The Evolution of Concept

I started with a deduction process of people's concepts of religion, politics, and all around general thought processes, and ended up with this new theory of concepts...

I'm dubbing it, “The Evolution of Concept”, so as to make it clear that energy is not evolving, it is merely energy's concepts that evolve.

I am going to skip most of the concepts I went through and start right in at energy, or rather, when energy gained its concept of concepts:

Since energy gained its concept of concepts, it has been evolving concepts, that appear to be driving towards producing a self replicating concept.

Whether you start at the bottom of our evolution and work your way up, or you start at the top and work your way down, you will see 3 reoccurring traits: New concepts, Communication, Production.


To help you visualize this theory, I have made the follow list for you:
keep in mind that evolution is progressive

1.Energy gained the concept of conception.
2.Energy gained the concept of motion.
3.Energy gained the concept of communication.
4.Energy gained the concept of production.
5.Energy gained the concept of producing particles and waves.
6.Energy gained the concept of producing materials.
7.Energy gained the concept of producing self replicating material.
8.Energy gained the concept of producing self replicating material with advanced abilities of communicating concepts.
9.Energy will eventually gain the concept of producing something that can communicate self replicating concepts into existence, as this appears to be the overall drive.


Readdressing steps for clarity:

Step 9 is needed to close the loop. It is nothing short of Goddom and the recreation of new energy. Step 9 not only assures the existence of a God, but it also explains why he would create us – energy evolves until it creates something that can communicate self replicating concepts into existence. That is my theory and what appears to be energy's drive.

Step 8 is energy reproducing energy that can communicate concepts. It is the form of energy we most occupy our minds with, and because of this, it is also the form we are most deluded by. Things like venus fly traps closing to snag a meal, what your thoughts are doing to your brain, and what your brain is doing to your body, are all examples of matter with the ability to communicate. It also explains why plants and animals have such a strong desire to reproduce and why animals desire to communicate concepts - we are trying to create/evolve into step 9.

Step 7, and all the earlier steps, are less evolved and not worthy of much detail, even if I could conceptualize it. In short, Step 7, I would consider to be dna and rna, with crystals at the top of the 7th evolutionary step. Step 6 for example, is just your basic energy forms such as quarks, atoms, elements of the periodic table, rocks, rain, etc. It is material that does not communicate concepts with advance motion.


Note that things, like the following, should be self evident within my theory:
-Motion of energy is its form of communication and production.
-Energy's forms can always be viewed in a lower form, and for this reason, I believe products of energy to be forms that energy can take on and not forms they are bound to. That is to say, energy is not one thing or the other, and should never be viewed to be a stagnant thing or material. e.g. Rocks become lava when they are communicated to by the motion of heat. They understand heat and know to transform.


In conclusion:
I believe a God must be the highest form of energy's evolution of concepts, and I think if a God does exist then he must have created us, because of energy's drive to produce self replication.

I think energy's forms are subject to change as their concepts change. Some would view this as overly complicated physics, but I view it a God changing concepts.

Furthermore, I believe God must exist outside of our realm as you cannot create energy inside of energy... This thought leads to my simulation theory that I will partially formulate and post later on.

And sorry about the ugly formating, and linear thinking...

Questions and concepts?

s+f

is it possible we exist in gods mind (the universe) her thought of us (the big bang)
suns going super nova (brain cell death) i just thought of this because
to me when you look at the brain in mri scan or cat scan its one or the other
it looks like the universe
and then you fractal it
we are all gods/universes

sounds daft now but a theory is just a theory after all

reply to post by maryhinge


Aren't you're mixing God's thoughts with God's physical anatomy? A super nova's energy does not get destroyed, only its form does. If we exist as just thought then God would need to hold the thoughts of all energy and their forms, because "energy isn't created or destroyed".

Also, as Step 9 allludes to, energy seems to want to create new energy, so I can't see us as existing as just a thought.

