• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
godnotgod said:
All of this is about perceptual reality. The consciousness inherent in the universe is not perceptual in nature. It is not dependent upon the senses. The senses are dependent upon consciousness. IOW, consciousness must already be in place for perceptual reality to occur.
Click to expand...

No its about how the brain works. I hope you read the partys about conciousness being damaged, although I doubt you read it. But maybe.

"The consciousness inherent in the universe is not perceptual in nature. It is not dependent upon the senses. The senses are dependent upon consciousness. IOW, consciousness must already be in place for perceptual reality to occur"

First you have to show the mechanisms of what your saying or anything to back it up. Your starting off with a conclusion you have already made.

So is what your saying you side with pantheism?
 
shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
godnotgod said:
All of this is about perceptual reality. The consciousness inherent in the universe is not perceptual in nature. It is not dependent upon the senses. The senses are dependent upon consciousness. IOW, consciousness must already be in place for perceptual reality to occur.
Click to expand...

This also sound supernatural, is it supernatural?
 
YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
godnotgod said:
My, how uncannily perceptive of you. Must be your innate genius at work *cough*

Now, now. Jealousy is so unlike a Bodhisattva, especially when the drivel he's famous for is way over your head. Guess that's why he's Noam Chomsky and you're not...heh...heh..heh...
Click to expand...
Hehe. Predictable response. You make it sound as if Chomsky doesn't have his critics, LOL.
 
godnotgod

godnotgod

Thou art That
shawn001 said:
No its about how the brain works. I hope you read the partys about conciousness being damaged, although I doubt you read it. But maybe.

"The consciousness inherent in the universe is not perceptual in nature. It is not dependent upon the senses. The senses are dependent upon consciousness. IOW, consciousness must already be in place for perceptual reality to occur"

First you have to show the mechanisms of what your saying or anything to back it up. Your starting off with a conclusion you have already made.

So is what your saying you side with pantheism?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that consciousness is present before anything else. I do not subscribe to the idea that the brain is the source of consciousness anymore than a TV set is the source of the TV program.
 
shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
godnotgod said:
No, I'm saying that consciousness is present before anything else. I do not subscribe to the idea that the brain is the source of consciousness anymore than a TV set is the source of the TV program.
Click to expand...


So consciousness was present before the big bang? If you do believe that where did it come from? Or originate?

Anything to back that up or just a belief?

It also must have been able to withstand temperatures at 7 trillion degrees F?
 
YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
godnotgod said:
That's not the point at all, which is inherent in the content of his statement.
Click to expand...
One could write volumes on the indoctrination into Chomsky's worldview.

I am entertained though. Have you actually read any of Chomsky's books, cover to cover? Just askin'...
 
YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
shawn001 said:
Okay so what energy would it be using that we don't know about in nature? Something in the electromagnetic band?
Click to expand...
You see, and that is as far as I can go and retain any intellectual honesty. I agree that the universe and all reality is energy. If that energy is aware, conscious or intelligent is well beyond the pay grade of any living human animal to assert with conviction.
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
godnotgod said:
Guess that's why he's Noam Chomsky and you're not...heh...heh..heh...
Click to expand...
Partly because modern linguistics has left him as a relic whose vital contributions arguably balance out the fact that he used his position and influence to hamper linguistic theory and research for decades. In one of the more recent papers he co-authored, the lead author was fired for faking his research. But even that (former) Harvard professor is far less influential than e.g., his former Harvard colleague Stephen Pinker, whose challenges to Chomsky's dismissal of progress in the field were met with a response that these were interesting but meaningless because they didn't fit Chomsky's basic understanding of language formulated 50+ years ago (and which failed utterly to accomplish what it sought). Meanwhile, the most drastically different models of language (those which fall under the umbrella of cognitive linguistics) have been most successful where he failed. Even many foremost generative linguists (generative linguistics is what Chomsky founded) have rejected key components of Chomskyan theory and have adopted or adapted theories from cognitive linguistics.

