Explore the Nature of Spirit - Questions & Answers

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by sage

Finally I would like to point out consciousness(C2) are a necessary point of discussion when debating about the existence of spirit(/soul). Because it is claimed that the existence of the spirit explains consciousness(C2) which can never be explained through science alone. By trying to show that consciousness(C2) can indeed be explained through science I have nullified the case for the existence of spirit(/soul).

I have never said that the "existence of the spirit explains consciousness". You see, I am not so "sure" about "spirit" as I am about CONSCIOUSNESS. In other words, I'm pretty sure there's consciousness in -- if not OF -- the Universe; as to "spirit"...it's only through deduction than observation.

Still, I'll grant you that, if there IS "spirit" it would "require" consciousness IF its "agenda" was to PROCESS INFORMATION and EVOLVE. (more questions than answers, as you see).

And whether spirit or consciousness will ever be "proved" by science doesn't "nullify" a thing.

The question whether a sort of seminal consciousness exists in all matter(electrons, protons, neutrons etc.) is a different matter altogether. One thing is certain though, consciousness(C2) can be explained via simple atomic interactions alone and hence there is no need for us to think there exists a soul within us. That is of course until evidence to the contrary comes our way.

First, I don't think that consciousness "can be explained via simple atomic interactions alone." Aux contraire. But that's another thread.

As to THIS thread, we're discussing the "nature of spirit"...should spirit EXIST. As I've said, it is via deductive reasoning that I've come to the POSSIBILITY that spirit exists...but I do not have time this Sunday morning to go into it in any way that would satisfy YOU ...or MYSELF, for that matter.

I am poorly informed about theology. But I have always thought human spirit is thought of something that is ELEMENTAL i.e IT CANNOT BE SUBDIVIDED FURTHER. BUT BY INTRODUCING THE IDEA OF CONSCIOUSNESS TO EVERY ELECTRON AND PROTON IN THIS UNIVERSE YOU ARE SEEMING TO INTRODUCE ATOMISATION IN THE SPIRITUAL DIMENSION. SUPPOSE THERE EXISTS A TABLE IN OUR WORLD, SINCE IT IS COMPOSED OF CONSCIOUS ATOMS EACH ATOM HAS A COUNTERPART IN THE SPIRITUAL DIMENSION AND HENCE THE TABLE HAS A SPIRIT COMPOSED OF THE SPIRITS OF ALL THE ATOMS IT CONTAINS. IF THE TABLE IS BROKEN INTO TWO ITS SPIRITUAL COUNTERPART ALSO BREAKS IN TWO, IF IT IS PAINTED RED THE SPIRIT TABLE IS ALSO COATED WITH THE SPIRITS OF ATOMS OF THAT RED PAINT ETC. ETC. ETC. IS THIS WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING? HOPEFULLY NOT.

You're "meshing" the physical and spiritual (and probably conscious) "planes". My view is that spirit and consciousness would be NOT CONFINED to the physical, thus able to "hold together" even if we EXPLODED a human body. I see spirit and consciousness more like TWO DISTINCT -- tho intertwined -- NETWORKS that are parts of LARGER networks.

Thus, the consiousness or spirit of a "table" is/are connected to OTHER similar systems that remain so even after the table is blown to smithereens!

I would have to say a lot more to convince you, I'm sure. But keep challenging my "assumptions" (tho I prefer to think of them as "propositions") because it's my INTENTION on these threads to "gather my thoughts" about such matters and to find ways of EXPRESSING them clearly.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
You won't believe how complicated that issue can get - especially with both Manuel_Silvio and me debating it. ..

If you're at all interested in this, you should see the last few pages of "I think therefore I am".

Done...but life's so short.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Iacchus32

I give a fairly lengthy reply to M. Gaspar in the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=38889#post38889", which might add something here? [/B]

Iachhus: How do you send people to posts within threads? Also, to other links?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Yes...just as a bowl and a reservoir can be explained as something that holds water.

If you wish to relate the brain to a bowl (considering it just a "container" of consciousness), then you must except the consequences of the analogy, one of which is that, the bigger the vessel, the more "conscious" the being.

I think there may be the "substances" of "spirit" and "consciousness" in every part of the "substance" of "physicality"...all of which, is fundamentally is made of the same "stuff"...ENERGY.

Dear friend, you have used a lot of quotation marks here, and rightly so - as you are using a lot of "key words".

You use the term "substance" and "physicality" in quotation marks, because you are not thinking of the common conception of these things. So, what is your take on "physical" things? After all, we are not in the realm of science, as you yourself admitted.

Maybe is a "vibratory" thing? Maybe EVERYTHING is a part of the ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM...my current (pun intended) canditate for the Grand Unified Field.

While there are scientific reasons why this is not the case, we are not in the realm of science, so feel free to speculate.

Yes...since I am proposing that its all the same thing, except operating at different frequences -- but through similar forces and processes -- so that they perform different FUNCTIONS of the Entity we call the Universe.

Well, you've succeeded in thoroughly confusing me. What is it exactly that you are saying (forgive my mental slowness)?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Iachhus: How do you send people to posts within threads? Also, to other links?

Would you mind if I answered that (though it wasn't directed at me)?

There is an icon (above the area where you type your response) that is labelled "http://". If you click it, a box will pop up, and allow you to first label the link that you are posting, and then (after pressing "Enter") to enter the address of the link that you have just labelled.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Would you mind if I answered that (though it wasn't directed at me)?

There is an icon (above the area where you type your response) that is labelled "http://". If you click it, a box will pop up, and allow you to first label the link that you are posting, and then (after pressing "Enter") to enter the address of the link that you have just labelled.

Also, if you want to go to a "post within a thread," you have to enter the address information under the following format: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=38889#post38889[/color] ... Also note that this adress will appear up at the top of your browser in your "address window" once you post a new reply. The only thing different will be "post id" number (listed twice), which you'll need to change (both times) if you want to refer someone to a different post. If you're not sure what the post id is, then go to that post and drag your cursor across either the "edit" icon or, the "quote" icon, and the post id should be displayed within the address, which you'll then need to incorporate into the format above. Comprendar?

P.S. It's also good to check the link in the "Preview Reply" window to make sure it's working before you sumbit your reply. Got it?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
If you wish to relate the brain to a bowl (considering it just a "container" of consciousness), then you must except the consequences of the analogy, one of which is that, the bigger the vessel, the more "conscious" the being.

Not exactly. It's not an issue of size. It's one of complexity. Plus my point was/is that the brain might not be the only electrochemical system that can generate and transmit thought.

Well, you've succeeded in thoroughly confusing me. What is it exactly that you are saying (forgive my mental slowness)?

It is the half-baked-ness of my ideas and my inability to express them that are the culprits here, and not any deficit on your part whatsoever. These threads are really forcing my hand...and I appreciate any corrective information that is offered.

