Re: Genes say Evolution Vindicated?

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff commented:

<It is going to be fascinating to see how the emergence of mind and

consciousness from bacteria is going to be postulated. And how the emergence of

pre-bacterial and pre-molecular atoms and subatomic stuff, forces and energies

is going to be imagined to complete the whole scenario. Something from nothing?

Something animate from something inanimate? Something self conscious from

something inanimate? Something that dreams and imagines for no rhyme or reason?

Something is missing? Am I missing something? >

Who are we to say that inanimate matter has no consciousness? Does what we

cannot perceive not exist? Our perception is very limited by our sensory

apparatus.

[This leads us into some very tricky quicksands. Philosophically, a theory

cannot be classified as scientific if it cannot be disproved experimentally. We

cannot experimentally disprove either creationism or evolution, so we seem to be

forced into the situation that both views of our origins are doomed to be

unscientific and subjective. According to metatheory and philosophy, are we

ever going to objectively solve the riddle of life or are we one day simply

going to accept what Hinduism calls it, namely " maya " , an illusion, and accept

without evaluating, as the Hopi say? Mel Siff]

Harvey Maron, M.D.

Steamboat Springs, CO

[Guest guest]

Similarly, who are we to say that animate matter has consciousness? What

the heck is consciousness and self-awareness anyway?Does what we can

perceive exist? I know that it is a somewhat sophomoric/de rigeur basic

philosophical question, but it still has some validity IMO.

(Jean- Sartre)

Zillah, Washington

>>Who are we to say that inanimate matter has no consciousness? Does what we

cannot perceive not exist? Our perception is very limited by our sensory

apparatus.

Harvey Maron, M.D.

Steamboat Springs, CO<<

[Guest guest]

Re: Genes say Evolution Vindicated?

(Jean- Sartre) wrote:

Similarly, who are we to say that animate matter has consciousness? What

the heck is consciousness and self-awareness anyway?Does what we can

perceive exist?

Casler writes:

Consciousness is the state, ability or act if being conscious or aware.

Awareness requires a sensory capability to receive information which is

perceived by the consciousness. Without this sensory perception, " reality "

cannot be perceived, and consciousness does not exist for the object (which

would be a " being " if it had consciousness). Whether it is animate or not is

not relevant.

" I think therefore I am " by Descartes is a statement of being. Perception

(sensory) of data is associated and these associations are assembled into

associative thought. Actually, " I sense, therefore I am " might be more

accurate.

Of course, by my definition, a computer is conscious and a 'being'. Silicon

consciousness - what a concept. Oh well back to the " think tank " .

" To be, or Not to be, THAT is the question.

(To suck in, or push out, THAT is the question)

Deeply (way too deeply)

Regards,

A. Casler

BIO-FORCE, Inc.

Los Angeles, CA

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote:

" It is going to be fascinating to see how the

emergence of mind and consciouness from bacteria is

going to be postulated. And how the emergence of

pre-bacterial and pre-molecular atoms and subatomic

stuff, forces and energies is going to be imagined to

complete the whole scenario. Something from nothing? "

*** Well, to solve these puzzles, we could hypothesize

a " God " who created matter, energy, life and

consciousness. But if someone asks where God came

from, then we're stuck with the same problem.

Philadelphia, PA, USA

____________________________________

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote:

<In other words, science may well begin to agree more closely with the

Hindu sages who said that all is an illusion and that the life is just a divine

game in which you may or may not be the gods who are playing in that

playground. Then, we will begin to appreciate that those who take that

game too seriously are fated to have a bad trip!

>Maybe Descartes should have added a few other aphorisms like: " I am

because I think I am " and " I am because something thinks that I should be " !>

Perhaps that is why it would be better to concur with Hume - " the proper

study of Mankind is Man. "

Harvey Maron, M.D.

Steamboat Springs, CO

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote:

> " It is going to be fascinating to see how the

>emergence of mind and consciouness from bacteria is

>going to be postulated. And how the emergence of

>pre-bacterial and pre-molecular atoms and subatomic

>stuff, forces and energies is going to be imagined to ........

Someone else wrote:

>*** Well, to solve these puzzles, we could hypothesize

>a " God " who created matter, energy, life and

>consciousness. But if someone asks where God came

>from, then we're stuck with the same problem.

