flamy Posted December 31, 2011 Author Posted December 31, 2011 ^ I'd expected the story to have Sufi roots and it does. Sufism in Islam, Gnosticism in Christianity, Haddism & Kabbala in Judaism, Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism, Zen and Dzogchen in Buddhism are all pointing back Home. Come you lost Atoms to your Centre draw, And be the Eternal Mirror that you saw: Rays that have wander'd into Darkness wide Return and back into your Sun subside Amazing!
Stuge Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 in terms of cricket :Lions at home and Donkey's abroad .you can see the change from one type to another .well thats evolution for you .
Sachin=GOD Posted December 31, 2011 Posted December 31, 2011 ^:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
Vijay.Sharma Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I don't understand how the mutations occur. :hmmmm2:Following is my understanding - Darwinian Evolution theorists believe that gene mutation is random and as a result of it the whole of life itself is a chance event - totally random. But Darwin himself said that his theory is okay for what is called micro evolution (a lizard developing a longer tongue, say, on a piece of land that became an island kinda habitat) but it needed lots of evidence to work for macro evolution (evolution between different "families" of species - say birds to mammals or reptiles to birds) With new evidences and new developments strict Darwinian evolution is kinda losing ground because it fails to explain two major things - a. Macro Evolution b. Ever new higher life forms after mass extinction events (we've had 5-6 of them on Earth) which brings into question the "chance" part of evolution. The Darwinists introduced a pseudo called Punctuated Equilibrium to explain this. PE is like "placebo" - stripped of its terminology it jut means "I don't know how that happened" IIRC the latest theory is the Epigenetics theory which says that mutation is not always random but rather driven by the environment...even more elementally driven by how the organism perceives its environment. I think I posted this video before about Epigenetics - hLZ7GqWpEqM
Vijay.Sharma Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 So - overall it is random' date=' [b']but we have reached a stage that significant part of evolution is getting tweaked via conscious beings... and some decisions of these conscious beings are collectively decided - read about 'world organism', there is not enough material yet on this, but once you see the analogy, you will like it......and this is what I would like to call 'primitive god' - where god = "collective consciousness"..read "The last Answer" by Isaac Asimov.I think it has always been directed through consciousness just that for our species type of consciousness we are beginning to realize that everything is not random or by chance but it is being driven thru collective consciousness and that we are an active part in driving our own evolution.
akshayxyz Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 ^ this concept of collective consciousness can be applied only to recent history (of universe, as observed by conscious beings from earth)...it will take monumental evidence to prove -"it has always been there to direct the evolution of universe as a whole".
Vijay.Sharma Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 ^ this concept of collective consciousness can be applied only to recent history (of universe, as observed by conscious beings from earth)...it will take monumental evidence to prove -"it has always been there to direct the evolution of universe as a whole".What I mean by that statement is the following - a. conscious evolution has always existed b. we as a species are aware of it only now because our consciousness has grown enough in its strength rather evolved enough to be able to start contemplating this c. there could be other beings that are more evolved than us who understand this a little better than us d. and there could be another specie that is even more evolved than the previous one and hence it is able to direct the larger evolution slightly more than the one before (which itself does it a little better than us...who ourselves do it a little better than say tigers) e. basically back to point 'a' consciousness has always existed and has self-directed itself The above is what I believe based on various things and not limited to Evolution as a subject. So far, as a scientific topic, we have theorized until Epigenetics...what we infer from it is each one's own call.
akshayxyz Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 What I mean by that statement is the following - a. conscious evolution has always existed either there is random evolution, or conscious design.. this "consciously designed/engineered" evolution is new tactic by creationists to lay claim at design in randomness!!! b. we as a species are aware of it only now because our consciousness has grown enough in its strength rather evolved enough to be able to start contemplating this. Collective consciousness of humans has reached a stage, where we are able to tweak stuff around. But that is no way an evidence - not yet - to that it has always been there, to the effect of driving/engineering the evolution from the very start. c. there could be other beings that are more evolved than us who understand this a little better than us d. and there could be another specie that is even more evolved than the previous one and hence it is able to direct the larger evolution slightly more than the one before (which itself does it a little better than us...who ourselves do it a little better than say tigers) no denying, but there is no evidence, not yet, that some such beings were able to effect evolution ( of knowledge, and/or life) observed on earth. and no evidence for the second part too. e. basically back to point 'a' consciousness has always existed and has self-directed itself The above is what I believe based on various things and not limited to Evolution as a subject. So far, as a scientific topic, we have theorized until Epigenetics...what we infer from it is each one's own call. nothing to say on this.
