Evolution has never been observed

[atanu]

That may be true... but it doesn't answer the question.

Having volition, intelligence and will is one thing... being able to set up a massive eugenics program to purposefully produce a long neck over thousands of generations is another.

wa:do

But that is what I am telling. The unbound awareness is not in time. Time evolves out of unbound awareness -- which is now and here in every observation.

 

[painted wolf]

But that is what I am telling. The unbound awareness is not in time. Time evolves out of unbound awareness -- which is now and here in every observation.

Yet we are bound and we are the ones evolving physically. Once we have physicality we are limited by this reality, even the most skilled of us. Which is why one waits to die to move on, no matter how enlightened you are alive.

wa:do

 

[Acim]

How can the Giraffe have chosen to evolve a long neck by choice, when everyone in the whole species would have to be making the same choice and then messing around with their own DNA to make it happen?

I don't think it is by individual choice (alone), but more like species choice or natural choice, in conscious way. If thinking (and stuck on thinking) of it as individual conscious choice, it will be easy to mock, exploit as folly, even while it isn't with any degree of accuracy. Just very tough to understand if only going that route.

I'm willing to let nature be natural and not try to make it otherwise.

Then it ought to be clear that nature has evolved to point of consciously studying itself in very very extensive way with individual and collective awareness around what plausibly was supra-awareness the whole way through. For clearly science is describing / studying process that takes intelligence to understand, make sense of, while said intelligence is part of same nature.

 

[painted wolf]

I don't think it is by individual choice (alone), but more like species choice or natural choice, in conscious way. If thinking (and stuck on thinking) of it as individual conscious choice, it will be easy to mock, exploit as folly, even while it isn't with any degree of accuracy. Just very tough to understand if only going that route.

How does a species choose, does it talk to other species to find out what they think? And how does it make sure it's individual parts obey?

Then it ought to be clear that nature has evolved to point of consciously studying itself in very very extensive way with individual and collective awareness around what plausibly was supra-awareness the whole way through. For clearly science is describing / studying process that takes intelligence to understand, make sense of, while said intelligence is part of same nature.

Are you suggesting that nature is an entity... a "superorganism" that we are just a piece of?

wa:do

 

[atanu]

Yet we are bound and we are the ones evolving physically. Once we have physicality we are limited by this reality, ----
wa:do

No doubt about that. Yet our limitation is not actually the limitation of the awareness. Let it rest here. We are, IMO, way off from the OP.

Thanks for a delightful exchange.

 

[painted wolf]

No doubt about that. Yet our limitation is not actually the limitation of the awareness. Let it rest here. We are, IMO, way off from the OP.

yes and no... it's important to understand where people get their ideas and what exactly those ideas are. This has been quite useful in that regard.

Thanks for a delightful exchange.

Anytime... and thank you as well, perhaps we can do it again some time.

wa:do

 

[johnhanks]

Differentially affects survival and reproduction is why I subscribe to consciously selected...

But why deny good William his razor? The selection would work just as effectively without the consciousness.

 

[Photonic]

But why deny good William his razor? The selection would work just as effectively without the consciousness.

Not to mention it would be a good deal less complicated. (Infinitely so, in fact.)

 

[camanintx]

Again, show me this reality of which you speak without presenting it in a conscious way.

Just because consciousness is required to observe reality does not make it necessary for reality to exist, does it?

And as I've asked about 50 times on this site, please show me objective evidence for this reality of which you speak. Means you cannot allude to physical self to establish physical 'reality,' as clearly that would be subjective and biased. (Not to mention circular.)

We're both living on the same planet, breathing the same air, using the same internet, reading the same words, aren't we? While how we experience reality will always be affected by our consciousness, it is still the same reality. If we don't start with the axiom that what we experience is real, then we're not going to get very far.

 

[atanu]

But why deny good William his razor? The selection would work just as effectively without the consciousness.

I will like to mention here that so-called Bronze age philosophers who systematised the process of Enquiry into truth, called Nyaya shastra, knew of law of parsimony, much before William re-formulated it.

Nyaya - New World Encyclopedia

Nyaya says that:

[if they assume such] omniscient beings, those endowed with the various superhuman faculties of assuming infinitesimal size, etc., and capable of creating everything, then we reply that the law of parsimony bids us assume only one such, namely Him, the adorable Lord. There can be no confidence in a non-eternal and non omniscient being, and hence it follows that according to the system which rejects God, the tradition of the Veda is simultaneously overthrown; there is no other way open.
​

Also.

Hindu Online

But given the assumption prevalent nowadays that awareness is a product of chemicals of nature, some philosphers actually make consciousness itself an infininite multiplicity.
​

 

[Acim]

How does a species choose

In sound bite logic that I think you'll understand, it is via natural selection.

Are you suggesting that nature is an entity... a "superorganism" that we are just a piece of?

