Evolution theory

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
hades
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:18 am

Evolution theory

Post by hades »

What do you guys think about it? Is it reasonable and does it have any sort of philosophical ramifications?
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Hades,

Evolutionary theory doesnt totally make sense to me. How does something come from nothing? There is some major circumventing going on. Cause and effect seems so barren and desolate. Like a skeleton. The 'life' element is inexplicable.

I'm tempted to insert into the equation some sort of cosmic intelligence (with an aesthetic sensiblity) that engineers and tweaks at the genetic level (as you are probably well aware, dna is quite the super computer).

although, that doesnt mean you should throw me into the 'intelligent design' movement. The arguments suporting the ID movement (something to do with a mouse trap?) seem just as absurd as the more orthodox darwinian explanations.

The cruelty of the world suggest that this cosmic intelligence is not at all supremely wise and compassionate and perhaps is concerned with aesthetics and creating exotic things of beauty that co-exist with remarkable harmony (when it works, it is ineffable genius -- when it fails, it is wretched).

It appears to be bored and longing for 'more'. Human beings seem to have this same sort of thing going on.

However, I can understand how a species can lose abilities over time 'without' the the help of an intelligent designer - - for example, there was some great research done on a species of deep water fish who permanently migrated into a vast undersea cave. Their eyes, over a long duration of time in the cave, had glossed over with skin growing over to bury them. The lack of stimulation to their eyes, caused the eyes to degnerate, much like muscle tissue will become flabby and shrink if one does not excercise and eat will. (these fish are a good metaphor for academics)

Orthodox Cause and effect mechanical explanations work just fine when explaining how species differ according to features they had 'lost' over time.

But 'gaining' eyes? wings? the ability to 'glow'?

I attribute 'gains' such as eyes, wings, glowing, and highly advanced brains, to spontaneous 'mutations'. A friend of mine once argued that these mutations are random and can beget orderly species that go onto survive. I said, "yes, but how can they mutate so orderly and with such sophistication without some sort of intelligent experimentation, without some sort of guiding trigger?" He said: "well, right now, in some labratories, they are playing with certain genes and chemicals in hopes of triggering random mutations to prove that this is possible.....and any day now they prove it is all random and by chance.....". So you see, he argued himself into a corner. The scientists tried to prove that mutations happened randomly and mechanically.........absurdly they tried to prove randomness and chance by using their 'reason' to experiment and artifically produce a mutation....and even then they failed at bringing into being anything other than severe disorder.

A robotics proffesor at MIT was making the same argument as he and his collegues (with an optimisitc vision of robots taking over the world) tinkered around in the lab producing robots. He was an atheist - -- - he couldnt fathom how beings could be created by anything other than randomness - - he couldnt concieve that beings could be created by a more advanced intelligence - -and in the mean time - -his very own behavior was proving just the thing he was arguing against.

Athiest Scientists (and perhaps theists) play god in the labratory -- - with hopes to create beings who will or will not deny the truth that they were created by a heirarchy of agents endowed with 'some-level of intelligence.

Mutations that bring a species into a 'higher order' are perhaps triggered by an agency of intelligence tampering/tweaking with the DNA of the species. (there maybe a super-computer that DNA is subordinated to as well).

i've listen to people who have tried to 'explain it all' to me using a very orthodox, academic, darwinian, cause and effect conception - - and there is something missing indeed.

'Creationism' is embarasing as well of course.

I am by no means advocating a loving god that looks out for each and every one of us.

This is all just fun speculation for me, i do not take it all that seriously. Although, as you can see by the length of the post; there was a time when I did :)

If you see my point of view as faulty, Please, by all means, bring me to my senses.

(Hades, if I recall correctly - -I believe you liked UG krishnamurti - -- the biological transformation that he claims to have undergone.......would it be random mutation? Or was his Dna tampered with to create a superior product? If UG Krishnamurti is a con like quinn says -- he is the greatest con to have ever walked the earth. A very intriguinging man. The etymological root meaning of the word intrigue is: 'to lure into harms way.' ) !
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway »

Cory Patrick wrote:Evolutionary theory doesnt totally make sense to me. How does something come from nothing?
Evolution doesn't say that something comes from nothing. Evolution is about change.
Cause and effect seems so barren and desolate.
Since it creates literally everything in existence, it must be fairly fertile.
The 'life' element is inexplicable.


Define what you mean by "life".

Life is just a word for a particular formation of matter.
Orthodox Cause and effect mechanical explanations work just fine when explaining how species differ according to features they had 'lost' over time.

But 'gaining' eyes? wings? the ability to 'glow'?
All we need to know is that things happen according to cause and effect. It doesn't matter how things got to be the way they are - they are certainly caused to be that way.

Even if there is a "creator" who, for some strange reason, is causing things to gain eyes, etc, there must in turn be causes, causing the "creator" to do what he is doing. All things have a cause.

