The self illusion and the selfish gene
- Thread starter Lark
- Start date
There are many problems with evolution, which is actualy involution. The most obvious is absurdity on any level. Taken to its logical endcome, evolution can not be even argumented.
Then there are other problems. the problem of intrinsic nature, which in evolution is inexistent. Conform to evolution, nothing exist as a form of nature, there is no "something", there are no people, no objects, there is nothing to be considered to have a defined nature.
Everything is whithout aim, absurd and a total chaos.
How is that evolution think at itself?
Then there are other problems. the problem of intrinsic nature, which in evolution is inexistent. Conform to evolution, nothing exist as a form of nature, there is no "something", there are no people, no objects, there is nothing to be considered to have a defined nature.
Everything is whithout aim, absurd and a total chaos.
How is that evolution think at itself?
No - I don't think evolution compromises faith in God or humanity- they can all logically coexist together. I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.
How are you defining 'involution' and 'intrinsic nature'? I'm curious, because I think I'm misreading what you're saying.
I was allauding to how Dawkins and Dennett and their ilk started out seeking to attack, dismiss and trivialise beliefs in God and wound up pretty much moving from that point to suggesting that not only did God not exist but human nature, altrusim, empathy, even the self, didnt exist either.
I agree with what you post BTW I dont see their conclusions are automatically steming from their premises either.
I see. I guess I see people like Dawkins and Dennett as individuals who are using the idea of evolution to sway an audience to adhere to their beliefs- and that their movements don't necessarily mean that all evolutionist are like this. Darwin was actually never an atheist, and always believed in the existence of God, and since he is the foundational scholar to evolution, I see it as an idea which actually embraces humanity and faith, while explaining the journey of a species.
Well Darwin is considered the well spring but there were others and evolution was around at the time prior to this theorising and contribution, Alfred Russell Wallace was a major thinker who encourage Darwin to publish but who had many of the ideas first, he was a spiritualist and believed in reincarnation and mediumship, Lamarck (spelling) I think was one of the religious but I could be wrong.
The idea that we all had a single origin along with other life on earth isnt that extraordinary for a religious believer, its actually pretty congruent with being a believer if you ask me, the same as Fromm has argued that the cogent point in the genesis myth isnt that everyone is descended from a single mother and father, ie adam and eve, but that all men (and women) are brothers.
Most of this stuff is misunderstood and uses poor words that further propagate misunderstanding.
Things like 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' and 'selfish gene' are all incorrect words that do not accurately describe the subject and only stand to confuse laymen and create misconceptions. Therefore most people don't even know what they are talking about.
For example it is not true that altruism and empathy do not exist. The misnamed concept of 'selfish gene' actually promotes empathy and altruism, because without working together to some extent more individuals will simply die out and not get to pass on their genes.
Why do you think many animals care for their young so much? Why do you think herd animals cooperate to protect the weaker members from predators? Why do you think bees and ants cooperate to such an amazing level? Why do birds call out a warning of predators when making loud noises only causes them to be an obvious target for lunch?
Involution is something that has a self-organising nature, it evolves in itself, in a chaotic way, yet somehow intricate and complex. It starts from complex to simple, thus is the opposite of evolution. If involution is to be true, that would mean humans involved in apes, which involved in etc and so on.
Here is a article that explains the concept: http://science-of-involution.org/en/Involution.html
Involution
Introduction
Introduction
"One of the most fundamental and most important questions of science and research in general is: How did life begin on earth? Particularly, what is the origin of mankind?
Today’s pre-dominant explanatory model is based on Charles Darwin’s hypothesis set forth in his books the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man in the second half of the 19th century. This hypothesis postulates that higher life forms developed from lower and that the first unicellular organisms evolved from organic matter accidentally by a so-called “biogenesis.” Darwinism arises from a materialistic worldview. Its basic assumptions are: “life originated from matter,” and “everything that exists—also life and consciousness—is a function of material energy and can be explained by the laws of matter.”
