The Primary Question

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


Interesting comments! Are you implying purposeful intervention in the evolutionary process on earth leading to modern man?

The accidental universe accidentally providing just perfect coincidences to accidentally create life on a multitude of planets in a multitude of galaxies made possible by the immense scale of time. It is a very hard theory for me to accept. It may be correct, but the theory of intelligent design is no less possible in my mind. But what intelligence lies behind the design? Who or what would intervene in our evolution and why? Or, is the universe an entity in itself?

I, too, have my own thoughts about possibilities for the beginning of life and the universe. But, as my OP indicates, I have questions.

Reading the opinions of others is personally helpful.

reply to post by Hopup Dave

Interesting comments! Are you implying purposeful intervention in the evolutionary process on earth leading to modern man?

I think the implications of the word intervention may be a bit confused. We all, everyone on this planet have limited intellectual abilities, by design. I myself am guilty of this, but, that shouldn't stop anyone from trying.

I, if anything would imply that man isn't the product of some hap hazard intervention, but the end product of a very long process. You cant truly appreciate anything until you have looked at it from the outside in, and inside out. These "Interventions" are more to do with human beings than with animals in general. Why? Do you see deer, or bears, or whales, or squirrels inheriting the earth? Are they at the top of the intellectual scale? No, it appears these interventions are directed at human beings for a reason.

The human spirit, is the purpose, it is what separates us from the lower animals. When I saw these orbs it was as if I was looking at old friends who touched me very deeply. I have since seen that they are not "Intervening" in as much effecting maintenance. And if they are performing maintenance then they must come from the origin.

I see this world as a bubble. Some of the more intellectual folks who strive to break through the bubble do so, so that they may see the secret of creation. But, this is not to be, at least not until we have defeated a certain force. It just will not happen that way. The ethereal or God, or the Divine, force or what ever you want to call it will not allow this. You may find all the secrets that are in the universe except for this one. To put it into other words, no mortal shall look into the face of God. I have my suspicions as to why it is this way, but again, this choice must always belong to the individual.

But what intelligence lies behind the design? Who or what would intervene in our evolution and why? Or, is the universe an entity in itself?

I see the universe as a canvas that has been used many times. some successful, some left to dissolve back into the vastness of space, some new artistic galaxy forming, and a old one fading away. Why does it have to be them intervening into our reality, when the opposite may be just as true? Maybe its them who are evolving into us, in the form of a spirit inhabiting a physical body?

I don't feel this universe is a "Living Entity", but I do feel the "Ethereal" is, and I believe the WLO (White Light Orbs) are more like "Portals" between the ethereal and material. Not really entities themselves but rather like when one pushes his finger into a balloon. From the inside you can see the effect, but not be able to touch it. Poor analogy but that is the closest I can get. I think the reason you cant touch or feel this is because it would void the reason we (The Spirited) are here, and the reason we will not be allowed to know the reason.

But in the end this is all hinged on whether you believe the "Spirit" to be real or not. So much effort has gone into discouraging knowledge or belief in this now a days as can be seen almost everywhere. The material world is pushed at us from every conceivable angle from movies, television, and even government. But I suspect some time in some lost era it may have been common knowledge about that little internal alien called a spirit, or soul, or human heart.

There would be no reason to have a universe, unless there were eyes to appreciate it, and a soul to care, in my humble opinion

A comment was made regarding Animals geting Intoxicated.

Intoxication is in fact very common in many species.

I remember watching a nature documentary some years ago about this, and it showed Elephants getting drunk on some fruit they ate. They ended up falling over each other and standing on their trunks and a huge commotion was being made.

At the end they fell asleep. Apparently these elephants looked for this particular fruit just to get Drunk on....

But questions I asked about the process involved in evolution to one who wrote to your thread is a genuine question that needs answering rather than hostility which achieves nothing at all.

Often people get very upset when those sticky questions are asked.

Perhaps it is because touch on a line of Truth whatever that Truth may be.