Langacker, Pinker, Lakoff, Fillmore, Vyvyan Evans, Dancygier, Hudson, Pollard, Sag, Jackendoff, etc. (not to mention all those in the cognitive sciences who accept embodied cognition) either fundamentally disagree with the core of Chomskyan linguistics or find key aspects of it wrong and fatally flawed. His contributions were invaluable in the 50s and 60s. His concept of language today is so problematic that even those who accepted a previous iteration of his models of language harshly criticize his latest (the minimalist program).
 
Last edited:
apophenia

apophenia

Well-Known Member
shawn001 said:
So consciousness was present before the big bang? If you do believe that where did it come from? Or originate?

Anything to back that up or just a belief?

It also must have been able to withstand temperatures at 7 trillion degrees F?
Click to expand...

Actually, despite having a lot of sympathy for the idea, that is dogma.

We have absolutely no idea what consciousness is, and it is not in any way accounted for by science.

There is only the vague notion of 'emergent property', which, in all honesty, has no more substance than 'god did it'.

What we have is an ideological war between religion and science, such that any suggestion that 'consciousness is not explained' causes howls from the gallery, because it is (wrongly) seen as an attempt to justify religious belief. Well, it is used that way by some - but defeating their position is not what science is about, as much as many would like to think so.

Face up to the fact - conscious awareness is currently beyond the purview of science.

Saying that does not make me a closet mystic - simply honest.

It is called 'The Hard Problem' in cognitive science - and so far no-one has even put a dent in it.

Fact of life.

Further - accepting the dogma of 'emergent property' as fact brings science into disrepute IMO.
 
shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
apophenia said:
Actually, despite having a lot of sympathy for the idea, that is dogma.

We have absolutely no idea what consciousness is, and it is not in any way accounted for by science.

There is only the vague notion of 'emergent property', which, in all honesty, has no more substance than 'god did it'.

What we have is an ideological war between religion and science, such that any suggestion that 'consciousness is not explained' causes howls from the gallery, because it is (wrongly) seen as an attempt to justify religious belief. Well, it is used that way by some - but defeating their position is not what science is about, as much as many would like to think so.

Face up to the fact - conscious awareness is currently beyond the purview of science.

Saying that does not make me a closet mystic - simply honest.

It is called 'The Hard Problem' in cognitive science - and so far no-one has even put a dent in it.

Fact of life.

Further - accepting the dogma of 'emergent property' as fact brings science into disrepute IMO.
Click to expand...

"We have absolutely no idea what consciousness is, and it is not in any way accounted for by science."

This really isn't true in modern neuroscience.Sorry. Its not completely figured out yet, but, possibly soon. I could dig up a ton of material on this but its too late right now.
 
apophenia

apophenia

Well-Known Member
shawn001 said:
"We have absolutely no idea what consciousness is, and it is not in any way accounted for by science."

This really isn't true in modern neuroscience.Sorry. Its not completely figured out yet, but, possibly soon. I could dig up a ton of material on this but its too late right now.
Click to expand...

All you can dig up is descriptions of the physical behaviour of the brain.

That in no way explains how that behaviour is 'experienced'.

All of that behaviour could be happening, exactly as it is, without anyone knowing it.

That is all that we have data about so far.
 
shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
apophenia said:
All you can dig up is descriptions of the physical behaviour of the brain.

That in no way explains how that behaviour is 'experienced'.

All of that behaviour could be happening, exactly as it is, without anyone knowing it.

That is all that we have data about so far.
Click to expand...


This isn't right either.

and by the way

You make decisions without conciously knowing it
 
shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
apophenia said:
Evidence please



yeah. so ?

i don't deliberately beat my heart either.

irrelevant.

I am talking about conscious awareness, not unconscious processes.
Click to expand...

yeah. so ?

If you want to understand how the brain works.

"i don't deliberately beat my heart either."

You don't consciously have to think about that because evolution figured it out, with the autonomic nervous system

unconscious processes give rise to your conscious decisions. They are as important. They are making some of them for you without you being consciously aware.

You can't say science knows nothing about all this and then say yeah so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top