One of the implications of the copernican realization was a demotion of man's imagined importance, a cold realization that almost certainly sealed the willingness of few to embrace a humanity humbled before the depth of the cosmos.

In his work ' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium' Nickolas Copernicus dealt a terrible blow to the arrogance or ego that comes with dogmatic deductions. Truths derived from the need to feel good, important, valuable and loved and not based on clear cut objectivity and fact no matter how cold or depressing.

Copernicus who lived at a time when Geocentrism or Tychonic model was the conventional view of the cosmos - the view that the earth is the center of the universe, every other celestial body [sun, planets, stars] all went round it.

Through series of pain staking astronomical observation Copernicus formulated the theory that

The sun was fixed like every other star is and so is the center of the universe, that the earth and other plantery orbs travelled round the sun

A view he presented with a trembling mind at the astronomical, philosophical and religious implications it would stir, the unmerciful criticism it would incure.

A view that led the protestant theologian Philip Melanchthon to assert

" Some people believe that it is excellent and correct to work out a thing as absurd as did that Sarmatian [Polish] astronomer who moves the earth and stops the sun. Indeed, wise rulers should have curbed such light- mindedness."

An idea later would be responsible for the bane of the famous scientific revolutionalist Galileo Galilei who embraced the copernican idea and for that faced severe trials from the church of which on one of such trials Saint Bernad said

"To assert that the earth went round the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Christ was not born of a virgin"

Gelileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest for this unconventional view of a universe not centered around Earth ultimately man.

In the philosophical and theological stand point it both contradicted the scriptures and the idea of 'Precious earth of the God(s)/God' that the earth was just a follower in the system of worlds and not the leader, the chief focus or the herder of the orbs.

There is a humbling realization in the awe inspiring reality that nature poses, a grandeur that marvels even our most egoistic of minds, a mystery that stretches us to our uttermost vulnerable limit.

Holding on to the view that 'Nature was made for man' is inconsistent with the secrets that nature subtly whisper in the cosmic tunes derived by our observation and experiences that we are also being forced towards a new copernican realization - we almost certainly exist as if we don't.

Let us for once leave the comfort zone of observing the cosmos from the earthly perspective and view it from outside to the inside. here we'll be faced with an almost infinite cosmos of the brightest lights buttered in the deepest of darkness, an almost wave-like pattern of tiny lights swimming in the vastness of the deep.

Approaching these tiny lights a magnificent structure is revealed, a grand relation of celestial candles and orbs, cloud and dust all bound by the ever reaching hands of gravity, dancing, wobbling and nodding round the interference of each other's tune - Galaxies.

Within these galaxies are ranges of members, from the dark matter galaxies with a weird collection of a few hundred normal stars to dward galaxies of a few million stars and planets to the average galaxies of hundreds of billion stars up to the gigantic galaxies with trillions and hundreds of trillions of these celestial light mostly trailed with accompanying orbs [planets].

And these galaxies in single numberings estimate up to hundreds of billions.

Then we travel towards the virgo super cluster, a local cluster of millions of galaxies all clustered in hundreds of galactic groups.

And in one lone corner seats an average galaxy the milky way, with billions of stars and likewise planets all making silent whispers in their cosmic songs, deep within billions of these stars in a remote corner of the milky way seats an average star and within the system of the small sun lost in vastness of a humoungous lot is a small planet, one of the smallest of it's comrades, seats within a fortunate range from it's host star.

Approaching this deep blue world, it is silent, seems almost like no activity thrives within, like a dust suspended in a sun beam

The pale blue dot

On appraoching this dust, more intrinsic features becomes visible but still seems dormant and quiet then on coming really close to this dot a thriving bustling plain of activity is unraveled, within the skin of this blue dot are ceaseless activities.

A curious species are part of this ceaseless activities within this little world - Man. We are each of us very tiny beings permitted to ride on the outermost skin of one the smallest planets for a few dozen trips around a local star.

But within our lowly position in all that the cosmos is, we in ourselves source for meaning and purpose, source for value that we create these for ourselves and create in ourselves purposes that puts us behind the triger causlity of nature - All that is was for us

Our lives are no more than a blink in the cosmic duration, our world no more than a lost grain of sand in a beach with infinite grains of sands.

I remember as a child lifting stones to find all kinds of creatures living underneath, oblivious magnificent creatures crawling in their majesty in a world so perfect - would i blame them to believe all that the earth is was made just to accomodate them?

I'm certain we would laugh at the grandeur of such naive delusion but we also in our own naivete and unthinkable ego even in our insignificance would love to think that all that nature is was made just for us

In the course of our study to understand ourselves and what we are, we have resorted to studying what lies before us and an uncaring world is revealed right before us.

Since the inception of life on earth there has been no less than 5 events leading to an almost catastrophic demise of all life on earth yet these uncaring accidental catastrophe steered the very course of the evolutionary journey of the present lives on earth including man.

Such a hostility in a world supposedly made for us poses a bag of question and almost certainly portrays a sinister purpose behind this model.

Hurricane matthew one of the most recent card of natural uncareness, an unmatched beast of the winds tearing through the unhabited forests to the vast carpet of water up to the fully inhabited cities alike portrays a rather indifference in it's hostility, the same severity witnessed by the lonely forest was witnessed by the bustlin cities, no special treatment was accorded.

How so can we be treated like everyother things of lesser value to us is being treated in this cosmic arena - have we not lied to ourselves that we possess a more deserving position than all others?

We are part of nature, a tiny bit in a vast oneness and so we must humbly embrace our place in this oneness, because by understanding this oneness we understand ourselves.

Most of all our answers as regarding cosmic questions that concerns us has always being aimed at satisfying our own need to feel good for being here, to comfort our vulnerability and to provide succor to our lost selves.

We have sought for meaning and value in order to derive a need to be and a need to continue but i think that the reason behind this is that the very meaninglessness of our existence forces man to create his own meaning, in judging all that the universe reveals the most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent.

