Progress in consciousness?

stuh505 wrote:

jnhofzinser wrote:

BoGoWo wrote:

I refer to this particular universe, as being the 'blatantly obvious" one; we could only be sitting here, discussing a universe in which 'life' were possible, if this were such a universe; and the 'parameters' were exactly what they "are"!

Nobody (er, not even Nobody) will disagree with this. The question is: how did such an "obvious" universe come to be? We give it the name "intelligence" by projection: given that we are intelligent to observe it, there must be something "sufficient" to account for that intelligence. This "sufficient something" could be a mystical one, a theological one, or a statistical one. But it is more legitimate to assign it the name "intelligence" than to act as if it were not necessary

Ahem. I disagree

There many parameters which could change and still result in us being here exactly the same.

Why is it so surprising that a planet comprised of 'X' would produce a life form comprised of 'X'?
I think sentiency was accidental but it led to intelligence which led to consciousness and then awareness.
Thought or 'the watcher', was present throughout.
To expect the complexity of the human body to assemble it's self on random chance would be unreasonable. It has to happen all pretty much simultaneously. Eyes without optic nerves to process the reception of light are pretty much useless. Without DNA, how are a million years of trial and error to be recorded?
I am, therefore, my creator is.

I wrote:

This "sufficient something" could be a mystical one, a theological one, or a statistical one. But it is more legitimate to assign it the name "intelligence" than to act as if it were not necessary

few seem to be able to conceive of a universe based entirely on chance

Quote:

I think sentiency was accidental but it led to intelligence which led to counsciousness and then awareness.

Sentiency means having consciousness. Intelligence is the capacity of thought and reason, and therefore, consciousness must exist as a precondition to intelligence. Awareness is consciousness.

Quote:

It has to happen all pretty much simultaneously. Eyes without optic nerves to process the reception of light are pretty much useless.

Yes, very true...this is puzzling, but it has been explained. I cannot remember the explanation right now for how these complex parts evolve...I will get back to you on that!

Quote:

I am, therefore, my creator is.

BoGoWo wrote:

I wrote:

This "sufficient something" could be a mystical one, a theological one, or a statistical one. But it is more legitimate to assign it the name "intelligence" than to act as if it were not necessary

few seem to be able to conceive of a universe based entirely on chance

Please note that the "statistical" "sufficient something" allows for that very possibility.

Alikimr, I'm sure we will all show up. Thanks for the offering.
BoGoWo, I have no objection to anthropomorphism so long as we know we are doing it, and its limitations. But I don't think we are as interested in a Reality that finds us no more than negligible dust on its shelves. When we think, when we create, when we explore, we do it with reference to our "eigenwelt" (the world as it relates to us). The task, according to my sensibilities, is discover ourselves within the cosmic context, not to discover the Cosmos as a mere expression of our importance. Copernicus put an end to that for Christians--or he should have.
It seems to me that a narrow science, a sterile empiricism of the laboratory has disenchanted us. That was necessary, however, to release us from the great negative and fearsome enchantment of the Middle Ages. Since Newton and his cohorts the universe has been rendered inert and meaningless. Science became a worldview, a Scientism. It was undoubtedly better than the Dark Ages were we were left only with the option of relying on God to give us meaning. With the death of God, and The Enligtenment, psychology became a temporary haven. We assumed that we must learn how to adjust to a meaningless world. Existentialism emerged to affirm the essential meaninglessness of life, but challenged us, with Nietszche, to create our own meaning. Then with the theoretical physics of Einstein and his (broadly--not narrowly--empirical) cohort of thinkers there began a re-enchantment of the World. And with the New Physics we are enchanted to the point of dizziness.
To me, the philosophies and spiritual practices of Buddhism, Taoism, Sufism, perhaps the Caballa (I'm not sure) and Hindu Vedanta complement the findings and promises of the New Physics. Consider the discussions between physicist, Bohm and mystic, Krishnamurti. The New Physics has the potential to merge with the power of "mysticism", or psycho-spiritual experience, to create a naturalistic positive enchantment, one sans Gods, ghosts, souls, absolute values and truths, heavens and hells, etc. Things are looking up.

using Occam's razor; leave out the unsupported, and 'invented'.

One of Newton's students returns from the grave and, gleefully wielding Occam's Razor, dismisses Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. His is an inappropriate use of the Razor, because his appreciation of the universe is limited and shallow. So it is with those who use the Razor to dismiss God [or a multiverse, for that matter].

