The Hundredth Monkey Effect (and/or Group Global Consciousness)

reply to post by Nevertheless


I take umbrage to the condescension in your replies. In fact I blame your closed mindedness and others like you in their pseudo-scientific faux authority on any subject, for the lack of any real great advancements in science over the past 50 years.

Now I'm not saying we haven't made great technological advances but everything we have done is building on great 'eureka' discoveries of yesteryear. Phones, telecommunications, genetics, have made great strides, but the same 'psuedo-intellectuals' who espouse today's science would be the same ones who would have scoffed at Edison or Tesla.

Could you imagine just a few hundred years ago telling the world's top scientists that there are 'frequencies' that would enable humans to speak with one another over oceans? To see pictures of people on other continents?

Or that frequencies that would enable detection of underground resources?

"How silly" would be the reply of the 1760 version of Nevertheless. His smirky and useless retort would be "where is the evidence? Not possible."

Well, our current society has to thank those noble men, who dare to think outside of paradigms entrenched by those who would be better off doing data processing rather than theory.

Originally posted by Goldcurrent
reply to post by Nevertheless

 

I take umbrage to the condescension in your replies.

I wish from the bottom of my heart that you'd focus whatever negative feelings you may have to give good answers to what I say is not accurate.

In fact I blame your closed mindedness and others like you in their pseudo-scientific faux authority on any subject, for the lack of any real great advancements in science over the past 50 years.

I'm not sure whether or not you are being serious, neither in blaming me for what is in your world lack of scientific advancements, nor that there wouldn't have been any really great advancements in science over the pasat 50 years, when in fact scientific advancement is accelerating in such pace that we have gone forward ridiculous amounts during the past 50 years compared to the whole advancement humanity has experienced until that point. Surely you must be aware of this, considering that you live in this day and age, and have the interest of discussing it?

Now I'm not saying we haven't made great technological advances but everything we have done is building on great 'eureka' discoveries of yesteryear.

Obviously, the whole point and beauty of science is to utilize what we already know in order to proceed forward. The human mind is too limited and the life-span of a human-being (or a team of such) is too short to "learn everything". If we tried, we wouldn't get anywhere.
Without science, we would have the pseudo-scientists uninterested in taking on the knowledge that already exists and taking time to understand it. Instead they choose to make random claims such as vibrating consciousnesses, not having the tools to form these thoughts in a way so that they can be verified, or even attempting to explain how it'd fit into what we already know - causing us to have as many random theories of how the world functions as there are people, with nothing to base them on, and plenty of years wasted by everyone reinventing a faulty wheel.

Phones, telecommunications, genetics, have made great strides, but the same 'psuedo-intellectuals' who espouse today's science would be the same ones who would have scoffed at Edison or Tesla.

There has happened a little bit more than product development the past 50 years.....
Also, who's scoffing at Edison or Tesla? They have made an imprint in science where deserved?

Could you imagine just a few hundred years ago telling the world's top scientists that there are 'frequencies' that would enable humans to speak with one another over oceans? To see pictures of people on other continents?

Well, since modern science is only about that old, that person would have had a lot to explain, parts that he/she probably could have not due to the lack of tools. Had there still been a proper model as to why things could be this way, it would have been valid science. However, had he/she merely claimed such things, then obviously it wouldn't have been science and it would have been uninteresting, regardless of him/her being right.

"How silly" would be the reply of the 1760 version of Nevertheless. His smirky and useless retort would be "where is the evidence? Not possible."

As I said, it fully depends on whether or not they were random claims or not.

Well, our current society has to thank those noble men, who dare to think outside of paradigms entrenched by those who would be better off doing data processing rather than theory.

edit on 18-5-2013 by Goldcurrent because: (no reason given)

No, we have science to thank, not nonsense?

reply to post by Goldcurrent


I agree, skeptics tend to be the anchor for the people with their heads in the clouds trying to figure out new means of experiencing the world around us.