I am only another one looking for the truth, rather than climbing onto a fashion parade bandwagon in philosophy whether science or any other subject.

There are very important questions that need answering and I believe we can find these rather than pretending and sticking our heads in the sand hoping those questions will go away through pretence.

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


I have read your post with great interest. You make many points that are quite similar to my thoughts. I believe evolution is a true process, but what drives this process is not (I think) always a mindless mutation or adaptation to an environmental condition. I also find it very hard to believe that life arises as a purposeless accident anymore than I could believe that, given the immense amount of time since the earth cooled, a computer mother board could be created by chance. Life, I believe, is much more complicated in it's most simple form than even a computer. Still, not withstanding what I think, what I feel, what I believe, it IS possible that it was all an accident.

Philosophy and science are so divergent...at least in the West.
Eastern philosophy embraces both disciplines quite well.

With science dedicated to proving that everything is an accident, the two disciplines will never join in a grand theory of everything...in my opinion. I guess not all scientists draw such a fine and distinct line between science and philosophy but it seems to be prevalent.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


I remember that documentary. I believe it was the same one that showed bees getting high and the worker bees that had the "bouncer" job, not letting the intoxicated bees enter the hive.

Yes, your questions regarding the process are relevant. Does a process show "intention" to reach a particular outcome, or is it just the random accidental mixing of raw materials? So many questions and so little time left.

It just seems to me that the possibility that everything is an accident becomes so boring. No, purpose, no hope, just and endless chain of coincidences. A very monochromatic picture - no color whatsoever. Hopeless, especially since we (the human species) has no purpose without the color of intention. All we do is create gadgets, war and destruction. Without a higher purpose, we are, I'm afraid, useless to nature. I must believe that there is more to our life than that!

reply to post by Hopup Dave

This discussion appears to be taking the customary ATS direction and I am rapidly losing interest in it. However, I cannot let this pass:

With science dedicated to proving that everything is an accident...

Science is not dedicated to proving everything is an accident. Science is dedicated only to discovering what is real and true. At the end of all the philosophical and political hairsplitting, it is as simple as that. People who think that science is 'dedicated to proving' X or Y are usually people who don't like the truths that science reveals and are looking for excuses to reject these truths.

I had hoped for better from you, Hopup Dave. You seemed like an intelligent and openminded chap.

Anyway, science emphatically does not prove, or even suggest, that the origin and evolution of life were accidents. As I said in an earlier post, the way the universe is set up--that is to say, the laws of nature--are such that the emergence and development of life are all but inevitable.

The unnecessary hypothesis is a Creator, but that is another argument--one I believe you said you didn't want to get into.

reply to post by Hopup Dave


I believe You have aproached the question correctly so keep up the good work and not be discouraged.

A Star and Flag for you!

