primate

Science and spirituality must be unified. Together religion and science should provide the necessary knowledge and ideas to understand the relation between material nature, life, consciousness and spirituality. I envision the two ultimately merged into a single ideology that solves all our problems here on Earth.

The process of gene-expression is highly non-linear. This basically means that even a single change in a DNA sequence may result in a radically different development of the organism. Indeed, the entire mechanism of RNA–protein interactions that regulate growth and development is critically dependent on initial genetic conditions. Consequently, new species may result from relatively minor DNA changes. And indeed the genomes of different species of mammals, for example, differ much less than you might expect from their anatomical differences. And the genomes of humans and apes differ by only 1%. Furthermore, evolutionary change is induced by environmental pressure. When such pressures are very high, a species may come close to the point of extinction. Only particular individuals that underwent the right chance adaptations may survive. From that point on, it is not a matter of spreading these changes through a population of millions, but building an entire new population based on a few adapted individuals, which is a much faster process. Finally, genetic evolution is not a purely random process. Even mutation is a genetic operator that is not completely random. Specific regions of the genome are less susceptible to mutations than other regions. And there is also a much more structured operator called ‘crossover’. In reproduction, different male and female chromosomes pair up and randomly exchange large sections of their DNA to form a new chromosome. Crossover promotes the forming of so called building blocks within the chromosomes. These are small sub-strands of DNA containing many genes that encode higher order functional units in embryonic development. The recombination of such building blocks is a much more powerful and structured evolutionary mechanism than single gene mutations. This is called ‘the building block hypothesis’ which is confirmed by computational simulations using genetic algorithms.

Hi Bija. You mentioned this book title before. I think I will read it sometime. Your Wikipedia quote states: “Teilhard emphasized that each particular consciousness would remain conscious of itself at the end of the operation [the culmination of all consciousness into the Omega point].” What is Teilhard’s argument behind that notion? (I'm just curious..)

Well, then our views aren’t that much apart I guess. We probably only disagree about the timely moment of creation and the nature of creation, and the extend to which the currently observed biodiversity is the result of evolution. BTW, the fact that Alligators didn’t evolve any further may be because they are already perfectly adapted to the biological niche they occupy. They simply don’t need a larger brain or better dexterity for example. Moreover, Alligators might be an evolutionary 'end', or a so called 'local optimum', which means that any possible small change would make the organism less likely to survive. And evolution doesn’t allow for dicrete big changes. So Alligators are stuck as a species.

Can you please be a bit more specific. “There is some evolution of species”, but not “evolution as being advocated by modern science”. Perhaps it’s my ape-like ancestry, but I can’t follow you.

Who says God himself didn’t evolve? So we may have been created in his image after all!

The oldest fossil remains of upright walking hominoids are about 4 million years old (Australopithecus afarensis). The earliest remains of modern humans (homo sapiens) are 195,000 years old. Next, the entire human population appears to have been nearly wiped out about 70,000 years ago (probably as the result of a super volcanic event that triggered a volcanic winter). Judged from the extreme genetic similarity of the different human races, the number of humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to increase again. It cannot be known for sure exactly where this tiny group of humans survived. Might as well be in India..

We also share about 5% of our genetic make-up with grass!

Humans didn’t evolve from today’s apes. Both humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor that has long disappeared. The reason that today’s apes didn’t evolve into humans is because they once lived completely isolated from the apes that actually did evolve into human’s. Driven by chance mutations and different environmental pressures, different isolated ape populations followed different evolutionary paths and ultimately became the different ape-like species (primates) we see today, including humans. Nevertheless, we still share 99% of our genetic make up with Chimps for example.

‘Irreducibly complex’ structures or mechanisms as identified in biological organisms, could have evolved from ‘reducible complex’ structures. Early 'flagella' in bacteria were most likely composed of many more protein parts, which allowed evolution to ‘tinker’ with the system. In the course of evolution, some (or many) of these proteins lost their function in the system as a whole, and the DNA that encodes for their expression within that particular context was conveniently ‘switched off’ through mutations, leaving a highly efficient irreducible mechanism. The human genome, for example, contains 95% unused ‘junk DNA’. Only approximately 100,000 genes are actually expressed in human growth - and development.

The way I see oneness is that all ‘individual conscious experience’ originates from - and is maintained by a single atomic conscious entity. Possible ‘models’ that may provide evidence in favor of such a hypothesis exist in mathematical chaos theory. Extremely simple nonlinear dynamical systems can produce complex infinite self-similar structures or ‘fractal’ structures, in which every part of the structure resembles or represents the whole. The entire system may be just a single oscillating point in a ‘state-space’. It can then be assumed that this original point is conscious of all its complex dynamical aspects, and that our individual consciousness is maintained as a self-similar partial form of consciousness. Of course such a model cannot provide absolute proof of oneness. Interestingly, however, classical chaotic systems can model some quantum-mechanical systems, suggesting that at the most fundamental level of material reality everything is one. I don’t expect you to understand all this, but hopefully it gives you some idea of the direction that I’m thinking in. Perhaps chaotic systems can ultimately serve as a useful analogy or framework to understand some puzzling and controversial concepts from scripture. If such a metaphor would have been available when the Vedas where compiled, its authors just might have used it.

