GENIUS FORUMS

DQ wrote:This response is conspicuous by its lack of substance.

Amazing to think that in 2008 the theory of evolution by natural selection still continues to threaten people. When it was first proposed in 1860 it scared the living daylights out of Christians and conventional folk, and yet here we are today, on this forum, witnessing the very same thing.

This alone makes the theory of evolution so compelling. I personally regard it as the greatest achievement produced by science so far - nor only for its simplicty and elegance and tremendous explanatory power, but because it so effectively challenges people's cherished views of themselves.

Ignorance can be very threatening, indeed.

I have to commend the conversation between Kevin and Beingof1. Unique Zennish entertainment!

-

brokenhead wrote:It produces these very things that it does not seek as a goal.

Evolution has produced many different species, and nearly all of them have become extinct. If our planet is hit by a large comet in the near future, all life on this planet will go extinct, save perhaps for a few bacteria.

The things that are blindly created by evolution do not necessarily work.

If you have conceded the possibility of alien creator beings, then you must at least concede the possibility that they have a plan.

Yes, and I have explained that if convincing evidence is provided of such a conscious plan, I will accept it.

But I will also be very interested to know where such alien creators came from. Were they created by yet other alien creators, who also had a plan? etc.

Let us take a round figure of at least one hundred thousand years for the age of modern man, physically. I am not asking you why man a hundred thousand years ago did not invent space travel. I am asking you why he physically could have.

He physically could have, because he had sufficient consciousness.

This consciousness is both a blessing and a curse. One the one hand, human consciousness has provided the means for overpopulation of the world, and vast pollution, which may have already poisoned the world to the degree that will make it unlivable.

On the other hand, humans may have enough consciousness that a few individuals might be able to escape dying a painful death in the poisonous garbage heap they have created.

What selective environmental pressure or group of pressures could have been the cause(s) that necessitated its first appearance in a scale which has remained essentially unchanged for all this time?

The human race has only been around since yesterday, in evolutionary time. Compared to things like ants, we have barely been in existence for any time whatsoever.

There are many theories as to why we became more conscious and intelligent about a hundred thousand years ago. David has presented one such theory. The brain, as we know, has a very large blood flow, and is therefore an excellent organ to use for cooling. It may have grown in size purely because of the cooling benefits, and then the extra neural tissue may have found a use for increased consciousness.

Another theory is that climate change forced us to move from Africa to colder climes in Asia Europe, and that varied environment pressures in those regions selected for greater intelligence.

Once significant intelligence had evolved we were then able to control Nature to a greater extent than we previously could, and so the environment didn't exact such a great selection pressure on us. Although we can never escape that selection pressure.

I saw figures recently that suggests that the average IQ of the world population is declining, because intelligent people are having fewer children.

So evolution of consciousness is still happening — although in our case, this might mean that consciousness is on the way out.

I am not saying no abstract thought was required a hundred thousand years ago. Why should that same organ still be physically sufficient? What environmental thing did it encounter to cause it to evolve to the extent that it could not only solve the extant abstract problems at the time, but invent quantum mechanics a hundred thousand years later?

Once there is enough consciousness to perform basic logic then all philosophy and all science becomes possible. Human beings crossed that hurdle all those years ago.

There is very little separating us from the other apes on this planet. VERY little. But that very little involves logic, and logic has great power.

Your point of view makes as much sense as if you were to tell me that I can take any seed, and tell me where I plant it will determine what it will eventually grow into. The environment which a growing plant encounters does indeed heavily determine what the plant will look like, whether it twists this way or that, whether it will be lush or spare, or even if it will grow at all and not just die. But the seed itself, no matter how tiny, contains all the information which will determine what the plant will be.

No it doesn't.

Let's say that the seed is in fact destined to be picked up by an ant, and deposited in an ants nest to be eaten by ants. The consumed seed material then passes through the ant's gut, where it then decomposes and enriches the soil, where its molecules are taken-in by the roots of an altogether different species of plant. And so it becomes a plant of an altogether different species.

Is all this information contained in the seed?

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.

DQ wrote:I'm simply speaking the truth. Your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory is very apparent. The scientific community would laugh at your ignorance. Or more likely, they would be disgusted.

Once again, my lack of acceptance of evolutionary theory - at least how you are presenting it - is very apparent. It is not possible for you to know what I understand and do not. You only know that we have a disagreement about something. The ad hominem approach does not affect me.

DQ wrote:

brokenhead wrote:If advanced consciousness is a side-effect of the large-brain cooling-effect that appeared in Africa, then why aren't native Africans superior in intellect and cultural achievement?

Because the expansion of the brain occured long before human race left Africa and split into the various modern races.

The human race did not "leave" Africa. It is still there. You may have noticed. Why haven't the same environmental pressures continued to produce this enlarged cranium? In other words, many current indigent African peoples continue to hunt in the African heat. With all this extra time, the larger cooling-mechansim crania should have appeared again, and as a by-product according to you, undergone heightened consciousness. Why aren't there advanced civilizations, or even traces of them, where the "brain-cooling mechansim" first happened?

