ufo-buff - As a practical matter, being told that scientists at CERN have discovered something about physics is not much different from being told that Moses parted the Red Sea. I personally don’t have the capability to verify or even understand either claim.I like this point about a wise wariness towards 3rd party speculation or testimony. Testing against my own experience, intuition and reason is essential. Practicing non-attachment to non-essentials. Keeping a steady aim on the target. In the seventies I came to strong intuition about the possibility of enlightenment. However, reason made sure that I understood it would be, at the very least, a lifetimes work. Full of potential for self delusion. Not to be turned over to the authority of another. When the testimony of respected others confirms what I have already come to myself, I savor their articulation of the Way, and then move on. This is much like the scientific process as I've heard it described in these threads. The goal is knowledge. In science you seek the underlying laws governing creation. In this other quest, one seeks the source of those laws. The two disciplines are not exclusive of each other.
The problem is that there just is no evidence of motivation being required for the natural law of Cause/Effect to function in physics. One cannot say that one 'knows' without really knowing. You can 'feel' without knowing, but that is subjective and belongs in psychology.ufo-buff - As a practical matter, being told that scientists at CERN have discovered something about physics is not much different from being told that Moses parted the Red Sea. I personally don’t have the capability to verify or even understand either claim.I like this point about a wise wariness towards 3rd party speculation or testimony. Testing against my own experience, intuition and reason is essential. Practicing non-attachment to non-essentials. Keeping a steady aim on the target. In the seventies I came to strong intuition about the possibility of enlightenment. However, reason made sure that I understood it would be, at the very least, a lifetimes work. Full of potential for self delusion. Not to be turned over to the authority of another. When the testimony of respected others confirms what I have already come to myself, I savor their articulation of the Way, and then move on. This is much like the scientific process as I've heard it described in these threads. The goal is knowledge. In science you seek the underlying laws governing creation. In this other quest, one seeks the source of those laws. The two disciplines are not exclusive of each other.
... This is much like the scientific process as I've heard it described in these threads. The goal is knowledge. In science you seek the underlying laws governing creation. In this other quest, one seeks the source of those laws. The two disciplines are not exclusive of each other.Your post got me thinking: maybe we can define God/religion as the answer to various questions like: "what is my purpose?", "what happens when we die?", "how should we live?", etc. It seems like you use a deist definition of God, when you seek the source of the laws governing creation. That would probably explain why you don't see a conflict between God and science. I tend to ask "what is my purpose?" and hope God will answer. Can a deist God answer that question?
Write4U - The problem is that there just is no evidence of motivation being required for the natural law of Cause/Effect to function in physics. One cannot say that one 'knows' without really knowing. You can 'feel' without knowing, but that is subjective and belongs in psychology.Why is 'knowing' less subjective than 'feeling'? Who knows, who feels? In my view the subjective is just as much subject to natural law as say Gravity. If it doesn't seem so, that just means our understanding of "natural law" is incomplete (or, artificially restricted in scope). IMO No one ever really tried to answer my questions about 'instinct' and DNA, or about the possible universality of the sense of 'I'. (remember the bungled 'light' analogy). The lack of response could be thought of as a clue to an incompleteness of our understanding. I don't usually think of 'motivation' on the foundational level of Cause/Effect. Potential being infinite. But, Awareness on the other hand, doesn't seem out of the question. There has to be the potential for self awareness. I usually leave the motivation part to us, as the expression of awareness in the complexities of finite form. This of course, is only my working model. Thinking about what I just said, I am tempted to suggest that Awareness may be the first 'Effect' of Infinite Potential. Maybe that guy 'Bohm' said something like this. I know the Rishis did.
ufo-buff - Your post got me thinking: maybe we can define God/religion as the answer to various questions like: "what is my purpose?", "what happens when we die?", "how should we live?", etc. It seems like you use a deist definition of God, when you seek the source of the laws governing creation. That would probably explain why you don't see a conflict between God and science. I tend to ask "what is my purpose?" and hope God will answer. Can a deist God answer that question?Good question. Several levels to think about. What is the 'purpose' of evolution? Without the 'Awareness' I'm attributing to the Universe (God); (Ask the current batch of scientists); Random change rewarded by continuity of form within time, possibly gaining in complexity. Or, some such. With 'Awareness', more like 'Self discovery'. Discovery of what? The true nature of 'Self'. Infinite and Finite. The Great paradox. I don't want to say more because that is what 'religions' do. On a personal level, what would ones 'purpose' be? Assuming the second version of evolution (the one that is shaped by Awareness), I would suggest, aligning one's consciousness to the natural process of evolution within one's own life. Leting the results speak for themselves. Trusting the process the way one trusts Gravity. How to behave? Whatever works to facilitate the above. As for death? Who dies?
