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.

... according to math, random evolution would have required more time to come to present level of development. ...

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.

Evolution of the organism is a wonderful thing. I no longer believe in the world view that everything is bound to degrade...nothing can stop the movement of spirit and its unfoldment.

 

Primate you may like to read 'Phenomenon of Man' book oneday...its a scientific/spiritual classic and thesis similar to the evolution you are pointing to in your discussions.

 

And dont worry Sonic the author is not a burger eating bafoon no good loser as you suggest scientists be;)...he is a personalist to the utmost degree in thinking.

 

 

quite possibly tis' going down...let those who have ears tune em' in...

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..)

There are Vedic sages who also expounded the theory of evolution.

Srila Prabhupada mentioned it in his books in a couple of places.

( I will have to search for the reference later, I gotta go to work now)

 

He doesn't give the details of exactly what that theory of evolution involves, so I can't really elaborate.

 

But, there are species that appear to have evolved different features as their location, the climate and the food sources changed.

 

So, I believe that there is both evolution and creationism.

 

Some species have evolved a little.

Some species like Alligators haven't evolved in millions of years.

Fossil records prove that.

 

So, evolution does not cancel out God and God does not cancel out evolution.

 

They are both possible at the same time in my view.

 

If evolution was a law of nature, then Alligators should have evolved.

They haven't changed at all in millions of years going back to the Dinosaurs.

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.

When you are already perfect and supreme, there is no room for evolving.

God is absolutely perfect.

There is no where to evolve to when you are the highest form of life.

 

There is some evolution of species.

That is not hard to accept.

 

But, evolution as being advocated by modern science is just the brain fart of a bunch of guys who get together and eat lunch at McDonald's every day.

 

What can you expect from a bunch of burger heads who make their careers out of speculating and inventing theories.

 

These guys make careers out of these stupid theories and there is no actual science behind it.

 

I know enough about these so called scientists to know that a paycheck is behind all their theories.

 

These people are just parasites on society who refuse work for a living or contribute anything useful to human society.

 

They should all be put to work in the rice fields doing something productive.

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.

So, you are basically saying that any and all religious theories about man being created by God in the image of God is all a hoax?

 

In other words you are saying there is no God who created man as man.

 

Then, what, may I ask are you doing on a forum about spirituality and faith in God?

 

Do you hope to convince all us religious zealots that there is no God and that man evolved from Apes.

 

Maybe you evolved from an Ape.

Your level of intelligence seems to indicate that.

 

Myself, I was created by God in his image.

That is why I am smarter than you.

 

Is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with an Ape?

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

so science says that we all decendent from africa 70 million yrs ago, if so then were all africans. but how does all this science fit in with our religious history, how did it all began, for me i would like to think that the origins of human life began in india like the how the religious book tells it

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!

If we descended from Apes, then why are there still apes around?

If apes evolved into humans then there shouldn't be any apes left.

 

If evolution is a law of nature, then there would be no apes left on the planet because as a species that would have evolved into humans.

 

Science can't have it both ways.

They can't say that apes evolved into humans while the ape species still exists in many types.

 

If evolution were real, then there would be no apes left on Earth.

 

They would have all evolved into NASA scientists, brain surgeons, computer engineers and Rock musicians.

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.

... Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations. An "irreducibly complex" system is defined by the term's originator, biochemistry professor Michael J. Behe, as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. The argument is used in a broader context to support the idea that an intelligent designer was involved, at some point, in the creation of life, against the theory of evolution which argues no designer is required. In a manner of speaking, the IC argument is a definition of the "designer", or at least "what was designed", a definition that has proven elusive in the past. The most common examples used in argument are the complexity of the eye, the Blood clotting cascade, or the motor in a cell's flagellum.

The flagella of certain bacteria constitute a molecular motor requiring the interaction of about 40 complex protein parts, and the absence of any one of these proteins causes the flagella to fail to function. Behe holds that the flagellum "engine" is irreducibly complex because if we try to reduce its complexity by positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an organism which functions improperly.

There are many examples of molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum, that are composed of numerous elements. Behe rightly points out that such machines are irreducibly complex in that if any one part were removed, the function in question would be instantly lost. How then could such a machine be built up gradually if it will not work to any selectable degree until all its parts are present in their proper order?

Kenneth Miller, a well-known evolutionary biologist from Brown University, points out that certain subsystems of the bacterial flagellum would still be in working order if other parts were removed. The overall flagellar motility system requires around 50 different types of proteins (and underlying genes to code for them). However, it is quite interesting to note that 10 of these genes and the resulting structure within the flagellar motility system also code for what is known as a type III secretory system (TTSS). The TTSS is used as a toxin injector by some especially nasty bacteria that attack both animals and plants. Therefore, Kenneth Miller argues that it is mistaken to use the flagellar system as an example of a truly irreducibly complex machine since around 40 different parts could be removed from the machine without a complete loss of function. Miller also points out that the majority of the protein parts of the flagellar system have other functions as parts of other systems within bacteria.

