Evolution and Immaterialism

[RHC]

I have noticed in different threads people dropping comments on evolution, (Im thinking mostly of Don but I think Sci has also) but no extended discussion of the topic in an immaterialist context.   So I thought it might be interesting to start a thread and see what people think.   

I know I should start the ball rolling but honestly I struggle with reconciling Bernardo's Idealism with evolution.  

So links, quotes,  long rambling screeds?!

[Don Salmon]

From Indian Psychology Institute, http://www.ipi.org.in/blogs/the-evolution-of-consciousness-part-3-when-did-consciousness-first-appear/

The Evolution of Consciousness, Part 3: When Did Consciousness First Appear?

Posted on December 28, 2013 by Don Salmon

NOTE: this is the opening of the 2nd chapter of our Yoga Psychology book. This was an extremely interesting section to write. First, we set ourselves the task of writing about only those things that would be acceptable within the current scientific mainstream, while still trying to push the boundaries – at least somewhat.  One of the many interesting things that came out of doing this is seeing how fast the “scientific mainstream” changes. At the time I started the research – in 2000 – there was still a great deal of skepticism about whether any animal had what we call “consciousness”.  Now, just 14 years later, panpsychism – the idea that consciousness is an essential component of ALL matter – is almost starting to be acceptable in mainstream circles.  Still, Dyson’s speculation about “mind” being “inherent in every atom” is still pretty far “out there.”  And back then, in 2000, it was very difficult to find any mainstream scientist willing to talk about consciousness in primitive organisms. 

 For those not familiar with the philosophers of mind, Churchland is particularly famous for being an “eliminative materialist” – that is, he would like to dispense with any talk of “consciousness” whatsoever.  He predicted back in the 80s that people would use brain language instead of “mind” language. I ridiculed this attitude for a long time, and now I’m celebrating 5 year old children who talk about the need to develop their “mid prefrontal cortex” in order to have more control over their “amygdala”!!!   

By the way, the studies of Trewawas and Nakagaki were great finds.  The plant intelligence information is really amazing to me; Jeremy Narby also has a great book on intelligence in plants and “primitive” animals, and Rich Doyle has a wonderful book, “Darwin’s Pharmacy”, on plant intelligence. And isn’t Nakagaki’s title wonderful??!

Notice also in the first footnote, we’re being cautious about the word “consciousness.”  I didn’t realize when I started working on the book how many different ways the word is used and how heated the arguments have become about which one is “right” and which ones are ‘wrong’.  And that’s all about controversies in science and philosophy.  Since this is on a site about Indian psychology, I should mention that to many – particularly the Advaita Vedantins – the whole idea of the evolution of consciousness is highly suspect.  If you want to see someone become positively apoplectic at the mention of evolution, do a search for “Seyyed Hossein Nasr” and “Aurobindo”.  Truly amazing:>))

 Finally, a note about one moment of writing. I actually remember the afternoon Jan and I were writing.  For some reason, we were having a little fun with alliteration, and I think we sat around for quite awhile playing with words that began in “S”, and finally came up with shrub, slime mold, snowy owl and South American sea lion.  I think we were worried the heated arguments about evolution and consciousness might make things too serious, so we thought a little playfulness was in order.

THE STORY OF THE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS

When did consciousness first appear?

Some say consciousness was there at the beginning, and exists throughout the universe. Physicist Freeman Dyson, describing the mysterious discoveries of quantum physics, writes “[a]toms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom.”[i]  In contrast, others like psychologist Susan Blackmore and philosopher Paul Churchland advise us to be realistic and face the fact that consciousness does not really exist anywhere, that it is nothing more than a word that describes a particular activity of the brain. Apart from these two extremes, most scientists agree that consciousness does in fact exist, but disagree about when it first appeared.[1]  In the last decade, as scientists havehad access to more sophisticated tools for investigating intelligence, it has become possible to detect intelligent behavior much earlier in the evolutionary chain.

According to Anthony Trewavas, professor of biology at the University of Edinburgh, “plants have senses and can detect a wide variety of external variables, such as light, water, temperature, chemicals, vibrations, gravity, and sounds. They can also react to these factors by changing the way they grow. Plants can forage and compete with one another for resources. When attacked by herbivores, some plants signal for help, releasing chemicals that attract their assailants’ predators. Plants can detect distress signals let off by other plant species and take preventive measures. They can assimilate information and respond on the whole-plant level. And they use cell-to-cell communication based on molecular and electrical signals, some of which are remarkably similar to those used by our own neurons. When a plant is damaged, its cells send one another electrical signals just like our own pain messages.”[ii]

Trewavas does not claim that plants can think or have anything resembling human self-awareness. However, he does consider these facts about plants to be a clear demonstration that they are sentient and respond intelligently to what they sense.

Toshiyuki Nakagaki is an associate professor of biology at Hokkaido University in Sapporo, Japan. In articles such as Amoeboid Organisms May Be More Clever Than We Had Thought, Nakagaki describessome remarkable abilities in the organism known as the “true slime mold” – a creature formed by the merging together of thousands of amoebae into a single cell. Though it does not have eyes or a nervous system, it is able to “move, navigate and avoid obstacles. [It] can also sense food at a distance and head unerringly toward it.”[iii]

When researchers place separate pieces of a true slime mold into a maze, the pieces rejoin to form a single organism that spreads out into every corridor of the maze, covering all the available space. “[W]hen food is placed at the start and end points of the maze, the slime mold withdraws from the dead-end corridors and shrinks its body to a tube spanning the shortest path between food sources …[and it] solves the maze in this way each time it is tested.”  Nakagaki and his collaborators conclude “[t]his remarkable process of cellular computation implies that cellular materials can show a primitive intelligence.” [iv]

Some may be reluctant to consider the possibility that the activity of such primitive organisms reflects any kind of conscious intelligence. If, however, one is willing to concede that a shrub or slime mold possesses some form of intelligence, it seems hard to dispute that it is probably less complex than that of a snowy owl or a South American sea lion. Nevertheless, the idea that consciousness has somehow grown in complexity over the course of evolution continues to be very controversial.

---

[1] There is a wide range of positions amongst scientists regarding the nature of consciousness. For example, some, like Trewavas and Nakagaki, who see evidence of the workings of intelligence in one-celled organisms, might not see this as evidence that a paramecium or pomegranate has any kind of subjective experience (i.e., feelings). On the other hand, there are some (e.g., psychologist Harry Hunt) who believe there is evidence for subjectivity even in primitive organisms. There are very few who would assert that either intelligence or subjective experience is anything more than a complex working of matter. In this chapter, we’re using the word “consciousness” to include both subjective experience and intelligence. For now, the term is intended to be entirely neutral with regard to whether or not consciousness can be explained as a purely material phenomenon.

[Don Salmon]

http://www.ipi.org.in/blogs/the-evolution-of-consciousness-part-3-when-did-consciousness-first-appear/ 

by the way, "shrub" (which is referred to below) was also one of George W. Bush's nicknames)

[Don Salmon]

oops, sorry for posting twice

[Don Salmon]

Part I might be helpful too. I still think that Hobson's observation I referred to below - that consciousness is graded over time, over billions of years of evolution as well as in each moment, is key to the whole thing (I mean, the integration of science and spirituality).  This, along with Tom McFarlane's observations about distinction (Peter J - he references Laws of Form), is enough to bridge Bernardo's general observations about Mind and the specifics of any area of science. Put that together with Don DeGracia's brilliant observations about fractals, dynamics and consciousness, and you've got a few decades of good research ahead of you!   Maybe we'll all meet in a shared lucid dream and work on this for a few years each night - a hard day's night!

[Don Salmon]

and yes, I forgot to post part 1.  I really should be composing! (instead of decomposing)

The Evolution of Consciousness: Introduction

Posted on December 26, 2013 by Don Salmon

The Evolution of Consciousness: Introduction

I’m going to be putting up a series of posts on the evolution of consciousness from a yogic perspective.   These are in part excerpts from our book on yoga psychology (inspired primarily by Sri Aurobindo, but taking into account a wide range of spiritual and scientific sources).

There were two major inspirations that led to the final structure of the book.  The first was a comment I read by a very materialist/mainstream neuroscientist, Harvard researcher J. Alan Hobson. About a year or so into researching the book, I came across this statement, which startled me coming from an avowed materialist:

“Consciousness is graded across evolutionary time, over the course of development, and even continuously from moment to moment.”

(interesting side point:  Hobson suggests that this “graded” nature of the unfolding of consciousness may be explained in part by chaos and complexity theory. For an interesting esoteric discussion of the relationship of consciousness, chaos theory and fractal geometry, see physiologist Don DeGracia’s “Beyond the Physical,” which is available for free online)

At the time I came across Hobson’s comment, I was already familiar with the work of neuroscientist and Buddhist practitioner Francisco Varela, who had explored the unfolding of consciousness from moment to moment from a Buddhist perspective. Varela, and later physicist/Buddhist Jeremy Hayward, wrote several very interesting articles for the Journal of Consciousness Studies suggesting a strong resemblance between the unfolding of consciousness as discovered by contemporary neuroscience and the Buddhist “Skandhas.”  In a future posting, I’ll post an excerpt from the yoga psychology book on the way consciousness unfolds in each moment, drawing on the above, as well as on Jeremy Hayward’s Journal of Consciousness Studies article, “A Rdzogs-chen Buddhist Interpretation of the Sense of Self.”[1]

*****************

The second inspiration came from a commentary on the Kena Upanishad by Sri Aurobindo.  He writes, “As our human psychology is constituted, we began with … the sense of an object in its image [this is analogous to the initial unfolding of consciousness in the moment as described by Varela, Hobson and Hayward – the initial moment of sensing], the apprehension of it in knowledge follows [here, he is referring to the moment of perception; the action of the brain to bring together what is sensed into a “percept”]. Afterwards we try to arrive at the comprehension of it in knowledge and the possession of it in power [here are the more recently evolved aspects of consciousness; the more complex interpretation of the sensory stimuli, the reference to an imagined point or apparently separate “I” and the arising of the desire or intention to act on what is sensed/perceived/comprehended].