As for the effect, I too believe in it because I'm fairly certain I've actually come across such an event, but it didn't feel like a global consciousness shift, more like an entire time/parallel universe shift.

It was the weirdest thing, after I was finished meditating, I felt extremely connected with everything. I started envisioning different paths that could occur from that single point in time going onward, my mind felt like it was going in a million places at once and I was starting to get kinda weirded out, so to take my mind off it I turned on the TV and watched what was on.

It was the strangest thing, the guy was LOOKING right at me. Like not as in taking a peek at the camera looking, he was looking directly at me. That million places thing at once kicked up after looking at him and I imagined a split reality where the man was handed something to read, that everyone in the room heard and moved us into the Hundredth Monkey Effect you mentioned or at least began/became a part of it. Except I didn't know that's what it was called until now, but it definitely felt like a surreal potential change in the wind that night.

Re; Nevertheless

Science has yet to give a satisfactory explanation for animal instincts. The fact you failed to copy and paste a useless reply to that notion speaks volumes. It is not a far fetched concept to theorize (yet) unidentified frequency to account for species communication via subconscious.

Biologists have noted similarities in the animal kingdom albeit different degrees. African Elephants can communicate over frequencies undetectable to the human ear, over many miles. When one elephant in a herd is in duress, other elephants can 'detect' a low frequency stress signal from miles away.

If you have something of value to add to this discussion, go for it. If you want to close your eyes & ears crying "nope, nope" take your copy and paste sideshow somewhere else.

Originally posted by Goldcurrent
Re; Nevertheless
Science has yet to give a satisfactory explanation for animal instincts.

What exactly are you referring to?

The fact you failed to copy and paste a useless reply to that notion speaks volumes.

I don't know what copy/pasting you are talking about, nor what notion you are referring to?

It is not a far fetched concept to theorize (yet) unidentified frequency to account for species communication via subconscious.

Yes it is, as that would suggest telepathy.

Biologists have noted similarities in the animal kingdom albeit different degrees. African Elephants can communicate over frequencies undetectable to the human ear, over many miles. When one elephant in a herd is in duress, other elephants can 'detect' a low frequency stress signal from miles away.

Are you aware that you are referring to the act of talking, not subconscious communication?
What your ears can or cannot hear is irrelevant.

If you have something of value to add to this discussion, go for it. If you want to close your eyes & ears crying "nope, nope" take your copy and paste sideshow somewhere else.

edit on 19-5-2013 by Goldcurrent because: (no reason given)

I'm not closing my eyes and ears, I'm telling what we know.
Again, what is this copy/pasting you are talking about?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

I think this is an interesting idea - but I don't think it has to be metaphysical to still be interesting

People are social creatures - and we pass information on to each other in so many different ways. Who knows that we aren't picking up cues we're not even aware of. Advertising is one of the first things that comes to mind - understanding how to lead people to an idea - and have them think it was theirs to begin with

If you consider the idea of a global consciousness (and/or an external creator/control), was that statement you made, really "your" idea to detail in the post?

Could it not be argued that you just read/interpreted the post you have replied to and then came to the conclusion about what you were going to write based on the experiences and knowledge you have been able to understand from your life time to date?

Could it be argued that you have just been used to "advertise" something from a higher/deeper/outer level ("a statement", rather than "your opinion") to those reading the reply this post is to?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

The early information on this alleged effect has been widely discredited.
Science doesn't seem to be able to prove it exists.
However, DOES IT?? (I don't know ... I'm asking .... )

Is there a 'global mind' that all of humanity is a part of, but that we are unaware of?


What do you think? Hundredth Monkey Effect ... yes or no??
Group Global Consciousness? Yes or no?
And I guess shared Karmic debt would enter into this as well.
Does it exist? What do you think and why?

