Is Thought the Actual Force Behind Creation

You need a brain to think. There is no evidence of any thinking ever having occurred without a brain. Ergo, there is no thought behind the physical processes that have taken place since the big bang 15 billion years ago.
If we could find evidence of a brain existing before the big bang, then we could postulate thought before the big bang. Without evidence of a brain, any suggestion of thought is pure fantasy.

ALL and every idea about existence and creation is speculation and without evidence. What you have just said is speculation without evidnce.

You have no more idea about the origin than I do and are assuming things that you should not assume.

This entire thought is speculative and therefore open to further speculation.

Who says that a brain is neceassary for thoguht, it is still being debated amongst many great minds the difference between the mind and the brain. Your specualtion has no more grounds than mine.

It's illogical to say that the universe began from some primal force, as that primal force then has to have an origin, and that origin has to have an origin, and so on ad infinitum. If the universe had a beginning, we simply have to say that nothing generated something, and we have no underatanding whatsoever of such a process, we've never witnessed such a process, and we can't possibly imagine such a process. So why would we assume that such a thing happened? If all we have ever known is something, and we've never known nothing, and certainly never seen nothing give rise to something, why wouldn't we start with something, rather than nothing? It seems to me that the only logical explanation for the present existence of the universe is that the universe has always existed, albeit in various forms.

The tendency to seek for ultimate cause arises from our own experience. In the phenomenological world in which we live there are things, which are clearly defined and distinct from other things. We see such things form or break apart. We see a not-tree become a tree after a few years. And so we have this primal mental schema which leads us to believe that everything, including the entire universe itself, must have a beginning and, presumably, and end. But this idea that developed in our own world isn't really accurate. While it appears in daily life that things are created and destroyed, we now know that matter-energy is not; it only changes forms. What is created and destroyed are the forms, the things that we define into being by saying 'this is x and its different than y.' The underlying reality, the monism which we break apart through arbitrary definition, always remains. Personally, I think Nietzsche's Doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence is probably accurate, even though he only meant it as an intellectual exercize (if you are living well, you should joyfully accept the idea that you will live the exact same life again and again for eternity; if you're not, that's a crap deal..). If the universe has always existed, but is in constant flux, and there is a certain amount of matter-energy in the universe (not to say space, the space has to infinite, in my opinion), then eventually, after trillions of trillions of trillions...of years, all novel courses for development of the universe should be exhausted, and there will be repetition; pattern should emerge and the exact same events as once occured should occur again.

EDIT: PhilosopherJay,
Imagine if, in a galaxy far far away, there was a planet very much like our own, where there were intelligent beings almost identical to us, but instead of water, the life on this planet is based on some other solvent with water-like properties relative a totally different table of elements. So, these beings have 'brains' but those brains are made out of competely different materials. They don;t include the same chemical reactsions, but these 'brains' still perform all the functions that ours do. Is that possible? Don't these beings think without our version of a brain? So, the fact that a brain is required for consciousness, while true, isn't enough. What do we mean by 'brain?' It can't only mean the specific structure, with the certain electro-chemical processes, that we have in ours. What makes a brain generate thought is the fact that it is the center, the highest functionairy, in a hierarchical system which is extremely complex and capable of extremely diverse and nuanced interactions with the world. Any structure which fits that description should be able to produce thought. And we can imagine many such structure which, by appearance, bear no relation whatsoever to what we know as a brain. A clear example: computers. Eventually, I'm sure a computer will be built which can perform exactly the same tasks as a human brain in terms of evaluating situations, making decisions, etc. That means it can think, but it's not a brain if by brain we mean a mass of organic tissues with certain chemical and other properties. 'Brain' should be defined by what the structure does (interact in a complex or simple manner), not by the details of exactly how is does it. This is yet another reason that science cannot find how a specific set of electro-chemical processes generate qualitative experience; the common link between consciousness and a brain is not the specific sets of reactions going on, it's just the fact that very complex reactions are going on.

Noon,

That was probably onbe of the most compelling statements I've seen written in any forum I have ever been in. Thank You for this! Finally I meet someone who can think deeper than the norm.

I tend to agree with what you suppose with regard to origins being somewhat illogical. Something cannot come from nothing. However does that not also mean that something must have come from something?

My thought about the origin is that we do not try to define it as anything because of that fact, as you so well stated, that it is beyond comprehension. The only difference between you and I is that you suppose that it has simply always been here, and I just simply refuse to suppose anything other than that we know it is here and are lost to explain it.

What is your thought on the time space evaluation that comes into play here Noon?

For isnatnce, if one takes a flashlight and shines it into the sky; lets assume that it does not become misdirected or dissolved by any barriers. That light would continue to travel in a straight line until it was impeded.

So if some extraterrestrial out there in its path sees that light some 500 years from now, they could begin to follow it back to its source. But given the time span, that flashlight battery gave out a long time ago and when they arrived at the flashlight it would be dead.

Now my questions here are twofold. Having followed the light back to its source have they travelled back in time?

And having found the source of the light have they not found its origin?

