Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I would think without a higher consciousness it would seem far more realistic if life exists to just achieve the level of excessive plant growth and dinosaur habitation and let it go at that.Without a higher consciousness there is no need to go further than existing , eating , sleeping and procreating to sustain life as an end in itself.

Bio diversity tends to produce at least some of each species who will survive a plague, a cold season, or a predator. Those who survive will pass on those traits. Certainly, critical thinking is something that would be favored as the idiots are weaned from the population. This is the simplest explanation and requires no divine hand for elucidation.

well the thing is we don't need to debate the existence of God or existence in and of itself to find food and shelter.

I don't know if this will help, but here's my understanding of the logic of evolutionary theory:

Evolution is not goal-oriented. Every species that existed prior to the arrival of humans came about by accident. Humans themselves came about by accident. I know it isn't a satisfactory answer to say that we just so happened to develop brains capable of processing complex social ideas, but that's really what happened. Around the time of the emergence of our species, a number of hominids existed that were capable of understanding social queues and each had their own primitive style of habitation that either led to their survival or their extinction. These species were more apt to survive if they could organize, form languages to communicate ideas, and construct ideas that aided their survival. Survival is competition: survival of the fittest. If you have a brain capable of helping you adapt to new situations through communication, you were more fit to survive... With this competition between large-brained hominids, those species that were most capable of controlling their capabilities as social actors were those that survived. In other words, the evolution that got us to this point was not goal-oriented, but our development reached a point where we were able to circumvent evolution and cooperate to achieve goal-oriented tasks. All social constructs like "god" or "politics" or even "gender" have all been created out of our need to organize based on ideas.

For example, a social construction of "farmer" as a category of humans makes it easier to recognize the farmer's purpose and intentions. Everyone knows that a farmer is someone who farms and that without farmers, we would all starve. This gives the idea of the farmer value to a society. Without this recognition of "farmer status," our species would never have been able to expand beyond hunters and gatherers. More importantly, recognizing that someone is not a farmer allows us to denote a separate status to them, maybe "philosopher" or "merchant." And perhaps most important is the fact that without developing a higher sense of self through the concept of status, we would be incapable of comprehending a "god." From here, we witness the end of natural evolution and the rise of social evolution. Societies united by a god or a pantheon of gods were more likely to be socially unified and, therefore, more organized. (And, as you might guess, more organized societies have more productive yields and are more capable of conquering or destroying less organized societies). Social evolution is a process that is ongoing; the current explanation for the collapse of the Soviet Union is the notion that in today's world, "Capitalist" societies are more survivable than "Communist" societies. The transition from Communism to Liberal Democracy represents modern social evolution towards more efficient, more adaptable forms of government. So at times, more theological societies have been more survivable than secular ones, but arguably today, societies with religious freedoms are more survivable.

The reason there are no 'intermediate' species between animals that operate on instinct and animals that operate consciously (as we do) is because we eradicated them all. A core functional component of evolutionary theory is the assumption that we, as social actors, would have recognized other intelligent species as threats to our survival (as nearly all species are in competition with us for survival). The first acts of humankind were to wipe out as many threats to our survival as possible. As humans spread across the globe, we caused the extinctions of millions of species all in an attempt  secure ourselves from threats to our survival.

Evolutionary theory is designed to explain the existence of intelligent species, but it offers no explanation of how life began. I would argue that the best place to argue for the existence of a higher consciousness is in life's beginning, not its advancement.

the thing is that consciousness went from the amoeba to Einstein. Why did this happen , why do we need that level of conscious thought, there is a definite progression from atoms bouncing around and in some sense being aware of where the electron is to an Einstein who's only purpose in a sense is to advance human knowledge towards greater consciousness , why , you can't put a plate of food on the table which was a creation of more advanced consciousness with the knowledge of the fundamental nature of the atom. Whats the point if it not to evolve and progress to towards an even greater consciousness which in turn the ultimate consciousness would be God.

To be blunt, WE developed this ability to think and to reason to kill our competitors. The ability to seek out those competitors and kill them gave us the edge. We are now finding ourselves in a predicament. We have learned to kill and learned to think better of it.

