This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is evolution/religion/everything a self fulfilling prophecy?
What separates us from the rest of species? Recognition of self right? Some will want to argue that there are other species that can recognize self. But then you need to ask well do they recognize self do to our experiments and what we have defined as self recognition or is it innately in them? So is it that we recognize self because of them through evolution or do they recognize self do to us? A bird called the magpie is self aware using the mirror test. It’s easy now to look in a mirror and say yep that’s me, but it’s a million times harder to say that this is just a visual representation of trillions of moving, living, self-replicating entities.
This is the principles that I would like to use in defining self fulfilling prophecy:
Robert Merton's concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy stems from the Thomas theorem, which states that "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."[2] According to Thomas, people react not only to the situations they are in, but also, and often primarily, to the way they perceive the situations and to the meaning they assign to these perceptions. This causes people to have negative viewpoints. Therefore, their behavior is determined in part by their perception and the meaning they ascribe to the situations they are in, rather than by the situations themselves. Once people convince themselves that a situation really has a certain meaning, regardless of whether it actually does, they will take very real actions in consequence.
So we are just a bunch of self replicating entities that have evolved in to a self recognizing being. Will history keep repeating its "self"?
Casey Christofaris 10+
Scott Armstrong 50+
Dennis Hollinger
Gods have always existed because the answers to our questions have always existed, we just did not have the understanding at the time.
God provided or became the answer without needing the understanding.
Now rip this argument apart... Please
Casey Christofaris 10+
Zman Kietilipooskie
Any discussion in which one argues the conclusion as a premise; a discussion that makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument.
Communication is a basic and almost standard component of many if not all species, any most can complete it without acknowledgment of the self.
However that is beside the point Humans are simply and factually a lot more then “just a bunch of self-replicating entities that have evolved in to a self recognizing being"
Interestingly wither we are describing laws of the universe or our unified perspective of the universe it is still the nature of our reality. And as for time, it is a relative.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Hector Rosario
Santokh Saggu
Casey Christofaris 10+
Santokh Saggu
Prophecy and Prediction too is subject to evolution. Prophecy and Prediction is a spontaneous , slow and steady process. It has no independent existence.It is not a divine process. It depends on minimum of two factors;
1. Input seed stimuli
2. Ecosystem
If suppose a stranger meets a kid and says "You will become a Scientist". Now, what he has done is he has actually planted the seed stimuli in the mind of the kid. Once the mind of the kid receives the seed stimuli,it get activated and starts to work spontaneously , slowly and steadily to make the kid a scientist.
And now whatever the kid does , the parents of the kid too see him through the lens of Scientist. When he writes , they say he writes like a scientist, When he does something they say he behaves like a scientist.
And when the relatives visit them , they tell the whole story to their relatives about the prediction the stranger has made about their kid. The relatives too then start perceiving the kid as scientist.
This way the word spreads out into the ecosystem of the place where he lives.And now the ecosystem too moves in the direction to help the kid become a scientist.
And finally one day the kid becomes a scientist , and the same stranger visits the home of the kid , and Proudly says see my prediction has come true.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
You could pick a group of living creatures or anything and consider what makes it different from other lifeforms or whatever.
The ability to fly unaided seperates flying creatures from everything else. We can not fly unaided.
Some creatures have sonar. We don't.
Homo sapiens seem to be derivative and have a lot in common with other primates, and do, decreasingly so with other mammals, with other vertibrae, with all animals, with all DNA based life etc
Some compounds conduct electricity efficiently. We don't.
Some animals can breathe water. We can not.
You could pick millions of attributes that give distinct identity to millions of different things.
Humans are different from other apes. Apes are different to some extent from monkeys.
Picking what makes humans different is arbitrary.
Other animals use tools. We are just better. Other animals use sound communication. We are just better. Yet we are hopeless in the water and air, above or below certain temperatures where other life thrives.
Casey Christofaris 10+
It was mans recognition of self that also allowed god to be self reflecting(funny term). From the beginning of time god as embodied in the light or sun. Spent years (although time did not exist) trying to figure out what was going on. And it opposite dark (which is also a god) dark's the one that told truth to adam and eve the truth to eat from the tree of life and to gain knowledge. when god lied and said it would kill them. Which created the fall of man. However the light has been storing information on the dark or celestial body's every since the big bag which is just another example of E pluribus unum. We all know that light stores information see fiber optics. So god used the peaks and valleys (gain perspective). As well as gaps and bumps to record information gained. Much like how a cd or record player stores memory. Once man became self reflective(funny term) god was able to pull that information forward and make sense of it all to man. In only seven days which god does not function in man time because it is arbitrary. Hope this makes sense....... also one could not exist with out the other
Rafshan Caesar
Casey Christofaris 10+
It was mans recognition of self that also allowed god to be self reflecting(funny term). From the beginning of time god as embodied in the light or sun. Spent years (although time did not exist) trying to figure out what was going on. And it opposite dark (which is also a god) dark's the one that told truth to adam and eve the truth to eat from the tree of life and to gain knowledge. when god lied and said it would kill them. Which created the fall of man. However the light has been storing information on the dark or celestial body's every since the big bag which is just another example of E pluribus unum. We all know that light stores information see fiber optics. So god used the peaks and valleys (gain perspective). As well as gaps and bumps to record information gained. Much like how a cd or record player stores memory. Once man became self reflective(funny term) god was able to pull that information forward and make sense of it all to man. In only seven days which god does not function in man time because it is arbitrary. Hope this makes sense....... also one could not exist with out the other
Charles Shepard IV
Casey Christofaris 10+
It was mans recognition of self that also allowed god to be self reflecting(funny term). From the beginning of time god as embodied in the light or sun. Spent years (although time did not exist) trying to figure out what was going on. And it opposite dark (which is also a god) dark's the one that told truth to adam and eve the truth to eat from the tree of life and to gain knowledge. when god lied and said it would kill them. Which created the fall of man. However the light has been storing information on the dark or celestial body's every since the big bag which is just another example of E pluribus unum. We all know that light stores information see fiber optics. So god used the peaks and valleys (gain perspective). As well as gaps and bumps to record information gained. Much like how a cd or record player stores memory. Once man became self reflective(funny term) god was able to pull that information forward and make sense of it all to man. In only seven days which god does not function in man time because it is arbitrary. Hope this makes sense....... also one could not exist with out the other
Jarred Figlar-Barnes
I dislike it when people say that we are not part of our planet. Same goes for when they distance humans from ‘animals’. We act as if we deserve this planet more than any other species, that we think of ourselves as ‘gods’ simply because of our abilities (and beliefs).
Well, we are animals and we are part of this planet and part of nature. Everything we have ever made has come from the earth, everything we are made of comes from the earth. Our species evolved and continues to evolve. Everything we call manmade is a natural thing, a natural process because we are natural therefore what we do is natural. So yes, we are self aware and we are an animal, so animals are self aware. And its not possible or even right for us to determine what other animals are self aware or not because we simply cannot know, at least right now.
No we are not a self fulfilling prophecy. Unless we allow ourselves to be. Evolution is always marching forward, and so are we.
