What came before the Big Bang?

[Enai de a lukal]

Conscious beings are not 'included'; they are integral to the universe to the tune of 100% integration. You don't come into the world; you come out of it, in the same manner that oranges grow out of orange trees. But you're missing my point: we, as conscious, intelligent beings, and yet, cannot produce a universe, but the universe can produce conscious beings, which would require a higher level of conscious intelligence.

This doesn't help; we are not produced by the universe in any sense that requires conscious intelligence (i.e. design).

You want to separate conscious beings from that from which they emerged in their totality. That separation exists only in your mind.

Their separation exists "only in your mind" in the same way that their unity or connection exists "only in your mind". That is, both of these are just different ways of conceptualizing what exists or is the case. Regardless, it still doesn't follow that the universe as a whole would have to have any specific properties than any particular part of it has- you can try to squirm your way around this all you like, but its simply not a justifiable inference.

The logic involved is faulty. There is no real scientific basis for this notion.

First of all, the logic being faulty and there being "no real scientific basis" are two completely different things- but its sort of moot because neither one of these claims is accurate, and since you've just baldly stated it, it can just be baldly rejected anyways(since what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, yes?). As it happens though, not only is there a good empirical basis for the idea that the brain is either identical to, or responsible for, the mind/consciousness, the inference to it from that evidence is sound as well.*

Right, and that relation would be that consciousness in not just universal, but as what determined how the brain is to function. It would be awkward, if not impossible, if we, as conscioius beings, had to constantly consciously monitor and regulate bodily functions, such as breath and heart rate, digestion, etc. while at the same time having to deal up front with whatever spontaneously came our way. It would be a juggling act of supreme proportions. So consciousness relegates these functions to the brain to get them out of its way, as well as others for instant retrieval and usage when needed. [/COLOR]

A nice story, but just that- pure fiction.

*and we actually can't leave out eliminative physicalism either; it may strike the layman as counter-intuitive, but it is in fact coherent (internally consistent), plausible, and consistent with the relevant evidence (I'm not saying it's true, only that its perfectly viable)

 

[godnotgod]

This doesn't help; we are not produced by the universe in any sense that requires conscious intelligence (i.e. design).

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said nor implied 'intelligent design'. Fact is, we emerged from the universe. Of that there is no doubt. But we didn't necessarily emerge in a way concordant with man's conception of intelligence or consciousness. That is cold, rational, analytic, logical thought, which utilizes consciousness, but the consciousness of the universe is non-rational, which is one reason we fail to recognize consciousness as an aspect of the universe. The other reason is that Western science inherited the notion of a universe governed by a set of laws, sans a lawmaker. This has come to be called 'The Fully Automatic Universe' theory, as compared to the Ceramic Model of the Universe, which is that of a universe as artifact, with God as artisan or Maker. In both models, the universe is still seen as artifact. It is a paradigm and premise operational from the get-go. To conclude that the universe is without consciousness is nothing more than ascerbic reductionism which says that it is nothing more than a dead artifact and man nothing more than a robot-like chemical factory, and demonstrates no understanding of human nature or of Reality. It is a view that wants to, via of Reason, reduce Reality to nothing more than stimuli-response. It's dead, and it's crap.

Their separation exists "only in your mind" in the same way that their unity or connection exists "only in your mind". That is, both of these are just different ways of conceptualizing what exists or is the case. Regardless, it still doesn't follow that the universe as a whole would have to have any specific properties than any particular part of it has- you can try to squirm your way around this all you like, but its simply not a justifiable inference.

Then it is not a uni-verse, 'uni', of course, meaning One, and being One, it is Absolute, meaning there is no other. Any specific properties of any particular part are nothing short of the universe. And no, that everything is interconnected is not only in my mind, in the way that separation is only in your mind. The fact is that there is no separation of anything anywhere in the universe, because there are no separate 'things' of which the universe is comprised. That separate things exist is nothing more than an illusion. That everything is interconnected is the actual reality. This can be demonstrated beyond doubt, and the notion of separation demolished.

