Does the Universe Have a Mind of Its Own?

[Les Sleeth]

I am sure we'll find something eventually. Perhaps the next time you bring up union.

I not sure how one can disagree with what one knows nothing about.

Just to be clear - the unsupported feature (i.e. evolutionary mechanisms) that we've been discussing is not a part of Evolution. . . .I have never met someone like that in a research setting. We attack each other viciously, so we try to be the first to point out our own flaws. If you visit Toronto Canada, come to one of our seminars and you'll see what I mean.
The only time when I encounter such advocates is on the internet. They often accept Evolution based on faith rather than understanding.

Uhhhhh, remember those science specials I've mentioned one sees on TV programs like PBS and the National Geographic and Science Channels? Those programs often include numerous brief interviews with scientists who I've witnessed repeatedly leaving the impression that microevolutionary processes are adequate for explaining the development of all life. Furthermore, I also know it's often taught that way in high school and college.

I understand the desire on scientists' part to keep creationism and it's modified cousin, intelligent design, out of the classroom. I suspect much of the exaggeration is efforts to make sure ID is not allowed as science. But I also think many have their own physicalistic/mechanistic agendas. Mechanics are what scientists are good at.

If we accept the reports of inner experts, the skills required for knowing a possible universal consciousness are nothing like the skills required for science. One's feeling nature is developed and brought to the forefront in an effort to experience something very subtle. It not only doesn't involve cogitation, it requires the ability to completely still all thought in order to feel ever more deeply.

Aren't scientists human? Shouldn't we expect egos to try to elevate what they are best at to the highest place? Plus, I think I might fall over in a coma if I were to meet a science enthusiast who knew the slightest thing about inner skills and just how far certain individuals have developed them (the Buddha for instance).

So the situation is one of a group studing and developing only one type of consciousness skill (that required for science), ignoring what anyone else might have achieved consciously, and then going around claiming the "most likely" answers to all questions are physicalistic/mechanistic ones.

Now really, what kind of opinion is that to be publically proclaiming?

 

[LaPalida]

The "concrete proof" is acquired by you, the individual, learning the inner skills, practicing them for years so that you can have the "union" experience regularly, and then deciding what YOU believe that experience is. You cannot judge it by other's experience.

Too subjective. The mind is known to be faulty (optical illusions, hallucinations for example). How would I know that what I experienced is the real thing and not a delusion. How do I know that I experienced it at all? There must be a criteria which I can follow and compare. For example they (the meditators) explain to me what it is that I am supposed to feel and then I can compare my experience to the description. Next, if I do get the real thing,...then how does that prove that it was some sort of cosmic connection? How do you know it was a cosmic connection and not some altered brain chemistry?

And this is precisely how Science works no? Set out the rules and try to reproduce the phenomena according to the "formula". If it's not produceable then ... it simply isn't there right? Or alternately if the "feeling" is there that still wouldn't be proof that it's a connection to the universe, the phenomena could be explained in simple terms (let's say for example meditation alters brain patterns or chemistry somehow and that gives the feeling of bliss). Perhaps if you are cosmically connected to the whole you can reveal to us some sort of an insight that none of us can possibly know? Maybe this cosmic connection enables you to read the mind of a person next to you? I don't know but until then it's bs to say that there is something there.

Well, how do you know you aren't living in a Matrix? How do you know you aren't dreaming all this? How do you know you aren't a computer program? How do you know . . . anything?

I don't make assertions about things that I cannot test or prove. Until I have the evidence as to the contrary (something that I can test) then it's all speculation and solipsism. Things that I do know are based on the scientific principle (observation, data, repeatable experiments, etc). This is precisely my point. That's how I know what I know and I don't claim to know everything.

Aren't scientists human? Shouldn't we expect egos to try to elevate what they are best at to the highest place? Plus, I think I might fall over in a coma if I were to meet a science enthusiast who knew the slightest thing about inner skills and just how far certain individuals have developed them (the Buddha for instance).

So the situation is one of a group studing and developing only one type of consciousness skill (that required for science), ignoring what anyone else might have achieved consciously, and then going around claiming the "most likely" answers to all questions are physicalistic/mechanistic ones.

Ok surely if they had all this time together with the universal union then they got to have something to show for it? What can they do with this union? Talk to each other over distance? Get some kind of answers? All they get is this feeling, how then are they deducing that this feeling is in fact them being connected to everything? Leap of logic maybe? Some people have paranoia, they feel like they are under surveillance by the aliens. Are they justified in concluding that there are in fact aliens?

 

[wave]

I not sure how one can disagree with what one knows nothing about.

Oops... hit a sore spot.

Uhhhhh, remember those science specials I've mentioned one sees on TV programs like PBS and the National Geographic and Science Channels? Those programs often include numerous brief interviews with scientists who I've witnessed repeatedly leaving the impression that microevolutionary processes are adequate for explaining the development of all life.

You should bring your objection to the shows' producers. I didn't see those shows, but I doubt those scientists conspired to deceive the public. Visit a reputable university and talk to a few evolutionary biologists in person. Read their papers and get your science directly. You might get a very distorted view if you rely on popular science. It's unfortunate that scientists are often too absorbed in their work to improve PR.

If we accept the reports of inner experts, the skills required for knowing a possible universal consciousness are nothing like the skills required for science.

Which reports should we accept? The ones you deem to be accurate? What methods do you use to judge whether or not a report is accurate?

So the situation is one of a group studing and developing only one type of consciousness skill (that required for science), ignoring what anyone else might have achieved consciously

What did they achieve? Anything on organ creation?

...and then going around claiming the "most likely" answers to all questions are physicalistic/mechanistic ones.

Now really, what kind of opinion is that to be publically proclaiming?

Are you talking about your perception of TV shows again? You've said that many times, but you have never referenced a reputable scientific journal that contains such a claim. I am sure some scientists hold that personal belief, but professional opinion is a separate issue.

 

[Paul Martin]

I see that no one has commented on Paul Martin’s Post (# 46). He has produced a reasonable line of thought. It may occur to you that I agree with it because it is somewhat similar to my posts and invests the premise of universal conscious with a time transcendent quality. The only short coming I think I notice is a way for the individuality of each conscious being to be differ from one another. Unique personality should be some sort of consequence of a universal conscious interaction between and with the unique beings/personalities within the universe.

I think individuality and unique personalities can be explained if you accept the car/driver, model where biological organisms are seen as the "cars" or vehicles which are "driven" by the one universal consciousness. But to explain the individuality, the "cars" must be equipped with extensive on-board computing capability -- like Mars rovers. Certain biological actions, like autonomic functions and reflex actions, seem to be explainable completely from a material biological basis. They are functions of the central nervous system. Other actions, like willful and deliberate muscle movement, seem to involve a component of consciousness, so a complete explanation may require the participation of the universal consciousness, which by hypothesis is outside the brain.

The way I see it, the brain has a considerable capability to store information locally which represents the view of the universe from the particular world line traversed by this particular organism. That history is unique and it is reasonable to expect that it would "color" any perceptions or conceptions of the universal consciousness relating to this particular organism. This would result in the appearance of a unique individual with its own unique personality.

Furthermore, I suspect that this "considerable capability" of brains is causing brain researchers to jump to the conclusion that all mentality is housed in the brain, when in reality, the functions associated with consciousness may very well be located outside the brain.

Paul

 

[Les Sleeth]

Too subjective. The mind is known to be faulty (optical illusions, hallucinations for example). How would I know that what I experienced is the real thing and not a delusion. How do I know that I experienced it at all? There must be a criteria which I can follow and compare. For example they (the meditators) explain to me what it is that I am supposed to feel and then I can compare my experience to the description. Next, if I do get the real thing,...then how does that prove that it was some sort of cosmic connection? How do you know it was a cosmic connection and not some altered brain chemistry?

This is an old point here at PF, but in case you haven't thought about it, everything you know and experience is subjective. And even when you have millions of the world's population agreeing reality is a certain way, they can be wrong.

Look, you prove things to yourself in one way and one way only. You experience something until you achieve certainty. There are no shortcuts (except to rely on other's experience to guide you where to seek confirming experience), no exceptions. The only difference with the inner thing is that instead of information flowing in through your senses, information is coming another way. You have to experience that new information over time, just like sense data, before any kind of certainty can be established.

What if you were the only human being on the planet, and you had absolutely no other person's approval to make you feel certain what you experience is real? Are you saying you can never know anything? Can you figure out how things work? Can you come to understand something about reality?

Well, the inner thing is no different. You are on your own. Nobody can inject information in there, nobody else can tell you what it all means. You are on your own.

Ok surely if they had all this time together with the universal union then they got to have something to show for it? What can they do with this union? Talk to each other over distance? Get some kind of answers?

How about peace? How about happiness? How about wisdom? Do you think the world, and each individual life, would be improved if there were more of those qualities?

You seem to assume that understanding and creating "things" is all that's valuable in this life.

All they get is this feeling, how then are they deducing that this feeling is in fact them being connected to everything? Leap of logic maybe? Some people have paranoia, they feel like they are under surveillance by the aliens. Are they justified in concluding that there are in fact aliens?