Casey Christofaris 10+
It was mans recognition of self that also allowed god to be self reflecting(funny term). From the beginning of time god as embodied in the light or sun. Spent years (although time did not exist) trying to figure out what was going on. And it opposite dark (which is also a god) dark's the one that told truth to adam and eve the truth to eat from the tree of life and to gain knowledge. when god lied and said it would kill them. Which created the fall of man. However the light has been storing information on the dark or celestial body's every since the big bag which is just another example of E pluribus unum. We all know that light stores information see fiber optics. So god used the peaks and valleys (gain perspective). As well as gaps and bumps to record information gained. Much like how a cd or record player stores memory. Once man became self reflective(funny term) god was able to pull that information forward and make sense of it all to man. In only seven days which god does not function in man time because it is arbitrary. Hope this makes sense....... also one could not exist with out the other
Zman Kietilipooskie
If other animals had the motivation to question and comprehend what we are even talking about or trying to create or develop new ideas concerning the structure of reality, and our individual perspective of reality then I would agree with you however that is not the case.
The brain is capable of creation, discovery and spirituality above all other animals on this planet, not simply the recognizing of "self".
Casey Christofaris 10+
Casey Christofaris 10+
Zman Kietilipooskie
I am arguing that there is a lot more then the acknowledgment of self that distinguishes us from other species. Proof of which is this very conversation.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Everything is a circle.
Actually the most advance form of communication on earth is DNA, for its conversation is what created you and I, and is allowing to have this conversation, with what is a digital representation of 1 and 0; otherwise know as binary code. So really it not our communication that separates us from the rest. Because all species communicate
Zman Kietilipooskie
Me saying that Humans (unlike any other animal on this planet) have the ability to create and express themselves threw artwork, inventions and discoveries (and many other unique actions and aspects) is no assumption, and therefore it is no circular argument.
This conversation's context is the proof, not that we are having a conversation.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Yes when you define communication that way I agree it is one of our greatest attributes. However without the recognition of self and of other we would never be able to tell what is "paintbrush"
Yes this conversation is proof that both we are communicating and so did or has or continue to communicate is our DNA
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Just because we are the first we know of, so what.
Other species have developed other capabilities humans don't have.
We share more in common with other animals, especially the great apes, and mammals then separates us.
Immune systems, a bi/symetrical body - 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 testes, 2 ovaries, redundancy built in. 4 limbs like most other vertibrae, similar skeletons, digestive systems, senses, oxygenating blood.
You can focus on the differences of any species or group. Some can breathe water. Some have sonar. Some have superior vision or smell or hearing to us.
So what if humans have evolved to have some cognitive functions superior to other species?
You can say humans can do this or that. I can say a dog or a fish can do other things we can not. Heck there are even bacteria that can with stand hundreds of degrees and extreme pressure. A lump of rock can support more weight than a human - so what. A dog can run faster. So what? Human consciousness is not the be all and end all. A star is a huge nuclear reaction that emits light. Humans are not much good at emmiting light. In fact we wouldn't be here but for stars that created the heavier elements we are made of. Stars died so that we may exist. Along with all other life on earth.
DNA is not communication. There is no sender and receiver. Its a bunch of compounds that behave according to the physical laws. We can perceive patterns, but it is just stuff. You could say an empty or full box is a binary code. H2O is a code, but its just water.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Check this out on its importance of self reflection
It was mans recognition of self that also allowed god to be self reflecting(funny term). From the beginning of time god as embodied in the light or sun. Spent years (although time did not exist) trying to figure out what was going on. And it opposite dark (which is also a god) dark's the one that told truth to adam and eve the truth to eat from the tree of life and to gain knowledge. when god lied and said it would kill them. Which created the fall of man. However the light has been storing information on the dark or celestial body's every since the big bag which is just another example of E pluribus unum. We all know that light stores information see fiber optics. So god used the peaks and valleys (gain perspective). As well as gaps and bumps to record information gained. Much like how a cd or record player stores memory. Once man became self reflective(funny term) god was able to pull that information forward and make sense of it all to man. In only seven days which god does not function in man time because it is arbitrary. Hope this makes sense....... also one could not exist with out the other
natasha nikulina 50+
"DNA is not communication."
It is . DNA is the most powerful transmitter of intelligent data.It is clearly a double helix, and all DNA molecules in every living plant and animal are structured in exactly the same way. DNA represents the highest order, it means everything is 'in tune' with every other thing.
Luis Javier Salvador 30+
Animals other than humans are not aware of many things but they can understand the environment they live in to some extent. They are kind of practical creatures.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Craig Patterson 10+
John Lennon sings about it in Imagine. It's easy if you try. .
Is there 'free will' or is life 'deterministic'?
Your answers reveal your word view. Pay attention.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from reality.
Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see,
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy,
Because I'm easy come, easy go, Little high, little low,
Any way the wind blows doesn't really matter to me, to me.
Life is both predetermined and free will, the haphazardness that gets us from life lessons learned is predetermined this can be seen as chaos theory. Our free will exist in personal choice.
natasha nikulina 50+
I think, yes.
The distance between the observer and the observed is space; space is generatable from time. Remove time from the picture ( it's illusion ) and observer becomes the observed iow the prophet the prophecy and those who fulfill the prophecy are one.
I don't know how it is happening , but it seems to be what is happening.
Casey Christofaris 10+
natasha nikulina 50+
I am not sure that ' why ? ' is distinguishable from 'how ? ' in this context, but i have the feeling that 'why ' has something to do with the biblical myth of the fall and ' free will '
Casey Christofaris 10+
natasha nikulina 50+
But ...
".. when god lied and said it would kill them"
God does not lie , never, it's a kind of impossible condition for ' all probabilities' or 'all and any ' It was a 'worning ; knowledge based on separation , for every thing is what it is and what it is not. Good /evil, dark/light,... me/not me and here the ego was born . Ego creates illusion of separation from the Whole and pushes us into time, where we grow old and die, " thou shalt surely die " Awareness of death means awareness of time, it's ego that dies. " Only he who looses his life shall find it " It's not about death it's about awakening.
It was mans recognition of self that also allowed god to be self reflecting.
Yes, " Time is a theater of god's becoming " To know god , know thyself.
From the beginning of time god as embodied in the light or sun.
"When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"
It's from Gospel of Thomas. Here is the link, if you are not familiar with it already
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps/primary/gthomas.html
Thanks for responding !
natasha nikulina 50+
Adriaan Braam 20+
""According to Thomas, people react not only to the situations they are in, but also, and often primarily, to the way they perceive the situations and to the meaning they assign to these perceptions."
That reaction can indeed be negative, but certainly does not have to be.
I'd like to think we have free will. That does not mean we can determine what happens to us, but we do have the freedom to decide how to react to whatever happens to us. We can accidentally hit our thumb with a hammer, but that does not mean we are forced to swear.
We are in total freedom to spiritually 'shape' ourselves, and be responsible for the outcome. That is what life is ali about and thus why we are here (to determine our own eternity).
Casey Christofaris 10+
“there are three Persons in God, each of whom is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one. claims to understand this; it is admitted on all sides that this is incomprehensible - a mystery, a Divine mystery, and must remain so in this life.”
Actually I have answered this question and can prove not only how 3 can be one but that we are all one. Check out my ted conversation, oddly enough when I started with the ted conversation it was not my intent to answer this question. http://www.ted.com/conversations/13925/is_our_math_wrong_is_it_our_a.html
"it is true that we will never understand everything about God, because He is Infinite and we are finite."