This is the teaching behind the light given off from some stars. It is said that most of the stars in the sky are so far away that by the time the light given off from then reaches our eyes, it has traveled through time and space for so many thousands of years that the actual origin , the star itself is not even any longer there and all we are seeing is the remnant light from a long ago vanished star.

So what we see really is remnant evidence of something that once existed, and were we to follow that light backwards, would we be going back in time to reach it? NO! We would ultimately still be heading into a future where by the time we got to the origin of the light there would be nothing there.

My question to you Noon, is how does one get to nothing? In other words if we follow that light back to a source that no longer exists, than what do we find when we get there? How can you follow something to a point of non existence? if the ray of light given off does not dissipate and leads right back to its origin , but nothing is there to give it off anymore, we reach a point of illogic again.

That is how I perceive the origin. if one was able to follow creation back to its origin one would be met with an illogical situation of space time displacement, where what used to be there no longer exists. At some point the ray of light stops at the place it began but nothing is there.

Hi Pathfinder,

Since you reject evidence and science, I am not sure if there is anything for us to discuss. Your position seems to be epistemological solipsism. You deny the existence of evidence and believe all thought is equally speculative. So if it is raining out, and I say it is raining out, you would deny that and say that it is equally true to say that it is not raining out. At this point, not only argument, but even words become silly.

My evidence that a brain is needed to think is that you have a brain and I have a brain and every person and creature that I have ever met who thinks has a brain.

Now, it is true that perhaps a tree or a cloud thinks without a brain. I am unable to discern evidence of that.

We may suppose also that the little music box on my bedroom dresser also thinks. After all I just turn the little key on the bottom and it answers me by playing music. This is not much difference than the music teacher who says "play" to his student and the student starts producing music.
I must admit that my music box plays the same song every time I turn the key, and that leads me to believe that it is not thinking, but that it is simply a mechanical device following the laws of physics. Perhaps one day it will play a different tune and prove me wrong.

Until then, and until I see some evidence of things without brains thinking, I will continue to believe that brains are needed for thinking.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay




---------- Post added 08-27-2009 at 09:49 AM ----------

Hi Brightnoon,

I tend to agree that brainlike functions may be carried out by different types of matter constructed in very different ways. However I am not sure if we should call these processes "thinking." For example, it is probable that a computer will be able to process the information from a large number of sentences simultaneously, perhaps million or more. This is something which human brains do not do very well. In fact people who try to process too many sentences at the same time tend to be considered psychologically impaired. I do not know what thinking-like processes the computer of the future will be going through, but I suspect it will be so far from what humans consider thinking and that we will need different words to describe it.

For the moment, I think we should leave the definition of thinking as a unique function of animal brains.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

EDIT: PhilosopherJay,
Imagine if, in a galaxy far far away, there was a planet very much like our own, where there were intelligent beings almost identical to us, but instead of water, the life on this planet is based on some other solvent with water-like properties relative a totally different table of elements. So, these beings have 'brains' but those brains are made out of competely different materials. They don;t include the same chemical reactsions, but these 'brains' still perform all the functions that ours do. Is that possible? Don't these beings think without our version of a brain? So, the fact that a brain is required for consciousness, while true, isn't enough. What do we mean by 'brain?' It can't only mean the specific structure, with the certain electro-chemical processes, that we have in ours. What makes a brain generate thought is the fact that it is the center, the highest functionairy, in a hierarchical system which is extremely complex and capable of extremely diverse and nuanced interactions with the world. Any structure which fits that description should be able to produce thought. And we can imagine many such structure which, by appearance, bear no relation whatsoever to what we know as a brain. A clear example: computers. Eventually, I'm sure a computer will be built which can perform exactly the same tasks as a human brain in terms of evaluating situations, making decisions, etc. That means it can think, but it's not a brain if by brain we mean a mass of organic tissues with certain chemical and other properties. 'Brain' should be defined by what the structure does (interact in a complex or simple manner), not by the details of exactly how is does it. This is yet another reason that science cannot find how a specific set of electro-chemical processes generate qualitative experience; the common link between consciousness and a brain is not the specific sets of reactions going on, it's just the fact that very complex reactions are going on.[/QUOTE]

Hi all,

Here is briefly my view. It is incomplete, but it something that I can work with:

1) We begin with something ethereal that can move. So there is something, whatever it may be, and it can move. This I will call this the Universal Consciousness. Some may call this the Dao.

2) It uses its Will to Move to begin to try to observe itself. In order to do this, it begins to condense into a more denser form of what can be termed energy and subsequently it condenses even more into matter. This creates forms. This would be likened to taking a string and spiraling it tighter and tighter into something denser. The spiral wave forms can be consider Yin and Yang and the movement can be called Qi.

3) Within each created form there is some of the original Consciousness. Let us call this Individual Consciousness.

4) Each Individual Consciousness looks at the rest of Universal Consciousness, and they begin, in effect, to share and create what they observe.

For me, everything starts with Consciousness (ability to observe and move) and continues to evolve in many different directions.

For what reason? The only one I can think of is to amuse itself. Consciousness was bored doing nothing. Sort of like waking up from a dream and back into the awake state. Death and life may be the same cyclical pattern, and it may just be allegorical of what happened in the Beginning.