So let me come at this from a different angel: FUNCTIONALITY.

Let us say -- for the purpose of speculation -- that the Universe is an Entity that's out to have a VERY COMPLEX EXPERIENCE.

To have an Experience, the Universe manifests -- as a natural function of Itself -- : a setting (physicality); an information processing system (consciousness); and a storage system (spirit).

These would be inherent/intrinsic ingredients that existed within (it almost HURTS not to use quotes) the Primal Singularity which "fragmented out" (I can't help it) at the moment of the Big Bang.

Then the process becomes one of ACCRETION via inherent forces (de facto, if you wish...and I'm feeling good) that operate within these three distinct -- tho interconnected -- systems.

In other words, at the beginning of each incarnation of the Universe, it is a natural process of the Entity to "shuffle the deck"...then bring physicality, consciousness and spirit back together again -- much like Humpty Dumpty, only bigger -- in new combinations to yield a completely novel Experience (from the Experiences that have gone before).

Before I go too far on this little speculative journey, what would you ask ...or suggest?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Also, if you want to go to a "post within a thread," you have to enter the address information under the following format: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=38889#post38889[/color] ... Also note that this adress will appear up at the top of your browser in your "address window" once you post a new reply. The only thing different will be "post id" number (listed twice), which you'll need to change (both times) if you want to refer someone to a different post. If you're not sure what the post id is, then go to that post and drag your cursor across either the "edit" icon or, the "quote" icon, and the post id should be displayed within the address, which you'll then need to incorporate into the format above. Comprendar?

P.S. It's also good to check the link in the "Preview Reply" window to make sure it's working before you sumbit your reply. Got it?

I'm scared!

Maybe some day...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Not exactly. It's not an issue of size. It's one of complexity. Plus my point was/is that the brain might not be the only electrochemical system that can generate and transmit thought.

But why does there need to be an electrochemical system to generate thought, if conscious though exists in all things?

So let me come at this from a different angel: FUNCTIONALITY.

Let us say -- for the purpose of speculation -- that the Universe is an Entity that's out to have a VERY COMPLEX EXPERIENCE.

To have an Experience, the Universe manifests -- as a natural function of Itself -- : a setting (physicality); an information processing system (consciousness); and a storage system (spirit).

These would be inherent/intrinsic ingredients that existed within (it almost HURTS not to use quotes) the Primal Singularity which "fragmented out" (I can't help it) at the moment of the Big Bang.

Then the process becomes one of ACCRETION via inherent forces (de facto, if you wish...and I'm feeling good) that operate within these three distinct -- tho interconnected -- systems.

In other words, at the beginning of each incarnation of the Universe, it is a natural process of the Entity to "shuffle the deck"...then bring physicality, consciousness and spirit back together again -- much like Humpty Dumpty, only bigger -- in new combinations to yield a completely novel Experience (from the Experiences that have gone before).

Hmm. Well, there are a couple of problems (well, you knew I'd say it, didn't you? Sometimes I really hate being me ). The problems are:

1) It is my understanding (which may be completely flawed) that you are implying the Universe chooses to bring forth consciousness (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is a contradiction in terms, however, because one cannot choose, unless one is already conscious.

2) The Universe cannot exist without it's consciousness, because your definition of "Universe" includes the fact that it is a conscious entity.

Well, those are the hurdles to the new idea - please forgive me for always being the bearer (sp?) of bad news.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I'm scared!

Maybe some day...

Just follow Mentat's instructions if you want to just post a link then. Or, if you just want to insert a link without a description, just type it where you want it, i.e., such us ... http://www.dionysus.org/7_colors.html ... and the appropriate code will be inserted. Try it!

 

[Royce]

M. Gaspar,
You asked a while ago what I thought. I apolagize for the late response, a lot has been going on for me and haven't had the time to spend here that I normally do. I do see that this thread has not gone so far afield that my response would now be irrelevant.
As far as the universe having consciousnes and being aware, I agree completely. This consciousness and awareness IMO goes right down to individual electrons and photons assuming that there are such things in reality and all the way to up(?) to the complexity of the human mind which IMO has its own individual as well as collective consciousness and limited awareness at least on a conscious level.
Where we differ in our thinking is that I think that that consciousness and awreness is that of the Holy spirit aspect of God.
It is God that gives will, purpose, organization, consciousness, and awareness to the universe and everything in it. I think that at least part or the purpose for all of this is for God/Universe to experience everything including and maybe primarily Life. The spirit whether of God or of the conscious aware Universe is as I have said before ubiquitous and pervasive.
It is entirely possible that the God that I seek and believe in is in reality the Universe itself as you believe. Maybe it is my awareness of the universal spirit that I interpet to be God. It's an interesting speculation. I can think of no reason off hand why this could not be. It would explain a lot. But as I have also said before, God has many names, maybe Universe is one of them.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
But why does there need to be an electrochemical system to generate thought, if conscious though exists in all things?

Good question. Processing...

1) It is my understanding (which may be completely flawed) that you are implying the Universe chooses to bring forth consciousness (please correct me if I'm wrong). This is a contradiction in terms, however, because one cannot choose, unless one is already conscious.

Your understanding is flawed: I am saying that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe. The Universe does not "choose" to "bring it forth"...the RE-ASSEMBLING of CONSCIOUSNESS is a natural PROCESS of the "body" (physical and not) of the Universe which takes place after every Big Bang.

2) The Universe cannot exist without it's consciousness, because your definition of "Universe" includes the fact that it is a conscious Entity.

I hope you don't mind that I capitalized "Entity" within your quote. It only seems right. Meanwhile, I suppose a Universe could exist without consciousness...but THIS one happens to include consciousness among Its features. (Whereas, a Universe without consciousness would not have a Physics Forum in which to ask these questions.)

Well, those are the hurdles to the new idea - please forgive me for always being the bearer (sp?) of bad news.

Well, except for the electrochemical question, the hurdles weren't that daunting...at least I didn't land on my face.

Your spelling is correct...except I haven't found any "bad news" so far...tho you may yet turn out to be the "BARER" of "Bad Ideas" (mine! ) We'll see.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Just follow Mentat's instructions if you want to just post a link then. Or, if you just want to insert a link without a description, just type it where you want it, i.e., such us ... http://www.dionysus.org/7_colors.html ... and the appropriate code will be inserted. Try it!

You have no idea how intimidated I am by what you're proposing. Apparently, I can only grasp MACRO-concepts like the Secrets of the Universe. The Secrets of the Physics Forum ...is another story.

This is my answer to bunji jumping...so I'll try it in the morning. (Don't push! )

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Your understanding is flawed: I am saying that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe. The Universe does not "choose" to "bring it forth"...the RE-ASSEMBLING of CONSCIOUSNESS is a natural PROCESS of the "body" (physical and not) of the Universe which takes place after every Big Bang.