This statement is not completely true, although is is true that God is infinite and we are finite. That is only as how you define what you are trying to define. Yes as humans we are finite as far as the body is concerned, but we are infinite as far as the mind not the brain is concerned. The mind/soul exist in the infinite.
"That is what life is ali about and thus why we are here (to determine our own eternity)."
We can not define our eternity, while still perceiving that we live in the finite. If god created the earth, and man created time, then the earth should be just as infinite as god is, unless man or god destroy's it.
Adriaan Braam 20+
When God says He is One, I do not see the option for a human being to interpret that as 'I am three Gods'
Even three seperate cars are not one car.
The, to us, correct interpretation of how God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit relate is that they are three aspects of One God. Just as we have a soul/spirit, a body and an influence on the world around us. Three aspects can make one, as three colors can make one color.
When Jesus is asked to put in a good word for us with God, we see them as two different entities.
I am sorry but there is nothing ours that is infinite. We are totally finite and can only comprehend Divine Truth as a dog can understand human thought. We are born. Having a beginning of body and spirit means we are not infinite. If we think we are, we don't know what infinity is and means.
God created the universe and thus time. We used the appearance of time to apply it to life.
God did not create the universe out of Himself, this is how we see it. But keep it coming I'd love to talk about it more
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/source/Creation_Odhner.pdf?attredirects=0
Casey Christofaris 10+
If you read that ted conversation, you will realize that not only is 3 cars not one, but that there is no such thing that is "Car". Car is just an idea of completion of thoughts and or in this case parts as well. So I guess if you look at your self are you; 10 trillion self recognizing/replicating beings or are you one being? See Bonnie Bassler for more clarification on this idea. This is in my opinion a great example of how many can be one. E pluribus unum.
I promise to read as much of that link that you sent if you promise to read as much of my link as well. Although I will read yours even is you do not read mine.
Also please do not feel like I am attacking you or your beliefs. I will get back to you after reading your link on creation. On my thoughts of how both creation and evolution. "created this universe"
Casey Christofaris 10+
http://www.ted.com/talks/alexander_tsiaras_conception_to_birth_visualized.html
and
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bolinsky_animates_a_cell.html
I can not see how the creation of a child from seed to adult is not evolution happening on a very fundamental level. You start out with what was a sperm and an egg and over the course of time evolve to what is considered the most advanced being of all time. How is this not evolution on a fundamental level?
Plus if you look at one explanation science uses of how life started here on earth it is oddly similar to a sperm, landing on a egg. Or a comet crashing here on earth.
natasha nikulina 50+
It's really interesting, Wallace had probably said the most powerful thing that’d been said in the 19th Century :
A Necessary Unity....and it was not a Deity.
Wallace :
"The action of this principle is exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident .."
Very different from Darwin's ' trial and error' approach and echoes somehow with Sheldrake's 'Morphic field'.
Thanks for the link !
Obey No1kinobe 50+
In regards to the development of the Christian triune god, it seems to have been made up after the death of a Jewish religious teacher, who probably did exist, but was just a human.
Casey Christofaris 10+
It gets much better then that. I can tell you the holy trinity of existence. Or why we exist, mans belief in god, mans belief in science, and gods belief in man. That is what allows this reality if you would like to call it to exist. It is our ability to self reflect (funny term) that makes man special.
natasha nikulina 50+
so, the evolution is not pushed from the past, as it is considered to be , but pulled towards the future, right ? Past and future becomes purely conventional here as it should be.
It is similar to what Rupert Sheldrake is saying , check out here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpudgs9ZTfg&feature=related
Hope you'll enjoy the video ! :)
Adriaan Braam 20+
Allow me here to present a paper that includes (in part three) views, and similarities between Dr Sheldrake and Swedenborg. Maybe they are using different words but havng the same meaning. I understand Dr Sheldrake has also given lectures at the Swedenborg Hall in London.
http://www.swedenborgstudy.com/articles/science-math/mrc90.html
and I'm still enjoying the video too
Adriaan Braam 20+
It almost seems just a play of words, and not that very helpful at that. It maybe a high number of parts that make a car or a human body, but it is the use that is performed which makes it what we call it. Whether it is 10 trillion parts does not make any difference, since no body is the same as another any way.
Besides that, and more importantly, we are not our body. It is not important what we wear, drive or sit next to. Nothing of that makes us the person (spirit) we are, and nothing of that lives forever from now on. Our spirit does go on forever (from now on) and how we have used or applied our body during this life only shapes that spirit. Our (spiritual) 'shape' after the body dies is determined by what we love. How many parts our physical body had is of absolutely no importance whatsoever.
We have decided to call a car "a car" because now we can get around better and faster than 500 years ago. Now our life would be very different if we have a car or not. Now we can exchange ideas about cars, decide which one is best for out situation etc. When we talk about cars, we are no talking about 'nothing.' This almost seems more a play of words than a useful exchange. A three your old can talk to you about a car.. are you going to tell that kid 'cars do not exist?' :)
"On my thoughts of how both creation and evolution. "created this universe""
Sounds great to me. I do believe that science and religion should very much go together. But that each should know their limits. Just because science cannot 'proof' anything spiritual, that does not mean a spiritual world does not exist. And a spiritual interpretation of the Bible leaves more room for science to say how old humanity is.
My view on evolution is that it is not growth and development of one species. I think it is meant as a method that a crawling animal becomes a fish. But then, I see evolution is a process, not a 'creation' of life.
Roy Bourque 20+
He claims that Eastern philosophy was to be like God, and the Judeo-Christian tradition is to have a relationship with God. he also says that if Genesis is not literally true, then the actual fall and separation from God never happened.
This is a closed minded viewpoint. If Genesis is not literally true, it doesn't imply that none of it happened. I don't believe that Adam and Eve are two people, I believe that they represent an entire culture. The fall into sin by one couple, or the fall into sin by an entire culture, is two different levels of the same event. One is simple, the other is a whole lot more complex.
As to being like God or having a relationship with God, they may not be the same, but they are not all that different either. Jesus is referred to as the son of God. He says that "I and the father are one". He also says that those who believe in him, he would give them the power to become "sons of God". There are implications here for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Putting this in context to the topic, people see the teachings of religion as real, having real consequences. The trouble is that not all people see it the same and act on it, often in irrational or condemning ways. They make their viewpoint real for themselves and try to make it real for everyone else.
Adriaan Braam 20+
And how about the difference between Gen. 2:9 and 3:4? Should we accept the fact that this serpent is not only able to talk, but can also move trees?
This is how Swedenborgians interpret Adam and Eve, it may help to put some sense to it all. Seems to me that the whole Bible is about consequences and nothing else. In fact the ball is so much in our court that Jesus would not even heal a blind man without asking him first if he wanted to be healed.
We can all go to hell, if we wanted to :) in fact many... oh never mind. Have a good weekend
Mitch SMith 50+
As you observe self recognition does not define humans - language defines us.
By the way - there are a lot of magpies where I live - they also have a simple language (about 20 words).
By and large, we are "prophesy machines" we adapt our behaviour through a qualified form of "trial and error". This is the Bayesian learning method that is very apt for neural learning systems.
When dealing with our physical environment, these "prophesies" are continually error-corrected through observation, however, in the social world, such correction is not always immediate - it is noisy and vulnerable to systemic error. Such systemic error can have large affects on resulting human behaviour - this error is the main part of "self-fulfilling prophesy". For instance, If I prophesy that my pet dog will start speaking in Hebrew on Christmas day, it won't happen - my dog is not part of the human error system. If I prophesy that i will win at the horse races next Saturday, then the outcome will be influenced by my attention to the dynamics of the race - both consciously and unconsciously - it has a better chance of being fulfilled.