I wish that there could be, but the thing that makes the Homo Sapiens hominid "human" is the same thing that makes this sort of phenomenon impossible. It would take me at least 40,000 words to fully explain the reason (including full overviews concerning internal and relative context, the mechanics of Isolation and Association as survival imperative expressions, and the nature of material and informational existence before even beginning to make my larger point) but it comes down to the fact that sapient beings do not share a "group think" survival memory cloud, as is the case with beings that are merely sentient.

The existence of extremely robust individual memory clouds (I'm using the term "cloud" in the same manner that IT companies are presently using that term to describe contextually isolated data sets that exist within a larger environment of vaulted data that is shared within a specific organization) that are in use by independent sapient mind-brain survival systems make those systems highly survivable, but the species that feature those systems are - as a result of the contextually isolated nature of such a robustly unique data set per isolated memory cloud - incapable of the distinct survival advantages inherent in species group think. It's a trade-off that seems to have been worth it, if you look at how well the Homo Sapiens species has done on this planet.

Monkeys are bright, and they can learn, but they're still capable of instinctively tapping into the more primitive group think species-specific memory cloud that all lesser sentient creatures have available to one extent or another. They can - after a significant number has been exposed to a behavioral modification that's become obviously successful - find that behavior shared instinctively across the entire species, or even just that species within a specific given environmental setting. We have intellectually advanced beyond that level of instinctual influence, for better or worse, I guess.

Originally posted by Goldcurrent
I fully believe that the 100th Monkey effect is a true phenomenon. Once a behavior becomes 'ingrained' into a species, this behavior becomes what we scientifically label as 'instinct'.

What does the scientific world have to say on species' instinctive responses?

What missing piece of the evolutionary theorem acts as a catalyst for species change?

I would say the 100th monkey effect and a collective subconscious is a very reasonable explanation for what we deem "instinct".

It takes a lot longer than one generation for any survival directive to become instinctive in human species. It takes 1,000s of years in the case of Homo Sapiens. So, even though the basis of your assertion is true, its application in this "100th Monkey Effect" isn't viable. That said, within certain large genetic lines, behavior influences have become instinctive since humanity emerged from prehistory, with Numerology being one pretty impressive example. Still, it involves intense cultural devotion over many generations for such encoding to occur. Residual DNA alterations don't just happen. They're based on an elimination protocol, and that takes time.

reply to post by WebOfWonder

I'm honored - that you chose to make your first and only post a reply to me...

Feels special :-)

If you consider the idea of a global consciousness (and/or an external creator/control), was that statement you made, really "your" idea to detail in the post?

How can anyone answer this question? Built into your question is an assumption neither you or I can prove or disprove. Not only that - it's an idea that alludes to something that would obviously overwrite anything I might think, feel or say - if it exists

So, the better question isn't how can I answer your question - but why should I bother? :-)

Anyhow - was it really 'your' idea to ask me this question? Is there a way we can know the answer - to these questions? Will we ever know the answers - to these questions?

Could it not be argued that you just read/interpreted the post you have replied to and then came to the conclusion about what you were going to write based on the experiences and knowledge you have been able to understand from your life time to date?

Well - of course. Isn't this pretty much what we all do - all the time?

Could it be argued that you have just been used to "advertise" something from a higher/deeper/outer level ("a statement", rather than "your opinion") to those reading the reply this post is to?

Are you saying I'm more or less a TV set?

It could be argued - like this, or many other ways. Doesn't make it so. But it is fun to argue

If you want to hypothetically suggest that my opinion is a message sent from on high - then the message coming down to us from on high - through me - is that this is all very interesting

Still doesn't have to be magic to be interesting

:-)

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


That is not "consciousness" you are describing. That is "knowledge". I think those are two different things.

I feel that Jung delving into these matters should certainly bring them up out of "giggle factor" territory. Sadly, it does not.

In any event, Consciousness is basically awareness, at least in the way it is meant here. The OP goes into it a little bit in asking of the basic human instinct can be considered a global consciousness. I am unsure that it could be, in the way it is meant by most using the term. However, your guy in the rainforest....he will exhibit quite a few of the behavioral traits of the everyday guy on Wall Street.

