|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,534
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19177608 - 11/23/13 03:34 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Entropy is what is most natural. Evolution is antithetical to entropy. All living things do not have consciousness. But all living things participate in this battle against dissipation. Concentrating energy and organizing form. Consciousness comes later as a side effect in complex beings who have developed structures that can hold images and blend them over time further defying entropy of subtle patterns and (to some extent) making sense of the universe
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: Diploid]
#19177616 - 11/23/13 03:37 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said: Evidence, bitchs
Translation: more we're supposed to take on faith because "there is no way" he could be wrong.
SO, you ready for part two?
If what I posted establishing the increasing complexity of the universe, evolution and consciousness, isn't considered evidence, even though I reference an article published in a respected scientific journal, which makes the same assertion..
Than I think you need to look up the definition of evidence man.  The evidence I presented, as I stated, doesn't yet show without a doubt that my theory is correct, but that one essential piece of my theory is correct, the assertion made that complexity is indeed increasing in the universe, evolution, and consciousness.
It should already be easy to see that consciousness is evolving by now, but for the sake of truth, I will also establish this assertion as being true with evidence..than will come the evidence that complexity is accelerating.
Then I will be able to prove that the theory of Evolution by Means of The Natural Acceleration of Complexity, is correct, and show how this theory shows that evolution by means of natural selection proposed by Darwin is a misinterpretation of whats really going on, explains how consciousness emerged from the increasing complexity of the universe, how consciousness evolves with increasing complexity, and that the evolution of consciousness is primary in regards to increasing the complexity of life...
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
Edited by hTx (11/23/13 04:03 AM)
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: Diploid]
#19177632 - 11/23/13 03:44 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said: Do you even read your own links? That paper does not contain the word "consciousness", not even once. 
It does however refer to the overall increase of the complexity involved in information processing, which is essentially the same thing as consciousness, correct?
I assume using the exact term 'consciousness' when attempting to get published with an article about evolution is pretty taboo in intellectual circles.
-------------------- 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]
#19177650 - 11/23/13 03:56 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The paper also says, and I quote,
"Our argument, then, goes like this: The universe is indefinitely intricate. A more highly differentiated and integrated organism is a more powerful sensor and computer. Hence elaboration yields more information without limit. Greater information pays off with:
(1) more effective search, (2) more efficient extraction of energy and matter, (3) more flexible response to vicissitudes."
Meaning that as the complexity of organisms increased through the process of evolution, so did their capacity to become more aware of greater amounts of information.
-------------------- 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]
#19177660 - 11/23/13 04:02 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Now that I think about it, involving consciousness into the name of the theory is to specific.
Its much more accurate to simply say, Evolution by Means of Accelerating Complexity.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: Entropy is what is most natural. Evolution is antithetical to entropy. All living things do not have consciousness. But all living things participate in this battle against dissipation. Concentrating energy and organizing form. Consciousness comes later as a side effect in complex beings who have developed structures that can hold images and blend them over time further defying entropy of subtle patterns and (to some extent) making sense of the universe
Post of the Month Award! 
--------------------
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: Entropy is what is most natural. Evolution is antithetical to entropy. All living things do not have consciousness. But all living things participate in this battle against dissipation. Concentrating energy and organizing form. Consciousness comes later as a side effect in complex beings who have developed structures that can hold images and blend them over time further defying entropy of subtle patterns and (to some extent) making sense of the universe
I don't see how anything could be 'most natural' considering everything in the universe is equally natural.
You are right, however, in regards to evolution being antithetical to entropy, especially if we apply evolution to consciousness.
It may be that the unique ability of humans to create is related to their possession of a free-willed consciousness. If the essence of free-willed consciousness is acausality, then results need not be derived via causal chains of logic from more basic information and perhaps thus "new information" can indeed be "created".
In addition, perhaps by the exercise of free-willed consciousness in creative activity, one can also decrease entropy by creating information - a true act of creativity in itself. In this way, human free-willed consciousness can be the unique factor in the universe which is acting to decrease the amount of entropy in it.
Since entropy in theory should result in the death of the universe, I will speculate that the evolution of consciousness occurs so that eventually it may express free-will and creativity in order to save the entire universe..kind of a stretch, I know, but entirely possible. (would this mean that the universe has death anxiety? just kidding)
However, I would say your definition of consciousness is not the same as mine or others, and is instead what I would call complex consciousness, made possible through the evolution of the collective consciousness of all life.
I now see that most of the misunderstandings concerning my conjecture is that there is no exact agreed upon definition of the term, which is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of equating consciousness with self-consciousness—but self-consciousness is simply something which consciousness is eventually capable of.
for my requirements of something to be in possession of consciousness, it is only necessary to be aware of the external world. Since any living thing must be aware of the external world to survive, every living thing must possess a basic level of consciousness if even just the smallest smidgen of awareness, to be considered alive.
