dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
Pretty much.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How long did it take for intelligence to exist in the universe?
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
Pretty much.
godnotgod
Thou art That
If the Hindus are correct, that this world is maya and lila, then the Big Bang was the result of the playfullness of the divine nature, and the rest great variety for the sake of sheer delight. After all, the infinite plentitude of stars, galaxies, life forms, snowflakes, etc. have no rhyme or reason other than 'the more, the merrier'. But if maya and lila are the reality, does not this mean exaclty a kind of Supreme Intelligence behind it all, in terms of Creative Play? But wait, there's more! Not only is the divine nature busy delighting itself with this plethora of varied multi-colored forms and shapes, the divine nature decides to play Hide and Seek by concealing Itself from Itself by hiding within them, pretending, in the most poker-faced manner, NOT to be what it actually is! Now THAT's intelligence of the first magnitude! YOU are that intelligence, pretending NOT to be the divine nature; pretending to be atheists, agnostics, believers, animals, trees, rocks, stars and galaxies, IT playing all the parts at once! So what's the point? Imagine the overwhelming Joy when one discovers one's true nature, that YOU are IT. That birth and death are illusions. Hide and Seek. It's all just One Big Act.
C'mon, you guys! 'Fess up! You know your'e all just so many frauds, playing the game to the hilt!
Peek-A-Boo!
C'mon, you guys! 'Fess up! You know your'e all just so many frauds, playing the game to the hilt!
Peek-A-Boo!
Last edited:
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
By "intelligence" I'm guessing you mean in the sense that humans are intelligent; i.e. self-aware, conscious, etc.
If so, the answer is pretty obvious; it is emergent, and it took about 13 billion years to produce it. Intelligence existing "pre-universe" is nonsensical and contradictory, and there's absolutely no reason for supposing the universe itself is, ever was, or ever will be intelligent.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Really?! And what/where was the 'moment of truth', so to speak, where non-material consciousness 'emerged' from material existence? You say 'it took 13 billion years to produce it', as if it were intentional, but why such a long time? Does that make any 'sense'? Would it not make far more sense if unchanging intelligence were there all along, behind all the changes?
BTW, the emergent theory of upward causation is only hypothetical.
And yet, YOU'RE intelligent, and come out of the universe 100%. Or perhaps maybe the notion that we are intelligent but our nurturing source is not is merely an egoic delusion.
What is 'nonsensical' is the notion of anything being 'pre-universe', since that implies Time, which did not yet exist. But consciousness is not confined to Time or Space. It resides only in this present moment. It has no history, nor memory. It just 'is'.
Last edited:
Without actually espousing any such theory, there is the possibility that this universe is either not the only universe, or not the only universe which has ever existed. IN some sense that might open an interpretation of pre-universe intelligence that isn't completely contradictory.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Currently we have no scientific basis by which to argue the existence of intelligence without the presence of a matter based medium which stores that existence; the only entities we have identified as potentially having such capacity are organic life forms and potentially artificial creations some time in the future. The heavier elements such as nitrogen and oxygen (as well as much much heavier elements) included in what we believe to be the minimum requirements for life are only naturally created (so far as we are aware) within massive stars. Therefore at least some stars must have gone through their life cycle and new stars been formed prior to the first occurrences of life throughout the universe - so several billion years after the first stars formed, would have been the first opportunity for life and thus intelligence.
Last edited:
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
There probably wasn't any single "moment of truth", but like all features of biological organisms, was the result of many accumulated adaptations; not only can we see many of the precursors to human cognition in, for instance, apes, there is some evidence of this gradual progression in the fossil record; the emergence of tool-use, written symbols/primitive language, and so on. In other words, there is probably something like is a sliding scale.
No, not as if it was intentional.
Um, yes...
Not really, and even if it did, reality hasn't shown much of a tendency to oblige what "makes far more sense" to us; witness relativity or QM, for example.
And? To infer from this that the universe itself is intelligent is non-sequitur; this is called a fallacy of composition (i.e. what is true of the part may not be true of the whole)
This is also nonsense. Consciousness, like everything else we have any experience of, is situated in space and time. ANYTHING existing "outside space and time" is a concept we simply have no correlate for.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
Not in the relevant sense- on this view, there may have been intelligence in some other universe, prior to the existence of this universe, and in that sense existed "pre-(this)universe"; but in any given universe, intelligence could not exist prior to the universe in which it is to exist. As I said, that is clearly nonsense.
Sure. My personal view is emergent in terms of this universe, and ignorance in terms of any other (in terms of their existence...I would assume emergent or complete lack of intelligence in any universe).
godnotgod
Thou art That
Thought and memory may be situated in Space and Time, but consciousness is not. Show me where it resides in Space, and how you measure it via Time.