As far as gaining "wings" is concerned, this is easy to imagine. It is an advantage to a possum, for example, if he can glide from tree to tree. A mutation happens which creates large flaps of skin between the limbs of a possum, which enable it to glide from tree to tree. Hey presto, wings, in one fell swoop. No mystery.
I said, "yes, but how can they mutate so orderly and with such sophistication
The answer is that it's not sophisticated. It is trial and error, and only goes one very small, crude, step at a time.
Mutations that bring a species into a 'higher order' are perhaps triggered by an agency of intelligence tampering/tweaking with the DNA of the species.
There may be, but there isn't any evidence for it as yet. And then we have to ask what is causing the "creator" to do what he is doing, and where did he come from. Was he created by yet another creator? It's not likely that that process goes on forever, with each creator being created by another creator.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Evolution

Post by DHodges »

Cory Patrick wrote:I attribute 'gains' such as eyes, wings, glowing, and highly advanced brains, to spontaneous 'mutations'. A friend of mine once argued that these mutations are random and can beget orderly species that go onto survive. I said, "yes, but how can they mutate so orderly and with such sophistication without some sort of intelligent experimentation, without some sort of guiding trigger?" He said: "well, right now, in some labratories, they are playing with certain genes and chemicals in hopes of triggering random mutations to prove that this is possible.....and any day now they prove it is all random and by chance.....". So you see, he argued himself into a corner. The scientists tried to prove that mutations happened randomly and mechanically.........absurdly they tried to prove randomness and chance by using their 'reason' to experiment and artifically produce a mutation....and even then they failed at bringing into being anything other than severe disorder.
This is a common misunderstanding about evolutionary theory. Mutation is, at most, a very minor player in evolution. The forces at play are deterministic, and not random. (That is, there may be stochastic processes, but they proceed over a population, which in general is large enough for the process to considered deterministic.)

I suggest reading a book on the topic, such as Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Child: daddy, my bike doesn’t have the same parts as your motorcycle…

Dad: thats right son, my motorcycle has an engine, and your bike has petals and a chain.

Child: Can I put an engine on my bike daddy?

Dad: No son, that will not work. Your bike is designed to be a bike. And my motorcycle is designed to be a motorcycle. You cannot magically transform your bike into my motorcycle.

Child: but I want to, why cant I do it Daddy?

Dad: (angry) I don’t know. That’s just the way it is, now stop asking so many questions and just ride the damn bike already!
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Bikes

Post by DHodges »

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Child: Can I put an engine on my bike daddy?

Dad: No son, that will not work. Your bike is designed to be a bike. And my motorcycle is designed to be a motorcycle. You cannot magically transform your bike into my motorcycle.
Not sure exactly what your point was.... but historically, motorcycles did very nearly evolve from bicycles. Many early motorcycles were nothing more than a bicycle with an engine strapped on, and some motorcycle manufacturers got their start making such engines (e.g., Ducati with the Cucciolo). Many early motorcycles had pedals (partly because of the unreliability and low power of early engines).

Motorcycles really got their start in the US because of the bicycle craze going on at the time. Motorcycles became less popular when the inexpensive Ford cars were introduced (e.g., the Model T). Before that, motorcycles were affordable transportation, and cars generally weren't.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Yes, bicycles evolving into motorcycles is a good example - -evidently the transformation from bicycle to motorbike wasnt just some random accident - there was a creative intelligence involved in the bicycle to motorcycle evolutionary process.
Lennyrizzo
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am

Post by Lennyrizzo »

Hades,

The cruelty of the world suggest that this cosmic intelligence is not at all supremely wise and compassionate and perhaps is concerned with aesthetics and creating exotic things of beauty that co-exist with remarkable harmony (when it works, it is ineffable genius -- when it fails, it is wretched).
Hi there.
I don't know why you would say that about beauty, it's not like there are really things of beauty in the world:: sure, some thing may be beautiful to you or others, but it's always a subjective call. Nothing is inherently beautiful.
In a world of myriad variety, inevitably some things will be more appealing than other things. And these same things will be less appealing to others.
That things appeal to us at all is merely a matter of genetics:: how far would we have gotten if we were all attracted by the same gender?
If you see my point of view as faulty, Please, by all means, bring me to my senses.

(Hades, if I recall correctly - -I believe you liked UG krishnamurti - -- the biological transformation that he claims to have undergone...
What's that? How about more on this bio-trans.....
ken
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:01 pm
Contact:

genius is lord

Post by ken »

hades,
I have a theory, relative to the evolution human consciousness and the philosphy of aesthetics. When it comes to ( human )creation, the genius is lord.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: genius is lord

Post by Kevin Solway »

ken wrote:hades,
I have a theory, relative to the evolution human consciousness and the philosphy of aesthetics. When it comes to ( human )creation, the genius is lord.
So far as evolution is conerned, whoever can most successfully pass on their genes to the next generation is the winner.

As it happens, rapists tend to do this a lot more successfully than geniuses.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

This is a common misunderstanding about evolutionary theory. Mutation is, at most, a very minor player in evolution. The forces at play are deterministic, and not random.

I've never read a book specifically about evolution (looks like I'll have to sometime, as the topic keeps appearing), and I was unaware that this was the prevailing view. Over at TPG they seemed to be saying that all evolution was caused by mutation of DNA. In fact this is correct, depending on what one means by the word mutation, as the only way changes can be transferred to future generations is via changed DNA, either during the life of a particular life form or as a result of erroneous matching of the genes at conception.

