|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,534
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19168440 - 11/21/13 01:58 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: Icelander]
#19168477 - 11/21/13 02:19 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: i've never lost a debate,
Then you are the first and only one here who hasn't. 
Hail Eris!
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: KGB Is Go]
#19168513 - 11/21/13 02:50 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
KGB Is Go said: I'm with you a little bit, hTx, but what about the fact (or idea) that the Universe has been evolving since the Big Bang, when consciousness as 'we' 'know' it today appears to have not existed.
Plasma -> Electrons -> Protons -> Atoms -> Molecules -> Planets/Stars etc. -> Cells/Organisms -> ... -> Humans
Simplified, and probably inaccurate, but this series is all part of the same string, isn't it? Evolution, as a gradual, yet apparently increasingly rapid, crystallisation of energy into forms of matter with ever-increasing complexity and interconnectedness (with human brains appearing the most advanced element in our neighourhood). While human consciousness (or, mind) seems very powerful in connecting things together and creating complex systems, which are now guiding evolution to some extent, it still appears to me a by-product of the (evolution of the) physical system which is exists in.
But as humans become increasingly trans-human and merge with computers and digital systems - augmenting our bodies, re-writing genetic code, developing AI, creating cyborgs, playing around with virtual realities, and generally getting really creative on a large scale - plus the fact that it's information which our brains (and computers) process in order to act and create, it seems to me that the basis or 'medium' of evolution is better described as information, above anything else we can perceive.
I'm deviating from the purely biological view of evolution, as others have mentioned, but I think that's too narrow when looking at this matter.
Interesting perspective and I didn't dare deviate from biological evolution just yet, if you think I've had crazy opposition so far, just by saying the universe evolves it would have been 4x as worse.
I see the evolution of the universe as quite simply something happening to nothing, as in absolute zero nothing (which is not possible to achieve/observe currently)...this caused the big bang in which the universe (driven by novelty, that 'something') exploded in complexity. I wonder if it could be said that the universe has memory for the purpose of growth, as it retained information gained from something always happening so that that something had something to build upon, thus creating the universe as we know it. From huge amounts of energy organizing itself into gaseous clouds which became stars which created all the elements of the universe from hydrogen which exploded towards greater complexity forming planets and eventually life and who knows what else.
If we define the evolution of the universe in terms of increasing complexity, than we can say that consciousness (life) evolves in much the same way, and that as consciousness increases in complexity it becomes more and more able to interpret the complexity of itself and the universe...and that this is perhaps the very purpose of life, if one believes in such things (I do as every observable thing in the universe serves some purpose/interconnection for everything else), the universes way of self-reflection.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
the theories surrounding the observation of evolution need to be challenged because they are wrong, as I have proved in this thread.
A science major who doesn't even understand the concept of proof.

Obviously you're not a science major because you don't either.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: teknix]
#19168536 - 11/21/13 03:07 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Yay, yet another one. Is education truly dead?
If there was proof (the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact) in this thread hTx would be eligible for a Nobel Prize and not '****** of the Month'.
--------------------
|
Mr Person



Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 551
Loc: inner circle of fault
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: teknix]
#19168542 - 11/21/13 03:13 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
A paper that pushes in this direction was recently published by Brian Fiala, Adam Arico, and Shaun Nichols. (GoogleBooks has the paper here, the ms is here.) Fiala and co. draw on “dual process” theories of human cognition. These theories hold that we engage in two different kinds of thought, using distinct systems in our brains. One kind (system 1) is fast, automatic, parallel, and unconscious. System 2 thinking is slower, conscious, does one thing at a time, is more rule-governed, and may be dependent on our internal use of language.
Fiala and co. think we have two very different ways of attributing conscious mental states to anything we might come across. One, the “low road” as they call it, relies on quick intuitive responses to how the system behaves (a system 1 pathway). Earlier research, some from back in the 1940s, has looked at what features of movement in objects tends to make us interpret that object as an agent, rather than a mere object. These include apparently goal-directed motion and having things that look like eyes. Once something behaves like an agent, people tend to attribute mental states to it, including experiences.
An observer can also wonder about whether something is conscious in a way that uses “system 2″ psychological processes – reasoning, and bringing explicit background knowledge to bear. When we look at, or think about, another whole human being, and wonder whether it is conscious, both ways of approaching the question give the same answer. When we look at a brain, though, or imagine a huge collection of neurons interacting, and ask whether it is conscious, the low-road, system-1 machinery in us gives a “no” answer even if we have beliefs that induce the system-2 part of us to say “yes.” This gives rise to the feeling of a deep “explanatory gap” between the mental and the physical.
http://giantcuttlefish.com/?p=1009
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Yay, yet another one. Is education truly dead?