And how does cause and effect account for the different races of man? Specifically? Just give me an example.

That is exactly what happened. Consciousness is nothing more than an accidental by-product of evolutionary forces, as are all species' traits.

It is important to understand that the human race is utterly insignificant in the greater scheme of things. We are no more special than any other species, or indeed any other thing in the Universe. The theory of evolution rams this point home with tremendous force, which is why so many humans squeal at the very sight of it.

We agree that the human race is utterly insignificant in the greater scheme of things. Whose "greater scheme" is it? A scheme is a plan. I was the one arguing for a plan, and therefore, a Planner.

I understand natural selection quite well, David. I understand that humans evolved from ever-lower and -simpler life forms. The process was planned, put into effect, and guided.

The "theory" of evolution which you propound is like a glove without a hand. I have nothing against gloves whatsoever. What I am trying to do is supply you with the hand that your glove fits. But no - you either laugh at or become disgusted with it. No matter what I try, you're sticking with the glove and just the glove.

So you're left with the glove, and I get the hand.

David Quinn wrote: Many scientists are of the view that the human brain originally grew to its present size because of our species' need to go on long hunting trips in the African heat. The large brain acted as a cooling device, thus enabling our hunters to track game for days at a time. Advanced consciousness was a side-effect of this development.

How does the brain act as a cooling device? This seems to be a case of research running wild with imagination. The brain would appear to be a hindrance rather than help in a hot environment for example this article explains the mechanism that keeps the brain cool and states that.

Such "selective brain cooling" helps maintain the temperature of the brain (which is exquisitely heat-sensitive) within acceptable limits. This is a good thing too, because "it may be that the temperature of the brain is the single most important factor limiting the survival of man and other animals in hot environments" (Mary Ann Baker (1979:136).

http://www.albany.edu/braindance/Theories.htm

brokenhead wrote:

DQ wrote:I'm simply speaking the truth. Your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory is very apparent. The scientific community would laugh at your ignorance. Or more likely, they would be disgusted.

Once again, my lack of acceptance of evolutionary theory - at least how you are presenting it - is very apparent. It is not possible for you to know what I understand and do not.

Gross misunderstandings of evolutionary theory litter your every post on the subject. One has the impression that you have only read about the theory in religious publications.

brokenhead wrote:

DQ wrote:

brokenhead wrote:If advanced consciousness is a side-effect of the large-brain cooling-effect that appeared in Africa, then why aren't native Africans superior in intellect and cultural achievement?

Because the expansion of the brain occured long before human race left Africa and split into the various modern races.

The human race did not "leave" Africa. It is still there. You may have noticed.

You know what I meant.

Why haven't the same environmental pressures continued to produce this enlarged cranium? In other words, many current indigent African peoples continue to hunt in the African heat. With all this extra time, the larger cooling-mechansim crania should have appeared again, and as a by-product according to you, undergone heightened consciousness.

There are any number of reasons why such an enlargening process hasn't continued to occur. For example:

- Not enough time. 10,000 years is but a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.

- The optimum size of the cranium, from a cooling perspective, may have already been reached.

- The enlarged brain has provided people with greater control of the environment - e.g. settling down into an agricultural lifestyle - thereby weakening the influence of traditional evolutionary pressures.

Etc.

Like Kevin said, you really ought to read up on the subject. Proper science books, not those half-baked Christian publications.

Why aren't there advanced civilizations, or even traces of them, where the "brain-cooling mechansim"

Other causal conditions are also needed to create a civilization. A large brain on its own isn't enough. There is the need for sophisticated speech faculties to develop, for example, so that knowledge can be handed down through the generations, allowing technological and cultural progress to occur.

And how does cause and effect account for the different races of man? Specifically? Just give me an example.

I don't have the energy or the inclination to teach you the basics of evolutionary theory. Go read some proper scientific books on the subject. Try to understand the theory properly with an open-mind.

I understand natural selection quite well, David.

The only person who are deceiving with this belief is yourself.

-

maestro wrote:

David Quinn wrote: Many scientists are of the view that the human brain originally grew to its present size because of our species' need to go on long hunting trips in the African heat. The large brain acted as a cooling device, thus enabling our hunters to track game for days at a time. Advanced consciousness was a side-effect of this development.

How does the brain act as a cooling device? This seems to be a case of research running wild with imagination. The brain would appear to be a hindrance rather than help in a hot environment for example this article explains the mechanism that keeps the brain cool and states that.

Such "selective brain cooling" helps maintain the temperature of the brain (which is exquisitely heat-sensitive) within acceptable limits. This is a good thing too, because "it may be that the temperature of the brain is the single most important factor limiting the survival of man and other animals in hot environments" (Mary Ann Baker (1979:136).