The key difference here is "civilization" Various civilizations have parsed themselves on which human/animal traits they will deny themselves, and which they will merely stifle. Sex is a major one, with various acts either prohibited or condoned depending on culture. But at the end...they all do it. Or they die out quickly. And likely are not very popular.

This basic human knowledge, the behaviors that come from things that humans know....what is that? Where does this original seed originate from? An earlier poster called it "the definition of intelligent beings" However, without more explanation/discussion, it just seems like a cop out.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Consider this:

As humans, we are wired a certain way. We are not typically given to have preprogrammed notions, as you can see all manner and variety of behaviors through our history. Some things like our desire to live have been known to short circuit, tragically. Very, very little is preprogrammed.

But I would argue that the one thing that is preprogrammed is the initial framework for how you will percieve the world. Is this due to your biology? Possibly....but it is still there. Thus, when your psychologist tells you that your ego is this or that, despite the fact that ego is an abstract construct, it is able to be identified and discussed because we all have it. It is part and parcel to how we approach the world.

Could this be part of that message from on high?

What about the concept of "soul" or "spirit"?

reply to post by NorEaster


I see where you're coming from with regard to Homo Sapiens 'not having' an immediately observable collective consciousness. Or rather 'if' there was one that influenced behavior, it would be prolonged over many generations, thus requiring imperceptible changes to our DNA.

Is that the gist of your thoughts?

If so, consider 'lesser' species such as ant colonies and bee-hives that seemingly live within this 'modus operandi'.

They scurry about, with behaviour that seemingly indicates a 'hive mind' without external communication, but rather a co-ordinated objective, ingrained. It's as if one ant can 'subconsciously' communicate directives to others at a relatively great distance.

This is also the same as bees, flocks of birds, buffalo herds, etc, etc.

It is only to the outside observer that this behavior is identified. Do you think that these animals are 'aware' that they are a part of this 'group mind', or do they simply execute this behavior?

What if, (now this is a large what if), we were to be observed as an ant colony to a larger observer? With generations of Homo Sapien Species being nothing more than fractions of a larger picture in time?

Could analogies not be made?

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by WebOfWonder

 

I'm honored - that you chose to make your first and only post a reply to me...

Feels special :-)

If you consider the idea of a global consciousness (and/or an external creator/control), was that statement you made, really "your" idea to detail in the post?

How can anyone answer this question? Built into your question is an assumption neither you or I can prove or disprove. Not only that - it's an idea that alludes to something that would obviously overwrite anything I might think, feel or say - if it exists

So, the better question isn't how can I answer your question - but why should I bother? :-)

Anyhow - was it really 'your' idea to ask me this question? Is there a way we can know the answer - to these questions? Will we ever know the answers - to these questions?

Could it not be argued that you just read/interpreted the post you have replied to and then came to the conclusion about what you were going to write based on the experiences and knowledge you have been able to understand from your life time to date?

Well - of course. Isn't this pretty much what we all do - all the time?

Could it be argued that you have just been used to "advertise" something from a higher/deeper/outer level ("a statement", rather than "your opinion") to those reading the reply this post is to?

Are you saying I'm more or less a TV set?

It could be argued - like this, or many other ways. Doesn't make it so. But it is fun to argue

If you want to hypothetically suggest that my opinion is a message sent from on high - then the message coming down to us from on high - through me - is that this is all very interesting

Still doesn't have to be magic to be interesting

:-)

As you state in your post, I've merely come to a conclusion to reply to your initial post (and to post this reply).

It could be argued that a lot of "ideas" come from seeing/experiencing/perceiving things within a life time. For example - Somebody walks by with a chocolate/candy bar, which you see, and come to the conclusion that you want (or don't want) a chocolate/candy bar.

Did "you" really come to that conclusion? Was it your idea/decision in the first place to consider the prospect of whether to have that chocolate/candy, or was your "decision" just an "effect" of the "cause" (the person walking by with the candy bar)?

