Intelligence: cosmic or personal

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

cosmic intelligence a reified universal consciousness?

1 Yes
0
No votes
2 No
3
50%
3 Maybe
3
50%
 
Total votes : 6

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Arminius » Thu May 19, 2016 12:38 am

zinnat wrote:By the way, contrary to what is generally perceived in the west, both of middle eastern and eastern people believed since long that humans are able to fly with some help. And, that was centuries before the west came up with the idea of flying.

The flying humans idea is very old in the west too, older than in the middle east, and probably also older than in the east. And the first thought about flying humans is probably as old as the human species.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Arminius » Thu May 19, 2016 12:40 am

James S Saint wrote:Things are not defined. Words and concepts are defined.

Yes. That’s right. It is a typical and meanwhile old occidental wisdom.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Arminius » Thu May 19, 2016 12:42 am

Amorphos wrote:
There may be a primordial consciousness, but that does not necessarily mean that it grows and develops.


I refer you to the above [in blue].

Do you mean the "consciousness in blue"? :lol:
ImageImage
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190178#p2600004 .

So you are aying that "[color=##4080FF]the awareness is enhanced by the informed perception[/color]" and therefore claiming that the consciousness grows and develops?

:-k
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby zinnat » Fri May 20, 2016 7:46 am

James S Saint wrote:
zinnat wrote:I understand your point. Yes, i may be a bit out of line here but as i mentioned previously, west/English does not have any proper name for that thing towards what i am indicating. That is why i am compelled to discern the quality (feeling) from the entity (consciousness), in order to name both differently.

Although you have agreed many times, I suspect that you are still not getting my point. Consciousness is not an "entity". It is a property that an entity might have.

I am very much understanding what you are saying. But, take it from the other side. From my point of view, what would you call that entity which causes consciousness, if we assume that brain does not manifest it?

To "dicern the quality from the entity" is like discerning the color red from the object red. There is no "object red". There are objects that have the property of redNESS. And there are objects/entities that have the property of consciousNESS. That suffix "-ness" in English almost always refers to a property, not an entity.

Though your grammatical analysis is right but other point is not. I think that most of the things can be deduced further in the terms of existence and character. And, yes, object red also exists like the color red. The waves of the wavelengths of 620–750 nm and the frequencies of 400–484 THz are the object red. Though we name them differently as waves too, but they are also the objects of the red color.

Besides that, James, as nothing can come from total nothingness, thus everything must take birth some other thing. That other thing is precisely the object for the former, be it quality or qualtity. Yes, that may also be deduced down further, but it is still collectively the object for that very quality.

zinnat wrote:But, i am taking up the issue what causes consciousness, or enables anything to become conscious.

I suspected that from the way you were speaking of consciousness, as if it was an entity.

Yes, that is precisely what i am pleading all along.

You probably should use the Hindu word for whatever it is that causes the property of consciousness

Yes, that is also an option but as that term would be totally alien to the westerns, (like Chetna or Shurti) thus i am avoiding that route. English language does have any counterpart for those terms.


because in the West, that is assumed to be the nervous system, thus the West doesn't have a word for what you are talking about. "Consciousness" is NOT that word, but rather is the resultant property of whatever it is that that you are talking about.

I got it, i will try other terms ans see what happens.

zinnat wrote:James, what i am trying to plead here is that let us discern mere the ability to detect or recognize from becoming conscious.

Again, that is like saying, "Let us discern mere red from the color red" or "Let us discern the difference between mere two and the quantity two." It is a nonsense proposal.

No, it is not, as i explained above in the terms of red color.

zinnat wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Try not to conflate "machines" with "mechanisms". The Abramic religions have social/spiritual mechanisms to cause things to happen. Those mechanisms have names. Only the seriously ignorant think of those mechanisms as "machines". Gabriel is the social mechanism for broadcasting (aka "trumpeting") the will of God (by definition). That mechanism spans the globe (aka "flies wherever around the world"). Gabriel is a communication network mechanism/strategy/"angel".


No, James. I understand the difference between the two very clearly. I am not talking about mechanisms only but machines also. In Hinduism, Puspak Viman was a pure machine, not any supernatural mechanism. Though, it is not clear in Islam how Gabriel was travelling up and down.


I don't know the word/name "Puspak Viman",

Here it is -

Ramayana[edit]
In the Ramayana, the pushpaka ("flowery") vimana of Ravana is described as follows:

"The Pushpaka Vimana that resembles the Sun and belongs to my brother was brought by the powerful Ravana; that aerial and excellent Vimana going everywhere at will ... that chariot resembling a bright cloud in the sky ... and the King [Rama] got in, and the excellent chariot at the command of the Raghira, rose up into the higher atmosphere.'"[3]
It is the first flying vimana mentioned in existing Hindu mythology texts (as distinct from the gods' flying horse-drawn chariots). Pushpaka was originally made by Vishwakarma for Brahma, the Hindu god of creation; later Brahma gave it to Kubera, the God of wealth; but it was later stolen, along with Lanka, by his half-brother, king Ravana.