It may help to avoid confusion if I simply replace the term consciousness with awareness, yes?
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,534
|
|
delighted to have both Bones and Kirk respecting that comment
however
the pattern breaks down when we discuss viruses which are not a life form. they are devious dna or rna packets that break free from the hosting cells that manufacture them and infect other bodies.
and, while viruses are not in themselves "alive" they can mutate and seem to evolve (while subverting living tissues). and, it is suspected, that viruses are a source of mutation in life as well since they can become inserted or partially into chromosomes or they could even change germ cell chromosomes whilst operating systemically.
the questions are: do we define virus evolution as evolution of a non-living thing or do we consider that virus evolution is actually evolution in the hosting population?
i.e. is the genetic drift of herpes actually part of human evolution versus evolution of the non-living thing that herpes is in the form of the virus. (it has no life as a separate thing)
now you may see what I am getting at: 1) computers, and the supporting industries, which have become an extension of humanity and which infect our lives have no life of their own. although they seem to be evolving rapidly, it is really we who are drifting (and nobody is actually evolving due to computers - yet) and not genetically - except in the case of genetic engineering which has started but not taken root socially. so computers, are closer to viruses than to life forms since they are dependent upon the host (post-industrial society) to come 'alive'.
2. ideas and thoughts sensations and feelings which over any sequence of time may be construed as consciousness have analogous character to viruses and other non-life forms that infect living creatures, subvert their apparatus, propagate, and move on, leaving the husk of their activity to fend for itself in the aftermath.
so. with this in mind, consciousness does not evolve on it's own, it is a viral non-living thing that appends and subverts life. it cannot evolve separately from it's living hosts.
we make it up as we go along.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: delighted to have both Bones and Kirk respecting that comment
however
the pattern breaks down when we discuss viruses which are not a life form. they are devious dna or rna packets that break free from the hosting cells that manufacture them and infect other bodies.
and, while viruses are not in themselves "alive" they can mutate and seem to evolve (while subverting living tissues). and, it is suspected, that viruses are a source of mutation in life as well since they can become inserted or partially into chromosomes or they could even change germ cell chromosomes whilst operating systemically.
the questions are: do we define virus evolution as evolution of a non-living thing or do we consider that virus evolution is actually evolution in the hosting population?
i.e. is the genetic drift of herpes actually part of human evolution versus evolution of the non-living thing that herpes is in the form of the virus. (it has no life as a separate thing)
now you may see what I am getting at: 1) computers, and the supporting industries, which have become an extension of humanity and which infect our lives have no life of their own. although they seem to be evolving rapidly, it is really we who are drifting (and nobody is actually evolving due to computers - yet) and not genetically - except in the case of genetic engineering which has started but not taken root socially. so computers, are closer to viruses than to life forms since they are dependent upon the host (post-industrial society) to come 'alive'.
2. ideas and thoughts sensations and feelings which over any sequence of time may be construed as consciousness have analogous character to viruses and other non-life forms that infect living creatures, subvert their apparatus, propagate, and move on, leaving the husk of their activity to fend for itself in the aftermath.
so. with this in mind, consciousness does not evolve on it's own, it is a viral non-living thing that appends and subverts life. it cannot evolve separately from it's living hosts.
we make it up as we go along.
I suggest that we differentiate alive from living, alive being the ability to organize matter with DNA/RNA, etc., and define living as the same ability as alive but with motility.
Then plants and virus would be alive but not living and cows would be living and alive.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,534
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19177775 - 11/23/13 05:36 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: It may help to avoid confusion if I simply replace the term consciousness with awareness, yes?
no that does not help. if you analyze your non-edited response to me, which I did not copy above, you will see reactions to a series of statements. including a reaction to the word "natural" or the phrase "most natural"
your reactions are occurring as conditioned (associative) responses in the form of discursive thoughts, and are part of your consciousness, and now circulating in mine.
subtle thoughts can move and resonate between people that way because we have brains, and eyes, and language, and computers...
an amoeba has reactions to its environment that in the most complex cases are due to ionic variances across the membrane and the endoplasm etc. Since the one celled creature has DNA, and can reproduce it is alive, and has been subject to 'evolution' since the inception of life, AND it is not conscious of any of the reactions nor is it aware of any of its reactions.
it is a microscopic life form with all of the minimal requirements, and those do not include any mechanism to reflect and retain impressions of the world, and then use those impressions to govern new behavior. no thoughts, no awareness, no memories, no experiencing, no consciousness, just mere life:
Plants also have life without consciousness, although they are more complex than an amoeba, and have many more ionic and electronic events occurring, still no ability to hold ideas, images, memories, and reflect on life contextually with their experiences in mind.
