Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[godnotgod]

It is being in the present and the present has a personality. It is intelligent. What is it like to in the presence of a powerful ruling person? I don't know what that is like. But to experience "Cosmic Consciousness" is to be in the presence of the most powerful ruling um entity (there is probably no right word for it in English) of all. It takes some getting used to.

You're right on the money here. Good post.

 

[godnotgod]

and who is washing dishes?....who peels potatoes?

YOU don't exist!!!!!!
hehehehehehehe

I see you're evolving a bit more.

There is no peeler of the potatoes, nor a washer of dishes. There is, in reality, only potato peeling and dish washing.

So who is asking the question?

 

[Thief]

and nobody will answer it...right?

back to your word salad......try some dressing....

 

[godnotgod]

and nobody will answer it...right?

back to your word salad......try some dressing....

OK. Here's the dressing. It's a simple recipe:

There is no answerer of the question. There is only the answering of the question.

Is there a rainer of the rain? A grower of the flowers? A shiner of the Sun? A whirler of the whirlpool? Of course not. So why should there be a thinker of thoughts that asks and answers questions?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Zen people simply burn the Buddhist scriptures on the day of their Enlightenment.

On the day of their enlightenment, perhaps, it's the parable of the raft ( look it up ). But honestly I don't think you have any real idea of what the Buddhist scriptures are about, or what enlightenment is, any of it.
Unfortunately I've seen this before with new-agers, plucking ideas from here and there but not understanding them, then misrepresenting them.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Try washing the dishes instead.

Oh dear.

You did realise that you're also supposed to be mindful of what you're thinking and saying? Not just coming out with whatever pops into your head?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Is there a rainer of the rain? A grower of the flowers? A shiner of the Sun? A whirler of the whirlpool? Of course not. So why should there be a thinker of thoughts that asks and answers questions?

Please make it stop!!! I can't take any more!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you make one more willful, ignorant statement about New Age, the candy will stop, you hear?

New-age ideas about cosmic consciousness are nonsense.
There, I've said, it, will you please stop now?

 

[YmirGF]

New-age ideas about cosmic consciousness are nonsense.
There, I've said, it, will you please stop now?

Since you asked, and since it is a nice new year, I thought I'd give your question a shot.

What was so-called "cosmic consciousness" like?

My first break with godnotgod and the others comes from the sense of "I". I sensed a very real, massive expansion of consciousness. This rippled outwards from the centre of my being, the core of identity in a blinding flash of comprehension. Contrary to what you have been told, during this "burn period", where I was experiencing myself as a brilliant spherical light, not unlike a sun, I was very much aware of my thoughts. In other words, during this amazing experience, I still had thoughts. Thoughts didn't seem to impact the experience an iota. It was an experience that defies descriptions in many ways, but was unimaginably joyful and again, unlike the idea some will give you, instead of the extinguishing of the "self", it was my old idea or familiar ideas of self that were radically transformed. Though I recognize my former views of self and appreciate that limited perspective, I no longer identify "myself" with that perspective. The experience expanded my sense of self to include a multidimensional sense of self, of multiple, simultaneous perspectives, as odd as that may sound. Less that sound too splintered, there is the unifying perception of common identity running through the views, sort of like an actor in slightly different roles. It's very hard to describe.

There is a sense that your awareness encapsulates all of reality, but upon repeated exposure to this form of consciousness one begins to realize that this is merely a preliminary perception and arise from the inherent contrasts with ordinary waking consciousness. You may feel you are "one" with the universe, but you can't actually describe the life conditions on a small asteroid in Zeta Reticuli , so you are not genuinely aware of everything or in fact "one" with everything. THAT is just a perception and is a local phenomena projected onto the universe, but simply put, relative ONLY to the individual psyche. It is the multidimensional nature of the psyche that creates the illusion of being all inclusive. At least that is my brief descriptions almost 40 years down the road...

Edit: Please keep in mind that though this certainly seemed "cosmic" at the time, as it was such a radical shift in awareness, I soon discovered that it was only the primer for further expansion. That said, I was never too fixated on calling this an "absolute" or "ultimate" anything. Those are both post-experience assumptions promoted by those with certainty agenda.

 

[Muffled]

"The true nature of reality."

Hmm.

Is there a false nature of reality ? ( Here we go ...)

I believe a person can have a false view of the nature of reality.

What is the difference between 'the nature' and 'reality' ?

I believe this question makes no sense.

Is there a true nature of unreality ?

I believe there is.

Does reality have 'a nature' ?

I believe it does.

What does 'have' mean in this sense ?

I believe it means attribution.

What is 'reality' doing when it is' having' ?

I believe this question makes no sense.

Can reality sensibly be referred to as 'it' ?

I believe "it" covers a great deal.

Let's get a little ignosticism going on here ...

I believe I don't know why. Is it a desire for unreality?

Firstly - What is meant by 'reality' ?

I believe it is anything that the mind recognizes. As such it is made up of fiction and non-fiction. However some people refer to reality as non-fiction.

*g'day Ymir . I'm not debating you at all here, I just grabbed your post because it refers to that infinitely meaningless phrase, which peppers these crazy dialogues *

I believe you shouldn't ask if you don't want answers.

 

[Muffled]

My dear fellow, and I do mean that, you aren't debating a thing as far as I am concerned. Actually, you are underscoring my point. My guess is much of what you have written will fly right over the heads of many.

I believe this may reflect the thoughts of a flying mouse, lol.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You may feel you are "one" with the universe, but you can't actually describe the life conditions on a small asteroid in Zeta Reticuli , so you are not genuinely aware of everything or in fact "one" with everything. THAT is just a perception and is a local phenomena projected onto the universe, but simply put, relative ONLY to the individual psyche. It is the multidimensional nature of the psyche that creates the illusion of being all inclusive.

