Intelligence: cosmic or personal

cosmic intelligence a reified universal consciousness?

  • 1 Yes
  • 2 No
  • 3 Maybe
0 voters

If there is a cosmic intelligence, then it will guarantee the evolution of consciousness, along with that of the evolution of species. It will find a goal and a purpose, and a method by which evolution will act in ways to insure a union with it.(cosmic intelligence)

If there is universal consciousness without cosmic intelligence, then whether evolution will seek to develop cosmic intelligence, will depend on the chance occurances of various situations whereby such an intelligence may develop.

If there is neither cosmic intelligence, nor universal consciousness, then what purpose does evolution play in the furtherance of union with higher levels of realization?

Apply 1,2,3 to either of the above choices , when choosing among the options. You can change answers among the choices.

Universal consciousness may pre-exist individual consciousness, because of the pre-existence of cosmic intelligence.

If this was not the case, evolution would not seek to develop higher types of created beings.

The reason for the existence of higher , more intelligent beings, is that such beings achieve a realization of being in the world, in the perfect and sublime state which only supremely intelligent beings can realize.

Perhaps universal or cosmic intelligence and/or consciousness, would be a bit like aether of old – in physics; if existent it would be noticeable like the wind or what have you. Such a thing would direct things and I think the whole point is that there are no such things.

Instead of that a perhaps wiser creator/spirit, would place mind in metaposition. That way each individual instance of its utility of mind and physics e.g. us, would each have their own part to play in an open story.

What if it turns out that there is cosmic consciousness with universal intelligence? How would that play out?

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

So what was it when we were Neanderthals? And if we continue back down the evolutionary line, does it not change anywhere?

I think there may be a primordial consciousness which all life has, but surely it grows and develops?

One can have larger or smaller squares, but a square is a square.
One can have more or less consciousness, but consciousness is consciousness.

Such things have nothing to do with evolving.

not buying it…

so a germ has the same kind of consciousness as we do? Is intellect not a part of consciousness?

If it doesn’t grow and evolve, what’s the point? Can we not learn anything and change spiritually – ergo consciously?

Would a robotic consciousness be equal to ours? If we knew how the brain produces consciousness, and could mimic that artificially, would you not think there are different kinds and different amounts of consciousness ~ depending upon the schemata?

In Hinduism if I remember correctly, the soul has been through all the changes in the animal kingdom from one incarnation to the other ~ a progression.

awareness; are all things equally aware?

perception; is trained and honed, and is directly linked to intellectual capacity, no? it is certainly different in different creatures, and varies in sophistication and diversity.

In your poll all of the three options “yes”, “no”, “maybe” can be selected. So what kind of result do you expect? How are you going to evaluate it?

This is a poll in progress, the method of evaluation is also progressive: it may or may not have method, the result could end up tentative and implicative.

with love,
sanjay

Probably, the Neanderthals were not our direct ancestors but another subspecies (homo sapiens neandethalensis) of the species homo sapiens or even another species (homo neandethalensis) of the genus homo. So, probably, the Neanderthals have the same ancestors as we have but are not our direct ancestors.

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

A germ might evolve to have more consciousness. Consciousness itself doesn’t evolve any more than a square evolves.

The point of life is NOT to “grow and evolve”. That is just one of those many propaganda ideas used upon you. You want to know why cockroaches have existed for so long? They don’t listen to propaganda about how they have to evolve and change into what they are not.

with love,
sanjay

And, this is precisely the answer what other thread asked -

Why do bad things happen when God exists?

with love,
sanjay

zinnat

So consciousness doesn’t learn, ergo there is no requirement for dharma and karma?

I don’t get how awareness isn’t linked to perception and in turn both to consciousness. A learned creature is more aware and will survive longer than another unlearned one, and the awareness is enhanced by the informed perception.

An experience contains knowledge of the thing being experienced, otherwise it cannot know what that something is, ergo cannot experience ~ be conscious of it!

How can we be conscious and aware of intellect and knowledge without them being represented >exactly< and on a 1 – 1 basis?

You really think mankind wont be developing robots with different levels of consciousness? …because when we understand how it works in the brain we will be able to build it – and varying amounts of it! It will be no different to TV’s and computers, there will be upgrades [and possibly for humans too].

Arminius

I know all that stuff, I was just using it to take a road back in evolution, but you are right and I shouldn’t have gone on that tangent.

I refer you to the above [in blue].

James

I refer you to the above [in blue].

Evolution is exactly that though. All life grows and develops, its just that sometimes a model works at a given level [e.g. cockroaches], and so the world is made up of ‘slots’ in which given species will fill. However, running along side that you have the overall path whereby humans have surpassed all others and could destroy any others if they wished to.

_

That requirement is still very much there.

Because of having a default character of feeling and only feeling, the consciousness cannot help but to feel all the time. It cannot avoid any feeling, irrespective of whether it brings pleasure or pain. It is innocent, not intelligent, something like a small clild who can feel the pain and pleasure but neither can deduce why he is feeling so nor can do anything about to change it.

