posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by Astyanax
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by PhotonEffect
Cool reply; thanks. Did you notice I gave you three different models there?
Not at first, you seemed to be basing your post on the idea that the universe is a brain that is still attempting to have a thought. Which again, is
not what Im getting at, but I definitely appreciate your feedback and thoughts.
You don't have to believe that mind arises out of matter, but if mind is going to have any kind of interaction with matter (meaning
that mind can put physical processes into motion – exercise free will, make things happen) then to the degree that it relies on physical processes
to achieve its ends it must wait on physical processes to work themselves out, and that takes time.
What sorts of physical processes are you referring to, out of curiosity? I'm still trying to work around the mind issue. It's not physical or
tangible but can freely manipulate the physical and tangible. While I think the mind and consciousness share a deep connection in many ways, it still
is possible to "lose or alter ones mind" if there is, say, damage done to the brain. So in this respect I guess there would have to be a connection
between (the functionality of) mind and matter in some sense. However I don't find this is necessarily the case with consciousness.
You seem to have thought of this, since you suggest that the self-conscious universe may be able to move freely in all directions in time
(taking time as a dimension). In that case, of course, it could go back in time and create itself! A nice closed Vedic loop, and answers everybody's
favourite puzzlers about What Happened Before The Big Bang, etc. Well, it's certainly a possibility (I'm feeling generous tonight) but if the
universe were constantly intervening in its own temporal processes you'd be seeing miracles everywhere.
I honestly don't recall suggesting this idea and I can't say that I think the universe is a vedic loop. Worth a consideration though? But couldn't
intelligent life be considered a miracle? That is, if you're of the belief that life has no business being able to survive in the radiation filled
vacuum that is space let alone to have arisen in the first place. The probabilities are mind boggling, no?
Besides, if you invoke one unfalsifiable possibility to justify another, we end up piling speculation on speculation. Is the universe
conscious? If it is conscious, is it then intelligent? If it is intelligent, is it bound by time? And as the tower of questions grows higher it grows
wobblier, because we really don't have answers to steady the first tier, never mind the second or the third. It's okay to think about, but you
can't really discuss it, because there's nothing concrete to discuss.
Really it's just one. We are proof of an intelligent and conscious universe. Us. Intelligence and consciousness are essentially one in the same here.
But I understand what you're getting at with the wobbly jenga tower. Because as we build it up, we inevitably have to pull pieces away.
I can absolutely disagree with your feeling that we should disregard that which is not concrete. Otherwise how else do we progress as a species? Dark
matter and dark energy are far from concrete, but is the scientific community kicking it to the curb and just saying 'to hell with it, we can't
explain that funny stuff so lets stop talking about it"? It's not that far of a stretch to consider the grounds of what I'm offering. That is if
you're able to keep god out of it of course; which I understand can be a challenge for some materialist/religious folks out there alike.
I have a pretty materialistic view of intelligence (which, I think we can agree, is not the same as consciousness), so for me we're pretty
much all thermostats on that level, never mind if we also possess disembodied intellects or even (that generous feeling again) disembodied souls.
Well, I would say that Intelligence is the same as consciousness, at least in the context that is offered in my (humble) hypothesis. Intelligence as
you noted earlier has many meanings. One of which defines it as the state of being self-aware. You seem to have a pretty materialistic view in general
(I could be wrong). But I appreciate your "generosity" here. So you don't like the word soul then. How about spirit, psyche, or self? Any of those
would do the trick too... either way I'm not so sure we should disregard whatever the essence is that makes you, you.
Would you consider an hypothesis for a rather stupid but conscious universe?
Not in this thread.