Vijay.Sharma Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 either there is random evolution' date=' or conscious design.. this "consciously designed/engineered" evolution is new tactic by creationists to lay claim at design in randomness!!![/quote']I don't agree with Creationists when they theorize that it is all Intelligent Design. Fundamentally my belief is way more different than a Creationist one which requires the existence of a god that is separate from us. I hope you are not clubbing that one thought which appears to resonate with a Creationist theory with my belief. I also want to focus on this particular axiom you are including - "either there is random evolution, or conscious design". Why must it be an either-or situation? Why can't it be an and-also situation? In essence, from some species perspective (say lesser intelligent species) evolution seems random but maybe from more higher intelligent species perspective evolution is happening by their own conscious direction.
akshayxyz Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I don't agree with Creationists when they theorize that it is all Intelligent Design. Fundamentally my belief is way more different than a Creationist one which requires the existence of a god that is separate from us. I hope you are not clubbing that one thought which appears to resonate with a Creationist theory with my belief. I knew you are not talking a typical creationist, but suggesting that evolution can be a conscious driven process is closer to creationism (even if by some slightly, but sufficiently conscious entity) than pure random evolution. I also want to focus on this particular axiom you are including - "either there is random evolution, or conscious design". Why must it be an either-or situation? Why can't it be an and-also situation? In essence, from some species perspective (say lesser intelligent species) evolution seems random but maybe from more higher intelligent species perspective evolution is happening by their own conscious direction. Yes, it is not evidence but it is an inference or conjecture. What I am inferring from the available evidence is that since humans have now reached a stage where they seem to be consciously directing their evolution, given the vastness of space, there are other species who are even more intelligent and evolved than us and do their evolution in an even more controlled fashion. The problem with - "one level above is directing the scene one level below" - is that there is no end to the # of levels above and # below... which is sort of fine hypothetically, but if there are disconnects (of conscious interactions) across the levels - then it is safe to assume that boundary conditions limited to observable/interact-able levels - until proven otherwise. e.g. I mentioned earlier - it is possible that even cells can be conscious at their level , by analogy..- but until and unless there is some interaction/evidence - it is safe to assume otherwise. I also understand that it is arrogant to believe that we are the only ones and we are the highest level of conscious/intelligent beings. But, going one level above also does not change anything. As for evidence / establishing contact with super-conscious, or proving its (non)existence - I would leave it upto the 'super' entity to prove its existence to us - if it feels so, and it should be capable of doing that.... applying an analogy, lets say cells are conscious, it is our responsibility to establish contact with cells / prove our existence, than wait for them.
flamy Posted January 2, 2012 Author Posted January 2, 2012 As for evidence / establishing contact with super-conscious, or proving its (non)existence - I would leave it upto the 'super' entity to prove its existence to us - if it feels so, and it should be capable of doing that.... applying an analogy, lets say cells are conscious, it is our responsibility to establish contact with cells / prove our existence, than wait for them. What do you think about Placebo Effect?
akshayxyz Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 ^ elaborate a bit - in the context you have highlighted?
Vijay.Sharma Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 As for evidence / establishing contact with super-conscious' date=' or proving its (non)existence - I would leave it upto the 'super' entity to prove its existence to us - if it feels so, and it should be capable of doing that.... applying an analogy, lets say cells are conscious, it is our responsibility to establish contact with cells / prove our existence, than wait for them.[/quote']I don't see that as a necessary item or a responsibility for the superior entity to perform. OK, I think it is also because of what I believe...I think what we mean by an individual entity itself is very subjective. When does a single cell in my body become a part of me and not a uni-cellular organism? Clearly that single cell, let's say a skin cell, takes birth and dies and does its "living" even as "I" am still growing. From the skin cell's perspective it is a life in itself with a limited consciousness (or at least appearing limited to us as a whole). The skin cell knows what it is otherwise it cannot do whatever it is that it has to do...so it obviously has some consciousness. Now, if I have to explain this to the skin cell - it's place in my body or even if I have to explain an amoeba what it is wrt me in the evolution ladder, how am I gonna be able to do it? Dunn the amoeba or the skin cell need to have the kind of consciousness that will allow it to contemplate, infer, and understand what I am trying to explain to it? So, it is possible that there are much more superior evolved organisms living along side us (or maybe we are a part of one of them like how a cell is a part of us?) in plain sight but we just can't see them or hear them or understand them. We can contemplate only as much as our consciousness is capable of. So, I believe that as individual entities we may have the capability of perceiving everything that exists in one shot (what I call nirvana) but we don't even know that we can do that? Maybe our ideas about our 'selves' needs redefinition in order to perceive/contemplate/know/interact with a being that is slightly more evolved than us?
Vijay.Sharma Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Also here's another thing I believe in that does not necessitate a particular group of entities (a specie) to evolve more than necessary but may be individual entities (particular individuals like say this man among the human species, that particular tiger in Bangalore zoo among the tiger species) may evolve beyond what it's physical body is capable of giving it experiences of. In other words, the next level of evolution for a collective is to evolve into a new specie...for us as a collective it would be a higher form of hominid maybe? However, since consciousness is not limited to body it is possible that individual humans may evolve to function as slightly higher living forms than homo sapiens.