However, all perception has a margin of noise in it. There are observations of some of the dynamic you call self-fulfilling prophesy" in the physical domain. I suspect that this is a result of not properly understanding the physical domain .. that we will never eliminate that noise component.
carolyn mcauley 20+
Casey Christofaris 10+
We are the personal drive, personal choice is the only free will we have, it is this personal choice that can not be measured. We are the multiverse. And we can get out of this philosophical lock down, but is going to take the largest lets agree to disagree conversations ever. Debates can be ended, but see it more as a dance of words then an argument of mind.
I hope this helps, let me know if I need to better explain my words
carolyn mcauley 20+
Casey Christofaris 10+
Never be afraid to say what is on your mind. I promise you I am not here to try to attack you or your beliefs. Unfortunately we have to have something similar to the agree to disagree argument.(I am certainly not suggesting that this is the only way or path, just a way a path.)
I never like to talk in absolutes but it almost has to be a black and white conversation/debate. Because that is one of the longest debates since the "beginning of time". Much like this, which came first the chicken or the egg? The universe has been having the same argument/conversation; which came first light? or Darkness? The interesting thing is that neither of them can exist with out the other, you cant have creation with out destruction. This argument can be seen throughout history as black/white, red/blue, us/them, positive/negative. However as far as intent in the end process is peace, which can be seen as harmony. The interesting thing about perspective and peace is that one's definition of what is peaceful will never be seen the same way. I personally think that going out to shoot a gun is very peaceful, but many could/would see this as violence. So it about finding peace/harmony as defined in the individual.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Here are two wonderful TED talks on this issue. Some people find Dan Dennett's talk disappointing and irritating - but that's only because it does not fulfill expectations of these people which is the point of his talk.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html
And here is another talk suggesting to stay "in the moment":
http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_killingsworth_want_to_be_happier_stay_in_the_moment.html
Now, to the question, what our life "should be". The answer is in what our life "is" - a cycle or a combination of intertwining cycles. What I seek in life is to understand what these cycles are and keep them flowing without interruptions - blood, oxygen, nutrients through my body; balanced income and expenses in my financial life - hoarding is bad, debt is worse; mutual care in relationships; balanced rest and exhaustion. Balance is harmony. We should not deliberately strive to be something we are not. We should always remember to return to our "self". To me, that's the formula for happiness. Life for the life's sake.
I love the phrase from "The Lorax" movie: "A tree falls in the way it leans. Be careful which way you lean."
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
(Even if it's false). It's a statement of absolute truth. It's self-consistent.
"This statement is a lie." - this is a statement of an absolute lie. The statement lies about itself. It's contradicts itself.
References to self are always fascinating. Want to say something "wise"? Say something circular:
"Good judgment comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgment."
"Say what you think, think what you say."
"Do what you love. Love what you do."
"Those who know don't tell. Those who tell don't know."
"Do unto others what you would have them do to you."
Want to say something funny? Say something circular:
"Why do we have noses that run and feet that smell?"
"Why do we drive in parkways and park in driveways?"
Want to reveal the core of the controversy, reveal a lie or a hypocrisy? Apply a statement to the speaker or to itself:
"Protect the rights of the unborn women."
I do believe that cycles and circularity are at the core of our existence. If we don't see a cycle, most likely, we are not looking at the whole. How do these cycles start? They start from self.
Free will (omnipotence) is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Determinism (omniscience) is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They seem to be mutually exclusive, but I think, they are one and the same.
Great question.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Yes, one can not exist with out the other. It can be seen as cause and effect. Or balance......ect. Light can not exist without dark, and dark can not exist with out light.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ff4alm3y4z3uepn/ZB_awAS_5U#/
You can not know joy without knowing pain. But does not mean you need to live in pain.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
What do you mean? Dark can ONLY exist without light. When there is light, it's not dark...
Perhaps, even better way to say it that "there is no dark" or "dark does not exist". Just like "non-existence" does not exist. Existence IS a "self-fulfilling prophecy", if you want to put it that way :-).
"The road up and the road down is one and the same road" -- Heraclitus
The road is the only thing that exists. "Up" or "down" (direction) exist only in our head. The road itself goes both ways.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Non-existence and existence, one can not exist without the other. Right so to understand the concept of one you also need to understand the concept of the other. So since everything is of the mind. I will define non-existence as everything before the recognition of self.
So it not like the universe could not think (actually I am pretty sure I know how the universe has stored and used memory since the beginning of time) before much like how a slime mold can "think" but it wasn't until "man" that as beings we were able to self reflect. Which essentially created existence, for everything is of the mind
Let me know if that doesn't make sense
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
It doesn't make sense and it cannot. But I get it :-) Those who pride themselves to be reasonable, perhaps, will laugh at us and say that we are talking nonsense. And they will be right too :-)
Casey Christofaris 10+
One of my best friends who I consider to be intelligent, once tried to argue with me that oil was not toxic unless swallowed
natasha nikulina 50+
"I do believe that cycles and circularity are at the core of our existence. If we don't see a cycle, most likely, we are not looking at the whole. How do these cycles start? They start from self."
I do love it, but i think, cycles are circling around the core of our existence; the core is Paradox. Paradox 'works' because it reconciles opposites, it presents symmetry which is broken. This implies that a paradox must transcend logic.
Only in silence is the word,
only in dark is light..
There is no dance ... there is only the dance
He who loses his life shall find it
Center is everywhere.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I don't reply to your question. I reply to what I think the question is about. How can I know any better?
Blessed are those who perceive what is and not what ought.
Casey Christofaris 10+
carolyn mcauley 20+
Casey Christofaris 10+
I am not sure I can fully explain all your questions via written word. However check out this ted conversation that might help make sense of the physical world that is constructed around you.
http://www.ted.com/conversations/13925/is_our_math_wrong_is_it_our_a.html
I will start with that the only truth is perspective. Then ask how do you if you are a god become all-knowing? This can only be achieved through the gaining of knowledge which is just perspective. We are trapped in the circle of debate, because we seek what can not be seek'd but must be understood. That there are no absolutes; none. Light can not exist with out the dark and dark can not exist without the light. One can not exist without the other. Its balance
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ff4alm3y4z3uepn/ZB_awAS_5U#/
We gain knowledge by asking questions, which leads to more questions. We talk in circles because we are all taking about the same thing but not perceiving the other persons perspective as truth, just as your perspective is truth for you. For the everything is of the mind and the mind makes it real. The best part is we can end the debates simply by trying to understand the "others" perspective. You don't have to agree with it or except it as your new truth. One just needs to realize simply that it is truth.
Roy Bourque 20+
I would argue your opening statement; recognition of self is not what separates us from other species. Recognition of mortality, and our ability to think on much higher levels makes us different.
According to your argument, my life is an anomaly. I have made many choices in life, but they didn't lead to what I had expected. My ambition was to become an architect because my father was a master carpenter. I ended up as the control room supervisor of a city owned utility managing the operations of the electrical distribution system. When I left home, electricity was the last thing on my mind.