You are wildly speculating. None of that is what the experience is like. This is a real problem because some people don't seem the slightest bit concerned they have strong opinions about something they know absolutely nothing about. But let me try to explain a little.

Self knowledge is what the inner path is about. Just like we have a discipline for studying "out there," and sound methods for confirming what we find, there is also a well-established discipline for learning to know what "in there," inside of us.

Most people seem mesmerized, not by what's inside, by what's "out there." They get degrees in studying "out there," they dream of the ideal "out there, if only they had the right stuff from "out there" they would be happy and content . . . Yet since birth they have been overlooking something. Why did Socrates recommend "know thy self"? Listen to this quote of Socrates that Plato presents as taking place just before his execution, “And he attains to the purest knowledge who . . . has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and, so to speak, of the whole body, these being in his opinion distracting elements which when they infect the soul hinder her from acquiring truth and knowledge . . . . [so that] he is in a manner purified . . . and what is purification but the . . . habit of the soul gathering and collecting herself into herself from all sides out of the body; then dwelling in her own place alone, as in another life . . .”

A thousand years later the monk Maximus also writes about turning one's attention inward, “A man whose mind cleaves to God with love holds as naught all visible things, even his own body, as though it were not his . . . When, urged by love, the mind . . . has no sensation either of itself or of anything existing. . . . it is insensible to all that's created . . . As the physical eye is attracted by the beauty of visible things, so is a pure mind by knowledge of the invisible.”

In the tenth century the Greek Orthodox monk Simeon described principles of turning inward, “ A man tears his mind away from all sensed objects and leads it within himself, guarding his senses and collecting his thoughts, so that they cease to wander . . . . the mind should be in the heart. It should guard the heart . . . remaining always within.”

The thirteenth century German Dominican, Meister Eckhart, put it this way, “Go to the depths of the soul, the secret place of the most high, to the roots . . . . I have spoken at times of a light in the soul that is uncreated, a light that is not arbitrarily turned on . . . Thus, if one refers the soul’s agents back to the soul’s essence . . . [a person] will find his unity and blessing in that little spark in the soul, which neither space nor time touches . . . This Core is a simple stillness, which is unmoved itself but by whose immobility all things are moved and all receive life . . .”

Late in the 18th century the Russian monk Seraphim says, “When a man contemplates inwardly the eternal light, the mind is pure, and has in it no sensuous images, but, being wholly immersed in the contemplation of uncreated beauty, forgets everything sensuous and does not wish to see even itself.”

Believe me, I could easily provide a hundred more quotes from serious inner practitioners in many different cultures of the world on the subject of turning inward. How much do you think most people dedicated to investigating "out there" know about withdrawal from the senses, and then dwelling inside oneself with whatever it is that is there? Do you know what is there? A single look won't reveal it. It takes real skill to find it and experience it, skill that takes most people a lifetime of dedicated work to achieve.

And then we modern guys, obsessed with the desire to understand and have what's "out there," come along and pooh pooh those devoted inner practitioners, and we boldly pass our opinions without making the slightest effort to ensure they are informed. Is that an intelligent approach to understanding? Isn't it possible that consciousness knows "out there" one way, and knows "in there" another way? Isn't it possible that "in there" knowledge, since it requires sense withdrawal, leads to knowing something utterly unavailable to the senses?

I am making no claims about the nature of reality. I am just talking about educating oneself broadly instead of blindly accepting ethocentric values, conditioning, and training and then believing one has understood all that's worth understanding.

 

[Rade]

I didn't say "genetic variation." Geez! I said ACCIDENTAL genetic variation. You guys are so blinded by your a priori beliefs you can't understand a very simple point. How do you know, for example, that genes weren't consciously manipulated to produce organisms?

Yes, how do we "know" anything-- a valid philosophic question. But, I find it hard to understand this line of logic --even if it is within "philosophy" section and not "biology". ALL MUTATION IS ACCIDENTAL, there is no scientific hypothesis that genes are "consciously manipulated", or any factual evidence of "non-accidental mutation". A mutation is nothing more than a change in the DNA code structure (of the A,T,G,C,U). There are many recognized causes of mutations, but not a single peer reviewed paper where "conscious manipulation" was suggested to cause a mutation, nor "non-accidental genetic variation" (which on the face of it is a condradiction of terms). And, mutation is not the only source of genetic variation in the gene pool of populations, of fundamental importance also are gene flow and recombination of genes via crossing over and independent assortment during meiosis.
As to your objections to the scientific evidence that genetic variation from mutation, gene flow, and recombination via natural selection are the origin of "organs" within plant and animal species, I am open to learn about your alternative hypothesis how such organs came to be in the many plant and aniaml species that now exist on earth. How exactly did the lungs come to be, the air bladder, and what about all those amphibians with no lungs or gills as adults, how did they come to be if not by evolutionary processes ? You have made it clear that you reject Creationism and Intelligent Design--what then is the hypothesis that you do hold (if any) ? It is one thing for a scientist to have an open mind and attempt to falsify (a very healthy thing), but skepticism should include presentation of alternative hypothesis--which seems to be lacking from any of your posts on this topic.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Yes, how do we "know" anything-- a valid philosophic question. But, I find it hard to understand this line of logic --even if it is within "philosophy" section and not "biology". ALL MUTATION IS ACCIDENTAL, there is no scientific hypothesis that genes are "consciously manipulated", or any factual evidence of "non-accidental mutation".

I have covered this a dozen times in this thread, but I will explain it again assuming somehow I've not done a good enough job.

First of all, so what if there is no scientific hypothesis that genes are consciously manipulated? You seem to be operating under the assumption that unless science can know, discover, and study it then it can’t be true. I certainly don’t accept that, and I think it’s safe to say neither do the majority of the people of the world. I understand that what the majority believe doesn’t determine what is true, but science has only proven it is effective at mechanics and detecting what the senses perceive So if something exists which is not mechanical and which is unavailable to the senses, then science is going to be useless isn’t it?

You have to keep in mind that I have labeled this issue a logic problem. My objection has nothing to do with biology, but rather it is about how some thinkers are making inferences. If we are to infer, and if it is to be as scientifically sound as possible, then inferences must be made from evidence.

A proper inference is one where true premises lead to true conclusions. Now, you made a statement above that I claim cannot be logically inferred from any known premises. You said, "All mutation is accidental." That is a conclusion. What are your true premises that allow such an inference?

I need a couple of more posts to explain why I am objecting to certain inferences.

A mutation is nothing more than a change in the DNA code structure (of the A,T,G,C,U). There are many recognized causes of mutations, but not a single peer reviewed paper where "conscious manipulation" was suggested to cause a mutation, nor "non-accidental genetic variation" (which on the face of it is a contradiction of terms). And, mutation is not the only source of genetic variation in the gene pool of populations, of fundamental importance also are gene flow and recombination of genes via crossing over and independent assortment during meiosis.

I understand all that, but it has nothing to do with my point. I have said all along that all known mutation is accidental; that is, the mutation we observe operating today seems, at least, to be accidental. But I have been talking about past mutations, those that created organs. In fact, it is precisely due to what today’s mutations produce, or more accurately, fail to produce (organs), that I question those who infer that the mutation observed today is the same quality of mutation that occurred when new organs were created.

As to your objections to the scientific evidence that genetic variation from mutation, gene flow, and recombination via natural selection are the origin of "organs" within plant and animal species, I am open to learn about your alternative hypothesis how such organs came to be in the many plant and aniaml species that now exist on earth. . . . It is one thing for a scientist to have an open mind and attempt to falsify (a very healthy thing), but skepticism should include presentation of alternative hypothesis--which seems to be lacking from any of your posts on this topic.

I don’t need an alternative hypothesis to point out the flaws in others’ logic. If someone makes improper inferences, that alone is enough to justify the objections of anyone intelligent enough to recognize the logic mistakes. This argument has been thrown at me lots of times, and it is a absurd line of reasoning I am quite certain you yourself would not submit to in circumstances where you weren’t defending your cherished beliefs.

For example, say you wake up one morning and find a two ton boulder in your kitchen. The police come and find boulder particles on your four year old daughter’s hands and clothes, and then conclude she must have put the boulder there. You object that a four year old girl is incapable of placing a boulder anywhere. But the police demand that you produce an alternative theory before they will accept your challenge to their logic. Now really, does that make any sense? You don’t need no stinkin’ alternate theory to see the problem with their logic.

Similarly, I might have an alternative theory, but I am not pushing that. All I am doing is pointing out that there’s a part of evolutionary theory accounted for with a known microevolutionary mechanism which is not based on a logically sound inference.

How exactly did the lungs come to be, the air bladder, and what about all those amphibians with no lungs or gills as adults, how did they come to be if not by evolutionary processes? You have made it clear that you reject Creationism and Intelligent Design--what then is the hypothesis that you do hold (if any) ?

You know, it isn’t just me; more than a few scientists acknowledge that something must have influenced genetic variation during the relatively short period when so many new organs and organisms develop. What is that “something”? The development of Hox genes? True polar wander? Gamma rays bombarding Earth? No one knows.

