Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Rick O'Shez]

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

Again, I'm not inclined to play guessing games, so please just say what your answer is.

 

[godnotgod]

Again, I'm not inclined to play guessing games, so please just say what your answer is.

Why? The answer is staring you right in the face. C'mon now. Crank up your brain a notch or two.

 

[Looncall]

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.

A couple of examples: Isaac Newton was heavily into alchemy, Linus Pauling had a bee in his bonnet about vitamin C.

Successful work in one area dies not guarantee sanity in others.

Sure, you can find scientists whose minds are still tainted by religious notions. So what? It is evidence that counts.

I find this prooftexting style of argument used by religionists hilarious. Show us the beef! What's the evidence?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why? The answer is staring you right in the face. C'mon now. Crank up your brain a notch or two.

I can't be arsed. Tell us your answer and then we can decide whether it's useful.

 

[Looncall]

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?

I think it is time for you to clearly tell us what you mean by intelligence.

This post looks nonsensical. It is as if you refuse to admit that what we call natural laws exist at all but prefer to see gods pushing the sun across the sky.

 

[godnotgod]

A couple of examples: Isaac Newton was heavily into alchemy, Linus Pauling had a bee in his bonnet about vitamin C.

Successful work in one area dies not guarantee sanity in others.

Sure, you can find scientists whose minds are still tainted by religious notions. So what? It is evidence that counts.

I find this prooftexting style of argument used by religionists hilarious. Show us the beef! What's the evidence?

Your logic sucks. Show me where the figures I mentioned, namely, Planck, Penrose, Sheldrake fit into your wishful nut job scenario. NONE! So why do you want to divert attention away from the fact that bonafide scientists are finally seeing the light and leaving the old paradigm behind?

Your ascerbic and reductionist black and white thinking does not apply to the spiritual world. Why have you failed to understand that there are some kinds of knowledge that do not fit into your nice neat little square world of definitions, concepts, and facts? is it even conceivable to you that a far more powerful and robust knowledge makes logic, reason, and analysis look flat and gray in comparison? You keep demanding 'evidence' where none is available. So stop, already. The spiritual world cannot be accessed via reason. I thought that was clear to you. So now you are forced to approach the question differently. What will you do?

BTW, Planck's statement is NOT a religious one!

Also, I am not a 'religionist', but I am also not an atheist.

 

[godnotgod]

I think it is time for you to clearly tell us what you mean by intelligence.

This post looks nonsensical. It is as if you refuse to admit that what we call natural laws exist at all but prefer to see gods pushing the sun across the sky.

You're making things up, so stop already.

 

[godnotgod]

I can't be arsed. Tell us your answer and then we can decide whether it's useful.

No. Use your intellect for a change.

 

[Looncall]

Your logic sucks. Show me where the figures I mentioned, namely, Planck, Penrose, Sheldrake fit into your wishful nut job scenario. NONE! So why do you want to divert attention away from the fact that bonafide scientists are finally seeing the light and leaving the old paradigm behind?

Your ascerbic and reductionist black and white thinking does not apply to the spiritual world. Why have you failed to understand that there are some kinds of knowledge that do not fit into your nice neat little square world of definitions, concepts, and facts? is it even conceivable to you that a far more powerful and robust knowledge makes logic, reason, and analysis look flat and gray in comparison? You keep demanding 'evidence' where none is available. So stop, already. The spiritual world cannot be accessed via reason. I thought that was clear to you. So now you are forced to approach the question differently. What will you do?

BTW, Planck's statement is NOT a religious one!

Also, I am not a 'religionist', but I am also not an atheist.

If no evidence is available, you have nothing to base statements upon.

I see no reason to suppose that the woo-woo kind of knowledge you are promoting is valid in any way. It looks to me like a typical religious-type scam.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

According to Hagelin and Goswami there is. Just sayin'

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

You are making some good points.
It is interesting, is it not, that we cannot see God nor can we see Consciousness. It is interesting that there are science theories out there that say the universe, at its smallest level, is Consciousness, and nothing else. It is interesting that we cannot see the part of us that is really the 'I'. Neither can we see the part of God that is really 'I'. So we can neither prove, in a material way, that we exist or God exists.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

So you stick with luck then... now that really is a daft idea ... haha

 

[Sha'irullah]

So you stick with luck then... now that really is a daft idea ... haha

I never said anything about luck. Saying the universe is created by luck is assuming there was intention and there is no god nor conscious being behind the cosmos thus there is no luck. The reason it is called the Cosmos is because it has laws and principles which is what physicists and biologist study. The universe is self governed and self destined.
Asserting a god in it because you can't understand it is a daft idea. It is an idea that is archaic and illogical and in this day of age should only be held by the uneducated and weak minded

 

[savagewind]

Maybe the "self governed" aspect of the Cosmos IS GOD.

 

[metis]

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.

What will cars look like in 100 years and how will they be powered?

My point is that if we don't know exactly what we could be looking for bvecause there's too many possibilities or variables, it's too difficult to s what might be promising in the future.

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.

We know consciousness involves energy that sequenced, so there are some things we do know about it. The question really is there is any evidence for some sort of cosmic energy, the the simple answer is no there's not.

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.

Consciousness in not an inherent aspect of energy as energy itself is not necessariiy consciousness, so I think you maybe meant it the other way around.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Maybe the "self governed" aspect of the Cosmos IS GOD.

Not that is just the Cosmos hence its named. The self governed aspect about the universe is the cosmos. You cannot take a word and conflate it with another word that ha no substantial meaning. Gods have gone from mighty men to cosmic overlords. It has no inherent meaning yet people want it to exist. You thus cannot conflate it.

 

[metis]

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.

It's not "sloppy thinking" in saying that we simply do not have the evidence you seemingly claim exists, and exactly what that supposed evidence might be is simply too hard to speculate on, much like if you were to ask what the cars 100 years form now will look like and how will they be powered? We simply don't know, and speculation is just that-- speculation.

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.

We pretty much know what consciousness is in general, but obviously some of the specifics are not known or are only hypothetical.

The basic point here is that there's no evidence fore any kind of "cosmic consciousness" or whatever you want to call it.

 

[metis]

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:

You're just playing games here as I never made any claim that brain waves are consciousness.

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.

I've already explained this on previous posts.

There simply is no evidence for any kind of "cosmic consciousness"-- period.

 

[metis]

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?

Frankly, I've quickly lost interest in discussing this with you as you're simply just playing little games. I'm a scientist who has read a great many articles on the issue of consciousness even though that isn't really my field, and what you're trying to do makes so little sense in regards to the main theme. If you want to believe in a "cosmic consciousness", which you seemingly do, that's fine, but don't pollute science with fabricating all sort of stories to try and make a point that you cannot substantiate in any way.

The bottom line: there is no evidence for any "cosmic consciousness", and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No. Use your intellect for a change.