I became a lighting designer for local community theater, not because I had any interest in theater, but because a friend of mine was into theater and I was just looking for something to do. I was encouraged to become a lighting designer by those who saw what potential I had.
I became a licensed pilot, not because I had any interest in learning to fly, but because a coworker was looking for someone to study with and chose me because I had some insurance money after my first wife's death. We both went out looking for a flight school and I booked an introductory flight lesson. I got hooked. The coworker changed his mind and never fulfilled his desire.
I became the aerospace education officer for Civil Air Patrol cadets, not because I had any interest in it, but because I was looking for a flying club and Civil Air Patrol was the only local event that resembled a club that flies. I went with no intention to return because I didn't like the military lifestyle, but I was impressed with the people who ran the program and stayed to see what might become of it. The cadet leader was in the Navy and was being transfered. I was asked if I would oversee the cadet program since I had a lot of patience with kids. I found their aerospace manuals easy to follow and informative so I gave it a try. In time it grew on me.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Casey Christofaris 10+
Its living in the moment, instead of behind a wall of protection that many people have built up in front of them. Which is not wrong but its not healthy either.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
All past experiences and education create prejudice that stand in the way of perceiving things as they are or "live in the moment" as you put it.
"You must unlearn what you have learned." -- Yoda.
Adriaan Braam 20+
You are absolutely right about TIME. God is inside time and space but is not part of it, or limited by it. Time and space are limits of the material world.
--" “God was the Soul, Jesus was the body, making them One.”
If this statement is true and we are also sons and daughters of god as was Jesus. Then this statement would also have to be true, “god is the soul, we are the body(physical reality), making god and us one” "--
Not quite. We are not literally sons and daughters of God, but Jesus was. Mary was 'overshadowed' by the Holy Spirit. God caused her conception and birth, not Joseph. And, yes, God could be seen as the Soul of this physical universe (and heaven the spirit).
Jesus' birth was prophesied from the beginning in Genesis. If enough of those are read, we should realize that Jesus is God on earth. Because Christians believe in three Gods, that does not really make Jesus Divine, which He (His Soul) was from His birth.
If we separate God and Jesus we can come to the wrong conclusion that Jesus was here to make His angry Father happy. That is totally wrong.
His Soul could make Him Divine through a long process of fighting evil throughout His whole life.
The best we can do is become a celestial angel through a similar process (on our finite human level) throughout our life in this same world, again, by fighting evil and then doing good.
At the end of your comment we seem to be saying the same thing. Following God in freedom (by using our free will) should be seen as total freedom. Those that like evil will say that God is trying to force us.. and take our freedom away (to do evil). That is a wrong impression. No one is forced to rob a bank or hate someone. It is always our choice.
But doing good, for the right reason, is total freedom.
The Swedenborgian approach to God and Jesus may help
http://webhome.idirect.com/~abraam/studies/Who_is_Jesus.pdf
Roy Bourque 20+
I was trained in nuclear physics. When you break everything down to its lowest form, it all becomes the same. How it evolves is similar to what you describe. Quantum fields become subatomic particles, which become atomic elements, which become molecular compounds, which become...
They are all various levels all built on top of each other. They set the wheels of creativity in motion. They seem chaotic, and yet there is an order to them. We see the events as random, yet that is because we see only a small piece of a greater picture. It's like weather patterns. The more you understand the inputs, the more you can predict the result. Our lives are like trying to see a hurricane from the perspective of a single raindrop. We know where we've been, but we don't know all the factors that created the journey. We say it is by our own choice, but we only play the cards we are dealt. We seldom understand that we are not the dealer. The trick is to play the cards in a manner that will lead to the greatest good.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
CHAOS - "Complete disorder and confusion."
It's interesting that there is a "chaos theory" which studies patterns and regularity arising from chaos. It's also interesting that this theory is applicable to nearly every field of knowledge - meteorology, economy, physics, astronomy, psychology, psychiatry, biology, aerodynamics, etc. It's interesting how completely random initial conditions develop in a very predictable and structured way.
Humans like to find causes for everything. But when we get to the bottom of things, we find circularity: "If God created the universe, then who created God?" It's a silly argument that goes nowhere. Existence seems to cause itself. Time and space loose meaning without matter. So, the question, what existed "before" the universe appeared is meaningless. Time, space, and matter must have appeared simultaneously. What about God? I think, God IS existence itself. God can be metaphorically viewed as the force that creates order out of chaos.
Determinism and free will, omniscience and omnipotence, chaos and order seem to be opposites, but they appear to be two sides of the same coin. When everything goes according to God's will, and God knows it, why would he want to change anything? God's "free will" seems to be predetermined by himself.
Roy Bourque 20+
I believe that learning to control ourselves is the key to understanding religion. This is the spiritual path of Eastern philosophy, which would lead from the lower subconscious (the animal passions from which we evolved) to the upper subconscious or Christ (communion with the power through which the universe became manifest). It is this communion that allows us to understand where the flow goes, as you say.
I have found the teachings of Eastern philosophy throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition, but nowhere in the Christian bible is it explained. A few examples;
The Catholic Church talks of communion, but it doesn't differentiate between Jesus the man, and "the Christ" to which Jesus alluded to. Jesus call us to understand. It wasn't himself that he wanted us to believe in, it was in what he represented.
The book of Exodus explains the arrangement of the tabernacle which contained the Holy of Holies. Only the arrangement is given, but no explanation as to why such an arrangement. Eastern philosophy explains the arrangement and what it means. The Holy of Holies is spiritual understanding (or the Christ), the veil in front of it being that which separates us from being able to understand. Only through meditation and prayer (or contemplation) could we find the path that leads beyond the veil.
Some myths speak on similar lines. In these myths, it would require the slaying of the dragon to reach the treasure sought after (often synonymous with the Holy Grail). The dragon is the beast within (the animal which is still part of our psychological makeup) that must be overcome to see what lies beyond. Learning to control self was the first step of the spiritual journey. It all means the same thing but in different terms. In the gospels, it was Satan that Jesus had to overcome before he could begin his ministry. Revelation speaks of Satan as the dragon, the serpent, and the devil. They are all one and the same.
Adriaan Braam 20+
Just some points about the Tabernacle. It is now revealed in Jesus' Second Coming that this construct is a picture of our human, spiritual environment as it works, or can work.
There are those that don't even go in and so stay natural. When we do enter we have two sections we can proceed into, the spiritual and the celestial. Each entrance is based on a decision we make in freedom and with rationality.
In this book about the Tabernacle are countless references to Genesis and other places which are used to explain the human condition of free will and the reason for having that.
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/source/The%20Tabernacle%20of%20Israel.pdf?attredirects=0
Chapter 17 is all about the veils. When the Lord talks about knocking on our door, this is the partition He is talking about for us to open to go to the next stage.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Of course, when Genesis is taken as a story of literal creation of the universe, it fails basic reality checks. However, if taken as metaphoric description of our spiritual selves, it makes a lot of sense. I would say, "literalism" is a figure of speech. Our language is symbolic by nature.
I also find the name of the Lord "YHWH", "I AM" or "I WILL BE" very symbolic. It is a reference to our self. Some people even find that the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) spelled vertically with Hebrew letters is a pictogram of a human being.
http://www.yhwh.com/asimple.htm
Whereas, the Jesus (Yahshua) spelled vertically with Hebrew letters YHSWH is a pictogram of a human being with a heart.