Rich

. . . . hey, whatever makes us feel better about our pointless little existence, I'm all for it.

My question is always the same though: Why and how does any of this matter anyway? If we knew all the answers . . . what then?

Mine is hardly pointless. I explore lots of little things and share my exploration with others. It's like going to the zoo - but on a bigger scale. Some people find observing things fascinating and others do not. Scientists, for example, love to observe things through microscopes and telescopes. I played around with astronomy for a while.



It is one of the things to do in life. I find it helpful. Something (probably by consciousness) is driving me in this direction, and I am on for the ride.

Rich

So what will the point be in, say, 1,000,000 years from now? Even 1000 years from now? Who is ever going to remember you? On a small scale, your life would seem to have some point from certain very specific perspectives, but on a longer timeline, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that there is any real point to any of this. For any of us.





You didn't really answer my question. Why does it matter? What would be the point if we ever found out The Answer.

As I said, I found it very helpful in living my life.

And if I ever did find the answer, I guess I would have to find something else to do. For example, I could never quite figure out how to play golf well.

Rich

So why not find something else to do right now? Just in case it really is all pointless?

Well, I do lots of things right now. I dance, play tennis, go walking, listen to music, go to the driving range once in a while, read about health, play the stock market, etc.

But at the end, it is all right to the point or pointless, depending upon one's view of life.


Rich

Just for grins, let's say that we somehow we are given the ultimate knowledge that life really is utterly without point. No ifs, ands, or buts. Just pointless. End of story. Period.

How would that knowledge change the way we live our lives?

P.s.
I found this useful way back in the olden days when I used to golf fairly regularly: Amazon.com: Grip It and Rip It: John Daly's Guide to Hitting the Ball Farther Than You Ever Have Before (9780060924294): John Daly, John Andrisani: Books

Definitely added some yardage.

As with everything in life, whether something does or does not have a point to it, is a matter of perspective. Each individual mind decides for itself.

Does a game of peek-a-boo have a point to it? Some may say yes and some may say no.

Rich

I'm just asking the question hypothetically. Not trying to instigate. I'm just curious how, if at all, it would change the way we live our lives if we found out without question that life was, indeed, meaningless.

Play along?

---------- Post added 08-27-2009 at 05:01 PM ----------



Upon re-reading what you have written, it is beginning to sound more and more like this:

-------

001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters.

001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
light from the darkness.

001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

001:007 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were
under the firmament from the waters which were above the
firmament: and it was so.

001:008 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the
morning were the second day.

001:009 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered
together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it
was so.

001:010 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together
of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

001:011 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

001:012 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in
itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

001:013 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

001:014 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for
signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

001:015 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to
give light upon the earth: and it was so.

001:016 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
also.

001:017 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth,

001:018 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the
light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

001:019 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

001:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth
in the open firmament of heaven.

001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that
it was good.

001:022 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the
earth.

001:023 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth after his kind: and it was so.

001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth.

001:027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.

--------
etc. etc. etc. . . . . Just substituting "TO" for "God."

Tick Tock,

Everything you are speculating is based upon what ifs.

What if nothing has a any purpose? What if there is no meaning to life?

Well what if you arer wrong and there is meaning? If that is the case, than thoise of uys who are seacrching for it may find it, and those like you will remain far behind.

What if what we are able to collect as knowledge and wisdom here in this life, will enhancve our lives in a next life? What if?

the only difference between how you look at it and how we look at it is that you have chosen to believe in the negatives.

This makes sense. For me, I simply observe myself and others and there appears to be purpose in what we do. Since, I am not big on calling everything an illusion, I just take it at face value. We seem to have purpose. We seem to want to live. We seem to want to create. We seem to be able to choose the direction that we want to go. So, I just take it as it is and try to make something of it. It actually helps, from a very practical point of view.

Rich

Well, what's pretty clear is that people with severely damaged brains lack the capacity for thought, and people who sustain less severe damage have alterations in their thought.

Sounds pretty convincing to me.

Kind of like how people with no hands can't write very well.

You guys just refuse to play along, don't you? It's just a simple hypothetical question. Don't you like to play what if?

It would behoove you not to make assumptions about my beliefs based merely on what the empty avatar known here as TickTockMan happens to spit into the electronic void.

I'm really not trying to argue the case for meaninglessness vs. meaningfulness. The question I'm asking is: What would you do if you found out, without question, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that this life we are living is without any point, utterly devoid of meaning?

I'm not necessarily saying that life is meaningless. I'm asking, if it were revealed to you that it is meaningless, how would that knowledge affect the way you conduct your life in the here and now.

Have you never found yourself confronted by the realization that everything you ever believed was wrong? I think that is an epiphany everyone should have at least once in their life. It keeps the pipes clean, so to speak.

Would you find it depressing? Liberating? What changes, if any, would you make in the way you live your life?

One could also ask the question conversely: what if it were revealed to you that life does indeed have meaning. That, in fact, the paths of our wanderings are as full of meaning as Indra's net is full of jewels.

What then? Now we know. Now where to, Kimosabe?