Everything is deterministic, so random mutation doesn't really come into play, except that localised environmental determined mutations can occur more or less randomly across a species population. Which I guess is where this comment comes into play (That is, there may be stochastic processes, but they proceed over a population, which in general is large enough for the process to considered deterministic.) .

If non-localised mutation, say from sun radiation for example, is a very minor player, then surely this means that Lamarckian evolutionary theory is actually more relevant than the seemingly random mutation (which is what I believe).

"With this in mind, Lamarck developed two laws:

In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.

All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young."
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Not sure exactly what your point was.... but historically, motorcycles did very nearly evolve from bicycles. Many early motorcycles were nothing more than a bicycle with an engine strapped on, and some motorcycle manufacturers got their start making such engines (e.g., Ducati with the Cucciolo). Many early motorcycles had pedals (partly because of the unreliability and low power of early engines).
yes, there was an evolution from bike to motorcycle, but it entails some sort of drastic macro-change where new components came into existence from nothing. These new components require creative intelligence, and not randomness.

For instance: look closely at a tiger's face, or a wolf's face, or a sunset, or waves smashing agaisnt a sandy beach, or how light reflects off of water, or a woman's face,

I suspect creative intelligence is necessary to create these sort of subtle beauty, it is not a random process.

our brains are the only stupid thing on the planet. everything else seems to be in order. and if it isnt in order, it is only the result of our stupid brains doing stupid things.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway »

cosmic_prostitute wrote:I suspect creative intelligence is necessary to create these sort of subtle beauty, it is not a random process.
Beauty and seeming complexity can come from very simple, nonintelligent sources. Fractals are seemingly complex patterns whose "beauty" is identical to that of Nature, yet their source is a very simple formula.

I don't see any need for an intelligence behind it.

And even if there was an intelligence behind it, what caused that intelligence? At some point intelligence must have evolved out of non-intelligence - unless there is an endless line of creators creating each other - which doesn't seem likely.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Lennyrizzo wrote:
Cory Patrick wrote:(Hades, if I recall correctly - -I believe you liked UG krishnamurti - -- the biological transformation that he claims to have undergone...would it be random mutation? Or was his Dna tampered with to create a superior product? If UG Krishnamurti is a con like quinn says -- he is the greatest con to have ever walked the earth. A very intriguiging man. The etymological root meaning of the word intrigue is: 'to lure into harms way.' ) !


What's that? How about more on this bio-trans.....
The reference I heard before and since it's about a teacher (who claims to has nothing to teach) teaching the non-existence of enlightenment (while experiencing extreme sorts of physical manifestations connected to it) it sorts of intrigues.

Found part of it in UG's own word in The Natural State. I noticed here too that UG was raised as a child in the role or severe expectation of becoming guru or savior type which could explain his A.) juvenile rejection of what was spoon-fed and forced upon to him B.) subconscious fulfillment of parent's desire for him to become what they hoped. In other words many of his perceptions and teachings could have been a result of common psychological forces, not unlike how a Michael Jackson was brought into the world. Nevertheless, there are some interesting aspects to it all.
All kinds of funny things happened to me. I remember when I rubbed my body like this, there was a sparkle, like a phosphorous glow, on the body. She used to run out of her bedroom to see—she thought there were cars going that way in the middle of the night. Every time I rolled in my bed there was a sparkling of light, (Laughs) and it was so funny for me—"What is this?" It was electricity—that is why I say it is an electromagnetic field. At first I thought it was because of my nylon clothes and static electricity; but then I stopped using nylon. I was a very skeptical heretic, to the tips of my toes; I never believed in anything; even if I saw some miracle happen before me, I didn't accept that at all—such was the make-up of this man. It never occurred to me that anything of that sort was in the making for me.(...)

The whole thing is finished for me and that's all. The linking gets broken and once it is broken it is finished. Then it is not once that thought explodes—every time a thought arises it explodes. The division cannot stay there, it's a physical impossibility. You don't have to do a thing about it. That is why I say that when this explosion takes place (I use the word explosion because it's like a nuclear explosion) it leaves behind chain-reactions. Every cell in your body has to undergo this change.

It's an irreversible change. There's no question of your going back. It is like a nuclear explosion. It shatters the whole body. It is not an easy thing. It is the end of the man, such a shattering thing that it blasts every cell, every nerve in your body. I went through terrible physical torture at that moment; not that you experience the explosion—you can't experience the explosion—but its after-effects. The fallout is the thing that changes the whole chemistry of your body. The senses are operating now without any coordinator or center, that's all I can say. Unless that alchemy or change in the whole chemistry takes place, there is no way of freeing this organism from thought, from the continuity of thought.

The blinking of the eyes stopped and then there were changes in taste, smell and hearing. I noticed that my skin was soft like silk and had a peculiar kind of glow, a golden color.

I no longer spend time in reverie, worry, conceptualization and the other kinds of thinking that most people do when they're alone. My mind is only engaged when it's needed, for instance when you ask questions, or when I have to fix the tape-recorder or something like that. My memory is in the background and only comes into play when it's needed, automatically. When it's not needed there is no mind here, there is no thought; there is only life.