First of all, the logic being faulty and there being "no real scientific basis" are two completely different things- but its sort of moot because neither one of these claims is accurate, and since you've just baldly stated it, it can just be baldly rejected anyways(since what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, yes?). As it happens though, not only is there a good empirical basis for the idea that the brain is either identical to, or responsible for, the mind/consciousness, the inference to it from that evidence is sound as well.*

To assert emergence as a valid idea is faulty logic. It is a leap that is unjustified when there is no real evidence that demonstrates this as fact. It is just a hypothesis that only seems to be the case. We can dismiss my assertion when you produce the evidence, and not just something that 'suggests' 'viability'. Probing around the brain and eliciting emotional responses is not consciousness nor is it 'mind'. It's just a poor excuse for lack of understanding of what reality is, and is based on a reductionist model that says this is valid logic and science. It's not. It's just crap.

A nice story, but just that- pure fiction.

Do you deny that consciousness is necessary to drive the evolution of the brain?

*and we actually can't leave out eliminative physicalism either; it may strike the layman as counter-intuitive, but it is in fact coherent (internally consistent), plausible, and consistent with the relevant evidence (I'm not saying it's true, only that its perfectly viable)

There are serious flaws with this model.

 

[godnotgod]

OH MY GOD NOT-GOD!

IT FINALLY HAPPENED!

THE DEBATE OF THE CENTURY...

DEEPAK CHOPRA AND RICHARD DAWKINS

HOT OFF THE PRESSES, NOVEMBER 9, 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXwmaSzqwmY&feature=player_embedded#at=664

 

[idav]

This, BTW, has been demonstrated by studies which show that meditating monks actually grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non meditators.

That isnt evidence for anything youve said. Thats evidence that the brain is like a muscle and yogi meditators are heavy lifters. It shows there brain is giving them there answers. You use the brain enough it works better(nothing surprising there) and we can even see which part of the brain is the source. Evidence would be knowing information that they couldn't possibly know without radio receptors in the brain. BTW other religious meditators have similar brain results and spritual experiences when doing meditations and trances but everybody still gets different answers.

 

[Slapstick]

If that is the case, then it is beginingless, which means everything within it has always existed as well, including consciousness, and if consciousness has always existed, then it is not a creation of the brain. The brain is a creation of consciousness. This, BTW, has been demonstrated by studies which show that meditating monks actually grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non meditators.

Timeless, Beginingless Conscious Universe.

Ah-ha! I caught you in the act of circular reasoning and you have stumbled big time.

If something is timeless and begingless how do you come to the conclusion it is conscious? See how flawed that is? That is making a giant illogical leap in circular reasoning. If something is Timeless, Beginningless (no beginning) then it would be a Consciousless (unconscious) universe.

Also we were talking about multiple dimensions or possibilities to the universe, Prior to the big bang in-case you forgot or lost track of our debate. :yes: Meaning there is no fixed reality (doesn't correspond to reality as we know it). I thought you were a Yogi!?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said nor implied 'intelligent design'.

The only sense in which our "production" by the universe would imply that the universe itself has some level of intelligence or consciousness is if the universe produced us via something like design. If not, there's absolutely no basis to attribute intelligence, much less a "higher level", to the universe simply because it "produced" us.

Fact is, we emerged from the universe. Of that there is no doubt. But we didn't necessarily emerge in a way concordant with man's conception of intelligence or consciousness.

This still doesn't help justify your fallacious inference.

... the consciousness of the universe is non-rational

Here you go again with the fiction- that the universe has consciousness is without any basis, so claiming what its consciousness is like is pure fantasy at this point.

It's dead, and it's crap.

You sure love your unsubstantiated, blanket dismissals. We get it that you don't like it, but that doesn't make it "dead" or "crap".

Any specific properties of any particular part are nothing short of the universe.

Clearly false, in virtue of the basic law of identity. One particular part of the universe is not identical to the universe as a whole; hard to get more obvious than that.

And no, that everything is interconnected is not only in my mind, in the way that separation is only in your mind. The fact is that there is no separation of anything anywhere in the universe, because there are no separate 'things' of which the universe is comprised. That separate things exist is nothing more than an illusion. That everything is interconnected is the actual reality. This can be demonstrated beyond doubt, and the notion of separation demolished.

Then demonstrate it beyond doubt, because your bare assertions aren't going to cut the mustard. The universe is what it is; we can conceptualize, or draw attention, to the ways in which things are related, or we can conceptualize or draw attention to the ways things are separated. Neither one of these are privileged over the other, despite the fact that you wish the connectedness of the universe had some sort of special status- it does not.

To assert emergence as a valid idea is faulty logic. It is a leap that is unjustified when there is no real evidence that demonstrates this as fact.