But from where do the concepts of " beginning " and " end " come? The human

mind, no? We think in terms of birth and death, more or less. There must

be creation, and then ultimately destruction/death. Consequently, we view

all life in this manner. We've much evidence that " life " does follow such

a path, that things live and then die, but again, this is merely how humans

conceive things, say the " life " of an animal; and as humans, we have been

taught to demand beginnings and endings. We tend to rule out the idea that

" something " could simply exist. Yet, and I could be mistaken, we view

" energy " as something that is not ever " used up " or " destroyed " , but simply

transformed in some way. But give such " energy " an intelligence, power

itself to " create " and " destroy " , well, we humanize it and thus, cannot

conceive of such " energy " existing.

Personally, I think most find such an idea inconceivable because we would

then have to put the label of " eternal " or " infinite " on this entity and

thus, as humans, we would then be admitting that we are not as powerful and

independent, nor as intelligent, as we typically choose to think we are.

Just random thoughts...

Rael64 / Don Mutchler

[Guest guest]

Well, this is what I get for not reading *all* my email before jumping into

the game. Dr Siff says things far better than do I. Ah well...

Rael64 / don mutchler

Mel Siff wrote:

> The major hurdle is trying to understand beginnings. It appears as if

>science can cope quite well with phase or state transitions, but not with

>origins. We can explain and analyses changes from matter to energy and vice

>versa, but we cannot seem to handle where these 'things' came from, the

>imaginary great " singularity " at the " beginning of space and time " . Is it

>possible that some things have no beginnings and have always existed? That

>idea conceptually is something that always bothers me, because everything

>around me in transition, never revealing any beginnings. All seems to be

>flowing, moving on, but we never seems to move any closer to the source of

>anything. The universe and life only show transitions to us, but never

>ever show beginnings, so how can we hope to construct models on the basis of

>experience and revelation which never lets us know anything about origins?

>

>Like some sort of Gödelian theorem, does this mean that we cannot logically

>or validly ever speculate on " beginning " , so that Darwin should rather have

>called his work " The Transitions of the Species " or " The Adaptations of the

>Species " ? Maybe physics is stepping a bit closed to understanding this

>conundrum today, because it is now starting to seriously examine if time

>itself is an illusion, a human construct which should not have been part of

>Einstein's renowned Specific and General Theories of Relativity.

>

>Does this mean that some scientists are now questioning what the genius

>physicist, Hawking, wrote about in his famous text on time? Yes, it

>certainly does, and several journals, such as the " Scientific American " have

>started to feature articles on this topic. They are well worth reading

>because one of the most persistent of all things in our lives is that of

>time, history and movement towards ends. To imagine and deal with anything

>else is sure to be one of the most exciting ventures ever embarked upon by

>the human mind.

[Guest guest]

Mel Siff wrote:

<It is going to be fascinating to see how the emergence of mind and

consciousness from bacteria is going to be postulated. And how the emergence of

pre-bacterial and pre-molecular atoms and subatomic stuff, forces and energies

is going to be imagined to complete the

whole scenario. Something from nothing?>

:

<<Well, to solve these puzzles, we could hypothesize a " God " who created

matter, energy, life and consciousness. But if someone asks where God came

from, then we're stuck with the same problem. >>

Mel Siff:

<The major hurdle is trying to understand beginnings. It appears as if science

can cope quite well with phase or state transitions, but

not with origins. We can explain and analyses changes from matter to energy and

vice versa, but we cannot seem to handle where these 'things' came from, the

imaginary great " singularity " at the " beginning of space and time " . Is it

possible that some things have no beginnings and have always existed? That

idea conceptually is something that always bothers me, because everything around

me in transition, never revealing any beginnings. All seems to be flowing,

moving on, but we never seems to move any closer to the

source of anything. The universe and life only show transitions to us, but

never ever show beginnings, so how can we hope to construct models on the basis

of experience and revelation which never lets us know anything about origins?

Like some sort of Gödelian theorem, does this mean that we cannot logically or

validly ever speculate on " beginning " , so that Darwin should

rather have called his work " The Transitions of the Species " or " The Adaptations

of the Species " ? Maybe physics is stepping a bit closed to understanding this

conundrum today, because it is now starting to seriously examine if time itself

is an illusion, a human construct which should not have been part of Einstein's

renowned Specific and General Theories of Relativity.

Does this mean that some scientists are now questioning what the genius

physicist, Hawking, wrote about in his famous text on

time? Yes, it certainly does, and several journals, such as the " Scientific

American " have started to feature articles on this topic. They are well worth

reading because one of the most persistent of all things in our lives is that of

time, history and movement towards ends. To imagine and deal with anything else

is sure to be one of the most exciting ventures ever embarked upon by the human

mind.>

f:

If one accepts that there is an omnipotent God then we also have to face the

fact that our intelligence and thought process is pitiful

when compared to his. You will give yourself a headache trying to comprehend

eternity with your finite mind.