Read "On the Origin of Species."  That book explains it in detail.  The point is survival, nothing more and nothing less.


Sapere Aude

Evolution is not purposeful. If you try to analyze it in any sense of "X" happens so that "Y" can happen, you're going to have some incongruity with what actually exists in nature. Nothing happens on purpose; to assume that there is a lifeform with higher intelligence than us humans may be logical, but if there is no evidence of its existence, it does not exist. Hypothetically, any kind of life specialized for any purpose could exist under the right conditions. That doesn't necessarily mean that life does exist even if those conditions offer an abundance of opportunities. The evolution of intelligent life isn't some inevitability. It's merely a possible outcome among trillions of trillions of other outcomes.

There is no point to our existence except what points we make for ourselves. All values are socially constructed, not natural truths. If our purpose is to understand god or become godlike, that is a philosophical debate that runs contrary to the theory of evolution.

Imo, any 'purpose' that humankind has should be grounded in social cohesion and universal altruism. If that were to happen through some kind of deistic ascension, I'd be all for that...but I believe there are other ways.

Quote from: stephaniec on June 09, 2016, 05:24:59 PM
you can't put a plate of food on the table which was a creation of more advanced consciousness with the knowledge of the fundamental nature of the atom.

Take a good, hard look at the Bosch-Haber process.  It proves pretty conclusively that a single example of advanced consciousness at work for the nitrogenation of fertilizer is directly responsible for something like half the planet eating dinner each and every day purely because we understand the atom well enough to manipulate it through chemistry.  I'd suggest that's fairly necessary.  Then there's medicine as a field, which has been rather handy as well.  The soft, weak, naked, slow ape has leveraged his advantages of intelligence, opposable thumbs, and communication quite spectacularly.  Certainly better than whales leveraged extreme size or cheetahs leveraged speed.  But then, somebody has to be the best at anything, right?

And the later careers of Bosch and Haber also prove pretty conclusively they weren't here just to advance the human condition.  Their joint work is more necessary to human life than Einstein's entire body of work, yet one basically invented poison gas in WWI, and the other ran I. G. Farben in WWII.  This is not indicative of a particularly wise and kind grand plan. 

yes , but the life on the planet even with the misuse of knowledge advances which means from the beginning where only atoms existed the creation of consciousness that is ever probing and advancing towards the goal of understanding. It's evolving forward to achieve ultimate understanding . This consciousness was there at the beginning and is creating a bridge to fullfill total consciousness and understanding which would approach the ultimate consciousness of God. God is the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end. Consciousness builds what is needed to achieve ultimate understanding starting from atoms to the human mind and possibly beyond.

Consciousness builds toward dinner.  We're not big enough, fast enough, tough enough, or naturally armed enough to take any other approach.  Some early genius discovered how to tame fire, and that allowed us to extract nutrients from our food more efficiently.  Then some primitive genius invented the bow, and our food supply increased.  Then another genius discovered beer and agriculture was born.  And so forth.  Ultimately we're smarter than our food because it's all we have going for us. 

Admittedly, our understanding of the universe increasingly leads to the inescapable conclusion that divine intervention is at best unnecessary, and that realization has very positive implications on individual and state violence, but it's not inevitable or constant progress. 

The word you are seeking is gnosis.  That used to be a major religious movement from around 2000 years ago until is was virtually eradicated by the Church during the Albigensian Crusade in the early 13th century.  I still have some spiritual belief left that is highly gnostic in character.

If there is any truth to it then very few, the pneumatics, will reach enlightenment and union with God.  The rest either are bound to the material with no spiritual awareness or mistake their various religions for spiritual truth.


Sapere Aude

Quote from: Colleen M on June 09, 2016, 08:36:54 PM
Consciousness builds toward dinner.  We're not big enough, fast enough, tough enough, or naturally armed enough to take any other approach.  Some early genius discovered how to tame fire, and that allowed us to extract nutrients from our food more efficiently.  Then some primitive genius invented the bow, and our food supply increased.  Then another genius discovered beer and agriculture was born.  And so forth.  Ultimately we're smarter than our food because it's all we have going for us. 

