A wonderful romp through competing metaphors of reality:
My personal favourite "duality" is "the process and the attractor." In this case the process is evolution (and neo-darwinianism is only part of this process) and the attractor is the pattern that the process occupies.
There are layers and layers of processes and patterns. Existence is populated by processes and the deepest patterns are wholeness and connectedness. All are part of connectedness, from the mind that conceives the ideal form to transient object of perception.
The reason why this debate is so important and relevant to this site is that the cognative processes of wholeness and connectedness are enmeshed in flesh.
Norbu
I have only had a chance to read it through once so far, so a quick humble response to honour your time in creating the post on my request:
It's fun to have the opportunity!
So when you have found the truth to life through your study, Norbu, be sure to drop me a PM with the answers! I can keep a secret.;):)
Mmm... I'm sure you'll find the message is already in your inbox if you look... I suspect you have already.
Norbu
Mmm... I'm sure you'll find the message is already in your inbox if you look... I suspect you have already.
Metaphors, metaphors! 😀
xXx
Funnily enough, IMHO many of the answers, or partial answers, have been there through sheer logic (yes, from a philosopher) since before science was anywhere near as advanced as it is now.
I just don't have time to summarise an entire book. It also won't be on sale today, but you could get it through the inter-library loan system. I mention it just on the off-chance that someone is truly interested and might give it a look and a read. I first came across a mention of this book in one of the semi-autobiographical novels of Henry Miller. But anyway, it's "Creative Evolution" by Henri Bergson or Bergsson, dated something like 1909 as I recall.
A very brief summary, then, is that by philosophical logic he demonstrates how every organ and every part of the human body exists in order for the brain and spinal nervous system to exist as a physical reality. In other words, heart, lungs, spleen, eating, drinking, digestive tract, the fact we are mobile, the fact we have senses ... all are in order to support the brain and nervous system. Which is another way of saying - that the whole point of the body is to provide a vehicle for consciousness to exist in the physical world. It's ages since I read the book, but I'm pretty sure he says and tries to prove that the brain too is just an instrument for the 'ghost in the machine'. So the whole physical body supports the brain, which is a method for para-physical consciousness to enter into the physical world of matter.
Here we have evolution along with reason and intent.
V
It's clear to me that there are plenty of good reason to question the belief that evolution is a blind process; that there is no purpose in the evolutionary processes that are merely mechanistic interactions of mindless particles of matter.
The search for the location of consciousness in the brain also fits into the belief that evolution is mechanistic mindless processes. It is becoming increasingly evident that consciousness doesn't have a specific location in the brain but that there are locations in the the brain that seem to have ranges of functions of consciousness.
While there is good evidence that a complex nervous system is a requirement for consciousness in an organism it is not so easy to say where consciousness resides in the body. The fact is that the nervous system extends nerves in an intricate network throughout the body and without the interactions of nerve endings with the tissues and cells all over the body, would be consciousness be present in the nerves? Unfortunately it is not really possible to test this but I think the hypothesis that consciousness rests in the nerves is at least open to a great deal question.
The amazing thing is that singles cells themselves are immensely complex and show many behaviours that are "intelligent." Communities of cells have evolved to create ever more complex organisms and organisms have co-evolved in ecosystems that make this planet a living planet. It's very hard to say where consciousness starts as well as where it ends.
Biological complexity, which has developed over evolutionary time seems to be associated with increasing development of complex behaviour, which in turn, seems to be correlated with the emergence of individualised "consciousness," which is associated with an organism. But where does this consciousness come from? Where does it rest? I don't think we can ever know "scientifically."
I don't think we will ever know because consciousness seems to be more about relationship of nominally existing objects (being nominal are only defined by consciousness) in immensely complex biological systems. If you look at these nominally existing object you will find they are made up of smaller objects or sub-units and the relationships between these parts. We can, it seems, never find the self existing substance out of which all is made. What are we left with?
We are left with the relationships between nominally existing objects which, when organised in complex biological systems, that evolve through the passage of time, seem to exhibit behaviour that we nominate "consciousness." And the only way we know this is through the capacity of language that we have developed with our capacity of consciousness.