In this thread, where the question is posed if the universe might be conscious, I have made my own effort to suggest why the hypothesis that consciousness could have been a factor in genetic variation is a valid possibility.

My logic was, if you look at the quality of organization required to build something so high-functioning and effective as, say, a liver, we don’t find the mutations going on today producing anything near that quality (of organization). The only known force in this universe that comes close to organizing with such quality is consciousness.

So the evolutionist infers from the quality of mutation today that it produced the organs of yesteryear, yet that quality cannot be demonstrated to produce organs. And I am inferring from the only known force that can organize at that quality level. So who’s inference is following from the most sound premises?

And if you say, there is no evidence of a universal consciousness, I refer you to my previous post to LaPalida. I regret saying this (a little anyway), but anyone who declares there is no evidence of a universal consciousness is just plain ignorant of all that’s been developed and realized in the history of humankind. All they are doing is restricting themselves to one epistemology and disregarding anything other than what they choose to look at.

 

[roamer]

So from my perspective this thread seems to have settled around the topic the Cambrian Explosion. Some participants believe that a purely mechanistic (Darwinian or some variation say punctuated equilibrium) theory more or less accounts for the development of the 30 or so Phyla that appeared over a 5 million year time period. Others like Les Sleeth are challenging this theory by demanding that the mechanisms for producing the dramatic changes in organisms like organs be demonstrated. Presumably without any mechanical evidence for organ development there is a greater possibility that some explanation like conscious intervention would be needed to explain the situation.
Personally I am very interested in hearing some comments on this claim I came across in a paper on the Cambrian Explosion.

Assuming a spontaneous mutation rate to be a generous 10–9 per
base pair per year and also assuming no negative interference by natural
The Cambrian Explosion: Biology’s Big Bang 371
selection, it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base
sequences. It follows that 6–10 million years in the evolutionary time scale
is but a blink of an eye. The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous
emergence of nearly all the extant phyla . . . within the time
span of 6–10 million years can’t possibly be explained by mutational divergence
of individual gene functions.10

I got that from this http://www.theapologiaproject.org/Cambrian.pdf" paper, but if any of this is remotely true it would seem that pure Darwinists have at least some revising to do on their theory. If those numbers are close to being right it seems that there is no way random mutations in DNA and natural selection could ever account for the amount huge increase in information and organization that the DNA of Cambrian organisms seem to have. Is this bogus evidence?

 

[wave]

Presumably without any mechanical evidence for organ development there is a greater possibility that some explanation like conscious intervention would be needed to explain the situation.

That is a false dichotomy. "Universal consciousness did it" can always serve as an explanation, whether or not we have any mechanical evidence for organ development.

If those numbers are close to being right it seems that there is no way random mutations in DNA and natural selection could ever account for the amount huge increase in information and organization that the DNA of Cambrian organisms seem to have.

That is exactly what Meyer and other ID proponents want you to believe. They took the quote completely out of context, and you have fallen victim to their dishonesty. Here is the quote within its original context:

"Assuming the spontaneous mutation rate to be generous 10^-9 per base pair per year and also assuming no negative interference by natural selection, it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences. It follows that 6-10 million years in the evolutionary time scale is but a blink of an eye. The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can't possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions. Rather, it is more likely that all the animals involved in the Cambrian explosion were endowed with nearly the identical genome, with enormous morphological diversities displayed by multitudes of animal phyla being due to differential usages of the identical set of genes."

Ohno S., 1996. The Notion of the Cambrian Pananimalia Genome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA. 6;93(16):8475-8.

As you can see, Meyer omitted the emphasized portion completely. He wants you to think that there are no scientific explanations, and to conclude conscious intervention - when in fact Dr. Ohno has provided a natural explanation in the very next sentence! It's a common tactic used by creationists and IDists... I've seen much worse.

I hope it is apparent to you, and others like Les, that Cambrian explosion is a controversial topic in the scientific community. Scientists are not trying to deceive the public by pretending they know everything. Here is a perfect example, where a scientist is trying to show that his colleagues are full of it. It certainly doesn't give me the impression that everything has been accounted for.

 

[Rade]

...So if something exists which is not mechanical and which is unavailable to the senses, then science is going to be useless isn’t it?...

First, this philosophy section is not the correct place to discuss the evidence for "evolution of organs"...so I plan to start a new thread in the "biology" section and hope you will join the discussion and present your "hypothesis" on the origin of "organs". As to your above question, the answer is no. Many new things that exist (your term) are brought forth to the collective sense of humans each and every day--consider the Hubble telescope and how it brings forth scientific evidence of new star clusters, etc. But, perhaps you will object vis-a-vis your "mechanical" criterion--so could you provide an example of:
1. something that exists (please explain how this is known)
2. that is not mechanical (please give examples as relates to existence)
3. unavailable to the senses (this seems clear enough, but please explain)
4. how science is "useless" in helping understand the above.
Thank you.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I hope it is apparent to you, and others like Les, that Cambrian explosion is a controversial topic in the scientific community. Scientists are not trying to deceive the public by pretending they know everything. Here is a perfect example, where a scientist is trying to show that his colleagues are full of it. It certainly doesn't give me the impression that everything has been accounted for.

Well, I've said that and quoted scientists who have challenged evolution theory at the point of past genetic variation. My distress is due to what you suggest may be merely my "perception."

I dislike the inaccurate representation of the strength of evidence for evolution to the public. You act like the exaggerating scientists are the exception rather than the rule (do you think Richard Dawkins is objective?). However, those scientists you can offer as proof of science's conservative, objective stance wouldn't have to be "trying to show that his colleagues are full of it" if there weren't scientists doing exactly what I am complaining about.

When it comes to what is represented to the public, I know what I've heard. I watch a lot of science specials, for example. Don't tell me to take my complaint to the Discovery's or National Geographic's or PBS's show producers. They turn to science professors at major universities, and working, published research scientists to provide expertise for the programs. They have a right to expect such professionals to represent the facts properly.

Just yestersay I listened as a marine biologist explained how a part of shark physiology evolved through natural selection and then added "that's just how evolution works." I hear and read it incessantly.

The UC Berkeley website that was recently in the news for being sued by Christians I'd quoted earlier as misrepresenting natural selection as a "force." At this site http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ you will find the website describing "lifting functional constraints through duplication":

"Even when a feature is absolutely necessary for survival it can be modified by natural selection for a different function if it is duplicated. For example, globin is a truly ancient protein. Billions of years old, it was present in the common ancestor of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi. Globin performed an essential job: binding and carrying oxygen. You might imagine that natural selection would lock globin into that one job; however, through duplication and divergence, different copies of the globin molecule were adapted for different roles."

How does the author know natural selection achieved that? It is an unproven assumption which rather than being taught as theory is presented as fact. The student reading that doesn't know it is an unconfirmed assumption, and so universities are turning out all sorts of "believers" who think when they talk evolution their beliefs are supported by the facts rather than theory.

At least some of this type of distortion has helped evolution believers convince supreme courts to to take the stance they have with evolution. Teaching evolution theory is fine; but when it is taught the way Berkeley is representing it (and I claim that is a common practice), and misrepresented to the public on science specials by science professionals, then that is a problem.

It turns my stomach a bit to see certain (not all) holier-than-thou scientists banding together to fight the evil IDers, while they themselves pretend to have evidence they really don’t in order to propagate physicalistic beliefs in the guise of science. As far as I can see, they are employing McCarthyish tactics to demonize one side, and then wrapping themselves in the scientific flag so they can force their theory down the world’s throat.

I admire your belief in the scientific ideal, but your representation of what science "is really about" is not reality. What scientists are actually doing is reality. However, I don't generalize from what some say in regard to evolution theory to all areas of science. I am only pointing to a very specific area.

 

[Les Sleeth]

First, this philosophy section is not the correct place to discuss the evidence for "evolution of organs"...so I plan to start a new thread in the "biology" section and hope you will join the discussion and present your "hypothesis" on the origin of "organs".

Nope. I am not trying to offer hypotheses. I am questioning and comparing inferences.

As to your above question, the answer is no. Many new things that exist (your term) are brought forth to the collective sense of humans each and every day--consider the Hubble telescope and how it brings forth scientific evidence of new star clusters, etc. But, perhaps you will object vis-a-vis your "mechanical" criterion--so could you provide an example of:
1. something that exists (please explain how this is known)
2. that is not mechanical (please give examples as relates to existence)
3. unavailable to the senses (this seems clear enough, but please explain)
4. how science is "useless" in helping understand the above.
Thank you.

It wasn't a "mechanical criterion" it was a NON-mechanical crierion. I have expained all your questions to you before.

Questions 1 and 3 . . . read my last post to LaPalida.

Question 2 . . . no matter what I say mechanists try to claim it is mechanistic. Consciousness is the latest victim.

Question 4 . . . if science is dependent on sense data, for example, but there is a way to obtain information that isn't through the senses, then how can science study or evaluate that information?

