Is Evolution Conscious (Some amazing points about evolution)

[Ouroboros]

But why have we not ate each other by then? Fish eat fish? no?

Another aspect of it is nutrition and diet. You can't live of your offspring alone. It's like my symbol to the left. Eating your own tail. How did you get to be a snake to begin with? Any species have to eat other species first before they even can think of eating their own. How else could the grow up to make babies on their own? So really, there's a much larger survival benefit from eating other species, simply because there aren't any of your own offspring until you've done so. (It's also a practical answer. You can't burn both ends of a candle until you actually have a candle to burn.)

 

[Ouroboros]

Man, that squirrel thing really threw me for a second there.

Nutjob... squirrel... man, didn't want to spoil my stupid jokes. They're bad enough as they are!

 

[Kirran]

You can't live of your offspring alone.

You should totally be a dietician.

Nutjob... squirrel... man, didn't want to spoil my stupid jokes. They're bad enough as they are!

I got it in the end, no worries.

 

[Ouroboros]

You should totally be a dietician.

Sure. Especially since I totally suck at standup comedy.

 

[Kirran]

Sure. Especially since I totally suck at standup comedy.

We shouldn't judge that based on sample sizes of one. One joke, and one audience-member.

 

[McBell]

You can't live of your offspring alone.

Especially if it takes nine months to get a seven pound roast...

 

[Ouroboros]

We shouldn't judge that based on sample sizes of one. One joke, and one audience-member.

True. That's too small data set, and a very tiny joke.

 

[Ouroboros]

Especially if it takes nine months to get a seven pound roast...

Yup. And you can't bake for free.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I personally think it is conscious in some way or another. I believe the universe is conscious, and guides all things. Everything that happens is because God (the universe) willed it. Not exactly like how we will things, but it bends according to itself, almost instinctively, changing rapidly in order for it to get us by.

At the same time, evolution isn't conscious in the way you are asking. It turns out this way because what we have here is the result of millions of years of genetic heredity. The less preferred genes will not spread because they aren't passed down. The genes that passed are the genes that have benefited reproduction. The genes that challenges reproduction are not passed as often as the genes that gave us higher likeliness of being passed to later generations.

You can also say that it is consciousness in some sense because it is controlled by animal behavior. Except for humans who are very aware of evolution and its workings, evolution is guided by living creatures, but not intentionally.

 

[Kirran]

I personally think it is conscious in some way or another. I believe the universe is conscious, and guides all things. Everything that happens is because God (the universe) willed it. Not exactly like how we will things, but it bends according to itself, almost instinctively, changing rapidly in order for it to get us by.

At the same time, evolution isn't conscious in the way you are asking. It turns out this way because what we have here is the result of millions of years of genetic heredity. The less preferred genes will not spread because they aren't passed down. The genes that passed are the genes that have benefited reproduction. The genes that challenges reproduction are not passed as often as the genes that gave us higher likeliness of being passed to later generations.

You can also say that it is consciousness in some sense because it is controlled by animal behavior. Except for humans who are very aware of evolution and its workings, evolution is guided by living creatures, but not intentionally.

I find this a very interesting take on evolution. You're at once saying that evolution is a natural chemical process, and also that it's guided. I think it's very elegant.

Also, thanks for bringing us back on track, we were heading off on a tangent there.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You can also say that it is consciousness in some sense because it is controlled by animal behavior. Except for humans who are very aware of evolution and its workings, evolution is guided by living creatures, but not intentionally.

Interesting point, and the more complex organisms have a greater awareness of their environment. Also the greater the degree of awareness an organism has, the better it's chances of survival in a particular environment.

Assuming that consciousness is an emergent property, would it make sense to say that consciousness is really an expression of the survival instinct?

 

[Kirran]

Also the greater the degree of awareness an organism has, the better it's chances of survival in a particular environment.

I'm not sure that's true. To be self-aware takes a lot of brain power, and a brain consumes a lot of energy.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm not sure that's true. To be self-aware takes a lot of brain power, and a brain consumes a lot of energy.

But humans have been so successful because of their large brains, yes?

 

[Laika]

With the greatest of respect to everyone else answering, I think you seem to be the most open to what I am saying.
People like Amit Goswami as a physicist could explain this a whole lot better. As a believer I see everything as consciousness. So evolution then is no problem. Look at it this way. The Creationist sees the design and says it ain't going to happen with luck. The Evolutionist sees the biology and says, It wasn't designed, it evolved. What if in both being part wrong, they are also part right?

Thanks. I think you're right in that consciousness and cause can be two different ways of interpreting the same pheneomena. It's difficult to explain how two people can look at a duck-billed platypus and one says "evolution!", and the other says "creation!". The two are not mutually exclusive in a scientific context and only a really extreme atheist would try to rule it out. The God of the gaps doesn't go away in science, but only in the philosophical realm.