Yes, that's pretty much where I've got to with it. I could talk about having had the sense of infinite space / consciousness, but I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that it was literally experiencing the whole universe as a conscious entity, or whatever.
I could talk about the experience of timelessness, but again I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that it was a state outside of space-time. It would be nice to think of such experiences of refined consciousness as connecting with a transcendent reality, but that to me would be a large and premature assumption.

I think that making too many assumptions about such experiences is counter-productive anyway, because sticking on labels inevitably limits the experience, making it more difficult to maintain an open mind. And even worse is using them to prop up a pre-existing belief system.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Me? What do I have to do with it? But if you mean the mystical view, yes, it actually does confirm many of the things mystics have said for centuries. However, Michio Kaku seems to feels physics is having a nervous breakdown:

Science has never had a "nervous breakdown". Such a statement is baseless and ignorant.

So, just as an example, how would you begin, under strict rules and a scientific approach, begin to answer the thread's question?

Scientifically? One would have to figure out what requires intelligence and what doesn't. What qualifies as intelligence ect. But "need" would only be a guess. There is no reason to believe the universe "needs" intelligence.

The mystics approach is to begin right where we are, and that is what is already evident, which is consciousness. We are conscious by default. We are fully integrated into the universe, which we also see as conscious and intelligent. It is so much simpler than mucking about with mathematics and dissection and test tubes and billion dollar cyclotrons, only to arrive....where? In more paradox than ever before.

Maybe your rules are far too rigid, for one thing. In fact, I would say that is why you come up with a dead, material-only universe. Doesn't that strike you as rather ridiculous? You can't see past the framework, because it dictates how you think, rather than having an open view of Reality so you can see things as they actually are.

Once again, the mystical view is not based on the mind, and therefore, not based on thinking. Not being based on thinking, it cannot be a belief, as you think it is. It is based on seeing into the nature of things. The pathway is intuitive, not rational. And that is why you are having 'issues'. Your view is simply too one-sided. What is actually required is a balanced view, where logic transforms intuition, and vice versa, in a Yin Yang harmony. From what I've read about Einstein, he had this kind of view, to a certain extent, which drove some of his discoveries.

You said it not me. Its not of the mind. (thought it really really is. Just probably not from the prefrontal cortex)

 

[YmirGF]

Science has never had a "nervous breakdown". Such a statement is baseless and ignorant.

I agree. Anyone who has listened to Michio Kaku will clearly understand that his belief in the scientific method is hardly shaken. He is quite an interesting fellow and godnotgod, as per usual, is misrepresenting what he is meaning. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "connecting the dots", as it were, but one must mindful of which dots are real and which dots are products of an enthusiastic imagination.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In the light of recent discussion:
Fake Buddha Quotes | "Nope, I didn't say that." — The Buddha

 

[Robert.Evans]

So you mean you're basing your ideas not on experience, but on an "understanding"? But where exactly does that understanding come from, if not from your pre-existing beliefs and assumptions?

By the way if you insist on using new-age jargon like "Consciousness" with a capital C, you really need to provide a full and clear definition of what you mean by it. I think we could agree broadly on what consciousness with a small c means, but I am not going to play guessing games with jargon like this.

I can only speak for me when I say it is understanding. Everything is understood in the mind, even experience. It all comes from the Divine. A capital 'C' is just to define it as Divine.

No, you are. The sad thing is you're so pre-occupied with your idiosyncratic ideas that you don't see what is in front of your nose.
Increasingly I feel your cosmic consciousness thingy is really not worth the effort of trying to understand.

I understand it, even if I could not repeat it, haha

No, your claim of a cosmic consciousness thingy. It's just a claim, not backed up.

Your consciousness is not backed up. No one's is.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Science has never had a "nervous breakdown". Such a statement is baseless and ignorant.

That is what Kaku says in the vid. I think you take that to the extreme. It was in context I feel.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Everything is understood in the mind, even experience. It all comes from the Divine. A capital 'C' is just to define it as Divine.

So could you describe your experience of the Divine, or is it a just a belief that you have?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That is what Kaku says in the vid. I think you take that to the extreme. It was in context I feel.

Theoretical physics is theoretical. Part of the problem is that people can put their entire life into a field of science and never EVER get a single step closer in it. M-theory for example has people trying to drop out left and right because it may be a total waste. For a scientist he may be having a panic attack.

Something that was really "frightening" for some scientist earlier was the Higgs Boson not being found for much longer than they thought it would be. If they had not found it part of what they based QM on would have been invalid. But they did find it but the properties were different than what they thought. The risk is that we have theoretical sciences that have to be verified by experimental scientists. Until that point that theory would be under "panic" especially if the results are contrary.

Though I think it is good to note that Kaku is another sensationalist that likes to make a name for himself. He uses hot button words and appears in many videos and sold many books. But the context that Godnotgood tried to put it was incorrect.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Theoretical physics is theoretical. Part of the problem is that people can put their entire life into a field of science and never EVER get a single step closer in it. M-theory for example has people trying to drop out left and right because it may be a total waste. For a scientist he may be having a panic attack.

Something that was really "frightening" for some scientist earlier was the Higgs Boson not being found for much longer than they thought it would be. If they had not found it part of what they based QM on would have been invalid. But they did find it but the properties were different than what they thought. The risk is that we have theoretical sciences that have to be verified by experimental scientists. Until that point that theory would be under "panic" especially if the results are contrary.

Though I think it is good to note that Kaku is another sensationalist that likes to make a name for himself. He uses hot button words and appears in many videos and sold many books. But the context that Godnotgood tried to put it was incorrect.

I agree with all of that except the ending.