The hint comes next: “There are secret operations in us, in our subconscient and superconscient selves, which precede this action, but of these are not aware in our surface being and therefore for us they do not exist. If we know fo them, OUR WHOLE CONSCIOUS FUNCTIONING WOULD BE CHANGED.”

Interestingly, this was written nearly a century ago, and just in the last 2 or 3 years, a theory of parapsychology has emerged – one that many consider the first viable theory of psi – which points towards at least one aspect of those secret operations. I’m referring to Jim Carpenter’s “First Sight” theory, which suggests that PRIOR to the first moment of simple sensing that neuroscientists describe, there is a paranormal apprehension of the environment, which is independent of our physical senses.  Hayward goes even further, speaking from a Vajrayana (Tantric Buddhist) perspective, saying that there is an initial nondual (without the apparently separate “I”) awareness which is the foundation of all the further moments of consciousness unfolding.

Sri Aurobindo speaks in even greater detail of these “secret operations” in his Upanishad commentary and other writings – that is what we tried to bring out in the later chapters in our yoga psychology book.

************************

The first post will be about the “story of Sharon.’  “Sharon” is a composite of several military veterans I’ve worked with as a clinical psychologist. We used Sharon’s story in the book as a way to illustrate in very practical, down to earth terms how what Sri Aurobindo calls the “physical consciousness,” “vital” (or life/pranic) consciousness, “mental consciousness”, “inner’ (or “subliminal), “subconscient” and the consciousness of the “psychic being” play out in our every day lives.

After that, I’ll put up a selection on what scientists currently think (well, actually, what they thought about 7 or 8 years ago – it’s changed quite a bit since then) about the possibility of consciousness becoming more complex over the course of evolution.  Next, a look at early childhood development, and then a short section on the unfolding of consciousness from moment to moment.

That will be followed by a more yogic examination of the emergence of physical, vital and mental consciousness over billions of years, then a look at how the mental consciousness evolved over several hundred thousand years.

We’ll see how that goes and I might continue. But that will be several months from now:>))

[Michael Larkin]

I seem to have less of a problem reconciling Bernardo's Idealism with evolution than you do, RHC.

Let's accept for the sake of argument that mind-at-large (MAL) is the source of all, and that in what we usually term the physical realm, we have the representation of processes occurring in MAL. Logically, there would be at least two possibilities. First, those processes would be fully formed, complete and finalised, and interrelate in fixed and predictable ways. Second, those processes wouldn't be fully formed, complete and finalised, and capable of evolving, creating new kinds of interrelationships through what we think of as time.

It's a matter of simple observation that organic processes evolve over time. The fossil record is incontrovertible on that point (even though IMO neo-Darwinism signally fails to explain evolution). There was a time when very few of the multicellular animal and plant phyla we find today existed. In general, one finds evolutionary radiations: the Cambrian "explosion", the mammalian radiation, the angiosperm (flowering plant) radiation, and so on. All these are comparatively rapid developments of a number of new themes, incompatible with the idea of Darwinian gradualism.

Why shouldn't processes in MAL unfold? And as they unfold, why shouldn't they become progressively more able to facilitate the ability of MAL to assume localised, conscious viewpoints? Eventually facilitating the kind of self-reflective consciousness that you and I possess? Consciousness isn't evolving: there's no more and no less of it than there ever was. What is continuously evolving are the processes in MAL that progressively allow for more and more sophisticated localised viewpoints of its consciousness to arise.

The processes are just a means to an end, and for whatever reason, that's how MAL operates. As I see it, none of the processes, be they described as bacteria or elephants or human beings, are in and of themselves conscious: they are just images of processes occurring in localised consciousnesses that those consciousnesses tend to identify themselves with. It's actually MAL that is identifying itself with these processes by dint of the restrictions such processes place upon the views it can have of itself.

It's a game of hide-and-seek that MAL is having with itself: an adventure that it would otherwise be incapable of having. And over time, it's finding more and more out about itself, possibly with the aim at some point of total rediscovery: a joyful reunion with itself. I suspect it has built into the rules of the game a means of monitoring progress, and now and then initiating step changes in evolution: e.g. the aforementioned evolutionary radiations.

I'm not suggesting it's necessarily simultaneously acting as MAL in a conscious way, as well as participating in myriad viewpoints of itself: the monitoring and the step changes may be built into the structure of the game and occur through (as yet poorly understood) "natural law". I shy away from the idea that MAL has planned everything in meticulous detail: to me, that seems like it would be boring and a "cheat". It's playing the game with unimpeachable integrity and doesn't know precisely what's going to eventuate: but making the rediscovery of itself is a built-in telos.

I don't know why MAL is operating in the way it does: why it employs an evolutionary schema rather than some other kind of schema. Another way of saying that is that the particular localised viewpoint of MAL on itself that I think of as me isn't currently sophisticated enough to perceive with certainty what's happening and why. So it uses analogies, and things it's familiar with, to come up with its best shot at explanations. It's MAL that's doing this, not something separate.

MAL is also experiencing itself facilitated by other processes: some more sophisticated, and some less sophisticated. Think of it in analogous terms: the general idea of a universal computing machine was around before the first electronic computers were devised. The electronic computer is a process that facilitates the realisation of a preexisting potential. Likewise, the human being is a process that facilitates the realisation of more of the potential of MAL than any other process (bacteria or elephants, for example) we are so far aware of. And within all the processes we call human beings, there are also varying capacities to realise such potential.

Who knows, there may be other realms where processes quite undetectable to us allow for more refinement, for MAL to evolve even greater capacity to uncover its own potential. Whatever, I don't see how evolution is necessarily at odds with Idealism. The fact that evolution occurs (organic and conscious) is undeniable, something we have to accept as an empirical fact. Any philosophy, Idealistic or otherwise, that doesn't accept it is on a hiding to nothing (I'm not suggesting that you're denying evolution, RHC, or that you would disagree on this point).

[Stewart Lynch]

Yes, I agree with Michael. In my view evolution requires consciousness, it requires a guiding 'force'. The drive that life has to survive, to procreate and adapt has never adequately been address as far as I know. idealism on it's own doesn't necessarily explain that drive, but I think it does take us a step closer to the truth. I think that we need to join consciousness with free will and creativity to wrap it all up. Evolution is the manifestation of consciousness's innate creativity, Consciousness needs to express itself.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[George]

So, MAL is a material, self-rippling, which has gradually turned into a stable shape/pattern over time, although always dynamic.
It didn't do this "deliberately" as such; but by ongoing intentions creating ripples of purpose - creation by seeking/looking - accumulating and reflecting.

So evolution is just the movement from "this experience" to "this other experience" via intention. Fishes wanted/intended to get on the land, or other entities intended it (MAL, or any sub-entities, not necessarily visible), and gradually their enfolded form changed into a unfolded state which permitted land-walking and breathing.

[Stewart Lynch]

yes, although why can't we say it did it deliberately? If consciousness a has built in free will it isn't a problem.

[Peter Jones]

It could be more simple. For a Buddhist the world is driven by desire. Desire presupposes consciousness. I would guess that desire is the answer to complexity guru Kauffman's question here.

“There’s a price top pay in becoming more complex; the system is more likely to break, for instance. We need a reason why biological systems become more complex through time. It must be very simple and it must be very deep.” Stuart Kauffman

Schrodinger's 'faux-Lamarkism' is also worth a look. He points out that desire is required to explain why humans started to walk upright. Without it nothing works. There's no power in the system.   

 

[Stewart Lynch]

that's interesting. Would you say that desire is the same as free will?

--

[George]

I think the 'guiding force' is us, and all fragments and sub-entities of the MAL, via intention and expectation. Over time, the random ripples and patterns of the material that is MAL stabilise into forms, creating habits of experience. There is no Grand MAL Plan, because MAL is not its own separate thing or entity; it has intentional power only in terms of its fragments/perspectives, the objects/shapes it self-references into.

This applies to local personal behaviour, the forms of animals, the laws of physics, all that. All a combination of ripples set in motion by intentions towards final experiences/forms, contributing in a spatial and/or "time-share" basis. Even the apparent history and memories experienced in this moment are subject to revision. What seems to have happened in the past in your view today might differ from what seems to tomorrow. You would never be able to tell, of course - the world always tends towards self-consistency/coherence.

[Stewart Lynch]

Your random ripples and patterns run into the same problem of evolution, what guides them? Evolution is not random. At some point I think that one has to accept first cause (free will).

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:51 AM, George <account...@noseeyes.com> wrote:

I think the 'guiding force' is us, and all fragments and sub-entities of the MAL, via intention and expectation. Over time, the random ripples and patterns of the material that is MAL stabilise into forms, creating habits of experience. There is no Grand MAL Plan, because MAL is not its own separate thing or entity; it has intentional power only in terms of its fragments/perspectives, the objects/shapes it self-references into.

This applies to local personal behaviour, the forms of animals, the laws of physics, all that. All a combination of ripples set in motion by intentions towards final experiences/forms, contributing in a spatial and/or "time-share" basis. Even the apparent history and memories experienced in this moment are subject to revision. What seems to have happened in the past in your view today might differ from what seems to tomorrow. You would never be able to tell, of course - the world always tends towards self-consistency/coherence.

