Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[metis]

If it were true, what evidence would there be ?

If there was some sort of "consciousness" that is more than just from an organism, then there should be some tell-tale signs of such. Why should some assume there is such a thing when there's no evidence whatsoever for it?

IMO, the better position is "I don't know", which is my position on the general matter, and my general disagreement with some here is over their certainty that either extreme is a fact.

 

[apophenia]

If there was some sort of "consciousness" that is more than just from an organism, then there should be some tell-tale signs of such.

Such as

 

[metis]

Such as

It's hard to speculate on that which is not known but might some day be found. If some feel they have found it, then they should produce the evidence. If not, ...

 

[savagewind]

produce the evidence. ...

Spirit can not be held. It is Spirit we need to prove. It can't be done.

 

[Looncall]

Energy consists of sub-atomic particles in motion, and objects are also made of many of these same particles. "Potential energy" is only what the energy could be if it manifests itself in a given way.
What's "new age" and "feng shui" have to do with this? I certainly don't adhere to either and, as a matter of fact, I've never read a single book on either subject.

I gather we agree about energy but just like to use slightly different words. Good!

 

[apophenia]

It's hard to speculate on that which is not known but might some day be found. If some feel they have found it, then they should produce the evidence. If not, ...

What would constitute evidence ?

I am not proposing having found anything. I am commenting on your post.

Suggesting that "there would be evidence", without any definition of what evidence would be, is sloppy thinking, that's all I'm saying.

Science has not yet even arrived at a provable theory of the nature of consciousness. There is an assumption that it is epiphenomenal - without a clear definition of what it is.

At the moment, consciousness, or awareness, as an inherent aspect of energy, is a notion which some consider as an alternate view to emergence. That is not necessarily a claim, any more than string theory is a claim.

If it is true, then organisms would be composed of this mind/matter, as would a star. And an organism would behave like an organism, as a star behaves like a star.

 

[Looncall]

What would constitute evidence ?

I am not proposing having found anything. I am commenting on your post.

Suggesting that "there would be evidence", without any definition of what evidence would be, is sloppy thinking, that's all I'm saying.

Science has not yet even arrived at a provable theory of the nature of consciousness. There is an assumption that it is epiphenomenal - without a clear definition of what it is.

At the moment, consciousness, or awareness, as an inherent aspect of energy, is a notion which some consider as an alternate view to emergence. That is not necessarily a claim, any more than string theory is a claim.

If it is true, then organisms would be composed of this mind/matter, as would a star. And an organism would behave like an organism, as a star behaves like a star.

This seems to me to, once again, treat energy as a substance that could have aspects. It sounds like a desperate attempt to revive the notion of spirits.

There seems to be some sort of distaste for emergence. Why is it nasty to consider that the universe and things in it have properties and that what one observes are the consequences of those properties? Is it more satisfying to say that invisible pixies are pushing a ball downhill instead of invoking mass and gravity?

This idea that the universe is conscious strikes me as mere word salad: words pushed so far beyond their meaning that statements are not even wrong, let alone right.

 

[apophenia]

There seems to be some sort of distaste for emergence. Why is it nasty to consider that the universe and things in it have properties and that what one observes are the consequences of those properties? Is it more satisfying to say that invisible pixies are pushing a ball downhill instead of invoking mass and gravity?

Distaste ? Nasty ? Satisfying ?

WTF ?

Who said ?

You did.

Get over yourself man.

 

[godnotgod]

Just as a program runs in a` computer.

Not. A computer has no consciousness.

I would very much like to know why the religious are so unable to deal with the idea of a process and consistently reify processes as substances.

That's exactly the position of materialist science:

'Science has been successful because it has been open to new discoveries. By contrast, committed materialists have made science into a kind of religion. They believe that there is no reality but material or physical reality. Consciousness is a by-product of the physical activity of the brain. Matter is unconscious. Nature is mechanical. Evolution is purposeless. God exists only as an idea in human minds, and hence in human heads.

These materialist beliefs are often taken for granted by scientists, not because they have thought about them critically, but because they haven't. To deviate from them is heresy, and heresy harms careers.

Since the 19th century, materialists have promised that science will eventually explain everything in terms of physics and chemistry. Science will prove that living organisms are complex machines, nature is purposeless, and minds are nothing but brain activity. Believers are sustained by the implicit faith that scientific discoveries will justify their beliefs. The philosopher of science Karl Popper called this stance "promissory materialism" because it depends on issuing promissory notes for discoveries not yet made. Many promises have been issued, but few redeemed. Materialism is now facing a credibility crunch unimaginable in the 20th century.'

Why Bad Science Is Like Bad Religion | Dr Rupert Sheldrake

Further, energy is not a substance.

Neither is it consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

Energy consists of particles that are essentially not different than the energy produced by consciousness, which is why when a person is brain-dead these waves stop. These same particles found in energy are also pretty much the same as found in matter (what you have called "material").

You're making a jump in logic here. Just because brain wave activity is detectable and measurable does not mean it translates to consciousness. You are reflecting emergent theory, which is just a weak hypothesis, if that. There is no basis in fact to show that the brain creates consciousness. Brain wave energy is not consciousness. You cannot say that you are measuring the energy being emitted by consciousness, because there is nothing called consciousness that you can isolate and test. Furthermore, none of this proves that consciousness is a local phenomena. In fact, we have testable evidence to show that it is non-local:

So can you tell me how the material cranium 'contains' non-material consciousness, and how the material brain creates the non-material? Energy is non-material.

 

[godnotgod]

So you are a name dropper. So what? There are plenty of examples of scientists who were nutcases on some topics. It is evidence that counts. Argument from authority is a fallacy.