If in fact consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe, then all it belies is the fact that there's a "Greater Mind," which is God's. At least this is what I believe, because consciousness is a faculty of "Mind."

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
M. Gaspar,
As far as the universe having consciousnes and being aware, I agree completely. This consciousness and awareness IMO goes right down to individual electrons and photons assuming that there are such things in reality and all the way to up(?) to the complexity of the human mind which IMO has its own individual as well as collective consciousness and limited awareness at least on a conscious level.
Where we differ in our thinking is that I think that that consciousness and awreness is that of the Holy spirit aspect of God.
It is God that gives will, purpose, organization, consciousness, and awareness to the universe and everything in it. I think that at least part or the purpose for all of this is for God/Universe to experience everything including and maybe primarily Life. The spirit whether of God or of the conscious aware Universe is as I have said before ubiquitous and pervasive.
It is entirely possible that the God that I seek and believe in is in reality the Universe itself as you believe. Maybe it is my awareness of the universal spirit that I interpet to be God. It's an interesting speculation. I can think of no reason off hand why this could not be. It would explain a lot. But as I have also said before, God has many names, maybe Universe is one of them.

I appreciate your generosity in considering that the Universe Itself may be "the God you seek". Since all we can do is speculate anyway...we might as well make room for each others' speculations.

So what IS the "Nature of Spirit" in your estimation? Purpose? Experiencing life? Giving life meaning? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth...I'm just drawing from the few things you have said.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If in fact consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe, then all it belies is the fact that there's a "Greater Mind," which is God's. At least this is what I believe, because consciousness is a faculty of "Mind."

I might be willing to call the Collective Mind of the Universe the Mind of God.

So what shall we solve next?

 

[maximus]

i've only skimmed over the 8 pages of this thread, but i wonder: why do you believe there is a Collective Mind of the Universe? is there some deeper truth you don't feel science tackles properly? (and i don't mean to be cynical, i am truthfully currious about why you think this)

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Royce
It is entirely possible that the God that I seek and believe in is in reality the Universe itself as you believe. Maybe it is my awareness of the universal spirit that I interpet to be God. It's an interesting speculation. I can think of no reason off hand why this could not be. It would explain a lot. But as I have also said before, God has many names, maybe Universe is one of them.

seeing posts like this gives me a little insight as to your guys possition on this subject, my mother has tried to explain this to me before. is it that you cannot see how the universe could fall together so perfectly that intelligent life could evole. that everything in the universe (from the mass of the smallest particle to the critical mass for thermonuclear reactions to take place in a star) is too perfectly coordinated to be an accident? you believe that a higher conciousness has a hand in the construction of such a system. please reply with your ideas.

 

[Iacchus32]

Purpose and Consciousness

Originally posted by maximus
i've only skimmed over the 8 pages of this thread, but i wonder: why do you believe there is a Collective Mind of the Universe? is there some deeper truth you don't feel science tackles properly? (and i don't mean to be cynical, i am truthfully currious about why you think this)

From the thread, Purpose and Consciousness ...

Where does purpose originate? Does the universe have purpose? If not, then why is man endowed with a sense of purpose? How could that be? That would be tantamount to saying the Universe created a sense of purpose outside of itself? ... And yet, who's to say mankind is not the Universe looking back at itself? ...

Is consciousness an isolated thing? Or, is it really universal? And how is it possible that mankind, through his ability of cognizance, capable of knowing all these Universal Laws pertaining to it? Are we putting the cart before the horse here? If not, then how it is it possible for a Universe without purpose, and hence cognizance, and all the laws that go with it, capable of producing such a creature that is capable of "experiencing it?" ... Are you telling me that something rises out of nothing here?

Whereas just as we all have a mother and a father in an "earthly sense," why can't we all be children of the Universe, which in fact is the origin of consciousness? While I can assure you mankind is not the origin of consciousnes, but rather "its receptacle."

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I appreciate your generosity in considering that the Universe Itself may be "the God you seek". Since all we can do is speculate anyway...we might as well make room for each others' speculations.
_________________________

I may be impossiblly naive, but I thought that that was what philosphy was all about, especially this philosphy forum.

_________________________

So what IS the "Nature of Spirit" in your estimation? Purpose? Experiencing life? Giving life meaning? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth...I'm just drawing from the few things you have said.

_________________________

In a word, Life, another, Knowing. Maybe experience life and/or knowing itself is it's purpose.

_________________________

seeing posts like this gives me a little insight as to your guys possition on this subject, my mother has tried to explain this to me before. is it that you cannot see how the universe could fall together so perfectly that intelligent life could evole. that everything in the universe (from the mass of the smallest particle to the critical mass for thermonuclear reactions to take place in a star) is too perfectly coordinated to be an accident? you believe that a higher conciousness has a hand in the construction of such a system. please reply with your ideas.

_________________________

Yes, that's about it. I can accept and see in my mind a big bang evolving into galaxies and stars and planets. I can even see complex hydrocarbons randonly combining until a self-replicating molecule evolved. I cannot see that molecule evolving into Motzart, Einstein, Tiger Woods or my daughter or son when they were babies much less adults having babies of their own. Yes I know that given enought time it was bound to happen by chance alone but there has not been enought time for all or the extremely improbable events to happen in just the exact right sequence to make something as beautiful as a baby much less the world that we live in.
The biggest question of all is WHY? Why do electrons have a charge of -1 and why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract? Why ask why? The only logical answer is, why not?
It is too beautiful, too elegant, too mathematically perfect, too logical, rational and reasonable to all be an accident or coincidence. Who or what made the laws and the rules that all matter in the universe automatically abide by without fail. God? I don't know but if not, who or what or why?
That is just the logical, philisophical reason to believe in something greater than ourselves. I have already stated most of my subjective reasons throughout this and the Religion form.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Good question. Processing...

Take your time. It's actually a good quality that one doesn't just blurt out the first answer that comes them (which is a problem that I sometimes have).

Your understanding is flawed: I am saying that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe. The Universe does not "choose" to "bring it forth"...the RE-ASSEMBLING of CONSCIOUSNESS is a natural PROCESS of the "body" (physical and not) of the Universe which takes place after every Big Bang.

Hmm. A couple of flaws here too. The first flaw is a scientific one - you cannot speak of what happens "before" the Big Bang, unless the universe is really infinite, and we are just a sub-universe. I'd like to say that that would solve your problem, but it doesn', because if the Universe is infinite, then either the whole Universe is conscious, or only little subsets of it are (if the former, then the recombination that you speak of cannot occur; if the latter, then you have left Panpsychism - as I already think parts of the Universe are conscious (like me, for example)).

Another flaw would the assumption that there is a process taking place (such as the reconstitution of the Universe) without there being a Universe (and how could there both be a Universe and not a Universe at the same time?).