Vijay.Sharma Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 A side-tracking thought regarding evolution. I don't know if you question this but I am very skeptical of the way the paleontologists describe dinosaurs in popular form - like Discovery Channel, Nat Geo, etc. OK, Dinosaurs are Reptilians right? But do you notice how they depict them as having characteristics of mammals in their shows? I am not sure if I am right on this but I think the main thing that differentiatesn the "Class" Mammalia from the Class Reptilia is that Mammals feed their own young, and have social order that reptiles don't. No reptile you see today has a social order...crocodiles do not live like families or hunt in packs like mammals - of course they collaborate sometimes just like how fish do when they see prey but they do not have a social structure. Snakes are individuals who meet other snakes only to mate else coudln't care lesser about other snakes. Similarly lizards. But you always see the Dinosaurs (I dunno the exact species names) shown to have social order like mammals. Some of those big fellas (long necks 25 feet giants- stegasaurus?) are depicted as being like how wilder beast, deer, buffalos in Africa exist - in herds with certain social order. Then they depict T-Rex families like Fox families or other mammalian predator families like cheetah or tiger. Interesting innit?
akshayxyz Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Also here's another thing I believe in that does not necessitate a particular group of entities (a specie) to evolve more than necessary but may be individual entities (particular individuals like say this man among the human species, that particular tiger in Bangalore zoo among the tiger species) may evolve beyond what it's physical body is capable of giving it experiences of. In other words, the next level of evolution for a collective is to evolve into a new specie...for us as a collective it would be a higher form of hominid maybe? However, since consciousness is not limited to body it is possible that individual humans may evolve to function as slightly higher living forms than homo sapiens. Few keywords you would want to read on this - world organism/Gaia, trans-humanism, technological singularity. A side-tracking thought regarding evolution. I don't know if you question this but I am very skeptical of the way the paleontologists describe dinosaurs in popular form - like Discovery Channel, Nat Geo, etc. OK, Dinosaurs are Reptilians right? But do you notice how they depict them as having characteristics of mammals in their shows? I am not sure if I am right on this but I think the main thing that differentiatesn the "Class" Mammalia from the Class Reptilia is that Mammals feed their own young, and have social order that reptiles don't. No reptile you see today has a social order...crocodiles do not live like families or hunt in packs like mammals - of course they collaborate sometimes just like how fish do when they see prey but they do not have a social structure. Snakes are individuals who meet other snakes only to mate else coudln't care lesser about other snakes. Similarly lizards. But you always see the Dinosaurs (I dunno the exact species names) shown to have social order like mammals. Some of those big fellas (long necks 25 feet giants- stegasaurus?) are depicted as being like how wilder beast, deer, buffalos in Africa exist - in herds with certain social order. Then they depict T-Rex families like Fox families or other mammalian predator families like cheetah or tiger. Interesting innit? What you seen in movies/pictures is still an artistic representation - so there are bound to be errors (deviations from actual thing that existed) . Wait for some time, and we will know better - I hope.
punjabi_khota Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 Obligatory :facepalm: for a thread soon to be destroyed by Nirvanam. "Given the vastness of space" I can use that line to justify any damn thing I fricking want. Given the vastness of space, I am betting on another ICF in another universe where a higher form of Nirvanam pwns threads with even more regularity.
akshayxyz Posted January 2, 2012 Posted January 2, 2012 I don't see that as a necessary item or a responsibility for the superior entity to perform. OK, I think it is also because of what I believe...I think what we mean by an individual entity itself is very subjective. When does a single cell in my body become a part of me and not a uni-cellular organism? Clearly that single cell, let's say a skin cell, takes birth and dies and does its "living" even as "I" am still growing. From the skin cell's perspective it is a life in itself with a limited consciousness (or at least appearing limited to us as a whole). The skin cell knows what it is otherwise it cannot do whatever it is that it has to do...so it obviously has some consciousness. Now, if I have to explain this to the skin cell - it's place in my body or even if I have to explain an amoeba what it is wrt me in the evolution ladder, how am I gonna be able to do it? Dunn the amoeba or the skin cell need to have the kind of consciousness that will allow it to contemplate, infer, and understand what I am trying to explain to it? So, it is possible that there are much more superior evolved organisms living along side us (or maybe we are a part of one of them like how a cell is a part of us?) in plain sight but we just can't see them or hear them or understand them. We can contemplate only as much as our consciousness is capable of. So, I believe that as individual entities we may have the capability of perceiving everything that exists in one shot (what I call nirvana) but we don't even know that we can do that? Maybe our ideas about our 'selves' needs redefinition in order to perceive/contemplate/know/interact with a being that is slightly more evolved than us? may be you misread me - I did not mean that the super-conciousness being must provide evidence of its existence. I meant, if it is possible then that super-conscious entity is in better position to initiate the communication. Unless, we consciously work towards developing a superconcious being (a sum total of all of us) - end ensure the communication channel/protocol stays - and this later kind of evolution / super-entity is what I am more inclined to believe can exist, in future... Theoretically it seems possible as there have been news for quite some time that we will be able to scan and store the brain map, and we are not very far off, we might as well see in our live times....and I trust this more than any other theory - since I believe at individual level - consciousness is purely function of physical brain - which keeps evolving as we interact with our environment.
Recommended Posts