It is very refreshing to read your comments, and see that some are intelligent.
I have to agree with your comments.
Why is it that some human primates lust after that illusion, that they are in some way in control, only to find in the end they pass away.
I think I have just an enough intelligence, to realise that What engineered this experience obviously had a reason for Starting a Creation Program.
I also am convinced that Life, that is "Awareness" produced All for its own good pleasure, and has its reasons which some are unable to accept or understand.
However our Conscious entity is a component of the All that has produce this little universe.
If some are unable to accept or know their own entity, including where they have Come from, to experience this Little Universe, I feel very sorry for them, as they have cut them selves Off from Life.
I am grateful in at least knowing, where my Conscious entity has come from and where it exists. (Not inside this Little Universe)
The greatest poverty a person can acquire, is the lack of knowledge of their Conscious entity, not knowing what they are or were they are from.
The world is full of wandering "human primates" that will finish their experience not knowing what they really are.
As for Science most people conveniently forget a law that was introduced when the first Automobiles were in existence. A man had to walk in front of such a horseless carriage waving a red flag and so called science had a speed restriction on this transport, believing that if we exceeded a given speed (if I remember it was 30 mph but I may be wrong as it could have been less) that one would not be able to breath and be rendered unconcsious.
I also remember Science once believed in bleeding a patient to cure diseases.
Another example I remember when Science said that the jet boat propulsion system could not pick up water from a river by the design that Mr. Hamilton developed, but today these propulsion systems are used all over the world on many rivers. Scientests at the time made the claim that it would Not work and defied the laws of physics... LOL I gues they were wrong.
Science is NOT always correct and it is plain stupid to believe in so called science as though it is "perfect" or like some religion providing all the answers.
The truth of the matter is, that Science is always revising and modifying theories as history passes.
Our beliefs regarding the Universe are quite different than 2,000 years ago.
Science is like an explorer that is always learning and allowing new discoveries to change and mould what was one believed to be, thank goodness.
Nothing at all is set in Concrete as to say.
We should NOT view Science as the ANSWER to everything, but rather to provide some understanding to those who seek this type of explanation, that is always based on "some knowledge" but Not "all knowledge". So true understanding can NOT be found by Science alone.
In a thousand years from now, people will laugh about our understanding we think we have today, but this is perfectly normal.
But some people can't accept this truth.

Anyway I support You in your quest for Answers and hope you will be successful in finding some answers.

reply to post by Astyanax


You said: "Science is not dedicated to proving everything is an accident. Science is dedicated only to discovering what is real and true. At the end of all the philosophical and political hairsplitting, it is as simple as that. People who think that science is 'dedicated to proving' X or Y are usually people who don't like the truths that science reveals and are looking for excuses to reject these truths.

I had hoped for better from you, Hopup Dave. You seemed like an intelligent and openminded chap."

What you say is true, I should have prefaced my comment by "it seems as though, to me". I can usually only post rather late and find my fingers have a tendency to lag behind my brain. I understand the scientific method, etc. but I find that there is no serious consideration in the scientific approach to include these possibilities. In fact, I have had my questions regarding this to be met with raised eyebrows and a snicker from a couple of my friends ( one a physicist, and another a surgeon). I have, however, read a few comments from scientists that science can only go so far and then it is left to the philosophers, so my comment was not written in spirit it was thought.

As I said in another post, I find it possible that the universe and life are accidents. It just doesn't "feel right" to me.

I am open minded, or at least, trying to be. I was raised Catholic but found my mind too inquisitive for that. The more I read the more questions I had and the answer I was getting was something to effect that I shouldn't question the mind of God...and other similar responses. Science offered a more believable and concise source for answers and I have been an agnostic now for many years. But, as you pointed out, the accepted hypothesis is the one you linked to, and that does not leave much room for anything but "accidents".

I am leaning quite heavily toward Eastern Philosophy because science and the scientific method fit well and feels "better" at this point. But, I find that, too, contains a lot that doesn't feel right.

Do you have personal belief or inclination that may be helpful to me? Do you subscribe to the "Replicator" hypothesis?

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


You speak of a "Conscious entity" you believe in. Is this entity within the living or from without and acting as a director? I believe you touched on this but I was not clear on your meaning.

Yes, I agree that science is malleable in the long run.

Well, it's 4 am here and I'm seeing double, so I will check this thread again tomorrow evening, if not sooner.

I am glad you mentioned survival.

I believe this alone can negate evolution as creation.

We know animals adapt to their environment, that is evolution, but to try and apply this to creation is a mistake.

I believe male and female negate evolution as a creation theory.

Something created us or there would be more a-sexual creatures on this planet that do not need a mate to reproduce.

If an organism needs to survive they don't split into a male and a female version that need each other to procreate.

How can any intelligent scientist believe that we evolved from this primordial soup and spilt into a male and female version? Almost every animal on this planet needs a mate to reproduce. That happened as a natural evolutionary step?

Every animal that supposedly mutated into another also evolved into separate male and female versions? Not even plausible in my onion.