Think back through your life and try and determine if any decision could have been made differently? - I'd suspect the answer is no. If you consider something such as the flip of a coin, the result is the result, and it couldn't have been the other way (only, perhaps in a theoretical, alternate universe where the "decisions"/"effects" that cannot be seen/understood in this universe).

Taking something even less "random" like a "decision" you make, for example, where to go on holiday. You might bring multiple aspects into "consideration" - Where you would like to go? What the cost/price of it is (can you afford it)? What are you looking for in the accommodation? And so on....

Once you've made your "decision", you could still be prevented from getting exactly what you want due to lack of availability.

In the last instance, you could argue that was out of your control, but it still led you to that result (point in your life).

However, you could also argue that the process of making the decisions on what to book was also out of your control:

You had the requirements set for the holiday:
- Some of these may have been determined by your interests/desires (where are these defined? are you in control of these?)
- These are only limited to your awareness (if you have never heard of "Tropical Island X", and have not come across this in your holiday research, you are not going to result in booking a holiday there.
- These are likely to be based on the experiences you have had in the past, or comments/opinions of others you have spoken to.

- Your holiday research was only done using the methods you have learned in your lifetime (for example, using an agent or a website) and using the techniques you are comfortable with (for example, by computer or face-to-face).

- Those techniques/experiences/conclusions have potentially been experienced and built up from day one of your life. You did not decide where and when you were conceived and, as a result born, and to whom, so how could you decide who your parents were and where you grew up? As a result, who could not decided who your friends/partners were, or were going to be, what your experiences would be etc.

- What were you taught? and how? what if the teachings were wrong?

- You could claim the same for every person, animal, anything that has happened since the creation/formation of the universe/dimension?

How much of your life have you actually controlled?

Originally posted by Goldcurrent
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I see where you're coming from with regard to Homo Sapiens 'not having' an immediately observable collective consciousness. Or rather 'if' there was one that influenced behavior, it would be prolonged over many generations, thus requiring imperceptible changes to our DNA.

Is that the gist of your thoughts?

Any changes to the Homo Sapiens DNA at a species level would require many thousands of years of constant and ongoing "breed" influence with all genetic lines under the same influence. Even today, after the emergence of 4 major evolutionary tracks established among the species i](indicated by the 4 major blood types - O, A, B, and A/B) they each remain, with the distinctions unaffected by the emergence of the other physiological types. There is a Dr. D'Adamo who's done a lot of research into the distinctions, and some of those distinctions are pretty profound between the 4 evolutionary versions of Homo Sapiens - the most obvious, of course, is the fact that mixing the blood between types can be fatal depending on the recipient.

If this is the case with genetic changes as subtle as "blood types" then it's instructive when considering something as impacting as a collective group think between Homo Sapiens as being possible to impose genetically or in any other manner. What a species does as instinctive behavior is rooted in raw species survival. That takes a heck of a long time, and significant environmental pressure (indicated by massive levels of die-off of those who don't make the adjustment). I don't think that the "100th Monkey Effect" could qualify.

If so, consider 'lesser' species such as ant colonies and bee-hives that seemingly live within this 'modus operandi'.

They scurry about, with behaviour that seemingly indicates a 'hive mind' without external communication, but rather a co-ordinated objective, ingrained. It's as if one ant can 'subconsciously' communicate directives to others at a relatively great distance.

This is also the same as bees, flocks of birds, buffalo herds, etc, etc.

It is only to the outside observer that this behavior is identified. Do you think that these animals are 'aware' that they are a part of this 'group mind', or do they simply execute this behavior?

The more primitive the species, the more it shares this "group think". It's also important to note that some species are inherently pack-oriented. Dogs are easier to train than cats because they are pack-oriented. Even though they are more intelligent, and less instinctive (cats are much easier to "house train" than dogs, due to a more robust "group think" predilection) their evolutionary survival strategy (pack hierarchy) makes them more vulnerable to manipulation by leadership efforts. It's pretty complicated when comparing species at the more apex levels.

