There are, it appears, solid reasons taken from a number of standpoints to reasonably claim that nature is conscious.

From anthropology to ethnography, from the history of ideas to comparative history, for instance; but also from biology to ecology, from cosmology to philosophy. I can name the authors -always serious, such as S. Kauffman, or J. Gribbin, for example.

The point, however, emerges at the edge of a difficult space, for right on the other side of a very thin frontier lies on the one hand pantheism, and on the other hand animism - both being quite different.

There are, it appears, solid reasons taken from a number of standpoints to reasonably claim that nature is conscious.

From anthropology to ethnography, from the history of ideas to comparative history, for instance; but also from biology to ecology, from cosmology to philosophy. I can name the authors -always serious, such as S. Kauffman, or J. Gribbin, for example.

The point, however, emerges at the edge of a difficult space, for right on the other side of a very thin frontier lies on the one hand pantheism, and on the other hand animism - both being quite different.

Raveendra,

your question is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Science can not answer "what" questions but "how".

Your conclusion "If we as conscious beings emerge from nature, it follows that nature too is conscious?" is not logically because there is no connection between our consciousness an the state or nature of nature. Our Consciousness is the result of a long evolutionary process.

Wilfried,

I agree that my question is philosophic rather than scientific. IMHO, When science cannot provide an objective empirical proof, one has to be content with the subjective logic of philosophy.

Don't you think that we the subset, emerging from nature the superset, in which everything else is contained, owe our consciousness to nature? Even in terms of physics, energy cannot come out of nothing, but from another source of energy.

Please comment.

Regards

Nature is consciousness (spirit) in motion which is known as energy. It arises from perfectly motionless consciousness (spirit). In the beginnig was infinite indivisible motionless blissful consciousness (spirit) without any boundary.It began to move by its own power and gave out descrete quanta of spirit in the form of pairs of particle anti-particle of the Big Bang theory. More details in the chapter:

Consciousness and energy, Zaveri, V. H. In: The Big Bang: Theory, Assumptions and Problems Editors: J.R. O’Connell and A.L. Hale, pp.275-284, ISBN 978-1-60456-802-8; March 2012, Nova Science Publishers, Inc. N.Y.

Dear Vikram,

Thank you for your explanation. I understand the essence of your message but doesn't the import sound more theological rather than scientific? In fact 'Spirit' 'blissful' sound more scriptural than logical. Many scriptures from various religions use similar words, for example "In the beginning was..." Are scientific findings validating ancient scriptural explanations, and therefore using the same words to describe the phenomenon of nature/consciousness?

IMHO, The word Spirit is not at all used in scientific circles, because it cannot be proved empirically. How does one reconcile the two opposite sciences-Spiritual and Material?

Regards

Would you reject a truth, just because it is theological? Scientific quest is a quest for truth. Words such as Spirit and blissful does not sound logical to a carnal man because their import is understood only after observing long period (or perhaps life time) of perfect continance. How many researchers are willing to make such sacrifice in their quest for truth? The words Spirit, blissful, ecstasy etc. are recorded in scriptures only after some individuals have experienced them. These experiences are experiences of inner life so they can only be vaguely explained to others. Describing the taste of sugar is one thing and actually experiencing the taste. altogather different thing. Once a very young girl asked her just married sister, "Tell me sister, what kind of joy you experience when you are with your husband?" The sister replied, "You grow up and get married yourself, then you will know everything about it."

Spirit cannot be proved empirically because it is perfectly motionless and does not interact with the matter of the universe. I use the terms Consciousness and Spirit in same sense as Atman and Paramatman in Hindu phiolosophy. Consciousness can be understood only in relation to the mind of a person or a creature. It is the mind that becomes conscious or unconscious of something. What makes the mind conscious, is this Spirit which is all pervasive and motionless like the empty space. It exists behind every human mind as its support. Its presence makes the human mind conscious and its absence will make it unconscious. It is motionless like the overhead power supply cable on a railroad which moves huge locomotives of various size and shape at different speeds. It requires an extraordinary research effort to search for one's own Self.

There is no clear dividing line between material science and the spiritual science. There is a smooth gradual transition. So when a dividing line is drawn between the two, conflict is inevitable. It is like a boundary between two nations which is man made. This is the reason, general relativity fails at Planck time. This is the reason scientists are compelled to believe that universe arises from nothing. Scientists do not know how particle anti-particle pair come into existence. They just pop out from empty space.

The question What is the nature of 'nature'? uses the term nature in two different senses. It seems that the term nature in "the nature of" can interpreted in different ways. For example,

> "the nature of", i.e., the "meaning" of…

> "the nature of", i.e., from the context, one might consider the

"architectonics" of nature. I believe that Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, uses this term in terms of the structure of the reasoning mind. See, for example,

C.E. Schutt, U. Lindberg, The new archtectonics: An invitation to structural biology,

The Anatomical Record 261, 2000, 198-216:

https://www.princeton.edu/~actin/newana-00.pdf

That is: Architectonics is a venerable term in the philosophical literature. It pertains to both “the theory of structure”, as in the architectural literature, and “the structure of theory”, used by philosophers in a variety of ways to denote the processes by which ideas become fixed in our consciousness (Kant, 1787). Suzanne K. Langer (1967) in her magisterial three-volume work on the philosophy of art uses the word “architectonics” to expound on the discursive, non-sequential, quality of visual art forms: “Their

complexity, consequently, is not limited, as the complexity of discourse is

limited, by what the mind can retain from the beginning of an apperceptive

act to the end of it (page 199).