My body had gone away and it has never come back. The points of contact are all that is there for the body. Nothing else is there for me because the seeing is altogether independent of the sense of touch here. I had discovered that all my senses were without any coordination. I felt the life energy drawing to a focal point from different parts of my body. Even now it happens to me. The hands and feet become cold, the body becomes stiff, the heartbeat slows down, the breathing slows down and then there is a gasping for breath. Up to a point you are there. You breathe your last breath, as it were, and then you are finished.

What happens after that, nobody knows. How long it lasted I don't know. I can't say anything about that because the experiencer was finished. There was nobody to experience that death at all. So that was the end of it. I got up. The things that had astonished me that week had become permanent fixtures. I call all these events a calamity because from the point of view of one who thinks this is something fantastic, blissful, full of love, ecstasy and all that kind of a thing, this is physical torture. Not a calamity to me but to those who have an image that something marvelous is going to happen.

It's something like you imagine New York. You dream about it. You want to be there. When you are actually there, nothing of it is there. It is a godforsaken place and even the devils have probably forsaken that place. It's not the thing that you had sought after and wanted so much but totally different.

What is there you really don't know. You have no way of knowing anything about that. There is no image here. Then suddenly, there was an outburst of tremendous energy shaking the whole body, vibrating. It lasted for hours. I couldn't bear it but there was nothing I could do to stop it. There was a total helplessness. This went on and on, day after day. Whenever I sat, it started—this vibration like an epileptic fit or something. Not even an epileptic fit; it went on for days. It was a very painful process because the body has limitations. It has a form, a shape of its own.

So when there is an outburst of energy which is not your energy or my energy but God's (call it by any name you like) it is like a river in spate. The energy that is operating there does not feel the limitations of the body. It is not interested. It has its own momentum. It is a very painful thing. It is not ecstatic, blissful and all that rubbish, stuff and nonsense. It is really a painful thing.

Oh I suffered for months before and after that, everybody has—a great cascade; not one but thousands. It went on and on for months. It's a very painful experience, painful in the sense that the energy has a peculiar operation of its own. It is clockwise, counterclockwise, and then it is this way, and then this way, and then this way. Like an atom, it moves inside—not in one part of your body—the whole body. It is as if a wet towel were being wrung to get rid of the water. It is like that—the whole of our body. It's such a painful thing. It goes on even now. You can't invite it. You can't ask it to come. You can't do anything. It gives you the feeling that it is enveloping you, that it is descending on you.

Every time it is new. Very strange, every time it comes in a different way. So you don't know what is happening. You lie down on your bed and suddenly it begins. It begins to move slowly like ants. I'd think there were bugs in my bed, jump out, look, see no bugs, then I'd go back, then again. The hairs are electrified. So it slowly moves. There were pains all over the body. Thought has controlled this body to such an extent that when that loosens, the whole metabolism is agog. The whole thing was changing in its own way without my doing anything. Every cell started changing and it went on and on for six months. In all, it took three years for this body to fall into a new rhythm of its own. I behaved normally, I didn't know what was happening. It was a strange situation.

The state is something natural. Do you see the swellings here? Yesterday was the new moon. The body is affected by everything that is happening around you. It is not separate. Whatever is happening there is also happening here. There is only the physical response. This is affection. Your body is affected by everything that is happening around you, and you can't prevent this for the simple reason that the armor that you have built around yourself is destroyed. So it is very vulnerable to everything that is happening there.

There are certain glands. These ductless glands are located in exactly the same spots where the Hindus speculated the chakras are. They have feelings, extraordinary feelings. There is one gland here which is called the thymus gland. Doctors tell us that is active through childhood until puberty then becomes dormant. In your natural state that gland is reactivated.

[Up and down his torso, neck and head, his friends observed swellings of various shapes and colors which came and went at intervals. On his lower abdomen, the swellings were horizontal, cigar-shaped bands. Above the navel was a hard, almond-shaped swelling. A hard, blue swelling like a large medallion in the middle of his chest was surmounted by another smaller, brownish-red, medallion-shaped swelling at the base of his throat. These were as though suspended from a varicolored, swollen ring—blue, brownish and light yellow—around his neck. His throat was swollen to a shape that made his chin seem to rest on the head of a cobra, as in the traditional images of Shiva. Just above the bridge of the nose was a white, lotus-shaped swelling. All over the head the small blood vessels expanded, forming patterns like the stylized lumps on the heads of Buddha statues. The arteries in his neck expanded and rose, blue and snake-like, into his head]
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Evolution, Schmevolution

Post by DHodges »

Jamesh wrote: Over at TPG they seemed to be saying that all evolution was caused by mutation of DNA. In fact this is correct, depending on what one means by the word mutation, as the only way changes can be transferred to future generations is via changed DNA, either during the life of a particular life form or as a result of erroneous matching of the genes at conception.
The important thing to keep in mind about evolution is that it is not something that happens to individuals. Evolution is something that happens to a population.

Consider a gene pool. A gene pool is never homogenous; there is always some variation across it. The gene pool interacts with the environment through the mechanism of individuals. The likelihood of an individual surviving and reproducing is a function of its genes, and the environment in which it finds itself.

