Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Robert.Evans]

'The entire universe is a matter of transformation whereby something is available to be turned into perception. We’ve proposed that consciousness is that something—if there’s another candidate, we’re not aware of one that can pass the acid test: Make it turn into thoughts, feelings, images, and sensations. Science isn’t remotely close to turning the sugar in a sugar bowl into the music of Mozart or the plays of Shakespeare. Randomness will not give you any of that. Your brain converts blood sugar into words and music, not by some trick of the molecules in the brain, since they are in no way special or privileged. Rather, your consciousness is using the brain as a processing device, moving the molecules where they are needed in order to create the sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell of the world.'

What is Cosmic Consciousness? | The Chopra Center

I read all of the link. It was good. This was clever I thought:

{Does a tree falling in the forest make no sound if no one is around to hear it? Obviously not. The crash vibrates air molecules, but sound needs hearing in order for these vibrations to be transformed into perception. - See more at: http://www.chopra.com/ccl/what-is-cosmic-consciousness#sthash.Fy7mCrvF.dpuf}

Thanks for the link
Have a good new year!

 

[Robert.Evans]

No one can, including those that have experienced it, provide evidence that it was not all in their head. As a subjective case it can't be supported by evidence which makes it tricky to argue for without sounding like a bag full of hot air.

But all things are of the mind, are they not, even what you just said.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No one can, including those that have experienced it, provide evidence that it was not all in their head. As a subjective case it can't be supported by evidence which makes it tricky to argue for without sounding like a bag full of hot air.

But all things are of the mind, are they not, even what you just said.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't understand why people expect the higher intelligence to be like our lower intelligence. I think it is like them saying a dog should understand how it's master thinks. I am sure lower won't meet higher until it becomes higher.

haha... that is good. We are a pale image of him i think.

We know for a fact lower resists becoming higher. It is only those who won't resist it that might, can or will join it.

Yes

My Lord, who is one who became higher intelligence, says "they took no note". People say he meant they took no note of the lower intelligence (that which causes God's war) but of course he meant they take no note of what is able to prevent God's war. They resist joining with the highest order of intelligence. The reasons are probably many. The fear of falling is one reason.

You good here. Me like!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Except that the experience has nothing to do with what is in the head. The head is empty.

How is the head (mind?) empty?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Unbounded stupidity masking itself as deep thought?

There are some things you don't need to tell us, godnotgod. Thanks for confirming the emptiness of your endless rhetoric though.

You don't have to read you know!

 

[Robert.Evans]

No. You aren't debating. You are saying words. There is no evidence presented. There is no argument posted. There is simply you explaining your opinion without basis for believing it and half-cocked excuses as to why you can't support it.

Even if you are right, this still is the case. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what debate is.

I think perhaps you do not grasp what he says

 

[Robert.Evans]

What does that actually mean though? Obviously we're all part of the cosmos, but are you proposing the cosmos as one giant intelligence of which we are all aspects? Something like that?

That is part of my take

 

[Robert.Evans]

Sir, I am referring to a very specific commentary, which states that the Self is none other than the universe, and vice versa. Why are you being so difficult? Do you, or do you not understand the simple commentary as presented? It's quite simple, really. Just reflect on it for awhile, and stop knee jerk reacting to what I have posted. Then when you have a better understanding of what the commentary is saying, please return and give me your input.

Haha... he has imput?!

 

[Robert.Evans]

What you're not getting is that it makes no difference to me what the terms are. Cosmic Consciousness is no different than the Buddha's Enlightenment, or Universal Consciousness, which, as I pointed out, was the source from the East for the term 'CC'. The meat of the question is that, as I also reference twice for you, consciousness is none other than the material world, and vice versa, as expounded both in Hinduism and Buddhism, signifying that there is but one Reality.

Reality is not a doctrine that can be peddled, so what is there to evangelize or convert to? Nada.

Just so you know, there are others reading this as well.
I like what you say.
I think I have discussed with you before, but I understand it better now.

All things are one, I think, is a short take, which I agree with. Goswami (which I assume you are familiar with) says that everything is consciousness.
I agree.
But there is only one. That one consciousness for me is reflective of the One Consciousness that we would consider to be God.

The universe is mutliple in number and are own realities infinite.
The process of life and death will never stop until we reach the highest goal, that of supreme enlightenment, ''for then we shall see him as he is'' (1John)

So there is One Ultimate One, Source.
Everything follows that first action, that first Existence.
But there is also separation, which I am not sure you agree with. There has to be in one sense, or you cannot sit there and I here. Yet ultimately, there is only One. We might say that is God.

Even in the gospel of Thomas the lord says ''Pick up a stone and I am there''.

Keep up the good work.
Have a good new year! (and all others on this thread)

 

[godnotgod]

So lets abandon facts and then I can agree with you? Do you understand what that sounds like?

Yes, of course, but its not a matter of agreement or disagreement. I point to the moon. You look at the moon and then return input. That's all. My concern is not for you to agree with me, but for you to see what I am seeing.

Working within the world of factual knowledge produces a certain kind of result. Here we see characteristics, behavior, and prediction. Working within the world of intuitive understanding another. It penetrates into the nature of things. The difference between the two is that of thinking as compared to seeing.

 

[godnotgod]

How is the head (mind?) empty?