But if we come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death - our own existence as a species can have geniune meaning fulfilment.

However deep the darkness is we must supply our own light.

often mistakes we make is that we look for things like love, meaning and purpose like these can be found in the back yard, looking under or on top of the bed bunk - The most profound minds are ones that realize that we make our love and our meaning and generate our own motivation.

Man is no different from nature, he is part of nature and to deny that is to deny the very essence of our being and to think ourselves the purpose behind nature is to assume that every other part of nature is subject to our own meaning - Even to the most subtle of minds nature has never ceased to show that :

it is indifferent to itself of which we are a part of

By Johnydon22

Cc. Seun [Please move to FP] Loj, dorox, lordnicklaus, DoctorAlien, ValentineMary, Bytehead

This is long.

interesting piece

realtem:
This is long.

and equally interesting

Please expatiate on this:

In the philosophical and theological stand point it both contradicted the scriptures and the idea of 'Precious earth of the God(s)/God' that the earth was just a follower in the system of worlds and not the leader, the chief focus or the herder of the orbs.

Observations:

1. This articles assumes that religious people entertain the idea of GOD and the peculiarity of man in the midst of Creation simply because they want to "feel important." It also assumes that religious people need to be "humbled." This is a fallacious generalization. Man is important by nature, and doesn't need his feelings to validate that. I believe there are "important" people in the world today who do not "feel important." Not everybody wants to "feel important", and, certainly, identifying that the earth and the solar system was specially created for us amounts to "feeling important" no more than identifying that you're different from a bacterium does.

2. I really don't know what this article wants to impress us with by giving us a recap of how vast the Universe is and the countless number of stars in it. This knowledge was common to some ancient people.

I may make further observations as time goes on.

Man, though referred to as the best of creatures by the Bible doesn't make him the chief of the cosmic path. Chronologically, man was the last to be made, so he is definitely made to harness nature. If nature was made for man, then he would be created before such magnificent cosmic order. Nature itself plays a part in ensuring man is safe from the effects of its burning rage. Man is embedded in nature, he is nature and he adapts to nature. Nature and man are complementary each playing a part in the vast cosmos. The earth is but like an electron revolving round a stellar nucleus within a universal atom and that makes it but a speck amongst a sand bank of the entire planetary orbs. Man, though special is at the mercy of nature sometimes but he definitely has the intellect to curb the very threat nature poses to his survival. Nature itself provides a way out. So, man and nature are complementary.

Cc johnydon22 DoctorAlien dorox butterfly88 ValentineMary ifenes cloudgoddess

butterfly88:
and equally interesting

Yeah, and it wasn't really long o..... I'm just too lazy.

Epistle by johnnydon22

Bro Williams, or to be punctillious, Johnydon22, wonderful article. You did a great job, except that I do not agree with it. You wrote the article from a scientific empiricist materialist nihilistic view of reality, which describes the universe as some kind of clock-work machine which operates according to deterministic rules (indeterministic at the most fundamental material level, hence basically RANDOM in its behaviour), and life as merely an ACCIDENT resulting from random operations of the mechanistic universe, and mind as an epiphenomenon of mindless matter.

In this view, the universe is devoid of all meaning and purpose. The universe isn't trying to achieve anything. It just IS. It's the belief that an entire universe can emerge due to quantum fluctuations (in nothing!) for no reason, and start INFLATING (into what?) for no reason at all, and along the way, after billions of years, particular complex arrangements of matter (the "stuff" of which this universe is made) caused by RANDOM jostling together of atoms (the basic units of matter) gave rise to life (for no reason at all).

Your comments on the first thread you created (for discussion) on this topic suggest that you believe flaws and imperfections do not preclude design. In that case, the only obstacle preventing you from accepting the design argument as valid is empirical substantiation, is that correct?

Empiricism, indeed, has been enormously successful (the very reason why it is extremely persuasive), but that DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT. It's unwise to dismiss ideas that cannot be subjected to empirical substantiation as either false or unknowable. There are purported realities that are not susceptible to empirical substantiation, for which sensory evidence cannot be provided. Does that make them unreal? Is MIND material? What empirical evidence is there to prove the existence of MIND? Yet you know mind exists because you THINK. And NO, it's not an epiphenomenon of matter. Mindless atoms CANNOT produce mind (absolutely impossible), and lifeless atom CANNOT give rise to life (another absolute impossibility). Mind is not secondary to matter. On the contrary, matter is secondary to mind. MIND IS PRIMARY REALITY, and since its existence is not dependent on matter (it only needs matter to express itself; particular complex arrangements of matter through which it can process information i.e it needs matter to become CONSCIOUS), it can be said therefore that MIND is eternal, as it preceded the FINITE phenomenal/physical universe, and will remain even after it's no longer there.

If MIND if FUNDAMENTAL REALITY, how many minds are there? It can't be a single mind (we know that simple fact 'cause there're many of us), neither can it be a million, a billion, or nine hundred and ninety-two trillion. Why would that be the case? What conditions permits the existence of arbitary number of finite minds but not an infinite number of them? The number of minds have to be INFINITE. There're no constraints to prevent that. Nothing forbids it, so it has to be.

Then, consider this...... what if Space-time, matter and energy were the creations of DIMENSIONLESS (hence ETERNAL) minds (an infinite number of "nothings" in the material sense, since they have no dimensions)? What if the causal agents that initiated the big bang (albeit UNCONSCIOUSLY) were the infinite number of minds fundamental to the universe? What if they created the material world in a bid to become CONSCIOUS, stirring matter (for billions of years) into more complex forms, through trial and error, until they attained the kind of complexity through which minds can express themselves consciously? What if evolution is being directed by unconscious minds seeking consciousness, but this fact cannot be empirically inferred simply because they're rational (you can't rationally deny the existence of mind as that would be an exercise in futility) unobservables (you can't detect them even with the largest most effective Haldron Colliders)? What if the whole of existence is just a story of dimemsiolnless, unextended, immaterial unconscious IMPERFECT minds (maybe that explains the flaws and imperfections of the material world?) seeking to become conscious by stirring the dimensional, extended, material world they all helped create in all possible directions of complexity so as to become PERFECTLY CONSCIOUS (hence having absolute mental control over matter)? Wouldn't that imply, in the end, that NATURE WAS MADE FOR MAN (or more accurately, for LIFE)? Humanity is no longer strictly subject to biological evolution (thanks to consciousness, hence intelligence), but what about mental evolution? Is human consciousness the highest possible mental state, if not what are we becoming? What is the purpose of the physical universe? What is the meaning of life? What if "it's been MINDS all long?"