I'm not sure if this symbolism was meant to be there or if this is someone trying to find more meaning than there is.
Marvin Welby-Solomon
This is completely opposite to a Judeo-Christian worldview. In both Judaism and Christianity, the goal isn't about becoming like God (which is a tenant of a New Age philosophy), it's about having a relationship with God.
For Judaism this relationship was governed (and still is today) through the Law, the Tabernacle (where God's presence resided) and blood sacrifice for the atonement for sin. For Christianity, the aforementioned conditions was dealt with through God coming to earth in the form of Jesus Christ as 100% God and 100% man to deal with the repercussion of sin, which is death, the subsequent Law and required atonement.
When Jesus lived a sinless life and was put to death, the devil had no legal right to Him, so he took His life back at the resurrection and is alive eternally. Now all those (Jew and non-Jew) who believe in Jesus now have covenant relationship with God through Him, and with that comes purpose and blessing to a broken world.
Answering Arkady's point on a literal Genesis - if Genesis isn't a literal creation, then the actual fall of man and separation from God due to our sinful nature, which took place in the garden of Eden, didn't happen, and if that didn't happen then the need for Jesus bridging the gap between mankind and God wouldn't be needed, which unhinges the whole of Christianity.
The testament to Jesus' power through faith in Him makes Him very real, therefore making Genesis very literal. What I can say is that facts of this world can't speak for themselves, but the scientific framework and presuppositions it stands on, interprets the facts. I challenge you to look at www.answersingenesis.com for a biblical worldview.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
I'm not sure what is meant by "very real" or "very literal"... I have problem with terms like "true believer" or "true atheist", "literal interpretation", or "natural". There is no meaning in these words.
As I said, "literal interpretation" is a figure of speech. If we want to follow NT to the letter, we need to cut off our hands, pluck our eyes, and make ourselves eunuchs for the sake of kingdom of God :-).
Adriaan Braam 20+
--"if Genesis isn't a literal creation, then the actual fall of man and separation from God due to our sinful nature, which took place in the garden of Eden, didn't happen, and if that didn't happen then the need for Jesus bridging the gap between mankind and God wouldn't be needed, which unhinges the whole of Christianity."--
The first 10.5 chapters of Genesis were copied by Mozes from earlier Revelations and sacred text. These were written by people that knew spiritual reality and expressed them through earthly stories.
Just because it did not happen in 7 days, does not mean God did not create the universe. The Creation Story has nothing to do with THAT creation. Who cares when or how long the creation of this universe took?? Have you ever applied that 7-day story into your life, as to how to live, what to do etc.?? Except maybe get involved in an argument about the existence of God?
As is now explained in the Second Coming (hold on, don't fall off your chair :) that story is the creation of a spiritual person, from a natural (spiritually void) person. Each day is a stage which could take many years. But finally God can take a 'day' off because the person no longer has to be protected and guided away from evil.
The first chapter of Genesis is, word for word, explained (spiritually) in this first volume. As Philip said to his brother Nathanael "Come and see"
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/writings/Arcana%20Coelestia%2001.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
Casey Christofaris 10+
"The testament to Jesus' power through faith in Him makes Him very real, therefore making Genesis very literal."
If this is true which I believe it to be true, then also this statement must be true. Anything that man has had faith in or belief of being real must also make said thing real. I will explain further and I hope it makes sense. So if everything is of the mind and man creates his reality, if at anytime enough (see 100 monkey theory) man worshiped or believed something to existed, from fiction to, mythology, to any form of religion then that thing is also true and also existed. Because of mans faith in said thing
Roy Bourque 20+
I believe that God is the chaos of the primordial soup of quantum physics that is destined to become ordered. It fills the universe. It is everywhere and invisible. When we learn to understand it and follow its rules, then we see progress. When we determine to defy its principles, it leads to consequences. That is what is meant to follow God or not. The laws of nature can't be broken. But they can be utilized in ways that lead to greater things.
Adriaan Braam 20+
God is the only and perfect Human. We are just images and likenesses, depending on how 'human' we make ourselves.
Jesus was God's love 'embodied' on this planet. The only way God could control and change the power of evil in this world (and not hurt anyone except Himself) was by coming down to the level of evil. God was the Soul, Jesus was the body, making them One.
It is obvious, when we look around us, that Jesus did not take our evil away. He levelled the 'playing field.' IOW restored our free will.
--"I'm not sure if this symbolism was meant to be there or if this is someone trying to find more meaning than there is"--
As finite beings we will never find or discover the total meaning of Revelation. There is so much 'room' between our truth and Divine Truth that we'll never go the distance :) We can only go by our interpretation and hope for the best. I think what we have through Swedenborg is only the tip of the tip of . . . of the iceberg.
One image of infinity could be the amount of grains of sand that are not the same.
Casey Christofaris 10+
“Just because it did not happen in 7 days, does not mean God did not create the universe”
What if I can explain in simple terms, but not simply since I have a hard time with my written word, on how god could create the observable universe as well as explain how it was also created by science using fractal coding, quantum physics, and “time” vs “gods time”. For god time did not and does not exist. Time is a manmade concept based on false assumptions and arbitrary units of measurements. Man created time by its rotation around the sun. We then broke it down even more by asserting that we rotate around the sun in a circle instead of an ellipse. Which is how all celestial object rotate around there sun. We can thank Kepler for this. Our existence can not and would not work without both science and religion. Also When god was creating the universe remember we still thought for a very long time afterwards that it was the sun that rotated around the earth.
“God was the Soul, Jesus was the body, making them One.”
If this statement is true and we are also sons and daughters of god as was Jesus. Then this statement would also have to be true, “god is the soul, we are the body(physical reality), making god and us one”
“we are all predestined for heaven, if it were up to God. But it is not, it is up to us, determined by, again, what we choose to love in freedom.”
I am sorry this is simply not true completely; we create our concepts of heaven and hell here on earth. One could not understand the concept of either heaven or hell without understanding the concept of the other. And in that way one could choose to live in heaven and one could choose (use loosely here) their own personal hell lived out here on earth. If god did not give us free will of choice we would reject god simply because no free being wants to be enslaved. And we would be enslaved to gods will. The best part is that that god does not want to be our author; he wants us to live our lives.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Now this I agree with absolutely however it is still personal choice. This is also way Jesus can down as the sacrificial lamb. Jesus came to stop men from worshiping god by sacrificing animals and man/women in god’s name. This did not show god’s grace this should man’s arrogates.
Roy Bourque 20+
I believe that each soul was to derive meaning from religion according to their own walk on the spiritual path. I don't believe that there is only one meaning or that people find meaning that was not intended to be there. What one finds may not be intended for anyone else, but may be intended for the one finding it.
As you have said, people use religion to control others and to find evil within others. Jesus spoke directly against this when he warned the people not to look for the mote in your neighbor's eye when you have a beam in your own. It is one of the great failures of religion.
Casey Christofaris 10+
It doesn't sound like your life is anomaly, it sounds like you live in the moment and let life direct your decisions instead of having blinders on to the world that is around you. Going with the flow is always better then trying to fit in a box.
Roy Bourque 20+
I do see myself as living in the moment. I choose to be a participant and not a spectator. Often I need a starting point and then I go with the flow.