[Peter Jones]

On Wednesday, 8 October 2014 11:41:46 UTC+1, Stewart wrote:

that's interesting. Would you say that desire is the same as free will?

Hmm. I've never given it a moment's thought. Are we free to choose our desires? I would  say yes, in principle, but only by a process of 'becoming', in the sense that we can become the person who has those desires. So I'm not sure if we choose our desires, or whether we choose to become the sort of person who has the sort of desires that we would choose to have. Confused, obviously.

But it's great question. If desire requires freewill then this has many implications.

[Stewart Lynch]

I agree with what you say, although you seem to be talking about ego'ic desire? I was thinking more of spiritual desire, or the desire of consciousness to create. Spiritual desire, desire to be one with the divine etc. Consciousness 'desires' to express itself. I think once one starts to move past the ego many of these words take on a different meaning.

--

[George]

We guide them, along with very other conscious aspect, some of which are not visible to us (gods and spirits and who knows what). MAL itself as an entity does not, only shapes from MAL, all of which have free will due to them being aspects. So they are not random in that respect, except...

However, there must have been the event of "first division" of MAL, the first ripple, self-caused - the urge of MAL/consciousness to experience itself. After that, though, there is no separate background MAL, only the shapes it has taken, surely?

[Stewart Lynch]

ok, I think see what you're saying. I agree up to a point, but I'm not sure you can separate MAL from the ripples or conscious actions, or if that separation is even a necessary/useful concept? Conscious just IS, it's not sure it has to be made out of anything.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:07 PM, George <account...@noseeyes.com> wrote:

We guide them, along with very other conscious aspect, some of which are not visible to us (gods and spirits and who knows what). MAL itself as an entity does not, only shapes from MAL, all of which have free will due to them being aspects. So they are not random in that respect, except...

However, there must have been the event of "first division" of MAL, the first ripple, self-caused - the urge of MAL/consciousness to experience itself. After that, though, there is no separate background MAL, only the shapes it has taken, surely?

[George]

I'm not saying it's separate, really. But we often seem to talk of MAL as if it's a thing in between us, a separate thing of its own. Of course, it's not. Just like there is no "ground" separate from "the mountain range". We talk of MAL as if it is a guiding force, contributing a direction. But as soon as the ground formed itself into two mountains, then there were only mountains. If those mountains change shape and shift over time, does the ground so this to them (MAL) or do they do it from their own intention (conscious entities/shapes).

[Stewart Lynch]

yes, agreed. I think we have to be careful of taking metaphors too literally, as Bernardo point out a few times in WMIB. Maybe all we can say is that there is consciousness, and consciousness does stuff :-)

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:22 PM, George <account...@noseeyes.com> wrote:

I'm not saying it's separate, really. But we often seem to talk of MAL as if it's a thing in between us, a separate thing of its own. Of course, it's not. Just like there is no "ground" separate from "the mountain range". We talk of MAL as if it is a guiding force, contributing a direction. But as soon as the ground formed itself into two mountains, then there were only mountains. If those mountains change shape and shift over time, does the ground so this to them (MAL) or do they do it from their own intention (conscious entities/shapes).

[George]

It's true that in the end that's all we can say, but that means saying nothing, which is no fun! Metaphors are good for picking out certain aspects of a thing though, and often two metaphors which conflict with one another can bring out aspects of the same thing, in a particular situation/context. For consciousness, which is "everything", there is nothing to be said about the thing itself, only the forms it takes, and what those forms "do" and how they contribute to the evolution and flowing of the whole = actions, events, environmental change, evolution, all that. (My answer is: each form can intent, via being part of the whole, and their intentions produce results in the whole, local to the form and further afield.)

e.g. Your thoughts are made of consciousness and appear in the same overall "place" as that table over there and that garden out there. They are made of the same stuff, differing only in context, lifetime, and modal intensity/persistence.

[George]

Update: Consciousness doesn't "do stuff", it "becomes" stuff! :-)

[Stewart Lynch]

yes, I agree with you. I think we must also be aware of when we are overreaching with metaphors though. The really really big questions probably can't be answered with metaphors, they always break down when you go deep enough. Right tool for the right job etc.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 12:55 PM, George <account...@noseeyes.com> wrote:

It's true that in the end that's all we can say, but that means saying nothing, which is no fun! Metaphors are good for picking out certain aspects of a thing though, and often two metaphors which conflict with one another can bring out aspects of the same thing, in a particular situation/context. For consciousness, which is "everything", there is nothing to be said about the thing itself, only the forms it takes, and what those forms "do" and how they contribute to the evolution and flowing of the whole = actions, events, environmental change, evolution, all that. (My answer is: each form can intent, via being part of the whole, and their intentions produce results in the whole, local to the form and further afield.)


e.g. Your thoughts are made of consciousness and appear in the same overall "place" as that table over there and that garden out there. They are made of the same stuff, differing only in context, lifetime, and modal intensity/persistence.

[Stewart Lynch]

yup, fair point :-)

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:00 PM, George <account...@noseeyes.com> wrote:

Update: Consciousness doesn't "do stuff", it "becomes" stuff! :-)

[George]

Indeed - the limited context of a metaphor should always be part of its application. Good point.

[Larry Schultz]

The Theory of Evolution is non-controversial - we can essentially treat it as fact.  Ancillary topics such as abiogenesis and perhaps even the evolution of consciousness are still up in the air - but Evolution is airtight.

To me the question is this:  is evolution based on random mutations, or, is evolution biased?  For example if I flip a coin 1 billion times and I get 495,000,151 heads I might start thinking somethings up.  Or perhaps the initial conditions were rigged - given an acorn I'm going to get an oak tree not a tulip.

So, was the evolution of life and subjective experience highly likely?  Given a billion universes - how many of those universes would develop consciousness?

Personally I think the system is rigged . . .  : )  . . .   but I don't know how to prove it.

[Stewart Lynch]

maybe it's up to the materialists to prove that it isn't rigged. It seems obvious to me that is it, especially if one accepts consciousness as a fundamental. If consciousness drives my brain, surely it would drive evolution as well.

--

[George]

There is no way to tell this - just as there's no way to separate creation and discovery. The results I will appear the same.

There's no experiment you can conduct on the actual mechanism of natural selection (mutation + dying off of mutations out of step with environment). So really it's just a nice story, based on a couple of true facts (mutation occurs, animals do change, species do die off, the environment does change), but it's not really proveable because:

If it is by intention, then intention changes both the species and the environment together, heading towards a goal or final state, and so the same outcome would emerge anyway (mutations and failures-to-propagate of species subsets, occurring in step with an environment changing).

[George]

Consciousness doesn't drive your brain, it IS your brain, so they change at the same time, surely? Only intention drives consciousness, so you brain changes because you intend to go to the shops, and you brain and body all work together to bring the shop to you, as an espression in consciousness. Meanwhile, the world of animals, made of consciousness, change over time towards ongoing goals (led by environment-based intentions, or others).

[Stewart Lynch]

I don't think intention always changes both species and environment, usually it's the species that changes to adapt to the environment. The species consciousness tries to choose the best way to adapt.

[Stewart Lynch]

My brain changes much more slowly than my consciousness because it's limited by physical laws (at least in my current non-enlightened state that's the case).

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:50 PM, George <account...@noseeyes.com> wrote:

Consciousness doesn't drive your brain, it IS your brain, so they change at the same time, surely? Only intention drives consciousness, so you brain changes because you intend to go to the shops, and you brain and body all work together to bring the shop to you, as an espression in consciousness. Meanwhile, the world of animals, made of consciousness, change over time towards ongoing goals (led by environment-based intentions, or others).

[George]

If it's all consciousness, then intentions are affecting everything to some extent, although perhaps over millions of years. Of course, speed of change is linked to complexity and "stability of structure or habit", so the atmosphere and the force of gravity change much, much more slowly than the change in the genetic code or dynamic feedback growth mechanism of a species.

Of course, luckily going to the shops doesn't involve actual structural change of the brain! You'd starve before you got there! :-) However, it does involve change: neurons firing and messages transmitting in order that your body moves is a brain change, induced by intention.

[George]

And physical laws are just habits, really - not necessarily completely restrictive...

[Stewart Lynch]

haha, yes, I've had practice going to the shops, so my brain doesn't have to change for that. But playing the piano is a different matter, i have to do lots of practice to make my brain an fingers do what I want :-) This reality is so slow to adapt to my consciousness. But maybe that's a good thing.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:58 PM, George <account...@noseeyes.com> wrote:

If it's all consciousness, then intentions are affecting everything to some extent, although perhaps over millions of years. Of course, speed of change is linked to complexity and "stability of structure or habit", so the atmosphere and the force of gravity change much, much more slowly than the change in the genetic code or dynamic feedback growth mechanism of a species.

Of course, luckily going to the shops doesn't involve actual structural change of the brain! You'd starve before you got there! :-) However, it does involve change: neurons firing and messages transmitting in order that your body moves is a brain change, induced by intention.

[Stewart Lynch]

agreed. just really really stubborn habits :-)

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:00 PM, George <account...@noseeyes.com> wrote:

And physical laws are just habits, really - not necessarily completely restrictive...

[George]

Piano playing: Well, maybe you're just trying too hard? Now, I don't necessarily recommend this exact method ;-)
but it does provide some food for thought:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/oct/12/experience-head-injury-musical-prodigy

[George]

Stubborn habits, indeed! :-)

[Stewart Lynch]

yes, I'm sure you're right. I've taken a break now, but while I was having lessons it was very interesting to look deeply into my self to find out what was holding me back. I always have the feeling that everything can be effortless if approached in the right way. I don't often find that way though.