‘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.

Could it be that advaitins mean oneness in the sense of mathematical equality? We don't say rice=rice or wheat=wheat, but if they both weigh 3 kg, we equate rice and wheat on the basis of a common factor, weight in this case. Does it not follow that only distinct entities can be equated on a common factor? So wouldn't the advaitin argue that Brahman and Jiva are one in this way, and not in the rice=rice sense? Just speculating, like to hear your thoughts on this.

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.

Primate, science has not yet defined consciousness. No one in this world has any knowledge of consciousness except as described by the scriptures. No scientist has any evidence or an inkling of consciousness to even explain it using a model. Models can be drawn to suit ones purpose and can be twisted any which way you want it to be. There is no point in trying to describe 'scientifically' something that you have absolutely no idea about.

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

It is quackery in the guise of a 'scientific theory'. This proof is another one of the several thousands of attempts by monists who grasp at straws of science to mask their weak philosophy as 'scientific'

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..

While you continue discussions with raghu i am just curious to know whether you see some parallel between monism and "sufi islam".

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).

Are you joking, or are you really this obtuse?

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..

I do not believe I have postulated any theory. I merely pointed out the flawed premise upon which yours is based.

 

 

 

Again, your assumption about singular consciousness runs contrary to common experience, and is prima facie absurd. By ordinary experience we can appreciate that (1) we are each conscious living entities, and that (2) we are not the same conscious living entity. You do not know what I am thinking or what I will do or write, for example. We can logically infer that we are two different entities. To say that we are somehow connected in any way is itself an assumption not based on any evidence obtained via sensory perception or logical inference. It requires additional evidence to substantiate, which you do not have.

 

Furthermore, your theory which holds that "illusion" is another aspect of this singular conscious living entity begs the question. From whence does this illusion come? Brahman. And who is put into illusion? Brahman. So it is in Brahman's nature to be both the source of illusion and that which is deluded by it? A singular, self-deluding entity does not follow from direct observation nor from logical inference. Such a thing again requires more assumptions to accept. And once again, if it is all illusion anyway, then nothing within it is real including this very conversation regarding spirituality and metaphysics. Which then begs the question of why even talk about it in the first place.

 

If a self-deluding Brahman is easy for you to accept, why not just accept the possibility that you are merely deluding yourself?

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?

once there was an intense discussion going on between some great scholars, along with swami vivekanand and sri ramkrishna paramhamsa about what is better, dvaita or advaita.

 

it went on for many hours and after a long time ramkrishna paramhamsa said, "there are two doors to a house. one is the main entrance another is a back entrance. as long as one gets into a house, why care about how did that person enter in?"

 

i think its high time vaishnavas stop unnecessarily bashing mayavadis. i don't see a point. sri sankaracharya wrote devotional hymns for sri narayana...then why are vaishnava brothers so against him?

 

i would really like to know why this hate?

 

and for the so called "puritans", people can believe in advaita vedanta and worship vishnu or krishna at the same time.

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

Again, you are mistaken. Possibly you may not have a true scientific background which is why you misunderstood the Wikipedia entry. The "plurality" referred to her is not "plurality of entities" (as is often the concern of Advaitins trying to explain away the reality of the world we live in), but rather plurality of unfounded assumptions.

 

 

 

Advaita makes more assumptions about reality, and thus does not satisfy the criteria of simplicity when explaining existence. ...

 

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.

You are confused about Ockham's Razor. It is not merely simplicity that is favored by Ockham's Razor, but rather the simplest explanation (i.e. making the fewest assumptions) of the available evidence.

 

Therein lies the problem with your hypothesis, since evidence gathered by the senses and by our direct experience supports the view that everything is different, while you merely ignore that and assume that it is all one. This would certainly not be a valid applicaton of the Ockham principle. But, I agree that your theorizing *sounds* just scientific enough to appeal to people of a quasi-intellectual bent.

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..

THen still the philosophy expounded by the Bhagwata gets the standing ovation.

Each atom combines to make the whole.

 

Sri Krishna, "I am the thread that interconnects all the pearls"

 

One is one when all elements are interconnected.

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..

What a very non-concise way of stating something concisely!

 

 

 

If we assume that the sun and the moon are one, that might make stargazing simpler and more palatable for simple minded persons who cannot conceive of multiple heavenly objects in the sky. However, merely assuming they are the same does not make it so, and simplicity does not prove correctness.

 

Which just gets back to the point that there is nothing that is inherently "intuitive" or "scientific" about Advaita - these are nothing more than pompous claims by armchair Vedantins who cannot have a discussion that is based on evidence and logic.

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).

Nothing in this world is one without interconnection.

Take an organisation for example.

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