- #36
Iacchus32
- 2,315
- 1
And yet a machine can accomplish just as much as you require here, without having to be conscious. This is no better an answer than science would require.Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Look ...if I say the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's having a very complex Experience...isn't that the start of the Being's "identity"?
No, the Universe can not know these things by itself, unless it were a part of an even "greater consciousness," which truly is conscious.Consciousness is -- IMO -- awareness of self, of others, of context, of experience, of meaning. Only the Universe Itself can "know" what It is, what It is experiencing, and what It is making it all mean .
It still sounds like you're speaking of nothing more than that which is "mechanistic." And why would it do any of this stuff, if it didn't have a clue, as you say below? It therefore must allude to a "higher intent" then.I say the Universe is out to have an Experience...a real COMPLEX one, as I have said, that includes the lifetimes of Everything that It gives rise to (past/present/future). If It has a "central question" it might be "What can I create THIS time?"...with regard to each incarnation. Then It goes about RE-ASSEMBLING Its "parts" to create new settings (physicality), new experiences (consciousness) and new emotion-and-meaning-laden memories (spirituality).
But how did the joker get there? By random? And how can there be any "real intention" without the higher proclivity to experience it, such as with us human beings? Meaning, shouldn't the Universe have an even greater capacity to understand its intentions than us?I most certainly do NOT think It's on "automatic pilot": It -- and Its PARTS (us included) have INTENTION ...which is the "joker in the deck". To shift to another metaphor, the Universe is like a "sea of potentialities" wherein INTENTION impinges on the "lynchpin" of randomness, causing certain things to manifest while others do not.
If it hasn't got a clue then it ain't conscious! So what it sounds like you're saying is that the only "true knowing" -- which, according to you (I believe?) -- was "bestowed" upon us by this "conscious Entity," is capable by us "human beings?" Who are not even sure that they're capable of knowing? And yet there's no doubt that "greater truths" do exist. But where do they come from? And how do they get "acknowledged" (by whom) before they get "filtered" down to us?That's why the Universe is not "all-knowing" like "God": It hasn't a clue (well, maybe a CLUE...but not much more) about how things will "turn out". It doesn't know what YOU are going to DO next minute or next year...nor what results you're going to get when you do! That's what makes it INTERESTING...I would think.
Something that at least has the same capabilities that I have, but far greater ... even to the point to where I couldn't begin to understand, except perhaps, with reference to myself? Whereas if you look at what I'm saying here, it isn't altogether different from what you're saying, except that I'm giving the Universe, i.e., in the form of God, a lot more credit. Have you ever heard the song, "From a Distance," by Bette Midler? Which in effect is saying, What do we really know about God? except that He's there, in His full capacity as God and, that "out of respect" He keeps His distance ... Otherwise there would be no means by which to acknowledge Him -- i.e., from the standpoint of our "not knowing" He's there which, is a widely held view (even by Atheists).But "identity"?! What are you looking for?
Whereas the one point of view acknowledges the human heritage which has been passed down in the name of religion, and the other one doesn't.