|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 29, 2014 5:23:20 GMT -5
Why go the God route at all? Seems complicated. Either consciousness arises out of matter or matter arises out of consciousness. If matter comes first then you have to answer the question of where matter came from. Stephen Hawking thinks he has answered that, merely because of the quantum nature of reality. I don't think this gets us anywhere, you can't get something from nothing. The quantum nature of reality had to come from somewhere. Anyway, Consciousness-first makes the most sense to me, answers more questions. This is in answer to a few other posts as well......... sdp Either/or limits the possibilities.. matter and consciousness happen simultaneously, have always existed and always will, is another possibility.. whichever 'came first' has zero effect on 'now', except as a distracting theory/attachment to the past..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 29, 2014 5:26:20 GMT -5
You seem to have a problem with pretty much everyone and everything. Truuuuust me, nonduality has no problems with you. truuuust me, it is only a four cilinder Non-duality has no problems with you, because it pretends you don't exist...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 6:52:26 GMT -5
The God answer fits for most questions. But as we've gone along there are more detailed and compelling answers that can be supported with evidence. Just because a question doesn't currently have an answer other than God doesn't mean there won't be one someday. Why does the sun go across the sky like that? Well there's a god named Apollo who has a job to pull it across like that. Well it's because men live on earth and since we're a reflection of God and all things center around God, the sun revolves around the earth. How did this all begin? Well God made it happen about 2000 years ago in six days.... The question 'which came first matter or consciousness?' has built within it all sorts of assumptions that would need to be teased out. Does matter exist? What is it? Does consciousness exist? what is it? Can something be said to come first? ... Many of these subquestions are pretty fresh and alive right now. God as an answer, if looking at it's function in answering questions, is continually losing its power relative to explanations provided by science. I'd say, in a very general sense, if we're having trouble coming up with good answers, we're probly asking the wrong questions. I second that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 6:53:51 GMT -5
Doesn't the term intelligence also assume a bit much? Seems like a projection, a making-sense-of reaction to the experience of awe. What about the experience of order? I wouldn't say that's assumed, and even if it is, it seems it would require intelligence to assume it, whether you're awed or not. Sure, it's a concept, but some concepts are big enough that they don't feel restricting. My concept of God leaves lots of elbow room, though I'm aware most folks make a mess of it. Do you have an example of what you mean by 'order'?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 6:58:08 GMT -5
The God answer fits for most questions. But as we've gone along there are more detailed and compelling answers that can be supported with evidence. Just because a question doesn't currently have an answer other than God doesn't mean there won't be one someday. Why does the sun go across the sky like that? Well there's a god named Apollo who has a job to pull it across like that. Well it's because men live on earth and since we're a reflection of God and all things center around God, the sun revolves around the earth. How did this all begin? Well God made it happen about 2000 years ago in six days.... The question 'which came first matter or consciousness?' has built within it all sorts of assumptions that would need to be teased out. Does matter exist? What is it? Does consciousness exist? what is it? Can something be said to come first? ... Many of these subquestions are pretty fresh and alive right now. God as an answer, if looking at it's function in answering questions, is continually losing its power relative to explanations provided by science. I'd say science is batting zero on the big questions. Science can't explain why, taking the fact that entropy is always increasing, entropy was lowest at the big bang. Science can't explain how the big bang happened, why there is something rather than nothing. Science can't explain how life began, how life arises out of stuff that isn't alive. Science can't explain how consciousness arises out of life. Big fat zero. sdp Because something can't be explained doesn't mean there is divine ordering intelligence otherwise known as God. Maybe 'God' is just an outcome of a deep hunger or propensity for explanation, sense-making?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 6:59:05 GMT -5
Doesn't the term intelligence also assume a bit much? Seems like a projection, a making-sense-of reaction to the experience of awe. Explain all in the post above without Intelligence being first, and then we can talk. sdp Apparently I lack the Intelligence to understand what you are asking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 7:06:56 GMT -5