Here you go again confusing logic and evidence. Having insufficient evidence is not the same thing as having faulty logic. In any case, it is neither, so the point is moot.

We can dismiss my assertion when you produce the evidence, and not just something that 'suggests' 'viability'.

Evidence=something that suggests viability. Same exact thing. And if you're not already aware of the results I'm talking about, the mapping of cognitive functions onto specific areas of the brain, observed changes in various aspects of cognition as a result of changes in the brain- heck, I recently read about a study in which they are actually able to read people's minds, as it were, simply by viewing neuroimaging- they were able to predict what people were thinking about simply by looking at what their brain was doing. In other words, we certainly don't suffer from a lack of evidence here, despite your shrill insistence to the contrary.

. It's not. It's just crap.

Again, we get it that you don't like the idea; but your emotional response hardly carries any weight in a discussion of the matter.

Do you deny that consciousness is necessary to drive the evolution of the brain?

I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

There are serious flaws with this model.

Maybe, but the fact that you're unable to say what they are is fairly suspicious here.

 

[godnotgod]

That isnt evidence for anything youve said. Thats evidence that the brain is like a muscle and yogi meditators are heavy lifters. It shows there brain is giving them there answers. You use the brain enough it works better(nothing surprising there) and we can even see which part of the brain is the source. Evidence would be knowing information that they couldn't possibly know without radio receptors in the brain. BTW other religious meditators have similar brain results and spritual experiences when doing meditations and trances but everybody still gets different answers.

Except that they're not using their brains as an ordinary person does; they're not using the thought process to exercise the brain as a muscle; they're putting the thought process to sleep, in fact, and expanding their consciousness via meditation, which, in turn, affects their brains. We don't just have a better working brain, we have physical growth of brain tissue. Meditation is not thinking. It is the higher state of consciousness that is the responsible factor here, and that is evidence for what I've been saying: that it is not the brain that creates consciousness; it is consciousness that creates brain tissue.

 

[godnotgod]

Ah-ha! I caught you in the act of circular reasoning and you have stumbled big time.

If something is timeless and begingless how do you come to the conclusion it is conscious? See how flawed that is? That is making a giant illogical leap in circular reasoning. If something is Timeless, Beginningless (no beginning) then it would be a Consciousless (unconscious) universe.

You're using the same illogical reasoning you accuse me of to say that the universe would be unconscious, but that was not my reasoning. You said the universe had no origin. That means the very nature of the universe is beginingless, then so is everything within it, including consciousness. IOW, there is no such thing as Causation. I did not say that consciousness is caused by a timeless universe or one without origin. In fact, had you been paying attention, you would have noticed that I indicated consciousness as a state that is uncaused; unborn. In a beginingless universe, nothing, including consciousness, would have come into being as they already would have existed, simply because they themselves comprise the universe.

Also we were talking about multiple dimensions or possibilities to the universe, Prior to the big bang in-case you forgot or lost track of our debate. :yes: Meaning there is no fixed reality (doesn't correspond to reality as we know it). I thought you were a Yogi!?

Did I ever make that claim?

Of course it does'nt correspond to 'reality as we know it', because it is not Reality! The True Reality behind the illusion we only call 'reality' is the only Reality, and that Reality is Absolute, Changeless, and Fixed. 'Multiple dimensions' are only part of the illusion, just as time, space, and causation are.

 

[godnotgod]

You sure love your unsubstantiated, blanket dismissals. We get it that you don't like it, but that doesn't make it "dead" or "crap".

No, it is your sterile science and clinical logic that renders it dead crap. Don't know about you, but I am nothing short of the universe itself, and I know I'm alive and conscious. Therefore, the universe is alive and conscious. Ultimately, it is the universe that is alive and conscious, and since I come out out of it, it knows I am also alive and conscious. That is why it can sustain me, both externally and internally, in a manner of intelligence far beyond that of ordinary Reason or Logic. Reason and Logic can't see it because they are finite systems which attempt to encapsulate that which is Infinite and limitless. It cannot be done, and the result is Paradox. It's paradox to the thinking mind because the thinking mind is trying figure it out where there is nothing to figure out. The approach from the get-go is erroneous. The universe is not a thing that can be dissected in a laboratory. You cannot understand what music is by taking a piano apart and analyzing its parts. That is the method of science. It's crap.