 

[Rade]

. . . if science is dependent on sense data, for example, but there is a way to obtain information that isn't through the senses, then how can science study or evaluate that information?

I think you start this argument from false premise...science does not demand "sense data", science only demands that the mind (e.g. what you call consciousness below) have "knowledge" of that which exists. Now, above I read this argument you make:

Isn't it possible that consciousness knows "out there" one way, and knows "in there" another way? Isn't it possible that "in there" knowledge, since it requires sense withdrawal, leads to knowing something utterly unavailable to the senses?

And here I agree with you, and I note your use of the concept that the consciousness "knows" both "other" and "self". But I also hold (perhaps you do not ?) that this "knowledge" here you refer to is in fact "scientific knowledge" of the neutral monism of the union of other with self. What I mean is that the consciousness you refer to knows scientifically both the "out there" and the "in here" because it both cases an "object" (the faculty that exists we call consciousness) entangles with another "object" (either the object of the "other" or the object of the "self"). Thus yes, I agree that when your consciousness (let us call it C) entangles with the other (O) it must form the unique state [C-O], but when the consciousness (C) entangles with the self (S) it forms a completely different state [C-S]--here I take that both (O) and (S) exist in reality as an axiomatic given. Where we appear to disagree is that I hold that both of these processes of the consciousness fall within the bounds of "science", where it would appear that you hold that only the formation of [C-O] is science. So, if you could help me understand this aspect of your philosophy that would be appreciated--if [C-S] is not science, and science does not require data from the senses (e.g., many scientists use data from dreams, intuition, mediation, etc. to do science) then what is [C-S], what you call the 'union of the self with consciousness' ?

 

[Les Sleeth]

. . . if science is dependent on sense data, for example, but there is a way to obtain information that isn't through the senses, then how can science study or evaluate that information?

I think you start this argument from false premise...science does not demand "sense data", science only demands that the mind (e.g. what you call consciousness below) have "knowledge" of that which exists.

The Wikipedia here . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism . . . Offers a nice explanation. Notice this part, “Empirical is an adjective often used in conjunction with science, both the natural and social sciences, which means the use of working hypotheses which are capable of being disproved using observation or experiment (ie: ultimately through experience). [my emphasis]

It is well established that the observation of what has been hypothesized is required for science, and the only acceptable observation (experience) in science is sense experience. I am pretty certain you cannot find any accepted science definition which does not have the sense experience requirement.

I am also quite certain that your definition — “science only demands that the mind . . . have "knowledge" of that which exists” — is incorrect. If that were true, then how do we test that one’s mind has knowledge? To do science, whatever one claims that one knows must be made available for others to observe with the senses. What you are describing as “science” seems more like a definition of rationalism (or more specifically, continental rationalism). Reason without the requirement of sense observation is not accepted as science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_rationalism

Now, above I read this argument you make:

Isn't it possible that consciousness knows "out there" one way, and knows "in there" another way? Isn't it possible that "in there" knowledge, since it requires sense withdrawal, leads to knowing something utterly unavailable to the senses?

And here I agree with you, and I note your use of the concept that the consciousness "knows" both "other" and "self". But I also hold (perhaps you do not ?) that this "knowledge" here you refer to is in fact "scientific knowledge" of the neutral monism of the union of other with self. What I mean is that the consciousness you refer to knows scientifically both the "out there" and the "in here" . . .

Well, I would agree that the term “empiricism” requires confirming experience, and doesn’t specifically exclude inner experience. But the variety of empiricism called “science” (the scientific method) does not at the moment accept any experience other than observation using the senses.

. . . because it both cases an "object" (the faculty that exists we call consciousness) entangles with another "object" (either the object of the "other" or the object of the "self"). Thus yes, I agree that when your consciousness (let us call it C) entangles with the other (O) it must form the unique state [C-O], but when the consciousness (C) entangles with the self (S) it forms a completely different state [C-S]--here I take that both (O) and (S) exist in reality as an axiomatic given. Where we appear to disagree is that I hold that both of these processes of the consciousness fall within the bounds of "science", where it would appear that you hold that only the formation of [C-O] is science.

As I explained above, yes I assert that only with [C-O] is available to science. But we have to be a little careful here because I’d agree that consciousness entangles with objects, but not the self (explained in the next post).

So, if you could help me understand this aspect of your philosophy that would be appreciated--if [C-S] is not science, and science does not require data from the senses (e.g., many scientists use data from dreams, intuition, mediation, etc. to do science) then what is [C-S], what you call the 'union of the self with consciousness' ?

Just a quick point. Data from “dreams, intuition, mediation, etc.” which produce no physical results that can be observed, either directly or by registering on detection devices, cannot be studied scientifically (although they can be evaluated logically).

The consciousness of the “self” I’ve been talking about isn’t as you have presented it. Self is consciousness in the “union” model. This can be a difficult idea to grasp if your consciousness is always in some state, like a state of thought, or a state of anxiety, or a state of imagination, or a state of desire.

But what is consciousness before it assumes a state? No one can know unless one can get one’s consciousness to be stateless, and that requires one to fully still the mind. To achieve that experience, one first withdraws from the senses. Why? Because participation in the senses “splits” part of consciousness (i.e., that part devoted to hearing, seeing, tasting, etc.); that splitting into sense aspects both fractionates the periphery of consciousness and involves it in what the senses are detecting. Upon successful withdrawal, the peripheral part of consciousness tied up in sense experience seems to rejoin a more central “core.”

In withdrawing from sense participation and finding a core of consciousness, one discovers that the core always holds steady as “base” consciousness; that is, the core is “neutral” in the sense of not being in any form (like sense perception). That steady, unmoving core can then be relied on to still one’s incessantly thinking mind. When that occurs, the part of consciousness tied up in mentality also rejoins the core.

When all one’s faculties have united at the core is when things first start to get interesting. One discovers consciousness is very bright; even blind people easily experience this, so it has nothing to do with the eyes. One also hears/feels a vibrancy; even deaf people experience this, so it has nothing to do with the ears. One’s breathing almost disappears and it seems one’s consciousness and one’s breath are fully united. All that is very satisfying in some way, and that experience alone is enough to keep people coming back for the experience. But there is still more.

There is a very famous quote of the inner adept and meditation teacher Kabir that has intrigued serious meditators for centuries. He said, “Students, what is God? God is the breath inside the breath.”

Now, there is no possible way to have a clue what he is talking about until one reaches the point where one’s conscious faculties have all united. In that experience one discovers that behind the breath, and moving the breath, seems to be a vast and gently pulsating force. As one goes deeper and deeper into this experience, a new sort of uniting happens; where before all uniting was of one’s own conscious aspects into one, now one seems to join with that huge, breathing presence. It feels like consciousness separates from the brain a bit and becomes part of the universe.

That experience, sometimes called the “mystical” experience, has had quite a few very serious devotees. The Buddha seems to have been the first to really achieve full union using meditation techniques, but I am convinced that Jesus did too and a great many others most people haven’t heard of. I only know of this because I have been researching the subject since the early ‘70s (and I’ve been practicing union meditation daily since then as well). (You might check out the interesting interview PIT2 posted here https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=106775 where a brain researcher discusses union, the mystical experience, and the brain.)

So when I say that people are ignorant who claim “there is no evidence” of a universal consciousness, I am referring to this long history of successful union meditators (in the West they usually called it “union prayer” rather than union meditation). Those practitioners are in a wholly different class that followers of religion in that they are aiming for a direct and pure experience rather than an indirect and vicarious experience through ritual, belief, faith, etc.

 

[Rade]

It is well established that the observation of what has been hypothesized is required for science, and the only acceptable observation (experience) in science is sense experience. I am pretty certain you cannot find any accepted science definition which does not have the sense experience requirement.

First, let me say that I appreciate the time you spent with the above post--it is just that I disagree on a number of points (not all), so I will continue the dialog. First, your argument that accepted definitions of science hold a "sense-data" requirement is incorrect. [[As an aside--I find it odd that you revert to requirement of definition here to support your argument--many other times on this forum you have told me personally that philosophers do not use definition to support argument and I have been taken to task for doing so ]] But, even if I now do as you say and look to the dictionary for the "accepted" science definitions as you say (I use unabridged Webster) I see that the term "science" has 6 different "accepted meanings" by the English speaking folks of the world and none of the 6 have any requirement of sense data as source of experience of observation in order for the observation to be "scientific". Now clearly, we will agree with you that science does use sense data, but you are incorrect when you conclude that science "must" use sense data--and no movement to dictionary definitions helps your argument, since it is your position that "philosophers do not use dictionaries"--unless you now change your position.

I am also quite certain that your definition — “science only demands that the mind . . . have "knowledge" of that which exists” — is incorrect. If that were true, then how do we test that one’s mind has knowledge?

The answer to your question is that we "test" to see if the mind has knowledge via inventory of the sum of the "facts of reality" that are contained in "one's mind" as you say. Here I hold that one's mind comes to knowledge two ways (1) directly via perceptual observation and (2) indirectly via reason. Thus, I hold that you are not "quite certain" about my definition.