I didn't see anything in that article which discredits the "cooling-mechanism theory", other than stating that it can't in itself explain the evolution of human intellignce - which, of course, is perfectly correct.

I have no idea whether the "cooling-mechanism theory" is true or not. I only brought it up because it nicely illustrates one of the core principles of evolutionary theory - namely, that evolutionary development is essentially opportunistic in nature, and that new faculties often evolve out of old faculties that had a completely different function. It is often quicker and more efficient, in the cut-throat realm of evolutionary survival, to work with materials that are already there, rather than create something from scratch.

-

David Quinn wrote:

Carl G wrote:

David Quinn wrote:This discussion is a farce. Brokenhead's reasoning skills and understanding of the theory of evolution are far too poor to provide any interest.

Many scientists are of the view that the human brain originally grew to its present size because of our species' need to go on long hunting trips in the African heat. The large brain acted as a cooling device, thus enabling our hunters to track game for days at a time. Advanced consciousness was a side-effect of this development.

Haha. That's the vaunted theory of evolution according to the view of many scientists? I would say many novelists. Or many speculators. What a farce.

This response is conspicuous by its lack of substance.

Sorry about that. I was about to leave the house for the day, but felt compelled to comment on your uproarious post.

Amazing to think that in 2008 the theory of evolution by natural selection still continues to threaten people.

You imply that I feel threatened. I don't think I do.

When it was first proposed in 1860 it scared the living daylights out of Christians and conventional folk, and yet here we are today, on this forum, witnessing the very same thing.

You do not know this, you speculate, although speak as if you know it is true.

This alone makes the theory of evolution so compelling.

Interesting. It is not the theory's scientific value, then, but it's ability to show up the psychology of others as a you perceive it, and obviously as you are biased towards it, that you find most compelling? What sort of criteria is that?

I personally regard it as the greatest achievement produced by science so far - nor only for its simplicity and elegance and tremendous explanatory power, but because it so effectively challenges people's cherished views of themselves.

I thought you dealt only in absolute truths. I thought you were in the trade of establishing certainty. You speak eloquently of logic, and explain well the ideas of appearance vs the empirical, and yet fall so easily to the speculative ideas and empirical evidences of so-called scientists. And this seems so because these play into and reinforce your beliefs that there is no purpose to life, no conscious design, no consciousness possible following death. But these are not in the realm of the provable, are they? Do we even know that our species developed primarily on this planet, or from this planet's genetic stock?

I speak to Kevin here, too. How does a belief in absolute truth determined through logic square with this fascination with the empiricism of biology and anthropology? And while we are at it, apart from religion -- the institution we rightfully trash -- are you not familiar with the gnosis -- or body of knowledge transmitted by sages and spirit since before the written word -- which speaks of a living intelligent Universe, a hierarchy of forces, and a purpose to which man can ascend?

David Quinn wrote:

Carl G wrote:

David Quinn wrote:This discussion is a farce. Brokenhead's reasoning skills and understanding of the theory of evolution are far too poor to provide any interest.

Many scientists are of the view that the human brain originally grew to its present size because of our species' need to go on long hunting trips in the African heat. The large brain acted as a cooling device, thus enabling our hunters to track game for days at a time. Advanced consciousness was a side-effect of this development.

Haha. That's the vaunted theory of evolution according to the view of many scientists? I would say many novelists. Or many speculators. What a farce.

This response is conspicuous by its lack of substance.

Carl's responses containing a lack of substance? Never!

Containing a lack? The young thinker Nick Treklis strikes again.

David Quinn wrote: I didn't see anything in that article which discredits the "cooling-mechanism theory", other than stating that it can't in itself explain the evolution of human intellignce - which, of course, is perfectly correct.

It says that if anything the brain is an hindrance to high heat adventures due to its sensitivity to temperature.

David Quinn wrote:The optimum size of the cranium, from a cooling perspective, may have already been reached.

Why did the brain not shrink, then when humans moved to colder Europe to save heat? I mean the skin did lighten perceptively, and the features have changed quite a bit?

Carl G wrote:

David Quinn wrote:This alone makes the theory of evolution so compelling.

Interesting. It is not the theory's scientific value, then, but it's ability to show up the psychology of others as a you perceive it, and obviously as you are biased towards it, that you find most compelling? What sort of criteria is that?

Well, the theory wouldn't be so compelling if it wasn't such a well-established theory with mountains of evidence from a wide variety of sources in support of it. That it also challenges people's cherished views of themselves, as well as stimulate the mind into thinking about principles like cause and effect, makes it philosophically useful to me.

Carl G wrote:

I personally regard it as the greatest achievement produced by science so far - nor only for its simplicity and elegance and tremendous explanatory power, but because it so effectively challenges people's cherished views of themselves.