Instinct is more instructive for primitive, less intelligent creatures. The less "mind" the more instinct.

What if, (now this is a large what if), we were to be observed as an ant colony to a larger observer? With generations of Homo Sapien Species being nothing more than fractions of a larger picture in time?

Could analogies not be made?

It could be assumed, but that would be the error of the observer if it was. The mind challenges instinct. The more mind, the less instinct. Instinct is what links brain-addled creatures to a group think survival strategy. It's imposed at a genetic level, so it is what links the behavior of each member of a specific species, in the same manner that heredity links all species members by way of similarities. That "junk DNA" that scientists dismiss isn't junk. It's the survival blueprint of the specific species, and it exists to give each member a basic behavior manual so that stuff like (in the case of Homo Sapiens) crying, smiling, cooing, suckling - basic survival instinctive behavior - will give the infant a shot at becoming a toddler. For each species, the basic kit is different, and some never progress beyond that basic kit. Group think is just one of those survival tools and if there's no "mind" that is developed to challenge that group think, then it remains instructive.

reply to post by NorEaster



In terms of "instinct" and "mind", it could still be argued that this was simply "a rash decision" and "good, reasoned decision", although I'd still be of the belief that you could improve your "instinct" by improving your "decision making ability" (or "technique") and "knowledge". For example, to a Formula 1 racing driver, the decisions they make may be classed as "instinct" to many because they are so quick (as they have to be as they are racing at high speeds). Put an untrained, non-practiced driver in the same situation, at the same speeds and I'd suggest that could be classed as reckless by the many (i.e. they wouldn't be driving from instinct).

I should state that my knowledge of ants/animals and their behaviors is limited, and I'm unsure where the "Instinct is what links brain-addled creatures to a group think survival strategy" claim comes from, but from my perspective, continuing with the ant comparison, it could be argued that the ants provide a better strategy for a safer, more stable environment to operate in. Could they not be very good at making quick, informed decisions to suit their requirements (food, survival of one and all) as they have practiced this over a longer period of time as a species and it is just the perception of those quoting the above having come to that (potentially incorrect) conclusion based on the limit of their knowledge?

Humans still have some basic requirements to survive individually (eat and drink) and as a species (reproduce) but not all seem to value the survival (and potentially the enjoyment) of the many over the values/requirements of the few (or the individual). Is the human behavior not similar to ants, just with different requirements?

For example, a human requirement maybe to get a job, or to go to the cinema/pictures. These are still determined by some other requirement, such as requirement for money or to have a good time, determined from some other cause circumstance/requirement (e.g. social trends, peer pressure, friends and family, previous enjoyment/experience etc.).

If you have an ant colony working from a collective understanding of what needs to be done and making good/light work of it, does it not also suggest they are a stronger species than humans because they are better at doing what they do for the benefit of others as a whole (i.e. more selfless and less selfish)?

The more that humans create/introduce into the world, the more variations of things there are to "require", and the processes/methods of meeting/achieving those requirements become rushed/sloppy/ill-informed. If humans took it upon themselves to improve their understanding/knowledge/education as a focus, I suspect there would be less individuals manipulated by others (intentional or unintentionally), to their own detriment (knowingly, or unknowingly), but to the strength of the greater collective human species and experience.

If individuals know what they are getting themselves into before they get into it (by doing their research and information gathering), they give themselves a better chance of avoiding cost to themselves by asking more informed questions of the provider, and being able to step back if the answers don't meet the requirements.

If somebody tells you that jumping off a cliff is good and you should do it, do you do it? - Usually not, because you have enough awareness of a cliff and it's dangers, and how others perceive a cliff and it's dangers to give you the reassurance that it's not something you should (and/or want to) do.

If somebody tells you to buy Product X, that's just been released, would you buy it? - In this case, I'd argue it's a little more unclear on the decision/conclusion you would come to. There is a smaller collective knowledge and experience of Product X, than a cliff, for example, therefore you perhaps stand a higher probability of gaining inaccurate information and reviews of said product, and buying a product poorer than described/sold/marketed.