I hope you don't mind that I capitalized "Entity" within your quote. It only seems right. Meanwhile, I suppose a Universe could exist without consciousness...but THIS one happens to include consciousness among Its features. (Whereas, a Universe without consciousness would not have a Physics Forum in which to ask these questions.)

We have to distinguish between a Universe's having consciousness, and some particular parts of the Universe (like humans) having consciousness. If the Universe did not contain parts of it that were conscious, then no, we wouldn't have a PF. However, conscious beings are perfectly capable of existing without the Universe's being conscious altogether.

Also, as I said before, if you posit that there are some Universes that are conscious, and some that are not, then you leave Panpsychism - as all of these sub-universes would exist within one infinite Universe, and that infinite Universe would not be entirely composed of conscious things.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If in fact consciousness is a fundamental feature of the Universe, then all it belies is the fact that there's a "Greater Mind," which is God's. At least this is what I believe, because consciousness is a faculty of "Mind."

Why would the conscious nature of the Universe lead you to think that there was some "Greater Mind"?

Yes, consciousness is a faculty of the mind, but that doesn't mean that for one conscious mind to exist, there must be a greater one (if it did, then you would have an infinite regress problem, as I'm sure you're aware).

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
I can accept and see in my mind a big bang evolving into galaxies and stars and planets. I can even see complex hydrocarbons randonly combining until a self-replicating molecule evolved. I cannot see that molecule evolving into Motzart, Einstein, Tiger Woods or my daughter or son when they were babies much less adults having babies of their own. Yes I know that given enought time it was bound to happen by chance alone but there has not been enought time for all or the extremely improbable events to happen in just the exact right sequence to make something as beautiful as a baby much less the world that we live in.
The biggest question of all is WHY? Why do electrons have a charge of -1 and why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract? Why ask why? The only logical answer is, why not?
It is too beautiful, too elegant, too mathematically perfect, too logical, rational and reasonable to all be an accident or coincidence. Who or what made the laws and the rules that all matter in the universe automatically abide by without fail. God? I don't know but if not, who or what or why?
That is just the logical, philisophical reason to believe in something greater than ourselves. I have already stated most of my subjective reasons throughout this and the Religion form.

If it is a NATURAL PROPERTY of an Entity to DO SOMETHING SPECIFIC..then that's what it DOES!

If it is a natural property of the Universe to have It's moving parts assemble and re-assemble in certain ways...then that's what it DOES!

If there are natural forces, processes and ingredients in the Universe -- NOT "bestowed upon It by a Great & Holy Outsider" -- that cause pure energy to "freeze down" into elementary particles...then to join up to form a variety of atoms...then join up to form molecules...that re-assemble to form Tiger Woods -- then that's what the Universe DOES.

AND, if a natural ingredient/process/force is INTENTION ...and if intention ACTS UPON other ingredients/processes/forces by influencing the "lynchpin" of "randomness" (causing certain things to happen and not others) ...if all these things are natural processes of the Universe , then that's what It's going to DO!

If the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang had an INTENTION to RE-CREATE sentient beings within Its "body" -- as It has in every incarnation I would venture -- then processes that seem "improbable", "mystical" or "orchestrated by an outside hand" would OCCUR because that is the INTENTION of a Being Who's INTENTION makes things happen!

 

[Mentat]

Originally Posted by Royce:
I may be impossiblly naive, but I thought that that was what philosphy was all about, especially this philosphy forum.

Not that it's really important to the thread at hand, but that is definitely not what Philosophy is, good buddy Royce. I started a thread on what Philosophy really is, but I don't have time to search for it right now. If you wish to search for it, it's called "What Philosophy IS and what it IS NOT".

Yes, that's about it. I can accept and see in my mind a big bang evolving into galaxies and stars and planets. I can even see complex hydrocarbons randonly combining until a self-replicating molecule evolved. I cannot see that molecule evolving into Motzart, Einstein, Tiger Woods or my daughter or son when they were babies much less adults having babies of their own. Yes I know that given enought time it was bound to happen by chance alone but there has not been enought time for all or the extremely improbable events to happen in just the exact right sequence to make something as beautiful as a baby much less the world that we live in.

Well, I could reply with the Scientific reasoning, and show that it is in fact very likely for this - or some very similar - series of events to take place, but I won't go into that (unless you really want to).

The biggest question of all is WHY? Why do electrons have a charge of -1 and why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract? Why ask why? The only logical answer is, why not?

"Why" is not a scientific question, and thus cannot be answered in the realm of science (nor does science ever even attempt to answer "why" questions). So, you are allowed to assign whatever "reason" you wish to assign, but science (as a whole) remains agnostic on that point.

It is too beautiful, too elegant, too mathematically perfect, too logical, rational and reasonable to all be an accident or coincidence. Who or what made the laws and the rules that all matter in the universe automatically abide by without fail. God? I don't know but if not, who or what or why?

Why do you think someone needed to make them? Think of this, if spacetime is infinite, then an infinite amount of sub-universes could come into existence, so one of them was bound to be like ours is (in fact, the probability of it's coming into existence is 100%). Thus, it is no surprise that the Universe is the way it is.

btw, the Universe may not even really be logical (see my thread, "A Universe without Logic").

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...then processes that seem "improbable", "mystical" or "orchestrated by an outside hand" would OCCUR because that is the INTENTION of a Being Who's INTENTION makes things happen!

It's funny that you use those exact words. Without realizing it, you've explained the meaning of the name of the God of the Bible: Jehovah (or Yahweh). It means "He causes to become", or "He makes it happen", as you put it. Whatever is His intention, is what WILL occur (according to Isaiah 55:11).

Anyway, I just thought it was a funny coincidence that you happened to use those words, while denying the need for there to have been a "Grand Creator".

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Royce
Yes, that's about it. I can accept and see in my mind a big bang evolving into galaxies and stars and planets. I can even see complex hydrocarbons randonly combining until a self-replicating molecule evolved. I cannot see that molecule evolving into Motzart, Einstein, Tiger Woods or my daughter or son when they were babies much less adults having babies of their own. Yes I know that given enought time it was bound to happen by chance alone but there has not been enought time for all or the extremely improbable events to happen in just the exact right sequence to make something as beautiful as a baby much less the world that we live in.
The biggest question of all is WHY? Why do electrons have a charge of -1 and why do like charges repel and unlike charges attract? Why ask why? The only logical answer is, why not?
It is too beautiful, too elegant, too mathematically perfect, too logical, rational and reasonable to all be an accident or coincidence. Who or what made the laws and the rules that all matter in the universe automatically abide by without fail. God? I don't know but if not, who or what or why?
That is just the logical, philisophical reason to believe in something greater than ourselves. I have already stated most of my subjective reasons throughout this and the Religion form.