[Don Salmon]

 

I’ve been quite amazed on this forum how much we can disagree respectfully (nice lead in to a disagreement, no?)

Anyway, here’s something Sri Aurobindo wrote describing his view of where evolution is going (he wrote it in the 3^rd person).  I think of it like a structured improv. You know that the guitar player is going to play a C major, followed by D minor, then G7 susp 4, then G7, then back to C Major and so on.  But I as the piano player have an almost infinite number of possibilities to play against those chords.  And you know how it’s going to end, but you keep playing (multiple universes!) and every time you play “Someone To Look Over me” the music is radically different.

 

So, here goes:

 

The text here below was written by Sri Aurobindo himself, in 1934.

Sri Aurobindo's teaching and method of Sadhana

The teaching of Sri Aurobindo starts from that of the ancient sages of India that behind the appearances of the universe there is the Reality of a Being and Consciousness, a Self of all things, one and eternal. All beings are united in that One Self and Spirit but divided by a certain separativity of consciousness, an ignorance of their true Self and Reality in the mind, life and body. It is possible by a certain psychological discipline to remove this veil of separative consciousness and become aware of the true Self, the Divinity within us and all.

Sri Aurobindo's teaching states that this One Being and Consciousness is involved here in Matter. Evolution is the method by which it liberates itself; consciousness appears in what seems to be inconscient, and once having appeared is self-impelled to grow higher and higher and at the same time to enlarge and develop towards a greater and greater perfection. Life is the first step of this release of consciousness; mind is the second; but the evolution does not finish with mind, it awaits a release into something greater, a consciousness which is spiritual and supramental. The next step of the evolution must be towards the development of Supermind and Spirit as the dominant power in the conscious being. For only then will the involved Divinity in things release itself entirely and it become possible for life to manifest perfection.

But while the former steps in evolution were taken by Nature without a conscious will in the plant and animal life, in man Nature becomes able to evolve by a conscious will in the instrument. It is not, however, by the mental will in man that this can be wholly done, for the mind goes only to a certain point and after that can only move in a circle. A conversion has to be made, a turning of the consciousness by which mind has to change into the higher principle. This method is to be found through the ancient psychological discipline and practice of Yoga. In the past, it has been attempted by a drawing away from the world and a disappearance into the height of the Self or Spirit. Sri Aurobindo teaches that a descent of the higher principle is possible which will not merely release the spiritual Self out of the world, but release it in the world, replace the mind's ignorance or its very limited knowledge by a supramental Truth-Consciousness which will be a sufficient instrument of the inner Self and make it possible for the human being to find himself dynamically as well as inwardly and grow out of his still animal humanity into a diviner race. The psychological discipline of Yoga can be used to that end by opening all the parts of the being to a conversion or transformation through the descent and working of the higher still concealed supramental principle.

This, however, cannot be done at once or in a short time or by any rapid or miraculous transformation. Many steps have to be taken by the seeker before the supramental descent is possible. Man lives mostly in his surface mind, life and body, but there is an inner being within him with greater possibilities to which he has to awake - for it is only a very restricted influence from it that he receives now and that pushes him to a constant pursuit of a greater beauty, harmony, power and knowledge. The first process of Yoga is therefore to open the ranges of this inner being and to live from there outward, governing his outward life by an inner light and force. In doing so he discovers in himself his true soul which is not this outer mixture of mental, vital and physical elements but something of the Reality behind them, a spark from the one Divine Fire. He has to learn to live in his soul and purify and orientate by its drive towards the Truth the rest of the nature. There can follow afterwards an opening upward and descent of a higher principle of the Being. But even then it is not at once the full supramental Light and Force. For there are several ranges of consciousness between the ordinary human mind and the supramental Truth-Consciousness. These intervening ranges have to be opened up and their power brought down into the mind, life and body. Only afterwards can the full power of the Truth-Consciousness work in the nature. The process of this self-discipline or Sadhana is therefore long and difficult, but even a little of it is so much gained because it makes the ultimate release and perfection more possible.

There are many things belonging to older systems that are necessary on the way - an opening of the mind to a greater wideness and to the sense of the Self and the Infinite, an emergence into what has been called the cosmic consciousness, mastery over the desires and passions; an outward asceticism is not essential, but the conquest of desire and attachment and a control over the body and its needs, greeds and instincts are indispensable. There is a combination of the principles of the old systems, the way of knowledge through the mind's discernment between Reality and the appearance, the heart's way of devotion, love and surrender and the way of works turning the will away from motives of self-interest to the Truth and the service of a greater Reality than the ego. For the whole being has to be trained so that it can respond and be transformed when it is possible for that greater Light and Force to work in the nature.

In this discipline, the inspiration of the Master, and in the difficult stages his control and his presence are indispensable - for it would be impossible otherwise to go through it without much stumbling and error which would prevent all chance of success. The Master is one who has risen to a higher consciousness and being and he is often regarded as its manifestation or representative. He not only helps by his teaching and still more by his influence and example but by a power to communicate his own experience to others.

This is Sri Aurobindo's teaching and method of practice. It is not his object to develop any one religion or to amalgamate the older religions or to found any new religion - for any of these things would lead away from his central purpose. The one aim of his Yoga is an inner self-development by which each one who follows it can in time discover the One Self in all and evolve a higher consciousness than the mental, a spiritual and supramental consciousness which will transform and divinise human nature.

Sri Aurobindo, August, 1934

Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library

Vol. 26, "Sri Aurobindo on Himself",

 

pp. 95-97.

©1999-2000, Copyright Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 12:10:51 PM UTC-4, George wrote:

Stubborn habits, indeed! :-)

[George]

I both agree and disagree! ;-)

The wording maybe obscures. We are always using the higher self (or whatever) to accomplish what we do, however we use it through ignorance and misidentification, and so are limited. Our misidentification also means we hold on to concepts of ourselves that could otherwise be shed. I think any difficulty arises from trying to fight though those aspects with analysis and effort, as much as anything else.

I really think that the best thing you can do, maybe, is that once you "get it", keep up with a regular practice but otherwise pretty much leave any inner stuff alone.

[Stewart Lynch]

I think we mostly agree, I see it as a process of shedding. Removing unnecessary structures and assumptions. Of reducing the misidentification.

[George]

I agree! :-)

See my response on the other thread; we even use the same word. I say "enlightenment via intent immediate; then further realisation of this view by clearing out the crap subsequently". Addressing misidentification opens it all up, so you are "living from the right place", as it were.

[BB Conklin]

Not sure if Bernardo agrees with me, but I think it depends on how you see Minds's nature whether or not you can reconcile idealism with it. Maybe Mind is evolutionary? Maybe Mind's awareness and consciousness is growing right along with us, as a sort of process of trial and error? I mean as opposed to this type of master plan where's it all laid out ahead of time..

[Don Salmon]

is there another position besides (a) MInd is in complete unknowingness (randomness) as to what comes next; or (b) it's all laid out (determinism).  If it's a game (Lila, as the Indians call it), a game can have a structure with room for infinite variation and mystery as to how the game will be played.

Being a musician, I love the idea of a structured improv.  There's a general sense of direction, but an infinite number of ways to take the journey.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/LsQ4NjostNE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Sciborg2 Sciborg2]

 Don, this is where the Lucas-Penrose Godelian argument comes in - there's something different from randomness & determinism. I think I get the gist but I think it'll be awhile before I have the acumen to fully appreciate/critique it.

I do think the idea of structured improv is - from my intuitive standpoint - akin to what Bergson & Whitehead advocate. Also see Finite & Infinite Games by Carse:

“A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.”

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Don Salmon]

So do you play flute or guitar, bass or penny whistle?  How about nose flute or jew's harp?   Maybe when we get the google groups thing together we can jam.

i've never tried this before on this group. I've attached the theme song for our website, "Remember to Breathe."

When you are sad, remember to breathe.

When you are glad, remember to breathe.

When you are mad remember to breathe.

Everyone now, remember to breathe.

Chorus: Remember, remember, remember remember to breathe (2x)

and so on:>)

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[Don Salmon]

and you can make up your own verses

when whirlpools are fooled, remember to breathe

and so on...

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 2:53:04 PM UTC-4, Don Salmon wrote:

So do you play flute or guitar, bass or penny whistle?  How about nose flute or jew's harp?   Maybe when we get the google groups thing together we can jam.

i've never tried this before on this group. I've attached the theme song for our website, "Remember to Breathe."

When you are sad, remember to breathe.

When you are glad, remember to breathe.

When you are mad remember to breathe.

Everyone now, remember to breathe.

Chorus: Remember, remember, remember remember to breathe (2x)

and so on:>)

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Sciborg2 Sciborg2 <scib...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Don, this is where the Lucas-Penrose Godelian argument comes in - there's something different from randomness & determinism. I think I get the gist but I think it'll be awhile before I have the acumen to fully appreciate/critique it.

I do think the idea of structured improv is - from my intuitive standpoint - akin to what Bergson & Whitehead advocate. Also see Finite & Infinite Games by Carse:

“A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.”

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 2:36:44 PM UTC-4, Don Salmon wrote:

is there another position besides (a) MInd is in complete unknowingness (randomness) as to what comes next; or (b) it's all laid out (determinism).  If it's a game (Lila, as the Indians call it), a game can have a structure with room for infinite variation and mystery as to how the game will be played.

Being a musician, I love the idea of a structured improv.  There's a general sense of direction, but an infinite number of ways to take the journey.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, BB Conklin <brian....@gmail.com> wrote:

Not sure if Bernardo agrees with me, but I think it depends on how you see Minds's nature whether or not you can reconcile idealism with it. Maybe Mind is evolutionary? Maybe Mind's awareness and consciousness is growing right along with us, as a sort of process of trial and error? I mean as opposed to this type of master plan where's it all laid out ahead of time..

