Dr. David Skrbina, Unabomber, Panpsychism and Jesus |510|

#81
The TOE doesn't assume a teleology or a "progress" towards what we might think we desire (e.g. long life). The theory is that an organism will adapt to a niche in such a way as to successfully reproduce. If the niche doesn't change, then neither does the organism (e.g. crocodiles being an estimated 200 million years old as a species). If the niche changes, then the organism must adapt in such a way as to continue to reproduce. Long life past the reproductive age would not necessarily benefit the human species as the old folks would be eating up the resources. And a longer reproductive age would not necessarily benefit the human species as genetic disorders and difficulty with childbirth increases with age.

I do however think like Kastrup that there could be room for teleology in evolution. Mutation is a random process and random processes are a surface of the mechanism upon which Will might act. So perhaps the organisms in a species all desire something... perhaps their collective desires make the random mutation more likely to occur that results in that desire being fulfilled. So the owl's ancestors over many generations wanted to see in the dark so this made them more likely to acquire mutations that made their eyes bigger... something like that. Similar to the way RNG experiments have shown the ability for intention to slightly influence them.
Or TOE is just another hypothesis, that can't be proven, but that "science" declares as Truth.

Don't confuse adaption with evolution. Darwinian adaption can be proven. It merely states that environmental pressures will cause the expression of phenotypes already within the genetic structure. When the pressure is removed and crossbreeding made possible, the creature reverts to the old phenotype in a few generations.

That is very different from genetic mutations creating entirely creatures (i.e a new genus or family). In fact, that concept is, frankly, idiotic on its face. A bird is not a lizard whose scales have become feathers. All other systems, from the ocular to the muscular skeletal to the digestive have to change - and they pretty much have to change all at once. Lizard vision isn't going to work for a creature that makes its living in the air. Nor is lizard skeletal frame, etc etc etc.

These are incredibly complex structures each on its own, but integrating each into a holistic thriving animal is exponentially more complex. Not enough time in the universe for that to happen (i.e. monkeys banging on keyboards are creating a work of literature like War & Peace.

Fossil records tend to not show millions of years of truly in between critters. Wolves and poodles? Wooly Mammoths and Elephants? Sure. They are a different phenotypical expression of the same creature (and they can still inter-breed). That is not evidence of mutations leading to entirely new beings.

Also, mutations are almost always fatal in the nature we can observe. Why would they have been different back then?

Can scientists electrify pond scum and create life? Even supposedly knowing the necessary chemical make-up necessary? NO, of course not.

It's a stupid theory; everyone is just scared to say so.
 
Last edited:
#82
The TOE doesn't assume a teleology or a "progress" towards what we might think we desire (e.g. long life). The theory is that an organism will adapt to a niche in such a way as to successfully reproduce. If the niche doesn't change, then neither does the organism (e.g. crocodiles being an estimated 200 million years old as a species). If the niche changes, then the organism must adapt in such a way as to continue to reproduce. Long life past the reproductive age would not necessarily benefit the human species as the old folks would be eating up the resources. And a longer reproductive age would not necessarily benefit the human species as genetic disorders and difficulty with childbirth increases with age.

I do however think like Kastrup that there could be room for teleology in evolution. Mutation is a random process and random processes are a surface of the mechanism upon which Will might act. So perhaps the organisms in a species all desire something... perhaps their collective desires make the random mutation more likely to occur that results in that desire being fulfilled. So the owl's ancestors over many generations wanted to see in the dark so this made them more likely to acquire mutations that made their eyes bigger... something like that. Similar to the way RNG experiments have shown the ability for intention to slightly influence them.
Its well known fact that certain species of insects adapt to pesticides which do not occur in thier natural habitat , chemically, in a few generations. How is it that they would have the DNA to self modify to something that does not exist in their natural realm? I'm saying in a year to two or three ..fast. ..all farmers know this. This clearly suggests mind/consciousness acting non locally(which could easily be extended to humanity)
...although probably being true, your thesis, it does not explain the WHY or the meaning behind.
A few after thoughts; fungus also has the ability to rapidly alter its genetic structure to accommodate hostile chemicals which do not occur in its habitat. Perhaps this is even more amazing since the have no nervous system. If for for example we were to examine the agro chemicals used 40 years ago probably very few are still in active use simple for the fact they no longer work.
 