Also why isn't it still happening? They explain away the single cell start by creating this theory of a perfect primordial soup to answer why it is not still occurring. But Animals would still be evolving into the next evolutionary step. Why are there a million missing links between these steps that no fossil records have been found for?

In addition it appears that life was imbedded into this planet at the molecular level. No matter how deep we drill we find microscopic bacteria under extreme pressures and heat.

All that exists are atoms, so we are to believe that these atoms formed into life on their own. Ya right!

They wonder why we don't believe the scientists about global warming?

When scientists devote their whole life to something that seems impossible and more far fetched than aliens putting us here, it discredits the scientific community.

Before you attack the global warming reference it was just an example of mistrust. Besides how did the ice age melt 20,000 years ago if we were not here to warm up the planet with our SUVs. You see they dedicate their lives to this stuff whether it makes sense or not.

You do not have to believe in God to see that evolution is more far fetched than intelligent design.

Something created us. I sure wish they would come back and get me off this rock. We have a retardation infestation on this planet.

...As I said in an earlier post, the way the universe is set up--that is to say, the laws of nature--are such that the emergence and development of life are all but inevitable.

The unnecessary hypothesis is a Creator, but that is another argument--one I believe you said you didn't want to get into.

reply to post by Astyanax




for sure on both counts

consider that one law of nature is that everything in this material universe
must either deteoriate, change, die & be reborn..

Elements, such as rocks, dirt, water-ice, ammonia-ice..all these components are able to contribute to their own demise / reconfiguration,
in that they create their own eventual transformations by bringing about
'Lifeforms' -> planktons< plants< pests< persons< phantom beings(spirits)

If you think about it, the aim of All matter is 'transform itself'...
One-Half of all matter is in a continual process toward animation/movement...in the creation of mobile life forms from minerals, rocks, dirt, water-ice, etc.

The other Half of All matter is in the process of evolving into heavier and more complex elements, from Interstellar Clouds of Gas evolving into Stars burning Hydrogen -> and progressively creating heavier Stars producing even heavier elements in the crucible of heat/pressure of 4th generation Super-Novae

The Bundle we compartmentalize as: evolution, life-death cycle, transformation, ascendancy, consciousness...this bundle is the prime directive

reply to post by Hopup Dave

Do you have personal belief or inclination that may be helpful to me?

I am a scientific materialist, an empiricist--I take the world as I find it. And I find it--with all its failings and its undeniable horrors, the worst of which is that we know we must die--a wonderful place. This feeling has never deserted me, even at the worst times of my life. It is, I think, a matter of wiring, and I can only feel sorry for the vast majority, who are wired otherwise. It is because of this 'wiring fault' that most men and women must lie to themselves all their lives; reality is more than they can bear.

If I have any religious inclination at all, you might call me a pantheist after the manner of Spinoza, which is--from the point of view of those who believe in personal deities and a transcendent reality behind the Veil of Maya--very much the same as being an atheist.

Back on topic, I think the idea of a willing creator being needed to get this incredibly complex show on the road is a bit silly, because such a being could only be the outcome of processes even more complex, and that implies another, earlier universe, which implies yet another, and so on in infinite recursion--turtles all the way down, as the old joke has it.

Edit to add: St Udio's post, which I have just starred, offers a mystical, indeed almost religious metaphor for the natural processes I am describing, without admitting the need for any 'higher' reality or transcendent being. In their spirit his or her words have much in common with the ideas of Spinoza, and point the way to a perspective that remains materialistic and empirical, yet emotionally satisfying and even, in its way, transcendent. His or her answer to your request is better than mine.

[edit on 7/12/09 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by whattheh
If an organism needs to survive they don't split into a male and a female version that need each other to procreate.