It's just the dictionary-all-words/ideas-only-point-to-other-words/ideas yawner again. There's never been a question answered by science that didn't result in more questions, and that's simply perfection in action. Limitlessness also applies to the God/science tug-of-war. No matter what explanations the scientists come up with, the diest can always question/posit some godhead prior-to or beyond it. It's just a no-brainer that for any object that can be conceived, one can always speculate about a supernatural creation of that object. As far as the potential for new scientific developments, if one looks to the future for the possibility of an explanation to obsolete current understanding, then, logically, it would follow that the future explanation would be subject to the same sort of obsolescence even further in the future. I still enjoy following popular science, but like anything else, it's worth putting it into perspective. Sure, but some ideas point beyond the words, which is why we call them pointers. As an example of what I was referring to, in our squirrel satsang today, one of the squirrels asked "How can I see myself as one with that tree?" I told him it was the wrong question because it stands on an illusion: It begins with the assumption that the tree and the squirrel are actually separate to begin with and somehow merge or join, and so there can't be an answer to the question because nothing merges or joins. As somebody just said about science, it can't answer the question of how consciousness arose from matter. The question can't be answered because it didn't. When the question is the right question, the answer is already included in the question. Hencely, what is being sought are the right questions. How does the sun travel across the sky? I remember at the end of an Astronomy lecture where we had just discussed the law of gravity -- basically objects with mass are attracted to each other -- and had worked out the equation and such. I asked the professor (after most other students had left): "but why are bodies with mass attracted to each other?" It was the end of the road. He basically shrugged his shoulders. But going beyond the shoulder shrug to then say 'Intelligence' or 'God' is not necessarily the right answer either.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2014 7:47:01 GMT -5
It's just the dictionary-all-words/ideas-only-point-to-other-words/ideas yawner again. There's never been a question answered by science that didn't result in more questions, and that's simply perfection in action. Limitlessness also applies to the God/science tug-of-war. No matter what explanations the scientists come up with, the diest can always question/posit some godhead prior-to or beyond it. It's just a no-brainer that for any object that can be conceived, one can always speculate about a supernatural creation of that object. As far as the potential for new scientific developments, if one looks to the future for the possibility of an explanation to obsolete current understanding, then, logically, it would follow that the future explanation would be subject to the same sort of obsolescence even further in the future. I still enjoy following popular science, but like anything else, it's worth putting it into perspective. Sure, but some ideas point beyond the words, which is why we call them pointers. As an example of what I was referring to, in our squirrel satsang today, one of the squirrels asked "How can I see myself as one with that tree?" I told him it was the wrong question because it stands on an illusion: It begins with the assumption that the tree and the squirrel are actually separate to begin with and somehow merge or join, and so there can't be an answer to the question because nothing merges or joins. As somebody just said about science, it can't answer the question of how consciousness arose from matter. The question can't be answered because it didn't. When the question is the right question, the answer is already included in the question. Hencely, what is being sought are the right questions.But that just gets a peep to clench up on the questions in their left hand.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2014 7:49:33 GMT -5
Oneness is not a matter of point of view. Noticing the interconnected nature of things may be useful, but is a distorted reflection of oneness in the mind, subject to those mental boundaries. There is a Perception of "what is" free of mental boundaries. Uh-huh.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2014 8:04:33 GMT -5
I'd say science is batting zero on the big questions. Science can't explain why, taking the fact that entropy is always increasing, entropy was lowest at the big bang. Science can't explain how the big bang happened, why there is something rather than nothing. Science can't explain how life began, how life arises out of stuff that isn't alive. Science can't explain how consciousness arises out of life. Big fat zero. sdp Because something can't be explained doesn't mean there is divine ordering intelligence otherwise known as God. Maybe 'God' is just an outcome of a deep hunger or propensity for explanation, sense-making? If someone's got an image of God that helps them make sense of things, then that's sort of by definition, right? But that "deep hunger" you reference, that entangles up the demand for an explanation of the world with something else. Consider the distinction between the words belief and faith. A "leap of faith" or the admonition to "have faith" are about action contrary to facts in evidence. It's only in the context of religion that faith is associated and has been conflated with belief. In terms of a debate, the deist always has to resort to the irrational, while the atheist has to limit himself to the objective.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2014 8:08:33 GMT -5