I have to seperate the thought from its creator.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Bloom's taxonomy may interest you greatly.

en.wikipedia.org...

It deals with how and why things are learned, how they build on one another, the processes that are gone through in "learning". Your theory has some close coorelations to it

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Fairly interesting, thanks. I think the wiki page must have made Bloom's Taxonomy lose partial meaning, though. You describe it as a beautiful and natural process that can transform to fit any learning objective, whereas wiki describes it as some heartless committee's best guess at making a learning model that will produce any factions goal of indoctrination.

Also, I see some huge changes I would make to their model. I think evaluate and analyze needs to be first, then understand, apply, and remember. When I was in school and a teacher would speak of something that I couldn't immediately understand, I would get lost in analysis, and would be unable to move on until I thoughtfully stopped the analyzing. Their model is probably the reason people do not remember most of what they have covered in school – because they are not thought to first evaluate, analyze, and understand.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

Fairly interesting, thanks. I think the wiki page must have made Bloom's Taxonomy lose partial meaning, though. You describe it as a beautiful and natural process that can transform to fit any learning objective, whereas wiki describes it as some heartless committee's best guess at making a learning model that will produce any factions goal of indoctrination.

Also, I see some huge changes I would make to their model. I think evaluate and analyze needs to be first, then understand, apply, and remember. When I was in school and a teacher would speak of something that I couldn't immediately understand, I would get lost in analysis, and would be unable to move on until I thoughtfully stopped the analyzing. Their model is probably the reason people do not remember most of what they have covered in school – because they are not thought to first evaluate, analyze, and understand.

Yeah, there's much more "hands on learning" these days with exploration taking place in the physical sense to enable the analyzing and understanding before the theoretical is looked at. It's one of the reasons parents get so frustrated with "homework". It's not done the way it used to be done and they remember the other method.
Although both methods work, it's hard for them to relate to the new method due to their foundation being created in the other method.

It's definitely a reason for a great deal of frustration in implementation and parental support, but it can be quite effective with the learners.

A lot of the homework these days concentrates on thought processes as opposed to "crank and grind" and it's a whole new world for the parents who want to help their children and aren't able to. I understand the frustration they sometimes show due to it.

...but, I'm getting off on a tangent...

This is an incredible concept man

reply to post by Sparta


Incredible? Is that a compliment or disbelief? I guess it should come with a warning...

WARNING
Under no circumstances should you allow my theory to take over your concepts of reality. You must share the delusions of the masses' in order to function properly in society.

Possible side effects of not sharing delusions are:
Conceit
Depression
Anger
Violence
Bad Breath

You have been warned.

An origional post by bleeeep:

9.Energy will eventually gain the concept of producing something that can communicate self replicating concepts into existence, as this appears to be the overall drive.

Step 9 is needed to close the loop. It is nothing short of Goddom and the recreation of new energy. Step 9 not only assures the existence of a God, but it also explains why he would create us – energy evolves until it creates something that can communicate self replicating concepts into existence. That is my theory and what appears to be energy's drive

You shouldn't look at something that god created to solidify gods existence. You have to examine gods tendencies and see if they are logical or illogical. This is the way of correct logic.

These solidifiers are often what existence is made up of. You cannot cross examine something that is apart of existence and say that it is the reason why god exists...

Now... what do you have to say?

Originally posted by maryhinge
s+f

is it possible we exist in gods mind (the universe) her thought of us (the big bang)
suns going super nova (brain cell death) i just thought of this because
to me when you look at the brain in mri scan or cat scan its one or the other
it looks like the universe
and then you fractal it
we are all gods/universes

sounds daft now but a theory is just a theory after all

edit on 1/12/2012 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)

I have had similar thought but think of big bang as the separation. God is for me just awareness/being. Some things are more aware and some or less aware. But I do think what people describe as god is the Oneness. From my point of view an awareness built up by a huge amount of small awarenesses that are connected to each other on different levels. Who (the aware part) is increasing in size most of the time if there is not time for a big disconnection for whatever reason .

reply to post by RevelationsDivad

Originally posted by RevelationsDivad
You shouldn't look at something that god created to solidify gods existence.