Good point. The evolution of sex is somewhat problematic. However, a degree of gene-shuffling helps eukaryotes stay one step ahead of prokaryotic parasites whose short generation-time enables them to evolve faster than purely parthenogenetic eukaryotes would be able to. It also helps overcome tendencies to wholesale genetic drift. For those interested, and willing to make a little effort, I suggest googling 'Muller's Ratchet.' Or read a book by Matt Ridley called The Red Queen.

Also why isn't it still happening? They explain away the single cell start by creating this theory of a perfect primordial soup to answer why it is not still occurring.

Because replicators are food. Before they evolve to the point of becoming cells, they get eaten. There are lots of highly-evolved, hungry mouths to feed on Planet Earth.

As for the rest of your questions, they are the usual rhetorical creationist boilerplate, amply answered on dozens of threads in this forum.

reply to post by St Udio


I found your post interesting, and, although not directed at me, I will think about it.
Thanks

reply to post by Astyanax


Thank you for sharing. Your views are important to me and I find them fascinating. I heartily agree with your comment regarding the need for "willing god". It is silly and then begs the question as to his/her origin. Like transpermia...interesting but still does not answer the question of how it all started, it just defers to another rung in the ladder.

After going at this for many years in my own mind, I am at the point where I am convinced that there is purpose to all this and the answer to my question in the OP is key.

For what it is worth, this is what I see:

The universe is a vast field of opportunities for life to begin. That Life, once started, has, as its purpose, evolution. Life must try in a multitude of ways to reach higher levels of complexity and intelligence. That there is a purpose in this struggle to achieve something that is, I think, far beyond where it is today. It appears to me, that the universe supports this effort.

I do not believe that we humans are the "end all" of evolution. In fact, I believe that we are evolving now. We certainly are in a technological way and that has brought a new dimension to evolution. This is why I find my question regarding the first and basic Prime Directive to be important in my quest.

If all is by accident and coincidence there would be one meaning, if by design the meaning is quite different. Is it just the inherent characteristic of the universe that gives rise to life, or is the universe a form of intelligence using life/evolution/us to discover itself? I cannot pick one over the other based on what I have learned to this point. Right or wrong doesn't matter in the long run, it will be what "feels right" to me as I doubt there will be an "answer" in my time.

We are talking about a cell right? Cells take dookies, communicate, react, etc etc. They also adabt to their enviroment. Adapting over time = .........Neander-mofos. After giving up the booty to the aliens, you get the homo-mofos. Nuff said.

reply to post by Hopup Dave

I agree with nearly all of what you say in this post, differing only in that I don't believe the universe or life have teleological characteristics.

Life, once started, has, as its purpose, evolution.

I would say merely that life, once begun, will evolve or else become extinct. This is because environmental conditions change, and life must either change to adapt to them or it will perish. Natural selection is the instrument of this evolution. Thus the rules of the game: the universe is so constructed as to bring forth life and cause it to evolve.

Life must try in a multitude of ways to reach higher levels of complexity and intelligence.

The way I see it is that greater complexity allows for emergent properties in a system, so making available to the system a wider menu of adaptive options. Natural selection will then tend to favour complexity. But--to be honest--I find the evolution of complexity somewhat more problematic than the concept of inevitable abiogenesis.

As for intelligence, I think it is a manifestation of complexity, for it is merely the incrementally finer tuning of systemic responses to environmental stimuli. Thus 'intelligence' is something I will happily attribute to any sufficiently complex and adaptive system. You will appreciate that I have no belief in free will.

That there is a purpose in this struggle to achieve something that is, I think, far beyond where it is today. It appears to me, that the universe supports this effort.

I don't believe in the purpose, but it is certainly true that the universe has--to date at least--supported the emergence and evolution of both life and intelligence.

I do not believe that we humans are the "end all" of evolution. In fact, I believe that we are evolving now.

Of course we are evolving now. It is impossible not to--an organism in a changing environment must evolve or perish. And our environment continues to change--indeed, it does so with increasing rapidity. Natural selection continues to operate, too--vide the difference between infant mortality statistics in different populations, ie gene pools, around the world. Some genes are being selected for, others are being selected out.