in responce to this i will state my position in this importance question:
The Anthropic Principle= (quite simply) the universe is the way it is becuase if it were any different, we would not exist.
First the weak anthropic principle: in a universe that is large or infinite in space and/or time the conditions necessary for the develpment of intelligent life can only be met in a certain regions of finite space and time. the intelligent beings in these regions would therefore not be surprised that the location in which they exist satisfies the conditions necessary for their existence. it was described to me as "a rich man living in a rich neigborhood not knowing what poverty is". we exist in a specialized zone where it obviously must have been possible for all the complex steps to take place in which intelligent life like us can evolve. (becuase we exist! )

now, the strong anthropic principle: is a theory in which there are either many different universes or many different regions in a single universe, each with its own line of events (maybe even laws of physics). in most of these scenerios the conditions would not be suitable for intelligent life to evolve. therefore the answer to the question: why is the universe so perfect and organized? is simply: if it had been any different we could not exist.

these are principle created by people asking the same questions you are, and is this scenerio any more far-fetched than a conciousness in the universe. or that it was 'planned out' by some higher being? i don't think they are.

but in either of the cases (anthropic principle or a conciousness) one would still have the question 'why exist at all?' this question (IMO) is completely out of the reach of science of any humans for that matter, so in many ways it is pointless to ask it. the fact is we exist.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why would the conscious nature of the Universe lead you to think that there was some "Greater Mind"?

Yes, consciousness is a faculty of the mind, but that doesn't mean that for one conscious mind to exist, there must be a greater one (if it did, then you would have an infinite regress problem, as I'm sure you're aware).

Because the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. Therefore if consciousness were pervasive, then mind must be pervasive also. Only question is, whose mind? And why would there be a regress problem if we were all of the "Mind of God?"

Just as life begins as a single cell, we're all comprised of a myriad of single cells, which come together as a whole. Now who's to say that each one of us as individuals can't be viewed as a "single facet" to God's Mind? And who's to say, we are not the microcosm of what God is the macrocosm?

And why does man seem to have the inherent need to socialize, and generate even greater bodies or organizations, called "institutions?" Why do birds of a feather flock together, if they are not of the "same mind?"

 

[sage]

2 pages in 24 hours this thread is racing. will post some replies after another 24 hours. till then speculate anything you want to.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Because the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. Therefore if consciousness were pervasive, then mind must be pervasive also. Only question is, whose mind?

I don't think it is a claim of Panpsychism that the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. That would be your add-on. However, I suppose you are correct, that the Universe would have to be a large "Mind", if all of it's constituents were conscious.

And why would there be a regress problem if we were all of the "Mind of God?"

No, the infinite regress is caused by trying to postulate that everything which is conscious must have been caused by another mind.

Just as life begins as a single cell, we're all comprised of a myriad of single cells, which come together as a whole. Now who's to say that each one of us as individuals can't be viewed as a "single facet" to God's Mind?

A mind is not exactly the same thing as a brain, and by most philosophical standpoints is a metaphysical thing, and would thus not be composed of physical consitutents.

And who's to say, we are not the microcosm of what God is the macrocosm?

Well, that would be one speculation, but I don't think it holds much water as God is supposed to be a material entity.

And why does man seem to have the inherent need to socialize, and generate even greater bodies or organizations, called "institutions?"

Because man is a social animal, Wuliheron has already posted a lot of information on this (particularly on our being evolved from Pack Hunters).

Why do birds of a feather flock together, if they are not of the "same mind?"

Because they have imprinted on each other; it's a biological process.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
I don't think it is a claim of Panpsychism that the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. That would be your add-on. However, I suppose you are correct, that the Universe would have to be a large "Mind", if all of it's constituents were conscious.

Thanks for acknowledging at least that much.

No, the infinite regress is caused by trying to postulate that everything which is conscious must have been caused by another mind.

So if we were all of the "same mind," it wouldn't pose a problem now would it?

A mind is not exactly the same thing as a brain, and by most philosophical standpoints is a metaphysical thing, and would thus not be composed of physical consitutents.

And yet each brain cell must be a receptive to "metaphyisical properties" as well.

Well, that would be one speculation, but I don't think it holds much water as God is supposed to be a material entity.

Are you sure you don't mean metaphysical?

Because man is a social animal, Wuliheron has already posted a lot of information on this (particularly on our being evolved from Pack Hunters).

And yet each organization is comprised of a group of "individual cells" (people) so to speak.

Because they have imprinted on each other; it's a biological process.

A biological process of what? The mind? (or brain).

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
...you cannot speak of what happens "before" the Big Bang, unless the universe is really infinite, and we are just a sub-universe. I'd like to say that that would solve your problem, but it doesn', because if the Universe is infinite, then either the whole Universe is conscious, or only little subsets of it are (if the former, then the recombination that you speak of cannot occur; if the latter, then you have left Panpsychism - as I already think parts of the Universe are conscious (like me, for example)).

Not only CAN I speak of what happens "before" the Big Bang, I DO...and often.

Remember, an integral part of my proposition is that the Universe is enjoying an infinite number of Big Bangs...so whenever I refer to a "before", I am either speak of prior incarnations...or, more typically, I am speaking of the Primal Singularity...which is the Universe CONDENSED DOWN from a the PRIOR incarnation, just before It "explodes" into It's NEXt incarnation.

When you say "we are a sub-universe"...are you talking about human beings...or this incarnation of the Universe? If the former, then you are being more poetic than scientific...if the latter, then the term is not quite right. I would use the term "successive" when describing the "life cycle" of the Universe.

For the record, I think the whole Universe is a conscious SYSTEM...and there we could say that we (human beings) are "sub-SYSTEMS" of consciousness.

Also, I do not see how it follows that if the whole Universe is conscious, then recombinations cannot take place. As I have said, the Universe "reshuffles the deck" with every Big Bang...then consciousness (as well as physicality and, perhaps, spirit) re-assembled into something new.

Another flaw would the assumption that there is a process taking place (such as the reconstitution of the Universe) without there being a Universe (and how could there both be a Universe and not a Universe at the same time?).

When did I say that there is any point in time when there is NOT a Universe? If the Universe is eternal, then It always exists in some form...either expanding outward, collapsing inward, or as a momentary singularity twixt incarnations.

We have to distinguish between a Universe's having consciousness, and some particular parts of the Universe (like humans) having consciousness. If the Universe did not contain parts of it that were conscious, then no, we wouldn't have a PF. However, conscious beings are perfectly capable of existing without the Universe's being conscious altogether.

Perhaps...but I think not. I think we are conscious sub-systems of a conscious macro-system...made up of a lot of micro-systems.

Also, as I said before, if you posit that there are some Universes that are conscious, and some that are not, then you leave Panpsychism - as all of these sub-universes would exist within one infinite Universe, and that infinite Universe would not be entirely composed of conscious things.