"WHAT IF", boss? Just "WHAT IF"?

Good thoughts KingEtiensky, beautiful speculations filled with depth and philosophical alacrity - But just like the end part it falls back down to "What if"

I totally disagree with that absolute notion of matter being unable to create mind -

First we have to understand is, in the discipline Science Empiricism is the method of confirmation and the hallmark of falsification and substantiation which ever way the postulation tilts but is not the only means of scientific deduction.

Science utilizes Reason and logic in the development of a thesis but empiricism confirms and provides a certainty of the eventuality.

So Logical and rational assumption while deep and a gate way to outstanding exploration to the problems that plagues us is not entirely or reliable in an average sense since without empiricism it is blind.

Einstein's rational and logical assumption could have been right but at the same time it could have been wrong and Newton's could have been right as well as being wrong.

Empiricism stepped in and that blindness of logical and rational speculations of both Newton and Einstein were illuminated and certainty was ensured.

In ancient Natural Philosophy, it took rationalization and simple logic to conclude the sun went round the earth just like the moon.

It was rational to think that but also blind in essence as certainty is lacking.

Newton proposed a static universe, a force of attraction between matter, Einstein also agreed with a static and eternal universe but rather a fabric-like Space/time.

Edwin Hubble an empiricist both illuminated those rational assumptions and gave a torch of certainty to these assumptions.

And that opinion of a static universe was shattered.

Aristotle while being a very brilliant and logical fellow tendered a very rational explanation of why objects in motion slow down and eventually stop.

He postulated that "Objects in motion gets tired that is why they slow down and eventually comes to a halt.

This we agree is a rational conclusion since this holds true to willful motions but even though rational it wasn't true to the motions of Physical values


Without empiricism, Einstein's theory will be uncertain to us cus while very logical and rational it may be wrong or may be right, so we are roped within the confines of uncertainty..

So while we agree rationalism and logic can lead on a deep exploration of what is or might be, we also should agree that without empiricism it is blind in essence.


Same way we could infer without rationalism and logic empiricism crawls.

So science both encompasses both logical, rational and empirical limbs in it's quest to ascertain what is.

Now for Consciousness as i have maintained, human study both in a logical and empirical sense has not been able to quantify in certainty of it's whole manifestations because the mind being the totality of conscious value can be likened to the universe.

And just as we are minute and can deduct the many things in the universe it will be hard to encompass in all certainty the totality of universal manifestations.

so too is to us the evasive nature of consciousness to our perception.

When we delve deep into the Quantum world we will understand that matter is not really as minutely spooky as we think so i'd like us not to limit the possibilities of manifestations as regards matter.

In our understanding now, Consciousness cannot be expressly unrelated to perceptiveness and perceptiveness at minute level in unity defines consciousness.

So is life a union of matter and mind? if this is so as a philosophical rationalization may stress then this totally breaks the relationship between perceptibility and Mind.

Is the 'Mind' a conscious thinking nothingness?

If perceptibility defines the basis of the mind and perceptibility cannot be distinguished from the confines of matter as we know, how then can 'mind' be without perception and perception without matter?


So maybe we should rethink the nature of matter, maybe the problem is not in matter not being able to give rise to consciousness even though it seems so it still is not convincing to us but rather in the way or the confines of limited expectations we rope around the manifestations or abilities of matter

Then in a rational and logical sense maybe it is our own perception of matter is lacking, maybe it is our own understanding of matter wanting and not the eventuality of what matter can do.

So while we are in the drawing board of coming up with a convincing explanation to sate our awe of consciousness, let us not make the mistake of placing a limiting lid to the important and curious aspect of this enquiry which is matter.

Therefore i beg to infer that even though we have not in all certainty deducted the nature of the totality of consciousness, placing restrictions will only diminish the sphere of where our enquiry can reach.

Judging 'matter' on the surface places us in a position of placing a lid over the possibilities of what is, might or can be.

So maybe we should rethink our perception of matter and it's manifestations or fairly not put a lid what we imagine or think it can do and this i believe is a rational insertion.

We may not yet have answered this question that plagues us, i totally agree with you that we do not sorely depend on rationalism or empiricism or the bounds of our deductions will be greatly diminished.

so in our quest to find out what is, empirico-rationalism as science utilizes gives a promise of inferring a certain solution to the problem but while at it there is need to broaden our scope of rational and empirical enquiry.

lordnicklaus:
Man, though referred to as the best of creatures by the Bible doesn't make him the chief of the cosmic path. Chronologically, man was the last to be made, so he is definitely made to harness nature. If nature was made for man, then he would be created before such magnificent cosmic order. Nature itself plays a part in ensuring man is safe from the effects of its burning rage. Man is embedded in nature, he is nature and he adapts to nature. Nature and man are complementary each playing a part in the vast cosmos. The earth is but like an electron revolving round a stellar nucleus within a universal atom and that makes it but a speck amongst a sand bank of the entire planetary orbs. Man, though special is at the mercy of nature sometimes but he definitely has the intellect to curb the very threat nature poses to his survival. Nature itself provides a way out. So, man and nature are complementary.

Cc johnydon22 DoctorAlien dorox butterfly88 ValentineMary ifenes cloudgoddess

We can also say this for every specie on this planet not just man ..Yes?

i'm interested in the bolded - please eloborate on how that is so?

johnydon22:


We can also say this for every specie on this planet not just man ..Yes?

i'm interested in the bolded - please eloborate on how that is so?

