Universal Intelligence (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by David Turell , Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 02:10 (5448 days ago) @ George Jelliss


> I just have to post a link to this excellent article, which has been cited on RD.net. Although mainly a response to an article by Lanza and Chopra, it is also an excellent introduction to the latest ideas about the origin of the universe and the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
> 
> http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-... ->
> The writers also agree with my observations that consciousness is not such a great mystery as is made out by many.-Of course the writers agree. They are atheist, reductionist, materialist. And that's fine, but George has bugged me about not describing my sources. Anyhow, it's a great article, and thanks to George. From the article:-"In their recent article in The Huffington Post, biologist Robert Lanza and mystic Deepak Chopra put forward their idea that the universe is itself a product of our consciousness, and not the other way around as scientists have been telling us."-Does this mean the plasma that appeared after Plank time from the Big Bang was conscious? Were the first unicellar animals or plants conscious? Of course not. Unless God was watching as the only consciousness, the entire concept is foolishness.-And in section 3, the discussion of Brandon Carter's anthropic principal is also foolishness. It simply boils down to "we're here because we're here". It explains nothing. -The quantum discussion is quite good. I agree with George. I can see why they try to do away with the Copenhagen Interpretation, by citing Hugh Everett. It is not satisfying current science. I don't follow why they went just into the many worlds, parallel universes channel, and quoted Feynman. Penrose in the Road to Reality discusses it and five other interpretations to solve the problem of the paradox of quantum measurement. Penrose admits that a "full theory is certainly lacking". Multiple universes and parallel worlds are just fairy tales. They can never be proven. Something better is needed, as Penrose concludes.-String theory is brought up in section 6. As I have noted before, it may call for a multiverse, but after almost 30 years it has gone nowhere cosmologically as two recent books point out.-And the discussion of consciousness ends in a statement that has no proof whatever, but represents the atheistic viewpoint of the journal in which it is published:-"Consciousness....is a subjective illusion on one level, and the mechanistic outcome of evolutionary processes on another". Since we have no idea of what energy consciousness is made, if that is the way it appears, we cannot accept any interpretation as gospel at this time in scientific development.-I recognize the authors are attacking Chopra and Lanza's theory. To my mind it could dismissed in one brief statement as I did, but I enjoyed their discussion.