Tao gives birth to all things.
And Te (virtue) nurtures them.
Matter shapes them.
The natural environment matures them.
Therefore, all things abide by Tao and honor Te.
Although Tao deserves reverence and Te deserves honor,
They are not demanded by decree,
But is a result of the Nature Way.
Hence, Tao gives life to all beings and Te nurtures, grows, fosters, develops, matures, supports, and protects them.
Tao gives birth to life and yet claims no possession.
It gives support without holding on to the merit.
It matures them but does not take control of.
This is called the Mystic Te.

Tao te Ching, Ch 51

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No, it is your sterile science and clinical logic that renders it dead crap. Don't know about you, but I am nothing short of the universe itself, and I know I'm alive and conscious. Therefore, the universe is alive and conscious. Ultimately, it is the universe that is alive and conscious, and since I come out out of it, it knows I am also alive and conscious. That is why it can sustain me, both externally and internally, in a manner of intelligence far beyond that of ordinary Reason or Logic. Reason and Logic can't see it because they are finite systems which attempt to encapsulate that which is Infinite and limitless. It cannot be done, and the result is Paradox. It's paradox to the thinking mind because the thinking mind is trying figure it out where there is nothing to figure out. The approach from the get-go is erroneous. The universe is not a thing that can be dissected in a laboratory. You cannot understand what music is by taking a piano apart and analyzing its parts. That is the method of science. It's crap.

Yet all those are assumptions. I don't think others should be saying what you believe is crap. But your assertions are well...just that assertions. There is no way of proving any of what you have said, but it seems to work for you, regardless of its reality or lack thereof.

 

[godnotgod]

Do you deny that consciousness is necessary to drive the evolution of the brain?

I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

Then use the brain you hold in such high regard to figure it out, which, unfortunately, is making a simple question much too complicated.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No, it is your sterile science and clinical logic that renders it dead crap.

And yet, "sterile" science and "clinical" science work- as evidenced by the computer you're using to type your posts, the internet that connects us to this forum, even the clothes on your back. Heck, your dismissal of "clinical logic" is a performative contradiction, since making the assertion at all, presupposes the very "clinical" logic you're criticizing.

Don't know about you, but I am nothing short of the universe itself

Ah, so you are my computer desk, and Martha Stewart, and the planet Jupiter, and my friends pickup truck? Interesting. Clearly, its either opposite day, or you're high on something, since you are not the universe itself, as there are many propositions which are true of the universe, or true of other things in the universe, that are not true of you (such as, among literally an infinite number of such propositions, is "X is a non-human").

Needless to say, this-

and I know I'm alive and conscious.

is non-sequitur. And

Therefore, the universe is alive and conscious.

is as well. But since you've dismissed logic, i.e. principles of cogent reasoning, it should be no surprise that you're left with this trainwreck of an argument- this is instructive; abandon logic (and bite the hand that feeds you in the process) upon pain of offering retardly ******-poor arguments.

The universe is not a thing that can be dissected in a laboratory. You cannot understand what music is by taking a piano apart and analyzing its parts. That is the method of science. It's crap.

No. Coming up with a bunch of flimsy arguments and nonsensical, patently false bare assertions, in favor of some romantically mystical view, is crap. As is dismissing the "method of science" which has, as noted above, provided you with the very instruments you are using to spew your blather. Talk about irony.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Then use the brain you hold in such high regard to figure it out, which, unfortunately, is making a simple question much too complicated.

 

[idav]

Except that they're not using their brains as an ordinary person does; they're not using the thought process to exercise the brain as a muscle; they're putting the thought process to sleep, in fact, and expanding their consciousness via meditation, which, in turn, affects their brains. We don't just have a better working brain, we have physical growth of brain tissue. Meditation is not thinking. It is the higher state of consciousness that is the responsible factor here, and that is evidence for what I've been saying: that it is not the brain that creates consciousness; it is consciousness that creates brain tissue.

They arent putting the thought process to sleep. During meditation these practitioners are using their brains more fully, not less, and automatically with years of training. Its evidence they are using there brains for meditative states, believe it or not. The rest of what you say is speculation.

 

[Slapstick]

You're using the same illogical reasoning you accuse me of to say that the universe would be unconscious, but that was not my reasoning. You said the universe had no origin. That means the very nature of the universe is beginingless, then so is everything within it, including consciousness. IOW, there is no such thing as Causation. I did not say that consciousness is caused by a timeless universe or one without origin. In fact, had you been paying attention, you would have noticed that I indicated consciousness as a state that is uncaused; unborn. In a beginingless universe, nothing, including consciousness, would have come into being as they already would have existed, simply because they themselves comprise the universe.