The reason there is no correlate for consciousness existing outside space and time is because consciousness is non-conceptual and non-local. It is what is in place prior to mind itself; prior to concept, idea, thought, etc. It is what we know before an idea can be formed about what we know, because it is not thought, but seeing.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Except that the sliding scale was mostly about physical changes as responses to environmental changes. Consciousness and intelligence are non-material. How does that which is material create the non-material?
OK, but then intelligence, and all that follows from it; science, art, literature, philosophy, spirituality, etc. is a fluke. Is that what you're saying?
Now we're back to 'intentional'.
Paradox would still be there in either case, but that is because the rational mind is trying to make reality fit its concepts, and nature is non-conceptual. In order to understand the nature of what seems paradoxical, the rational mind must be transcended, and a higher consciousness tapped into.
Your argument would be valid if we were referring to things, where a property could be attached to it after it came into being. But people are not things. They are organisms that grow out of the whole in a continuum, and remain interdependent and interconnected upon the whole through the entire process of becoming who and what we are. You did not acquire your basic intelligence; you were born with it, as were all our evolutionary ancestors. You only acquired your identity via your social indoctrination.
So at what point do you suppose your consciousness and intelligence began? From a purely materialist point of view, we already know for a fact that your biological entity is nothing more than a continuum. You come out of the universe in the same way that an orange comes out of an orange tree. You are grown, not made.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Last edited:
What everything has is animation since everything is made of energy but intelligence is the result of certain configurations that are rare but they happen in some pockets of the universe. We are the result of the sun but is the sun self-aware?
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
What is left of consciousness once you take away thought and memory?
Since you appear to be using the word "consciousness" to refer to something other than what it usually denotes (namely human cognition, of which "thought and memory" make up a substantial part), I'm not sure what you are saying here.
That they are "non-material" is an unwarranted assumption at this point.
Perhaps; scientists are sort of split on this issue; whether art/culture ever had any direct adaptive function or whether they aren't fortunate accidents, as it were- byproducts of adaptations that DID play an evolutionray role.
Doesn't look like it... Why would you think so?
Um, you're only sort of correct here; the problem with the counter-intuitiveness of, for instance, QM, is that we are "trying to make reality fit (our) concepts", specifically, with our old concepts of classical physics. So the problem is not that we're trying to undertand reality conceptually, its that we're using the wrong concepts- we had to come up with new ones.
If by "a higher consciousness tapped into" you mean that we need to come up with a new conceptual schema for, say, relativity or QM, then yes- if you are saying something else (and I'm not sure what that could be), then no.
None of this is really relevant. Infering that a whole, of which something is a part, has the properties that its part has is a fallacy of composition, because it is not a logically valid inference; there are plenty of instances, involving people, things, or anything else you care to pick (thus the people vs. "things" bit is a pseudo-distinction and a red herring) , where parts have properties which the whole does not have (I have 10 fingers, and I'm part of a family- does it follow that my family has 10 fingers? Of course not!)
Ok... So? There's simply no warrant whatsoever for supposing biological entities are "made" in the first place. And as I said before, its hard to pick a "point" at which consciousness emerged, because the evidence suggests it was built up, step by step, over a period of evolutionary time.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Thought and memory are not consciousness. Nothing is diminished of consciousness where there is no thought occurring. In fact, conscious awareness actually increases to the point where transcendence* is not only possible, but also differing levels of Enlightenment. Increased awareness is what meditation is all about. Consciousness is not thinking; it is seeing, without thought.
Alan Watts explains:
METAPHYSIC: The indefinable basis of knowledge. Metaphysical knowledge or 'realization' is an intense clarity of attention to that indefinable and immediate 'point' of knowledge which is always 'now', and from which all other knowledge is elaborated by reflective thought. A consciousness of 'life' in which the mind is not trying to grasp or define what it knows.
from: 'Myth and Ritual in Christianity'
*This is sometimes referred to as 'entering the Silent World'.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
This doesn't really help, except to confirm my suspicion that you aren't using the word "consciousness" the way it ordinarily is used, i.e. to refer to our mental activity, which certainly includes thought and memory. Perhaps you mean something more like perception (unless you're using "seeing" metaphorically)?
His mischaracterization of "metaphysic" aside, what he appears to be talking about here is introspection, which is certainly a form of thinking.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Why isn't the animation intelligence itself? There need be no verifiable evidence of intelligence for intelligence to be present. Intelligence can consist of just pure seeing, without thought, without action. In fact, such a state of intelligent inaction is the basis for all thought, knowledge, and action thereof that follows. We simply say: 'It knows'.
godnotgod
Thou art That
READ: " A consciousness of 'life' in which the mind is not trying to grasp or define what it knows." No. Not thinking. Seeing. IOW, there is no object of thought involved, no see-er of what is being seen, only pure seeing itself. That is pure consciousness. What follows is thought, whether objective introspection or perception. Whether thinking or not, consciousness is always present. No effort is made for consciousness to be present. It is present by default.
Have you ever meditated?
Last edited: