Neverlution

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
chikoka
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Zimbabwe

Neverlution

Post by chikoka »

A wilderbeist on the African savana will join others to encircle the young in order for them to be protected.

This ,evolutionists argue , is so that the genes that it has given to its young are protected and so this behaviuor is passed on to later generations through its genes.

On the other hand it could be agued that ,still using evolution as our guiding principle, the wilderbeist which gets threatened by a predator would flee from the scene leaving his young as prey but proserving its life in the process.

This would mean that the weilderbeist is more likely to survive and so be able to have more oportunities to have young and so this behaviour should then be passed on to its young.

Another creature that hopes to take advantage of evolution is the impala.

Impalas synchronise their hormonal systems so that they all have young at the same time.
This ,it is argued, means that when predators come there is more of a chance that at least some of them will survive to form the next generation and so pass on these genes.

Conversley the could do the exact opposite and produce young at different times so reducing the probability that a large number would get eaten and so meaning that most of the young could grow into maturity causing them to be more survivable.

My problem with evolution is that its arguements are as weak as those i wrote above .
If both arguments sound convincing and yet one is obviously wrong , couldnt the arguments we use (and are convinced about) in other ,as yet uncontrovercial cases be wrong too?

What do you think?
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Neverlution

Post by Blair »

The truth is in between. (Evolution and "God")
User avatar
BMcGilly07
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:33 pm

Re: Neverlution

Post by BMcGilly07 »

What do you think?
That's what's so tricky about the empirical world when you start to look at cause and effect. The only conclusion one can arrive at with certainty is to know the thing is caused (at the very least it is caused to appear to our mind), as to what thing is the predominant cause of another, that is an illusion of our own making. The intricacies of the causal web are so tightly bound together that no one thing can said to be the over-arching cause of another in an absolute sense, other than that every thing is caused. But have we found solid ground in this conclusion? Don't look now, but with things having lost their significance under the light of causality, causality itself cannot be said to exist either. We can but strive to stand in the void, which is an empty reflection of a greater Void.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Neverlution

Post by jupiviv »

Evolution is a law - the law of cause and effect or change. It does not have anything to do with survival, or any other empirical end. Things like survival, adaptation, etc., are all relative, and do not affect the basic logical principles, which are absolute.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Neverlution

Post by Cahoot »

Evolution isn’t a law, it’s a theory.

Murphy’s Law is a law. ;) Murphy’s Law is supported by the empirical evidence that disorder follows order.

However, the theory of evolution posits the opposite. Order from disorder, general to specific, simple to complex ... which implies the intervention of intelligence ordering chaos.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Neverlution

Post by jupiviv »

Cahoot wrote:Evolution isn’t a law, it’s a theory.

Murphy’s Law is a law. ;) Murphy’s Law is supported by the empirical evidence that disorder follows order.

However, the theory of evolution posits the opposite. Order from disorder, general to specific, simple to complex ... which implies the intervention of intelligence ordering chaos.
Evolution simply means change - that the empirical changes. That is a law that is irrefutable, IF you believe in logic.

Murphy's "law" is still a theory, because there is no way to absolutely say that disorder always follows order. Plus, it depends on the definitions of disorder and order, which are always relative.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Neverlution

Post by Cahoot »

Interesting term, “always relative.” It implies an absolute condition, which is negated by the term itself.

Order and disorder are defined in relation to chaos, which is a concept given definition by the mind of man.

Evolution is a theory describing a type of change.

Place a thousand yards of string in a straight line and forces will either evolve that string into a tightly wound, organized ball echoing mathematical sequences, or else forces will devolve that string into a chaotic, tangled, unpredictable and disorganized mass. Both the evolution and devolution are changes.

The limitations of human perception currently reveal that volitional consciousness resides in the most complex patternings of elements, the tightly-evolved condition called aliveness in its various forms.

The change of evolution and the change of devolution are both the result of organizing forces. Currently, the mind of Homo sapiens is pragmatically (read survival) attuned to recognizing the patterning called evolution. Curious minds seek to decode the disordering of chaos, which is called chaos to distinguish it from the recognizable and predictable (recognizable and predictable being defined in terms of mathematical sequencing).

As speculation, there may have been other species of man with intelligence not attuned to recognizing patterns such as animal behaviors, the cause-and-effects of weather, seasonal changes, plant growths ... human intelligence harmonizing with these recognizable patterns leads to action resulting in a predictable food supply. If such a non-attuned, other species existed, they aren’t around anymore. They didn’t survive.

Or, perhaps they did survive and have eluded detection, managing to co-mingle and thrive among those of our species whose intelligence has devolved to recognizing the correlation between braying demands for entitlement, and the dole. (But I digress ... or is it regress.) :)
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Neverlution

Post by jupiviv »

Cahoot wrote:Interesting term, “always relative.” It implies an absolute condition, which is negated by the term itself.
The term is absolutely defining a particular phenomena as relative - there is no contradiction.
Evolution is a theory describing a type of change.
The way I see it, it is the law that says that all things(empirical) change.
Place a thousand yards of string in a straight line and forces will either evolve that string into a tightly wound, organized ball echoing mathematical sequences, or else forces will devolve that string into a chaotic, tangled, unpredictable and disorganized mass. Both the evolution and devolution are changes.

I may see what you call "chaos" as "order". The concepts of order and disorder are relative, as they only exist because of relative phenomena. You can see change(evolution) as anything, but you would be deluded, because you would be interpreting change according to your own deluded perception.
As speculation, there may have been other species of man with intelligence not attuned to recognizing patterns such as animal behaviors, the cause-and-effects of weather, seasonal changes, plant growths ... human intelligence harmonizing with these recognizable patterns leads to action resulting in a predictable food supply. If such a non-attuned, other species existed, they aren’t around anymore. They didn’t survive.
Well, all animals recognise some kind of "pattern" in things. It's not at all secluded to homo sapiens. Life would have been impossible without pattern/rhythm/order.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Neverlution

Post by Cahoot »

Sure, you may see an order in chaos when no one else can see that order. Your mind may organize incoming floods of perceptual data into visions of dancing pink elephants. Relative to the criterium that the elephants do not exist independent of your mind’s interpretation of sensory perception, your mind could then be defined as disordered.

Perceiving order where chaos was once perceived indicates an evolution of perception based on adaptation, linked to survival. And sure, the flood of perceptual data is constantly changing based on an organism’s physical proximity to its surroundings.

For example, in terms of on-going, moment-to-moment survival, small birds are more attuned to three-dimensions, whereas man is more attuned to two-dimensions. Even though man has the capacity to imaginatively infer three-dimensional cause and effect, and manipulate objects through three dimensions, on a moment-to-moment basis his body is grounded to the earth, or a proxy for the earth.

This capacity to infer is what enables man to move through surroundings that are naturally inhospitable, in a fashion. Man can swim underwater but not as gracefully or efficiently as a fish, he can fly through the air but not as naturally as a bird.

However, according to the theory of evolution, if a man were able to hurl his body horizontally through space without the aid of machines and subtly affect his proximity to physical surroundings, as a bird does, and since his survival would depend upon doing this without crashing into objects, objects that exist independent of mind’s interpretation of sensory perception, his capacity to organize the constantly changing flood of sensory data would evolve based on these conditions. He would learn to perceive order where he once perceived chaos, and this capacity would be physically passed on to subsequent generations.

He would be less prone to see pink elephants where none exist and declare this perception valid simply because it popped into his noggin. Rather than interpreting a canopy of tree branches as a chaotic mass, a man would spontaneously organize a clear path as his body hurls through a chaos of twigs and leaves, just as a bird does. According to the theory of evolution, those individuals who could not properly put order to chaos would not survive in this environment, thus their deficiency would not be physically passed on to subsequent generations. :)
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Neverlution

Post by jupiviv »

Cahoot wrote:Your mind may organize incoming floods of perceptual data into visions
That's what the mind always does.
Relative to the criterium that the elephants do not exist independent of your mind’s interpretation of sensory perception, your mind could then be defined as disordered.

Nothing(no thing) exists independent of my mind's interpretation.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Neverlution

Post by Cahoot »

The point is not if the mind interprets sensory perception into visions. The point is to be found further, in what you neglected to include.

The point is whether or not the interpretation of sensory perception is valid ... valid being defined in terms of how accurately perception correlates to phenomena.

Your mind may shape particular sensory data into your personal perspective, which you label the existent “reality” of dancing pink elephants, but if the corporeal phenomena is in fact pissed-off charging bull elephants rather than your personal perspective of dancing pink elephants, your mind’s interpretation is invalid, i.e., deluded.

According to the theory of evolution, you will then be a candidate for a Darwin Award, i.e., hopefully crushed before you have procreated, for the benefit of the perpetuation of a species that has the capacity to survive and thus further procreate.

In terms of civilized humanitarianism geared towards the individual, however, caring people will attempt to treat your delusions, or the cause of your delusions, to get your mind right so you may have the opportunity to fulfill some purpose or other that is either known, or to be revealed.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Neverlution

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Cahoot wrote: Your mind may shape particular sensory data into your personal perspective, which you label the existent “reality” of dancing pink elephants, but if the corporeal phenomena is in fact pissed-off charging bull elephants rather than your personal perspective of dancing pink elephants, your mind’s interpretation is invalid, i.e., deluded.
But evolution does of course not constitute a "reality principle". In evolutionary sense the reverse might be very well true as well: if imagining happy dancing elephants when there are in fact only pissed-off ones would somehow entice a behavior, like suppression of fear, and would help in staying clear of the party, then the deluded minds could have an advantage here. And the ones seeing the "real" event will piss their pants and get stamped on :-)

Not sure about the idea that evolution would somehow work towards order in a chaotic world. A crystal is rather ordered compared to an organic cell. Some mathematical formulas can create amazing patterns as well as total chaos. There seems no way of knowing if life's evolving is just a lark, an odd floater in the sea of chaos around it or if it's an integral part of the whole process, like whirlpools in a stream. It remains then a matter of perspective to call the whirlpool "ordered" or to label instead the stream as such.

My guess is that life happens, balances on the edge between order and chaos. Which would make evolution a process geared towards order just as much as towards chaos.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Neverlution

Post by jupiviv »

Cahoot wrote:The point is whether or not the interpretation of sensory perception is valid ... valid being defined in terms of how accurately perception correlates to phenomena.

When it comes to sensory perception, I define "valid" as simply that which occurs before me when I am enlightened, i.e, fully conscious. If the interpretation is without delusions, then it is valid.

Perception always correlates perfectly accurately with phenomena. Otherwise, perception would be impossible.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Neverlution

Post by Dan Rowden »

There can be no such thing as an "invalid" sensory perception. What is sensed, is what is sensed, by definition. What is sensed is, what is, also, by definition (for the sensor).
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Neverlution

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:There can be no such thing as an "invalid" sensory perception. What is sensed, is what is sensed, by definition. What is sensed is, what is, also, by definition (for the sensor).
There can be an invalid sensory perception, if, for example, if I may have to divide sensory perception into valid and invalid for practical/empirical purposes.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Neverlution

Post by Cahoot »

Relative to the perpetuation of the species, which is the purview of the theory of evolution, perceptions can be invalid, as perceptions are labeled valid or invalid relative to the purpose of perpetuating the species. If poison mushrooms are perceived as tasting delicious, that perception of taste is invalid, as it discourages perpetuation of the species by prematurely killing off the agents of perpetuation who perceive the lethal poison as delicious.

However, relative to the individual (with which the theory of evolution is not so much concerned) I would agree that the term “invalid” is an invalid concept.

An individual may hate every sensory impression associated with poison mushrooms before that individual has procreated. Then, after procreation, and after the offspring have been nurtured to the stage of development where they are self-sufficient, that same individual, older now and supposedly wiser, may suddenly develop a taste for those mushrooms. Even though the taste has changed, the mushrooms will still kill him (or her). And, relative to evolution, this sudden craving for killer mushrooms may now be valid. The older individual has served his evolutionary function. It has reproduced, it has reared the young. In evolutionary terms, time to say bye-bye.

Hmmm. This may account for why I hated broccoli as a kid but now like it. Broccoli could well be the slow death.