Is it just the inherent characteristic of the universe that gives rise to life, or is the universe a form of intelligence using life/evolution/us to discover itself?

What is the difference? Is there one?

reply to post by Hopup Dave


To answer your questions regarding...

You speak of a "Conscious entity" you believe in. Is this entity within the living or from without and acting as a director? I believe you touched on this but I was not clear on your meaning.

Entity is probably not the best word for me to use, perhaps Component would have been a better choice.
As many may think I referred to a person/s which was Not my intsion.

So please change the term "entity" to "Component".

Here is a scientific discovery regarding one example of Consciousness.

This was brought to my attention by a person who answered on one of my threads.

I hope the writer does not mind me quoting this….

Light is aware. Here is a video to prove that light is aware. It changes properties based on the fact it is being observed so it is aware!

Wow eh? I know this vid is sort of childlike with cartoon but it gets the point across:

The ending is the best part

I think I have the link correct…

www.youtube.com...

"The infamous Double Stilt Experiment."

But watch & listen very carefully to the last ¼ of the movie.

I accept that Consciousness is Not of the flesh, as to say.

a. There isn't a single component of my flesh that is remotely aware of my "Conscious" presence.

b. Yet I am "Aware" of my flesh and environment.

"Consciousness" does NOT require anything material to exist, for example in what science has discovered, about LIGHT involving "The infamous Double Stilt Experiment."

I personally have come to the conclusion over the last 60 years that "Consciousness" would have to exist first, otherwise nothing at all would know of anything let alone what has evolved.

If there is such a thing as Evolution which I believe there is it is not so much the species that are in fact evolving, but rather Consciousness.

I think that it is Consciousness that is in fact the driving Mechanism behind All.

But is saying this I am NOT referring to "though" as thought is the result of decoading by the brain.

I am referring to that which "observes" and has a direct influence in things through the laws of physics and chemistry which have been manufactured by something.

There is something that causes all this (the Universe) to happen and it isn't material. Perhaps Time is an illusion as it is never tomorrow or yesterday but always now. It is the Now which appears to change and this gives the illusion of Time. But this is how it is meant to be I guess.

To understand the Existence correctly we need to find the beginning of the Book and see its first page, Not open the book at the last page and try to imagine the rest. But Science is trying to do this the best way it knows how.
What I am suggesting is that it is time to look outside the square, and try and approach the task in another way, one which has not been tried yet.

No…. I am NOT suggesting a human manufactured god either, to those that might jump to the wrong conclusions, about where I am coming from.

I think that observation is the only option available to us but there are many different ways to approach this left in the barrel.



[edit on 8-12-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Okay, now I get your meaning. Your post shows definite leanings toward Yogi Philosophy. the difference in western science and ancient yogi philosophy can be summed up as follows:

In the western scientific approach it is "Energy into matter into mind" and the Yogi approach is "Mind into energy into matter". After 60 odd years of wrestling with this, I have come to lean toward the Yogi approach.

Astyanax and I are in gross agreement and differ only in that I "lean" toward the Eastern philosophy. It appears that you, also, are of a similar mind.

reply to post by Astyanax


I said: "Is it just the inherent characteristic of the universe that gives rise to life, or is the universe a form of intelligence using life/evolution/us to discover itself?"

You replied: "What is the difference? Is there one?"

For me, the difference is great. It could determine the presence of purpose.

As I replied above to Matrix Traveller:

Is it Energy to Matter to Mind or Mind to Energy to Matter?

I believe it was you that said something about how we are "wired". That is the problem I have...I'm not so sure it is a matter of "wiring" as much as it is brainwashing at a very young and impressionable age. Of course, I do believe most people are just very happy to be told what to believe so they don't have to think about it (I know a few of these personally). And to think, when I was in my teens I considered going to seminary. Instead, I became one of those pesky "free thinkers" not well tolerated by organized religion.