What more do you want raghu? I think it’s clear that either you don’t understand the simple point I made, or your psyche is incapable of accepting the fact that you were wrong. Anyway, you don’t seem to be interested in truth. Too bad. End of discussion. And please stop spamming the topic. All the best.

A ‘genetic algorithm’ can be viewed as a computational model of some basic genetic mechanisms such as reproduction, crossover, and mutation. GA's are used in computer simulations to solve complex problems and indeed work very, very well. GA’s also demonstrate that evolution is not a gradual process, but instead is characterized by sudden bursts of change spreading through a population of solutions! However, any model is per definition a simplification of reality. Therefore GA’s can at best provide evidence in favor of biological evolution theory; never absolute proof.

I'm talking about human conscious experience. And I'm an expert on that.

Justin, I don’t think you understand this correctly. It’s really quite simple. The ‘scientific method’ would consider a theory that postulates only one entity to explain an observed phenomenon to be a better theory than a theory that needs two or more entities to explain the same observed phenomenon, provided that both theories fully explain the observed phenomenon. Thus, a monist theory would be considered better than a dualist theory, provided that both theories fully explain human conscious experience. You simply can’t disagree with that. Yet, this is what the foregoing discussion was all about..

I don’t think I’m the most qualified person to answer your question, but as far as some Sufi mystics (apparently through Buddhist influences) substituted the ‘realm of Truth’ for Allah and emphasized self-annihilation as the path to understanding reality, there clearly are parallels with extreme monist ideologies (such as Buddhism).

No, I'm not joking. Up to now I have consistently refuted your arguments against my original claim that monism is an inherently simpler and thus scientifically more attractive theory than dualism. So, given that I will be able to answer your questions without introducing many more assumptions and/or entities, would you accept my basic argumentation? I must know this, because if you don’t it would be a waste of time to answer your questions and explain to you the details of a possible monistic model of reality..

Indeed a few good questions for me to contemplate, before answering without sacrificing clarity and conciseness.. But does this mean you accept my proof that monism is, in principle, a better scientific theory than dualism?

But I'm quite sure there is no hatred here.

Your theory (if you have one) would make the assumption that an infinite number of atomic entities exist, which through their collective interactions make up the entire perceived universe, including life and individual consciousness, or it would make the extra assumption that there is a god that creates and maintains life and/or individual consciousness. My theory assumes that only one atomic entity exists: consciousness, which has a finite number of (complex) aspects that account for our individual consciousness and the entire 'illusion' we call the material universe. So my theory makes fewer assumptions and postulates less entities. Thus my theory is better. Q.E.D.

An alternative version of Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate", which translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity.This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. (from Wikipedia) So it seems we are both correct. However, starting out from the doctrine that all material perception is illusory, which is generally accepted on this forum by both dualists and monists, monism is the best solution because monism, obviously, makes the least assumptions about reality and postulates the fewest entities. You might now argue that dismissing sensory experience as an illusion renders the scientific method useless anyway. But I am not denying that we consciously perceive material reality the way we do. The ultimate goal of science, however, is to define a theory which describes what it actually is that we perceive. When such a theory concludes that what we perceive as the material world is in fact a conscious illusion, then this must ultimately be verifiable by empirical scientific methods. Moreover, in modern quantum physics, it is already apparent that, at the most fundamental level, material reality is something different altogether than the causal (action reaction like) macroscopic world we (commonly) think we perceive..

Perhaps it’s better to say: All is one when all is interconnected. And Krishna is the thread that interconnects all, whereby Krishna is simultaneously smaller than the smallest (atom, proton/neutron, quark, etc.) and larger than the largest and all pervading. To me this strongly suggests that Krishna actually is all. All = One.

Could it be that material consciousness is a kind of 'frontline' in uncharted spiritual territory? The whole universe is evolving. Therefore, God (the original maintainer of the universe) may be evolving or 'growing'. We may be God’s ‘agents’ (dualism?) or His ‘sensory nerve endings’ (monism?). And once we figure it all out, we are assimilated and our consciousness enters a more advanced state, like a discrete phase-transition from solid into fluid. Still the same basic stuff, but qualitatively different..

I stated that assuming oneness, obviously, allows for a more concise answer or solution to ontological questions than does the assumption of non-oneness, which needs at least one extra category. I didn’t state that the statement itself is necessarily concise. As to my intuition; you can’t disagree that I intuit oneness to be the correct perspective. My intuition is just what it is. As to science; simplicity does not prove correctness, but science favours a simple model or theory above more complex models with equal explanatory power (Occam’s razor).

An 'organisation' may be just materal illusion, i.e., our limited conscious perception of (underlying) reality, which is one.