I was not seeking evidence of a God when I conceptualized my theory. Step 9 came about by pattern recognition and nothing more.

Originally posted by RevelationsDivad
You have to examine gods tendencies and see if they are logical or illogical. This is the way of correct logic.

I'm not exactly sure what your statement is addressing. Do you believe God is the energy referred to in my theory? Regardless of what your answer is, my theory never calls into question whether God is logical or illogical in his tendencies - I am not judging God's sanity here.

“Step 9 not only assures the existence of a God, but it also explains why he would create us”, only speculates on what step 9 is. The speculation is based upon the pattern recognized in the prior steps. If you do not recognize the pattern, then there is nothing to argue.

Originally posted by RevelationsDivad
These solidifiers are often what existence is made up of. You cannot cross examine something that is apart of existence and say that it is the reason why god exists...

And again, this theory was not contrived to show God's existence. I did not have God in mind until I recognized the pattern in steps 1-8. As stated in the opening sentence of the post, this theory started by breaking down concepts. I was trying to get to the root of concepts when I noticed that the mind must have a concept of the body. From there, everything flowed naturally all the way down to energy (the lowest form that I have a concept of). When reconstructing the concepts I noticed the pattern and formulated my theory.


If you have a better concept, on how to explain the pattern or close the loop of said pattern, then I would love to read it.

Origionally posted by bleeeep:

If you have a better concept, on how to explain the pattern or close the loop of said pattern, then I would love to read it

I don't study things in the area you are referring to unfortunately. And if I did try to explain those areas - I wouldn't post it on the internet because I'd probably get caught by the computer again for posting syek. Read syek like my name.

I understand your explaination after my efforts. I was merely giving you a statement about god and his existence but it seems you are thinking of other implications which is fine. I just thought I might add my input about one of the variables in your ideas.

Be careful when posting information like this - if it becomes too sophisticated so to say... you could be in trouble...

reply to post by Bleeeeep
I've come to this thread via your profile which I found in the "slave and slaver" thread when you made a quick little reply which piqued my mind. In a little later post in that thread you offer a little link which took me to something else which I could not associate with anything. Then I found this thread of yours.

I have not read it yet as I think I might need time to take it in, which I do not have at this moment. I am replying to you now to mark it in my own bank and very well may have forgotten it if I do not. Hope to be back to you soon.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


To appreciate the concept above you need a basic understanding of biology, ethology, psychology, physics, spirituality, parapsychology, and the supernatural; and you need to be conscious of the existence of things like placebo and mind over matter. That is to say, you should open your mind to all the things that you believe exist and try to see how they might fit into the above concept. Try to relate the misfit truths of our reality into each step. Most everything should fit, thus giving you an appreciation of the above concept.

The post that you said you could not associate with ties into the above with psychology, ethology, and biology and would fall into step 8 with plant and animal behavior.

Feel free to ask, expound, expand, or debunk. All ideas and questions are welcome.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
I think energy's forms are subject to change as their concepts change. Some would view this as overly complicated physics, but I view it a God changing concepts.

The above quoted from my opening post should read, "but I view it as God changing concepts".

This is what I mean by that:

Theoretical mathematics doesn't work because energy changes its concepts based on what we believe. I think even Einstein knew this but he continued on with his static mathematical equations. I think it is the very reason his theory of relativity does not work on a quantum scale and why quantum physics points to our involvement playing a part in the way energy behaves(see double slit experiment).

What I am saying is static ideas about energy cannot work because energy's concepts change, thereby changing what we perceive energy to be. Energy's concept must be fluid because it was designed to be malleable - so it can evolve to what God wants.

Will post more as I come to a better understanding of the theory. Yes the theory is a work in progress.