... This is much like the scientific process as I've heard it described in these threads. The goal is knowledge. In science you seek the underlying laws governing creation. In this other quest, one seeks the source of those laws. The two disciplines are not exclusive of each other.Your post got me thinking: maybe we can define God/religion as the answer to various questions like: "what is my purpose?", "what happens when we die?", "how should we live?", etc. It seems like you use a deist definition of God, when you seek the source of the laws governing creation. That would probably explain why you don't see a conflict between God and science. I tend to ask "what is my purpose?" and hope God will answer. Can a deist God answer that question? The question is misleading and presupposes that only god can provide answers, but can God answer that question? Hoping and praying for answers will not give you answers; thinking about a problem will, whatever method you use to focus your attention. Obviously there are "purposeful" atheist and there are "lost" theists. If only god can provide there answers, how can that be?
...No one ever really tried to answer my questions about 'instinct' and DNA, or about the possible universality of the sense of 'I'...I did.
Seems to me you are beginning to think Bohmian.Write4U - The problem is that there just is no evidence of motivation being required for the natural law of Cause/Effect to function in physics. One cannot say that one 'knows' without really knowing. You can 'feel' without knowing, but that is subjective and belongs in psychology.Why is 'knowing' less subjective than 'feeling'? Who knows, who feels? In my view the subjective is just as much subject to natural law as say Gravity. If it doesn't seem so, that just means our understanding of "natural law" is incomplete (or, artificially restricted in scope). IMO No one ever really tried to answer my questions about 'instinct' and DNA, or about the possible universality of the sense of 'I'. (remember the bungled 'light' analogy). The lack of response could be thought of as a clue to an incompleteness of our understanding. I don't usually think of 'motivation' on the foundational level of Cause/Effect. Potential being infinite. But, Awareness on the other hand, doesn't seem out of the question. There has to be the potential for self awareness. I usually leave the motivation part to us, as the expression of awareness in the complexities of finite form. This of course, is only my working model. Thinking about what I just said, I am tempted to suggest that Awareness may be the first 'Effect' of Infinite Potential. Maybe that guy 'Bohm' said something like this. I know the Rishis did.
THE GROUND OF ALL EXISTENCE At the very depths of the ground of all existence Bohm believes that there exists a special energy. For Bohm it is the plenum; it is an "immense background of energy." The energy of this ground is likened to one whole and unbroken movement by Bohm. He calls this the "holomovement." It is the holomovement that carries the Implicate Order. Bohm also refers to a law in the holomovement. He theorizes that the 'order in every immediately perceptible aspect of the world is to be regarded as coming out of a more comprehensive Implicate Order, in which all aspects ultimately merge in the undefinable and immeasurable holomovement. Holonomy, through a wide range of aspects, can be considered a "movement in which new wholes are emerging." What is it that emerges from this ultimate ground, this "unknown totality of the universal flux?" It is the extension of the Implicate Order into a multidimensional reality. It is the interplay between the implicate and the explicate orders. It is the flow of matter, manifested and interdependent, towards consciousness.http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/plenum/plenum_3.html
Evolution, itself, doesn't have a purpose. It's just a natural law. But I think you know that. So when you ask "What is the purpose of evolution?" I surmise that you are actually covertly asking about some made up sentient entity's purpose in somehow creating/using evolution.ufo-buff - Your post got me thinking: maybe we can define God/religion as the answer to various questions like: "what is my purpose?", "what happens when we die?", "how should we live?", etc. It seems like you use a deist definition of God, when you seek the source of the laws governing creation. That would probably explain why you don't see a conflict between God and science. I tend to ask "what is my purpose?" and hope God will answer. Can a deist God answer that question?Good question. Several levels to think about. What is the 'purpose' of evolution? Without the 'Awareness' I'm attributing to the Universe (God); (Ask the current batch of scientists); Random change rewarded by continuity of form within time, possibly gaining in complexity. Or, some such. With 'Awareness', more like 'Self discovery'. Discovery of what? The true nature of 'Self'. Infinite and Finite. The Great paradox. I don't want to say more because that is what 'religions' do. On a personal level, what would ones 'purpose' be? Assuming the second version of evolution (the one that is shaped by Awareness), I would suggest, aligning one's consciousness to the natural process of evolution within one's own life. Leting the results speak for themselves. Trusting the process the way one trusts Gravity. How to behave? Whatever works to facilitate the above. As for death? Who dies?