Sure, but some ideas point beyond the words, which is why we call them pointers. As an example of what I was referring to, in our squirrel satsang today, one of the squirrels asked "How can I see myself as one with that tree?" I told him it was the wrong question because it stands on an illusion: It begins with the assumption that the tree and the squirrel are actually separate to begin with and somehow merge or join, and so there can't be an answer to the question because nothing merges or joins. As somebody just said about science, it can't answer the question of how consciousness arose from matter. The question can't be answered because it didn't. When the question is the right question, the answer is already included in the question. Hencely, what is being sought are the right questions. How does the sun travel across the sky? I remember at the end of an Astronomy lecture where we had just discussed the law of gravity -- basically objects with mass are attracted to each other -- and had worked out the equation and such. I asked the professor (after most other students had left): "but why are bodies with mass attracted to each other?" It was the end of the road. He basically shrugged his shoulders. But going beyond the shoulder shrug to then say 'Intelligence' or 'God' is not necessarily the right answer either.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Aug 29, 2014 10:00:19 GMT -5
As somebody just said about science, it can't answer the question of how consciousness arose from matter. The question can't be answered because it didn't. Are you really going to break the hearts of all those scientists working on the problem of consciousness? And who is it that "sees" consciousness and Djin?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2014 10:26:13 GMT -5
What about the experience of order? I wouldn't say that's assumed, and even if it is, it seems it would require intelligence to assume it, whether you're awed or not. Sure, it's a concept, but some concepts are big enough that they don't feel restricting. My concept of God leaves lots of elbow room, though I'm aware most folks make a mess of it. Do you have an example of what you mean by 'order'? I'm talking about the same ordered universe that everyone else talks about, I just don't conclude that there's a personal God behind it. However, it doesn't seem like a stretch to say there is intelligence behind it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2014 10:36:34 GMT -5
Sure, but some ideas point beyond the words, which is why we call them pointers. As an example of what I was referring to, in our squirrel satsang today, one of the squirrels asked "How can I see myself as one with that tree?" I told him it was the wrong question because it stands on an illusion: It begins with the assumption that the tree and the squirrel are actually separate to begin with and somehow merge or join, and so there can't be an answer to the question because nothing merges or joins. As somebody just said about science, it can't answer the question of how consciousness arose from matter. The question can't be answered because it didn't. When the question is the right question, the answer is already included in the question. Hencely, what is being sought are the right questions. How does the sun travel across the sky? I remember at the end of an Astronomy lecture where we had just discussed the law of gravity -- basically objects with mass are attracted to each other -- and had worked out the equation and such. I asked the professor (after most other students had left): "but why are bodies with mass attracted to each other?" It was the end of the road. He basically shrugged his shoulders. But going beyond the shoulder shrug to then say 'Intelligence' or 'God' is not necessarily the right answer either.I agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 10:38:10 GMT -5
Do you have an example of what you mean by 'order'? I'm talking about the same ordered universe that everyone else talks about, I just don't conclude that there's a personal God behind it. However, it doesn't seem like a stretch to say there is intelligence behind it. I'm still not getting what you mean by 'order.' Or 'intelligence' for that matter. Is an example of order like breathing? In, out, in, out. Is it a crystal or snowflake? Is it hydrogen bonding? a spiderweb? How teeth line up in a row? .... Is your meaning of intelligence similar to what is measured in an IQ test? Or are you using intelligence to mean pattern? Are you saying that the universe appears to have pattern behind it?
|
|