James, look at the underlined portion.


but in the case of "Gabriel" the word was coined before the category and very idea of machines was known to Man. The closest thing to a machine was merely tools, carts, or physical puzzles, such as locking mechanisms. Automated mechanical devices such as clocks did not have a category name because there simply wasn't enough of their variety to warrant a general category name.

I already accepted that Islam is not as clear as Hinduism about this issue, which allows the various interpretations.


And being a little familiar with the Eastern mentality, I can pretty much bet that a guru/wise man type person mentioned their name for Gabriel and it was taken to mean something much more physically concrete because that is how gurus talk and that is how the Abramic religions were founded ("Abraham was giving up on his son when he was inspired by an idea - Abraham, Isaac, and the angel). In another thread, an author of a book was explaining the universe by proclaiming that there are "forces" of order and chaos competing with each other and thus causing the universe to be what it is. That is a very ancient Eastern type of mindset - presuming the property of force (or or intellect) to a mere state of being or situation. To Westerners, that is metaphor and/or poetry (eg. "Fate whispers to the wolf"). But very many in the East and Middle East of the population presume the words to be literal, thus situations such as fate, in the minds of the population, are thought to be forces causing destiny.

That is why there are literalists or "fundamentalists" around the world. They originally conflated properties, situations, and thoughts with living beings in their speech ("anthropomorphizing") or forces (metaphor) and thus caused the masses to believe that they were talking about actual living beings or forces. Again, it is merely a language issue although one that many influential people wish to use to their advantage. Islamics intentionally spread the rumor that their ancient texts are referring to modern ideas, such as UFOs (or machines). Whether intentional or not, it is a deception upon the populous. The world is filled with such deceivers because it provides for obfuscation, manipulation, and justfication - tools for social engineering and management (aka "religion").

I agree with you to some extent here but not completely.

Like all other religions, Islam is also a mixture of metaphors and reality. As it is wrong to assume that everything said is reality, in the same way, it is also wrong to assume that everything is merely a metaphor. There is some reality in that too.
.


with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby James S Saint » Fri May 20, 2016 9:44 am

zinnat wrote: what would you call that entity which causes consciousness, if we assume that brain does not manifest it?

That is why I said that you should be using whatever Hindu word is appropriate, because Westerners (to my knowledge) don't have a word for it other than brain or nervous system. Sometimes the word "soul" is used to indicate such a causal entity (along with other misuses of that word).

zinnat wrote: Though your grammatical analysis is right but other point is not. I think that most of the things can be deduced further in the terms of existence and character. And, yes, object red also exists like the color red. The waves of the wavelengths of 620–750 nm and the frequencies of 400–484 THz are the object red. Though we name them differently as waves too, but they are also the objects of the red color.

• The color red is a perception.
• Redness is the property of an object that yields the perception of red color
• 400–484 THz EM waves are the EM radiation required to strike the eye in order to cause the perception of red.

When they say that red is the EM spectrum from 400–484 THz (in English), they are meaning to say that the waves responsible for the perception of red color are the waves of 400–484 THz. It is common in English to refer to a unique cause of something as the something itself with the unspoken understanding of the difference (eg. "you are a pain in the ass", "eat your greens", "that song is blue").

zinnat wrote:Besides that, James, as nothing can come from total nothingness, thus everything must take birth some other thing. That other thing is precisely the object for the former, be it quality or qualtity. Yes, that may also be deduced down further, but it is still collectively the object for that very quality.

Emmm... no. Not in English although I understand that such obfuscation is common in the Middle East and primitive cultures. The West (especially the aristocracy) takes intuitive and conscious measures to distinguish a thing from the cause of that thing (hence the development of machines and processes). It is an issue of refined intelligence vs rudimentary and vague language. If one doesn't discern the difference between causes and results, a great many concerns cannot be handled. As the West is being degenerated, the idea that there is no such thing as "cause" is part of that degeneration agenda specifically to reduce common Western mentality. I have spoken with medical doctors who profess that there is never a cause to disease, "Diseases just happen", attempting to remove all thought concerning what is causing such high levels of diseases.

zinnat wrote:Yes, that is also an option but as that term would be totally alien to the westerns, (like Chetna or Shurti) thus i am avoiding that route. English language does have any counterpart for those terms.

Isn't "Chetana" the entity that has the property of Chetna?

zinnat wrote:
    It is the first flying vimana mentioned in existing Hindu mythology texts (as distinct from the gods' flying horse-drawn chariots). Pushpaka was originally made by Vishwakarma for Brahma, the Hindu god of creation; later Brahma gave it to Kubera, the God of wealth; but it was later stolen, along with Lanka, by his half-brother, king Ravana.

James, look at the underlined portion.

