Life exists because life exists. And after time only life that engaged in behavior that resulted in more life survived, so now all life is fundamentally designed to engage in behavior that is life affirming or life giving. We are alive because we are designed to be alive.
Its a big circle jerk, but it beats the alternative (at least most days it does).
A human being is born endowed with an internal abstract system for causing action either in the form of an enactment of a particular procedure or the production, out of matter provided by the universe, of implements for the fulfillment of specific purposes. Thus, the whole process leading up to action essentially involves, in this particular order:
(1) The conception of an idea or problem, in an abstract realm, the realm also acting as a pool, framework and source for various other ideas that have already been conceived and those that are of yet to be;
(2) The creation of alternative solutions by drawing upon and combining other different ideas or by expanding the idea with other coherent ideas already preconceived or newly formulated thereupon, from and within this pool of ideas, respectively.
(3) Transforming the idea and its consequent solutions or thesis, within this same abstract realm, into a graphical model;(this part of the sequence does not necessarily apply to some phenomena such as the production of sound, excepting those gifted in the art of deciphering the language and symbols of sound)
(4) Finally, in the terrestrial world, the idea finds expression either as action or a sequential pattern of actions making use of matter supplied by the universe to create products or further still, more patterns of action.
This process is driven and thus determined by the degree or strength of the will power attached to any particular idea; the 4th and last component of the whole process may not be realized if an insufficient degree of will power is exerted. But what is will power? Can you show me a specific degree of will power? You can’t show it to me because it exists in an abstract intangible realm, albeit, this is the determining factor for the production of thought and action in the terrestrial realm; without ideas and will there’s no action, and thus ideas and will or intent are the primary cause for action, the consummation of which is but a terrestrial manifestation of these abstract concepts. Action by humans is thus caused by abstractions, viz. ideas and will power. Since the absence of these abstractions produces no action, action, then, is but the manifest expression of intent; the perceptible and measurable vehicle, as it were, through which ideas and intent ultimately assume a particular form and pattern.
Such is the law of ideas, as perceived by all, operating in humans and to a lower degree, in mammals. Humans, nor animals, did not create this law but are merely subject to it. It is this law that is the very essence of the universe because it applies to all objective phenomena in the universe. And just like the scientist uses inductive logic and certain laws based on observable facts to accurately estimate the distance between earth and the sun, we too can apply inductive logic and the law of ideas observed in humans and animals to accurately ascertain the general abstract and thus conscious nature of the entire universe, for consciousness is primarily an abstraction.
On a terrestrial level, a human can have an idea to do some laundry. Only when these ideas are, expressly or otherwise made known, can others apprehend with a great deal of accuracy the intentions and ideas of that particular individual. On the other hand, most of the ideas and intentions harbored by animals, having a different degree of consciousness than humans, are oblivious to our senses. The little that we understand of their intentions and ideas is from the observations of completed actions. For instance, only when an animal has finished constructing a shelter or nest can we finally figure out its intentions and ideas, both prior to the completion and to a certain extent, afterwards. The animal, with its lower degree of consciousness, will in most cases not have the capability to comprehend most of the ideas and intentions residing and active in the minds of humanity.
On a cosmic level, this same law of ideas also applies. The activity and motion of the universe is the result of abstract concepts, viz., ideas and will power, just like in humans and animals. And just like in animals, humans, having a hopelessly lower degree of consciousness than that of the universe-or lacking the ability to conceive abstract concepts of a cosmic nature-, are inhibited from interpreting, let alone understanding, the ideas and intentions behind the actions of the universe. That it is in motion is there for all to see, but the ideas and intent driving this motion, we are unable to fathom. However, in as much as the animal’s inability to understand the ideas and intentions of human beings, in their totality both in scope and quality, is not proof that those ideas don’t actually exist, so too is it with our inability to comprehend the abstract concepts moving the universe.
Say, in order to fulfill the purpose, an individual had to think about the letter A every morning.
Is this “Law of Ideas” something you came up with on your own?
Nope; its based on ancient philosophic systems that I’ve simply oversimplified and personally coined for the sake of understandability.
In other words, yes, you came up with it on your own.
Not demonstrated.
Not demonstrated.
I think that you will find that our true masters areabove bacteria on the hierarchical ladder. It is Funghi that rule the universe.
I note two interesting exceptions:
Natural evolution, where differential survivability drives remarkably “inventive” structures and processes, such as the spider’s web, the elephant’s trunk, and so on.
Accidental invention and inspiration. It is widely suggested that mankind first mastered the use of fire after finding it in the wild, in the wake of a lightning strike or other natural open flame. Mankind probably never sat down and said to himself, “I can envision a form of energy that will keep me warm at night and also cook my food. Now, let me go about producing it.”
Many of our “inventions” may have come about by accident. The first spear was, most likely, just a broken branch, a bit straighter and a bit sharper than most other broken branches.
Even today, a great deal of our high-tech inventiveness comes about by non-deliberate creativity.
I think your chain of ideas is an ideal, but I think it is bypassed, in part at least, in more cases than cases when it is followed.
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/11/12/128709841287362974.jpg
You’re separating natural phenomena from the universal law of ideas, and then calling it, “natural” evolution. The structure of an elephant’s trunk and the spider’s web are part and parcel of the law of ideas. The physiological structure assumed by every human being is not “natural” evolution. It’s all part of this law of ideas, nothing is exclusive of it.
You’re describing the sub-conscious realm. Do you think about your dreams beforehand or do they just “naturally” occur?
Still not demonstrated.
What would constitute a reasonable demonstration? (from your point of view)
You’ve no idea what you are talking about. It is not necessary for things to have causes, the Big Bang was not an explosion, and the big Bang is the scientific theory of how the universe came to be; calling it unscientific because you don’t like it is silly.
Meaningless gibberish.
According to some theories, the universe is just a very large vacuum fluctuation, and its total energy is zero.
I’d ignore it, or quite possibly deliberately go against it. As I’ve said, I don’t want some externally imposed purpose. Tools have purpose, and I don’t want to be a tool; I’m a tool user, I give things purpose.
Who, then, has the idea?
No, they just naturally occur. Who thought about the elephant’s trunk before it evolved?
Is this a “mind of God” idea? I honestly don’t comprehend what you’re trying to describe.
The universe.
The universe
So, is it your contention that the solar systems are part of a kind of big brain, the universe?
But that would be turtles all the way up.
Does the universe exist in a (very big) skull. does that skull/body exist in an ever bigger brain? etc…
This is what Irishman meant by anthropomorphism; you expect the universe to have a skull, to crack jokes, have eyes and ears, and so on. This is not what I’m hinting at. I’ve already stated that this can’t be the case because of the different circumstances and scale under which the human mind and the universe manifest.
What is the difference between this and “nothing” as an answer? They seem equivalent in every way.
Your link to an image demonstrated nothing; you can find superficial similarities in many structures in nature. Unless you were trying to demonstrate that “complex things are sometimes complex in similar ways” you didn’t advance your hypothesis.
Basically you’re saying God == the Universe == the Sum of all Natural Laws but frankly, there’s nothing to that. It’s all just naval gazing. It doesn’t produce anything to distinguish from it from saying that an Invisible Pink Unicorn made up everything.
What would happen then? Does he connect with a universal conscience, or the law of ideas?