Yes, I made reference to that on the discussion thread using the earth's magnetic shield as example. It shields from harmful solar radiations, one threat nature poses.

Nature can be likened to the human conscience; the impartial spectator

KingEtienneSky:
Bro Williams, or to be punctillious, Johnydon22, wonderful article. You did a great job, except that I do not agree with it. You wrote the article from a scientific empiricist materialist nihilistic view of reality, which describes the universe as some kind of clock-work machine which operates according to deterministic rules (indeterministic at the most fundamental material level, hence basically RANDOM in its behaviour), and life as merely an ACCIDENT resulting from random operations of the mechanistic universe, and mind as an epiphenomenon of mindless matter.

In this view, the universe is devoid of all meaning and purpose. The universe isn't trying to achieve anything. It just IS. It's the belief that an entire universe can emerge due to quantum fluctuations (in nothing!) for no reason, and start INFLATING (into what?) for no reason at all, and along the way, after billions of years, particular complex arrangements of matter (the "stuff" of which this universe is made) caused by RANDOM jostling together of atoms (the basic units of matter) gave rise to life (for no reason at all).

Your comments on the first thread you created (for discussion) on this topic suggest that you believe flaws and imperfections do not preclude design. In that case, the only obstacle preventing you from accepting the design argument as valid is empirical substantiation, is that correct?

Empiricism, indeed, has been enormously successful (the very reason why it is extremely persuasive), but that DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT. It's unwise to dismiss ideas that cannot be subjected to empirical substantiation as either false or unknowable. There are purported realities that are not susceptible to empirical substantiation, for which sensory evidence cannot be provided. Does that make them unreal? Is MIND material? What empirical evidence is there to prove the existence of MIND? Yet you know mind exists because you THINK. And NO, it's not an epiphenomenon of matter. Mindless atoms CANNOT produce mind (absolutely impossible), and lifeless atom CANNOT give rise to life (another absolute impossibility). Mind is not secondary to matter. On the contrary, matter is secondary to mind. MIND IS PRIMARY REALITY, and since its existence is not dependent on matter (it only needs matter to express itself; particular complex arrangements of matter through which it can process information i.e it needs matter to become CONSCIOUS), it can be said therefore that MIND is eternal, as it preceded the FINITE phenomenal/physical universe, and will remain even after it's no longer there.

If MIND if FUNDAMENTAL REALITY, how many minds are there? It can't be a single mind (we know that simple fact 'cause there're many of us), neither can it be a million, a billion, or nine hundred and ninety-two trillion. Why would that be the case? What conditions permits the existence of arbitary number of finite minds but not an infinite number of them? The number of minds have to be INFINITE. There're no constraints to prevent that. Nothing forbids it, so it has to be.

Then, consider this...... what if Space-time, matter and energy were the creations of DIMENSIONLESS (hence ETERNAL) minds (an infinite number of "nothings" in the material sense, since they have no dimensions)? What if the causal agents that initiated the big bang (albeit UNCONSCIOUSLY) were the infinite number of minds fundamental to the universe? What if they created the material world in a bid to become CONSCIOUS, stirring matter (for billions of years) into more complex forms, through trial and error, until they attained the kind of complexity through which minds can express themselves consciously? What if evolution is being directed by unconscious minds seeking consciousness, but this fact cannot be empirically inferred simply because they're rational (you can't rationally deny the existence of mind as that would be an exercise in futility) unobservables (you can't detect them even with the largest most effective Haldron Colliders)? What if the whole of existence is just a story of dimemsiolnless, unextended, immaterial unconscious IMPERFECT minds (maybe that explains the flaws and imperfections of the material world?) seeking to become conscious by stirring the dimensional, extended, material world they all helped create in all possible directions of complexity so as to become PERFECTLY CONSCIOUS (hence having absolute mental control over matter)? Wouldn't that imply, in the end, that NATURE WAS MADE FOR MAN (or more accurately, for LIFE)? Humanity is no longer strictly subject to biological evolution (thanks to consciousness, hence intelligence), but what about mental evolution? Is human consciousness the highest possible mental state, if not what are we becoming? What is the purpose of the physical universe? What is the meaning of life? What if "it's been MINDS all long?"

"WHAT IF", boss? Just "WHAT IF"?

I couldn't help but agree with you. I would dance to it if you turned it into music.

The Universe is a reflection of collective minds and to change it,the mind needs to change. It is that simple! The mind(consciousness/awareness) is endless and unlimited.

We are all magicians using our minds+imagination =realities. Science is beautiful but "scientists" are getting it wrong. The product(material world/realities) is the result of imaginations emanating from the mind. The Human psychic is the Source not the end product.

The above is what has been hijacked by religious folks who say God...The Mind created all things. As far as I am concerned,that is the Holy Grail.

The Topic the OP presented should be encouraged more on this forum.

lordnicklaus:

Yes, I made reference to that on the discussion thread using the earth's magnetic shield as example. It shields from harmful solar radiations, one threat nature poses.

But do you think this shield was a deliberate plot of nature to shield man ?

johnydon22:


But do you think this shield was a deliberate plot of nature to shield man ?

Good afternoon boss...... You'll be getting my reply to your post soon. It's gonna be a long one, and since, unlike you guys, the number of characters I can post at a time is very limited, I'll have to break it into several posts, and I'll ask that you do not reply until I'm done. I'll notify you when I'm through.

@johnydon22

Good thoughts KingEtienSky, beautiful speculations filled with doubt and philosophical alacrity. But just like the end part it falls back down to "what if".

I totaly disagree with the absolute notion of matter being unable to create mind -

Heh...... Let's see then.

Idealism is the view that the universe is a mental construct - an arena exclusively of ideas. There's no such thing as matter, or rather, matter itself is just a mental construct. If no minds existed, no material world would exist.

Materialism asserts that there's nothing but matter. The mental world is a product of matter. If no matter existed, there would be no minds.