I thought you dealt only in absolute truths. I thought you were in the trade of establishing certainty. You speak eloquently of logic, and explain well the ideas of appearance vs the empirical, and yet fall so easily to the speculative ideas and empirical evidences of so-called scientists. And this seems so because these play into and reinforce your beliefs that there is no purpose to life, no conscious design, no consciousness possible following death. But these are not in the realm of the provable, are they?

Evolutionary theory, as outlined by science, isn't provable in an absolute sense, no. But it does have a lot of compelling evidence in its favour, while alternative theories (such as Christian creationism) have little or no evidence in their favour.

Given that the development of our species in the past is essentially an empirical matter, we would be wise to defer to what the empirical evidence and scientific theories have to say.

As for there being no purpose to life, or to Nature, that is a logical matter and easily resolved by ascending to the largest possible perspective.

As for conscious design (in the sense of aliens consciously designing the human race), that is an empirical matter and all the evidence suggests that the human race evolved in the same blind, purposeless manner as the rest of life.

As for consciousness ending at death, that too is an empirical matter and essentially unresolvable.

Do we even know that our species developed primarily on this planet, or from this planet's genetic stock?

All the available evidence - genetic, micro-biological, anatomical, paleontological, etc - suggests we did.

And while we are at it, apart from religion -- the institution we rightfully trash -- are you not familiar with the gnosis -- or body of knowledge transmitted by sages and spirit since before the written word -- which speaks of a living intelligent Universe, a hierarchy of forces, and a purpose to which man can ascend?

I am familiar with it, but I don't find it very interesting or compelling. Again, there is little or no solid evidence for it, and it reeks of people's egotistical desire to feel important, loved and safe.

More importantly, such conceptions only serve to divert people's attention away from more critical issues, such as becoming aware of the fundamental nature of causality.

-

maestro wrote:

David Quinn wrote: I didn't see anything in that article which discredits the "cooling-mechanism theory", other than stating that it can't in itself explain the evolution of human intellignce - which, of course, is perfectly correct.

It says that if anything the brain is an hindrance to high heat adventures due to its sensitivity to temperature.

From my reading, it speaks about the importance of keeping the brain cool and that cooling mechanisms evolved to ensure this, such as the development of a larger head with its larger surface area and larger network of veins, resulting in more heat being able to escape from the body.

maestro wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The optimum size of the cranium, from a cooling perspective, may have already been reached.

Why did the brain not shrink, then when humans moved to colder Europe to save heat? I mean the skin did lighten perceptively, and the features have changed quite a bit?

The human race's increased reliance on intelligence for survival purposes overode the drawbacks associated with having a large head in a cold climate.

-

We also have to think about cultural forces, what is known as "cultural selection". It may be that people in Europe found the sight of smaller heads on larger bodies repulsive or demonic and killed any babies that exhibited such a trait.

-

David Quinn wrote:From my reading, it speaks about the importance of keeping the brain cool and that cooling mechanisms evolved to ensure this, such as the development of a larger head with its larger surface area and larger network of veins, resulting in more heat being able to escape from the body.

Exactly, it says that the brain is very sensitive to heat, therefore such elaborate mechanisms are required to keep it cool. Now you said that the function of the brain was to cool the body, that seems contradictory to the article. It is like installing an air conditioner in your home that breaks down at higher temperatures and you have to spend a fortune on keeping your AC cool so that it does not break down at higher temperatures. Is that not paradoxical.

David Quinn wrote:

maestro wrote:

David Quinn wrote: I didn't see anything in that article which discredits the "cooling-mechanism theory", other than stating that it can't in itself explain the evolution of human intellignce - which, of course, is perfectly correct.

It says that if anything the brain is an hindrance to high heat adventures due to its sensitivity to temperature.

From my reading, it speaks about the importance of keeping the brain cool and that cooling mechanisms evolved to ensure this, such as the development of a larger head with its larger surface area and larger network of veins, resulting in more heat being able to escape from the body.

maestro wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The optimum size of the cranium, from a cooling perspective, may have already been reached.

Why did the brain not shrink, then when humans moved to colder Europe to save heat? I mean the skin did lighten perceptively, and the features have changed quite a bit?

The human race's increased reliance on intelligence for survival purposes overode the drawbacks associated with having a large head in a cold climate.

When humans migrated out of Africa, they were still hunters, a shrinking of the head would have been an evolutionary dominant trait in the unforgiving ice age. If skin shade can lighten so perceptibly, it implies that the time scale was evolutionarily significant.

maestro wrote:

David Quinn wrote:From my reading, it speaks about the importance of keeping the brain cool and that cooling mechanisms evolved to ensure this, such as the development of a larger head with its larger surface area and larger network of veins, resulting in more heat being able to escape from the body.