 

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 10:23:37 AM UTC-7, George wrote:

I agree! :-)

See my response on the other thread; we even use the same word. I say "enlightenment via intent immediate; then further realisation of this view by clearing out the crap subsequently". Addressing misidentification opens it all up, so you are "living from the right place", as it were.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/LsQ4NjostNE/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Michael Larkin]

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 3:22:32 PM UTC+1, Larry Schultz wrote:

The Theory of Evolution is non-controversial - we can essentially treat it as fact.  Ancillary topics such as abiogenesis and perhaps even the evolution of consciousness are still up in the air - but Evolution is airtight.

Not sure what you are saying here: the fact that evolution has occurred isn't, I don't think, rationally contestable (I'd say that scriptural literalists irrationally contest it). But the conventional theory of how it happened, viz neo-Darwinism, is rationally contestable. A very good critique of the neo-Darwinism can be found in Stephen Meyer's Darwin's Doubt, which I have reviewed in detail here:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/i40dww19dn7zzde/Darwins_Doubt_Review_for_Skeptiko_readers_PROTECTED.docx

I wouldn't have put it quite as you did, but yes, in essence, I agree the system is rigged: there's an inbuilt telos or purpose in it. The system includes cosmogenesis and abiogenesis. As to the evolution of consciousness, I don't think that evolves at all: what evolves are the processes in MAL that allow it to progressively get more and more refined views of its own potential.

[Michael Larkin]

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 5:23:19 PM UTC+1, Don Salmon wrote:

 

I’ve been quite amazed on this forum how much we can disagree respectfully (nice lead in to a disagreement, no?)...

I can't say it's at all clear to me how what you said in what followed disagrees with, or contradicts, what I said in my post. It may well be possible for some advanced individuals (read: particularly sophisticated processes occurring in MAL) to assist other, less sophisticated processes to themselves become more sophisticated, thereby lending evolution a hand. Indeed, in my opinion there are such individuals (processes), and they can be found in many spiritual traditions, each of which is riffing around the same basic chord progression, if you like.

[Michael Larkin]

On Wednesday, October 8, 2014 7:36:44 PM UTC+1, Don Salmon wrote:

is there another position besides (a) MInd is in complete unknowingness (randomness) as to what comes next; or (b) it's all laid out (determinism).  If it's a game (Lila, as the Indians call it), a game can have a structure with room for infinite variation and mystery as to how the game will be played.

Being a musician, I love the idea of a structured improv.  There's a general sense of direction, but an infinite number of ways to take the journey.

Fair enough. I too like the idea of structured improv, but let's remember that in music there are inbuilt rules within which to improvise. Go too far beyond those, and you end up with cacophony. ;-)

 

[Peter Jones]

The work of the musicologist Heinrich Schenker is interesting in relation to the evolution of complexity. By reduction the classical symphony would consist of a simple oscillation between two poles, the tonic and dominant chords. So complexity is reduced to a simple dualism and state-change. For a further reduction we would have to transcend the system   

Then it becomes relevant that Spencer Brown writes: "Time is what there would be if there could be an oscillation".  

 

[Don Salmon]

michael, i often respond to these comments in my gmail account and looking at this now I don't even know who I was responding to so i don't' even know what i might have agreed or disagreed about. Maybe I was responding to someone else or just musing about the forum in general?  what you just said makes eminent sense to me.

as for structured improv, it can get very interesting. I used to occasionally sit down for a 4 hand one piano improv (2 folks at one piano) and we'd start with absolutely no plans and no structure.  It sometimes was a total mess but sometimes it just totally surprised and amazed both of us.  There's lots of mysteries...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/LsQ4NjostNE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.

[RHC]

Michael 

Thanks a ton, for your quite excellent extended comment, it did make things a lot clearer.  I have to go back and re-read Rationalist Spirituality.

George

I think the 'guiding force' is us, and all fragments and sub-entities of the MAL, via intention and expectation. Over time, the random ripples and patterns of the material that is MAL stabilise into forms, creating habits of experience. There is no Grand MAL Plan, because MAL is not its own separate thing or entity; it has intentional power only in terms of its fragments/perspectives, the objects/shapes it self-references into.

This is an interesting twist on it. For one thing you seem to be tieing intentionality to reflective self awareness.  M@L isnt self-aware so cant have intentions.  There are patterns/consistencies to the vibrations of M@L that play out as evolution resulting in self-aware localizations that then in turn have intention.  So is M@L passively experiencing those individual points of intention or is it directing them?  

Is any of that right?

 On Wednesday, 8 October 2014 11:41:46 UTC+1, Stewart wrote:

that's interesting. Would you say that desire is the same as free will?

Hmm. I've never given it a moment's thought. Are we free to choose our desires? I would  say yes, in principle, but only by a process of 'becoming', in the sense that we can become the person who has those desires. So I'm not sure if we choose our desires, or whether we choose to become the sort of person who has the sort of desires that we would choose to have. Confused, obviously.

But it's great question. If desire requires freewill then this has many implications.

[George]

Pretty right, except for the last sentence. To say M@L is passively aware in those localizations isn't quite right, because there is no really divisions between it and the localizations. Basically, wherever M. has been "shaped" it has a relationship to itself and obey part can intend vs the other. Mountains vs the Ground, they are the same thing, etc.

Desires: We have free will to choose among the paths presented to us from our desires.

[RHC]

>Basically, wherever M. has been "shaped" it has a relationship to itself and obey part can intend vs the other. 

Exsqueeze me? :) 

[George]

Haha, autocorrect in action. I actual quite like that formulation though, so I shall leave it to the reader to perform the translation as an exercise :-)

[Roslyn Ross]

And I would say that applies to this world and everything in it, including human beings. There are inbuilt rules within which to improvise and limits to how far one can go beyond them and a price to be paid if the rules are contravened too much - disharmony, the source of dis-ease.

[Roslyn Ross]

I don't think desire requires freewill. After all an animal or plant or any organism may desire something and act in ways to get what it desire - needs. Human beings are able to make more choices because they have a greater capacity for conscious awareness which is what allows the innate capacity for desire to be expressed as free will.

Everything has desire, which, if not met, becomes need, or intense and necessary desire because that ensures survival. Human beings as babies and small children are like this - desires I not met become demands because of a biological impetus to survive.

As the child matures and develops increasing levels of consciousness, so too it begins to learn that mind can manage desires and in fact needs to learn to manage to desires for the sake of the individual and society as a whole.

Full maturity, and not all adults reach it, and it varies from individual to individual allows desires to be met before they become needs or demands, and also allows decisions to be made in regard to desire, need and demands, to lesser and greater degrees, which is in essence a capacity for free will.

At least that is how I see it. The mere existence of a desire capacity, required for survival, in a human being with a higher capacity for consciousness than other organisms, means there is also a capacity to develop free-will or conscious intent.

[Peter Jones]

Ah, but are we free to choose what we desire? And is being driven by desire truly freedom? Are we free to choose to give up our desires? Are our intentions ever free from deterministic forces? And so on... Tricky issues.

[RHC]

Desires are separate from our free will reactions to them.  We don't choose desires, they emerge from various aspects of our greater selves in the context of lives and who knows what else.  Though there do seem to be people who are so ego dominated that they can for a while at least  will every aspect of there lives including their desires.  At least thats what it looks like from the outside. 

[George]

Ah, but are we free to choose what we desire? And is being driven by desire truly freedom? Are we free to choose to give up our desires? Are our intentions ever free from deterministic forces? And so on... Tricky issues.

It doesn't matter, necessarily?

As a fragment to a larger whole, much of our experience is that of the unfolding of the larger pattern, which has a pre-existing momentum. Am I free to choose whether my eyes are brown? Am I free to choose whether the sky is blue? To what extent are the desires that appear to me actually mine? Are they not just experiences, perhaps already begun?

That I am able to go with them, to flow with them or not, is sufficient for free will. The fragment of little-me isn't the originator of my whole world of experience, so I don't expect to have root control of everything. It is enough that I can resist the larger flow, and that I can originate flow myself, in proportion to my relative size. 

Perhaps I can originate a change in eye colour, against the momentum that began before I was born, to some small extent; the blueness of the sky, less so. But more definitely: I can certainly originate a pause in my flow, that is for sure - and I can create mental image, and a movement of these limbs, etc.

[Roslyn Ross]

We are free, to lesser and greater degrees, depending on circumstance and nature. And we are only driven by desire when it becomes demand and it only becomes demand if it is a matter of our survival. In some form or another. I think some people can give up desires more easily than others but depending on our nature, some desires are innate. There is nothing wrong with desire. It is healthy and normal. There is only an issue when desire becomes demand. And I don't think our intentions are ever free from forces - we are our natures and we will be influenced by our natures. But there is also no doubt that we can make a choice to relinquish desires beyond necessary and natural ones like eating, drinking, voiding if we choose. As hermits have done. Some even, it seems able to relinquish eating and drinking which rather sorts out the voiding.

[Roslyn Ross]

We desire to survive. We desire to be connected, some more than others, to be loved. We desire to be nourished. These are all survival desires. As we mature we learn to have control over desires - when we eat, what we eat, toilet training etc. This means that even if a desire becomes a demand, we have power over it, i.e. will, intent. When adults have desires which become demands I suspect the 'need' factor is sourced in childhood deprivation.

[George]

Hmm, very interesting, your desires -> need idea. The source is the same, perhaps: a sense of a "missing part" for completion. Small gaps, desires, large gaps of a more existential type, need.

