Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@Kerome said:
There are also medical sources which state near death experiences cannot be the result of physical phenomena happening to the dying brain, such as Dr Eben Alexander who was a >well known neuroscientist before the experience which he details and analyses in his book >Proof of Heaven_.
OP, IMO Dr. Alexander gets a little too religious in his accounting of his experience. He has a couple of videos on youtube where he discusses it, so I'll review those, and maybe we can discuss. But yes, it's great that a neuroscientist has given a first-hand experience.
Another excellent book on the subject, a must-read, really, is Pim Van Lommel's Consciousness Beyond Life. The author is a heart surgeon who for years dismissed the NDE stories his patients told him after being revived from cardiac arrest or surgery, but after too many stories accumulated for him to ignore, he decided to investigate. He did some scientific research on current theory of physics on the nature of consciousness, as well as keeping records of procedures and medical equipment read-outs during surgery, files of patient interviews, etc. He has a chapter in which he presents all the arguments against NDE's, and refutes every one, including the hypoperfusion one from the aerospace industry.
Here's the book on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Beyond-Life-Near-Death-Experience/dp/0061777269
@Will_Baker said:
... in a closed system "it" doesn't just go away. That's why I stated the above...
You mean like a finished smile does not go away or a brain feeding worms is still functioning/smiling independently of lips/means?
-No, I was referring to cause and effect; the electrical impulses imprinting on an organic computer and then the program/data being transferred such that it imprints on another organic computer. A related part would be along the lines of how a paradigm shift works or the phenomenon of group-think... Hegel's Weltgeist (read:World Spirit) touches on it. Did you invent the language you are using to communicate with? If not are the folks still alive who did develop the language? If they are dead but you are utilizing the language they developed, was this language program/data somehow transferred to you, and is it not running on your organic computer?
Does the Mind continue after Death?
One perspective is as follows:
Kai-jo-ju e-ku, Kai-jo-ju-e-ku....
Birth-age-maturity-decline-death, Birth-age...
Roughly put, but that is the wheel of life.
We are born (become sentient)
We age (mature)
We reach maturity (our peak)
We decline (grow 'old')
We die (enter non-sentience)
Repeat all the above
Again
Again...
Our goal is to not escape the cycle, but to remove the suffering(s) of the cycle
Thus our 'mind' does not cease - our awareness (sentience) comes and goes do waves upon the ocean.
I have always found the cases of children remembering their past lives or details about things in the past they could not have known pretty interesting. It makes for an interesting argument that perhaps all these memories are just locked away.
@Richdawson said:
I have always found the cases of children remembering their past lives or details about things in the past they could not have known pretty interesting. It makes for an interesting argument that perhaps all these memories are just locked away.
-No, I was referring to cause and effect; the electrical impulses imprinting on an organic computer and then the program/data being transferred such that it imprints on another organic computer.
What is the transfer mechanism? What evidence is there for it?
-No, I was referring to cause and effect; the electrical impulses imprinting on an organic computer and then the program/data being transferred such that it imprints on another organic computer.
What is the transfer mechanism? What evidence is there for it?
-Well, Exhibit A of the evidence would be the fact that a language program is currently running on your organic computer that you did not invent/develop. Furthermore, this language program was most probably developed by folks who are long dead. In this case, one aspect of the transfer mechanism would be experiential learning...
Aside from an opinion on an existence of a supposed "life after death," imagining the thought of it is deeply terrifying, reminscent of a supposed "hell."
An eternity of conciousness. And an eternity after that, and infinitely so on. This, I find, is far harder to comprehend than death of the body and consciousness. It also seems infinitely awful and torturous.
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@Deformed said:
Aside from an opinion on an existence of a supposed "life after death," imagining the thought of it is deeply terrifying, reminscent of a supposed "hell."
An eternity of conciousness. And an eternity after that, and infinitely so on. This, I find, is far harder to comprehend than death of the body and consciousness. It also seems infinitely awful and torturous.
Very interesting questions/thoughts. Maybe it's not so much the possibility of 'eternal' life/consciousness of some sort, but the imagining (!) that it's something that we have no control over - it very well may be that we do. It's a matter of figuring out how to take control.
-No, I was referring to cause and effect; the electrical impulses imprinting on an organic computer and then the program/data being transferred such that it imprints on another organic computer.