Historically, Darwinism was a reaction to the biblical fundamentalist orthodoxy of the church which had been imposed by patronizing and totalitarian measures of violence over centuries. In the 19th century enlightenment and emancipation movements were developed on such a broad scale that it was even possible to voice opinions that were not in line with Church doctrines without risking one’s life. But, as so often, the pendulum was swinging from one extreme to the other: from fundamental creationism to material Darwinism. Anything that could not be explained scientifically (in other words, rationally) was suddenly considered irrational and hence unreal. This has been true for any form of creationism.
Fundamental creationism as some interpret the Bible, and others the Koran, holds that God created the world and mankind seven thousand years ago. According to this concept of belief, paradise came to an end by the fall of man (the original sin), and that it is why man needs the kind of salvation that is proclaimed by the advocates of this religious doctrine. Thus, creationism is associated with a dogmatic doctrine of salvation in an absolute manner, and any other biblical interpretations, and especially all other religions, are considered to be designed by the devil, the same evil power that provoked the fall of man in paradise.
Nowadays the most vehement—and best—criticism of the concept of evolution is expressed by creationists. This controversy is so categorical and based on a black and white dichotomy that many, even intellectuals, think creationism is the only alternative to Darwinism. Since they reject creationism with its underlying dogmatic principles, they profess—mostly without any further questions—the “scientifically” confirmed faith of Darwinism.
back
The need for new explanatory models
The theory of involution is an explanatory model that takes a critical approach to creationism and Darwinism—on the one hand, in order to realize and overcome the ideological one-sidedness of these two antagonistic extremes, and on the other hand, to learn from both sides and to build on their research findings.
The theory of evolution is not proven at all, it is not even scientific, because there is no theoretical model that would show how unicellular organisms become mulitcellular organisms, fish become amphibians, amphibians become reptiles and reptiles become birds and finally mammals. If this evolutionary development had taken place—allegedly via accumulation of many minor beneficial genetic mutations—there would be transitional forms that would be 95 % reptile and 5 % mammal for example, then 90 % reptile and 10 % mammal and so on. But there are no such forms to be found in the totality of fossils and they would not have been viable. This is just one of many arguments against the materialistic theory of evolution.
However, creationism is not proven either. First of all, the assumption that God created the world seven thousand years ago is only one of many possible interpretations of the biblical genesis, and not even the most plausible. There are various distinct contradictions between the Genesis account of the seven day creation and the Adam and Eve story that can be straightened out by the creationists only with great difficulty. The dogmatic doctrine of salvation that is derived from this (constructed) creation scenario leads to irreconcilable claims to absoluteness based on which all other denominations and religions would have to be demonized. These “fruits” demonstrate that there is a separating spirit working behind the fundamentalist form of belief rather than a spirit of a universal God.
The controversy between Darwinists and creationists goes on and becomes even worse. However, open-minded researchers should take both sides seriously instead of standing still, and look for new theories based on their insights that are neither materialistic nor religious-fundamentalist, i. e. theories that go beyond Darwinism and creationism.
The explanatory model of involution offers a more advanced theory of that kind.
back
The philosophical basics
The explanatory model of involution indicates that “lower” forms do not generate “higher” ones, but instead that “higher” forms generate “lower” forms. According to the theory of evolution, in the beginning there was only matter—from matter everything came into existence, even “life”, starting from the first primitive organisms from which the higher, more complex, forms of life are said to have gradually developed. The theory assumes that apes descended from primates who developed consciousness and self-perception as soon as their brain had grown large enough. Thus, based on the theory of evolution, “animal” became “human.”
In the evolution theory consciousness is considered a product of the brain, similar to wood that suddenly—when the spark occurs—generates light (thoughts) and heat (emotions) through the energy of the fire (consciousness). So here we deal with a worldview in which matter is regarded as the absolute reality. Materialism—as much as the supporters of that concept emphasize its “objective” and “scientific” approach—is also merely a system of belief that postulates something absolute, i. e. the matter (as “energy” of non-duality). The explanatory model of involution indicates that consciousness—rather than matter—is the origin of everything. In philosophical terms: the absolute background of all relativity and duality is not an abstract “non-duality” of energy (matter), but “in-dividuality“, literally: the “in-divisible” (eternal, spiritual) existence that is always a conscious existence (consciousness). For everything that exists also exists—directly or indirectly—as the origin (source) of everything. Since there is consciousness in creation, it must have originated from the source and hence also exist “there.” In both, the relative (in creation with all its creatures) and the absolute (God in “his” immanent and transcendent presence), the unique characteristic is individuality (“indivisible, eternal consciousness”).
back
Origin of life and cosmos from the involutionary perspective
Every worldview has to be based on the assumption of an original and absolute source. According to Darwinism, its source is matter in its abstract “original” form as energy. In creationism, its source is a creator who is only revealed by one individual denominationally defined doctrine.