Admittedly, our understanding of the universe increasingly leads to the inescapable conclusion that divine intervention is at best unnecessary, and that realization has very positive implications on individual and state violence, but it's not inevitable or constant progress.

Lets just say that consciousness is completing itself. The fundamental laws of nature were formed when the big bang cooled and condensed from the incredible hot plasma state created by the explosion. From the fundamental laws what we know to exist evolved into the universe we have now. The same with consciousness it was there in the very beginning . It's what gave the scaffolding for the universe to become and we are the design of consciousness to basically become itself.

Quote from: stephaniec on June 09, 2016, 09:05:09 PM
The same with consciousness it was there in the very beginning . It's what gave the scaffolding for the universe to become and we are the design of consciousness to basically become itself.

Ultimately, the only things we have suggesting a consciousness behind the universe are the stories a bunch of superstitious savages told themselves trying to understand where the sun went at night.  Some of them are great stories--Utnapishtim is so much better than the derivative you're familiar with it's not funny, with apologies to the original Ziusadra--but they're still man's first fumbling attempts to explain his world in terms he could grasp.  Our grasp is better now, and it's well past time to move on.  We know enough not to invent any more gods, and the ones we already created have been obsolete for generations. 

you can say the fundamentals laws of nature which everyone agrees exist are a form of consciousness if not consciousness itself.

Quote from: stephaniec on June 09, 2016, 09:05:09 PM
Lets just say that ...

As an engineer (some may say scientist), I learned long ago that the first effective step to a successful experiment (or to reason itself) is to make no assumptions at the outset. Every lab test in the world goes to exhaustive lengths to make sure that no assumptions are injected. This is part of the scientific method and how we produce theories (the things that most people call facts).

I get what you are trying to say though. It is hard for many to accept that entropy can create intelligence. It sounds counterintuitive. After all, how can rain drops create a lake? ;) Okay, that's a simplistic analogy but it is entropy at work to create a seemingly more cohesive object. So in that way, it works.

Right after the big bang, it is theorized that matter as we know it did not exist yet. There were no atoms. There were no protons, neutrons, or electrons. There was other stuff that had yet to create these things. Yet we can take this disorganized matter and describe with physics how entropy and natural forces actually worked in creating something more than what was.

I suppose you could say it, but why would you?  If you want to say it and it makes you feel better to say it, own that reason.  But what possible evidence is there for electromagnetism being any part of sentience?

Rain drops randomly falling from the sky forming puddles and producing perfect images of what of the orbital of the most basic atom hydrogen looks like. Nature as a form of consciousness speaking to us. It took science 4.5 billion years to the point it could take the actual picture of what a hydrogen atom looks like , but all it really took was to look out a window into the street when it's raining or to listen to the words of the Buddha who lived well before the modern science method to describe the most fundamental  nature of all atoms which are the building blocks for nature and therefore consciousness.

Quote from: Colleen M on June 09, 2016, 09:51:41 PM
I suppose you could say it, but why would you?  If you want to say it and it makes you feel better to say it, own that reason.  But what possible evidence is there for electromagnetism being any part of sentience?

what does a law do other than give knowing guidance

Yeah.  Not buying the puddle thing.  Sometimes a circle is just a circle.  Although Buddha did a heck of a job for a guy who believed in eight elements, but he did miss on size by quite a bit. 

Malum prohibitum would be a good place to start disproving that laws are "knowing" by virtue of being laws.  Natural laws don't even have that excuse. 

I forget what group did it , but they got a picture of a hydrogen atom and it sure looks the same as a rain drop in a puddle. I'd pull it up on my computer , but I thought buying a cheap computer was better to save money which it was but it's way too basic and doesn't allow me to upload photos.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901

There's no question that's a hydrogen atom.   Circles in a puddle are still circles in a puddle, though. 

nature whispering in your ear. Like the stars in the night sky just a little too much of a coincidence for me . All I can say my little grasshopper is that nature is speaking we must be still and listen.

We're in a galaxy full of stars.  How is it noteworthy that we can see some of them?  A few coincidences, most of them imagined, does not suggest the universe cares about some uppity apes with delusions of grandeur. 

