, here is what my old professor Dr. Richard Dawkins actually wrote: “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design.”
I submit that the sentence that thau left off completely reverses what thau would have you believe and exposes thau as a lying, quote mining, charlatan.]
I submit that the sentence that thau left off completely reverses what thau would have you believe and exposes thau as a lying, quote mining, charlatan.]
Believe whatever you want, it’s valueless here to the argument. But OF COURSE Dawkins book is out to prove just because it looks like life was designed it was not. That should shock us? He is a zealot for godless evolution, his whole mission is to disprove intelligent design. All I was saying was this --- Dawkins in a weak, humble moment at least had to admit to his audience (paraphrase) “well, I guess we could say it surely looks like all these biological systems in life look like they had great design behind them.” Well, thank you Richard. At least we did not take you for someone so blinded as to pretend it’s all a giant random coincidence from the looks of it, too! But Richard surely will follow with his admission it looks like design to quickly say (paraphrase) --- “hey folks, even though it looks like a duck, smells, walks, tastes and sounds like a duck, take our word on it, it’s no duck. Why? Because we know it’s not a duck so it cannot be a duck."
Some kind of circular reasoning about all that, to put it mildly.
Now with Gould and Stanley, despite all the added text you introduced, it is still clear to me they remained seriously in doubt of any fossil evidence for gradual evolution. In other words, they do not accede to any concrete evidence gradual evolution ever occurred. That is our contention as well. The fossil record should show in abundance of gradual transitional evidence from one significant vertebrate species into one far different, for example. But it does not, so Gould and company, convinced evolution occurred, had to come up with a whole new theory, i.e. punctuated equilibrium (a.k.a. the monster theory or leaps of change). Question: Why would they have to invent a new theory if they thought there was evidence for the former? They wouldn’t .
The quotes I used of theirs very clearly cast doubt on gradual evolution, that was all I was contending. And longer quotes you added does nothing to dispel they remained unconvinced of gradual evolution. Big problem when the "experts" are in serious disagreement on critical and necessary proof. So I contend without the necessary fossil evidence you have a serious whole in your theory. Enough for me to say, no transitional fossil evidence for evolution, no evolution period.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Thus it seems we have found the root of the problem...