Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[YmirGF]

Suppose, for just a moment, that the kind of intelligence that the universe operates with is on a different level than that of rational human intelligence, which can be summed up via Reason, Logic, and Analysis. As long as those methodologies are utilized as a means of ascertaining intelligence in the universe, they will utterly fail, because they are going about it in a completely incorrect manner.

That being the case, what do propose that human animals do to get beyond this condition? You must have some ideas. Heck, you're sitting there in the bliss filled infinitude of Ultimate reality. Spill the beans, babe. I only ask that you put it in your own words and resist the urge to copy the works of others to make your case.

They cannot synch with an intelligence that is not based on Reason, Logic, or Analysis. IOW, the intelligence of the universe may be such that the entire point of its intelligence is delightful play.

It certainly is entertaining, I'll say that.

What evidence is there for this idea? Looking up into the night sky, what do we see? An infinite variety of stars and galaxies whose existence has no apparent rhyme or reason.

In this sense, the universe makes no sense at all.

That is one of my favorite pastimes, godnotgod. I enjoy a pristine night sky that is not marred by any nearby cities. What strikes me is the incredible fact that I am not only looking back in time, I am looking at a myriad of timelines (the light hitting my eyes many light YEARS after leaving its source). It's an amazing realization. Not one time, but many times, all here, right now. That said, it doesn't strike me as being reasonable to suggest that this is a sign of intelligence. My connection to the sight and the realization of what I am seeing is based on comprehension and intelligence. Frankly, I think the universe is far more interesting without intelligence micro-managing the interplay. In a very real sense, that minimize the reality of it all.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, but it has nothing to do with what I believe, but with what I see.

No possibility that you could be seeing through the haze of distorted belief structures?

 

[Robert.Evans]

And what would be the odds 100 years ago that a guy with a screen-name of "metis" would be reading someone's "post" at "Religious Forums" found on the "internet", and that this would be done a little after "7 p.m. e.s.t." on "December 29"?

With trillions upon trillions of sub-particle events happening probably about every second in our universe, lot's can happen.

That is not quite the same problem though is it

 

[godnotgod]

That being the case, what do propose that human animals do to get beyond this condition? You must have some ideas. Heck, you're sitting there in the bliss filled infinitude of Ultimate reality. Spill the beans, babe. I only ask that you put it in your own words and resist the urge to copy the works of others to make your case.

It certainly is entertaining, I'll say that.


That is one of my favorite pastimes, godnotgod. I enjoy a pristine night sky that is not marred by any nearby cities. What strikes me is the incredible fact that I am not only looking back in time, I am looking at a myriad of timelines (the light hitting my eyes many light YEARS after leaving its source). It's an amazing realization. Not one time, but many times, all here, right now. That said, it doesn't strike me as being reasonable to suggest that this is a sign of intelligence. My connection to the sight and the realization of what I am seeing is based on comprehension and intelligence. Frankly, I think the universe is far more interesting without intelligence micro-managing the interplay. In a very real sense, that minimize the reality of it all.

Does it? The very delight you experience is because that beautiful intelligence which animates the universe is performing a dance from within. A very intelligent and ecstatic dance that is not governed by a dancer. The universe itself is the dancing. Not just that, but you and I are part of the dance. Now how does it appear to you?

The intelligent universe is inviting us to join in the ecstatic dance all the time, but because we choose instead to analyze it, to systematize it, to categorize it, to put it into a jar of formaldehyde, to mathemetize it, we become dull and boring. The universe just goes on its sparkling way. All that is needed is to tune in. Nothing Special. Come as you are, warts and all.

Is it evident to you that you are not observing the stars at night as objects, but as an experience that is being actualized in your consciousness?

 

[godnotgod]

No possibility that you could be seeing through the haze of distorted belief structures?

Seeing things as they are is to leave all the baggage behind.

As Lao tzu put it: 'subtract, subtract, and then subtract again'

and Buddha: 'negate negation'

Carlos Castaneda: 'in the end, you will know nothing'

 

[Looncall]

From where do you suppose Everything originates? Are you familiar with theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss and 'a universe from nothing'?

I already told you what consciousness is: it is the default state of awareness, without thought, that sees things as they are. When mind comes into play, it sees things as it thinks they are. Mind not only is self created, it then creates artificial divisions, such as 'this' and 'that', 'here' and 'there', 'material' and 'non-material', 'inside' and 'outside'. This is conditioned mind, in which a conceptual overlay is placed over reality, and then seen as fact.