Last edited:
#83
Or TOE is just another hypothesis, that can't be proven, but that "science" declares as Truth.

Don't confuse adaption with evolution. Darwinian adaption can be proven. It merely states that environmental pressures will cause the expression of phenotypes already within the genetic structure. When the pressure is removed and crossbreeding made possible, the creature reverts to the old phenotype in a few generations.

That is very different from genetic mutations creating entirely creatures (i.e a new genus or family). In fact, that concept is, frankly, idiotic on its face. A bird is not a lizard whose scales have become feathers. All other systems, from the ocular to the muscular skeletal to the digestive have to change - and they pretty much have to change all at once. Lizard vision isn't going to work for a creature that makes its living in the air. Nor is lizard skeletal frame, etc etc etc.

These are incredibly complex structures each on its own, but integrating each into a holistic thriving animal is exponentially more complex. Not enough time in the universe for that to happen (i.e. monkeys banging on keyboards are creating a work of literature like War & Peace.

Fossil records tend to not show millions of years of truly in between critters. Wolves and poodles? Wooly Mammoths and Elephants? Sure. They are a different phenotypical expression of the same creature (and they can still inter-breed). That is not evidence of mutations leading to entirely new beings.

Also, mutations are almost always fatal in the nature we can observe. Why would they have been different back then?

Can scientists electrify pond scum and create life? Even supposedly knowing the necessary chemical make-up necessary? NO, of course not.

It's a stupid theory; everyone is just scared to say so.
I'm not saying the TOE is entirely correct or is alone sufficient to explain all the features of all organisms or the origins of life. I don't know what the limits are of "ordinary" natural selection and random processes over long time scales. I believe both a "non-local" teleological PK type of influence as I described above as well as occasional genetic manipulation from technologically superior life are also in play. I only posted about the TOE to correct a misconception about it.
 

Alex

Administrator
#84
Also, mutations are almost always fatal in the nature we can observe. Why would they have been different back then?

Can scientists electrify pond scum and create life? Even supposedly knowing the necessary chemical make-up necessary? NO, of course not.

It's a stupid theory; everyone is just scared to say so.
nice.
 
#85
Its well known fact that certain species of insects adapt to pesticides which do not occur in nature chemically in a few generations. How is it that they would have the DNA to self modify to something that does not exist in the natural realm? I'm saying in a year to two or three ..fast. all farmers know this. This clearly suggests mind/consciousness acting non locally(which could easily be extended to humanity)
But although being true, your thesis, it does say WHY.
Yep.

And that timeframe points out another obvious - or what should be obvious - problem with the random mutation theory. Many individuals would have to experience the same random mutation at the same time. If one individual (insect in your example) mutates in a way that just happens to a) not kill it and b) to be beneficial given current environmental pressures, the odds of that individual surviving and mating and producing successful off-spring in volumes sufficient to alter the genetic composition of an entire species, in short a time frame, are ridiculously minuscule (actually in any time frame the odds are incredibly minuscule - but a provable short one drives the point home better).

Again, the random mutation TOE has so many holes in it that it is akin to a fairy tale. What amazes me is how scientists and everyone else just accept it and mindlessly repeat the holy catechism. I have sat down and discussed this with biology types. Every time they hit a point where they realize they aren't answering questions well. Then they just go all psycho and start ranting about how uneducated I am and what? Do I believe in the Biblical Genesis story? When I explain that I do not, it really blows their minds. They've already categorized all who oppose their sacred theory as members of a religious cult. Funny, because it is they who act like members of a religious cult. Even smart people have their psychological blind spots.
 
Last edited:
#86
Yep.

And that timeframe points out another obvious - or what should be obvious - problem with the random mutation theory. Many individuals would have to experience the same random mutation at the same time. If one individual (insect in your example) mutates in a way that just happens to a) not kill it and b) to be beneficial given current environmental pressures, the odds of that individual surviving and mating and producing successful off-spring in volumes sufficient to alter the genetic composition of an entire species, in short a time frame, are ridiculously minuscule (actually in any time frame the odds are incredibly minuscule - but a provable short one drives the point home better).