Reproduction does not result in an exact duplicate, but a mixing of the individual's genes with another's. So "successful" individuals change the gene pool in a certain direction. "Unsuccessful" individuals were directions in which the gene pool does not tend to go; the information in those genes does not replicate in the next generation. Evolution is the change of the entire gene pool over time.

Everything is deterministic, so random mutation doesn't really come into play, except that localised environmental determined mutations can occur more or less randomly across a species population.
The mixing of the genes with other genes in the population is the important part. Mutation is minor, but allows the gene pool to slowly spread over a larger "space" over time. It's minor because most mutation results in a non-viable organism. The mixing is important because genes are long, complex molecules; each individual is (usually) unique. The genes that survive in the long term are genes that work well in the context of that gene pool.
Which I guess is where this comment comes into play (That is, there may be stochastic processes, but they proceed over a population, which in general is large enough for the process to considered deterministic.) .
For the population as a whole, mutation is just a copying error, a slight random element in going from one generation to the next.

It's also important to note that the environment is not a stable, fixed element; it is constantly changing. Climates may change slowly, or suddenly. Predators may become more or less common, or may develop better eyesight, or background colors may change, favoring different camoflage. Food sources may change. Each generation is reacting to a different environment. These changes are more important to evolution than mutation.
If non-localised mutation, say from sun radiation for example, is a very minor player, then surely this means that Lamarckian evolutionary theory is actually more relevant than the seemingly random mutation (which is what I believe).
Lamarck had the mechanism wrong. There is nothing an individual can do to change the genes he is carrying around. That is fixed at birth.

But he kind of had the idea right. For instance, in an environment in which animals are constantly straining their necks to reach higher leaves, the animals with longer necks are generally going to do better (in competition with other, similar organisms in the same gene pool), and the population will drift in the long-necked direction, resulting in giraffes, for instance.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

in an environment in which animals are constantly straining their necks to reach higher leaves, the animals with longer necks are generally going to do better (in competition with other, similar organisms in the same gene pool), and the population will drift in the long-necked direction, resulting in giraffes, for instance.
It seems to me that there are 2 forces working simultaneously.

There are competitive stochastic proccesses, where, by luck and chance, a minority of a population of species, or even one member out xthousand members of any given species, finds him/her self in an auspicious form (in relation to food oportunities). This auspicious form drastically increases the probability of both surviving as well as begetting children with the same auspicious gene code. This auspicious gene code is generated randomly -- there is luck, chance....a stochastic procces happening within a closed system. However, that closed system in itself I feel is 'not' generated by luck, chance, randomeness.

In the same way that you gave us an example of how giraffes emerged - - maybe you could give us an example of how 'eyes' come into being?

Kevin Soloway gave an example of how wings could come into being.....and I found it very unlikely. If a possum was to, by chance, be born with little 'stubs' on its back - -surely these stubs would not at all be refined enough to serve any purpose other than hampering the possums survival. If you look at a wing it is tremendously sophisticated. I dont see how something like wings could emerge in the same way long necks emerge. There would have to be an intelligence, a consciousness shaping the wing.

That's why I find this Intelligent Design VS. Darwin debate so absurd. To me, both sides are wrong until they see that both sides need to be integrated into one.

Is consciousness a projection of our brains? Or are our brains generated by consciousness that is eternal and timeless?

Has anyone read any thing by Rupert Sheldrake?
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Post by Sapius »

I read and saw video recordings of most of U.G. Krishnamurti’s material since opening of a thread on him, and I have a different interpretation of his way of life.

There is no doubt that he has gone deep into understanding what existence is all about, and to a great extant has also understood it, however, the biological transformation he seems to have gone through, and as described and equated to traditional Hindu terms and significance, is highly doubtful, but presented to be perceived as such for a reason.

Firstly, it could most probably be general illnesses that he might have gone through living miserably in London or Switzerland, with no proper means of income, since he had lost all of his original family’s savings in trying to save his son from Polio. He may have been also very troubled due to what he calls his biggest mistake in life, marriage. He eventually divorced after many years, but I’m sure that the days from when he might have realized that it was a great mistake, until he eventually got divorced, must have been a mentally torturous time.

I would call him a very knowledgeable psychologist at the most. He understood how to keep people in a mystery by saying he has nothing to teach, and at the same time, ever ready to answer any questions, and answer them from a different perspective than the person is actually asking from. For example saying that “you cannot ask a question unless you don’t already have the answer, and all you are trying to do is looking for confirmation to that answer”, since the society has already provided you with a doubt. Which actually creates a mystical environment, whereas he actually claims that there is no such thing as mysticism, thereby further creating a mysterious situation for the person asking questions. He knows perfectly well how to mystify an ordinary mind by answering a question form a very different point of view. And further more, loosely pointing towards a supposed biological transformation, not generally discussing it him self, for he knows that it will dilute the power of its mystery, and use that doubt of “enlightenment” in others mind to strengthen what he says, without claiming ‘enlightenment’ as such.