Okay, here comes the Theology part:
What if the design part is within higher-consciousness, (a super-consciousness) something that has already happened, and everything in this unverse is following that earlier print. Then we have a design but we also see it evolve. The universe has to grow up in other words, it has to mature. It is born in the Big Bang and develops like a child into its mature constructive years which we see now. At some point, just as we get old and die, so will the universe.

For philosophical reasons I tend to be skeptical of the 'big bang' (what caused it? and as an atheist, I don't want someone to say God as that would really spoil my fun in this world). I would be going against the scientific consensus, but it is possible that you are attributing human qualities to the universe by assuming it is within a higher-consciousness? We can obviously observe that birth-life-death cycle works on a human and ecological scale, but can we be sure it is applicable to the universe?

Because this is intiutive, instinctive, it is not something that is actually 'known' but rather something that is known when it 'arrives'. So there is still no direction in evolution. It is still blind. But when it arrives at whatever it is, a fish or cow for example, then it knows what it is and remains at that level. Everything in that sense, is looking for its own 'Self', its own identity. This gives a direction to evolution, and a pace that it can work at, and a end point. It answers everything on this planet, because it is always trying to find its own exact space to be.

This again is interesting, as I would typically ascribe knowledge to human consciousness rather than to the physical world. But I agree that evolution is blind- only humans can figure out what the next stage might be, the future still has to be realized.

It is not foreknown, nor is it directed, and yet, and this is the fascinating part, within the 'so-called book of this world', the pages that we now assume are already written as the print (the super-consciousness), actually aren't.
Life is writing the pages as it goes.
So the universe has complete autonomy from God (in the greater sense). It is a consciousness which expresses itself within physical traits. It is consciousness expressed in physical terms.

In a way this is bit of chicken and the egg problem; the "egg" realizes it's self by becoming the "chicken". On the one hand, yes there is evolution, but the sense of self, the "chicken-ness" of the egg exists independently of the egg itself as a form of consciousness. Have I understood you correctly when you say that consciousness expressed in physical terms? (you're welcome to use a better analogy if it helps).

Now does that answer eyebrows? Well the short answer is no; Because I can't say what those eyebrows represent.... and I don't won't to bore you. But I know why we have two eyes, ears, hands, legs etc, and that is because we start from an initial Singularity point of consciousness which divided into two (in simple terms) and so we have: two. Thus, as everything follows that first-principle, 'we' also follow that. So we have two eyes, hands, feet, etc. It is the first simple representation of good and evil. It is even seen in something as simple as a shadow. Now science would explain that differently, but sceince would only be explaining within the physical plane that it exists in, not in the deeper sense.

I'll shut up now.

So the question you're asking is, in what way to eyebrows serve as part of the blue-print of human evolution in this super-consciousness?
Again, in attributing a special significance to two, is that not also potentially a projection of our own human intellect on to the external world? I'm of the opinion that good and evil are a question of degrees and usually a mixture of good and bad rather than two mutually exclusive moral qualities. I tend to look at the world in much the same way as a question of degrees of "x" or "y". light and dark might be a good example as it's often degrees of light on the spectrum which produces different colors.

(you're doing fine. keep going. )

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think it makes quite a bit of sense to me.

At the end of the day, things are as they are, and that's it (Advaita, Daoism).


.

To say things are the way they are, and that is that, is a cop out. You, remember, are studying Evolution. That does not sound like someone who thinks things are just the way they are and that is that.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The intellect or lack thereof of fish would make not determination on what their instincts would say. The development of those instincts, again, would be very similar to anything that we have developed on land. The first animals were not carnivores (though they did develop quickly afterwards). Those animals would have had to develop some semblance of an idea of what they could consume and what they could not. Also what would have developed would be the idea of communities of the same animal. Those communities of animals must have developed an inhibitor somewhere for their behaviors that would dominate their interactions with each other.

Evolution of the way they view their young, or specifically in the case of fish, eggs, would have been along the same lines. They would have instinctively attempted to protect the eggs as it may have been as an extension of themselves or simply pure instinct developed out of the necessity to reproduce. Once they were born then it is reasonable to assume they would have been viewed as part of the community and therefor "not food". Many animals such as fish can lay eggs and then abandon those eggs which would then hatch and only a very very very few may survive.

But what of the fish that eat fish? Why did they not eat themselves out of extinction? Is it pure numbers?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I personally think it is conscious in some way or another. I believe the universe is conscious, and guides all things. Everything that happens is because God (the universe) willed it. Not exactly like how we will things, but it bends according to itself, almost instinctively, changing rapidly in order for it to get us by.

At the same time, evolution isn't conscious in the way you are asking. It turns out this way because what we have here is the result of millions of years of genetic heredity. The less preferred genes will not spread because they aren't passed down. The genes that passed are the genes that have benefited reproduction. The genes that challenges reproduction are not passed as often as the genes that gave us higher likeliness of being passed to later generations.

