It is all hypothetical really. My hypothesis is that energy can be conscious but not all energy is conscious. It is the energy within us that makes us conscious.
The thoughts that energy generates, however, are not energy. An idea has no power to form the corresponding concrete block.
Matter has not evolved a seat for energy that is conscious until us but it was that conscious energy that moulded matter into us. We are the conscious energy that fashioned matter into human form so that conscious energy can exist as a material being.
I believe time and space are not energy but are the foundations of the universe. They are the plane that energy exists on.
Of course I have no evidence of this, It is just a theory.
So if you’re just making beliefs, why make them limiting and complicated? There’s really nothing to base those limitations and complications on, is there?
Why only make hypotheses when you could instead strive to see for yourself? (or do both.)
How do you know there is no scientific way to percieve it? That makes NO sense at all. Reading what other scientists say and calling it fact is EXTREMELY unscientific, the only scientific way of knowing things is to see them for yourself. Information does not teach, experience does. You’re not really searching for knowledge, that’s why you don’t see it, you’re looking for theory. Theory isn’t knowledge.
Logic and theory without experience is like a house with no foundation. Actually, it’s more like the paint on the house, except there’s no house, only paint. You can’t live in a house like that.
I have never heard of a scientist saying he proved the existence of energy beings. That is because the technology currently does not exist to prove that. Imagination is a gift we can choose to see, because it is not physically real do we reject it? Do we destroy art because, other than it’s aesthetics and expression, there is no real point to it?
Should a fantasy be wiped out of our minds because it is not science?
Seeing for yourself does not make it fact. It is only when we can all see it through scientific process that it becomes fact.
Realistically and scientifically you would have to say that matter existed before consciousness, if human consciousness is the only consciousness possible. We have not scientifically proven that other forms of consciousness actually exist.
Matter was necessary for material life to evolve into humans. It is imagination only that can say God or energy beings existed before matter.
It is possible that God does exist but faith and belief does not qualify as proven scientific fact.
@Ray No matter what you believe came first, it’s all just a belief, there is no proof that matter existed before conciousness, there’s no proof that it has to or should either. To you, there isn’t any real proof that anything existed before you were born. Experience is the only proof there is. True perception is the only thing that lets you see the facts. Making theories is nothing but belief. A scientific theory is no more correct than a child’s fantasy. You’re assuming that big science is correct, but you have nothing to really base any of it on, other than limiting beliefs you made up.
So, if you just use your senses, what came first?
“What reason I have to believe it’s faulty? Or correct? What reason do you have?”
I have the noise of the falling tree, t-i-m-b-e-r!! What do you have… You put forth an idea that opposes observable science, isn’t the burden of proof is on you? I can hear the tree… you need to offer some reason to believe that my sentience is unreliable. I support my view because it is observable… I wating for a legitimate reason to doubt my senses.
“Sure, I have my reasons and you have yours, but those aren’t all there is. And before you ask others what their reasons are you should always ask yourself what yours are.”
Again, my reasons lies in sentient observation. Now, can I ask what your reasons are?
“This is about your belief/opinion and what you base it on, not how scientifically correct I am.”
I was challenging your opinion… you responded with, not a defense, but an attack on my position. I’ve already defended myself with, “I hear the tree fall.” If you think otherwise, explain.
I like your description of consciousness with relation to the painting analogy. You stated, “It takes conciousness to percieve, and mind to label, a panting is just a material object. conciousness is what sees the painting (memory database/subconcious mind.)” I completely agree, but the fact that something perceives (paint, canvas) does not mean it physically creates, it only assigns a label, which is a form of intuitive creation not material creation.
Consciousness doesn’t dictate self-awareness, and consciousness came first. I believe in intelligent design, but not as us humans created it in our own minds and scribed in our own books. I cannot remember the site off the top of my head, but it described these minor differences that if they were any different the universe couldn’t sustain life. If the charge of electrons were something like 0.0000000001 less the entire universe would be hydrogen, but if it was 0.0000000001 more the entire universe would be one huge rock and tons of other shit about the chance of amino acids being formed into living beings from lightning being so minute that it is quite literally impossible.