Finally - evolution is not a purposed thing, nothing is driving it. it is observed after the fact. consciousness was not here before brains (to support it) and it is not yet here in computers (non-brains) although ionic and electronic events have been here for billions of years.
chaos does not drive order. and a reverse notion does not imply it's corollary simply by having the same words in the sentence. so yes to "humans have evolved and have consciousness" but no to "consciousness has evolved and has humans".
consciousness is not alive, it is closer to a virus.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,534
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: teknix]
#19177778 - 11/23/13 05:38 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
redgreenvines said: we make it up as we go along.
I suggest that we differentiate alive from living, alive being the ability to organize matter with DNA/RNA, etc., and define living as the same ability as alive but with motility.
Then plants and virus would be alive but not living and cows would be living and alive.
I am glad you made that up, but I do not want to use it. I find accepting good science best, and the definition of life is good because it is consistent.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19177794 - 11/23/13 05:56 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
whooooa I think we are making mad progress in this thread...
-------------------- 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]
#19177809 - 11/23/13 06:09 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
perhaps, but let it be "progress" and don't infer that as evolution or I will become upset again
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Wouldn't want RGVs upset. I always defer to him.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: delighted to have both Bones and Kirk respecting that comment
however
the pattern breaks down when we discuss viruses which are not a life form. they are devious dna or rna packets that break free from the hosting cells that manufacture them and infect other bodies.
and, while viruses are not in themselves "alive" they can mutate and seem to evolve (while subverting living tissues). and, it is suspected, that viruses are a source of mutation in life as well since they can become inserted or partially into chromosomes or they could even change germ cell chromosomes whilst operating systemically.
the questions are: do we define virus evolution as evolution of a non-living thing or do we consider that virus evolution is actually evolution in the hosting population?
i.e. is the genetic drift of herpes actually part of human evolution versus evolution of the non-living thing that herpes is in the form of the virus. (it has no life as a separate thing)
now you may see what I am getting at: 1) computers, and the supporting industries, which have become an extension of humanity and which infect our lives have no life of their own. although they seem to be evolving rapidly, it is really we who are drifting (and nobody is actually evolving due to computers - yet) and not genetically - except in the case of genetic engineering which has started but not taken root socially. so computers, are closer to viruses than to life forms since they are dependent upon the host (post-industrial society) to come 'alive'.
2. ideas and thoughts sensations and feelings which over any sequence of time may be construed as consciousness have analogous character to viruses and other non-life forms that infect living creatures, subvert their apparatus, propagate, and move on, leaving the husk of their activity to fend for itself in the aftermath.
so. with this in mind, consciousness does not evolve on it's own, it is a viral non-living thing that appends and subverts life. it cannot evolve separately from it's living hosts.
we make it up as we go along.
Well, I accounted for the virus problem earlier stating that viruses are a very simple example of something which could be debatable as being a living or non-living thing, but should still be considered apart of consciousness since it exhibits awareness of external objects. This actually perhaps shows how consciousness can possibly precede life, but I don't want to get into all of that just yet..
Anyways, viruses are very stable and successful life-forms (debatable I know) which were established very early on in the evolution of consciousness (or life)..I refer back to one of my first threads I ever made on the shroomery titled On Novelty in which I describe the rate of change in the universe as custom+novelty=evolution, custom meaning what has been established through novelty, and novelty representing the property of 'new events' which occur in the universe (derived from the logic that the universe was once 'nothing' in the most literal sense of the word and that since nothing cannot be, something must have happened to it, this something is unknown but represented in general as 'novelty', the new factor, and something is always happening to something) which allows for evolution (the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form, change in general) at an increasingly accelerating pace.
The evolution of the universe eventually created the virus as one of the first things to manifest consciousness, Then as complexity increased and the virus became stable and therefore less novel, it began to behave as a custom, an established building block which allows for greater novelty and complexity to occur but which does not exhibit much novelty with regards to itself any longer.
The stable virus does induce greater novelty in the overall environment and the host in general, by disrupting the stability of the species. Therefore accelerating the overall evolution of the whole system.
So the virus viewed in this light serves as an established building block, customary for the evolution of consciousness.
I also mentioned earlier in the thread how bacteria (another example of a stable life-form, slightly more complex than a virus) reacts to the threat of death or non-existence(the most novel thing of all since it paradoxically cannot be in the overall system that is the universe) by evolving resistances to antibiotics. Since the presence of antibiotics are a novel event which destabilizes the species causing it to evolve a resistance or face annihilation.
Humans are presently at the forefront of consciousness evolution because we display and introduce the greatest amount of novelty which acts as an accelerator to the overall evolution of consciousness. Proof of this should be obvious, but is easily seen with the accelerating factor of our own technology (which should be considered as apart of human consciousness I believe).