Dualism contends that matter and mind exist as independent substances. DESCARTES, the leading dualist, said that matter (res extensa) had the property of extension (i.e. physical dimensions) while mind (res cogitans) did not. Matter was a physical substance while mind was a substance relating to thinking, feeling, willing, perceiving and consciousness. Since they were completely different substances, it was unclear how they could interact. Descartes infamously suggested that the pineal gland in the brain acted as a mediator between mind and matter.

Idealists deny the independent existence of matter while materialists deny the independent existence of mind. Dualists assert that matter exists independently of mind, and mind independently of matter, but can't explain their relationship to each other. All three stances have failed to solve the mind/matter problem.

Is there another possibility?

Whatever the universe is made of, one thing is undeniable - it contains the capacity for intelligent thought. Humans are composed of atoms and yet they contemplate the nature of existence. How can atoms that obey mechanistic laws combine in such a way as to give rise to intelligence?

There are different types of intelligence. A crocodile has a limited repertoire of behaviour. A horse has a larger, more complex brain and can display more varied behaviour. A human being is capable of vastly more complicated behaviour still. Yet there's an enormous range within human intelligene. Some humans are mired in trivial, hedonistic pursuits while others are wrestling with the profoundest questions of life.

Since a range of intelligence is known to exist, is there any reason to believe that human intelligence should represent the upper limit? Is there any limit at all? Why should there not be levels of intelligence that make humans seem like insects in comparison? Why shouldn't evolution be able to create any level of intelligence, up to the highest possible of which the universe is capable? If a maximum intelligence is not forbidden then it's compulsory. One way or another, the universe will maximise the inteligence buried as potential within it.

But how can mind be generated by matter, how can intelligence emerge from atoms obeying mechanistic laws, how can life come from lifelessness? The number of ways of grouping atoms in the human body in ways that don't lead to intelligent behaviour is almost infinitely larger than those that do. Yet humanity exists - seven billion people, and rising. WHAT ARE THE ODDS? Is there an UNDERLYING FACTOR that makes humans, and human intelligence in particular, MUCH MORE LIKELY than it might seem?

Richard Dawkins talks about "the selfish gene" and humans being "gene survival machines". He doesn't mean that genes are literally selfish, but rather, that if we characterise them in this way then it helps to better understand observed behaviour. For example, in moral terms, no one should be more willing to help one person rather than another, yet it's self-evident that families (i.e. groups with high genetic commonaity) almost always help each other in preference to non-family members. Although, other explanations can be given, this is suggestive that genes act as if to promote their own interests over those of rival genes. But if genes ' particular organisations of atoms - are "selfish" then what of individual atoms?

"Panpsychism" is the theory that claims that all matter is associated with mind. If atoms are "minded" in some way i.e. aren't just passive objects being buffeted by physical forces but are active to some degree, albeit difficult to define, could it better explain scientific phenomena?

(@johnydon22)
It is difficult to understand how life can emerge from lifelessness, how mind can emerge from non-mind, how a chemical soup on earth billions of years ago could RANDOMLY create the single living cells from which humanity eventually evolved. Some people find it so improbable (and I contend that it is indeed an impossibility, given the astronomical odds against such happening. It would take some sort of MAGIC; a "miracle" ) that they dismiss it entirely and look for explanations involving God.

But if everything in the universe already has mind in some way, and can be said to be "alive" at some level, then several mysteries immediately become more comprehensible. If the chemical soup from which life emerged on earth was already "alive" (although at a non-conscious level) and was, in a sense, seeking to actualise itself in the optimal possible way; if the chemical soup were striving to generate higher forms of life from itself, then that would make the appearance of single cells more likely. Such a factor underlying evolutionary forces can't be quantified and isn't readily susceptible to scientific study, but it would radically increase the chances of complex life appearing.

Nothing is lifeless. Nothing is mindless. Life and mind are an ascending scale. The most elimentary particles have little that would be recognised as life or mind, but nevertheless thos qualities are there (or, more accurately, they're connected to the dimensionless, immaterial, mental domain of mind). To assert the opposite position that there's both life and non-life, is to assume a dualistic position. How can these two entirely different "substances" interact? How can one give rise to the other? How can specific arrangements of non-life generate life? The reality is that what has been defined as non-life does contain life, albeit at a much more primitive level. A single brain cell in a human brain doesn't appear to have either life or mind, and yet that brain cell is part of a functioning mind within a living organism. There are only two possibilities; either life and mind MIRACULOUSLY (by pure "magic" emerge from non-life ann non-mind, or life and mind were there all alomg, but unexpressed in any meaningful way.

The synthesis of mind and matter - of two supposedly seperate, independent, incompatible substances - is that they are the same substance viewed from two different perspectives. Zero and non-zero dimensional nothingness are the same nothingness viewed from two different perspectives. Every deep secret of the universe flows from the truth that the material and mental worlds are not seperate, and that zero dimensions can coexist with multi dimensions. All the difficulties of metaphysics arise from a false dichotomy between mind and matter.

Human mind belongs to the non-dimensional domain, yet it is tied to the physical world. It is impossible to probe it directly because it is not in the dimensional reality of science. Science has provided a vast amount of knowledge about the physical world, but it cannot say anything significant about the non-physical world. That is the province of metaphysics. Historically, science and metaphysics have clashed because metaphysics has strayed into scientific territory and vice versa.

We should combine the two, acknowledging the PRIMACY of each in its own sphere. If the proper applicability of science and metaphysics is understood, science should never contradict metaphysics and vice versa.

It can't be stressed enough that the physical aspect of the universe provides the platform for the mental aspect to express itself as fully as possible. Evolution is about simpler life forms, under the control of the physical aspect of the universe, trying to find ways to create more complex forms where the mental aspect comes to the fore. The universe is going on an extraordinary journey from an apparently blind, mechanical, unconscious physical nature to completely purposeful, intelligent, self-awareness.