I see some people walking around like stray dogs. I often wonder whether they are capable of bettering their lives, or if they are simply less evolved in mind and spirit? Are we who we are because we were destined to be, or is it by choice? I think it's a little of both.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Yeah I agree, It is a little of both. I would suggest that the path that gets us to the lessons we need to learn are "predetermined" (use loosely). This can be seen as chaos theory, or cause and effect. However once we get to that lesson, then personal choice steps. Which can be seen as free will. Each individuals personal choice can lead to positive reactions or negative reactions. Its then our choice to learn from that lesson and what we choose to learn is what helps us get to the next lesson and then to our next personal choice.
Arkady Grudzinsky 50+
Understanding where the flow goes is necessary to "go with the flow". Otherwise, we may unknowingly go against the flow or "kick against the pricks", as the Bible puts it, only hurting ourselves. Or we may be carried somewhere we don't want to be.
Adriaan Braam 20+
We could say, however, that we are all predestined for heaven, if it were up to God. But it is not, it is up to us, determined by, again, what we choose to love in freedom.
No one is, or ever has been born to go to hell.
This article is all about what would happen if we had no free will.
http://webhome.idirect.com/~abraam/studies/Freedom_No.pdf
Comment deleted
Casey Christofaris 10+
Yes the crux of communication is that when we ascribe labels to certain things, they take in that definition. Instead of realizing that it is just a word. Not an absolute
Beautiful poem by the way
Dan F 50+
I have no problem with the social concept. It makes sense. Some of us have learned of this insight the hard way, usually as we age and look back more objectively about something we believed about someone or some thing and realized we were wrong. That belief had a price because it caused adjustments in our subsequent behavior which initiated a self fulfilling prophecy and all the result of believing something that was untrue.
Obviously this self fulfilling prophecy can be applied to other world views. For example, a better question from my point of view would be...
Is religion a self fulfilling prophecy?
I like this question even more than yours, especially since there are so many different religions available in which to subscribe. They can't all be right can they?
Casey Christofaris 10+
I would suggest that if everything is of the mind and the mind makes it real, then not only is religion self fulfilling but so is everything else. And I do mean everything
Dan F 50+
Oops, I misinterpreted your question in the text and got going on my own self fulfilling prophecy.
This may be too esoteric for me.
Casey Christofaris 10+
I don't know sounds like you got it, its just really hard to wrap the brain around :)
Kenya Perry
1 People do change, we are no longer children who believe in such fables as Boogie man, and aren't scared of what's under the bed.
2 Not everyone believes in the same religion in which the were raised, People grow up deciding there own values and moral belief's ( Some people choose to be atheist and not believe in religion, but belief in the philosophy.)
3. That despite certain familiar historical anomalies occur that doesn't mean that people's ides didn't change. Come on now a lot women from other countries have right's, and being less subjected to the idea of inferiority. Slavery is now viewed as immoral.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Kenya Perry
because there are 3 basic aspects that describe a person's life history.
1. Then families status: meaning did the person come from: Rich, poor, middle class. And which country.
2. How they were raised: who taught them how to live, who inspired them, who or what they were raised to believe. Everyone in there life that has touched and/or effected them.
3. The environment they lived in: was it a productive prominent, was it in the ghetto, was there a transition from a bad environment to good or the reverse. What were the different cultural aspects of the different places the person lived.
4. Is CHOICE.
Casey Christofaris 10+
I am always a fan of devils advocate. However you hit it on the head that life is full of choices and it is only personal choice that creates the idea of free will. Your point #2 is in reference to chaos theory where everything is connected and then that points to cause and effect. In your #2 this is where we have no free will, it just leads us to the next lesson that we need to learn, but then our personal choice steps in and that is free will. However it is these very choices that create the self fulfilling prophecy. You project your personal future out by saying I am going to be a lawyer growing up. The lesson that you take to get to this result is a matter of personal choices whether you realize it or not and the only way you will not be a lawyer is if you choose for one reason or another to stop making that choice. And sometime that choice to change from not becoming a lawyer is not always in your hands.
I hope this made sense and I am sorry if it did not. I struggle with my written word
Ed Schulte 50+
If you had used Self rather then self your alignment would have been accurate.
Every HUman ( Homo sapien - sapien ) will come to full Exomatosis ..that point of "No Change" pointed to by attained beings when they say "that which changes is not real, that which is real does not change,"
Casey Christofaris 10+
Truth is I hate putting periods on my last sentence, because that suggest closure and I would much rather leave it open
Richard Krooman 50+
To me his posts are so incosistent and he jumps from one topic on the next leaving holes in between the size of galaxies.
Next to that many of the words are shorthanded / spelled wrong (I guess... at least... that's the only way I can make sense of it).
For example with the line: But then you need to ask well do they recognize self do to our experiments and what we have defined as self recognition or is it innately in them?
Does he mean: 'You could ask yourself: "do they recognize themselves due to our experiment or did we define recognition of onesself based upon our observations?".' (btw to me the later part of my line sounds really strange)
I can't even begin to guess what the next line means: "So is it that we recognize self because of them through evolution or do they recognize self do to us?"
I'm guessing that the last do should be due but the line still is a grand new level of "wtf's he talking about?".
And I seem to find a hint in there that he is trying to summarize his above line in even worse english than before.
But all in all to answer is final question "So we are just a bunch of self replicating entities that have evolved in to a self recognizing being." which, I know, is missing the '?' at the end....
Yes we each are a highly dependant system of very symbiotic self replicating entities.
Or in plain english: Yes we are a bunch of cells that work together.
How does that have ANYTHING to do with evolution or self fulfilling prophecy??
You have lost me once again Casey... Like your concept of math... It seems like history is reapeating it's "self"?
Danger Lampost 10+
Richard Krooman 50+
However it gets so hard to discuss something when the start isn't clear. People will just interpret it in multiple ways which will lead to many different (non related) comments.
You can assume the above post of mine to be a plea for a re-writing of the origional post (Casey's post) into a less ambiguous and more well defined question.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Once again thank you for your patience
Casey Christofaris 10+
It is very hard for me to grasp my thoughts and then put them on page you are correct that my english is broken and that is 100% my fault and or the cookie cutter system that is american education. I never took school seriously looking back I was bored. At the time I would never never never thought I was bored because of me being smarter then the others and I still do not feel this way. Simple when I was a kid I just wanted to have fun and school was stopping me from doing that, I have talk with my grandma and she has offered to school me in english. (hope she doesn't bust out the ruler) However if I had to guess with our conversations you may have wanted to do that a couple times to me :). And I thank you for your patience.
Richard Krooman 50+
Well the utmost important thing which you have to always abide by in an internet discussion is that text cannot be ambiguous (at least the meaning has to be 100% clear from the context when words are ambiguous).
So what I always do when I post things is that I re-read them after having a small break. For instance when I start a conversation on here... I usualy first write it in some word editor (which has spelling control) and then I just re-read it once before I post it and I rewrite all lines that can be read in different ways.
For instance the question in your post "Recognition of self right?" (especially due to the line-break in between which is put there by ted) could very easily be read like "Recognition of self-right?". Which then makes the question something completely different as right would suddenly indicate that it has to do with a form of 'law' (or fairness.. as in the way of "righteous").
Also something which I find very usefull is that whenever you 'further explain' something in the same line that you ,'s to indicate where which area ends. When ,'s are not really obvious use (). In general it's best to use ,'s when you can keep on reading.
This could be used in the line "But then you need to ask well do they recognize self do to our experiments and what we have defined as self recognition or is it innately in them?"