Yes, though equipped with thought (spirit) we are a very significant piece.

To be clear, you can read the "us" as humans, and I won't immediately denounce that, but when I say "us" and "thought," I do mean nature and spirit, and that 'we' have been around a lot longer than humanity. I also recognize that for many thought/spirit is not necessary for explanation of biological evolution, while at same time, I find it not possible to explain it (anything) without thoughts. Plus the language employed, regardless of how mundane we make it, routinely comes off as 'consciousness at work' in process of nature talking about nature.

 

[Acim]

Just because consciousness is required to observe reality does not make it necessary for reality to exist, does it?

Depends on what you mean by exist.

We're both living on the same planet, breathing the same air, using the same internet, reading the same words, aren't we? While how we experience reality will always be affected by our consciousness, it is still the same reality. If we don't start with the axiom that what we experience is real, then we're not going to get very far.

All true and well, but doesn't make for objectivity, and doesn't need to be objective for all of what you are purporting here to 'work.' The axiom is very significant, and rests on faith. Why that would be denied or hotly contested is beyond me from intellectual perspective, but from the emotional baggage that some have with faith, I understand (I think) why the denial is in place.

 

[painted wolf]

In sound bite logic that I think you'll understand, it is via natural selection.

That tells me how it's accomplished... not how it's decided.
How does a species decide it wants a long neck, wings or fur? How does a species let the other species know what kind of selective pressure to put on them?

Also, Natural selection is not up to individual species but is a result of environmental factors. Are you suggesting that species control things like the weather, climate, continental drift and so on?

Yes, though equipped with thought (spirit) we are a very significant piece.

To be clear, you can read the "us" as humans, and I won't immediately denounce that, but when I say "us" and "thought," I do mean nature and spirit, and that 'we' have been around a lot longer than humanity. I also recognize that for many thought/spirit is not necessary for explanation of biological evolution, while at same time, I find it not possible to explain it (anything) without thoughts. Plus the language employed, regardless of how mundane we make it, routinely comes off as 'consciousness at work' in process of nature talking about nature.

Naturally you can't explain anything without thoughts, you are human and limited by your biology. Just because you need to think about things for them to make sense to you, doesn't mean those things need your thoughts to exist.

wa:do

 

[Photonic]

Naturally you can't explain anything without thoughts, you are human and limited by your biology. Just because you need to think about things for them to make sense to you, doesn't mean those things need your thoughts to exist.

Humans are incredibly egotistical like that.

Welcome to Humanity though. They think the universe was made for them and them only.

 

[camanintx]

Depends on what you mean by exist.

As far as I can tell, all of them. Maybe you have a different definition in mind.

All true and well, but doesn't make for objectivity, and doesn't need to be objective for all of what you are purporting here to 'work.' The axiom is very significant, and rests on faith. Why that would be denied or hotly contested is beyond me from intellectual perspective, but from the emotional baggage that some have with faith, I understand (I think) why the denial is in place.

Who is denying this?

 

[Acim]

That tells me how it's accomplished... not how it's decided.

Depends on how one (with intelligence, wisdom) looks at the data.

How does a species decide it wants a long neck, wings or fur?

Environmental factors, localized desires, universal (or biological) parameters, thing called Nature, thing called Intelligence.

How does a species let the other species know what kind of selective pressure to put on them?

Nature / Intelligence has that covered.

Also, Natural selection is not up to individual species but is a result of environmental factors. Are you suggesting that species control things like the weather, climate, continental drift and so on?

Given lack of clarity around 'species,' I'm not clear on what you mean by individual species, and given what I said earlier, I feel I've been clear that it is not 'individual species' making the decision (solely). At same time, to deny that it happens even at individual level, is challenging to deny (if employing wisdom).

Just because you need to think about things for them to make sense to you, doesn't mean those things need your thoughts to exist.

"Your" thoughts (or individual that is isolated from rest of all that is) - then yes, not needed for existence. Without thought, and I find no such evidence of said existence. Thus thought is necessary for existence, and is arguably all that actually exists.

 

[outhouse]

Nature / Intelligence has that covered.

blatantly a false statement

intellegence has never been observed in nature

 

[outhouse]

Thus thought is necessary for existence, and is arguably all that actually exists.

please provide sources for said false statement

 

[Acim]

blatantly a false statement

intellegence has never been observed in nature

Never said intelligence has been observed (with faulty physical eyes).

Still intelligence has that covered.

 

[Acim]

please provide sources for said false statement

All (human) knowledge, concepts, ideas. Which happens to be all that purports existence.

Does science exist? Does TOE exist? Do these exist as anything but thought?

As you, or anyone, is not able to provide objective evidence for existence of physical world, it stands to reason that it is only thought that establishes this as real. In this case, faith as thought.