TimB - Evolution, itself, doesn't have a purpose. It's just a natural law. But I think you know that. So when you ask "What is the purpose of evolution?" I surmise that you are actually covertly asking about some made up sentient entity's purpose in somehow creating/using evolution.Not really. I thought the statement was clear. The sentient entity I am talking about is you or me. Per the original question from ufo-buff. I found it a helpful exercise and was glad to give it a try. ------ You make an interesting point in saying "Evolution, itself doesn't have a purpose. It's just a natural law." Are you saying that "purpose" is a subjective phenomena? Like though, emotion, sense of self, etc. not as real as the physical universe? What about learning? What about knowledge?
Write4U - Seems to me you are beginning to think Bohmian.Maybe, but how could I tell. Simple fellow that I am.
I certainly don't know if butterflies have what we typically refer to as memories. My understanding is that Monarch butterflies who travel to congregate in Mexico have never been there before. So something that is passed on genetically must be inplay. How is that something passed on genetically? The same way that our reflexes are. The same way that our autonomic functions are. In humans, the same way that our propensity for developing verbal behavior is. The same way that the general shape and coloring of a particular organism is passed on. The same way that sensory abilities are passed on genetically. The same way that a general course of development of an organism is passed on. The same way that the course of development of the brain, itself, in an organism is passed on. I found it! (also a lot of other interesting stuff that I had missed.) But,... How? For one thing, instinct is a form of knowledge. I, since I have hypothesized that my sense of I, is contiguous with a Universal sense of I, have recast the processes of evolution into terms of a learning process. If there is "motivation", I would suggest that it is in the line of exploration or self knowledge. An effect of natural law. Expressing itself through us. But, why do I call this God? Why not? Just seems like giving credit where credit is due. I don't give a hoot if the Abrahamic version doesn't jive, and I'm not smart enough to be a scientist.TimB - I absolutely think that instincts are passed on genetically.I would of course agree. However, your answer side steps the questions purpose. How, does memory get transmitted before the brain exists? Maps, to or from Mexico, for Monarch butterflies etc.?
Then why call it God, which is associated with all religions, including Abrahamic. God has been given a specific property of being able to hear you when you pray. And that is fine, but do not expect god to ever answer your prayers. That’s vanity and a no, no.
The proper word is Potential. It is the potential inherent in the human system and configuration that allows us to function and evolve. It is no different for all living organisms. Each develops and uses it’s potential dependent on it’s environment.
Ask yourself if we could make a sentient computer. And if we could communicate with it would it be able to answer our prayers? Fundamentally I see very little difference. Only when you start adding magical powers, can you expect to find miracles. But the powers are not magical, they are just potentials made Explicate…
"Obviously there are “purposeful" atheist and there are “lost" theists. If only god can provide their answers, how can that be?"It is all God. Atheist or Theist. Doesn't matter. What a person believes now, will in time, change. Any answers to any questions, are only for this moment.
Then why call it God, which is associated with all religions, including Abrahamic. God has been given a specific property of being able to hear you when you pray. And that is fine, but do not expect god to ever answer your prayers. That's vanity and a no, no. The proper word is Potential. It is the potential inherent in the human system and configuration that allows us to function and evolve. It is no different for all living organisms. Each develops and uses it's potential dependent on it's environment. Ask yourself if we could make a sentient computer. And if we could communicate with it would it be able to answer our prayers? Fundamentally I see very little difference. Only when you start adding magical powers, can you expect to find miracles. But the powers are not magical, they are just potentials made Explicate..If I am hoping to educate, catalyze and improve the conceptualization of God, I should not burn the bridge. Though, I am tempted to resort to Sanskrit from time to time. This stuff has been worked out long ago. The need for Scientists and Atheists in general, to exclude the G word from their contemplation is okay, but really, these are all just words. As for calling it 'Potential'. That would exclude the manifested world that we experience. Again, isolating the creator from the creation. and,... in my own experience...the more accurate my understanding gets, the more malleable and "mind like" reality gets...the sanskrit word for this translates to 'proof'.. though in other circles it is thought of as 'powers', or 'answered prayers', you would say 'potentials made explicate'. We all seem to be doubling back on previous arguments. I think I'll defer to this guy: S. James Gates], and move on. I have really enjoyed and benefited from talking with you, and the others. Thanks. I think that I should venture beyond the "Introduce yourself" forum. See what other people are talking about. Maybe go in search of some 'Abrahamic' folks. Let them help me past my attitude problem.
If I am hoping to educate, catalyze and improve the conceptualization of God, I should not burn the bridge.Burn what bridge? The big problem with the whole God thing is that there is no evidence that it exists in the first place, so how can you "educate, catalyze and improve the conceptualization of...."....well...nothing?