There have been magical flying things throughout ancient history stories. They were not taught to be mechanical machines, merely magical things like flying carpets, brooms, chariots, horses, you name it. But there were no machines as we use the word today, certainly not flying machines. If you want to promote the idea that those magical entities being mentioned in ancient texts were actually super advanced flying crafts, that is your privilege, but no one of any serious intellect will be buying it (which doesn't mean that they won't be selling it along with many other forms of snake oil).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25077
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Amorphos » Sat May 21, 2016 8:15 pm

lols at blueness.

So you are saying that "the awareness is enhanced by the informed perception" and therefore claiming that the
consciousness grows and develops?

yes exactly that. it probably grows and learns in each incarnation, which for me would explain why we kinda know more than we appear to. they say wisdom is innate, so i'd imagine that all the things we learn in each life are somehow combined via death into a single entity ~ which grows.

_
Last edited by Amorphos on Sat May 21, 2016 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Meno_ » Sat May 21, 2016 8:25 pm

The differentiation between single and multiple entities may not exist beyond a certain level.

That level can only be even thought of from an existential level, a Being apprehended through
beyond that, through the Dasein, can not differentiate multiple entities from singular ones.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2239
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Tue May 24, 2016 3:10 am

zinnat wrote:Consciousness does not evolve. It is what it is, and it is as it is.
It is only its quality/partner (mind) that evolves with the time.

with love,
sanjay


I disagree. I will explain this in this thread. I think consciousness evolves too.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=190381
building a better future
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 8014
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Jan 28, 2017 9:10 pm

zinnat wrote:Consciousness does not evolve. It is what it is, and it is as it is.
It is only its quality/partner (mind) that evolves with the time.

with love,
sanjay


I'm not sure about that zinnat.
Have you ever heard of raised consciousness?

I think that it is consciousness itself which determines the state of the mind and how the mind is influenced. It also determines the state of being.
Did the first species which evolved have the same kind of consciousness which humans now have?
Does that say much for the evolution of the human brain and human consciousness? If their so-called brain was different, less evolved, then consciousness which stems from that brain was different and much less evolved.



What you seem to be saying is that consciousness is the same as it was when all of that star stuff began to permeate and to create the universe. Everything is a process of evolution to me.

Of course, I may be wrong in all of this since we can't know everything or even much about consciousness when it comes to how much there is to know about it. It just somehow seems to me that consciousness gives rise to the mind and structures it.
If consciousness never evolved, then you have the same consciousness of the fly.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14657
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A snowy dark luminous landscape bathed in solitude

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:57 am

Let's say, it's more likely then not, that consciousness is aligned with general evolution, and the structure of the brain as well. Then it is equally more probable that consciousness goes through a change too, because the brain and consciousness are integrated on many levels.

Incidentally, where is Zinnat, he used to post regularly. Just wondering.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2239
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby zinnat » Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:12 am

jerkey wrote:Incidentally, where is Zinnat, he used to post regularly. Just wondering.


I am absolutely fine.

A lot of changes (not necessarily bad) in and around me happened in a very short span of time. And, it also took me a lot of time and commitment to adjust with those. That process is still going on. And, not being of multitasking kind of person by nature, i decided to stay away from posting unless i can do justice with that.

I may not able to post but i still often visit the forum, and will come back to posting too.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby James S Saint » Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:22 am

jerkey wrote:Incidentally, where is Zinnat, he used to post regularly. Just wondering.

..been wondering the same thing lately (just yesterday, in fact).


Welcome back, Sanjay. 8)
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25077
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby surreptitious57 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:45 am

One can think of the entire universe as evidence of cosmic intelligence. Not in any nonsensical metaphysical or supernatural sense but a purely physical one
because of the sheer scale and diversity of it. And the fact it can be explained in scientific and mathematical language is evidence of this. Intelligence does
not always require a brain. And this is the most profound example. Were it incapable of being understood then one could say the universe lacks intelligence
That is not so so one can say that the universe has cosmic intelligence
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1899
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby Meno_ » Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:34 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:One can think of the entire universe as evidence of cosmic intelligence. Not in any nonsensical metaphysical or supernatural sense but a purely physical one
because of the sheer scale and diversity of it. And the
fact it can be explained in scientific and mathematical language is evidence of this. Intelligence does
not always require a brain. And this is the most
profound example. Were it incapable of being
understood then one could say the universe lacks intelligence

That is not so so one can say that the universe has
cosmic intelligence



What's the difference in saying one and not the other?


St. James: Why the greeting to Sanjay, my impression of him differs, I do not see him as a sock puppet. But you never know nowadays.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2239
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Intelligence: cosmic or personal

Postby James S Saint » Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:55 pm

jerkey wrote:St. James: Why the greeting to Sanjay, my impression of him differs, I do not see him as a sock puppet. But you never know nowadays.

?? "sock puppet"?? :confusion-scratchheadyellow:
zinnat wrote:...
with love,
sanjay
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25077
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users