What we must do is refuse to accept facile stories because they are comfortable.  Instead, we can't rest until we understand the mechanics of our universe.  We're fast approaching a singularity where our reach exceeds our grasp on many levels.  Bronze age myths don't offer anything but danger. 

To be specific on danger, as the mullahs move toward nuclear weaponry and the civilized world starts experimenting with AI, and worse, AI in the kill decision chain, these are the kind of existential threats where a false sense of security from the delusion that we're special and that we matter is likely to end life as we know it.  It really does not serve us well to lose sight of how fragile our mere existence is. 

billions upon billions (trillions)of stars that just happen to look like the nucleus of all atoms and shine the same way atoms do. The yin yang of the universe that Taoism and Zen spoke of long before scientific method. The duality of nature. Protons and electrons , the speed of light in contrast to the black void of space which is at infinite rest according to Newton and it's opposite light which is the fastest cowgirl around according to Einstein .Nature is alive and singing a beautiful song.We need to stop and listen.

Electrons dont have satellites or decaying orbits, neutrons and protons don't supernova or turn into quasars.  Etc.  Imagined coincidences don't make us special. 

Quote from: stephaniec on June 09, 2016, 11:30:05 PM
Nature is alive and singing a beautiful song.We need to stop and listen.

You are creating value based on observable similarities from the micro to the macro. The fact that we are a species that can do that is incredible, really. No other phenomenon like the human mind has ever been discovered to have such a peculiar ability for pattern recognition. And even though you are looking for patterns where none exist, you are holding steady such a belief as to defy logic. In my mind, that's what's beautiful here - the human mind is like a paradox, designed to seek meaning in our meaningless existence. But what you haven't pointed to as beautiful to you is different from literally every person's perspective. Even those who may share the same conceptual ideas as you come about it from different ways. We are all individuals making our own conscious actions. Nature is the same, it is individualistic and converges only by accident. Nature does not speak to us, we speak for it.

your right I believe the structure of the atom is beautiful as is empty space which by any logic is all there is beyond the bounds of any infinite universe which can be comprehended by the human mind.  Why wouldn't nature express itself in the most simplest of forms as the rain drop which is also the most important element to life or the basic structure of the universe which is the atom. Where do you think the ancients came up with the idea of the atom, the Greek's or some philosopher or scientist from ancient Mesopotamia . They got if from looking at nature. The beauty in the night sky in ancient Greece of the Milky Way is not only in my perception , but anyone from the most humble to the most royal can see natures beauty. Why not nature whispering to the most common among us it's beauty.The 5th dimension that mathematicians struggle to explain is so easily seen by the minds eye when just by contemplating what is beyond the infinite universe that void you perceive the unexplainable which is the other dimension. You can touch it with your mind , but you really can't see it. Nature is showing us the way to understand itself. I'm just saying listen to the whisper of nature, the infinite consciousness of the universe from whence we come forth and will return to. This is not my private beauty .This is for all to share. Why wouldn't nature allow itself to be shown in the most humble of ways for all to see whether through the Buddha or by the most common and important events of nature. The concept of the void beyond the Universe is easy to see in nature just by viewing the sun and the moon. why do you think all the planets  and the suns are round. They are formed in the absence of any force from one direction that would distort the spherical shape. The Void of Buddha is the force which is no force. I just say listen to nature because it's singing.

actually one of the most beautiful concepts in nature that is wide open to view or understand by anyone is the sphere that nature shows us of the formation of the suns and the planets.this to me is beautiful. The absolute Void which is nothing forces the spheres.

Would now be a good time to mention that the Earth is not a perfect sphere?

Steph,

I love the idea of listening to nature. I do it all the time where I live for I have no human activity nearby. There is a lot going on out there.