I am tempted to believe that every position, whether it explains the purpose or mindless process of the origin of life or that everything arises from mind, is just a position that is a set of ideas and there is always a counter position to beliefs held. And in time there is a swing from one set of beliefs to another. But none of these sets of beliefs are ultimately true - no set of beliefs exists in a vacuum and the ideas that are negated by one set of assertions seem to bite back in time, as one paradigm [of memes] evolves into a new one.
I think then we are left in the position of having to investigate our own consciousness as a path to find a place of meaning rather than seek security in trying to find out how we evolved or what came first, mind or matter. Perhaps there are ultimately no answers to these questions but what I think I find is that these questions become less and less meaningful. And they only become questions because they are based on assumptions that become more groundless the more you examine them. Part of what I think one discovers is that the realities of experience becomes more dependent on integrity of intention than any "thing" at all.
Norbu
Funnily enough, IMHO many of the answers, or partial answers, have been there through sheer logic (yes, from a philosopher) since before science was anywhere near as advanced as it is now.
I just don't have time to summaries an entire book. It also won't be on sale today, but you could get it through the inter-library loan system. I mention it just on the off-chance that someone is truly interested and might give it a look and a read. I first came across a mention of this book in one of the semi-autobiographical novels of Henry Miller. But anyway, it's "Creative Evolution" by Henri Bergson or Bergson, dated something like 1909 as I recall.
A very brief summary, then, is that by philosophical logic he demonstrates how every organ and every part of the human body exists in order for the brain and spinal nervous system to exist as a physical reality. In other words, heart, lungs, spleen, eating, drinking, digestive tract, the fact we are mobile, the fact we have senses ... all are in order to support the brain and nervous system. Which is another way of saying - that the whole point of the body is to provide a vehicle for consciousness to exist in the physical world. It's ages since I read the book, but I'm pretty sure he says and tries to prove that the brain too is just an instrument for the 'ghost in the machine'. So the whole physical body supports the brain, which is a method for para-physical consciousness to enter into the physical world of matter.
Here we have evolution along with reason and intent.
V
I may have got this wrong but I regard the body as just a motor car, with the soul being the driver. If you're lucky you get a reliable vehicle, but if you don't look after it it will let you down. When it finally breaks down and is beyond repair the driver (soul) gets another one (re-incarnation). Spirit guides are similar to helpful passengers there to assist your journey.
Its a very simple analogy but it works for me.
regards
Competing theories of evolution
I may have got this wrong but I regard the body as just a motor car, with the soul being the driver. If you're lucky you get a reliable vehicle, but if you don't look after it it will let you down. When it finally breaks down and is beyond repair the driver (soul) gets another one (re-incarnation). Spirit guides are similar to helpful passengers there to assist your journey.
Its a very simple analogy but it works for me.regards
And it's an "analogy" that a lot of people find helpful but is it true? And what does it say about the evolution of life on Earth?
For the point, in this string is this; if we are to criticise the theory that all life evolves out of a mindless process of interacting material particles, we can look for logical and evidential inconsistencies in that theory. If we are very brave, we can present an alternative theory. If we present an alternative theory it must stand up better to close examination if we wish it should take the place of the existing one.
Norbu
And it's an "analogy" that a lot of people find helpful but is it true? And what does it say about the evolution of life on Earth?
If we are very brave, we can present an alternative theory. If we present an alternative theory it must stand up better to close examination if we wish it should take the place of the existing one.
Norbu
But what really is the existing one. ????
Darwin's examples are identifiable to cause and effect. The bird with the stronger beak for accessing the harder seeds will breed and the strain will eventually develop into the parrot.
Where are the cause and effects for any evolution in the human race.
There may be an argument for spiritual evolution, but again social behavior can undo any perceived advancement.
I personally have mixed opinions. On one hand I feel that logic and science must play a part, and on the other human evolution seems insignificant to be of consequence. Maybe I should wait for a few thousand/million years and look again.
Regards
But what really is the existing one. ????
It's called neo-darwinianism and it's based on the idea that characteristics are inherited via genes on DNA, that there is random mutation of genes and then selection across a population of a species so that the frequency of genes in that population changes as some individuals succeed in rearing more offspring than others. It's a "mindless" purposeless process based on material elements.
Where are the cause and effects for any evolution in the human race.
Just the same as they are for a woodlouse or a paramecium.
Norbu