From the involutionary perspective, the source is the “all-including consciousness” which encompasses all that is relative. All “relative” (all that has been created) is “consciousness” after all, i. e. individual Being, since the “absolute” (God)—in a literal meaning—is also individual: “indivisible and undivided.” Hence, God as absolute individuality is both transcendent and immanently omnipresent, and is not divided into past and future. So consciousness in its essence is not subject to space and time. This holds valid for God’s consciousness as well as for our own consciousness!
And this is how “Creation” occurs:
Original matter and cosmos emerge from the absolute, eternal background of God’s and all spiritual beings’ individuality (in cycles), through an “interdimensional evolution” (involution) from the higher, less dense levels of matter down to the dimension where matter is most dense. While the everlasting is always present in the background (immanently and transcendentally), time and space (universe) come into existence through a divine creation and therein firstly the highest, less dense dimensional world. This highest plane, “heaven,” includes all other parallel worlds which then—as time passes by, or rather, in the course of space and time—will evolve from one another through “involution.” Most mystery traditions distinguish seven levels of dimension.
The explanatory model of involution is based on the assumption of absoluteness of individuality (not absoluteness of matter) and accepts that the cosmos is multidimensional: consciousness and life as original principle are absolute and eternal realities. The different levels of life (dimensions) and creatures come into existence as a “reflection” based on the characteristic “models” of the next higher dimensions, i. e. the “original image” of the absolute consciousness.
In simpler terms: “God created man in His own image.”
back
Definitions
The evolutionary theory indicates that higher forms evolve from the lower, matter being the original source. According to the involutionary model the lower are generated from the higher, consciousness being the source.
Hence, involution can be defined as “interdimensional, cosmically descending evolution, controlled and executed through mental impulses which inspire and form matter; a cosmic-hierarchical creation from the highest, least dense dimensional world to the world of three-dimensional dense planets and bodies. Involution means that spirit precedes matter and that creation occurs when spiritual beings go into matter (for any reason whatsoever) and form entire worlds, as well as fate and destiny, through their respective orientation of consciousness.
This explanatory model defines matter as an eternal energy which develops transient material forms (“bodies,” as in bodies of light and celestial bodies as well as terrestrial animal and plant bodies), and all that under the shaping and inspiring influence of the spiritual source, the eternal, individual consciousness (in an interplay between the consciousness of God and that of the spiritual beings). Thus, consciousness is not the product of a brain that is “large enough.” Consciousness is a reality of its own, independent from matter, just like light is a reality of its own, independent from shadows. If matter and energy were the absolute reality, there would be no free will—a concept of belief also in materialism, in both secular and occult circles. Materialistic worldviews are always atheistic and godless.
The explanatory model of involution depicts the cosmos from a theistic point of view which is not synonymous with a monotheistic point of view. “Theism” refers to a revelation and an insight which conceives God as an absolute, all-encompassing individuality. “Monotheism” refers to denominations that absolutize one relative form of God and declare this to be the only truth. The latter concept gives rise to all forms of fundamentalist creationism.
back
Further sources
In its basics, the explanatory model of involution corresponds to the mythological views of the world in all ancient cultures, all revelations and also the mystical visions of many seers, prophets, shamans and brahmins. It explains the phenomena of “life” and “consciousness” as well as the origin of humanity in a plausible way, and is also supported by the theories of modern parapsychology, metaphysics and quantum physics.