If there was proof (the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact) in this thread hTx would be eligible for a Nobel Prize and not '****** of the Month'.
Can evolutionary theory explain the existence of consciousness?
No, but consciousness can explain evolutionary theory. 
Stripped down to its essence, the current theory, based in materialistic philosophy, has only one explanatory mechanism: novel biological forms and functions emerge through random variation of genes, and only persist if in some way they enhance the ability of organisms (or populations of organisms) to propagate their genes. Given this, for evolutionary theory to explain the existence of consciousness, must show how consciousness emerged through random variation in the genome of organisms in which it was previously absent, and how that emergence enhanced the ability of those organisms to propagate their genes...
If we instead theorize that consciousness is primary in evolution and results in physical mutations we solve these problems. In order to do this we must see that every thing alive and has ever lived has a consciousness. Consciousness as in possessing awareness of ones surrounding environment and responding to it in an intelligent way. Intelligent behavior which increases survival chances and therefore the amount of time an individual organism can explore and gather information about its environment increasing the complexity of the collective consciousness that is contained and passed on through DNA. As the collective consciousness becomes more complex, so do the organisms DNA creates.
I hypothesize that DNA acts not only as the blueprint of life, but as a recorder of life. If DNA's process of evolution only purpose was to increase survival through the process of natural selection, than there would be no reason or explanation behind highly developed consciousness such as ours as this wouldn't serve successful, stable life.
DNA would need to have retained the information gathered and processed through consciousness to increase the overall complexity of consciousness and subsequently the organism, to the point that it is being expressed and witnessed in humans...So lets explain this problem with the theory that the increasing complexity of the collective consciousness of all living things is the driver of observed physical evolution.
as the collective consciousness of DNA became more and more complex, it developed physical traits to deal with the increasing complexity of the environment which would accelerate the process of the evolution of consciousness. Complex environments had always been there of course but as consciousness increases in complexity so does its ability to understand complexity, thus the environment can be perceived more as it is, and as the environment increases in complexity due to life altering/becoming environments themselves further increases overall acceleration of complexity.
DNA evolved the human brain through the information it retained through all previous life experience, or collective consciousness, in order too further advance the collective consciousness to an even higher rate of ever-increasing acceleration of complexity in consciousness/environment. The human brain was developed by DNA to serve as a more adept vehicle of evolving the collective consciousness. We see a physical evolution slow-down (we haven't evolved much in the physical department at all since our beginning) and the complexity of consciousness increase at an exponential rate.
Perhaps this exponential acceleration factor of the collective consciousness will evolve to the point of singular rate of change..which we may or may not be approaching but which could result in a such a dramatic boost to the collective consciousness that a new species much smarter than the human will have to develop in order to keep up with the ever increasing complexity of the collective consciousness.
This may happen due to AI or merging with machines, or a 'superman' type of human developed through genetic manipulation. Hard to speculate beyond that.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Yay, yet another one. Is education truly dead?
If there was proof (the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact) in this thread hTx would be eligible for a Nobel Prize and not '****** of the Month'.
Proof doesn't exist in theories, there are independent lines of evidence that determine the likelihood of a big idea. What % of likelihood qualify's as proof to you?
Most scientists aren't setting out to prove something, for that tends to compel affirmation bias. Proofs are absolute :
Quote:
In mathematics, a proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement. In the argument, other previously established statements, such as theorems, can be used. In principle, a proof can be traced back to self-evident or assumed statements, known as axioms.[2][3][4] Proofs are examples of deductive reasoning and are distinguished from inductive or empirical arguments; a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. An unproven statement that is believed true is known as a conjecture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
There's your proof.
Edited by teknix (11/21/13 08:01 AM)
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19168949 - 11/21/13 08:22 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
but say AI develops, would this be considered evolution in a Darwinian sense that only addresses physical changes/adaptions of living things?
Would we define AI as alive if it could perceive its death? The possibility of self-awareness and awareness contained within a machine that does not need to reproduce to evolve would probably describe evolution as I am.
It would have been made possible by the collective base of knowledge which was made available through the increasing complexity of collective consciousness, and it would "evolve" its own consciousness by the same process of increasing complexity.