Which gives an idea: One can give up desires if one addresses the gap, perhaps by finding the missing area "inside". Because external fulfilment of that gap will likely (definitely) only be temporary.

[Peter Jones]

I'm not convinced that any of us are clear on the freewill issue. Here's a few relevant quotations as food for thought.

"Furthermore," Zen master continued, "for the reformation of mind it is good to observe the principle of cause and effect. For example, even if others hate us, we should not resent them; we should criticize ourselves, thinking why people should hate us for no reason, assuming that there must be a causal factor in us, and even that there must be other as yet unknown casual factors in us.

 

Maintaining that all things are effects of causes, we should not make judgments based on subjective ideas. On the whole, things do not happen in accord with subjective ideas; they happen in accord with the laws of Nature. If you maintain awareness of this, your mind will become very clear."

 

Zen Antics

 

“In the pursuit of learning, every day something is acquired.

In the pursuit of the Tao, every day something is dropped.

 

Less and less is done

Until non-action is achieved.

When nothing is done, nothing is left undone.

 

The world is ruled by letting things take their course.

It cannot be ruled by interfering.”

 

Lao Tsu

Tao Te Ching

Trans. Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English

 

 

"So long as the idea of personal doership persists together with a self-identification as a separate entity, apperception of the functioning element is not possible. Whatever is thought and said by such an entity would necessarily be polluted, and therefore cannot have any metaphysical import, significance or relevance."

 

Ramesh Balsekar

The Ultimate Understanding

 

 

“So long as we have not become aware that the presence of God is a space, encompassing the whole of reality just as the three-dimensional space does, so long as we conceive the word of God only as the upper story of the cosmic space, so long will God’s activity, too, always be a force which affects earthly events only from above.”

 

Karl Heim

Christian Faith and Natural Science  

 

 

“Man takes his law from the Earth; the Earth takes its law from Heaven;

Heaven takes its law from the Tao. The law of the Tao is its being what it is.”

 

Lao Tzu

Tao Teh Ching

Trans. James Legge

 

“Kierkegaard wrote that the person who has found God has freed himself from choices. But what does it feel like to have God make your decisions for you? I think you would have to be deeply connected to God to even come close to answering that question. “

 

Deepak Chopra

The Book of Secrets

 

What does it behove a man to do to deserve and procure this birth to come to pass in him: is it better for him to do his part towards it, to imagine and think about God, or should he keep still in peace and quiet so that God can speak and act in him while he merely waits on God’s operation? . . . The best and utmost of attainment in this life is to remain still and let God act and speak in thee.”

 

Meister Eckhart

Christmas Day Sermon  

 

“If one thinks that his infinite Spirit does the finite work which Nature does, he is a man of clouded vision and he does not see the truth.”

 

Bhagavad Gita

Chap. 18-16

 

 

[Roslyn Ross]

I think desires are a part of our nature in this material world. And perhaps in others. A plant has desires for sun and water and will 'move' toward it, or die. We are born with desires for food, drink, comfort. If our desires are not met they become demand and we cry, louder and louder.....

Beyond survival desires there are desires of nature and these are just a part of who we are, for all sorts of reasons, no doubt explained in all sorts of ways.

There was an interesting video recently about how a noted American gymnast met her older sister who had been adopted out because her parents could not cope with the fact that she was born without legs. Both sisters had become gymnasts, the legless one against great odds, but talented all the same. There was a desire in them to be gymnasts and perhaps it was a need, as demonstrated by the disabled sister, who, her adoptive parents say, was obsessed with gymnastics from the time she was a small child and whose 'hero' was in fact her sister, long before she ever know they were sisters.

There is more at work than we know......

[George]

I think the lack of clarity is around the "Will" of nature vs the "Will" of the (apparent) individual? 

Zen and wu wei and so on are pushing for the notion that, freed from personal interference, the world will raise within us, seamlessly, responses and of course we will have no way of 'understanding' them - however, they will be the "most appropriate" responses in the largest possible context.

That doesn't mean "we" can't interfere locally, because we can, but we will do it based on our subjective ideas - i.e. without comprehending the larger picture which moves the whole of reality (equivalent to one's "True Will").

Hence the thing of finding God and being free of choices, if we so choose. We can give ourselves to God and that is the best thing for us, but we have the choice to refuse Him.

From Waking Life, near the end:

That, you know, behind the phenomenal difference, there is but one story, and that's the story of moving from the "no" to the "yes." All of life is like, "No thank you. No thank you. No thank you." then ultimately it's, "Yes, I give in. Yes, I accept. Yes, I embrace." I mean, that's the journey. I mean, everyone gets to the "yes" in the end, right?

[Roslyn Ross]

I am not sure that cause and effect are as absolute as some might think. S...t happens and no doubt it can be explained astrologically, spiritually, cosmically, or not, as the case may be but there is not always cause and effect.

I always believed that in any significant relationship two people were involved and shared responsibility give or take. In recent years I have learned that people can do very cruel things and act in ways for which there is no true cause. I say this because the issues involved a number of family members including myself and also friends of the person involved, none of whom had done anything, or changed in any way, to create any such cause. There was another person involved, new to the equation....and instrumental in a level of chaos never imagined by those subjected to it... so yes, there was a cause and then an effect, but no cause for the effect of the cause in any known sense. Cosmically, astrologically, spiritually who can say?

And here is a story, when I was ten I read a book which gave me shocking nightmares for a year. In my thirties, doing inner work, I decided to read this book again to see if I could find some clues to why it caused such trauma. There was nothing in it. It was a fairly average children's book. Some 30 years later, into my life came someone who triggered enormous trauma and chaos ..... who had, the same name as the central character in this book. Coincidence? Perhaps. :) Perhaps not.

But, as a part of the lessons needed to be learned I hold the following:

Live the bit you are in to the best of your ability.

You will never understand all things, nor why things happen and you do not need to.

All happens as it should.

Generally we are where we are, doing what we are meant to be doing.

It is what it is, until it isn't.

There is nothing so bad that some good cannot come out of it.

This world is a great experiment in which we have chosen to participate.

People are more damaged than evil and more frightened than cruel.

Just variations on the theme Peter of the wonderful quotes you have posted.

[Roslyn Ross]

Yes, well said. But some people have more choice than others. We are not all created equal as I learned growing up with a mentally ill mother.

[George]

I wonder whether there's a relationship between resistance to this larger movement, and illness such as depression and manic (hyper-defensive) behaviour.

[Roslyn Ross]

That is an interesting point. Since we receive information at all sorts of levels, including beyond consciousness, then there is no reason why people cannot know, sense, intuit that materialism is inadequate if not destructive, and desire, if not need, other and yet be too frightened - because of the power of science/medicine as the new 'god' to - to question what they believe and how they live.

I believe depression is unresolved grief and I am sure many people have much for which to grieve. And an extreme or manic position infers a sense of feeling trapped and powerless.

[George]

And what is receiving information, if not a movement of ourselves by an outside force, or better phrased: a movement of ourselves that we did not personally will? (For otherwise, it would not be information.)

Interesting idea, unresolved grief. I think actually it can be any isolated feeling, including ignoring "what you really want to do" and so on. Any part of you 'left hanging' and separated. The hyper part can come from the danger of being confronted with that, the emergency scramble to avoid this. (Sort of from experience from my own investigations, to some extent. But of course everyone's different.)

[Roslyn Ross]

Yes, absolutely and separated being the key word. And what is wrong with materialism in general is that it separates. As a methodology it is invaluable when correctly applied but it is not correct to apply it to everything or perhaps, even in absolute terms.

I have come to believe that what we call love is connection. The ultimate 'love' in a spiritual sense, and that which refers to 'God' is ultimate connection. The most meaningful relationships are where we connect the most deeply. And yet, can we have complete connection and retain individuality? Therein lies the dilemma perhaps. That separation is required to create and to create individually.

I see it a bit like teenagers who reach an age where they must in order to grow and develop move out of the shadow of their parents, hence the behaviour which distances or separates them from their parents. It is akin to needing to move out of the shadow and into the light so one may perceive clearly one's own shape. Then one can return to the shadow, or the connection with the parent.

It's gin and tonic time here. An interesting day and some interesting thoughts. Thanks to everyone.

[George]

Connecting with people, a good observation (I hadn't thought of the individual assertion of the growing child there, but it makes sense).

Here, it is time for a glass of red wine, and to knock up a spot of pasta for the gang. Have a pleasant eve!

[Peter Jones]

Roslyn - "Therein lies the dilemma perhaps. That separation is required to create and to create individually."

There's a logical issue here. if we examine the idea of identity and difference we see that they are mutually dependent. You can't have one without the other. To say two things are identical is to say that is some respect they are different. To say that they are different is to say that in some respect they are identical.  So, as usual for such contradictory and complementary pairs of ideas, we have see beyond identity and difference to their 'sublation'. This would be why some of Hegel is a useful read for nondualists.     

[Sciborg2 Sciborg2]

I wanted to recommend Kripal's Authors of the Impossible, as he discusses the idea of a collective Mind influencing evolution. It's one of the ultimate themes of the book.

He continues this in Mutants & Mystics, but I've not yet read this. However, here's an excerpt that mentions Aurobindo being covered in an earlier chapter.

[Charles Leiden]

Hello.  Wow- good discussion and so many good questions and answers.   It seems that the more I study and read about these grand ideas, the more questions there are.   I was led to this discussion because I my dislike of scientism or physicalism or other dogma.  Any map of reality that is incomplete always to leads problems.  

Many of us were led to an alternative path because of a call, an awareness that reality wasn't what it seemed to be.   I was fortunate to read an early book by William I. Thompson that opened a world that was more imaginative.  This led me to many other writers that were asking larger questions.  