(@johnydon22)
Carl Gustav Jung, the Swiss analytical psychologist, said, "Psyche and matter are contained in one and the same world, and moreover are in continuous contact with one another. Psyche and matter are two different aspects of one and the same thing."

But if everything physical has a psyche, what is the nature of that psyche? It's absurd to claim that an atom has a psyche in precisely the same way as a human being. Individual atoms are not conscious. They do not feel, do not exhibit intelligence, and do not make plans for the future. To understand their mental nature, it is necessary to turn to a concept known as "will".

The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, " The act of will and the action of the body are not two different states objectively known, connected by the bond of causality; they do not stand in the relation of cause and effect, but are one and the same thing, though given in two entirely different ways, first quite directly, and then in perception for the understanding."

in other words, an act of will does not cause a physical action to take place. Rather, the act of will is the same thing as the physical action, just viewed from a different perspective.

Schopenhauer's "will" is the will-to-exist, the will-to-live, the will-to-survive. It is a blind, irrational striving, driving forward relentlessly and forever, with no object other than to exist. In a sense, it manifests itself as a cosmic yearning, an unquenchable desire. Schopenhauer, a notorious pessimist, characterised it as evil. It leads, he said, to eternal, pointless existence that fights and struggles and wreaks misery in its desperation to continue to be. It contains no meaning whatsoever. Happiness, if it ever appears, is never anything other than fleeting, and quickly succumbs to fresh struggles and disappointments.

Schopenhauer criticised science on the basis that it only ever gave us knowledge of one aspect of reality. We find out many things about the "outer" aspect of reality, but discover nothing about its inner character, which is why science seems so cold, climical and sterile. It doesn't seem to answer any of the profound questions of existence because it is always standing on the outside.

Atoms are too simple to manifest any behaviour that could be deemed purposeful. Although they have a mental aspect, they are not conscious. At such an elementary level, "will" cannot express itself meaningfully. It is potentiality rather than actuality. The physical aspect, at such level, dominates the mental aspect. The laws of science rather than those of the mind are obeyed. At a certain point in evolution, there is a transition from dominance of the physical to that of the mental (though, that doesn't imply the physical stops affecting the mental), from objective to subjective, outer to inner, mechanistic laws to moral laws.

The physical arena is easier to study than he mental arena because it is objective rather than subjective (hence the consistency). Primitive objects can't lie, dream, deceive, delude themselves, fantasise, choose, act irrationally: sophisticated mind can do all of those. The mental arena is unreliable in a way that the physical isn't, yet everything that constitutes the meaning of life lies in the mental arena and not in the physical.

Nietzsche, an admirer of Schopenhauer's philosophy in his youth, argued that the will to live was really the will to power. He pointed out that animals, including humans, often risk their lives to gain more power. They would not do so if survival were their goal. The fight to gain power, risking death, can be more alluring than long life without power. Fear, in Nietzsche's view, is the feeling of the absence of power.

Nietzsche believed that everything could be reduced to will to power; a "dialetical monism". Walter Kaufmann said, "Nietzsche's basic force, the will to power, is not only the Dionysian passionate striving, akin to Schopenhauer's irrational will, but is also Appollonian and possesses an inherent capacity to give itself form."

In other words, the will to power is a synthesis of a chaotic, impulsive, irrational, passionate, destructive force (which Nietzsche labelled Dionysian in honour of Donysus, the Greek god of wine and intoxication), and its antithesis; an ordered, organised, rational, cool and calculating creative force (labelled the Apollonian, in honour of Apollo, the Greek god of light and the sun, the truth, prophecy and the arts).

Nietzsche's notion of force that strives to create order and form from chaos is an improvement over schopenhauer's more simple force. His dialetical will to power, with its inbuilt tendency to create order, accords more with observed reality than Schopenhauer's blind, chaotic striving.

(@johnydon22)
Fredriech Wilhelm Hegel referred to the basic substance of the universe as "Geist", a complex German word that expresses notions of both mind and spirit. Geist is dialetically evolving towards what Hegel called 'the Absolute'. The Absolute represents the complete control of the physical world by the mental. It is a state of Absolute Knowledge and Absolute Freedom. The Absolute understands it perfectly. In actuality, there is no word that perfectly captures the nature of the basic substance of the universe: the arche, the first principle. The Ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander used the word "apeiron", which is usually translated as "a substance without definition that gives rise to all things and to which all things return, a sort of primal chaos."

We can use the word "Becoming" to describe the single fundamental substance of the universe. "Becoming" emphasises the changing, dynamic nature of the universe, the evolutionary, dialectical aspect that drives the universe forwards and upwards, as opposed to "Being" which is frozen, static, conservative, resistant to change.

Mathematician Roger Penrose has proposed that there are three kinds of reality: physical, mental and mathematical, all connected in an unknown and deeply mysterious way. In fact there is only one reality, which presents itself in two ways: mind and matter.

Mathematics, it is true, is more than just a language created by the mind. It might be said to be a deep expression of Nietzsche's Apollonian ordering principle that seeks to shape the Dionysian chaos. Mind and matter, if they are to avoid an existence of meaningless chaos, must have a strong core of order and organisation, a tendency to obey natural laws. That tendency will never be precise, but it will be reliable on average, hance the statistical emphasis of modern Quantum Theory.

Mind and matter both have mathematics built into them. Mathematics can be defined as the science of pattern. Mathematicians look for patterns in numbers and space, in the physical world and abstract world. The mind cannot help looking for patterns. Humans look at the clouds in the sky and start to see meaningful shapes. People have reported seeing the face of Jesus Christ on slices of toast. At all times, the mind tries to shape and pattern sensory data. All of this is mathematical in nature.

Baseball players, basketball players, Soccer players and most other sportspeople engage in remarkable feats of intuitive mathematics. Think of the skill involved in catching a ball while on the run; the catcher is subconsciously calculating the speed of the ball, its trajectory, wind speed, his own speed, the conditions under his feet, the interception point, the orientation of his hands etc. The person involved may know nothing about mathematics as an academic subject, he might even be hopeless at the subject, yet he can solve this complex maths problem as he's on the move without carrying out a single conscious calculation. Autistic savants can carry out prodigious calculations in their heads faster than professors can solve them with a calculator. These examples prove how deeply embedded in the psyche mathematics is.