To do science, whatever one claims that one knows must be made available for others to observe with the senses. What you are describing as “science” seems more like a definition of rationalism (or more specifically, continental rationalism). Reason without the requirement of sense observation is not accepted as science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_rationalism

And here, you are incorrect, because clearly one can via reason grasp the "facts of reality" that were previously made available to the mind via sense perception and then (most importantly to your false argument) conduct a transformation or operation on those previous facts and form new hypotheses that can lead to experimentation (=science). Thus, you set up a false dichotomy (e.g., reason without the requirement of sense observation)--this statement is a contradiction of terms--reason ALWAYS is a posteriori to data via perception. One does not "reason" with a mind 100 % empty of sense data, which is the illogical conclusion of your position stated above.

Well, I would agree that the term “empiricism” requires confirming experience, and doest’t specifically exclude inner experience. But the variety of empiricism called “science” (the scientific method) does not at the moment accept any experience other than observation using the senses. AND Just a quick point. Data from “dreams, intuition, mediation, etc.” which produce no physical results that can be observed, either directly or by registering on detection devices, cannot be studied scientifically (although they can be evaluated logically).

Only one factual example shows that this statement is false. In his bibliography, the physicist N. Tesla, tells when he first "invented" the concept of the alternating current. He was sitting on a park bench and was inventing working models of machines in his mind, and was consciously changing parts, gear ratios, etc. (he was doing "science"--forming hypotheses) and then it came to him, the correct form, and he mentally then turned on the machine (e.g., he did "science" -- experimentation) and he observed that it worked, it mentally generated electricity (more science--observation). Tesla went to his laboratory and replicated his mental experiment (replication of experiments is part of scientific method) and the rest is history. Thus, your comments about the correct relationship of empiricism, and scientific method, and senses are falsified each time you turn on your computer.

As I explained above, yes I assert that only with [C-O] is available to science. But we have to be a little careful here because I’d agree that consciousness entangles with objects, but not the self (explained in the next post).

I understand your concept of the consciousness that you describe in great detail--thank you--but we have already on another thread discussed this experience (what you call mystical). It is well known that this exact experience also occurs in at least two mental states other than meditation: (1) the psychological state called "paranoia" and (2) in the minds of folks that take hallucinogenic drugs. In fact, all of the mental states of awareness that you discuss above (or lack of--the feeling for example of emptiness, silence) are found in one or both of (1) and (2). And the mental condition is well known by scientists that study such things, -- what you describe as the sense of timelessness, that all is one, and the feeling of rapture (=mystical state of Buddha, etc. etc. through history) results when the mind losses its ability to distinguish between the "subject" of the self and the "object" of the self. One of the basic attributes of being a human being (=species Homo sapiens) is our ability to maintain over time a firm sense of personal identity that requires that we know the borders of what separates the "self" from the "other" (e.g., what is inside from what is outside). Sorry to burst your bubble about supposed importance of "mediation" as some unique route to knowledge of an imagined "universal consciousness"--but it is just not true--mediation is "one" way, but not the only way of the imagination of the mind as relates to the experiences you describe above.

The consciousness of the “self” I’ve been talking about isn’t as you have presented it. Self is consciousness in the “union” model. This can be a difficult idea to grasp if your consciousness is always in some state, like a state of thought, or a state of anxiety, or a state of imagination, or a state of desire.

Self (S) is self and consciousness (C) is consciousness, and the law of identity tells us that S = S and that C = C. Both (S) and (C) are specific identities, each with specific attributes and different "structures" and "functions". Thus, one of many examples, the self (S) has cells (gametes) that can reproduce, but the (C) is 100% made of cells (neurons) that cannot reproduce--thus the (S) is not identical to (C) as pertains to reproduction, and your "union model" is thus falsified. Your text about reality of experiences during meditation in no way supports a claim (as you seem to hold) that consciousness is a priori to existence.

But what is consciousness before it assumes a state?

Since you hold that consciousness can be a thing that assumes a "state", and that it can be in a state of 0.0 activity, logically it then must exist as such a complex thing. Thus the answer to your question --what you describe is the washing machine not yet turned on, and a state not yet turned on is nothing more than a machine (here consciousness) in isolation to which nothing is being done, which is a well defined state that can be recognized again if it should occur.

 

[wave]

You act like the exaggerating scientists are the exception rather than the rule (do you think Richard Dawkins is objective?).

I've read a number of papers by Dawkins and they seemed objective. On the other hand, some of his books and interviews can be subjective because they contain his personal beliefs. It's his right to publicly express his opinions, and I think most people are smart enough to view it as such. It would be a mistake to stereotype scientists based on the personal beliefs of a few individuals.

However, those scientists you can offer as proof of science's conservative, objective stance wouldn't have to be "trying to show that his colleagues are full of it" if there weren't scientists doing exactly what I am complaining about.

Scientists will continue to debate over Evolution, no matter how accurately it is portrayed to the public. This type of one-upmanship is how science works.

The UC Berkeley website that was recently in the news for being sued by Christians I'd quoted earlier as misrepresenting natural selection as a "force."

I presume you are talking about the lawsuit filed by Caldwell. That lawsuit is not about misrepresentation. The plaintiff object to links on the website that advocate compatibility between Evolution and religion.

"Even when a feature is absolutely necessary for survival it can be modified by natural selection for a different function if it is duplicated. For example, globin is a truly ancient protein. Billions of years old, it was present in the common ancestor of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi. Globin performed an essential job: binding and carrying oxygen. You might imagine that natural selection would lock globin into that one job; however, through duplication and divergence, different copies of the globin molecule were adapted for different roles."

How does the author know natural selection achieved that? It is an unproven assumption which rather than being taught as theory is presented as fact.

Wrong. We know that because we have an overwhelming amount of molecular genetic evidence. For example, mutations often leave very distinct telltale signs in the DNA. A good understanding of genetics is required to fully comprehend the evidence, but I will gladly explain a few examples involving globins if you wish. It's really amazing what we have discovered using molecular genetics.

Teaching evolution theory is fine; but when it is taught the way Berkeley is representing it (and I claim that is a common practice), and misrepresented to the public on science specials by science professionals, then that is a problem.

The Berkeley website is an introduction to Evolution, so it's understandable that they didn't include any explanation. It's also understandable why you'd perceive that as a sign of unproven assumptions. This kind of hand waving frequently occur in popular science books and TV shows. However, they are meant to entertain and to inspire a sense of wonder. Usually there is good solid science underneath, but you won't find it unless you dig deeper. It's very difficult to attract an audience and be scientifically rigorous at the same time.

I admire your belief in the scientific ideal, but your representation of what science "is really about" is not reality. What scientists are actually doing is reality.

Thanks, I appreciate your kind words. My research area is in biophysics, so my belief is based on experience rather than ideal.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I presume you are talking about the lawsuit filed by Caldwell. That lawsuit is not about misrepresentation.

Right, but that's not what I said (or at least meant). I said that it was ME who had quoted information at that site (before the Caldwell lawsuit) for misrepresenting the evidence (I quoted different info, as you can see).

Wrong. We know that because we have an overwhelming amount of molecular genetic evidence. For example, mutations often leave very distinct telltale signs in the DNA. A good understanding of genetics is required to fully comprehend the evidence, but I will gladly explain a few examples involving globins if you wish. It's really amazing what we have discovered using molecular genetics.

Well, WRONG right back at ya. I didn't say a thing about the genetic evidence, I complained about the authors attributing the development of globin to natural selection! They, or anyone else, do not know what caused globin to develop as it did. Genetic changes, yes; what produced those particular genetic changes that fit the environment so well, no.

If I have to repeat my point one more time I think I'll blow up (so if you want to end this debate right now, make me repeat it ).

However, they are meant to entertain and to inspire a sense of wonder.

"Wonder" in misrepresentation should not be inspired. I predict you are going to see a lot more people complain over evolution "believers" communicating about evolution without properly distinguishing between known fact and theory. They represent themselves as being objective, but really they are propagandizing.

It's very difficult to attract an audience and be scientifically rigorous at the same time.

I don't buy it. People are interested in science like never before. That's why Hawking and Greene and science/nature programs are so popular. It doesn't require "rigor" to present things without exaggeration, it requires honesty. If science is supposed to be objective, then let it be objective and stop violating the very standards that define it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

As an aside--I find it odd that you revert to requirement of definition here to support your argument--many other times on this forum you have told me personally that philosophers do not use definition to support argument and I have been taken to task for doing so

That’s not what I took you to task for. I was not critical of you offering a definition; I challenged using a language dictionary for a philosophical definition.

But, even if I now do as you say and look to the dictionary for the "accepted" science definitions as you say (I use unabridged Webster) I see that the term "science" has 6 different "accepted meanings" by the English speaking folks of the world and none of the 6 have any requirement of sense data as source of experience of observation in order for the observation to be "scientific".

That’s right because a language dictionary isn’t giving definitions for a philosophical discussion, but rather for how the word is used in language.

Now clearly, we will agree with you that science does use sense data, but you are incorrect when you conclude that science "must" use sense data--and no movement to dictionary definitions helps your argument, since it is your position that "philosophers do not use dictionaries"--unless you now change your position.

