Reason Would Have It...

[Fox of the Oaks]

If I were to reason as such...

1. If the Universe operates in a rational way, then it must follow that the Universe has intelligence, since rationality is a sign of intelligence.
2. If the Universe does not operate in a rational way, then it must operate in a different way, and in that case, reason would not be the most direct way of understanding the workings of the Universe.
3. Yet if the Universe operates rationally, and is therefore intelligent, then the study of the operations of the Universe is the study of the intelligence of the Universe.
4. Anything that has intelligence, must have consciousness, and that which has consciousness must be living. Therefore, the Universe is a living consciousness, and the study of an intelligent living consciousness forms a relationship with it.
5. So act of engaging in rational study of the Universe is identical to forming a relationship with the Universe as a living consciousness.

Can anyone refute this?

[Lily]

hmmmm... nice one but what if instead of looking at the universe as functioning rationally - looking at it as functioning according to set laws (e.g. (mainly) those of physics?

opens it up to study by reason without assuming it is a living thing.

I'm not challenging the idea that it is in fact a living thing. Just offering an alternative option. Oh wait. you wanted a challenge- so there you go, switch out the most basic underlying assumption and you have your rebuttal. (so cautious these days)

[Heddwen]

James Lovelock would probably agree with it

[Fox of the Oaks]

hmmmm... nice one but what if instead of looking at the universe as functioning rationally - looking at it as functioning according to set laws (e.g. (mainly) those of physics?

opens it up to study by reason without assuming it is a living thing.

Does something need to be intelligent to follow set laws?
The point I was seeking to link was that if a person is rational and lawful we may in a conventional view consider them an intelligent person. Those who are irrational, or unlawful, may be called names like crazy, stupid, foolish etc. Along the same line, we wish to examine the rationale of the universe, the laws by which it operates, yet we at the same time may not associate it with having consciousness and intelligence, even though we see it as acting according to laws/rational-scentific principles and we deem ourselves conscious and intelligent because we attribute the principles of order, logic and reason to ourselves as an intelligent species.

I am playing with the dichotomies and contemplative biases of a rational world, intelligence, natural law and it's study... reflecting upon why we consider rationality to be intelligent and why we may seek to understand the universe in that way whilst not attributing intelligence to it.

[Fox of the Oaks]

switch out the most basic underlying assumption and you have your rebuttal.

So my assumption is that something acting through rational laws must have intelligence... this may need more exploration.

(so cautious these days)

Yeah I know what you mean, some discussions are potential mine-fields. I'd guess most folk here are pretty respectful and open to wider views though.

Peace,
Whytefox

[DJ Droood]

If I were to reason as such...

1. If the Universe operates in a rational way, then it must follow that the Universe has intelligence, since rationality is a sign of intelligence.

I don't buy your premise...first of all, we don't know how the Universe "operates", only bits and pieces of it (or so we "think"), and secondly "rational" is like saying "nice"....it just means it appeals to our human "reason" or sensibilities, which may be faulty in the first place...I see this as a circular argument. If a creature, then, (human or otherwise) doesn't recognize the "rationality" of the operations of the Universe, doesn't that make the Universe irrational and unintellegent to that creature? This is just another Sun circling the Earth argument to my irrational mind.

[Fox of the Oaks]

Ah DJ Droood, I thought you'd find your way here

This is just another Sun circling the Earth argument to my irrational mind.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

[DJ Droood]

This is just another Sun circling the Earth argument to my irrational mind.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Just that your intelligent and rational Universe entirely depends on us perceiving it that way, so it reminds me of how humans used to think the sun circled the earth..because that is how it "looked" to us. I'm not saying the Universe *isn't* rational and intelligent..it might be very clever indeed!....I just don't think we know enough yet to even began to measure and test something like that....I almost think we would need to make contact with other species a few hundred thousand light years away, in different sectors of the Universe, and start to compare our data to "triangulate" that theory...and we are still a few space probes away from that time.

[Lily]

I don't buy your premise...first of all, we don't know how the Universe "operates", only bits and pieces of it (or so we "think"), and secondly "rational" is like saying "nice"....it just means it appeals to our human "reason" or sensibilities, which may be faulty in the first place...

I third that.

it's like creationists or rather intelligent design adherents saying, it's so complex, we can't explain it, so it must have been the hand of god. filling the gaps. so we should start with the minimalistic assumption, meaning it's NOT intelligent. And go from there, trying to refute that.

[treegod]

Why can't the non-rational (irrational, pre-rational, trans-rational, super-rational etc.) be intelligent and conscious?

I suppose we live in a universe that operates rational and non-rationally, or to put it an other way, when we reflect on the universe rationally, the rational parts of it come to our attention, when we view the world non-rationally, the non-rational parts of it come to our attention. I don't think the universe operates rationally, though it can be reflected upon rationally and the "rational" parts come to the fore more easily.

[DJ Droood]

Why can't the non-rational (irrational, pre-rational, trans-rational, super-rational etc.) be intelligent and conscious?

<Insert spouse joke here>

[frewin77]

One word:

Chaos Theory ....

To be "rational" is a subjective word, merely a descriptor of how a (noun) is acting in relation to an to a set of personal guidelines. What one can call rational an other can call irrational. It is merely a gauge to measure ones' own ideas of order. An objects behavior can be irrational in our view yet still follow the set "laws of psychics". We live in a world of opposites as above so below, as within is without. I don't like to restrict my god(s) to certain rules of nature.

Second word:

Schrodinger's cat....