Although many scientists insist that everything in the universe happened without

an intelligent creator, they have failed miserably

to provide any worthy evidence. Ironically, I think it takes more faith to

believe in these theories than it does to believe in an all

powerful God who has no beginning and no end. An interesting book on this is

'The Case For Faith', the follow up to Lee Stroebel's 'The Case For Christ.'

It is geared to the cynic and scientific thinker.

[in which ways is this book geared to the 'cynic' and the scientific thinker?

Does it offer much in the way of scientific speculations and experimental

evidence. Incidentally, it is important to note that being a skeptic does not

mean being a cynic. One can be a cynical skeptic ro a non-cynical skeptic. One

can also be a religious skeptic or a religious cynic. Mel Siff]

I think this is evidence of how arrogant we can be when we try to get a handle

on God. If you believe there is a God, how do you

possibly think you could grasp Him?

[ Far too many folk consider that scientists are being arrogant and egotistical

when they try to prove the existence of God along with trying to decipher

anything which happens to capture their interest and curiosity. That is not

necessarily true. It simply means that they may be doing what they do best,

namely trying to understand all mysteries in life and the universe by relying on

a minimum of a priori beliefs. Of course, there are 'fundamentalist' and

'legalistic' scientists just as there are fundamentalists and legalists in all

religions. Same mentality, different setting, different semantics, but ideas

all far too solidly embedded in prejudice, personal bias and subjectivity.

Thank goodness for the probing scientists and philosophers, otherwise we would

not have risen much beyond living by the rules which appeased fearsome warrior

gods who annihilated, persecuted, tortured, teased, confused and doled out

conditional love. Worst of all, these rules were usually inflicted upon the

lowly public by those who claimed some unique divine authority to do what they

did to stain the pages of history, just like the politicians, kings, queens and

other power mongerers through the ages. Thank goodness, too, that there were

some genuine sages and lovers of humanity among all those chalatans, thereby

proving to us that there are some wonderful beings around, despite their beliefs

or lack thereof. Mel Siff ]

Yosef

[Guest guest]

For an interesting view of the "end-game," I recommend reading Orson Card's short story "Mortal Heroes."

This work puts mortality in a somewhat different light.

Ken Jakalski

Lisle, Illinois

[Guest guest]

--- Mel Siff wrote:

<I suspect that some future age philosophers and scientists will

conclude, a la Gödel, that the search for beginnings of physical and

abstract beginnings cannot be known by manifestations of matter in

any system in which that expression of matter is existing - or

apparently is existing. They will then realise that we have spent so

much time in recent years creating virtual reality games and

situations because all along, we intuitively knew that everything in

life really is just " virtual reality " and we have just modelled

things on the way in which they really appear to be in the universe.>

**** Very interesting, but while the search for the beginnings of

matter and consciousness has some practical application that will

benefit humanity, this still reminds me of the old Buddhist parable

about " questions not tending to edification, " which I'll re-tell here

in a much-abridged version taken from E.A. Burtt, ed., " The Teachings

of the Compassionate Buddha " (New American Library, 1955).

One day a monk who studied with " the Buddha " (as we in the West might name him)

became dissatisfied that the Buddha had not explained the answers to

a whole slew of metaphysical questions. He respectfully approached

the Buddha and demanded answers to all his questions: " That the

world is eternal, [or] that the world is not eternal; that the world

is infinite, [or] that the world is not infinite; that the soul and

the body are identical, [or] that the soul is one thing and the body

another; that the saint existes after death, that the saint does not

exist after death, that the saint both exists and exists after death,

[or] that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death? "

The Buddha replied, in part: " why...have I not explained this?

Because ... this profits not, nor tends to aversion, absence of

passion, cessation [of misery], quiescence, knolwedge, supreme

wisdom, and Nirvana. "

Mel Siff:

<In other words, science may well begin to agree more closely with

the Hindu sages who said that all is an illusion and that the life is

just a divine game in which you may or may not be the gods who are

playing in that playground. Then, we will begin to appreciate that

those who take that game too seriously are fated to have a bad trip!>

**** " Now who you jivin' with that cozmik debris? " ( Zappa, 1974

Philadelphia, PA, USA