Do you know why science is said to be an application of empiricism? Because empiricism is the philosophy that the scientific method was derived from.

Do you know what “empirical” means? It means, based on experience. The following explanation of empiricism is taken from my Oxford Companion to Philosophy: ““Empiricism. A statement, proposition, or judgment is empirical if we can only know its truth or falsity by appealing to experience . . . An idea or concept is empirical if it is derived ultimately from the five senses, to which introspection is sometimes added. It need not be derived from anyone sense alone, and the data supplied to the senses may need to be processed by the mind, and indeed may not count as data at all until some activity by the mind has taken place . . .”

The answer to your question is that we "test" to see if the mind has knowledge via inventory of the sum of the "facts of reality" that are contained in "one's mind" as you say. Here I hold that one's mind comes to knowledge two ways (1) directly via perceptual observation and (2) indirectly via reason. Thus, I hold that you are not "quite certain" about my definition.

You are entitled to “hold” your personal beliefs about what is epistemologically effective (though your concept #2 is nothing new; it is ordinary rationalism), but you are not entitled to claim science is something different than what the world has agreed it is.

You know, you could research this easily and find out what most everyone here knows. I don’t want to embarrass you but you are showing how little you’ve looked at this subject; this issue was settled many decades ago decidedly NOT as you are arguing it. I Googled “scientific method” and found plenty of explanations for what it is, and they all require observation. One of many examples:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

And here, you are incorrect, because clearly one can via reason grasp the "facts of reality" that were previously made available to the mind via sense perception and then (most importantly to your false argument) conduct a transformation or operation on those previous facts and form new hypotheses that can lead to experimentation (=science). Thus, you set up a false dichotomy (e.g., reason without the requirement of sense observation)--this statement is a contradiction of terms--reason ALWAYS is a posteriori to data via perception. One does not "reason" with a mind 100 % empty of sense data, which is the illogical conclusion of your position stated above.

Maybe so, but we are not debating how one “grasps the facts of reality.” That discussion would called “Epistemological Claims,” or something similar. We are debating about the definition of science.

You want to include rationalism as part of science, but rationalism was soundly rejected a long time ago. If you study the history of philosophy, you can see it was dominated by reason alone, a “rationalistic” ideal that ruled virtually unchallenged until the 17th century. Locke and others were instrumental in changing the way we pursue knowledge by adding the experience requirement. It was that and that alone which created the age of science and which continues to work admirably.

Today there are still people trying to hash things out with only reason, but not in science. It is not science, pure and simple. Why don’t you try convincing any of the scientists here at PF of your philosophy. I have, on occasion, been ridiculed by hard science types for no other reason than I post in the philosophy section here. To them philosophy is “mental masturbation” because of its long history of rationalism, so anyone interested in philosophy must be one of those types (of course, they hadn’t bothered to find out that I fully agree with that assessment of rationalism).

Only one factual example shows that this statement is false. In his bibliography, the physicist N. Tesla, tells when he first "invented" the concept of the alternating current. He was sitting on a park bench and was inventing working models of machines in his mind, and was consciously changing parts, gear ratios, etc. (he was doing "science"--forming hypotheses) and then it came to him, the correct form, and he mentally then turned on the machine (e.g., he did "science" -- experimentation) and he observed that it worked, it mentally generated electricity (more science--observation). Tesla went to his laboratory and replicated his mental experiment (replication of experiments is part of scientific method) and the rest is history. Thus, your comments about the correct relationship of empiricism, and scientific method, and senses are falsified each time you turn on your computer.

LOL! Do you think anybody would’ve accepted Tesla’s experiment as science if he hadn’t demonstrated it for others to observe? Understanding is one thing, science is another.

I understand your concept of the consciousness that you describe in great detail--thank you--but we have already on another thread discussed this experience (what you call mystical). It is well known that this exact experience also occurs in at least two mental states other than meditation: (1) the psychological state called "paranoia" and (2) in the minds of folks that take hallucinogenic drugs.

Paranoia is most definitely not what the mystical experience is. Certain hallucinogenic drugs, such as peyote, actually can open one up to the mystical experience, but it doesn’t last. I know, it did a couple of hundred trips before I decided meditation was the only way to make it last.

In fact, all of the mental states of awareness that you discuss above (or lack of--the feeling for example of emptiness, silence) are found in one or both of (1) and (2). And the mental condition is well known by scientists that study such things, -- what you describe as the sense of timelessness, that all is one, and the feeling of rapture (=mystical state of Buddha, etc. etc. through history) results when the mind losses its ability to distinguish between the "subject" of the self and the "object" of the self.

I’m sorry my friend but you are now talking out of the well-known backside. It doesn’t seem like you are taking the time to carefully study. Look up mysticism please, at least that variety I’ve been discussing. I’ve not been talking about anything but the experience which results from a dedicated practice of meditation. And scientists who do not practice meditation don’t know squat about the experience except what registers on their encephalographs, etc. Can you know what a peach tastes like by recording taste bud reactions to a peach?

One of the basic attributes of being a human being (=species Homo sapiens) is our ability to maintain over time a firm sense of personal identity that requires that we know the borders of what separates the "self" from the "other" (e.g., what is inside from what is outside). Sorry to burst your bubble about supposed importance of "mediation" as some unique route to knowledge of an imagined "universal consciousness"--but it is just not true--mediation is "one" way, but not the only way of the imagination of the mind as relates to the experiences you describe above.
Self (S) is self and consciousness (C) is consciousness, and the law of identity tells us that S = S and that C = C. Both (S) and (C) are specific identities, each with specific attributes and different "structures" and "functions". Thus, one of many examples, the self (S) has cells (gametes) that can reproduce, but the (C) is 100% made of cells (neurons) that cannot reproduce--thus the (S) is not identical to (C) as pertains to reproduction, and your "union model" is thus falsified. Your text about reality of experiences during meditation in no way supports a claim (as you seem to hold) that consciousness is a priori to existence.
Since you hold that consciousness can be a thing that assumes a "state", and that it can be in a state of 0.0 activity, logically it then must exist as such a complex thing. Thus the answer to your question --what you describe is the washing machine not yet turned on, and a state not yet turned on is nothing more than a machine (here consciousness) in isolation to which nothing is being done, which is a well defined state that can be recognized again if it should occur.

I don’t think we are going to get anywhere, just like previous times we’ve debated. You believe you can know without personal experience of what you trying to know, and I am 100% convinced that only experience brings knowledge. So I am not sympathetic toward all your “reasonings” where you think you know what you are talking about just because you can come up with some logical explanation.

 

[wave]

"You might imagine that natural selection would lock globin into that one job; however, through duplication and divergence, different copies of the globin molecule were adapted for different roles."

Well, WRONG right back at ya. I didn't say a thing about the genetic evidence, I complained about the authors attributing the development of globin to natural selection!

This is all a misunderstanding, so delay your explosive demise for a few minutes. The author did not attribute the development (i.e. creation or alteration) of globin proteins to natural selection. Instead, he claims that novel globin molecules arise from mutations (i.e. duplication and divergence) in certain individual(s) of a population.

So why did he mention natural selection? Well, natural selection (i.e. heredity) is responsible for passing mutations from carriers to their descendents. That is how mutations "spread" from individuals to the rest of the population. Furthermore, individuals that carry beneficial mutations are more likely to have more descendents than those carrying harmful mutations. Hence, different types of globin molecules are adapted through natural selection (i.e. differential reproduction success), such that advantageous globins molecules flourish while disadvantageous ones are weeded out.

Pay close attention to the bolded part of your Berkeley quote. The author attribute the development of novel globin molecules to "duplication and divergence" (i.e. mutations). Consequently, the author attribute the adaptation of advantageous globin molecules to natural selection.

Do you see why your complaint is unjustified? Contrary to your complaint, the author did not say that natural selection has developed something. In fact, scientists know natural selection cannot develop any kind of novelty. When you select something, you can only get a subset of the possible choices. So are you going to blow up or admit you have misread the site?

They, or anyone else, do not know what caused globin to develop as it did. Genetic changes, yes; what produced those particular genetic changes that fit the environment so well, no.

That is not the full story though. First of all, we observe very specific DNA fingerprints that indicates exactly which genetic mutations caused a particular globin development. We observe those types of mutations in nature as well as in the lab on a daily basis. At the very least, you must concede development via mutation is possible through natural means. Secondly, the genetic evidence that we currently observe fit so well precisely because natural selection has weeded out the ones that didn't fit so well.

Of course you can attribute any cause to "universal consciousness" and no one can prove you wrong. I personally prefer to call it the http://www.venganza.org/" . Either way, if you believe that then Evolution should be the least of your concerns. Think of all those wrongful convictions such a cunning supernatural entity could cause! Your fingerprints can magically appear on a knife in some poor victim's back!