Like: But then you need to ask "well do they recognize self, do to our experiments and what we have defined as self recognition, or is it innately in them?"
Usually if you re-read something as if someone else wrote it you will notice these things... like "what does this word refer to" or "these 2 words don't go together" or similar things.
Just use different words or add ,'s or () when you feel something is not clear.... it's the meaning of what you're trying to say that is important... not the way you say it. However how you say it must make sure that the other person gets the meaning.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Terry Haynes
Allan Macdougall 30+
In the context of our place as creatures on the planet, we are actually devolving.
Evolution of creatures is a response to a symbiotic relationship to the environment in which it lives - living and dying within an environment that is 'bigger' than us.
If man is so anthropocentric as to think of itself as overlord of all it surveys, then evolution stops dead in its tracks.
Granted, the advent of technology make us feel we are fast evolving, but that is only now within a synthetic world of our own creation.
Terry Haynes
I will explain to the best of my ability why I believe we are evolving in simple terms. First off there are parts of our bodies that we no longer need to have to live. In example: tonsils, gall bladder, appendix. Our ancestors may have needed those parts but we do not.And Second, Our life spans are getting longer. Two pieces of evidence that we are still evolving. I also believe we process more information and multi-task more than our ancestors. My opinions and observations only. Thank you
Julian Blanco 30+
You need to study the evolution concept a bit deeper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Let me refute both your examples:
You take a frog and tie its legs it's whole life, you get it to reproduce with another leg tied frog, no matter how many generations pass, the new frogs will still have legs (even if legs where not used for 10 generations)
On your second example, the answer is medicine and food, not mutations, two examples, take a wild animal, feed it balanced food in captivity and take care of it when it's sick, that will increase the lifespan of the animal, but does not mean it mutated.
Compare life expectancy of low income people and high income, the difference will be very large, but they are not genetically different.
Frans, Allan, That being said I do believe there is evolution in modern humans, as more woman have their kids later in life (vs teen age), 7bilion humans are bound to have interesting mutations due to sheer number, aids resistance is being researched, etc.
Also (this is just an idea with no data to support it) violent people are being deselected with time in most developed countries, either they go to jail or are killed before living children behind.
Regards!
JB
Richard Krooman 50+
The thing with evolution that you are missing is natural mutations. If you would go on long enough with the generations there will, naturally, be 1 frog born without legs eventually... This then will lead to (given that tied legs is worse than having no legs) more offspring by the mutated frog. Which will lead to (after many many generations) frogs becomming leg-less.
The life span is probably partially true by both of you (although I don't have any research on this to back it up). It is a known fact though that the quality of food immediately yields huge benefits (aka within 1 generation). But I do also think that because we have become a much more knowledge based civilisation that longevity has become more usefull. As old people still know a lot there is a natural value for people getting older.
And since there was this talk about the Bat-genome just this week, it could very well be that longevity is also partially genetically coded.
Julian Blanco 30+
You era right, I was oversimplifying the frog example, mutations will occur given enough time, my point was that the lack of use of an organ or body part does not imply its desapearence.
(In 10 generations the frogs will likely be the same)
On the second point, evolution only cares about the ability to leave children that will then reproduce, not your value to society (thou your value can help on the later), so the more relevant cuestion is how old people are when they reproduce.
If we created a law tomorrow that allowed reproduction only to people over 35, and then started moving that to 36, 37 and so on we would likely fabor mutations that increase longevity (as the body needs to be somewhat fit to reproduce).
Regars!
JB
Frans Kellner 100+
If you hypothetical could bring a new born human being from the stone age into our world he or she would in no respect be different to anyone except maybe that there was no resistance to modern viruses that did evolve over time.
Terry Haynes
That was only my opinion thru observation. I do not expect everyone to agree with me and I do not mean any offence to anyone. Thank you
Casey Christofaris 10+
I would have to suggest that you all are right, but our understanding of what evolution is its self needs to change. If everything is of the mind, then it is the mind that needs to evolve and not the being. Our physical reality is what has been evolving in the picture frame that we call life for a very long time. Then man came about and created with it consciousness that was self reflecting. Our consciousness is what has giving raise to the evolution of technology and science or enlightenment. And our consciousness is what will need to continue to evolve, but we have built walls and windows and doors around what "is" and these need to be broken down while still realizing that they exist only of the mind. My reality is congruent to your reality because we both believe that what we are seeing with our eyes and mind is real. But the funny thing about the eyes is they actually deliver the message to the mind up side down or flipped. Almost as if to gain another perspective.
Hope this makes sense I am working on my written word
Adriaan Braam 20+
"Thought from the eye closes the understanding, but thought from the understanding opens the eye." ~Divine Love and Wisdom~
Without a perspective we may not know what is in a picture.
"Every appearance this is confirmed as a Truth, becomes a fallacy" ~True Christian Religion~
Is the sun rising, is our brain thinking, can Love (God) be angry?
Revelation provides a spiritual perspective, but that, as we know, can be misinterpreted. IF we kept loving God and the neighbour as our priorities, everything else would be just differences of opinion.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Are you proposing that if we accept we are evolved multi-cellular beings then this will lead to negative outcomes? This seems like a false dichotomy. Why would you think that?
I note for most of history and probably prehistory the majority of homo sapiens were not aware we evolved. The history you are referring to is mostly the results of theists or polytheists.
In your final sentences you ask are we “just” evolved multi-cellular self aware beings, doomed to repeat history. Some theists seem to think it is either believe in some gods or revert to some nihilistic meaningless barbaric life. This is a False dichotomy.
Firstly, accepting that we evolved does not stop us from considering what improves the human condition. In fact it frees us from the worst excesses of backwards bronze and iron religious moralities. No need to give sexist, racist, tribal, homophobic , anti contraception religious dogmas special consideration.
Secondly, accepting what the evidence indicates, that we evolved, does not diminish our humanity, it does not eliminate our understanding that conscious beings can suffer or thrive. We have the most amazing minds and deep experience we know of. We can question, and learn, and communicate and build like no other species.
Thirdly, things have actually improved. I would argue part of this improvement relates to the establishment of secular democracies, modern human rights etc. We had the enlightenment. We have science helping us better understand ourselves and the universe.
Yes we are still caught between instinct and reason, but in many places life has improved, even compared to a few centuries, or decades ago, depending where you live.
We have a long way to go, but have come further than you might think.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Actually I am suggesting the opposite if we acknowledge that we are evolved multi-cellular beings we would become more and for lack of a better word that drives the point home we would become more enlightened. By become higher aware beings.
If we realize that we are "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts", as well as E Pluribus Unum. And except these as truths whether you believe it or not. And acknowledge that we are just one small part of a greater system and yet at the same time that greater system. You can come to the understanding that we are all one. For the mind makes it real and everything including us is of the mind. We need to realize that our science takes just as much faith as religion/spirit does. And maybe even more so because with science we have all came to and except that no theory will ever be correct except that all theory's are correct, because the mind makes it real. And someone else mind makes it "not real" or not truth. And we subscribe to arbitrary units of measurements that we call conventions. Because if we didn't all agree to those conventions then none.....I mean none of this thing we call life would make any sense. But science needs to man up and remember that almost all knowledge gain has been based on arbitrary units of per-assumed assumptions.
sorry if this does not make sense my thoughts are hard to express via written word.