Except in this case we know that Max Planck is not a nut case, but in fact, the recipient of the Nobel Prize in physics. You don't get a Nobel Prize for being a nut case. But if he were the only scientist who thinks this way, you might have a case, but not only have there been very prestigious scientists who have expressed a non-materialist view, but their numbers are growing. None are nutcases.

 

[godnotgod]

Words are structures of letters. What happens to the letters as they fly through the air between phones?

Words are symbols for meaning.

“The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word with him?”

― Zhuangzi, ancient Taoist

 

[Sha'irullah]

Intelligence is a product of the cosmos and we are the only observable example of it. Animals who are far more complex than us lack the intelligence to do a vast amount of things but the absolute intelligence we speak of is only inherent to the animal known as the human.

Saying the succeeding result is the preceding cause is like saying cars are responsible for horse drawn wagons.

It just sounds stupid when you put it together. There could be no intelligent agent behind the cosmos the same way that there is no intelligence behind earthquakes and and mountain formations.

 

[godnotgod]

This seems to me to, once again, treat energy as a substance that could have aspects. It sounds like a desperate attempt to revive the notion of spirits.

There seems to be some sort of distaste for emergence. Why is it nasty to consider that the universe and things in it have properties and that what one observes are the consequences of those properties? Is it more satisfying to say that invisible pixies are pushing a ball downhill instead of invoking mass and gravity?

This idea that the universe is conscious strikes me as mere word salad: words pushed so far beyond their meaning that statements are not even wrong, let alone right.

You're still attached to words, failing to see what is behind them. The conceptual mind demands concrete black and white explanations for reality, but fails because nature is non-conceptual.

The universe does not consist of 'things in it'. The universe IS those things, including not-things.

Properties and their consequences (as well as facts) are not what the universe is. They are descriptions about the universe.

 

[godnotgod]

Intelligence is a product of the cosmos and we are the only observable example of it. Animals who are far more complex than us lack the intelligence to do a vast amount of things but the absolute intelligence we speak of is only inherent to the animal known as the human.

Saying the succeeding result is the preceding cause is like saying cars are responsible for horse drawn wagons.

It just sounds stupid when you put it together. There could be no intelligent agent behind the cosmos the same way that there is no intelligence behind earthquakes and and mountain formations.

But those very phenomena can themselves be intelligent, but not in the way you conceptualize the meaning of intelligence. You, an intelligent being, are supported 100% by all those phenomena, inside and out, and yet you deny intelligence to those very things that give you life. What level of intelligence would it take for you to do the same? What level of intelligence would it take for you to photosynthesize your own food from simple compounds and sunlight, for example? Or shine the Sun?

 

[godnotgod]

If there was some sort of "consciousness" that is more than just from an organism, then there should be some tell-tale signs of such. Why should some assume there is such a thing when there's no evidence whatsoever for it?

IMO, the better position is "I don't know", which is my position on the general matter, and my general disagreement with some here is over their certainty that either extreme is a fact.

Heh...heh...heh...you are using consciousness at this very moment to say 'I don't know'. Scientists use it for their science.

How can you not know that you are conscious? Conscious is what you are at all times. Sure, you can use the discriminating mind to pretend it doesn't exist, or that you don't know, but that is just playing a mind game with yourself.

Conversely, a computer cannot say 'I don't know' as a result of conscious, reflective insight.

Consciousness is simply the default state of being present. It is there all the time, whether the mind is working or not. Stop the machinations of the mind and what remains? C'mon, you meditate. Don't tell me you are unable to see this simple reality. The obvious presence of consciousness is not an extreme view. It's just the way things are.

Here. Think about this:

The hedge is seen against the background of the hills behind it.
The hills are seen against the background of the sky behind them.
What background do you suppose you are able to see the sky against?

 

[godnotgod]

Spirit can not be held. It is Spirit we need to prove. It can't be done.

But it can be directly experienced. In fact, you and I are experiencing it all the time in the form of pure consciousness. Just being conscious of your presence in the here and now, without thought, is the spiritual experience itself. Buddhists call this self-awareness 'mindfulness'. It is a deliberate, willful attention to what is, and waking up from the state of Identification, otherwise known as 'Waking Sleep', the Third Level of Consciousness, in which one only thinks oneself awake, but in fact, is asleep, just as one thinks oneself awake when in dream-sleep.

This waking up from the Third Level to the Fourth Level is called 'Self-Remembering', or 'Self-Transcendence'.

Don't you think it just a bit odd that you are even here, now?

 

[godnotgod]

Intelligence is a product of the cosmos and we are the only observable example of it. Animals who are far more complex than us lack the intelligence to do a vast amount of things but the absolute intelligence we speak of is only inherent to the animal known as the human.

There could be no intelligent agent behind the cosmos the same way that there is no intelligence behind earthquakes and and mountain formations.

If ours is an 'absolute intelligence', that of the animal world of a lesser caliber, and the cosmos itself lacking in it entirely, why is it that we live in lesser harmony with the cosmos and with each other than does the animal world, and why is the cosmos more harmonious than we? Are you equating the level of man's intelligence with his development of technology? If man is so absolutely intelligent, he would have known from the get-go how to create technologies that were in perfect harmony with nature. But to the contrary, his anti-nature technologies, motivated by his ignorant desire to control and manipulate nature and each other, threaten his very existence. Man, with this so-called 'absolute intelligence' seems to be nothing more than a Big Ape, loudly brandishing Big Lethal Toys who has intellectualized himself into a trap from which escape may already be too late. I think you are confusing real intelligence with the superficial and glittery machinations of the ego in which what man firmly believed to be the case, is actually not the case at all.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What background do you suppose you are able to see the sky against?

So what's your answer?

 

[godnotgod]

So what's your answer?

I know the answer, but you need to see it for yourself. Any ideas?