Their are too many religions trying to restrict how God(s) operates. They like to put Him/Her in a box and say we believe this. My God(s) are inside the box and outside the box, they are not the box and they are the box, all at the same time. So if we take the fact that the universe is one of opposites we can conclude that yes it has conciseness and yes it doesn't, both at the same time. For one cannot exist without the other. They as all thing are moving constantly towards balance.

[DJ Droood]

One word:

Chaos Theory ....

That is two words, but I get your point...I think "Chaos Theory"...sometimes called "String Theory", and perhaps "Chaos String" by some...oh, and Quantum Mechanics...is the best gift to theists since the invention of "God Theory"...no laymen really knows what it means or can explain it, and the average uneducated sod wouldn't grasp it anyway, so you can spit it out between bites of toast as a sort of ultimate argument ender...which is perfectly fine with me...I can enjoy my newspaper and coffee in silence then...and let Smelly Fat cat lick butter from my fingers.

[frewin77]

Well I have nothing to prove or educate any one, just here saying what I think. Oh BTW Chaos theory applies to any system when something happens outside of the expected result. The name "chaos theory" comes from the fact that the systems that the theory describes are apparently disordered, but chaos theory is really about finding the underlying order in apparently random data. Or to break it down "Lego" style connect da dots, la la la, connect da dots

[Fox of the Oaks]

I suppose we live in a universe that operates rational and non-rationally, or to put it an other way, when we reflect on the universe rationally, the rational parts of it come to our attention, when we view the world non-rationally, the non-rational parts of it come to our attention. I don't think the universe operates rationally, though it can be reflected upon rationally and the "rational" parts come to the fore more easily.

Seems so.

Why can't the non-rational (irrational, pre-rational, trans-rational, super-rational etc.) be intelligent and conscious?

I think so, treegod, certainly. It is another human bias and tunnel vision to consider only our favoured mode of thought to be anything worthy againsdt all others. My original post was intended as a test of my argument for a more reserved audience. I'm learning logic the hard way...

[frewin77]

I must apologize for my behavior. I have a tendency to snap when basically told to "piss off". My actions here are I think mistaken. I wasn't saying that my ideas were right and yours wrong. Just putting my ideas out there that I think I know. I am very young in the order and am sure that my ideas will change and grow. I mean I've only been here a week and don't even have my materials yet. But that's what I'm here to do is learn, change, and grow......... anyway. Again I'm sorry for my behavior.

[DJ Droood]

I must apologize for my behavior. I have a tendency to snap when basically told to "piss off". My actions here are I think mistaken. I wasn't saying that my ideas were right and yours wrong. Just putting my ideas out there that I think I know. I am very young in the order and am sure that my ideas will change and grow. I mean I've only been here a week and don't even have my materials yet. But that's what I'm here to do is learn, change, and grow......... anyway. Again I'm sorry for my behavior.

I think it is healthy to express yourself and not always be "biting back" on how you really feel...I think the best conversations on this board are when people disagree and create a bit of intellectual friction, and your ideas might very well be right and mine wrong. Relativist mumbo-jumbo is designed to limit discussion and make people self-censor. I don't see how growth and learning are possible if we are always pussy-footing around, afraid to offend...that sort of thinking leads us to give equal consideration to "Creationism" and "The Stork Theory of Reproduction"...not healthy for anyone....anyway, it is Whytefox's thread....if he would prefer us to simply put forward our ideas and not engage, I can respect that. Welcome to the board!

[Mountainheart]

If I were to reason as such...

1. If the Universe operates in a rational way, then it must follow that the Universe has intelligence, since rationality is a sign of intelligence.
2. If the Universe does not operate in a rational way, then it must operate in a different way, and in that case, reason would not be the most direct way of understanding the workings of the Universe.
3. Yet if the Universe operates rationally, and is therefore intelligent, then the study of the operations of the Universe is the study of the intelligence of the Universe.
4. Anything that has intelligence, must have consciousness, and that which has consciousness must be living. Therefore, the Universe is a living consciousness, and the study of an intelligent living consciousness forms a relationship with it.
5. So act of engaging in rational study of the Universe is identical to forming a relationship with the Universe as a living consciousness.

Can anyone refute this?

The question to me is whether the universe displays teleology or not. That surely is the difference between taking a pantheistic or a panentheistic view of 'the Universe'. Apparent rationality could simply be operating to fixed physical laws, without any sort of input from consciousness. I suspect that investigating what you mean by 'living' may take the discussion further. Is a wood a living thing? Yes. Does it exist without its constituent parts? No. 'God' may show similar emergent properties: and may 'exist' without being 'alive'.

Thx
David

[treegod]

Why can't the non-rational (irrational, pre-rational, trans-rational, super-rational etc.) be intelligent and conscious?

I think so, treegod, certainly. It is another human bias and tunnel vision to consider only our favoured mode of thought to be anything worthy againsdt all others. My original post was intended as a test of my argument for a more reserved audience. I'm learning logic the hard way...

Noooo, the hard way of logic is not to learn at all and keep hitting against the same brick wall again and again

At least you're learning. That is, you're learning to hit against different brick walls instead of the same one lol. But trust me, the more you test your ideas, by yourself and in front of others, the more you'll learn what's a brick wall and what's free moving space

[Fox of the Oaks]

it is Whytefox's thread....if he would prefer us to simply put forward our ideas and not engage, I can respect that.

I started a ball rolling, but after that I consider it open to anything within the guidelines of this forum...