Then why call it God, which is associated with all religions, including Abrahamic. God has been given a specific property of being able to hear you when you pray. And that is fine, but do not expect god to ever answer your prayers. That's vanity and a no, no. The proper word is Potential. It is the potential inherent in the human system and configuration that allows us to function and evolve. It is no different for all living organisms. Each develops and uses it's potential dependent on it's environment. Ask yourself if we could make a sentient computer. And if we could communicate with it would it be able to answer our prayers? Fundamentally I see very little difference. Only when you start adding magical powers, can you expect to find miracles. But the powers are not magical, they are just potentials made Explicate..If I am hoping to educate, catalyze and improve the conceptualization of God, I should not burn the bridge. Though, I am tempted to resort to Sanskrit from time to time. This stuff has been worked out long ago. The need for Scientists and Atheists in general, to exclude the G word from their contemplation is okay, but really, these are all just words. As for calling it 'Potential'. That would exclude the manifested world that we experience. Again, isolating the creator from the creation. Then you have not understood a word I have said and what's worse you have not checked out David Bohm, or you would understand that Bohm speaks in terms of Wholeness and Holomovement., exactly the opposite of what you are positing here.
Ontology of Meaning As Bohm's work matured, he placed increasing emphasis on the importance of meaning, and he came to regard matter, energy, and meaning as three major constituents of our existence (in Rinpoche 1992, 354). "From the point of view of the implicate order, energy and matter are imbued with a certain kind of significance (latent excellence which may become reality, Potential) which gives form to their over-all activity and to the matter which arises in that activity. The energy of mind and of the material substance of the brain are also imbued with a kind of significance which gives form to their over-all activity. So quite generally, energy enfolds matter and meaning, while matter enfolds energy and meaning. . . But also meaning enfolds both matter and energy. . . So each of these basic notions enfolds the other two. . . . "This implies, in contrast to the usual view, that meaning is an inherent and essential part of our overall reality, and is not merely a purely abstract and ethereal quality having its existence only in the mind. Or to put it differently, in human life, quite generally, meaning is being." (pp. 90-93).large quotation mine)
Maybe go in search of some 'Abrahamic' folks. Let them help me past my attitude problem.They would have burnt you at the stake by now......
I certainly don't know if butterflies have what we typically refer to as memories. My understanding is that Monarch butterflies who travel to congregate in Mexico have never been there before. So something that is passed on genetically must be inplay. How is that something passed on genetically? The same way that our reflexes are. The same way that our autonomic functions are. In humans, the same way that our propensity for developing verbal behavior is. The same way that the general shape and coloring of a particular organism is passed on. The same way that sensory abilities are passed on genetically. The same way that a general course of development of an organism is passed on. The same way that the course of development of the brain, itself, in an organism is passed on. I found it! (also a lot of other interesting stuff that I had missed.) But,... How? For one thing, instinct is a form of knowledge. Would you call reflexes a form of knowledge? There are behaviors that organisms are born with the genetic/biological "hardwiring" to do.TimB - I absolutely think that instincts are passed on genetically.I would of course agree. However, your answer side steps the questions purpose. How, does memory get transmitted before the brain exists? Maps, to or from Mexico, for Monarch butterflies etc.?
I just saw a tv episode on a new discovery made by researchers that may shed some light on the questions associated with ‘inherited traits’.
It was always thought that a fetus is completely shielded from the mother by the placenta. It was thought that the fetus only received nutrients from the mother but did not share blood.
This apparently was incorrect . They found that the placenta has tiny holes and through these holes in the placenta the fetus shares it’s mothers blood and other cells and a whole new theory is emerging that the mysteries connected with inherited traits and genetic memories has entered a new era of discovery.
The implications of this sharing of blood cells means that the mother also receives blood cells from the fetus and thus all siblings receive DNA from each other through the mother as well as from the father.
Thus the saying that ‘blood is thicker than water’ is literally correct and has opened a whole new area of genetic research.
Write4U - Then you have not understood a word I have said and what’s worse you have not checked out David Bohm, or you would understand that Bohm speaks in terms of Wholeness and Holomovement., exactly the opposite of what you are positing here.
Bohm - (latent excellence which may become reality, Potential)My apologies then. Would saying, 'Latent Excellence/Potential not separable', carried my point better? Probably not. Maybe the problem is the question of Existence. Can "Universal Wholeness" actually be said to exist. Existence, in the usual sense of the word, requires it's opposite. Non Existence. How can evidence be gathered in such a case?
The Way that can be told of is not an unvarying way; The names that can be named are not unvarying names. It was from the Nameless that Heaven and Earth sprang; The named is but the mother that rears the ten thousand creatures, each after its kind. (Tao Te Ching; chap. 1, tr. Waley)