Again, the random mutation TOE has so many holes in it that it is akin to a fairy tale. What amazes me is how scientists and everyone else just accept it and mindlessly repeat the holy catechism. I have sat down and discussed this with biology types. Every time they hit a point where they realize they aren't answering questions well. Then they just go all psycho and start ranting about how uneducated I am and what? Do I believe in the Biblical Genesis story? When I explain that I do not, it really blows their minds. They've already categorized all who oppose their sacred theory as members of a religious cult. Funny, because it is they who act like members of a religious cult. Even smart people have their psychological blind spots.
Im listening to this Freeman episode with Perry Marshall talking about “Evolution 2.0”. Contains some new to me info. Like me this guy was raised with the Christian Young Earth Creationist indoctrination then encountered evidence for Evolution that shattered his YEC beliefs but there remained holes in evolution and this tension lead him to a new synthesis: Evolution 2.0 and like what I described there seems to be a teleology operating within cells like a cellular or bodily intelligence arranging and rearranging genes with intent.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-free-zone-w-freeman-fly/id536781652?i=1000406669961
 
#87
Im listening to this Freeman episode with Perry Marshall talking about “Evolution 2.0”. Contains some new to me info. Like me this guy was raised with the Christian Young Earth Creationist indoctrination then encountered evidence for Evolution that shattered his YEC beliefs but there remained holes in evolution and this tension lead him to a new synthesis: Evolution 2.0 and like what I described there seems to be a teleology operating within cells like a cellular or bodily intelligence arranging and rearranging genes with intent.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-free-zone-w-freeman-fly/id536781652?i=1000406669961
(In my stoner-est voice, but still 100% earnest)
What if it’s not simply that computers are becoming a more and more viable explanation for the operating system of the universe… but instead it’s only that computers are increasingly resembling it?

Here is a 2 minute clip “Duncan Trussell -The Programmer” with Duncan talking about the Bible being read as a story of a computer programmer.

Side note: I lost my fascination with Duncan in the last few years with him going full TDS, and seeing he’s seeming all in with Hollywood now. But I will always have a deep place in my heart for him. So many important thinkers I wouldn’t have found without him. Watts, McKenna, Ram Das, etc..

 
Last edited:
#88
(In my stoner-est voice, but still 100% earnest)
What if it’s not simply that computers are becoming a more and more viable explanation for the operating system of the universe… but instead it’s only that computers are increasingly resembling it?
Ding!

Here is a 2 minute clip “Duncan Trussell -The Programmer” with Duncan talking about the Bible being read as a story of a computer programmer.

Side note: I lost my fascination with Duncan in the last few years with him going full TDS, and seeing he’s seeming all in with Hollywood now. But I will always have a deep place in my heart for him. So many important thinkers I wouldn’t have found without him. Watts, McKenna, Ram Das, etc..

I love Duncan and Rogan together! Always fun!

Love the old talks by Alan Watts and the trialogues with McKenna, Abraham, and Sheldrake!
 
#89
The TOE doesn't assume a teleology or a "progress" towards what we might think we desire (e.g. long life). The theory is that an organism will adapt to a niche in such a way as to successfully reproduce. If the niche doesn't change, then neither does the organism (e.g. crocodiles being an estimated 200 million years old as a species). If the niche changes, then the organism must adapt in such a way as to continue to reproduce. Long life past the reproductive age would not necessarily benefit the human species as the old folks would be eating up the resources. And a longer reproductive age would not necessarily benefit the human species as genetic disorders and difficulty with childbirth increases with age.

I do however think like Kastrup that there could be room for teleology in evolution. Mutation is a random process and random processes are a surface of the mechanism upon which Will might act. So perhaps the organisms in a species all desire something... perhaps their collective desires make the random mutation more likely to occur that results in that desire being fulfilled. So the owl's ancestors over many generations wanted to see in the dark so this made them more likely to acquire mutations that made their eyes bigger... something like that. Similar to the way RNG experiments have shown the ability for intention to slightly influence them.
First of all, no barn burner here, but I think that theory of evolution, intention or not, is horse shit without the flies. I am not ascribing to this other theory that some random asshole built big enough boat to carry everything through a flood. Granted, flies eat horse shit, they change from maggots into something like looks like pills, and vwalla, we have a fucking shit eating fly! Sorry guys, can't spell vwalla properly, not evolved enough, but I can for sure pull a rabbit out of a hat!
 
Top