A basic summary of these concepts can be found in the works of Armin Risi, in particular his trilogy “Der multidimensionale Kosmos,” his book “Das kosmische Erbe” and in “Licht wirft keinen Schatten,” as well as in English in the third part of his book “TranscEnding the Global Power Game—The Cosmic Background of Past and Present History;” all with detailed references."
[MENTION=10252]say what[/MENTION]
By intrinsic nature I mean nature of objects that makes that objects to be itself, and not other objects. Kind of like a genetic code that makes a object to be separate and to have a defined nature in comparation toward other objects.
If evolution is true, there are no objects, and our minds perceive illusions, not objects. I could not make a difference between a piece of wood and myself because we are one and the same thing, not two different objects.
By intrinsic nature I mean nature of objects that makes that objects to be itself, and not other objects. Kind of like a genetic code that makes a object to be separate and to have a defined nature in comparation toward other objects.
If evolution is true, there are no objects, and our minds perceive illusions, not objects. I could not make a difference between a piece of wood and myself because we are one and the same thing, not two different objects.
You're not bloudy wrong there.
Dawkins doesnt know shit and he talks shit.
Muhahahahahahahahaw all will bow before the force of my perfect argument.
C.S. Lewis wrotte a book called "The abolition of Man", in which he makes a case that if evolution would be the main intellectual worldview of a society, in that respective society man and mankind will be abolished in dust. He has some incredible strong arguments, and some of his 'prophecies' already are fulfilled.
I've got a lot of his books, I dont think I've read that one, I read his book called the four loves, loved it, absolutely brilliant. I think its a shame that authors like that dont exist anymore and cant command standing room only audiences like Lewis did occasionally. Bertrand Russell too, though he was an atheist and some of this predictions were really mistaken, like the possibility of the care system with home tuition becoming a victim of its own success and being swamped by middle class kids.
The thing is that there were plenty of better atheists who preceeded him, I dont know why he set himself up as arch-prophet and I dont know why so much of his base permitted it, then again I figure a lot of his base are kids impressed by memes, Ricky Gervais, assholery like that which bugs their parents.
I fucking hate Dennett more though. Seriously.
There are atheists who're big on religion, ironically, there was on in the US was a major, major professor of religion, cant remember his name now, wrote books about the historical Jesus, he was alright.
Still God gonna get yah
The thing is that there were plenty of better atheists who preceeded him, I dont know why he set himself up as arch-prophet and I dont know why so much of his base permitted it, then again I figure a lot of his base are kids impressed by memes, Ricky Gervais, assholery like that which bugs their parents.
I fucking hate Dennett more though. Seriously.
There are atheists who're big on religion, ironically, there was on in the US was a major, major professor of religion, cant remember his name now, wrote books about the historical Jesus, he was alright.
Still God gonna get yah
A lot of people just want on the God hating bandwagon without even understanding what is being said. He even had me too for a moment when I was more angry at people and just wanted to use anything to belittle my opponents. I wasn't even really paying attention to what was said, so long as it was contrary to what my enemies said. I quoted him a few times and I regret it.
People do this on both sides and it isn't right. I remember not long ago a certain person saying that evolution is impossible because of thermodynamics. But this person clearly didn't actually analyze the problem - they just posted what somebody else said, and that somebody else didn't correctly understand thermodynamics. The argument didn't logically fit if you actually know the complete laws of thermodynamics. So somebody else's error was just uncritically reposted because it just so happened to fit what they believe.
And that sort of shit strengthens the arguments of people who think the self is an illusion.
Well I do think self is an illusion.
But it is more like a mirage. With a true mirage, something is really there, the illusion is cast from a reflection of something that is actually real but what you are seeing is not the true nature of the object.
There's illusions sure but the self is no illusion, thinking isnt an illusion, reflection isnt an illusion, awareness and informed decisions are possible, consequentialism makes sense.
The whole self-illusion thing is hopelessly abstract and unverifiable or unfalsifiable, its the sort of academic balls which makes me want to give up on supposedly learned thinking or writers. Makes me want to read novels for insights into people instead. Not Twilight though. Or Ayn Rand.
Well a lot of people misunderstand the self illusion too. Just as they misunderstand eastern mysticism, misunderstand yin and yang, and soforth.
Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no relaization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"