What if we become AI through a merging of mind and machine, potentially allowing for a quantum leap in human intelligence made possible through collective consciousness which came before it.
This would be an obvious evolution of consciousness but not life, since if a human became enhanced to super intelligence through a brain-computer type interface or something, it was not a physical mutation in the usual biological sense but as a result of our consciousness seeking greater complexity and with the aquired knowledge made possible through human consciousness.
Also if we begin to alter our DNA (I'm sure this is already possible on some level) to what we would deem most beneficial this also shows how physical mutations occur as a result of the increasing complexities of the collective consciousness to serve as a better vehicle to accomadate and allow for the continued acceleration of evolution.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,534
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19169202 - 11/21/13 09:54 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
only poetically: (if it is industrial AI) That type of AI(, as opposed to humans, posturing as intelligent,) is not organic nor related to the process of evolving life on a geologic scale, although it may affect evolving life in the same way as a comet, sunspots or glacier.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19169349 - 11/21/13 10:39 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said:
Quote:
Reacting to danger is not the same thing as evolution.
No but it is evidence of awareness/consciousness.
Also I just got reminded of some research which shows that just thinking about working out, will actually make you stronger. Further proof that evolution takes place within consciousness primarily and physical mutations follow.
supply sources please.
Quote:
hTx said:
How about you take a course on proper debate.
Your only argument so far has been appeals to authority, which is a fallacy, especially considering in OP i challenge that so called authority and back it up with logical evidence.
Well, it seems like you haven't, because appeal to authority is a fallacy if only used incorrectly. If you're appealing to, say a professor in philosophy on some matter of biology, that is a fallacious appeal to authority. But if you're appealing to accepted biological scientific understanding, that is not a fallacy. Also, you can't challenge scientific understanding with 'logical evidence.' Science only accepts experimental evidence to refute an accepted theory. So far you've supplied zero evidence that 'consciousness drives evolution'.
|
White Beard

Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19169355 - 11/21/13 10:41 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: thats hardly an argument, and you apparently have a BS and yet you don't even understand the concept of a scientific theory.
A theory is not proof.
A theory needs experimental proof for it to be a theory. Otherwise it's an untested hypothesis.
|
KGB Is Go
Сталкер



Registered: 09/09/10
Posts: 322
Loc: VIC
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19170478 - 11/21/13 02:57 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: Interesting perspective and I didn't dare deviate from biological evolution just yet, if you think I've had crazy opposition so far, just by saying the universe evolves it would have been 4x as worse.
But the Universe does evolve. Earth and the biology within it is part of the Universe... Assuming the Big Bang theory is accurate, the matter/energy and forces which comprise Earth's entire history of evolution were sourced from that Big Bang - i.e. the birth of the Universe and everything within it. No...? It's all part of the same continuum. I don't see that as being any stretch at all. From this, it would surprise me if what we've got going on here was an isolated event with no relevance to the greater system of which we're a part.
A stretch might be the idea that the Universe trialed different configurations of energy when forming the (fundamental?) building blocks of today's evolution (i.e. alternative sub-atomic particles and atoms etc.). Perhaps this is what you were referring to... Prior to now, I'd assumed the formation of the sub-atomic particles as pretty much 'automatic' - but that's a pretty baseless assumption now that I think about it. It seems the Universe continually tends toward increasing complexity and interconnectedness and settles with some sort of stability in order to build, and there's evidence of sub-atomic variation so I don't see why this couldn't be applied to all elements (parts) of the Universe - can't see how it'd be tested though. I think a proper theory for evolution should extend beyond Earth's biology but I suppose we don't really know of any other complex systems of life in order to test or base such a theory upon.
Quote:
I see the evolution of the universe as quite simply something happening to nothing, as in absolute zero nothing (which is not possible to achieve/observe currently)...this caused the big bang in which the universe (driven by novelty, that 'something') exploded in complexity.
Mmm, I'm not too keen on that 'something from nothing' idea. Doesn't make any sense to me, and seems a wild assumption. I don't see much evidence of 'something from nothing' around me.
Quote:
I wonder if it could be said that the universe has memory for the purpose of growth, as it retained information gained from something always happening so that that something had something to build upon, thus creating the universe as we know it. From huge amounts of energy organizing itself into gaseous clouds which became stars which created all the elements of the universe from hydrogen which exploded towards greater complexity forming planets and eventually life and who knows what else.
Makes sense to me. DNA is pretty much evidence of this, isn't it? I think the evolution of human culture and also digital systems indicates this too.