Now, what is it about the above that your conditioned (knee jerk) mind sees as 'word salad' and 'bafflegab'? Tell me so I can clarify it for you.

I gather that you think one can understand reality by mere navel-gazing. That is, without any input. Is that right? If it is, I don't buy it.

I don't buy that the distinctions you list are illusory. That notion strikes me as being in the same class as statements about square triangles. I am deeply suspicious of propositions such as "mind is self-created". There is a lot of mystical fakery around these days (eg Chopraism). I have a lot of time for the notion of "deepity".

I also don't much care what ancient so-called sages have pronounced. The guru may have been living from a begging bowl, but still, he was not the one spending his days knee-deep in night soil in the rice paddies.

As a personal aside that I hope may be useful, I would like to mention that I work as an analytical chemist. In this field, we are really, really picky about being sure about how we know things. Handwaving and vagueness are anathema to us. I hope you will see why I find mysticism a huge red flag.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Don't you realize that the experience of the Buddha was exactly the merging of consciousness with the universe?

No, I'm afraid that's way off the mark.
You might find it helpful though to explore Advaita Vedanta, which I think resonates more with what you're describing. See here for example: Basic principles of Advaita Vedanta? | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Show me where my consciousness ends and the universe begins.

"As far as you can see" would be the practical answer.

 

[godnotgod]

I gather that you think one can understand reality by mere navel-gazing. That is, without any input. Is that right? If it is, I don't buy it.

I don't buy that the distinctions you list are illusory. That notion strikes me as being in the same class as statements about square triangles. I am deeply suspicious of propositions such as "mind is self-created". There is a lot of mystical fakery around these days (eg Chopraism). I have a lot of time for the notion of "deepity".

I also don't much care what ancient so-called sages have pronounced. The guru may have been living from a begging bowl, but still, he was not the one spending his days knee-deep in night soil in the rice paddies.

As a personal aside that I hope may be useful, I would like to mention that I work as an analytical chemist. In this field, we are really, really picky about being sure about how we know things. Handwaving and vagueness are anathema to us. I hope you will see why I find mysticism a huge red flag.

Gazing at one's navel, no. But penetrative introspection, yes. No input, no. Why? Because what is inside is what the true nature of reality is. It does not need input, as it is already complete. Understand I am referring to the true nature of reality, and not the details about it we call facts and data.

If mind is not self created, then what is its origin? Mind is active where thinking is active. But when thinking is turned off as in during meditation, consciousness is still very much present. I have experienced many occasions when I have actually witnessed mind in the process of self creation, but it took years for me to reach the point where I was able to observe it doing so. It happens very, very quickly, so the ordinary view does not readily detect it. One must practice to be very attentive, and then, one day, you will see it as it happens.

Those ancient gurus were busy trying to save their people from harm. We have writings about this from both the Buddha and Lao tzu.

As for the distinctions mentioned, they don't exist except when the mind is active. Show me where they exist without the mind creating them.

No, I don't see why mysticism is a red flag in light of your picky discrimination. Your pickiness is necessary for a different reason. Mystics are even more picky about what is reality and what is delusional. They can spend years honing and perfecting their inner laser like vision. That's why they've arrived at the point where they see the world as illusion, when the ordinary man cannot yet see this fact. I think you have the wrong idea about what mystics are. A mystic is simply someone who seeks divine union within.

 

[godnotgod]

"As far as you can see" would be the practical answer.

It extends to the entire universe, actually, both seen and unseen. But even if it were limited to what is visible, that means you are admitting consciousness extends beyond the brain into space. I make this statement with the assumption that consciousness originates in the brain, which I don't give credence to. I am saying that consciousness is non local; that the brain is immersed in a sea of consciousness.

Note that spiritual insight is not seeing via the eyes, but via consciousness.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Note that spiritual insight is not seeing via the eyes, but via consciousness.

I think you need to be more specific about what kind of consciousness you are talking about here, if not consciousness related to the senses or to the mind. It would be helpful if you could talk about your personal experience of non-local consciousness - what is it actually like?

 

[godnotgod]

No, I'm afraid that's way off the mark.

I'm afraid you're just plain wrong.

'...Physical phenomena, which arise by dependent origination from the first five of the six Elements,...interpenetrate with the phenomena of mind, which arise from the sixth Element, Consciousness....'