Exactly, it says that the brain is very sensitive to heat, therefore such elaborate mechanisms are required to keep it cool. Now you said that the function of the brain was to cool the body, that seems contradictory to the article. It is like installing an air conditioner in your home that breaks down at higher temperatures and you have to spend a fortune on keeping your AC cool so that it does not break down at higher temperatures. Is that not paradoxical.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. If a larger brain and head is more effective in keeping the brain cool, then there are evolutionary advantages, for us as a species that engaged in marathon hunts in the African sun, in having a larger head.

maestro wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

Why did the brain not shrink, then when humans moved to colder Europe to save heat? I mean the skin did lighten perceptively, and the features have changed quite a bit?

The human race's increased reliance on intelligence for survival purposes overode the drawbacks associated with having a large head in a cold climate.

When humans migrated out of Africa, they were still hunters, a shrinking of the head would have been an evolutionary dominant trait in the unforgiving ice age.

If their reliance on intelligence was sufficiently developed by that stage (and migrating to an entirely new environment would suggest they would have needed to be intelligent and adaptable), then this would have overidden less significant concerns. I don't think having a smaller head would have helped much in a freezing environment. Learning how to create fire and warm clothing would have been far more useful.

If skin shade can lighten so perceptibly, it implies that the time scale was evolutionarily significant.

Changing the scale of the head might be a far more complex task, requiring many different genetic alterations, whereas changes to skin colour might be far more straightforward. Thus, the time-scale might well have been insufficient to allow such a development, even without taking into account the various forces of culture and all the other countless forces which are at play in evolutionary development.

-

Wow, you are defending the theory as if it were your own.

I rather think that a larger brain is itself of significant evolutionary advantage: it allows future prediction and planning, which is the reason it would have developed and not as a cooling device. The cooling device theory is just some faddish science being done to get some papers published and getting some grants.

Wow, you are defending the theory as if it were your own.

Not really. I was just exploring the issue, as, I assumed, were you.

I rather think that a larger brain is itself of significant evolutionary advantage: it allows future prediction and planning, which is the reason it would have developed and not as a cooling device. The cooling device theory is just some faddish science being done to get some papers published and getting some grants.

You might be right. But it might be that the initial enlarging of the brain and head began for cooling purposes, which then had the extra consequence of it becoming a more effective instrument of planning. It just depends on whether increased intelligence was an evolutionary advantage at that stage, or whether keeping cool during hunting trips was the more pressing issue.

Or it could have all happened in an entirely different manner. Who knows?

-

maestro wrote:When humans migrated out of Africa, they were still hunters, a shrinking of the head would have been an evolutionary dominant trait in the unforgiving ice age. If skin shade can lighten so perceptibly, it implies that the time scale was evolutionarily significant.

By then they were intelligent enough to wear hats, to prevent heat loss in cold climates. Or perhaps they grew longer hair, to insulate the brain from heat loss.

Kevin Solway:

K: Consciousness cannot hold anything at all.

B: Where are things?

K: I've already answered the question where "all things" are.

All Things and something we cannot identify = Totality

Where?

What is consciousness?

The awareness of "self" and "other". Or, in general, the awareness that a thing is itself and not other than itself (A=A).

Then, using logic or A=A, consciousness contains awareness of "self" and "other". Consciousness has parts, you just said so.

This is the identity you have given consciousness and it is correct, the awareness of self and other, it therefore contains awareness as a subset and the perception of "self" and "other" is a subset of awareness.

Irrefutable and irreducible according to your prescribed definition.

and what is not conscious?

Whatever lacks consciousness.

How can anything lack consciousness when you are aware of it?

You prescribe the level of consciousness for anything, you just said so, by being aware of it.

B: You experience "all things" then?

K: Yes.

B: Where?

Right here where I am.

Excellent sir, we agree.

If you experience all things right where you are, what is left out?

Things, unless I was asleep during grade school science, have a fixed position in space time.

They're all connected, and they're all connected to me.

You must be speaking of causality, yes?

If you experience all things through cause and effect, what is left out of this experience?

So then, while remaining a small part, you are able to tell us the exact position of every particle and its velocity in the universe?

No. I can't tell you the exact position and velocity of anything in the Universe.

Because there is ultimately no position, is that correct? The best we can do is compare velocity to position from awareness, yes?

Then, using logic or A=A, all things are compared to awareness and therefore, all things are contained within awareness. It is impossible to measure a thing or anything outside of awareness.

Irrefutable and irreducible logic.

How can a small part comprehend the whole?

By not trying to contain it. By being honest and humble.

Yes, we agree. We cannot try to contain anything, that is impossible because as soon as we think we have contained the whole through awareness of a concept or model, the whole becomes bigger. This is what I mean't when I said the constant expands.

It does mean however, we cannot escape our experience and so the Whole, no matter how big it gets, does not outstrip consciousness. Logical necessity since we have experience because of awareness.

No matter, it still all appears to our consciousness as our awareness catches up with the information made available by consciousness.

It is like Einstein; sitting at his desk with notepad and pencil discerning the universe without sophysticated equipment.

I don't normally quote others, but this is a good one:

"Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways
of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.

Thus the sage knows without travelling;
He sees without looking;
He works without doing."