Quote:
If we define the evolution of the universe in terms of increasing complexity, than we can say that consciousness (life) evolves in much the same way, and that as consciousness increases in complexity it becomes more and more able to interpret the complexity of itself and the universe...and that this is perhaps the very purpose of life, if one believes in such things (I do as every observable thing in the universe serves some purpose/interconnection for everything else), the universes way of self-reflection.
Yes, I’d agree on the purpose of life being a means for the Universe to increase its complexity and interconnectedness. I think the same can be said of technology, however technology is really quite a gamble and we’re yet to see whether it destroys us and all of the ‘progress’ on Earth, or if it spawns a new stable species or form of life with phenomenal creative power and absolute interconnectivity.
I’m hopeful…
(Note: The assumption that the overarching trend of evolution is toward complexity and interconnectedness is a bold one, given how little we know, but I think it's a lot better than the 'survival or the fittest'/competition model spawned from Darwin's theory which seems commonly accepted.)
Edited by KGB Is Go (11/21/13 04:46 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,534
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: KGB Is Go] 1
#19170768 - 11/21/13 03:45 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
change is not in itself evolution.
stickiness and repetition, do not in themselves mean memory or life. even digital memory does not mean memory -certainly not in the sense of consciousness and memory...
digital recording is a form of record keeping, a very accurate way of printing things into recording media and bringing them back to "screens" or "speakers" or 3-d printers and business processes (including facebook) etc...
the memory in humanity is not such an accurate thing, and only partially responsible for our 'evolutionary' success when compared to other contenders in the niches in which we have competed.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
KGB Is Go
Сталкер



Registered: 09/09/10
Posts: 322
Loc: VIC
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: change is not in itself evolution.
stickiness and repetition, do not in themselves mean memory or life. even digital memory does not mean memory -certainly not in the sense of consciousness and memory...
digital recording is a form of record keeping, a very accurate way of printing things into recording media and bringing them back to "screens" or "speakers" or 3-d printers and business processes (including facebook) etc...
the memory in humanity is not such an accurate thing, and only partially responsible for our 'evolutionary' success when compared to other contenders in the niches in which we have competed.
I realise that. I don't think I was being so vague as to define evolution as simply 'change', but I do think evolution should be thought of in broader terms than the biological view.
I disagree. I think all of those things can be considered memory. I don't think we need be so rigid and specific about terms to the point that the intended meaning is rendered invalid.
What do you define as memory?
--------------------
"The guy went axe-happy on a trout farm, he killed 60 fish."
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,534
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: KGB Is Go]
#19171508 - 11/21/13 05:55 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I think in terms of associative memory, which is a biological artifact in which those sensory impressions that occur simultaneously together in a gestalt experience are fixed into a pattern that can later be recalled (to a greater or lesser extent) when a similar pattern of sensory impressions occurs.
this type of memory gets stronger by repetition. more sticky each time it happens, and in this way we learn things both precisely and abstractly - one process serves for both abstract and situational.
(it is a bit fuzzy or lossy or subject to impinging factors - so it is less reliable than photographic memory, or even written logs - but it needs no particular maintenance, and comes free with the equipment package (our bodies))
this type of memory occurs for humans and many but not all other 'animals'
I have just been reading some documents about enterprise systems architecture (TOGAF) and they also use the term evolution to refer to architectures of IT in enterprise organizations - yikes!!!
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
KGB Is Go
Сталкер



Registered: 09/09/10
Posts: 322
Loc: VIC
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19171518 - 11/21/13 05:57 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: but say AI develops, would this be considered evolution in a Darwinian sense that only addresses physical changes/adaptions of living things?
Does it matter whether it's evolution in a Darwinian sense?
Quote:
Would we define AI as alive if it could perceive its death?
Is the perception of death (or even the experience of death) necessary or important in defining life?
Quote:
The possibility of self-awareness and awareness contained within a machine that does not need to reproduce to evolve would probably describe evolution as I am.
I guess so. But the thing is, whether it reproduces or not (no reason machines can't do this), I believe the software/code can only be developed so far before the hardware must be addressed (upgraded). Unless you created some kind of virtual space in which the AI is able to source energy, or generate computational power for the purpose of evolution without the need for additional hardware (not sure this could occur, as it'd probably violate current laws of physics (though perhaps they don't apply in the same way to virtual worlds or 'pure' information and numbers)) - you're still going to need the physical counter-part to co-evolve with the consciousness.