:)
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Neverlution

Post by Dan Rowden »

jupiviv wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:There can be no such thing as an "invalid" sensory perception. What is sensed, is what is sensed, by definition. What is sensed is, what is, also, by definition (for the sensor).
There can be an invalid sensory perception, if, for example, if I may have to divide sensory perception into valid and invalid for practical/empirical purposes.
What criteria would you be using there? It would have to involve secondray concerns, surely?
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Neverlution

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:What criteria would you be using there? It would have to involve secondray concerns, surely?

It could also involve primary concerns. For example, if I am writing something, and I suddenly start seeing elephants before me, I would regard the elephants as invalid sensory perception. If we are to live, we have to regard some perceptions as valid and others as invalid, although we should not be attached to them(like Cahoot is.)
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Neverlution

Post by Dan Rowden »

That's not really relevant. We've yet to determine if the perception is sensory or not. If it is, then what I said applies. A sensory perception cannot be invalid, it can only be impractical (or useless) in a given context.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Neverlution

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:A sensory perception cannot be invalid, it can only be impractical (or useless) in a given context.
A sensory perception would be invalid for practical purposes if it is impractical in a context. It depends of how you define "invalid."
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Neverlution

Post by Dan Rowden »

I suppose "invalid" in this case would mean - "not a sensory percerption" - or a mental state mistaken for a sensory perception. Religious people have that problem all the time :)
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Neverlution

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:I suppose "invalid" in this case would mean - "not a sensory percerption"
It could also mean "not a valid sensory perception." The point I was making is that, while it is deluded to be attached to notions of validity and invalidity of sensory perceptions, or anything for that matter, it is also deluded to think there is no validity or invalidity at all. The Zen masters and students whom Hakuin despised had the second kind of delusion.
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Neverlution

Post by Ataraxia »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Not sure about the idea that evolution would somehow work towards order in a chaotic world. A crystal is rather ordered compared to an organic cell. Some mathematical formulas can create amazing patterns as well as total chaos. There seems no way of knowing if life's evolving is just a lark, an odd floater in the sea of chaos around it or if it's an integral part of the whole process, like whirlpools in a stream. It remains then a matter of perspective to call the whirlpool "ordered" or to label instead the stream as such.

My guess is that life happens, balances on the edge between order and chaos. Which would make evolution a process geared towards order just as much as towards chaos.
Agreed. The Order/ Chaos dichotomy is just another relative concept like anything else. 'Order', or lack-thereof, is in the eye of the beholder.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Neverlution

Post by Cahoot »

The ordered structure of a DNA molecule, as an example, exists. The ordered form of the molecule flows from the function of the molecule, the function of the molecule dictates the ordered form.

Whether or not one’s aesthetic sensibility infers this to be chaos or order is irrelevant to the functionality and order of the molecule.

“Just another relative concept.”

Any word one can think of is just another relative concept. Language is conceptual. If one wants to avoid concepts, don’t use language. Communicate with silence.

Language and concepts are tools of mind used for communication. Communication requires the participation of more than one, thus communication is dualistic. The use of language, written or spoken, is a dualistic activity involving concepts.

In fact, the dualistic and arbitrary application of the labels “order,” and “chaos,” serve merely to place ego at the center of the universe as the great definer, seated second fiddle to ego as great creator, to be sure, but that poses no problem as ego is adept at shaping interpretations to its advantage.

Despite ego’s involvement, though, order and chaos exist independent of ego.

And it’s interesting that in an entropic universe of order degrading towards chaos, the theory of evolution involves disorder moving towards order.

Which puts us smack in Neverlution territory.

*

Entropic: “the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder.” Merriam-Webster.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Neverlution

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Cahoot wrote:And it’s interesting that in an entropic universe of order degrading towards chaos, the theory of evolution involves disorder moving towards order.
Life appears to have as side-effect a lot of entropic effects to compensate for its momentary rise of "non-entropy". There are more processes in psychics that momentary decrease entropy mainly because one is comparing two systems in which case it's quite common and not limited to evolution or life at all.

Again, some might say the maximal homogeneous distribution implied by entropy sounds rather orderly... :-)
Locked