Because it has no preconceived notion of what it is seeing or experiencing. It is empty even of itself. Zen calls it 'no-mind'. It is the realization that 'mind' is also an illusion, a 'self-created principle', if you will. Only consciousness is real.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes, of course, but its not a matter of agreement or disagreement. I point to the moon. You look at the moon and then return input. That's all. My concern is not for you to agree with me, but for you to see what I am seeing.

Working within the world of factual knowledge produces a certain kind of result. Here we see characteristics, behavior, and prediction. Working within the world of intuitive understanding another. It penetrates into the nature of things. The difference between the two is that of thinking as compared to seeing.

There is no such thing, in actuality, as a fact. There are just things that are more probable than others that we refer to as facts. Similarly there is not such thing as intuition, it is just things that have a reasonable probability but that we haven't amassed enough data to reduce the range of the variance to where we are comfortable stating them as a "fact." They are all part of one continuum, unsubdivided into separate magisteria. .

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But all things are of the mind, are they not, even what you just said.

All experiences that we experience are in our minds. It does not mean that there is nothing outside our minds.

I think perhaps you do not grasp what he says

I fully comprehend what he says. I even comprehend why its not debate. I don't think you or he/she understand why it isn't a logical arguing point. Even if he was right, as there is no way to tell he is wrong, that this doesn't remain true.

Yes, of course, but its not a matter of agreement or disagreement. I point to the moon. You look at the moon and then return input. That's all. My concern is not for you to agree with me, but for you to see what I am seeing.

Working within the world of factual knowledge produces a certain kind of result. Here we see characteristics, behavior, and prediction. Working within the world of intuitive understanding another. It penetrates into the nature of things. The difference between the two is that of thinking as compared to seeing.

Except I will stay in the world of facts and evidences to base my belief on. Otherwise how would I know if I was or wasn't full of crap ?

 

[godnotgod]

Except I will stay in the world of facts and evidences to base my belief on. Otherwise how would I know if I was or wasn't full of crap ?

You won't until new facts prove old ones non-facts. Today, even Einstein's work is showing some problems, as you well know.

Today's facts and evidences are many times tomorrow's discards. As the philosopher Kant told us, reason has ineluctible limits, which we are now seeing on both the micro and macro scales. I am not saying science is not useful; it is very useful. But when it comes to the nature of Reality, it is at a loss. Once spiritual insight shines its light on the nature of things, including our own original nature, it stays that way. The findings of science can then be understood correctly in the larger context of spiritual insight. It's like a black and white tv all of a sudden seen in 3 dimensional color.

I will say, however, in the strict sense of what a debate is, you are correct. It's just that I am approaching the topic from an admittedly mystical viewpoint, and from that vantage point, it is a valid approach. I know that many materialists strongly object to non-scientists encroaching onto what they think is their territory, but the universe is fair game. Mystics have been around for a lot longer than scientists.

 

[YmirGF]

Mystics have been around for a lot longer than scientists.

As have been charlatans...

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You won't until new facts prove old ones non-facts. Today, even Einstein's work is showing some problems, as you well know.

The development of physics is one of my favorite topics. It doesn't lend you any credibility though.

Today's facts and evidences are many times tomorrow's discards. As the philosopher Kant told us, reason has ineluctible limits, which we are now seeing on both the micro and macro scales. I am not saying science is not useful; it is very useful. But when it comes to the nature of Reality, it is at a loss. Once spiritual insight shines its light on the nature of things, including our own original nature, it stays that way. The findings of science can then be understood correctly in the larger context of spiritual insight. It's like a black and white tv all of a sudden seen in 3 dimensional color.

The reason why things are always being updated is because our understanding is always increasing. Its a good thing. We have now meaningful understanding of our universe in ways that mystics have never been able to bring us. Maybe mystics have certain points but none of them are really relevant.

I will say, however, in the strict sense of what a debate is, you are correct. It's just that I am approaching the topic from an admittedly mystical viewpoint, and from that vantage point, it is a valid approach. I know that many materialists strongly object to non-scientists encroaching onto what they think is their territory, but the universe is fair game. Mystics have been around for a lot longer than scientists.

And crocodiles longer than humans. Perhaps we should go to them for the answers? Or perhaps archaic means are not the most accurate ones.

Thank you for the strict idea of debate. This is what we are here for. There is a mystics only forum I think where people can discuss the intricacies within individuals who already accept mysticism as being legitimate. Which is why I have such a hard time with the arguments because I get locked into a battle about the legitimacy of what you base your arguments on. And what you base your arguments on cannot be defended in strict debate that I attempt to have. The same I think with some others on occasion.

In your own beliefs, more power to you. I don't mind you believing whatever it is you believe but it was in the contexts of the debate that I have had these issues.

 

[godnotgod]

As have been charlatans...

Logic 101: True or False:

Mystics have been around longer than scientists.
So have charlatans.
Therefore, all mystics are charlatans.

 

[YmirGF]

Logic 101: True or False:

Mystics have been around longer than scientists.
So have charlatans.
Therefore, all mystics are charlatans.

Absurdity on steroids, as per usual, godnotgod. There are some so-called "mystics" that I hold in great esteem, not the ones you seem to think are meaningful, but nonetheless. Sadly, the field is a veritable flock of quacks, amongst whom, the swans are rarely recogmized.

 

[Sapiens]

Absurdity on steroids, as per usual, godnotgod. There are some so-called "mystics" that I hold in great esteem, not the ones you seem to think are meaningful, but nonetheless. Sadly, the field is a veritable flock of quacks, amongst whom, the swans are rarely recogmized.

Swans don't quack, they honk.