The Apollonian principle of order and harmony is opposed by the Dionysian principle of chaos, disharmony and entropy. "Becoming" requires the two opposing principles. It is the tension between the two that fuels the dialectic, that generates the never-ending cycle of birth, death and rebirth. "Becoming" requires destruction and creation. "Being" on the other hand is static and lifeless. Quite simply, there is no such thing as eternal being. Becoming is the only true reality.

It is said that in order to command nature one must first learn to obey it. At the outset, the mind obeys the physical (matter over mind), but later it commands it (mind over matter).

The theory of epiphenomenalism portrays the mind as a by-product of brain activity. The mind, in this view, has no physical events. It merely interprets events after the fact and deludes itself that it cause d them. This is not as absurd as it seems. In a famous experiment by Benjamin Libet, he showed that the decision to carry out certain voluntary actions is initiated prior to any conscious intention to perform them.

So, mind can be active and passive (engaged versus unengaged). The mind affects the world only when it is active. Otherwise, physical events occur mechanistically, and the mind makes sense of those events afterwards, but is passive in relation to them.

(@johnydon22)
So, the basic subtance of the universe, the arche, is "Becoming", the synthesis of Being (something) and "nothing". It is the ever-changing "fire" of Heraclitus. Becoming has two aspects: the physical and the mental. At the earliest stages of Becoming, the physical is dominant. During this phase, the mental is non-conscious but has an inherent Apollonian tendency to create form and order, to promote growth, interaction and change.

As Becoming unfolds and evolves, the physical grows increasingly organised, giving the mental ever-greater expression until eventually consciousness has appeared in the mental arena. (Consciousness is mind that has been given a direct window into the physical world via the senses. Consciousness cannot exist without the senses. Senses are the connecting channels between the physical and mental.)

Now, to take a more active step towards refuting the materialist world view; let's consider Force Fields

Think of a universe with just one positive nucleus. At what point does the force field generated by this charge tail off to zero? In fact, it never does. The force gets smaller and smaller with distance from the charge, but it never becomes zero. So, if we populate the universe with infinite electrons, every single one of them will be in the field of the single positive charge. In other words, any charged particle affects all of the other charged particles in the universe. There is no such thing as any electron uniquely bound to any nucleus. All electrons belong to all nuclei (all positive charges).

All electrons are involved in a extraordinary cosmic game of "musical nuclei". At any time, any electron can be linked to any nucleus. Electrons don't follow particular nuclei around. They're all shared by all nuclei, although, at any time, they appear more likely to be associated with some nuclei than others. However, there's finite possibility that an electron currently associated with one nuclus could, at the next instant, be associated with a nucleus on the other side of the universe. That, of course, is not physically possible, but it happens nonetheless.

There's only one possible way that could be true: all electrons (in fact all particles) are actually mental, and they belong to a mental, dimensionless singularity. The apparently physical world is a mathematically mediated illusion, where what matters is not any specific particle, but the entire ensemble of particles. The whole pattern is what counts; not any isolated part of it. Any particle can play any part appropriate to its type i.e. any electron can take part of any electron orbiting a nucleus, and that is true at every instant. If you could somehow label one electron, you could track it hopping all over the universe, but in fact there's no such thing as a trackable electron - therefore there's not really any such thing as a particle. To describe electrons (or any particles) as "identical and indistinguishable" is to deny that material particles exist. If an electron a billion light years away is identical and indistinguishable from an electron right "here" and the two can "swap" at the very instant then they are simply not tangible, solid things at all. All that matters is the overall arrangement of electrons, not particular electrons (which are either irrelevant or actually non-existent physically).

The wavefunction of any electron actually reflects that all electrons are identical and indisntinguishable, hence any electron can be found anywhere in the entire universe. When you plot the probabilities of where the "electron" in a hydrogen atom is likely to be found at any one time, what you are actually doing is plotting the positions of all the electrons in the universe in relation to that nucleus - because none of them can be distinguished from each other. The electron distribution is of course much likelier to be closer to the nucleus than far away from it, but any distance from the nucleus is possible.

The brilliant speculative idea of John Wheeler that there is only one electron in the universe has a great deal of merit. It can be matched by another suggestion that whenever we refer to any one electron we are in fact tacitly referring to an infinite number of electrons (the entire electron ensemble). The universe either contains one electron that pops up in infinite places, or infinite electrons, only one of which is "active" with regard to any nucleus at any one time (but any of which can become active at the next instant, meaning that every nucleus is surrounded by ALL of the electrons in the universe. Everything is interconnected.

johnydon22:


But do you think this shield was a deliberate plot of nature to shield man ?

I cannot really get my fingers on that.

(@johnydon22)
There is no continuity at all of specific particles at particlular places. Rather, all that persists is the pattern itself. Imagine a human body in which every single particle was replaced from one instant to the next. What difference would it actually make to us? How would we notice? As long as the pattern of your body is intact, what does it matter if this electron or that electron is orbiting this nucleus or that one? The answer is none at all.

You don't "own" the atoms currently in your body. Where did those atoms come from anyway? - from what you ate and drank and the air you breathed in. You're getting rid of atoms from your body whenever you urinate, defecate, spit, sneeze, ejaculate or exhale, and the outer layers of your skin are continually being shed. In fact, all of the cells in your body die off and are periodically replaced every ten years or so, or just die off without being replaced (such as brain cells). There is no permanent part of you. So, what is "you"? Whatever you are, you certainly aren't the transient stuff of your body: you are NOT a material entity because your matter is changing all the time in one way or another.

Scientific materialism asserts, of course, that we are nothing but matter: even our mind is allegedly produced by matter. But if all the matter in our body has been replaced after ten years, what does that say about our mind? Is it still our mind?