I do not posit -- nor believe -- that there are multi-universes. There is only ONE (IMO) and this is It.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
It's funny that you use those exact words. Without realizing it, you've explained the meaning of the name of the God of the Bible: Jehovah (or Yahweh). It means "He causes to become", or "He makes it happen", as you put it. Whatever is His intention, is what WILL occur (according to Isaiah 55:11).

Anyway, I just thought it was a funny coincidence that you happened to use those words, while denying the need for there to have been a "Grand Creator".

There is no internal contradiction in my position on this matter: IMO, the Universe -- not an "Outsider" -- has the INTENTION that MAKES THINGS HAPPEN...and also, the Universe was not "created" by an "Outsider" -- but RE-CREATES ITSELF over and over again.

Aliens didn't build the pyramids -- and "God" didn't create the Universe -- IM .

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Not only CAN I speak of what happens "before" the Big Bang, I DO...and often.
Remember, an integral part of my proposition is that the Universe is enjoying an infinite number of Big Bangs...so whenever I refer to a "before", I am either speak of prior incarnations...or, more typically, I am speaking of the Primal Singularity...which is the Universe CONDENSED DOWN from a the PRIOR incarnation, just before It "explodes" into It's NEXt incarnation.

any speculation into the events (or rather lack of event) before the big bang is pure speculation without any scientific backing. as of now we have no reason to believe that a) anything happened before the big bang(there was a complete lack of a series of events, therefore pointless to speculate about) or b) that the 'bounce-back' theory of the universe collapse is true. we do not observe black hole singularities 'bouncing-back'.

For the record, I think the whole Universe is a conscious SYSTEM...and there we could say that we (human beings) are "sub-SYSTEMS" of consciousness.

what would be the purpose for a higher conscious (universal) to create a sub-system of conciousness (humanity). if you believe that there is a conscious in the universe, don't you imply that this conscious designed the universe for us? (i.e. made it possible for us to have evolved) surely a conscious wouldn't let us happen 'on accident'. therefore if it created us we must ask the question 'why?". do we therefore have a purpose in this conscious mind. is it like god? we're we created in its image?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by maximus
The Anthropic Principle= (quite simply) the universe is the way it is becuase if it were any different, we would not exist.
First the weak anthropic principle: in a universe that is large or infinite in space and/or time the conditions necessary for the develpment of intelligent life can only be met in a certain regions of finite space and time. the intelligent beings in these regions would therefore not be surprised that the location in which they exist satisfies the conditions necessary for their existence. it was described to me as "a rich man living in a rich neigborhood not knowing what poverty is". we exist in a specialized zone where it obviously must have been possible for all the complex steps to take place in which intelligent life like us can evolve. (becuase we exist! )

There is nothing "special" about this time or place...or us, for that matter...except, perhaps, that we are AMONG the "beings" that the Universe has given rise to (via Its INTENTION to do so) that has reached sufficient complexity to form languages to discuss the Source of our beingness.

now, the strong anthropic principle: is a theory in which there are either many different universes or many different regions in a single universe, each with its own line of events (maybe even laws of physics). in most of these scenerios the conditions would not be suitable for intelligent life to evolve. therefore the answer to the question: why is the universe so perfect and organized? is simply: if it had been any different we could not exist.

For some reason, I do not find this a very "satisfying" theory. Can't say why at the moment.

these are principle created by people asking the same questions you are, and is this scenerio any more far-fetched than a conciousness in the universe. or that it was 'planned out' by some higher being? i don't think they are.

Yes, we're a very imaginative species that loves to make up stories...and then BELIEVE them! Still, I think there must be a way to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to speculations.

but in either of the cases (anthropic principle or a conciousness) one would still have the question 'why exist at all?' this question (IMO) is completely out of the reach of science of any humans for that matter, so in many ways it is pointless to ask it. the fact is we exist.

Except...I've come to an anwer: we -- like the Universe Itself -- are out to have an Experience. This -- IM -- is the point/purpose/function of ALL EXISTENCE.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Except...I've come to an anwer: we -- like the Universe Itself -- are out to have an Experience. This -- IM -- is the point/purpose/function of ALL EXISTENCE.

well, know we must wonder, what is this experience? what is its significance?

there is another way to approach the subject. it is: we have no purpose. we are the byproduct of the random functioning of a machine-like universe that was created for no reasons other than chance. this, though depressing to humans, is a perfecty logical and expanitory idea. humans, for reasons i will not go into (unless you ask) wants certain things to be true. we don't want to be alone. we don't like the impersonality of such a system. but is science personal? no. an experiment will perform and perform and never once will hint to you of a greater power. there is no magic that we have found. we can find nothing in the universe that hints at anything of this power, but our imagination and natural human nature. these have other explanations though.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Because the mind is the receptacle of consciousness. Therefore if consciousness were pervasive, then mind must be pervasive also. Only question is, whose mind? And why would there be a regress problem if we were all of the "Mind of God?"

The "mind" is not a "receptacle"...its a GENERATOR.

Just as life begins as a single cell, we're all comprised of a myriad of single cells, which come together as a whole. Now who's to say that each one of us as individuals can't be viewed as a "single facet" to God's Mind? And who's to say, we are not the microcosm of what God is the macrocosm?

And who's to say that God is not a macaroon? LOL (I love my own jokes ) I can buy that we are each a facet of the Mind of the Universe...I just don't like to call the Universe "God". Maybe you can help me understand why I have this aversion.

And why does man seem to have the inherent need to socialize, and generate even greater bodies or organizations, called "institutions?" Why do birds of a feather flock together, if they are not of the "same mind?"

Now I think you might be brushing up against Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic fields"...and I'm not "ready" to send you to a link, despite your -- and others' -- great efforts to assist me informationally. Anyhow, a Google search will get you there.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, the infinite regress is caused by trying to postulate that everything which is conscious must have been caused by another mind.

Well put.

A mind is not exactly the same thing as a brain, and by most philosophical standpoints is a metaphysical thing, and would thus not be composed of physical consitutents.

ooooo...I don't like the word "metaphysical" ...and yet, when I look it up, it's EXACTLY RIGHT! "Metaphysics": The branch of philosphy that systematically investigates the nature of first principles and problems of ultimate reality, including the study of being (ontology) and, often, the study of the structure of the universe (cosmology). "Metaphysical": Based on speculative or abstract reasoning...too abstract...excessively subtle...SUPERNATURAL." Ah...there's the rub! It's a loaded word...but you're using it correctly, so I bow to your verbiage!

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by maximus
any speculation into the events (or rather lack of event) before the big bang is pure speculation without any scientific backing. as of now we have no reason to believe that a) anything happened before the big bang(there was a complete lack of a series of events, therefore pointless to speculate about) or b) that the 'bounce-back' theory of the universe collapse is true. we do not observe black hole singularities 'bouncing-back'.