Exactly, because consciousness is infinite, it can know anything including Ultimate Reality because that is its nature and essence. It contains all things because it is all things.

I use consciousness as a stepping stone. It is that which is infinite and can know all things and cause and effect, because it is the Whole energy source as a fractal.

There is an actual experience that transcends consciousness, it is what is across the void but consciousness is the gatekeeper. - however, this experience is not blind, deaf, nor dumb.

This experience is pure unrestrained Light that inerpenatrates the fabric of everthing that is known or can be known. It is not subject to the law of identity nor is it made of the sum of its parts. This would be, what you might be refering to as the Totality. I refer to it as the state of Being in and of itself. It is beyond all judgment and is absolute because it transcends the images and words in the mind.

It is pure Light and yet, has desire, that is why creation exists. This pure Light experiences, but not in any way in the world of comparisons. That is why there is momentum in the universe.

Awareness exists because this light is like shining through a set of boxed in mirrors and then becomes trapped inside its own reflection. And therefore, experiential knowledge.

This would be God or the Tao. But all examples, images, and models fail what I am attempting to express. One must realize and then experience it for themselves.

Cause and effect is not an effect.

I thought you said causality is the relationship between things? Is that not an effect?

Since there can be nothing that causes it (since to do so, cause and effect would have to already be existence), it follows that cause and effect cannot be an effect.

Are you going to answer the question?



Oh - you missed a very insignifigant part of the post, once again avoidance. Are you a sage or not? A sage does not avoid tough questions - ever - never - under any circumstances becasue he realizes, at the minumum, he will teach or learn - not run away from them to preserve face. He would rather impale his self image on the tough questions to learn.

It is never about 'who' is right but 'what' is right. A sage would not only know this but actually practice this perspective.

B: Saying that some things are not conscious, all things are the concept Totality, you experience all things, you experience all cause and effect -------> Consciousness is a small part is baffling to logic itself because it is not logic unless you connect the dots.

This begs the question - what is observing and experiencing cause and effect? A part or the whole?

K: A part. The "I".

B: Here is your position:
1) You experience all cause and effect in an infinite state.
2) You experience all things that are, have been, and will be in existence.
3) Your consciousness contains nothing.
4) Consciousness is a part of the whole.

If consciousness contains nothing, experiences the whole as you said, it therefore, is in an infinite state. It cannot - under the rules of logic - both at the same time - contain nothing and be a subset of something else. This is just absurd and is an emotional position cause it sure ain't logic.

1) Law of Identity (A is A)
2) Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot be ~A)
3) Excluded Middle (B can be either A or not ~A).

There is more that I skipped because of volume. This part was critical and anyone would know that. Can you address this part at least? If you keep on with these tactics, I will utilize deceptive methods myself so that you can know what it means to be on the receiving end. You think I do not know how to do that?

Either teach or learn and get rid of your pride for Gods sake Kevin. I already respect your mind but when you pull stunts like this, it makes me wonder where your heart is.

I do not avoid your statements or questions, I do not want to because I may learn something from you as I already have in the past. My self image is not ever worth considering because I want to actually experience the Christ/Buddha nature, not just talk about it.

Look, I am not saying you must answer everything because I agree the volume would be to long. Be honest and forthright about what is redundant and what is critical - you know the difference being a sage, right?

I have not interest in this... Totality

I snipped your post, how does this look to ya?

Kevin:
Cause and effect is not an effect.

Also, it doesn't mean much to call it "linear".

Being:
I thought you said causality is the relationship between things? Is that not an effect? If all things appear because of causality, that is the effect.

I do not know what this has to do with the concept Totality being a framework. Once you say that consciousness is a part of the concept Totality, you just created the framework because you apply a limit. Can this limit be measured while containing nothing?

Kevin:
I have not interest in this "concept Totality".

Then why did you say consciousness was a part of the Totality if it is not a concept?

Being:
Cause and effect stops at its destination with the creation or relationship of things. This is the sum total of its ultimate effect, it therefore is an effect and not the cause.

Kevin:
The present, or what you would call "the ultimate effect", is indeed an effect of the past, which is the cause of it. Together they are cause and effect.

That is why I said cause and effect is an effect. Because it creates the present appearance of things. It therefore has an effect because it is the cause of the ultimate effect of things.

You seem to be agreeing here unless I am misunderstanding you.

What is left?

There's nothing left.

If there is nothing left after cause and effect, what is the Totality then?

I can quote you as saying that logic is a part of consciousness. So now we have a part of a part that experiences everything?

I've don't believe I've said that logic is a part of consciousness. Logic is essentially what consciousness is.

Kevin said on Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:33 pm:

Without consciousness there is no logic. Logic is an inherent part of consciousness.

B: What is logic Kevin?

K: The awareness that a thing is itself, and not other than itself.

B: Okay, how does something that contains nothing become a part?

K: It is a part if there is something other than itself.