There's a famous ancient Greek conundrum about the Ship of Theseus. If every plank, every part, of the original ship has been replaced after several years of service, is it still the same ship? It looks exactly the same and operates in exactly the same way, yet not a single part of the original ship is present. The "form" of the ship - its information - is retained, but not any of the matter of which it was physically composed. The matter, it seems, is neither here nor there. All that counts is the pattern, the information, the form. Yet where is the ship stored? It plainly isn't stored in the pieces of wood themselves, which can be replaced at any time. A designer's blue print may exist, but that is not part of the ship. The form is contained within the totality, yet it transcends the ship itself since no individual part of the ship has the information. The whole is the sum of the parts; it contains all of the parts in the right order, the right sequence, the right pattern. It reflects the right set of relations.

If we burned the blueprint, the only place where the form would then exist is the ship itself. The ship physically embodies the form. But if the ship disintegrated overtime, the form would vanish forever.

A critical corollary of this is that no information about us is contained in any individual electrons or nuclei, since they can be replaced at any time. The same is true of our individual cells, which are also regularly replaced (and are made of electrons and nuclei in any case). All that counts is the pattern itself. But where is the pattern encoded? The scientific materialist would say in the DNA present in every cell, but the DNA is just like Theseus' Ship. It reflects a blueprint. There is only one possible place where the information can be securely and permanently stored - THE SOUL (i.e. the mind, the dimensionless point outside space and time). Where are memories stored? - THE SOUL. Where is our identity stored? - THE SOUL. Where is our consciousness stored? - THE SOUL. How are they stored? Via mathematical Fourier transforms.

Identical twins have exactly the same DNA, but they aren't identical people. They each have their own personalities, often radically different. If we swapped every cell in one twin with those of the other twin, would we change their personalities one iota?

If not, is not the materialist hypothesis refuted, because the material of bodies plainly make no difference at all. Each twin must have a unique mind that is not affected by their specific material configuration

So, who says matter "creates" mind (by whichever kind of magic)?

I could ramble on and on...... Free wiil, NDEs, OBEs, MPD/DPDs, Dreams...... and so on, are explicit refutations of scientific materialism.

"I regard consciousness(I'd rather say mind) as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness (mind). We cannot get behind consciousness (mind). Everything we talk about, everything we regard as existing, postulates consciousness (mind)" - MAX PLANCK

"There is no matter as such - mind is the matrix of all matter" - MAX PLANCK

(@johnydon22)

First we have to understand is, in the discipline science Empiricism is the method of confirmation and the hallmark of falsification and substantiation which ever way the postulation tilts but is not the only means of scientific deduction.

Science utilizes reason and logic in the development of a thesis but empricism confirms and provides a certainty of the eventuality

So, logical and rational assumption while deep and a gate way to outstanding exploration to the problems that plagues us is not entirely or reliable in an average sense since without empiricism it is blind

Hmm....
We have to understand that;
1) Logic and reason are not necessarily blind. It's because this is so that we can point out logical fallacies. An assertion is either rationally tenable or not. If it is experimental verification is not compulsory (that canever establish it as a fact anyways). It it is not, then it should be dismissed as the woo woo, mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus it is.

2) Science cannever make us certain about anything. It only builds our confidence in our theories. All scientific truths are "provisional". There can be no final, absolute truth in science, as all theories are by empirical necessity subject to the falsification principle.

3) Evidence has no connection with truth. It was the same experimental evidence which vindicated Newton that disproved him. Evidence has sent countless innocent souls to jail. Moreover, evidence is SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATIONS. For example, there are numerous interpretations of what Quantum Mechanics implies about reality; and according to Hugh Everett's "many-world's" INTERPRETATION, every time the universe is confronted with a choice at the quantum level, the universe divides into as many copies of itself as are required to allow every possible Quantum choice to be realised. With every passing instant, innumerable new universes are being created. Astoundingly, this is increasingly the interpretation favoured by physicists. It is a fully deterministic account of reality, but at the price of creating a Multiverse, consisting of an infinite number of parallel universes where everything that can happen will happen. No convincing explanation is ever offered as to how these infinite universes can occupy the same space. They (magically) split off into "other dimensions", or they somehow have their own portion of space and time: the details are never really specified. And somehow these parallel worlds still manage to briefly interact with each other as they are generating the interference effects that we observe in the quantum world...... It is quite amazing that many scientists pour scorn on the concept of God and yet seriously entertain those bizzare and untestable speculations about the true nature of reality...... Other interpretations offer equally exotic "solutions".

(4) Science uses reason and logic in a limited sense. It makes them surbodinate to empiricism. And since there're realities beyond the physical, science's use of "logic" and "reason" is irrational.

(@johnydon22)
The maximum possible knowledge of the phenomenal world would yield no truths at all about how things are in themselves. If the scientists in the movie "The Matrix" had discovered every conceivable scientific "truth" about their world, they would have learned nothing except the rules of the elaborate computer simulation in which they were trapped. They wouldn't have discovered a single fact about the reality outwith that simulation.

Einstein's rational and logical assumption could have been right but at the same time it could have been wrong and Newton's could have been right as being wrong.

Empiricism stepped in and that blindness of logical and rational speculations of both Newton and Eintein were illuminated and certainly was ensured.

True. When it comes to the phenomenal world, empiricism stomps. This, however doesn't mean that scientific models of reality based on empirical data have anything to say about fundamental reality. They WORK quite well, nonetheless. They do not have to be right. Empiricism stepped in and that blindness of logical and rational speculations of Einstein was illuminated, but no certainty was ensured. Scientific truths are provisional. New experimental evidence can come along and prove Einstein wrong.

"There is no quantum world. There is only abstract quantum PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics only concerns what we can say about nature" - Neils Bohr

lordnicklaus:
I cannot really get my fingers on that.

Don't you think this statement of yours makes it seem so?
" Nature itself plays a part in ensuring man is safe from the effects of its burning rage. "

2 years now