I agree humans have a far much more developed conscious than any other organism. Is not our conscious our own experiences through this reality? Our rational thinking is not special, it is reflected by our own personal history. Are people who are blind and deaf rational thinkers? How does someone like Hellen Keller know rationality?
I would differ from what you have stated in that I view “rational thinking” as not only special, but more special than we generally realize. By “rational thinking” or “rationality” I mean the specifically human ability to think “conceptually.” This is a radical different order of thinking than “perceptual” thinking, which is characteristic of other animals.
People with sense impairments, i.e. deaf or blind, can still think conceptually. Severe physical, genetic, or psychological disorders can impair one’s ability to think conceptually. But the key to the issue here is understanding the nature of conceptual thinking. More about this below.
We are all one. We are part of this “infiniteness.” If we know the universe exists, then the universe knows of its existence. It does not matter if it is conscious or unconscious, rational or irrational, because we are part of this universe.
I am not sure what you mean by the statement “We are all one.” Certainly, we are all a part of nature in regard to our bodies, which are composed of atoms, like everything else. And all human beings share a common fundamental nature. Yet each human being is unique and individual. No two humans are exactly alike.
To say that the universe knows or has become conscious of itself is to assume that human rationality or conceptual thinking is grounded in the materiality of the universe just as is the human body. But if the human mind is of an ontologically distinct order from the human body and other things in nature, then human knowledge of the universe is not the universe knowing itself, but a power somehow radically distinct and different from the universe.
What is free choice? Does our brain not control the chemicals released in our brain, which in return controls our thinking and behaviors?
The brain and body are necessary for thinking, but it is not the brain that thinks. That is, we don’t think with our brains, but we don’t think without them. The body and brain are a necessary condition for thinking, but not a sufficient condition.
Reason and conceptual thinking is the basis for free choice. Free choice or choosing is a self-causing behavior that is not dependent on antecedent events, physical or psychological. The will can be influenced in its choices but it is not, in its nature, constrained and dependent on the emotions other factors “extraneous” to the will itself.
Choice is a self-causing event. No particular thing in the universe exhibits the ability to be self-causing independently of antecedent conditions. This is another reason to consider the human will as not being a product of the physical universe. If the will was a function or activity of the brain then it could not possibly act freely. It would be constrained to the physical laws of nature.
I have stated nothing more than what you implicitly take to be true and act on, though your argument contradicts how you act. For instance, you believe you are freely exercising your views on CAF. You believe you are free to accept or reject any opinion, and to formulate other views. However, if the will is strictly a function of neuro-physiology, then none of your views are freely constructed and posted. And that is to make nonsense of discussion and debate.
Once again, our rationality is based on influences we grow up it. How do you know something like killing another being is irrational? Is someone hidden inside me telling me right from wrong? Are they telling me what is believable to believe?
Apparently, you have never heard of the natural moral law explanation.
Are the atoms that make up everything unconscious? How do they know to be attracted to other atoms. What is that universal force that holds it all together? Could the universe not have “life” in a way?
There is no reason whatsoever, scientific or philosophic, to attribute consciousness to non-living things. Animals, on the other hand, have limited consciousness. How far back down the scale of complexity of animal organizations we can go and say consciousness exists is impossible to know. But some kind of sense knowledge is a requisite condition for at least minimal consciousness.
Back to the topic of concepts. Concepts are universal and exist in the human mind. For example, the concept to which we attach the word “tree” is a universal. The concept of tree or “treeness” does not apply to just a particular tree but to all things we designate as trees. Now only particular things exist in the physical world. Every physical thing is a “particular” thing. One will never encounter a “universal” tree or any other universal in the physical world. Hence, our concepts, being universals cannot be physical things, or the products of physical processes. Therefore, concepts are non-physical in nature and thus they are not part of nature; they completely transcend nature. And there is no reason to think that the universe is capable of radically transcending itself.
=0 for some real x≠0 and some integer n. 2^