It is the mind which is supposed to bring the consciousness into pleasurable circumstances. But, mind has to learn how to do that. That is precisely the reason why all this labyrinth is created.

I above explained the reasons why consciousness has nothing to do with the perception. I think that the one of the main reason why this misunderstanding is because of the language.

The apparent similarity between the terms of conscious and consciousness gives the impression that both are related, but they are not, at least in the way as it is perceived generally. Many other mythologies and languages use entirely different terms for these phenomena.

In Hinduism, Chetana/Shruti is used for consciousness while Buddhi for mind, and Ruh and Nafs is Sufism/Islam respectively.

To understand the issue better, we can use an analogy of a man and a set of 3d glasses. If the object/picture is in 3d, a spectator cannot see it without 3d glasses, even though he has the capability of seeing. The same is with the mind and consciousness. Consciousness is open to the terms of pleasure and pain only. It cannot do anything beyond that, thus it needs some another entity to translate all observations into its only known terms, and that is mind.

Consciousness is not interested in awareness or perception, or, being an unchangeable entity, it can neither learn or evolve, in the first place. These things are beyond its capabilities. Yes, its associate mind can certainly learn and evolve with time and experience. And, as the result, consciousness also becomes able to feel the new things, though again only in the terms of pleasure and pain only.

As I explained above, consciousness can experience/understand only in the terms of feelings, not deduction. It needs someone to translate everything in its understandable terms. Only then, and only in that way, it can be conscious of anything.

Because, beside consciousness, we also have one such an entity in the form of the mind, which can also learn, evolve and analyze things.

I do not merely think that but rather know for sure for some valid and reliable reasons that it is not going to happen ever. Consciousness is not what science is assuming it to be. Forget about it, the science cannot even create mind similar to organisms, which can learn and evolve completely on its own. Both of mind and consciousnes are not the manifeststions of the organic brain, as it is perceived generally.

Science/humans can only create a pseudo mind, which can recognise and implement input information only, nothing else. But, that is neither mind nor consciousness. Merely complexity cannot create either of these. If that was not true, being able to have the access to all the knowledge of the mankind at a single place, the servers of Google and Wikipedia would have become conscious on their own long ago.

The claim of creating mind/consciousness is not less bizarre/unachievable than creating an universe. And, given the present pace of the science, it is not long before humans would realize this reality too. In the globalised world of today, it is merely a matter of one clear incident/evidence anywhere, which is bound to happen.

With love,
Sanjay

I have to disagree with you on that one.
And I am pretty certain that you are using the word “consciousness” for something different than what English speaking people use the word to represent. You seem to be speaking of the culmination of subconscious processes as a single, non-material entity.

And that is certainly not true. It is about like saying that Man will never create a machine that can move on its own and perhaps even fly, as was once believed … most especially by middle eastern and eastern peoples.

Zinnat

It didn’t say >why<, and you merely expressed the following sentiment;

Whereas instead of that I think all of the senses are observational… Ever heard the expression ‘pain is subjective’? It literally is, and that must mean that the subjective observer can become detached from even the harshest of feelings, that of pain. Simple life-forms don’t have emotions, they simply perceive the world with what organic instruments they have. Do you think bacteria can feel? With no nervous system? So no, feeling is a property of more complex systems and is not inherent in all life-forms.

Secondly; even if there is some manner of rudimentary ‘feeling’ [which has no physical analytic counterpart?] through the basic electromagnetism all life has, that doesn’t tell us why an informed perception + observation doesn’t also have an effect. There can be both ‘feeling’ – whatever we actually mean by that, which is affecting, and perceiving as well as that.

With the ‘only feeling’ scenario, we would be suggesting that information is not affecting the consciousness, the same as sensation is. I don’t see how the experiencer can know something, without that something making an imprint upon its fabric – so to speak, in a similar way to feeling/sensation does.

Archaic terms. What’s wrong with just saying what is meant i.e. without vacuous and superfluous terms? e.g. ‘mind’; should include everything concerned with the collection of things composing it, consciousness and subconsciousness, perception, sensation, info etc. if we mean something else we should state what that is, otherwise the terms have no value. In other words, unless any mysticism is justified by saying what it is in the world, we have to ask; ‘what is it’?

That doesn’t make any sense, the conscious experience/r contains all experienced thought. There is no other mind of any sort, but instead the subconscious is doing all the processing i.e. and not another ‘mind’. From now on when you say ‘mind’ I will consider that to be referring to the subconsciousness and the brain as an instrument.

The servers of Google and Wikipedia don’t have the faculties and function required to produce consciousness. If you gave them those functions then they would naturally become conscious, just the same as if you give radios visuals, then you get TVs. I take your point that complexity alone doesn’t create consciousness, but I feel sure that the right kind of complexity would! Then once man has instruments which produces consciousness, goes what, they will produce superior versions as the technology improves.
_

with love,
sanjay