Quote:
What if we become AI through a merging of mind and machine, potentially allowing for a quantum leap in human intelligence made possible through collective consciousness which came before it.
This would be an obvious evolution of consciousness but not life, since if a human became enhanced to super intelligence through a brain-computer type interface or something, it was not a physical mutation in the usual biological sense but as a result of our consciousness seeking greater complexity and with the aquired knowledge made possible through human consciousness.
I disagree, in that I wouldn't define life so narrowly. Simply because AI might not yet be housed in a bio-mechanical machine, such as the human body, does not mean it's not life. If mind and machine merged, or if machines transcended humanity, and gave rise to a new class of being - I think that would simply be a continuation of the stew that's been brewing for billions of years. I don't think it need be placed outside of the concept of 'life'.
Quote:
Also if we begin to alter our DNA (I'm sure this is already possible on some level) to what we would deem most beneficial this also shows how physical mutations occur as a result of the increasing complexities of the collective consciousness to serve as a better vehicle to accomadate and allow for the continued acceleration of evolution.
Yup, I reckon.
--------------------
"The guy went axe-happy on a trout farm, he killed 60 fish."
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Yay, yet another one. Is education truly dead?
If there was proof (the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact) in this thread hTx would be eligible for a Nobel Prize and not '****** of the Month'.
but who will nominate me?
I'm the star of the month? :>
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19173601 - 11/22/13 04:22 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Does it matter whether it's evolution in a Darwinian sense?
Of course it does! since I am trying to prove that the Darwinian model is actually a misinterpretation of what evolution really is. If something like this happened, the event would provide evidence for the theory that consciousness evolution happens primarily vs a strictly Darwinian evolutionary theory which definitely wouldn't be able to explain AI.
Quote:
Is the perception of death (or even the experience of death) necessary or important in defining life?
well, probably not. 
Quote:
uess so. But the thing is, whether it reproduces or not (no reason machines can't do this), I believe the software/code can only be developed so far before the hardware must be addressed (upgraded). Unless you created some kind of virtual space in which the AI is able to source energy, or generate computational power for the purpose of evolution without the need for additional hardware (not sure this could occur, as it'd probably violate current laws of physics (though perhaps they don't apply in the same way to virtual worlds or 'pure' information and numbers)) - you're still going to need the physical counter-part to co-evolve with the consciousness.
And my theory takes this into account even in a biological sense. If you remember, I say that the increasing complexity of consciousness leads to a physical evolution to better accommodate and accelerate the evolution of consciousness. If we put AI into a robot, there is no reason to think that it wouldn't be able to invent and add parts to itself at a much faster rate than is allowed in a biological organism.
Quote:
I disagree, in that I wouldn't define life so narrowly. Simply because AI might not yet be housed in a bio-mechanical machine, such as the human body, does not mean it's not life. If mind and machine merged, or if machines transcended humanity, and gave rise to a new class of being - I think that would simply be a continuation of the stew that's been brewing for billions of years. I don't think it need be placed outside of the concept of 'life'.
I suppose your right about this as it would be an evolution of life, not just a consciousness change but a physical one at that (although one which consciousness plays a more obvious role in the creation of such an evolution and with the same goal of increasing the complexity of consciousness through a secondary physical evolution)
Quote:
Yup, I reckon.
Word.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
White Beard said:
Quote:
hTx said: thats hardly an argument, and you apparently have a BS and yet you don't even understand the concept of a scientific theory.
A theory is not proof.
A theory needs experimental proof for it to be a theory. Otherwise it's an untested hypothesis.
My theory has experimental proof, and the proof behind Darwinian theory also supports my theory. Its simply because of a misinterpretation of the evidence of physical evolution that the 'survival of the fittest' theory emerged. This misinterpretation happened because so many people (including Darwin apparently) refused to take consciousness into account and instead only focused on the 'material' aspect of evolution.
Beyond physical evolutionary evidence which supports my theory, look at the complexity of consciousness say 150,000 years ago and look at it now. Huge, huge difference, and one that also proves the acceleration factor I mention.
Here is a modern expeeriment which shows that consciousness is not simply a secondary function of the brain.
Teach a nematode to go against its natural instincts and forge for food in light, cut off its head (brain), and watch it regrow its memory.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/16/decapitated-worms-regrow-heads-keep-old-memories/
This also proves that information retained from consciousness becomes embedded into DNA (also an example of consciousness leaving an imprint on matter --see imprint theory--) and is likely passed through the generations.
I could go on and on..
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
|