I'll mention some books from the last year that are helping in this quest are :  

Thompson's latest  Beyond Religion -The Cultural Evolution of the Sense of the Sacred from Shamanism to Religion to Post-religious Spirituality.  

Author's of the Impossible (Kripal) was mentioned above and I found it fascinating.  

Patrick Harpur has written some good books on the imagination and the soul.  

http://anti-matters.org/0/about.htm    is a good web publication from several years ago that covers similar territory.  

A book by Robert W. Godwin One Cosmos under God is worthwhile I feel.  

Don Cruse -Evolution and the New Gnosis  is insightful. 

Enjoy the moment.  

Charles

[Roslyn Ross]

Patrick Harpur is a favourite of mine. The others I shall look up.

[buz painter]

I would also like to thank you all for this discussion. Since evolution has been one of the things that needed to be reconciled with my understanding of of non-dualism and consciousness being fundamental, I was interested too in how everyone here saw it. Great questions and answers folks. I, like others have now abandoned Neo-Darwinism. What do we replace it with? Some sort of telos surely? The how is not as important as the what. We may never know the how short of a final joining with M@L.

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014 11:09:59 AM UTC-5, RHC wrote:

I have noticed in different threads people dropping comments on evolution, (Im thinking mostly of Don but I think Sci has also) but no extended discussion of the topic in an immaterialist context.   So I thought it might be interesting to start a thread and see what people think.   

I know I should start the ball rolling but honestly I struggle with reconciling Bernardo's Idealism with evolution.  

So links, quotes,  long rambling screeds?!

[Peter Jones]

Agree about Neo-Darwinism. Pity, because I find nothing problematic about Darwinism. 

“In higher animals the use of the term ‘instinct’ to describe complex behaviour became progressively more difficult because of the interference of increasingly large doses of judgement and reason:  ‘ The orang in the Eastern islands, and the chimpanzee in Africa, build platforms on which they sleep; and as both species follow the same habit, it might be argued that this was due to instinct, but we cannot feel sure that it is not the result of  both animals having similar wants and possessing similar powers of reasoning.’ ”

 

(D I 36 (Descent of  Man  and Selection in Relation to Sex) 

In Darwin – A Very Short Introduction – Jonathon Howard

So, Darwin was happy with the idea that apes are conscious, can reason, and have wants and needs. Then somehow consciousness was banished by Neo-Darwinism and the whole thing became a piece of machinery.  Neo-Darwinism seems a misnomer, like neo-Platonism.    

[Don Salmon]

I'm not sure of the exact date, but there's a wonderful post from Bernardo that's about a year old on evolution. it's very close to Amit Goswami's idea of a group consciousness in which changes are stored over millions of years, which eventually results in genetic changes.  I just said it really badly - but you might enjoy looking either at Bernardo's post of Goswami's writings.  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/LsQ4NjostNE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-specu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Michael Larkin]

There's this video from Bernardo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi0DqeHxm4w
I haven't been able to locate the blog post you refer to, though.

As regards Goswami's view, there is this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tbIkqrmWTc
I agree with a lot of what he says, but he has the wrong idea about Intelligent Design theorists, conflating their views with creationists. ID theorists tend to be staunch evolutionists (where "evolution" is the fact of change over time), and accept the evidence of the fossil record. Many of them even accept common ancestry, as well as random mutation/natural selection having a minor influence (at the micro-evolutionary level). Not all of those sympathetic to ID are religious: some are agnostic or even atheist (believing that intelligence could be an inherent property of matter). It's a pity Goswami doesn't realise this, because much that he says isn't inconsistent with ID.

[Don Salmon]

I think this is the post where Bernardo reflects on the video. It's really quite good. http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/07/meaningful-evolution.html 

I agree about Goswami, by the way. Ulrich Mohrhoff started out very "anti-ID', and on an "uncommon descent" Ulrich does a very nice job of modifying his original comments (if you ever read Ulrich on anybody, and he's critical, remember that he often has an initial very strong response to things he disagrees with, but if you wait a bit and engage him on it, he'll often modify his views quite a bit. He has very strong, passionate views but is also a very sweet, gentle person and it's not always obvious from the way he expresses himself:>)  I've been told at times I can come on too strong at first too:>)))))

here he is: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ulrich-mohrhoff-on-the-hindu-alternative-to-materialism-and-id/ 

--

[Don Salmon]

hey sci - not quite sure where you're going with this - do you think we shouldn't talk about conscious evolution? 

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Sciborg2 Sciborg2 <scib...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Heh, I recall a few Jesus-freaks going nuts at the idea that ID could point to anything but an excuse to bask in Biblically inspired reasons to be sexist, homophobic, etc.

Of course if that pack of loons wanted to be reassured they could ask Kripal or Doniger about the sexism and homophobia among a subset of Hindus. Plus they have a caste system!

Why we have to make sure we're not encouraging the garbage that drives the skeptical movement. Let these deluded buffoons go the way of the dinosaurs.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Sciborg2 Sciborg2]

 Heh, I recall a few Christian fundies going nuts at the idea that ID could point to anything but Jesus. But as Feser notes that's hardly the case.

Personally it's not clear ID points to much of anything but a suggestion of immaterialism. I go with the ideas of Meyers/Aurobindo/etc, that ID is due to Our teleological influence on evolution.

[Sciborg2 Sciborg2]

Oh I deleted that post b/c it was too off the cuff. I think we have to support the idea that evolution doesn't necessarily support materialism, but at the same time note that religious fundamentalists can't hijack the concept of ID.

IIRC, it was the Spiritualists who originally proposed ID while the fundie freaks were still drumming on about idoitc creationism nonsense.

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 1:00:00 PM UTC-4, Don Salmon wrote:

hey sci - not quite sure where you're going with this - do you think we shouldn't talk about conscious evolution? 

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Sciborg2 Sciborg2 <scib...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Heh, I recall a few Jesus-freaks going nuts at the idea that ID could point to anything but an excuse to bask in Biblically inspired reasons to be sexist, homophobic, etc.

Of course if that pack of loons wanted to be reassured they could ask Kripal or Doniger about the sexism and homophobia among a subset of Hindus. Plus they have a caste system!

Why we have to make sure we're not encouraging the garbage that drives the skeptical movement. Let these deluded buffoons go the way of the dinosaurs.

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 12:34:27 PM UTC-4, Don Salmon wrote:

I think this is the post where Bernardo reflects on the video. It's really quite good. http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/07/meaningful-evolution.html 

I agree about Goswami, by the way. Ulrich Mohrhoff started out very "anti-ID', and on an "uncommon descent" Ulrich does a very nice job of modifying his original comments (if you ever read Ulrich on anybody, and he's critical, remember that he often has an initial very strong response to things he disagrees with, but if you wait a bit and engage him on it, he'll often modify his views quite a bit. He has very strong, passionate views but is also a very sweet, gentle person and it's not always obvious from the way he expresses himself:>)  I've been told at times I can come on too strong at first too:>)))))

here he is: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ulrich-mohrhoff-on-the-hindu-alternative-to-materialism-and-id/ 

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Michael Larkin <mic...@live.co.uk> wrote:

There's this video from Bernardo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi0DqeHxm4w
I haven't been able to locate the blog post you refer to, though.

As regards Goswami's view, there is this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tbIkqrmWTc
I agree with a lot of what he says, but he has the wrong idea about Intelligent Design theorists, conflating their views with creationists. ID theorists tend to be staunch evolutionists (where "evolution" is the fact of change over time), and accept the evidence of the fossil record. Many of them even accept common ancestry, as well as random mutation/natural selection having a minor influence (at the micro-evolutionary level). Not all of those sympathetic to ID are religious: some are agnostic or even atheist (believing that intelligence could be an inherent property of matter). It's a pity Goswami doesn't realise this, because much that he says isn't inconsistent with ID.

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 12:42:30 PM UTC+1, Don Salmon wrote:

I'm not sure of the exact date, but there's a wonderful post from Bernardo that's about a year old on evolution. it's very close to Amit Goswami's idea of a group consciousness in which changes are stored over millions of years, which eventually results in genetic changes.  I just said it really badly - but you might enjoy looking either at Bernardo's post of Goswami's writings.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Metaphysical Speculations" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/metaphysical-speculations/LsQ4NjostNE/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Don Salmon]

yes, sorry if i misled anybody by bringing up ID. Meyers/aurobindo/kastrup is fine with me.  Another reason to have a thread/google page summarizing Bernardo's books and ideas - he's got some great stuff on evolution. It would be nice to start connecting what he's written with everything else people are bringing up (Braude, Goswami, Feser, Myers, Tallis, Tanzi, Aurobindo, etc etc etc)

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Sciborg2 Sciborg2 <scib...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Heh, I recall a few Christian fundies going nuts at the idea that ID could point to anything but Jesus. But as Feser notes that's hardly the case.

Personally it's not clear ID points to much of anything but a suggestion of immaterialism. I go with the ideas of Meyers/Aurobindo/etc, that ID is due to Our teleological influence on evolution.

--

[Sciborg2 Sciborg2]

I don't think you misled anyone Don, really it's the fundies who think ID is time travel device to make their retrograde politics fashionable again.

I think there are a lot of people interesting in this stuff, but it's important IMO to make a distinction between the kind of ID we talk about here - which is more connected to Esalen's Human Potential Movement - and the shoddy garbage of fundies that tries to make any and all immaterialism support their asinine beliefs.

[Don Salmon]

ah, i see.  thanks:>)  Makes it seem even more important to get some summaries of Bernardo's views on evolution together.  If I have time at some point in the near future, i might try but I'll definitely need a lot o help. 