'...the being and the Buddha are merged with the total universe.'

'...the Body of the Buddha is the body of the cosmos.'

The Symbolism of the Stupa - Adrian Snodgrass - Google Books

 

[godnotgod]

I think you need to be more specific about what kind of consciousness you are talking about here, if not consciousness related to the senses or to the mind. It would be helpful if you could talk about your personal experience of non-local consciousness - what is it actually like?

Sir, I am referring to consciousness transcendent of perceptual reality. What on earth do you think Enlightenment is, anyway? It has nothing to do with perceptual reality, but is itself Ultimate Reality. The Buddha experienced the highest state of conscious awareness, that of Supreme Enlightenment. It is beyond mind. Being beyond mind, it does not discriminate between one's consciousness and the universe. It is not thinking mind. It is only seeing things as they are, which is that everything is unified as a whole.

'Not One, not Two'
Buddha

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm afraid you're just plain wrong.

Don't take my word for it, try your idea out on a Buddhist forum and see how far you get with it.

And please don't provide Buddha quotes without referencing them. Forums are full of fake Buddha quotes from new-agers, we really don't need any more of them.

Meanwhile I'd be interested in a response to my post above:
I think you need to be more specific about what kind of consciousness you are talking about here, if not consciousness related to the senses or to the mind. It would be helpful if you could talk about your personal experience of non-local consciousness - what is it actually like?

 

[metis]

OK, let's assume for a bit that "cosmic consciousness" exists. So how would this supposedly differ from one who uses meditation but feels that there is no indication that such a "cosmic consciousness" actually exists? IOW, exactly how would this difference supposedly manifest itself?

As one who uses the philosophical approaches found in Buddhist dharma, how would the acceptance or rejection of "cosmic consciousness" as a belief really affect overall enlightenment?

 

[metis]

If you don't believe me try your idea out on a Buddhist forum and see how far you get with it.

Ah, you beat me to the punch here as you well know that dharma does not encourage speculation and assumptions

That is not quite the same problem though is it

Actually it's plenty close enough since generally what I was responding to dealt with the issue of "what are the odds...?". A point simply is that we cannot really calculate odds when dealing with something that we know has happened because the "odds" at that point are 100%, and that was the point I was trying to make.

And we know through our studies that if the odds had changed, there would be different results, although it's not typically easy to know exactly what those different results would be

 

[godnotgod]

Don't take my word for it, try your idea out on a Buddhist forum and see how far you get with it.

And please don't provide Buddha quotes without referencing them. Forums are full of fake Buddha quotes from new-agers, we really don't need any more of them.

Oh, cut the bull**** out! First, your diversionary tactic away from the text I provided shows me that you don't know what you're talking about, and second, there is a link provided for the entire text.

Look, if you want to have a valid discussion, address something in the provided text, which proves that you are incorrect re: consciousness merging with the universe. It's there in plain view. So now what, and don't get coy.

 

[godnotgod]

OK, let's assume for a bit that "cosmic consciousness" exists. So how would this supposedly differ from one who uses meditation but feels that there is no indication that such a "cosmic consciousness" actually exists? IOW, exactly how would this difference supposedly manifest itself?

As one who uses the philosophical approaches found in Buddhist dharma, how would the acceptance or rejection of "cosmic consciousness" as a belief really affect overall enlightenment?

Cosmic consciousness is not a matter of opinion or how you feel about it. You either see it or you don't.

It is not a belief, but an experience. It is what the Buddha experienced directly.

Cosmic consciousness IS Enlightenment.

 

[metis]

Cosmic consciousness is not a matter of opinion or how you feel about it. You either see it or you don't.

It is not a belief, but an experience. It is what the Buddha experienced directly.

Cosmic consciousness IS Enlightenment.

You did not answer the question. How does this difference hypothetically manifest itself? IOW, you believe in some sort of "cosmic consciousness", I don't, so what supposed value does this have in regards to your approach versus mine?

 

[godnotgod]

You did not answer the question. How does this difference hypothetically manifest itself? IOW, you believe in some sort of "cosmic consciousness", I don't, so what supposed value does this have in regards to your approach versus mine?

As I said, it's not a matter of belief or opinion. It's not that I 'believe' it and you don't; it's that your experience does not yet include it. All I am trying to do is to provide some information that can be used by the intuitive mind which point to cosmic consciousness. Of course, no one can describe the experience itself.