Generally, the people who do believe him to be “enlightened”, and would really want to understand him, wouldn’t do either if the stories of his strange biological transformation were not around. His words wouldn’t have the effect they have if he did not claim that he has literally gone through a proper clinical death, (pointing towards the strange biological transformation, or literal death of his knowledge, which he calims is the only real death) and at the same time saying that it is impossible for any one to actually experience “death”, or even “life” as such, which is actually true if you see if from the point of view of what he calls a ‘natural state’, which he means is that of an animal, devoid of any human knowledge, logic, reasoning, and all such things related to the “mind”. But I would have liked to ask him just one question, is a human state an unnatural one? To which I presume his answer would be that I already have the answer, so never mind…

In my opinion, he is not actually out to con, but convey his knowledge to the deluded masses, by understanding the weakness of a human mind, which tends to believe someone if there is a mysterious phenomenon attached to his knowledge. He is simply making good use of their weaknesses. He is perfectly aware about the nature of existence, just has a different style of conveying it, which he would absolutely care lees if somebody would disagree to his style. In any case, he need not be deified in any sense, which he himself has said plainly, but human weakness will still find glory in such words, calling it his humility, and he knows that too.

What a world…

This has gone a little off the subject, but I think it is relevant due to that “biological transformation” part. On the other hand, we already know that a mind can effect the body, and considering his life circumstances and the kind of an intense mind that he has, it is no wonder that he might have developed visible physical problems, but did not stop anyone from interpreting a swelling as a snake-hood-like under his chin, in other words, that he is a living embodiment of God Shiva. In fact I suspect that he might have even encouraged it, and found encouragement in it himself to create more such stories to help reach his ends, and that would be to give his own knowledge and understanding to the world in a more widely available and a thought provoking manner, since it is shocking or at least mind boggling for any religious person, or even for a person who seeks ‘enlightenment’ to hear that absolutely all of the prophets or the enlightened were not only conning others but actually conning themselves. Compelling one to at least ask, how?

I can’t say much on evolution itself, but this ‘biological transformation’ does not seem to be evolution triggered.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Post by DHodges »

Cory Patrick wrote: In the same way that you gave us an example of how giraffes emerged - - maybe you could give us an example of how 'eyes' come into being?

Kevin Soloway gave an example of how wings could come into being.....and I found it very unlikely.
If I remember correctly, wings and eyes are two specific examples Dennett addresses in Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Post by Sapius »

Dhodges wrote:
It's also important to note that the environment is not a stable, fixed element; it is constantly changing. Climates may change slowly, or suddenly. Predators may become more or less common, or may develop better eyesight, or background colors may change, favoring different camoflage. Food sources may change. Each generation is reacting to a different environment. These changes are more important to evolution than mutation.
Indeed, and I think the most important part in understanding evolution would be to actually realize the enormous time actually taken for these changes. From a layman’s perspective, I can say that an eye couldn’t have developed in ten, or hundred, or even a thousand years, it might have taken a million years for a proper light detecting organ to develop, which might have started out as light being detected by an outer membrane, and more and more cells starting to concentrate in a particular point to gather this “energy”.

One of the frequently asked question in this context is what came first, the chicken or the egg. I find no reason not no believe that neither came first. Nature finds survival in transmitting information to the next generation and gradually, I mean extremely gradually, changes forced by the need of better survival take effect, and some of the species were forced to harden the outer layer of a conceived fetus, which originally used to be a soft membrane, and can still be seen in use by many animals. In fact, the shell of an egg is actually a soft membrane that hardens before it’s laid. So it is actually illogical to ask what came first. I would say the blind urge to survive is the first and foremost.
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

Lamarck had the mechanism wrong. There is nothing an individual can do to change the genes he is carrying around. That is fixed at birth.

Thanks for your response. The only part I am not able to fully agree with is this sticking point. While I have no proof, I think individuals do in fact change the genes they carry around, as they react in repeated ways with the environment.

Now I am not saying the change is that significant, there would be few changes that one could call a mutation, but I am saying that as the food and climate change (bananas on an island get some disease for example) changes the chemical flows in the body, then go on to actually alter the DNA in some minor fashion. I do not believe that all the DNA in the bodies of complex animlas by the time they are mature is ALWAYS exactly the same throughout the body - just 99.999999999%. Providing there has been some significant environmental change from one generation to the next, then I think the DNA in sperm or eggs will perhaps be just slightly different from the DNA in one's backbone.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway »

Cory Patrick wrote:Kevin Soloway gave an example of how wings could come into being.....and I found it very unlikely. If a possum was to, by chance, be born with little 'stubs' on its back
The "wings" I spoke of were flaps of skin between the limbs, which exist today in the gliding possums. It is not a terribly uncommon thing for human beings to be born with webbed fingers. Having webbed limbs (ie "wings") is not altogether different to that.

As far as bird's wings are concerned, it is known that the wing bones of birds are identical to the structure of ordinary fore-leg or arm bones found in reptiles. So wings developed from fore-legs or arms. Since birds are evolved from reptillian ancestors (the scales on the legs of birds give a clue, with the egg-laying) it is thought that feathers are related to scales. Both feathers and scales may have evolved from a shared "pre-scale", or feathers may be a modified kind of scale.

Creatures probably begin by gliding, as in the case of the gliding possums, and later develop powered flight.

To me, both sides are wrong until they see that both sides need to be integrated into one.