As for the simplicity of the atom compared to orbiting spheres being divine? It's just physics. You can simulate what happens every time you flush a toilet and see gravity in play. Of course the forces inside the atom are different but they too can be easily described with somewhat simplistic mathematics which we understand. We still don't understand everything at that level. There is loads to learn. But if we simply ascribed these things to the divine, our work would be done. We'd have no need to look further. This is a dangerous concept in scientific endeavor. That's what happened in the dark ages. As in all scientific pursuits, we need this curiosity. If we hadn't allowed unadulterated science to grow unfettered, we wouldn't have cell phones, computers, modern medicine, whatever. You are never more than a few inches from something designed by a godless atheist. ;)

Quote from: Colleen M on June 10, 2016, 10:37:29 AM
Would now be a good time to mention that the Earth is not a perfect sphere?

there are other forces at work that distort the sphere such as gravity of the sun and moonand orbiting planets when the sun and planets form they are spheres which is explained by the all encompising void of the infinite The sun is also affected by the push and pull of gravity , but that does not negate the fact that all suns are spheres

Quote from: Cindi Jones on June 10, 2016, 12:52:41 PM
Steph,

I love the idea of listening to nature. I do it all the time where I live for I have no human activity nearby. There is a lot going on out there.

As for the simplicity of the atom compared to orbiting spheres being divine? It's just physics. You can simulate what happens every time you flush a toilet and see gravity in play. Of course the forces inside the atom are different but they too can be easily described with somewhat simplistic mathematics which we understand. We still don't understand everything at that level. There is loads to learn. But if we simply ascribed these things to the divine, our work would be done. We'd have no need to look further. This is a dangerous concept in scientific endeavor. That's what happened in the dark ages. As in all scientific pursuits, we need this curiosity. If we hadn't allowed unadulterated science to grow unfettered, we wouldn't have cell phones, computers, modern medicine, whatever. You are never more than a few inches from something designed by a godless atheist. ;)

it's not a problem my faith is of the divine  and that of God. You have other beliefs which are just as valid as mine.

I guess I need to put up a disclaimer. These are my beliefs and everyone has their own beliefs which are as valid as anyone else's. I have like I have always said I have absolutely no intent to harm  , all I'm doing is searching for knowledge from all sources no more no less. If my views which are only my opinion, no more no less , offend anyone I'm sorry.

Quote from: stephaniec on June 10, 2016, 01:29:34 PM
it's not a problem my faith is of the divine  and that of God. You have other beliefs which are just as valid as mine.

Oh please don't mistake my comments as an attack on your faith. To me, your faith is inviolate. As for mine? I don't have any beliefs to describe our world. I'm curious. ;)

I hope you have not perceived my remarks as hostile. They are not intended to be so. I just enjoy a lively discussion. I haven't had so much fun here in a long time. It gets me thinking and reasoning and I love it. It is a wonderful departure from other topics we usually discuss.

So lets agree on the loveliness and wonder of nature. It is awe inspiring to each of us in different ways. Now let's get out and protect it!

Yes nature is too beautiful

Sometimes I see living animals and think there is no way there is not some kind of intelligent design involved, almost as if evolution itself is like some intelligence. Like it's a force that is propelling us somewhere..

Would love some insight on this,  I'm open minded.

Quote from: stephaniec on June 09, 2016, 05:24:59 PM
the thing is that consciousness went from the amoeba to Einstein. Why did this happen , why do we need that level of conscious thought, there is a definite progression from atoms bouncing around and in some sense being aware of where the electron is to an Einstein who's only purpose in a sense is to advance human knowledge towards greater consciousness , why , you can't put a plate of food on the table which was a creation of more advanced consciousness with the knowledge of the fundamental nature of the atom. Whats the point if it not to evolve and progress to towards an even greater consciousness which in turn the ultimate consciousness would be God.

You're asking why the world doesn't just contain the simplest possible forms of life, viruses, bacteria, mold etc.

Good question. But science can answer it.

Genes are the code required to create another organism. That code is merely chemical and change to that sequence of genes is entirely possible either through the sexual interaction of two simple organisms, random mutation/error during copying, or external natural influence such as radiation. The fact genes can experience mutation is not only what has given rise to the vast diversity of shapes and forms of life, but also the more mutation and shuffling of genes there is the better that life's chance of survival in a changeable environment. Complexity isn't just a phenomenon, it's a statistical inevitability when evolution and reproduction is the only means by which life manages to continue to cling to this pretty little space rock.