If you take a step back from the flow/crowd/consensus/hype, wait a while for reviews and feedback to come in from sources using the product, you might possibly avoid a product you could do without (was their really a requirement for you from the outset?), a product you could do better than or a product you spend money on that doesn't meet your requirements (assuming you had some to begin with).

Marketing is a clever industry that can sell you the idea that you didn't think you had based on personal information about you, or based on social trends. If you are marketed/sold an idea, it's still worth the effort investigating it is suitable for you rather than accepting/assuming it's right for you.

By informing yourself, you force those trying to use/manipulate you work harder to do so. Would you rather be bullied or stand up to the bully?

Note: The bully could be anyone.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

You'll have to forgive me Tex - I wasn't prepared to bare my soul this morning :-) It's a little early for this sort of thing, and the truth is - in my head - my reply goes long. Very long.

But what the hey - here's the short version (yeah - this is the short version) :-) When people start talking about souls - it's difficult to have an opinion on something that comes down to personal worldviews - so, an explanation

But I would argue that the one thing that is preprogrammed is the initial framework for how you will percieve the world. Is this due to your biology? Possibly....but it is still there. Thus, when your psychologist tells you that your ego is this or that, despite the fact that ego is an abstract construct, it is able to be identified and discussed because we all have it. It is part and parcel to how we approach the world.

We humans and our words - it's fascinating - isn't it? Id, ego, soul, spirit... That we have words at all - and then words for ideas like these. We're amazing. Our fascination with our selves, where we came from - how are we - why are we - what are we - all of it...for me the most amazing part of our existence is that we are tied to understanding our existence

I wasn't raised on religion - my dad was an atheist - my mom was what I call a sentimentally religious agnostic. I didn't go through the whole process of doubting god or questioning his existence. I was also not told I couldn't believe in god - or that he didn't exist. The burden - if you want to call it that - of understanding my existence - was kinda all on me. More's the pity a lot of people might think - but - I was free. Grateful for that - I really am

I say I'm agnostic sometimes - sometimes atheist. It's hard to say which is more honest. Agnostic because I can't know. Atheist - because I'm comfortable with this specific idea I have about the universe

All this - just so I can say: I've thought about all of it - a lot. Still thinking. Pretty much like everyone, I suspect. Sometimes, while we're thinking - we arrive at a place in our thoughts we can't un-think. After that - it's up to the individual to decide how honest they want to be with themselves

Could this be part of that message from on high?

It gets back then to that framework - for how we perceive the world - doesn't it? Were we designed to perceive - or did we evolve to perceive?

The humans are weird - I say it over and over. We're natural creatures - that think about themselves a lot. We evolved I believe - into something fascinating. But we are natural. If there is a message somewhere in this universe - it wasn't sent - it just is. Just like us

The meaning of life is a real pickle. The monkeys didn't get off easy - that's for sure

So, back to the barrel of monkeys... This thread hasn't given us any real examples of 100 monkeys = magic. I wish it would

I wish it would :-) This is the thing about us - and I include myself in this. The mysteries of life are hard to ignore - harder to explain sometimes - and we adore them. We need them I think. I wish someone could explain that

What about the concept of "soul" or "spirit"?

The fact that we can even ask these questions - to me - proves how (nearly) miraculous all of this is. But - is it any less wonderful or marvelous without the magic?

That's my question for you Tex

:-)

edit to add, Tex - rereading your post. I think I may have to agree with you - if you're saying that the message is built in to us - and maybe message is the wrong word? Set me straight if I have you wrong :-)

reply to post by WebOfWonder


I read your post WebOfWonder - twice

You went to some trouble to lead me down a path - and I understand where you're going. But all I can really respond to is this:

How much of your life have you actually controlled?

If you're suggesting that none of it was up to me - first of all I have to say, you haven't proven anywhere in all your examples that my influence on my own life is - nil. Next, I'm gonna have to ask - who was it made all those choices for me then - if not me?

