Good question.
Intelligence would be sentient although not limited to human or animal. I think the Earth is a living entity, as are other worlds. The Earth's intelligence is greater than that of the animal life-forms that inhabit. The universe is not just a lifeless mechanical oddity created by blind chance. I think life surrounds us in the universe, but it is not anything we can recognise with our limited animal senses, unless by some people with 'special' abilities.
I think all the worlds are inhabited, but not by the carbon-based animal life forms that we are capable of recognising or perceiving.
We are only able to empirically perceive what is available to our five human animal senses of hearing, sight and so so on. All our incredible scientific microscopes and telescopes and devices are really just genius extensions of our animal senses. I have huge respect for the capacities of science and for those clever people.
But we are only able to perceive and unravel nature. And nature ends where time/space ends. We cannot go beyond that singularity. But there is no reason to think the universe is limited to what human animal senses can perceive; the universe extends in myriad vibrations and dimensions beyond what we as animals will ever be able to perceive -- even in principle -- with our animal senses.
By 'higher than man' I mean there are perhaps infinite other worlds and states and dimensions, than this timespace dimension of nature that is our visible universe and animal world and human life -- that surround and interweave and merge and permeate. There are dimensional entities 'higher' than man, that move easily between worlds, that can choose to reveal themselves, or to be hidden from man.
Along those lines, lol?
What would you take them to mean?
That's the point. How can one limit the universe to what we as natural animal creatures can perceive?How could one have sentience without a bloodstream to course the hormones that cause emotions through or a brain to process them?
OkI would probably define intelligence as sapient metacognition, but I'm not sure I would ever use the phrase "higher than man."
That's the point. How can one limit the universe to what we as natural animal creatures can perceive?
Ok
There are intelligences and entities lower than man too. Point is mankind is not the highest form of intelligence in the universe -- by which I do not mean intelligent space aliens, lol
Limited and less limited. A flea has a more limited intelligence than a person. There will be discussion about a flea and a person having different but equal intelligence, according to their function.don't really understand what you mean by higher and lower intelligences. Are you talking about IQ?
Some people.Who is limiting the universe to what we as natural creatures can perceive?
We cannot.And how can we claim to have knowledge of things that we can't at least indirectly perceive?
Consciousness is not limited to animal brain activity, nor is sentience.And what does this have to do with the fact that emotions are caused by hormones interacting with physical brains that took billions of years to evolve within the universe?
First paragraph: Science has that on its radar, no evidence yet.By 'higher than man' I mean there are perhaps infinite other worlds and states and dimensions, than this timespace dimension of nature that is our visible universe and animal world and human life -- that surround and interweave and merge and permeate.
There are dimensional entities 'higher' than man, that move easily between worlds, that can choose to reveal themselves, or to be hidden from man.
Can you link the experiments to see beyond timespace singularity?Science has that on its radar, no evidence yet.
That's what I said: science cannot penetrate beyond timespace. Physics ends at singularity. Its ability ends at the human animal senses; all scientific instruments are extensions of our animal senses. Does this mean the universe is limited to what our animal senses can perceive? You can believe that if you want.There is no evidence of that.
The many worlds are branching paths of nature in timespace
See aboveNow if there is no evidence, how do you expect science to accept it?
Life is not limited to natural carbon based life forms.
How do I know? Because I know by experience.
Can I explain it to you? Not if you have decided against it. It's not my duty to, anyway.
When a person meets an angel, or a spiritual being -- they know. Sometimes a person has to lose everything -- a lot -- for that to happen. God responds to sincere prayer, any time, any place, any religion. The person knows. There is no responsibility on a person to 'prove it'I find many who have a spiritual believe tend to believe they have or experience something too special to share to others. Although I understand it in a personal sense, but outside of that it's a limiting dichotomy...unless we feel others will steal our experiences?
Not meant at anyone here, but it is probably more along the lines of:I find many who have a spiritual believe tend to believe they have or experience something too special to share to others. Although I understand it in a personal sense, but outside of that it's a limiting dichotomy...unless we feel others will steal our experiences?
When a person meets an angel, or a spiritual being -- they know. Sometimes a person has to lose everything -- a lot -- for that to happen. God responds to sincere prayer, any time, any place, any religion. The person knows. There is no responsibility on a person to 'prove it'
God is not required to dance to satisfy human curiosity
But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.
https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/11.htm
Perhaps God meets us where we are? The communication or 'touch' will be as I am able to understand at the particular time and situation?Do they communicate to you by synchronicities and signs?
I know there's a trust factor involved before "seeing" communication but I don't understand how those experiences can be expressed as a person or being ..unless by metaphor for lack of better words to describe the interaction?
Perhaps God meets us where we are? The communication or 'touch' will be as I am able to understand at the particular time and situation?
It is clearly understood by the recipient. It's given when it's given.How would you define the mode of communication?
Is it understanding?
Gauging for more concrete terms