Let's say, for argument's sake, that there is some kind of intelligence (or intelligences) behind evolution. Do you think those intelligences were in turn caused by yet another intelligence, or intelligences, and likewise for those, etc?
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Dhodges,

I'm familiar with Dennet. He expends a great deal of energy, time and space in the form of his books as a means to say hardly anything at all. If he says anything remotely truthful, it is not at all original. If there is anything original in what he says, it is a kernel that I suspect will soon be regarded as pathological and thus disregarded by healthy people.

Especially Dennett’s 'consciousness explained'. That book is a joke. (founded on a foundation of materialism that is rightly under intense scrutiny)

His writing, for the most part is sophistry. Turbid and absurdly convoluted.

John Searle, Julian Jayne’s, William Tiller, David Bohm, Gerald Edelman, Rupert Sheldrake. Those are the vital thinkers to absorb if one is to not be pathological about the subject of explaining how we have come into being. However, after considering those names I just dropped, you could accuse me of erratically switching the topic from evolutionary theory to a theory of consciousness, however, I really think its time we start dealing with these 2 issues (consciousness and evolution) as one whole.

To explain evolution and remain rational, one has to deal with the problem of explaining consciousness and the phenomenon of evolution simultaneously. (this rightly bring physics into the equation as well)

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

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.

--------------------------------

Sapius theorized on the origins of the eye:
light is detected by an outer membrane'


hold on now.............how did the cell come to be able to detect light? And are you sure it is the outer membrane that is detecting the light? Surely the outer membrane by itself is worthless. It is the relationship that the outer membrane has with other constituents (inner and outer)....that is the significant thing to mention/consider. What is important is to acknowledge the intelligent relationship the outer membrane has with everything else inside the cell and outside the cell. How did the cell come into being?

To make statements on evolution without addressing/questioning the fundamental issues is a sign of vanity more than anything.

[and after light is capable of being detected by the membrane] more and more cells start to concentrate in a particular point to gather this “energy”."


And by behaving in this way these light sensitive cells 'inadvertently' organize themselves in such a way that creates an eyeball.......however, one must realize, the eyeball is useless without the brain. So you have to have 2 colonies of cells (whose dynamics are about as easily to explain away as anything) - one comprising the brain, the other colony comprising the eyeball.......not to mention all the other organs (that if you were to omit from your explanation, the eyeball and the brain would be rendered meaningless to mention).......do you see the tremendous level of intelligence and cooperation that goes into making the smallest creature? Or better, do you see the indivisibility of one creature from the complexity of its outer environment as well as its inner environment? You have all these parts that are comprised of critters that are unconscious of what they are doing, and what they are doing, in the big picture, is composing the mselves in a way that creates larger organs and creatures. Somehow, all these organs (which are vast networks of cells) work together to create a whole creature (which in itself, unconsciously becomes a constituent towards a greater creature). To think seriously about how a creature comes to 'see' or do anything is very bizarre and logic defying. However, it is not at all bizarre if you employ logic so feebly as to create 'a box'. Inside the box is very pedantic dull explanations and outside the box are fundamental questions about physics and consciousness.

To say that "eyes begin as light detected by an outer membrane, and from there, more and more cells begin to concentrate in a particular point to gather this “energy” is very glib and silly. It is such an incomplete thing to say - -however, perhaps it is a useful thing to say if you are willing to consider the oneness, indivisibility and dependence that the outer membrane has with all the other constituents that you failed to mention. (or perhaps it is impossible to put into words)

If you consider everything as one whole - - that leaves us only with a baffling question - - -not a logical explanation. Logic and reason are limited. They are not instruments which in themselves can totally understand.

So if anyone wants to post any explanations, do so with a good question in mind. Otherwise you’re doing us all a disservice.

Sapius, perhaps you are aware of this and you are just making highly pedantic statements in order to test the intelligence of the rest of us.

If not, that's ok.

And hey, perhaps I’m an idiot. Please, Say what you will.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway »

Cory Patrick wrote:how did the cell come to be able to detect light?
It is likely that all epidermal cells, of all creatures, transmit some message to the brain about how much light they are receiving. So in a sense the entire epidermis, of all creatures, is a kind of "eye".

In the simplest case, take a single-celled organism that depends on light for its energy source. It absolutely needs to be a kind of "eye" just to survive.

Improvements on this eye mechanism are just a matter of degree.
kjones
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kjones »

If all eyes are made of cells, made of various kinds of electrical bodies interacting, then everything in a visual field is variations in energy. The same would go for everything that is conceived of being atomic.

This sounds as though energy is a thing that has the same form everywhere. Humans have called it ether, or matter, or vital spirit. But I think this is mistaken.

If the universe is divided up into the tiniest "indivisible" portion, and its interactive behaviours given the role of causing all change and "evolution", then evidently it interacts with what it is not. So no matter how small or large one goes, no fundamental thing can be used as the ultimate substance.

The fluctuation of things is obvious. The divisions between things cannot logically be caused by light, energy, or the electrons of atoms interacting to conserve each ion's energy levels. The ongoing fluctuation, that appears and is defined by any observer, has to be created by a "something" that cannot be divided, that is "external" to everything. It can't be beyond and separate to everything, because then it would be divisible, and incapable of causing all. It cannot be a homogenous stasis that forms any part of the world.