As an aside - I am curious to know whether I had any affects on your knowledge of science at all. I am not referring to your philosophical stance or your opinions on scientists. Instead, I had made a number of posts to explain or correct your disinformation and misinterpretations of scientific evidence. Did some of those posts change your mind one bit, or was it all just a waste of time? PM the answer if you want.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Do you see why your complaint is unjustified? Contrary to your complaint, the author did not say that natural selection has developed something. In fact, scientists know natural selection cannot develop any kind of novelty. When you select something, you can only get a subset of the possible choices. So are you going to blow up or admit you have misread the site?

I am not going to blow up, and I am not going to admit I misread the site (yet). The author says:

"Even when a feature is absolutely necessary for survival it can be modified by natural selection for a different function if it is duplicated."

Okay, there we have the connection to duplication. He goes on:

"Globin performed an essential job: binding and carrying oxygen. You might imagine that natural selection would lock globin into that one job; however, through duplication and divergence, different copies of the globin molecule were adapted for different roles."

There, I say, he went too far. But you say, "Pay close attention to the bolded part of your Berkeley quote. The author attributes the development of novel globin molecules to 'duplication and divergence' (i.e. mutations). Consequently, the author attributes the adaptation of advantageous globin molecules to natural selection."

Well, I agree that is exactly what the author does. And you don't see a problem with any of that? By using the term "natural selection," he clearly places responsiblity for the changes within Darwinist theory, yet he doesn't know that the changes were undirected (accidental) mutations (i.e., the Darwinist version of events).

I say a proper presentation would have said, "the theory of evolution would explain the history of globin development like this . . . "; and if he were really being careful he might add, ". . . but we don't have enough evidence yet to be certain of what actually happened."

Not only did he not say anything like that, his tone was that of speaking facts when really he was offering a theory for what happened. It is neither objective nor a balanced presentation, it is misleading.

That is not the full story though. First of all, we observe very specific DNA fingerprints that indicates exactly which genetic mutations caused a particular globin development.

I've never disputed that.

We observe those types of mutations in nature as well as in the lab on a daily basis. At the very least, you must concede development via mutation is possible through natural means.

Of course I concede it's possible.

Secondly, the genetic evidence that we currently observe fit so well precisely because natural selection has weeded out the ones that didn't fit so well.

There's no doubt natural selection weeds out poor fits. But you don't know that accidental genetic variation/mutation created all or most of the good fits.

Of course you can attribute any cause to "universal consciousness" and no one can prove you wrong. I personally prefer to call it the http://www.venganza.org/" .

See, this is where you lose credibility as someone who is broadly educated enough to give an informed opinion on possible influences on the development of this universe. You are so informed on the science side, but your understanding of the sources of the universal consciousness reports is downright meager.

Either way, if you believe that then Evolution should be the least of your concerns. Think of all those wrongful convictions such a cunning supernatural entity could cause! Your fingerprints can magically appear on a knife in some poor victim's back!

Supernatural? I've never suggested anything supernatural is possible, including universal consciousness. If it exists and had a guiding role in creation, then it clearly has worked naturally; and that means all the evidence we'd have from which to make inferences indicates that universal consciousness is natural.

As an aside - I am curious to know whether I had any affects on your knowledge of science at all. I am not referring to your philosophical stance or your opinions on scientists. Instead, I had made a number of posts to explain or correct your disinformation and misinterpretations of scientific evidence. Did some of those posts change your mind one bit, or was it all just a waste of time? PM the answer if you want.

Well, obviously I've not agreed with your take on the Berkeley website. I think their interpretation of the evidence was stated in a way to give the impression that Darwinistic evolution was fully confirmed by the globin example, when it isn't. And I do not think they properly informed the public (and it is a public site) of where the evidence is lacking.

So, in this respect I am as disappointed as I've always been with how evolution is being represented to the world by far too many scientists.

However, I would also say that you made me want to be more careful about making generalizations that might be interpreted as applying to all science and scientists.

You know, I love science. Much of my spare time is spent reading and watching it. I don't claim to understand all the ways science is practiced because I am limited to what I can apply in my everyday life. I can assure you I am a hardcore empiricist. If you can't show me, if I can't experience it (or be certain someone has), I won't believe it. I say all that because I wish it were clear that I am objecting only to what's represented to the public by some. I have no other complaints about science, and I look forward to learning a lot more about it.

I can feel your integrity and your dedication to science. I admire that. I think however that science enthusiasts tend to educate themselves too narrowly. If it is science, every opinion is backed by tons of research and thought; but let the subject turn a bit metaphysical and too often the opinions one hears is of the quality of bar room discussions.

EDIT: I wanted to add that I don't think it's mere chance that the areas where I claim there is exaggeration on the science side are exactly where Creationists/IDers are waiting to jump in. I suspect much of distortion is due to the continuation of this now centuries-old battle. The problem is, there are thinkers today who would like to have the universal consciousness concept considered, not taught as science, but given a fair look or at least have the door left open theoretically and not closed prematurely by scientific exaggerations. I have struggled long and hard to get scientific thinkers to look at where the best evidence is of the experience of a universal consciousness; as far as I know, I've had little or no success. I don't see how one can claim objectivity when one is only open to one sort of evidence (scientific).

 

[Royce]

Les, wave, I have noticed the same problem that you two are having in the threads that I have started and the ones that I have participated in.

The philosophical concepts of Universal Consciousness, Intelligent Design,
non-biblical creation, spirituality, purpose, intent, arrows or even the possibility of a god or God have absolutely nothing to do with religion, religious dogmas or supernatural.

Les, you and I, among others, have spent years learning to separate these concepts and rid them of all of the emotional baggage that always comes with them. Even now we occasionally fall back into the trap.

The other problem that scientists just can't seem to deal with is that science is all about HOW and philosophy is all about Why.

In this case, yes, genetic drift and mutations happen and are spread by natural selection. The philosophical question is WHY genetic mutation and drift occur at all and why it seems to favor higher organization and complexity in some and yet doesn't effect others at all.

Take, for example, the turtles and crocodilians. They are living fossils and haven't changed in millions of years. Yet they are still around and doing quite well, thank you. Yet in the same environment there are some species that do nothing but change as fast as they can to their benefit or detriment. Why? How can one order not be effected and yet another can and does mutate itself right out of existence?

Again it has nothing to do with religion and the question isn't how; its WHY.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Take, for example, the turtles and crocodilians. They are living fossils and haven't changed in millions of years. Yet they are still around and doing quite well, thank you. Yet in the same environment there are some species that do nothing but change as fast as they can to their benefit or detriment. Why? How can one order not be effected and yet another can and does mutate itself right out of existence?

Goodness sakes, this is really a poor argument against evolution, Royce! Not far from the one I once saw: "Why don't we ever see a cow turn into a horse".


Evolution has absolutely NO statement about the pace of change. Species and environment are in a dynamic relationship, and just as the dynamic spacetime of general realtivity can produce a highly curved region or a flat one, so evolution can produce species that evolve rapidly and species that don't evolve at all. It all depends on the actual details of the case.

 

[Royce]

Goodness sakes, this is really a poor argument against evolution, Royce! Not far from the one I once saw: "Why don't we ever see a cow turn into a horse".
Evolution has absolutely NO statement about the pace of change. Species and environment are in a dynamic relationship, and just as the dynamic space time of general relativity can produce a highly curved region or a flat one, so evolution can produce species that evolve rapidly and species that don't evolve at all. It all depends on the actual details of the case.

sA, I am a firm believer in evolution in both that of life and the evolution of the Universe. I even believe in the Theory of Evolution and Darwin's Origin of Species. I also believe that it is an incomplete theory in that it does not account for nor explain everything about evolution. It is not a scientific fact nor is it a scientific law. it is a scientific theory and a very good one. Yet, it addresses only HOW and not WHY.

Such Questions as

Why did organs suddenly appear?
Why do some species mutate and other don't?
Why do some species suddenly appear without and evidence of a preceding simpler more primitive form?
Why does there seem to be an consistent order from simpler to more complex if it is all random and accidental mutations and genetic drift?

Much of the HOW of evolution is speculation such as, it happens so there must be a cause. Maybe its hard radiation from the sun. It is not proven fact. It is only proven that it does happen, not how or why it happened.

Les, especially, is trying his damnedest to get this point across but so far hasn't been able to. We, he and I, Have no problem with evolution nor with natural selection. We believe in it. We even support it over biblical creationism.

The theory of evolution and natural selection, however does not yet explain nor account for everything in evidence nor is it a fact or law.
It is a working theory in the process of being fully developed.

This is not the way that it is reported nor presented in the media nor by a number of self professed experts and scientist who should know better but don't, thereby proving, to any really thinking person, that they are not real, honest scientists but are instead propagandist no better than the fundamental biblical creationist.

This is our gripe, our only only gripe and our whole gripe,
so help me God.

(edit for typo's and they wouldn't let me use the word b**ch so I had to substitute "gripe")

 

[selfAdjoint]

The theory of evolution and natural selection, however does not yet explain nor account for everything in evidence nor is it a fact or law.
It is a working theory in the process of being fully developed.

The devil is apparently in the details. What part of "everything in evidence" in the biological sphere do you not believe evolution does explain or account for? Eyes? Wings? Species?