:-)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis



In essence, if there is a "question", then it certainly is built into us. In myriad ways.

The problem I have when considering this is that it becomes too easy to mistake what is cause and what is effect. Human consciousness....is it the cause of all these things? Or an effect of them?

reply to post by NorEaster


So you admit there is some level of instinctual 'group think' or collective subconscious in lesser advanced species? That by evolving to a higher level of intelligence that this 'instinct' gets taken over by the mind?

I don't disagree.

However, I would go further to state that remnants of a 'sub-conscious collective group think' is still in place yet with intelligence for self awareness for the more advanced species. I also firmly believe we aren't the only species with intelligent self awareness on this planet (take dolphins for example). However that is another thread.

I am glad you brought up interspecies incompatibility though (eg. Blood Types)


I would surmise that different species and even different 'colonies' of the same species would not share in THE same hypothetical collective subconscious.

I recently read of the Fire Ant Colonies of Southern Texas being driven out by a new species of "Crazy Ant" colonies. Now we know that ants have communication signals (be it chemical or otherwise) that enable this 'group think' for the betterment of the colony, but it is obviously not shared among other sub-species. Competition and territoriality subvert inter-species co-operation and harmony.

I could suggest (with fear of the PC crowd and new-agers) that humans (if a collective instinctual group thought exists) operate within the same parameters, yet with the 'ego' or intelligence masking the baser form.


It has only been a relatively short time since humanity has advanced past a tribal state. For generations certain blood types and were congregated in close proximity and co-dependant on survival in certain 'colonies or clans etc.

Now at the risk of coming off as a eugenicist and offending modern science, I could even suggest that humans are different sub-species, with many different collective sub-consciouses. Advancement in intelligence, technologies, travel, has led us to where we are now. Co-mingling of Homo Sapiens is at unprecedented levels, and of course a dis-connect from our base tribal instincts has resulted.

This isn't to say that there is not a remnant of particular tribal instincts among genetically similar groups.


This is all just my theory, but I think science has led us astray somewhat in classifying the human race as all one species. (RH negative blood types for example)

It is not wrong to think like this, if it can lead to a better awareness, and open some of this "junk DNA' to tap into further human development.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by WebOfWonder

 

I read your post WebOfWonder - twice

You went to some trouble to lead me down a path - and I understand where you're going. But all I can really respond to is this:

How much of your life have you actually controlled?

If you're suggesting that none of it was up to me - first of all I have to say, you haven't proven anywhere in all your examples that my influence on my own life is - nil. Next, I'm gonna have to ask - who was it made all those choices for me then - if not me?

:-)

Just to confirm, I didn't provide any proof of what I was stating (and apologies, it was a long post to read twice), but on the flip side of your statement, and this isn't intended to be offensive, have you any proof that your influence on your life is greater than nil?

If your view is restricted to one side of the argument, you neglect the other side. Logic has 2 values - Logic 0 and Logic 1 - every possibility in any circumstance, when considered at the right level should fall into one of these two categories. If it doesn't, it's not being considered at the right level/granularity, or the conclusion hasn't been made yet as there isn't enough understanding or information to make it.

Just because one side suits an ideal you or someone else has, or it makes your life easier, or is more comfortable to consider, doesn't mean it is the truth (and/or correct), even if it's the general consensus/belief.

To answer your final question, and this may sound a little godly, religious or science-fiction, but it could be argued your actions are controlled/given by god or the control matrix/dimension and you are merely a vessel to experience/perceive a physical universe/reality and/or to learn/understand/do etc.

Consider the arguments between the creationist version of the universe and the evolutionary theory of the universe. I don't believe that either have been proven or dis-proven, one way or the other. Why dismiss either theory as being wrong, or accept either as being right? - Which ever side you choose, you are wrong (because there is no right/logical answer at the level "you" need to make the "decision/conclusion" at.....yet).