With all due respect -- and I mean that sincerely -- there are a LOT of things we do not "observe" -- AND -- "pure speculation" is why I'm here. Meanwhile, my thinking has led me to believe that the Universe is enjoying an endless cycles of incarnations...and when "things" get DENSE enough, explosions ensue.

what would be the purpose for a higher conscious (universal) to create a sub-system of conciousness (humanity). if you believe that there is a conscious in the universe, don't you imply that this conscious designed the universe for us? (i.e. made it possible for us to have evolved) surely a conscious wouldn't let us happen 'on accident'. therefore if it created us we must ask the question 'why?". do we therefore have a purpose in this conscious mind. is it like god? we're we created in its image? [/B]

Heavens to Betsy, Maximus...when did I say that that the Universe was "designed for us"? What I've said is that we are one of the products of Its INTENTION to have an Experience ...via the lives we (and other entities) live...full of emotions and the meanings we (and other entities) give to the lives we live. We (and other entities) are Its creations and Its agents. In fact, I once toyed with the idea of designing a T-shirt that reads:

AGENT OF THE UNIVERSE!

How many would you like?

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Meanwhile, my thinking has led me to believe that the Universe is enjoying an endless cycles of incarnations...and when "things" get DENSE enough, explosions ensue.

your thinking in this area might be flawed. common experience in this matter may not prevail. just as virtual particle pairs in the universe rise out of nothingness and collapse back into in, so might our universe. never to be reincarnated. this is more of a hopeful philosopical view than a scientifically backed theory.

Heavens to Betsy, Maximus...when did I say that that the Universe was "designed for us"? What I've said is that we are one of the products of Its INTENTION to have an Experience ...via the lives we (and other entities) live...full of emotions and the meanings we (and other entities) give to the lives we live. We (and other entities) are Its creations and Its agents.

you just said it: agents of the universe! agents carry out purpose or intension. what is our purpose, or the anothers purpose through us? to have an experience? again, what experience might this be? and why do you think this? and how does this fit into the earlier quote? does this entity wish to have this experience multiple times? has it already had it?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by maximus
your thinking in this area might be flawed. common experience in this matter may not prevail. just as virtual particle pairs in the universe rise out of nothingness and collapse back into in, so might our universe. never to be reincarnated. this is more of a hopeful philosopical view than a scientifically backed theory.

In my view, nothin' comes from nothin'..."there's ENERGY in them thar vacuums", bunky...from whence your baryonic matter has condensed out! "Matter" -- as you "know"? -- is "simply" BOUND-UP ENERGY.

I may be wrong, but...When stars are big enough -- and they burn up all their hydrogen -- do they not collapse in on themselves...then EXPLODE ...leaving behind a Black Hole...which, when combined/collapsed with all other Black Holes over the course of the lifetime of the Universe, MIGHT be that which causes Everything That Is to condence down into a SINGULARITY which might be HOT ENOUGH -- i.e., ENERGETIC ENOUGH -- to burst outward? Who knows? [?]

you just said it: agents of the universe! agents carry out purpose or intension. what is our purpose, or the anothers purpose through us? to have an experience? again, what experience might this be? and why do you think this? and how does this fit into the earlier quote? does this entity wish to have this experience multiple times? has it already had it? [/B]

The whole "purpose" of reincarnation -- for us and for the Universe -- is to have multiple NEW experiences...not the same one over and over. You ask "what experience might this be?" and I reply "No specifically designated experience. Just whatever experiences individuals cause via their intentions and actions ... to include falling in love, being rejected, crashing a car, building a telescope, having a baby, shooting your neighbor, clipping your toenails, and so forth."

Mostly, however, I believe it is the EMOTIONAL CONTENT of our experiences that the Universe is "interested in"...as this MIGHT be the "currency" of the "spirit"...what the spirit STORES/REMEMBERS over lifetimes.

What would YOU do, Maximus, if you were a complex and sentient Entity on the magnitude of the Universe? Just sit there knowing everything and doing nothing?

This is how I have come to postulate that the Universe is "out to have an Experience".

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What would YOU do, Maximus, if you were a complex and sentient Entity on the magnitude of the Universe? Just sit there knowing everything and doing nothing?

This is how I have come to postulate that the Universe is "out to have an Experience".

well, if one knows everything than it's knid of pointless to do anything, becuase you would know exactly what would happen. also, before this entity created the universe, what was there to know? nothing! so you therefore are telling me that this entity designed this universe to have an experience through humans that it could not have had anyways? a new experience for it? something it didn't know?

 

[sage]

i am posting an outdated reply.

[/quote] You point about "flight and fight" is a little shaky, however. I've seen BUGS run for cover from US...and I don't think it's because they believe they have "unfinished business".[/quote]
no because they cannot think lacking a logically endowed brain. A beetle is a ready-made creature, its behavior is completely programmed by its genes. It cannot learn from the environment. This is true for all insects, and mostly true for amphibians, fishes and reptiles. But the absolutism of preprogrammed genetic control decreases with increasing brain complexity until we come upon certain birds and mammals capable of showing considerable learning skills. needless to say that logical part of the brain with its inherent capability to learn from the environment has attained maximum complexity in humans. So our genes has produced a brain whose responses to external stimuli is not preprogrammed, but learned. But as responses are learned by our powerful logical brain it may be possible under certain circumstances that the learned responses are actually harmful for the existence of the individual. Indeed this is commonly seen in depressed people with suicidal tendencies. So some checks and balances have to be built in within the system so that responses that increase the chances of survival for the individual(or society) are selected by our brain irrespective of the logic behind it. It is here that the feelings of specialty and purpose makes us choose only those courses of action that help us as an individual or as a group survive for one more day. In short it boils down to this- people do not want to die today though they know that death is inevitable because evolution has taken care that such thoughts never enter our minds. Such checks are only there because we can think for ourselves which a beetle cannot do.

My belief is that the Universe is "out to have an Experience"...a real complex one, which includes the lives of Everything It gives rise to. Thus, all "we" need to do is to "have an experience" or two...to "fulfill our purpose".

so you see that your ideas gives humans speciality(by assigning that consciousness felt by us is a fundamental property of the universe and thus in a sense the universe is some sort of conscious life form like us) and also a purpose. So yes the we is all inclusive.

Iacchus...I think he's talking to YOU. Sorry for evesdropping.

no, no. you are welcome.

I'm pretty sure there's consciousness in -- if not OF -- the Universe; as to "spirit"...it's only through deduction than observation

I still not see how you are ‘sure’ about the existence of universal consciousness. Anyway how did you deduce there is a spirit?
[/quote] And whether spirit or consciousness will ever be "proved" by science doesn't "nullify" a thing.[/quote]
or whether existence of an unicorn will ever be proved by science doesn’t nullify a thing. If spirit does exist and can interact with the physical world it must leave its signatures behind that can be picked up by science. If we can find neutrinos, we can find spirits if they exist in our world.