The fact that particular mechanisms of evolution are still being introduced and older one modified just shows it's a science like any other. The same thing happens in physics. It shows not that the early stages of the theory were false but that we didn't fully understand their consequences. As we learn more about the subtleties of genomes and proteomes we cn expect more insights to dawn.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The devil is apparently in the details. What part of "everything in evidence" in the biological sphere do you not believe evolution does explain or account for? Eyes? Wings? Species?

I would just say that evolution THEORY has one account or another for everything. But that's not the complaint. The complaint is that theory is often presented right along side facts as though theory is fact.

It's fine to have a theory, and to believe in a theory; but that is a different issue than stepping forward as an evolution expert, giving the impression to the public and students one is reporting objectively, not properly distinguishing between fact and theory, and then treating all of it, fact and theory, as being of the same quality of evidence.

 

[wave]

The author attribute the development of novel globin molecules to "duplication and divergence" (i.e. mutations). Consequently, the author attribute the adaptation of advantageous globin molecules to natural selection.

Well, I agree that is exactly what the author does. And you don't see a problem with any of that? By using the term "natural selection," he clearly places responsiblity for the changes within Darwinist theory, yet he doesn't know that the changes were undirected (accidental) mutations (i.e., the Darwinist version of events).

I would agree with you, had he stated or implied that the changes were undirected. But the author never mentioned explicitly or implicitly how or what caused those duplications to occur. Hence you cannot infer the nature of those mutations based on his words, even though he used the term "natural selection". You are reading too much into it, so I think your complaint is again unjustified.

You are so informed on the science side, but your understanding of the sources of the universal consciousness reports is downright meager.

That's a fair statement. However, I wish your criticism was more constructive and educational rather than merely point out my level of understanding.

I've never suggested anything supernatural is possible, including universal consciousness.

What is your definition of "universal consciousness"? Is it natural or supernatural? Please try to be concise.

 

[wave]

It is not a scientific fact nor is it a scientific law.

What is your point exactly?

Why did organs suddenly appear?

Which organs? When did they suddenly appear?

Why do some species mutate and other don't?

Which species? Mutate in what sense?

Why do some species suddenly appear without and evidence of a preceding simpler more primitive form?

Which species? When did they suddenly appear?

Why does there seem to be an consistent order from simpler to more complex if it is all random and accidental mutations and genetic drift?

Perhaps that is why we often find the opposite in nature?

 

[Amp1]

It seems like we have two distint lines of thought going on with in the central concept of 'Universe Consiousness/Mind' (if I'm allowed to equate the two)

Paul you said:

...I think individuality and unique personalities can be explained if you accept the car/driver, model where biological organisms are seen as the "cars" or vehicles which are "driven" by the one universal consciousness. But to explain the individuality, the "cars" must be equipped with extensive on-board computing capability -- like Mars rovers. Certain biological actions, like autonomic functions and reflex actions, seem to be explainable completely from a material biological basis. They are functions of the central nervous system. Other actions, like willful and deliberate muscle movement, seem to involve a component of consciousness, so a complete explanation may require the participation of the universal consciousness, which by hypothesis is outside the brain.

The way I see it, the brain has a considerable capability to store information locally which represents the view of the universe from the particular world line traversed by this particular organism. That history is unique and it is reasonable to expect that it would "color" any perceptions or conceptions of the universal consciousness relating to this particular organism. This would result in the appearance of a unique individual with its own unique personality.

Furthermore, I suspect that this "considerable capability" of brains is causing brain researchers to jump to the conclusion that all mentality is housed in the brain, when in reality, the functions associated with consciousness may very well be located outside the brain.

This is an excellent analogy, I’m sure I follow your line of reasoning. I was coming at this from a perhaps parallel line of thought. Could not the ‘Cars’ in this case be embedded with a ‘chip’ if you will that has the property of personality attribute and the chip could be linked to the universal mind, and the unimind serve as a backup to the experiences that the car picks up that shapes its individuality along its world line? Further could not all these cars serve to enhance the existential and experiential attainment of this unimind? (note: have to go to class will continue this line.)

 

[Les Sleeth]

This is an excellent analogy . . . could not all these cars serve to enhance the existential and experiential attainment of this unimind?

I like the analogy too, as well as the idea that "cars" enhance us somehow. I've suggested that possibly our CNS individuates us from/within the "general" universal consciousness.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I would agree with you, had he stated or implied that the changes were undirected. But the author never mentioned explicitly or implicitly how or what caused those duplications to occur. Hence you cannot infer the nature of those mutations based on his words, even though he used the term "natural selection". You are reading too much into it, so I think your complaint is again unjustified.

We aren't going to agree, obviously. Above you are demonstrating how the article can be technically defended, but I am talking about public perception. We all know "natural selection" is a Darwinist term and that Darwinist evolution allows nothing but accidental mutation. By using the term, and at a site devoted to explaining evolution, the author clearly places responsibility for genetic change in the hands of happenstance; and by not making it clear that the explanation is theory, it communicates the impression there’s more evidential support than there is.

Since you’ve posted in Garth’s thread on science and faith, I’d guess you’ve looked at his link to Madeline Bunting’s article criticizing Dawkins:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1681235,00.html

Possibly you see a similarity between her complaint and mine when she says, “This is the only context that can explain Dawkins's programme, a piece of intellectually lazy polemic which is not worthy of a great scientist. He uses his authority as a scientist to claim certainty where he himself knows, all too well, that there is none; for example, our sense of morality cannot simply be explained as a product of our genetic struggle for evolutionary advantage. More irritatingly, he doesn't apply to religion - the object of his repeated attacks - a fraction of the intellectual rigour or curiosity that he has applied to evolution (to deserved applause). Where is the grasp of the sociological or anthropological explanations of the centrality of religion? Sadly, there is no evolution of thought in Dawkins's position; he has been saying much the same thing about religion for a long time.”

That's a fair statement. However, I wish your criticism was more constructive and educational rather than merely point out my level of understanding.

Hmmmm. A big assignment. I've written extensively about it here at PF, and even a page or two ago in this thread (sorry, I’d assumed you’d read that). Rather than post it again, let me give you a few links.

I’ve approached the subject from several directions. One way, for example, is to discuss knowledge of a possible universal consciousness and knowledge of the physical universe as dependent on two different epistemologies. In Garth’s thread (again) -- https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=885928&posted=1#post885928 -- I make that point in post #69.

In another thread, in the discussion with DM, starting with post #14 here . . . https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105637 . . . we exchange ideas over two more pages about studying the conscious experience of Jesus (as opposed to theologies that were developed later). Just to make it clear if you decide to read it, I am not Christian or a the member of any religion.

You might check out the interview PIT2 posted here . . . https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=106775 . . . where a brain researcher gives his take on the mystical experience. The term “mystical” as it applies to religious studies has a very specific meaning. You might Google Mysticism by Evelyn Underhill as an introduction to the subject.

If you are still interested after reading any of the above I’ll be more than happy to answer any questions.

What is your definition of "universal consciousness"? Is it natural or supernatural? Please try to be concise.

Another challenging assignment (being concise with that subject). First one has to understand what consciousness is, and that is no easy matter. But let’s say that consciousness is, at a minimum, an organizing dynamic. I’ll get back to that idea in a minute.

Good theories require good inferences, and one of my requirements for inference is to try to find conditions we know exist to depend on for developing supposition. For example, I inferred a universal consciousness, if it did participate in guiding creation, must be natural since all of creation is natural. By “natural” I mean that it follows, and must follow, laws more basic than itself (just like everything else seems to).

One reason I think a universal consciousness (assuming for discussion sake one exists) has come about through and must obey more basic laws is because I can see no other way to avoid at least one of the age-old philosophical problems of infinite regress or something from nothing. Below are links to two threads that taken together attempt to show how something conscious might arise “naturally” from more basic laws/conditions and avoid infinite regress or something from nothing:

The first, found here . . . https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=76897 . . . is a thread on “neutral substance monism” to try model what is most fundamental to existence.

The second, found here . . . https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103874 . . . is a thread on how oscillatory dynamics might establish order within what’s most fundamental to existence (i.e., the subject of the monism thread).

Now, with a concept for base existence and how order might arise from it, let’s return to the idea that a universal consciousness might be thought of as an organizing dynamic. From what conditions might I logically infer that? In this case, it is the degree of organization found in our solar system, most notably in the origination of life and the subsequent development of life forms (although there are a lot of unique organizational arrangements throughout our solar system too).

What produced the quality of organization needed for abiogenesis and the development of life forms? Well, physicalists claim mechanics did it all by their lonesome, yet they cannot demonstrate any mechanical dynamics which, without conscious intervention by humans, can self-organize as needed to deliver life. So I say that is a extremely under-supported inference, and that an organizational dynamic is still needed to explain creation.

Finally, what is the only known force in the universe to organize with the quality to create system, upon system, upon system . . . human consciousness. So is it such a leap to infer that there might be universal consciousness that’s been part of the development of the universe, and that those areas of organization which mechanics are incapable of explaining are produced by that consciousness?