This means that the divisions must in themselves be this, since there is no other logical place for it to be. It can't exist within, or without the world. It has to be the world. Therefore, nothing can be evolving, and things cannot really be real. There is just this un=thing.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Post by Sapius »

Cory wrote:
So if anyone wants to post any explanations, do so with a good question in mind. Otherwise you’re doing us all a disservice.

Sapius, perhaps you are aware of this and you are just making highly pedantic statements in order to test the intelligence of the rest of us.
Hi! No, not at all. I may not be very well read, but that does not mean I have no information at all, or have not thought on such matters.
If not, that's ok.
Its definitely not. You shall see below.

S:light is detected by an outer membrane'

C: hold on now.............how did the cell come to be able to detect light? And are you sure it is the outer membrane that is detecting the light? Surely the outer membrane by itself is worthless. It is the relationship that the outer membrane has with other constituents (inner and outer)....that is the significant thing to mention/consider. What is important is to acknowledge the intelligent relationship the outer membrane has with everything else inside the cell and outside the cell. How did the cell come into being?
Let me clear your last question first. How did a cell come into being? About 18 or 20 years ago, there was an article in Time magazine pertaining to this http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/en/life-2.htm. Now please don’t go arguing that how could a blob of protein turn into a true cell. We are still in the kindergarten stage of understanding existence through science or physics, but all that we have already discovered gives us a pretty good idea, and that is all that we shall have empirically speaking.
To make statements on evolution without addressing/questioning the fundamental issues is a sign of vanity more than anything.
Well, if you think I haven’t, you have a right to your opinion.
And by behaving in this way these light sensitive cells 'inadvertently' organize themselves in such a way that creates an eyeball.......however, one must realize, the eyeball is useless without the brain.
Yes, I do realize that, but I did not say that the ‘eye’ developed as an independent organ on the bottom of a lake. Brain is nothing more than a centrally organized nervous system, which develops along with all other organs simultaneous. In fact, the more interaction with the forces of nature, and an instinct to survive, the more it helps create a complex nervous system, transformed from a single sensitive nerve, which is a “brain” to the most simple form of life.
So you have to have 2 colonies of cells (whose dynamics are about as easily to explain away as anything) - one comprising the brain, the other colony comprising the eyeball.......not to mention all the other organs (that if you were to omit from your explanation, the eyeball and the brain would be rendered meaningless to mention).......do you see the tremendous level of intelligence and cooperation that goes into making the smallest creature?
Yes I do see the tremendous level of intelligence, and I also see the tremendous amount of intelligence in our intelligence, which recognizes existence as intelligent, and our intelligence was created by the same intelligence you speak of, but it is not an independent intelligence influencing things, it is being simultaneously created through interactive means. Only that which ever exists prior to what ever is, is potentiality, not the thing itself, including intelligence.
Or better, do you see the indivisibility of one creature from the complexity of its outer environment as well as its inner environment?
Yes, the divisibility is an arbitrary one. In reality there is no division at all.
You have all these parts that are comprised of critters that are unconscious of what they are doing, and what they are doing, in the big picture, is composing the mselves in a way that creates larger organs and creatures. Somehow, all these organs (which are vast networks of cells) work together to create a whole creature (which in itself, unconsciously becomes a constituent towards a greater creature). To think seriously about how a creature comes to 'see' or do anything is very bizarre and logic defying.
I don’t find it bizarre at all, nor logic defying. It depends on how you apply your logic. You see, first you say that the critters are “unconscious” of what they are doing, right? So I would ask you what do you mean by consciousness? Is your type of consciousness the only consciousness around? Human consciousness involves the ability to think and reflect, which necessarily needs the power of sensual recognition. Non-human entities may not have the power to think or reflect, but they do have the power of sensual recognition, so they are definitely “conscious” of the environment and themselves, but it is only us who can see the “big picture” or define any such thing and infer or recognize intelligence, meaningfully.
However, it is not at all bizarre if you employ logic so feebly as to create 'a box'. Inside the box is very pedantic dull explanations and outside the box are fundamental questions about physics and consciousness.
I don’t know much about physics, but consciousness is one of the things that quite a few people here know about. Ask David and Kevin.
To say that "eyes begin as light detected by an outer membrane, and from there, more and more cells begin to concentrate in a particular point to gather this “energy” is very glib and silly. It is such an incomplete thing to say - -however, perhaps it is a useful thing to say if you are willing to consider the oneness, indivisibility and dependence that the outer membrane has with all the other constituents that you failed to mention. (or perhaps it is impossible to put into words)
Well, perhaps I am silly, on the other hand, you might have judged a little too early. Yes, I can see the “oneness” so to speak. Not only internally, but externally as well.
If you consider everything as one whole - - that leaves us only with a baffling question - - -not a logical explanation.
What is that question?
Logic and reason are limited. They are not instruments which in themselves can totally understand.
I don’t know how limited logic and reasoning is, but I do know that they do not and cannot exist without encompassing all that there is, the “oneness” so to speak. When you find a different faculty that helps understand existence any better, please let me know and I would be glad to use it.
And hey, perhaps I’m an idiot. Please, Say what you will.
Although I don’t think so, but at this point I would say that you are, since you judge before you know, and knowing does not come easy.
Locked