Having no origin doesn’t mean it is has no beginning. Saying something is beginningless is like saying something has started before it ever had a chance to begin. If it has no beginning then I take it the Universe has no end either. If scientist can accurately date the universe to 13.7 billion years how are they able to do that if the universe has no beginning? I have read your post, and you now seem to be inclined to say consciousness is something that has evolved over time. It wasn’t present during the initial stages of the universe.

Did I ever make that claim?

Of course it does'nt correspond to 'reality as we know it', because it is not Reality! The True Reality behind the illusion we only call 'reality' is the only Reality, and that Reality is Absolute, Changeless, and Fixed. 'Multiple dimensions' are only part of the illusion, just as time, space, and causation are.

If that is the case, being that you think other dimensions do not exist then neither does your idea of a higher level of consciousness. It seems to contradict what the Yogi and you have been saying.

The physical world is real only at a certain level of consciousness
Gopi Krishna says: “When we look at the causal world, it is rigidly bound by cause and effect. But when we reach a higher dimension of consciousness we find that the rigid walls of matter melt. Space and time lose their rigidity, and there is a mingling of the past, the present, and the future. Looking at the whole thing from this point of view, what we think about the universe - the laws, the effect and cause - is a product of our own consciousness. In our dimension of consciousness, the world is not illusory. It is real. But in the next higher state of consciousness it loses its solidity.”

New Brain - New World

Define consciousness please without talking about the “higher level of consciousness” which is just another way of a Yogi saying there is more to the Universe than that which can be explained by the laws of physics and science.

 

[godnotgod]

 

[godnotgod]

Having no origin doesn’t mean it is has no beginning. Saying something is beginningless is like saying something has started before it ever had a chance to begin. If it has no beginning then I take it the Universe has no end either. If scientist can accurately date the universe to 13.7 billion years how are they able to do that if the universe has no beginning? I have read your post, and you now seem to be inclined to say consciousness is something that has evolved over time. It wasn’t present during the initial stages of the universe.

Human consciousness evolved along with humans, but consciousness itself is always present, even when the universe is not being manifested, because that which is manifesting or not manifesting it is the Absolute.

The rope is present, whether you see it as a snake or not.

or·i·gin
ˈôrəjən/
noun
1.
the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.
"a novel theory about the origin of oil"
synonyms: beginning, start, commencement, origination, genesis, birth, dawning, dawn, emergence, creation, birthplace, cradle; source, basis, cause, root(s); formalradix
"the origin of life"
source, derivation, root(s), provenance, etymology
"the Latin origin of the word"

Google

Beginingless means it exists outside of space and time. It is being manifested only in this timeless present moment, as it has always been manifested in this timeless present moment. As the universe is the Changeless Absolute itself, it is Pure Consciousness itself.

 

[Slapstick]

The rope is present, whether you see it as a snake or not.

Which translates to: The illusion is present whether you see the illusion or not?

 

[Slapstick]

or·i·gin
ˈôrəjən/
noun
1.
the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.
"a novel theory about the origin of oil"
synonyms: beginning, start, commencement, origination, genesis, birth, dawning, dawn, emergence, creation, birthplace, cradle; source, basis, cause, root(s); formalradix
"the origin of life"
source, derivation, root(s), provenance, etymology
"the Latin origin of the word"

Google

We are talking about two completely different things. Big-Bang and Prior to the Big-Bang. I'm not a physicist or an expert on the Universe, but I'm sure the two have a lot more in common than saying nothing came before the big bang.

 

[godnotgod]

If that is the case, being that you think other dimensions do not exist then neither does your idea of a higher level of consciousness. It seems to contradict what the Yogi and you have been saying.

I did'nt say they did'nt exist; I said they exist as illusions, which are seen by the ordinary mind as being real. Only higher consciousness reveals the nature of the illusion.

Only correct vision reveals to you that the rope you thought was a snake a moment ago is only a rope.

Define consciousness please without talking about the “higher level of consciousness” which is just another way of a Yogi saying there is more to the Universe than that which can be explained by the laws of physics and science.

The laws of physics and science are explained via consciousness, and you are using consciousness right now to post this response. Are you aware that you are doing so?

This video should answer that and some of your other questions:


Science & Consciousness | The Chopra Foundation