Let me see if I understand your logic?

Some 'thing' that contains nothing is actually a something, that is a part, that cannot be identified.

It can only be identified by what it is not, because it, in and of itself, cannot be identified, therefore it is a thing and a part?

Did I state your position of logic?

Which part does not contain anything? Since consciousness, according to you, is a part of the Totality, which part does it not contain anything?

Consciousness.

You are using the empty set and therefore, consciousness is infinite and unbounded because it contains and intersects all other sets and is unique in set theory as there is only one - and not another and neither can be another, empty set.

Therefore, consciousness, according to your own position, is infinite and unbounded and therefore, cannot be a 'part' or a 'thing' because it contains all other things and parts. Period and full stop.

Now that Kevin, is real logic, not avoidance by dissolving the issue in obfuscation and one liners.

The Totality is the source of all things, since there is no other place things can come from.

Ah, there it is, take notice pilgrims and sojourners, the first cause argument.

I've already said that it's not a cause of anything, unless you understand the word "cause" in a transcendent way.

Then prove it - can you do that? If not, it is the God concept as the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz because it has no brain. That is the one and only difference.

If so, when are you going to prove it? I have been drumming my fingers waiting for a logical proof, all you do is recite the mantra. You can keep pulling the cloak of the sage around yourself to try to insulate bad ole reality from yourself in the form of who I am. It will only suppress your innermost heart and create suffering because you will know, deep down inside, you did not arrive through logic but wishful thinking.

If you cannot use logic to provide the gateway to the transcendant Ascendant, you still have not gone in yourself because it is not experience but an idea or model. If it were experience, you would be able to swing the door wide open because experience is logic.

You should ask, its really simple.

There's only one Infinite. The Totality is a name for the Infinite, and cause and effect is how it appears.

Appears to who? A part of the totality and thereby experience the infinite?

How?

Any conscious being.

So, a conscious being is infinite? I stopped reading your post right here.

You do realize you are not answering questions, you are just trying to sound mystical while avoiding logical questions at all costs. You are not making any sense because you are discarding logic and the questions I ask.

If the infinite can be perceived by appearing to a conscious being, that being must be infinite itself. It cannot be a part and the whole at the same time, that is logic in reality.

Merri-go-round circular thinking is not logic, it is begging the question and is not logic.

Lay it out for us Kevin using a logical argument. Lets see if you can use logic, without a fallacy, that proves what you are saying makes any sense.

Here is the question - How?

Did you understand this question? I will repeat because you might not undertsand it.

There's only one Infinite. The Totality is a name for the Infinite, and cause and effect is how it appears.

Appears to who? A part of the totality and thereby experience the infinite?

How?

I am done - until you start answering questions instead of avoidance tactics, I do not want to expend my energy for cloak and dagger games.

So your question doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.

Your answers do not make sense to anyone let alone me.

I answer all your questions - quid pro quo.

Go ahead, fire your best questions at me, lets see who can answer them straight up shall we? I do not have to dodge, snip your posts, jump context and spin what is said - grow up.

David Quinn wrote:What about projection in a more mundane sense?

For example, I once knew a Christian couple who believed there were demons everywhere and could never walk through a doorway without crossing themselves and muttering prayers and incantations. Do you acknowledge the existence of this kind of projection, and the undesirability of engaging in it?

Yes, I acknowledge the existence of that type of projection, and yes I think it can be undesirable.

David Quinn wrote:

Jason wrote:However, emotions and desires and ego are not impediments to consciousness of this understanding. I am angry - therefore I understand and know that reality now displays(the appearance) of anger, and so on. This is still pure undistorted reality.

I don't know why you believe egotism and emotion obstruct this understanding. Do you think that every thought a person has should be this one understanding? For me it is only necessary for the understanding to arise when relevant questions or situations arise, such as philosophical questions about reality. If questions like "What is reality?" arise then the understanding should appear to meet them, then eventually such questions will no longer occur.

It is akin to how a physicist will not be thinking about physics whilst he's playing with his dog, but as soon as the right situation occurs, such as his son suddenly asking him a physics homework question, the understandings emerge.

For me, it is a much greater existential issue than this, as it involves a permanent change in perception involving every aspect of one's life. It isn't a compartmentalized, theoretical form of knowledge to be dragged out whenever arcane philosophical questions are raised. It is a life-changing understanding.

Yeah I know. That's because you can't accept that emotion and self are also perfect expressions of pure undistorted reality.

Since I know you love analogies, I will talk about dreams. There is a big difference between a person who is lucid dreaming and in full control of his dream environment, and one who is unaware that he is dreaming and thus vulnerable to "night terrors". It would never occur to a lucid dreamer to get angry over anything that occurs in his dreams as he knows that it is all an illusion of his own making. If something does occur to make him angry, it would immediately indicate that he has lost the plot, that he has lost control over his dreaming, that he has lost consciousness of the true situation and suddenly believes his experiences to be more than they really are.