First, I don't think that consciousness "can be explained via simple atomic interactions alone." Aux contraire. But that's another thread

how about “consciousness-defined in science?” thread
[/quote] You're "meshing" the physical and spiritual (and probably conscious) "planes". My view is that spirit and consciousness would be NOT CONFINED to the physical, thus able to "hold together" even if we EXPLODED a human body. I see spirit and consciousness more like TWO DISTINCT -- tho intertwined -- NETWORKS that are parts of LARGER networks.

Thus, the consiousness or spirit of a "table" is/are connected to OTHER similar systems that remain so even after the table is blown to smithereens![/quote]
but a table is made from wood which came from a tree. This tree is made of carbon which was made in nucleosynthesis within a star from hydrogen. This hydrogen came from primordial post big bang soup. So if the changes in form experienced by physical entities are not mirrored in the spirit world then the entities in the spirit dimension must be frozen into the shape it acquired directly after the big bang. There will be no evolution, everything would be static-a drab dimension indeed.
This quote is from iacchus
[/quote] Where does purpose originate? Does the universe have purpose? If not, then why is man endowed with a sense of purpose? How could that be? That would be tantamount to saying the Universe created a sense of purpose outside of itself? ... And yet, who's to say mankind is not the Universe looking back at itself? ...[/quote]
many amongst you seem to believe that purpose and consciousness cannot originate from situ. It had to be there all along. But this is simply not true. Consciousness is an effect of the processes occurring within our complex brain. So it is a form of complexity. Can complexity arise out of simplicity. here we must first define what complexity is. Any system that has a lesser entropy than another system is more complex than the latter. So the question boils down to this- can a system progress from a state of higher to lower entropy. The answer is it can under certain conditions. Such processes are called self-organization and is today a leading field of research. Everyday you see processes of self-organisation. Thus the structure of a hurricane is much more complex than the things from which it arose. Life, consciousness etc. are sophisticated examples of such processes of self-organization.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
There is no internal contradiction in my position on this matter: IMO, the Universe -- not an "Outsider" -- has the INTENTION that MAKES THINGS HAPPEN...and also, the Universe was not "created" by an "Outsider" -- but RE-CREATES ITSELF over and over again.

Aliens didn't build the pyramids -- and "God" didn't create the Universe -- IM .

But you have one problem here (which I have attempted to point out before): Something cannot create itself. It is contradictory and paradoxical to even state "I created myself". Can you see why?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Heavens to Betsy, Maximus...when did I say that that the Universe was "designed for us"? What I've said is that we are one of the products of Its INTENTION to have an Experience ...via the lives we (and other entities) live...full of emotions and the meanings we (and other entities) give to the lives we live.

And saying that the Universe has the intention of our existence in all of it's reincarnations isn't implying that we were intended to live in this Universe (and thus, logically, the Universe would have to make itself suitable to our needs)?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by maximus
well, if one knows everything than it's knid of pointless to do anything, becuase you would know exactly what would happen. also, before this entity created the universe, what was there to know? nothing! so you therefore are telling me that this entity designed this universe to have an experience through humans that it could not have had anyways? a new experience for it? something it didn't know?

First off, you seem "stuck" in a paradigm wherein the Universe is created by an outside entity. I am saying that the Universe IS the Entity...and in each of Its incarnations It creates a DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE for Itself.

All that this Entity -- the Universe -- would "know" is what has gone before...NOT what It can create in the future via Its naturual processes. This is because the inherent feature of "randomness" in the "body" of the Universe causes "things" (physical, conscious and spiritual) to come together in ways never before experienced by the Universe.

The "point" of having an "experience" to to learn something new...perhaps about ONESELF!

I am not so interested in your "buying" what I'm "selling"...but only that I am communicating it well enough so that you "get" what I'm saying. So far I'm doing a lousy job, apparently.

Please tell me what you think I'm saying so that I can tell you if you're right. Only after you understand what I'm saying can you argue with my speculations.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
But you have one problem here (which I have attempted to point out before): Something cannot create itself. It is contradictory and paradoxical to even state "I created myself". Can you see why?

"Eternity" is "illogical" then because, by definition, an Entity that is eternal has no beginning nor an end.

So what I'm saying is that the Universe RE -creates Itself with every incarnation that "begins" with the Primal Singularity which "explodes" (mixing Its ingredients -- physical, mental and spiritual) in what we call a Big Bang, then expands -- while creating "things" which It -- the Universe -- never created before.

Paradoxical? Not a problem (for me).

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
And saying that the Universe has the intention of our existence in all of it's reincarnations isn't implying that we were intended to live in this Universe (and thus, logically, the Universe would have to make itself suitable to our needs)?

Not OUR existence...NO. The existence of ANY complex, coherent system that comes out of whatever conditions the Universe creates each time around!

It's not about US per se...it's about whatever manifests via natural processes to serve the function of having an experience.

Also: We are not alone.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Sage:

Later.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
"Eternity" is "illogical" then because, by definition, an Entity that is eternal has no beginning nor an end.

I didn't say it was illogical for something to have no beginning or end. I said it is illogical (and thus impossible) for something to create itself.

So what I'm saying is that the Universe RE -creates Itself with every incarnation that "begins" with the Primal Singularity which "explodes" (mixing Its ingredients -- physical, mental and spiritual) in what we call a Big Bang, then expands -- while creating "things" which It -- the Universe -- never created before.

But you are still postulating that something can create (or re-create) itself. This is illogical for the following reasons:

1) For something to create something, it (the creating entity) has to exist.

2) For something to be created, it cannot have existed before.

If something were to create itself, then it would have to exist before it started existing (according to the above reasoning), which is an illogical proposition.

Paradoxical? Not a problem (for me).

Actually, paradox spells death for any postulation.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't say it was illogical for something to have no beginning or end. I said it is illogical (and thus impossible) for something to create itself.

I know what you said. And then there's what I said.

But you are still postulating that something can create (or re-create) itself. This is illogical for the following reasons:

1) For something to create something, it (the creating entity) has to exist.

2) For something to be created, it cannot have existed before.

If something were to create itself, then it would have to exist before it started existing (according to the above reasoning), which is an illogical proposition.

Actually, paradox spells death for any postulation.

"Et tu, Mentat? Then die, Gaspar!"

Perhaps I am being figurative...perhaps not. Let's take another look at what I'm saying:

First, we have to situate ourselves within the paradigm that the Unverse is (1) eternal and (2) that It traverses eternity by expanding and contracting Itself from one incarnation to another.

Now, in fact (ha,ha,ha ) even tho we are talking about many incarnations, we are really only talking about ONE ENTITY.

Nonetheless, when I say the Universe RE-CREATES Itself, I am saying that EACH INCARNATION is a RE-CREATION of Itself.

Of course, my postulation may be WRONG...but it is very much ALIVE!