You can also say that it is consciousness in some sense because it is controlled by animal behavior. Except for humans who are very aware of evolution and its workings, evolution is guided by living creatures, but not intentionally.

So are you saying you don't believe in the Divine outside of the universe?

I think consciousness is necessary myself. I see too many ways of getting something wrong. I know what @Ouroboros will say. It turns out one way or another. Somebody has to win the race right? That makes sense. But, when we consider that the race is not run by a lot of cripples and mutants, but highly honed athletes, then it makes less sense. Things are just too perfect, too complete. I see no hope of that happening without some pattern to follow, or, as is more likely, parameters that guide it. Now we have to ask how likely it is that those parameters exist in the first place.

But it does appear that the bigger the problem, the more at ease we are at accepting unlikely answers.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I find this a very interesting take on evolution. You're at once saying that evolution is a natural chemical process, and also that it's guided. I think it's very elegant.

Also, thanks for bringing us back on track, we were heading off on a tangent there.

So you didn't get that understanding also from me then?

 

[Kirran]

To say things are the way they are, and that is that, is a cop out. You, remember, are studying Evolution. That does not sound like someone who thinks things are just the way they are and that is that.

I'm not saying that, and then just stopping. I'm acknowledging that, in the manner of a Daoist or certain Advaitins.

But what of the fish that eat fish? Why did they not eat themselves out of extinction? Is it pure numbers?

Because they ate other kinds of fish, generally.

So you didn't get that understanding also from me then?

No, you seemed to be implying that consciousness had a more active role than I got from that.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Thanks. I think you're right in that consciousness and cause can be two different ways of interpreting the same pheneomena. It's difficult to explain how two people can look at a duck-billed platypus and one says "evolution!", and the other says "creation!". The two are not mutually exclusive in a scientific context and only a really extreme atheist would try to rule it out. The God of the gaps doesn't go away in science, but only in the philosophical realm.



For philosophical reasons I tend to be skeptical of the 'big bang' (what caused it? and as an atheist, I don't want someone to say God as that would really spoil my fun in this world). I would be going against the scientific consensus, but it is possible that you are attributing human qualities to the universe by assuming it is within a higher-consciousness? We can obviously observe that birth-life-death cycle works on a human and ecological scale, but can we be sure it is applicable to the universe?

I think the consensus in science, even atheist scientists, is that the big bang is right, and that at some point the universe will die. Some say it might freeze and others think it might be a big crunch etc. I certainly see it as having a beginning and an end. Though I have no difficulty with the multiverse idea either, though I think the realities of existence of us and everything are infinite.

This again is interesting, as I would typically ascribe knowledge to human consciousness rather than to the physical world. But I agree that evolution is blind- only humans can figure out what the next stage might be, the future still has to be realized.

In a way this is bit of chicken and the egg problem; the "egg" realizes it's self by becoming the "chicken". On the one hand, yes there is evolution, but the sense of self, the "chicken-ness" of the egg exists independently of the egg itself as a form of consciousness. Have I understood you correctly when you say that consciousness expressed in physical terms? (you're welcome to use a better analogy if it helps).

The development, or, evolution, of the universe and everything in it, is like water looking for a recess or base level in order to run into. Once this is done, it is what it is. If you look at some of Goswami or Hagelin's work, they say that at the micro level, on the smallest of the small level, everything is an ocean of existence, and that we are like the waves on that ocean.
To me, we are the offspring of that original existence.

So the question you're asking is, in what way to eyebrows serve as part of the blue-print of human evolution in this super-consciousness?

I wouldn't call it a blue-print, but rather, a print. The reason is because error occurs with in the print, which you would not expect in a blue-print. That goes into Theology a bit so I won't trouble you. The short of it is, error gets thrown out, and is why, ultimately, we exist in this physical plane.

Again, in attributing a special significance to two, is that not also potentially a projection of our own human intellect on to the external world? I'm of the opinion that good and evil are a question of degrees and usually a mixture of good and bad rather than two mutually exclusive moral qualities. I tend to look at the world in much the same way as a question of degrees of "x" or "y". light and dark might be a good example as it's often degrees of light on the spectrum which produces different colors.

(you're doing fine. keep going. )

To project our own Selfs into the universe, to me, is not a problem, as I believe in the Divine. You have to ask yourself why it is that we can explain so much of the universe in the first place. Do you not find that quite absurd? I mean, really, apes got a bit cleverer, and then decided to fly to the moon and nuclear power. Some apes! We accept it as we see it. But if you think about it, if you were to write about it without knowledge of such things, it would sound a little over the top I think.
The Theology behind us understanding the universe is because we were part of creating it. It is the same consciousness as us and of the Divine. Does that make sense then how we can understand it? Sure. But as time goes on, we forget, so we have to look and learn again for something we already know, but have forgotten.
That is the same with evolution.