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Sciborg2 Sciborg2 <scib...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't think you misled anyone Don, really it's the fundies who think ID is time travel device to make their retrograde politics fashionable again.

I think there are a lot of people interesting in this stuff, but it's important IMO to make a distinction between the kind of ID we talk about here - which is more connected to Esalen's Human Potential Movement - and the shoddy garbage of fundies that tries to make any and all immaterialism support their asinine beliefs.

--

[Sciborg2 Sciborg2]

@Don: Where are these views on evolution by Bernardo that you're trying to compile? From blog posts? Books?

Kripal definitely seems knowledgeable about the respectable side of ID that stands in opposition to the Johnny-come-Lately fundie freaks who are only joining up because the stupidity of creationism has been revealed even to their dull minds. As Kripal has said, we need to dump all the fundie trash if we're going to get to the Truth of our place in the cosmos. (Might need to evaluate the degree to which Chopra's a snake oil salesmen as well as other New Age gurus...)

I need to write to him anyway, and perhaps arrange a trip to the Esalen Institute. I just want to get my own thoughts organized on what a general immaterialist advocacy would look like.

[Don Salmon]

SCI: I think this is the post where Bernardo reflects on the video. It's really quite good. http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/07/meaningful-evolution.html 

I agree about Goswami, by the way. Ulrich Mohrhoff started out very "anti-ID', and on an "uncommon descent" Ulrich does a very nice job of modifying his original comments (if you ever read Ulrich on anybody, and he's critical, remember that he often has an initial very strong response to things he disagrees with, but if you wait a bit and engage him on it, he'll often modify his views quite a bit. He has very strong, passionate views but is also a very sweet, gentle person and it's not always obvious from the way he expresses himself:>)  I've been told at times I can come on too strong at first too:>)))))

here he is: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ulrich-mohrhoff-on-the-hindu-alternative-to-materialism-and-id/ 

and if I may say, look at our yoga psychology book.  You can see excerpts at www.integralworld.net - go to reading room and search "salmon".  Also at my blog at www.ipi.org.in (or just buy the book:>))   There's a lot of stuff in the book I haven't seen anywhere else.  Personally, I think the idea of consciousness (that's small "c" consciousness) evolving or unfolding in a fractal way is very powerful. Don DeGracia has written a lot on this, and the whole shape of our book is based on this idea.  It ties in very powerfully with practice as we lay out in chapter 16. Bernardo's ideas on evolution fit perfectly with what we wrote about karma in chapter 14.

It's incredibly frustrating to me that I can't spend full time on this, I can "see" how the whole thing fits together but am not quick enough to dash it out in these little 1 minute posts.  Ah, just a few years….

[Michael Larkin]

ID's a broad church. The party line, really, is only that somewhere along the line, there's intelligent input into the process of evolution. Some think of that input as coming from the Abrahamic God. I myself don't have fixed ideas, but just looking at the complexity of eukaryotic cells, which is quite staggering, think intelligence has to be involved in some way or other. However, I don't think it's the unfolding of a detailed plan set up in advance; like Bernardo said, I think there's some kind of feedback that informs evolution, and there's an element of playful exploration of potential.

Who is the referrent of "Our" in what you say? I agree in the idea of a general telos, and think that organic evolution is part of a continuum that includes evolution at the personal and societal levels: it's all the same driver and you find parallels. For example, there were periodic step changes in the Cambrian and mammalian radiations, and the same can be said about transitions in the history of human civilisations as well as within individual human lives. In a way, our lives recapitulate the whole of evolution on a much-compressed time scale. I'm not endorsing Haekel's idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, which was apparently supported by a bit of creative license on Haekel's part. I see it more akin to a fractal process that has periods of acceleration and different modes of expression according to the level and nature of the system under consideration. 

[Michael Larkin]

Thanks for the heads up, Don. I think the blog post is quite splendid. Maybe I read it at the time, but if so, I had forgotten it. Thanks also for the Mohrhoff link.

[Don Salmon]

Michael, you mentioned the fractal nature of evolution. This is a chart from our yoga psychology book.  The frame for the whole book was neuroscientist J Alan Hobson's observation (in his book, "Consciousness", a Scientific American book) that "consciousness is graded over evolution - over billions of years, over our life times, and in each moment.

The occultists of the 19th and 20th century described inner evolutionary processes which are clearly fractal.  Swami Ramananda, in a book "Evolutionary Sadhana" (written in the 1940s, I think) describes the process by which the "inner" energies" rise in humans and plants.  there is "pressure" (that's Sri Aurobindo's word) from "inner" planes of consciousness - these inner planes do not have the same kind of separation that we misperceive in the outer world - "mind" or "consciousness' (that's chitta, or mental consciousness, not "Chit" or Absolute Consciousness) in the inner worlds can be quite easily directly experienced as "one" or perhaps more correctly a "unified field".  

This "inner" or "higher' consciousness is always 'pressing down" seeking to manifest on the earth plane, while the 'involved" (consciousness hidden in matter) consciousness is also "pressing upward" seeking to manifest.

In the subtle body of the human being, it manifests to the eye of the yogi who can see subtle energies, as chakras, or spinning energy centers (whirlpools of energy, in other words).  So for example, if my heart is closed, and over some years, through inner intentional effort or (as is more often the case) through heartbreak and suffering, my heart starts to open, this will activate energies of the heart chakra, which, through sympathetic vibration, start affect both the throat chakra above and the solar plexus chakra below.

At some point, in a "quantum leap", the heart chakra opens to a higher level, which in turn affects the adjacent chakras. This process goes on over lifetimes, according to the occultists. It is associated with the "true" individual" (the jivatman) in the human. Since animals are not individualized in the same way, it affects the species as a whole, leading, over hundreds of millions of years, to the emergence of more and more complex grades of consciousness and appearing to our earthly/physical eyes as the images we call "new organisms."

Neuroscientist and Buddhist Francisco Varela described how the almost exact parallel process occurs over the course of several hundred milliseconds in each moment of perception - starting from a non dual awareness in which subject and object are one, to an initial separation where there is still a kind of direct contact between "Self" and "other" (this is related to Jim Carpenter's "First Sight" theory), then to simple sensing along with simple feeling, then more complex perception, then a cognitive interpretation of the percept, then the arising of self-awareness (much simpler in animals of course - see the chart below).

If I had a few weeks to devote to this, I could make it MUCH more intelligible. Hope this doesn't all sound like gibberish. 

 

BASIC COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS	EVOLUTION OF AFFECTIVE/ VOLITIONAL FUNCTIONS	EVOLUTION OF COGNITIVE/ VOLITIONAL FUNCTIONS	ANIMALS IN WHOM THESE FUNCTIONS ARE FIRST ACTIVE	EXPERIENCED WORLD ASSOCIATED WITH THIS WAY OF KNOWING
(3) and (4) Understanding and Volition	More complex emotions developing in tandem with the more complex cognitive functions	Enduring relationships, clearly defined social roles, complex communication, and flexible cultural traditions	Most intelligent primates and all humans	A "world" in the sense we think of it comes into being. This is the beginning of a 'story' that defines the emerging 'self'  and ‘world’
		Selective attention; associative 'thinking' using nonverbal concepts; complex planning and problem-solving; increased flexibility of behavior	The most intelligent mammals and all primates	‘World becomes progressively more solid, defined, and enduring
		Ability to construct complex mental maps; i.e., to recall and organize many details of one's experience and environment in the form of internal images	More complex birds and mammals	More complex relationships between perceived objects in the environment; the capacity to hold in mind past relationships gives greater solidity, definition, and endurance to the perceived world
		Complex knowing and problem-solving; greater ability to adapt; capacity to anticipate and plan; beginnings of cultural transmission	Birds and mammals
(2) Perceiving	Impulse toward fight or flight, as well as the impulse for cooperation and collaboration	Object awareness: recognition of more complex stimuli by comparison with internal images; association learning	Amphibians and reptiles	Extremely limited groups of sensations combined into objects
(1b) More Complex Sensing	Simple feeling awareness of a stimulus as pleasant or unpleasant (life-enhancing or threatening)	Crude recognition, simple (conditioned) learning, crude mental maps	Insects	Relationships between poorly defined classes of sensations
(1a) Simple sensing		Barest registration of stimuli; awareness of vibration, heat, light	One-celled organisms	Formless vibrations

 

 

 

 

 

--

[Don Salmon]

the chart is best read from the bottom up.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to metaphysical-speculations+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Roslyn Ross]

My sense of the entire Darwin theology is that like many others, including Newton and Descartes, much has been done and said in his name which would have horrified him. I doubt Darwin ever believed or wanted his research to be taken as the only answer. He got a lot right and then others interpreting got a lot wrong and presented as much projection and dogma as they did, his original 'beliefs.' Jesus suffered the same fate, as has Jung and no doubt Freud, that  a set of theories and discoveries and explanations were turned into something absolute and lost much of their core truths in the doing.

It is perfectly logical, observing evidence and applying reason and common sense that there is an evolutionary process at work in this world to some degree. The problem came, just as it has with materialism, when people wanted it to be ALL that was at work an the source of ALL the answers instead of a source for a few answers and many insights.

We have lived in an either/or world for thousands of years and it is in the 'and' that more truths can be found.

[Peter Jones]

Yes. Nearly everyone gets dumbed down by nearly all of their followers.  

[Michael Larkin]

Fancy that, Don! :-) Seems that great minds think alike...

On Monday, October 20, 2014 12:23:04 PM UTC+1, Don Salmon wrote:

Michael, you mentioned the fractal nature of evolution. This is a chart from our yoga psychology book...

[Roslyn Ross]

Exploited, manipulated, misquoted, misinterpreted, propagandised .....