The dreamer seems to be making the assumption that waking reality is more real than dreaming reality, but everything is real.

DQ wrote:The human race's increased reliance on intelligence for survival purposes overode the drawbacks associated with having a large head in a cold climate.

And you say I do not understand the theory of evolution.

Listen to youself. You use the same blind logic to propose what happened instead of thinking. This is what you always do and what makes your arguments so uncompelling.

You are trying to explain why humans did not de-evolve. Has there been evidence that they ever have? There is a overall direction to evolution. You are blind to this fact.

Try this explanation, genius: With their enlarged crania, they were able to figure out how to make hats so their heads would not get cold, a quick solution that would obviate the evolutionary pressure to "de-evolve" that you seem to be allowing.

We also have to think about cultural forces, what is known as "cultural selection". It may be that people in Europe found the sight of smaller heads on larger bodies repulsive or demonic and killed any babies that exhibited such a trait.

So this is rendered unnecessary. Since de-evolution does not occur, you are confusing your ideas, which is unsurprising. Such cultural selection is something that happened when the infants' heads were evolving, that is, getting larger.

You would not resort to ad hominem attacks if you were secure in your ideas, which you are not. Rather, you are stubborn. There is a difference. I used to think such argument was beneath you, but that was probably because I hadn't read that many of your posts. So to set the record straight, I am not influenced by religious publications. I cannot be, because I do not read them. You, on the other hand, seem to have done. So you have a vague idea of what they contain. When you find somebody disagreeing with you, you take this vague idea and associate it with the differing ideas you encounter. The reason I know my ideas do not accord with, say, the Watchtower and publications of its ilk is that I have friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses and argue with them about these very things.

In the future, try to think before you post a reply. We will all benefit, I assure you.

Kevin Solway wrote:

maestro wrote:When humans migrated out of Africa, they were still hunters, a shrinking of the head would have been an evolutionary dominant trait in the unforgiving ice age. If skin shade can lighten so perceptibly, it implies that the time scale was evolutionarily significant.

By then they were intelligent enough to wear hats, to prevent heat loss in cold climates. Or perhaps they grew longer hair, to insulate the brain from heat loss.

At least Kevin got the hat thing. Not that this substantiates the brain-cooling explanation one bit. People with small heads would have grown long hair and worn hats as well.

It's a riot listening to you guys speculate about evolution.

brokenhead wrote:There is a overall direction to evolution.

"Overall direction".

Do you really think that you can see things from a God's-eye point of view?

Clearly you do, since you have already claimed to know the future. Someone needs to tell you that this is madness.

What if, in the near future, a comet smashes our planet into a billion pieces, along with all the life on it. Is there still an overall direction to evolution? You have said that this will not happen, but how do you know?

You are claiming to know far more than you really know, through sheer arrogance of ego.

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:There is a overall direction to evolution.

"Overall direction".

Do you really think that you can see things from a God's-eye point of view?

Clearly you do, since you have already claimed to know the future. Someone needs to tell you that this is madness.

What if, in the near future, a comet smashes our planet into a billion pieces, along with all the life on it. Is there still an overall direction to evolution? You have said that this will not happen, but how do you know?

You are claiming to know far more than you really know, through sheer arrogance of ego.

You misread me. Of course I do not think I can see things from a "God's-eye" point of view, whatever that is supposed to mean. I have not claimed to know the future in this thread, in any other thread, or anywhere else at any time else. You are unable to understand this. I get that.

You could say to me, what if a gigantic Bozo the Clown were to step on the earth with a vast clown shoe and wipe out the Western Hemisphere. I say to you, this will not happen. So you jump in with, "Oh so now you can predict the future, can you?" Has a comet smashed our planet into a billion pieces ever before? Is there any evidence that a comet has smashed any planet into a billion pieces before? If you argue it must have happened some place at some time out of sheer largeness of the universe, I would answer, quite correctly, that it may be so but you cannot prove it so you cannot use it as evidence, and even so you could not know whether such a planet contained life.

You are so inconsistent. Just a few posts ago, you said this:

If we destroy this earth, but through our consciousness we have been able to develop space travel, then we might move to other planets. That's how consciousness can help a species or individual to survive.

In this scenario, would you still say there is not an overall direction to evolution?

If you were honest with yourself - which is something you do only sporadically - you would see that it is the sheer arrogance of your ego that prevents you from humbling yourself before the Logos. You cannot know God's will if you do not submit to it. If you did submit to it, you would understand that I am in no way predicting the future or claiming to, but rather I am trusting in my faith that what is out of man's hands is not my concern. I do not idly speculate on scenarios of mass destruction by random comets. To do so is to live like an hysterical old woman. I will gladly leave you to your irrational fears. Irrational, in that there is nothing you, I, or anyone else that can do about what you are conjuring up to somehow corroborate the nineteenth-century views you and David seem to cherish so dearly.