Evolution theory

[DHodges]

John Searle, Julian Jayne’s, William Tiller, David Bohm, Gerald Edelman, Rupert Sheldrake.

I've read some Jaynes, particularly The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind , but I'm not familiar with the others you mention. But I consider that book and Dennett's Consciousness Explained to be very complimentary to each other.

Another book in the same vein is The User Illusion.

To explain evolution as if the mechanics of it should be divorced from the question of consciousness is pedantic.

I don't think so. I think that if you understand evolution as it applies to amoeba and viruses, then some of the things that seem to be problems at a more complex level kind of evaporate.

The biggest problem I see, is that all of your precious evolutionary theories, as well as most theories of consciousness (such as dennet’s) are based on a foundation of materialism which is itself in disrepute among physicists.

You'll have to explain what your position is, exactly. I'm not prepared to defend "materialism" per se, especially not knowing what you mean by it, or what you are contrasting it to.

But meanwhile, if consciousness does not arise (as an emergent property) from some underlying "material", where does it come from? What is it made out of? Your thoughts on that might help clarify your position.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sapius wrote:

(now don’t go arguing) How could a blob of protein turn into a true cell?

Those are the kinds of question that I feel we need to remain with. I read over the link you posted. The theory about life’s origins pointed to certain causes responsible for this fundamental mutation from non-organic to organic – however, those causes demand an explaination as well. The whole thing rest on a very disputable materialism. This is really my only problem. Everything else said about evolutionary theory is helpful, it sharpens the intellect as long as there is an awareness of the incompleteness of any theory. If one does not question the assumptions a theory rest upon, then it the ideology just becomes a sedative, a pretense.

If you consider everything as one whole - - that leaves us only with a baffling question - - -not a logical explanation.

Sapius wrote: What is that question?

Does everything arise from an underlying material? And what begets that fundamental material, etc?

Dhodges wrote:

You'll have to explain what your position is, exactly.

I don’t really have a position, a stance, I don’t have beliefs. This statement may seem to contradict my previous posts, however, my previous post were mere rabble rousing. I was just stirring the pot with comments that I knew would not be met with agreement. And perhaps this sort of behavior is unnecessary.

I don’t buy Quinn or Soloway’s veneration for cause and effect. However, I plan on reading ‘Wisdom of the infinite’ as well as ‘poison for the heart’. I’m open to the possibility that either I am in some sort of stupor and need to be roused, or it is most of you who need to wake up. I’m really not sure at this point.

Dhodges wrote:

But meanwhile, if consciousness does not arise (as an emergent property) from some underlying "material", where does it come from? What is it made out of? Your thoughts on that might help clarify your position.

I’ll start a new thread on this.

[Jamesh]

The whole thing rest on a very disputable materialism.

I'm not aware that materialism is disputed by scientists that much. While what "matter" is, is still being examined (they haven't yet realised there is no permanent base matter of the universe that is the initial building block). To me this doesn't matter that much, the important thing about materialism is that there is no "spirit", no separate thing to matter (even if they can't define matter -no one can 100% define anything), and that all things can be explained by physical processes.

[Sapius]

Cory wrote:

Does everything arise from an underlying material? And what begets that fundamental material, etc?

I see… in that case, what you are looking for is Dr. Michio Kaku. He is a Physicist taking Einstein’s work to the next step, working on the TOA, theory of all, string theory, etc., a brilliant guy. Either that, or, it is philosophically possible to understand that there is no underlying fundamental “material” as such, least that it is begotten by something else, making it un-fundamental to say the least.

I think the string theory should point you in the right direction.

[Cory Duchesne]

Sapius,

this 'what underlies material' is a great topic and I'm going to start a new thead on this soon, that is, once I finish thrashing it out with Quinn on a different matter....yet probably, both matters well end up being the same matter. (see: God's cause)

[Sapius]

Sapius,

this 'what underlies material' is a great topic and I'm going to start a new thead on this soon, that is, once I finish thrashing it out with Quinn on a different matter....yet probably, both matters well end up being the same matter. (see: God's cause)

"What underlines material" is a totally different question than "Does everything arise from an underlying material? And what begets that fundamental material, etc?

I have just read the 'God's cause' thread, give it time, I think you might have a changed perspective by the time it is over.

[Cory Duchesne]

"What underlies material" is a totally different question than "Does everything arise from an underlying material? And what begets that fundamental material, etc?

I suppose the 'what underlies material?' question was a bit of a slip. Perhaps I fancy a sort of spiritual, ineffable, 'cosmic intelligent energy' that underlies and exist undividedly within every object of our material world, and perhaps I fancy this because i have put together a theory that supports my desire for magic and immortality! Oh dear.

I would like to go back to the original question. If we were to go into the question "does everything arise from an underlying material? then naturually we would have to ask, what begets the fundamental material that begets everything?......so we have either an infinite abyss of material/energy -- in that case, notions of 'big and small' are rendered meaningless in this view....(big and small become seen as useful assumptions to help coordinate utilitarian aims)....our whole universe then seems to be a tiny hicup in an infinitely vaster scheme.

Anyways,

I'm familiar with Dr. Michio Kaku, I stumbled upon him years ago, but shortly after I stumbled upon Kaku, I also found David Bohm, a physicist/philosopher who could also be regarded as Einstiens successor. Bohm actually worked with Einstien, had close ties with him, as well as with Biologist Rupert Sheldrake, and mystic/sage Jiddu Krishnamurti.

I found/find Bohm more interesting, accessible and whole minded - although I never gave kaku much of a chance. Perhaps Bohm was more accesible to me because his thoughts were easier to abuse by a fanciful immature mind. Time will tell.

Keep an eye out for my new thread on this sort of stuff.....

[David Quinn]

Cory wrote:

If we were to go into the question "does everything arise from an underlying material? then naturually we would have to ask, what begets the fundamental material that begets everything?......so we have either an infinite abyss of material/energy -- in that case, notions of 'big and small' are rendered meaningless in this view....(big and small become seen as useful assumptions to help coordinate utilitarian aims)....our whole universe then seems to be a tiny hicup in an infinitely vaster scheme.

That's right. There is no bottom line to Nature. No such thing as a fundamental substance, or material, or energy. The Universe isn't materialistic in nature, nor is it mentalistic, nor even spiritual. It doesn't have a basic nature.

Or to put it another way, its basic nature is right before our eyes in every single moment - formless, everchanging and infinitely diverse.

-

[Sapius]

David: That's right. There is no bottom line to Nature. No such thing as a fundamental substance, or material, or energy. The Universe isn't materialistic in nature, nor is it mentalistic, nor even spiritual. It doesn't have a basic nature.

Or to put it another way, its basic nature is right before our eyes in every single moment - formless, everchanging and infinitely diverse.

...and, Cory, through logically understanding the later you will actually Know the former.