There's no purpose to complexity beyond the fact that it works currently in this environment, and anything that works is good from life's perspective, whether it is intelligent or whether it is mindless but prolific. If it didn't work, it would be dead, like the dinosaurs. If something happened tomorrow to change the climate such that it could no longer sustain complex organisms like us, life would once more reset to the lowest and most hardy form, like bacteria. We are not "safe" just because we are complex, and our genetic pattern is not assured of survival. But we have developed larger and larger brains over time because it benefited us in some way and helped us survive. Language for example, is something even many animals have - specific noises for specific meanings, warnings and ID calls. Language requires a certain sized brain to process. The more language benefits a species - and it does - the more the successful survivors use it, and those most successful are going to have been the ones with brains big enough to handle using it, and the more they are going to pass on the genes for larger and larger brain size over time, the more complex their language can become, the more knowledge they can accumulate and pass on with it and empower their species. In our case, we NEED our brains for survival - we've got to the stage where we aren't adaptable or fecund enough without the survival advantage it gives us. If we all reduced tomorrow to the mental capacity of bugs, our species wouldn't last a month because our genetic pattern long ago hedged all its bets on a big brain.

These concepts don't have to be at odds with the idea of god. For all I know god programmed the atomic numbers that enabled atoms, that enables molecules, that enabled proteins and DNA that enabled life to form itself out of the building blocks by slow, relentless selection. God apparently doesn't mind evolution because it's operating every moment of every day and observable in real time and human lifetime. But that also means - if god exists - that the lower and less intelligent forms of life are as essential and valuable as the likes of us, and also that god has watched whole human civilizations vanish from existence for want of a survival mechanism. If this is some selection process by which forms rise to intelligence to be closer to god, god certainly made sure that even the highest still depends absolutely upon the lowest, and that forms of life exist that do nothing but feed upon or parasitize others. If this is his method it is quite a random, painful and unforgiving one, isn't it.

For better or worse I understand population genetics and the mechanisms of speciation well enough to spot the logical fallacies that are inevitable when people try to extrapolate a superficial understanding of evolution to other fields. While I don't have deep understanding of physics, the physicists I know don't put anything credence to attempts to extrapolate from science to philosophy or theology.

That said, physicists were the first scientists to apply the mathematics of fractals to complex systems and physicists who decided to explore biology were responsible for a revolution in advancements that characterized the 50s-70s.

Like you Stephanie, I'm spiritual and I can certainly see room for something beyond science that still fits well in my technical understanding of nature. However I stopped trying to use that to prove the existence of god a long time ago. I don't think it's a fruitful inquiry.

Gregory Bateson put forward some excellent theories back in the '60s why evolution must look prescient. Of course this was long before the ideas of intelligent design. And if course I find it fallacious that people who need to deny the assembled knowledge of evolution choose to do so by proposing it must be by intelligence - a human concept that is provably created by evolution. That isn't a mystery, rather a tautology.

Einstein noted that the whole  problem of discovery is that the language for new constructs only exists after the discoveries happen. About the only thing i do believe at core is that reality is far more complex than we can imagine. Our understanding is forever improving and yet can never fully encompass reality itself. (And yes there are some proofs of this in the fields of mathematics and logic).

That for me is the mystery of life, we can only improve our imperfect understanding. I try not to draw a conclusion from this parallel but what I spend most of my time on is forever working to be better at the things I do. No matter what the field I've yet to find there isn't room to improve.

Evolution and Natural Selection in no way prove nor disprove a higher consciousness.    They only require some apparent randomness in the mixing of chromosomes and the occurrence of mutation; along with some selection pressure able to distinguish between more or less re productively successful combinations.     God could easily provide that apparent randomness, but we would never be able to distinguish his arbitrary choice from a true random sequence of events.

I would also add, that if I were to apply known physics to this theological question, I'd have to come to the conclusion that while God could arbitrarily choose a sequence of events; God actually PREFERS a true random input into these kinds of problems.    God not only plays dice, he plays to win big!

She ;-)

There's so many conservative linguistic conventions built into my speech and writing, I'll never escape.