This is why T. Mckenna was talking about the possibility of a singularity occuring..which I feel would be the moment we either no longer exhibit and introduce the greatest amount of novelty and begin to exhibit more properties of a 'custom', or we develop a means of evolving ourselves whether by merging with machine or something else which increases the rate of change (evolution) dramatically.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
Edited by hTx (05/20/17 06:23 AM)
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19177909 - 11/23/13 07:31 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I also said that for the purposes of increasing the rate of consciousness evolution, since consciousness learned that when a species is faced with the threat of death it must evolve or die. So we evolved an apprehension of time and therefore death..which introduced an ever-present death anxiety in the individual and species which accounts for the instability expressed by the human population and the increasing rate at which our collective consciousness (awareness of external objects) is evolving.
Just 100 years ago, an individual would have had little awareness and knowledge of an event that was too vastly external of Hirself (say an event occuring in a distant land) and in order to gain knowledge and greater awareness and understanding of the complexity of the universe, would have had go to school, ask the right questions and receive the right answers...
a much more difficult process than say using google and checking your sources to get your information and know that it is correct (or atleast agreed to be correct by the majority) using the internet..
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Mr Person



Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 551
Loc: inner circle of fault
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19177949 - 11/23/13 07:47 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said:
I'm making progress towards a theory at least and my conjecture is based on logical reasoning.
Logical reasoning isn't worth much when you start from a flawed premise.
Quote:
hTx said:
I now see that most of the misunderstandings concerning my conjecture is that there is no exact agreed upon definition of the term, which is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of equating consciousness with self-consciousness—but self-consciousness is simply something which consciousness is eventually capable of.
Gee I only said this 4 pages ago , and you tried to give a made up definition of consciousness then too. The problem is that consciousness is currently undefinable, and there is no earthly reason that anyone should accept your particular definition.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19177991 - 11/23/13 08:07 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
an amoeba has reactions to its environment that in the most complex cases are due to ionic variances across the membrane and the endoplasm etc. Since the one celled creature has DNA, and can reproduce it is alive, and has been subject to 'evolution' since the inception of life, AND it is not conscious of any of the reactions nor is it aware of any of its reactions.
It may not be conscious of the reaction nor aware of its reactions..but since it reacted to the environment at all proves that it is aware of an external object. Which is the basic definition of consciousness I am using here. The same goes for...
Quote:
Plants also have life without consciousness, although they are more complex than an amoeba, and have many more ionic and electronic events occurring, still no ability to hold ideas, images, memories, and reflect on life contextually with their experiences in mind.
as the definition of consciousness that I am using being the awareness of external objects, still fits with even a plant.
Quote:
Finally - evolution is not a purposed thing, nothing is driving it. it is observed after the fact. consciousness was not here before brains (to support it) and it is not yet here in computers (non-brains) although ionic and electronic events have been here for billions of years.
I think if we can show that consciousness evolves with the purpose of eventually achieving free-will in order to negate entropy in the universe we can show that evolution is a purposed thing that could potentially prevent the death of the universe by the process of creativity, by the true creation of 'new' information. I do agree that this part of the theory is mostly speculation, however, but I feel it is very possible to prove it possible in due time..also this seems to provide a 'completedness' to the theory, whilst also introducing new information and evidence that the universe itself may exhibit consciousness...being aware of its own eventual demise due to entropy and coming up with a way to ensure its survival..
Although this doesn't exactly fit my definition of consciousness being 'aware of external objects' since the universe encompasses everything, unless we define death as an external object of the universe..which may make more sense that way since death or non-existence cannot be apart of the universe since it doesn't exist.
Just a thought.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19178005 - 11/23/13 08:12 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"I don't know what death is" -Don Juan
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Evolution Dogma [Re: hTx]
#19178035 - 11/23/13 08:25 AM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Logical reasoning isn't worth much when you start from a flawed premise.
This is what i've been saying the entire time in regards to Darwins theory!
Quote:
Gee I only said this 4 pages ago , and you tried to give a made up definition of consciousness then too. The problem is that consciousness is currently undefinable, and there is no earthly reason that anyone should accept your particular definition.
Well somebody has got to define it, eventually, wouldn't you say?
So why not currently?
Consciousness: An awareness which shows an overall trend towards greater and greater awareness (we could possibly add: through interaction with the environment, eh? or perhaps: of complexity.)
The reasoning behind this definition being...that..well, lets take the most accepted form of life which most everyone would agree exhibits consciousness, the human. Humans are created with just the slightest awareness of anything going on at all, but through this awareness is able to interact with its environment (think baby in the womb) and as the baby grows, so does its awareness. Eventually the baby is 'born' and is introduced to a much more novel environment, increasing its interaction and overall awareness of the environment dramatically as the years progress.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
|