Arguments for dualism...................

............................Source: Wickipedia

This is the most concise definition I could find of nondualism:
It means that light and shade, long and short, black and white, can only be experienced in relation to each other; light is not independent of shade, nor black of white. There are no opposites, only relationships.......

........And here is a defintion of Mysticism from the american heritage dictionary:
1. immediate awareness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God
2. A belief in alternate realities beyond perception

I so no relationship, so I ask you again what definition are you using for nondualism

While I am at it, (which I acknowledge to be a very unorthodox way of working within A2K ), I really would also appreciate hearing from thethinkfactory ,joefromchicago perception
and hodgepodge,.....whose views on other matters I came across elsewhere . Thanks to all of you who will indulge me in this exercise.

This is the most concise definition I could find of nondualism:

It means that light and shade, long and short, black and white, can only be experienced in relation to each other; light is not independent of shade, nor black of white. There are no opposites, only relationships.

And here is a defintion of Mysticism from the american heritage dictionary:
1. immediate awareness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God
2. A belief in alternate realities beyond perception

I so no relationship, so I ask you again what definition are you using for nondualism

a respectful "nonsense"!

there is absolutely no justification for the 'leap' from the existence of any entity, to the 'need' for it to have been 'created'. [not 'impossible', just 'unnecessary'!]

why is it that few seem to be able to conceive of a universe based entirely on chance, even though they live it one!

I feel consciousness is 'part of' intelligence, they are synonymous.

evolution is a very simple system, it has to be; things develope from the simplest of systems, over billions of years, to the most complex, and they must be passed along as a 'package', to the higher forms. No miracles here.

stuh505 wrote:

........And here is a defintion of Mysticism from the american heritage dictionary:
1. immediate awareness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God
2. A belief in alternate realities beyond perception

I so no relationship, so I ask you again what definition are you using for nondualism

evidence, not of Gel's shortcomings, but that the American Heritage - is not the English language!
[get an Oxford, and toss that one away.]

I see dualism, and nondualism, as having nothing to do with religion.

twyvel, that all seems to be just a matter of symmantics...who cares about the word definitions of "subject" "object" and "perspective"...they are only words. what is the meat?

"Axiomatic, my dear Watson"!

stuh505

stuh505 wrote:

twyvel, that all seems to be just a matter of symmantics...who cares about the word definitions of "subject" "object" and "perspective"...they are only words. what is the meat?

That could be said about any articulation. All we have is words here. So your comment is a coup out, dismissive, though not for the reasons sited.

Nondualism: The universe and you are not two, nondual.

[nondualism] means that light and shade, long and short, black and white, can only be experienced in relation to each other; light is not independent of shade, nor black of white. There are no opposites, only relationships.

Advaita (nonduality) does not mean "one" in the sense of eliminating all differences. The differences are present in the one in a mysterious way. They are not separated anymore, and yet they are there.

"Advaita" in Sanskrit means "Non-Duality." This is a difficult concept for most people as we look about us and see multiple objects. But what we see are only transformations not permanent forms, whether we are speaking of a chair, a tree, or a human being. Each exists provisionally, but is certainly not lasting. One day the tree may become the chair and the human body will be eaten by worms. The "I" that observes all this may disappear and become another "I".

When you contemplate your own consciousness with intense awareness, leaving aside all thoughts of good and bad, you are automatically led to the experience of non-duality. How is this possible? Think of it like this: the clean clear blue sky is like consciousness, while the smoke and pollution pumped into the sky are like the unnatural, artificial concepts manufactured by ego-grasping ignorance. Now, even though we say the pollutants are contaminating the atmosphere, the sky itself never really becomes contaminated by the pollution. The sky and the pollution each retain their own characteristic nature. In other words, on a fundamental level the sky remains unaffected no matter how much toxic energy enters it. The proof of this is that when conditions change, the sky can become clear once again. In the same way, no matter how many problems maybe created by artificial ego concepts, they never affect the clean clear nature of our consciousness itself. From the relative point of view, our consciousness remains pure because its clear nature never becomes mixed with the nature of confusion.

The manifold universe is, in truth, a Single Reality. There is only one Great Being, which the sages call Brahman, in which all the countless forms of existence reside. That Great Being is utter Consciousness, and It is the very Essence, or Self (Atman) of all beings