What is the transfer mechanism? What evidence is there for it?
-In re-reading this thread I realize I didn't comment on the content in your link. In one way, yes, this is where I'm coming from, but in a more academic sense :-) What interests me most, though, are the implications which flow from my position...
@Will_Baker the implications are for me more like the transfer through language (that you mention), life experience stories, behaviour memes, social and dharma heritage and so on.
The idea that a human becomes a worm, other than as a meal - and then back again is an ancient discredited evolutionary, non-evidential, superstitious, superseded model. I do not need to buy it when better models of how development occurs exist.
I found this earlier conversation helpful, particularly the last comment, which might be pertinent to your point ... http://opcoa.st/PdsX2
Remember the candle flame. It continues to burn so long as the conditions are present, even though at any one moment you can say the entirety of the flame is different than it was a moment ago. It's the same with our mind and all the vastness it contains; as long as the conditions are present to support it, it will continue to burn... but it will change dependent upon conditions as well, so it can discern the true nature of reality and become free of ignorance.
I agree. There is no stability but there IS continuity. So the candle flame is continually changing but it does have continuity while the supporting conditions persist.
@Deformed said:
Aside from an opinion on an existence of a supposed "life after death," imagining the thought of it is deeply terrifying, reminscent of a supposed "hell."
An eternity of conciousness. And an eternity after that, and infinitely so on. This, I find, is far harder to comprehend than death of the body and consciousness. It also seems infinitely awful and torturous.
You'll be so blissed out, you won't even notice the infinite nature of it.
What concerns me a little is that by the time we all keel, and go through a process "on the other side", and arrive at a point when we might feel ready to try "life" again, the planet we've come to know and love will be toast. So where will we go then, if we want to be reborn, and have another go?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Deformed said:
Aside from an opinion on an existence of a supposed "life after death," imagining the thought of it is deeply terrifying, reminscent of a supposed "hell."
An eternity of conciousness. And an eternity after that, and infinitely so on. This, I find, is far harder to comprehend than death of the body and consciousness. It also seems infinitely awful and torturous.
You'll be so blissed out, you won't even notice the infinite nature of it.
What concerns me a little is that by the time we all keel, and go through a process "on the other side", and arrive at a point when we might feel ready to try "life" again, the planet we've come to know and love will be toast. So where will we go then, if we want to be reborn, and have another go?
Beats me if there is such a system but if there is, I highly doubt this particular planet formed by this particular big bang is the only place to go.
In Buddhism it is consciousness (viññāna/vijnāna) that transmigrates.
'Or if consciousness, having entered the mother's womb, were to be deflected, would mind-and-body [nama-rupa] come to birth in this life?' 'No, Lord.' 'And if the consciousness of such a tender young being, boy or girl, were thus cut off, would mind-and-body grow, develop and mature?' 'No, Lord.' 'Therefore, Ananda , just this, namely consciousness, is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition of mind-and-body" (D.ii.63).
Personally I think the alternative is more likely and better informed.
At what point in a degenerative close down does the consciousness leave?
Here is again a more informed understanding. I am sure better examples/models can be found ... http://opcoa.st/PdSK5
Clearly not all Buddhists require ancient ignorance or adherence to dogma ...
@Blondel said:
In Buddhism it is consciousness (viññāna/vijnāna) that transmigrates.
'Or if consciousness, having entered the mother's womb, were to be deflected, would mind-and-body [nama-rupa] come to birth in this life?' 'No, Lord.' 'And if the consciousness of such a tender young being, boy or girl, were thus cut off, would mind-and-body grow, develop and mature?' 'No, Lord.' 'Therefore, Ananda , just this, namely consciousness, is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition of mind-and-body" (D.ii.63).
That's very interesting. Thank you for posting this. So, how, or whence, does consciousness enter the mother's womb? This is fascinating.
I think the perspective of the Near Death Experiencers to some extent conforms to the Buddhist view; as life is snuffed out, the consciousness leaves the body and goes to another realm. Eventually, it returns to inspire another life, entering sometime before birth.
Beats me if there is such a system but if there is, I highly doubt this particular planet formed by this particular big bang is the only place to go.
Probably so. Then we'd better not get to attached to any places on Earth, since we probably won't be coming back here. Hopefully the beings on the planet where we end up will be managing it better than humans did, here.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Beats me if there is such a system but if there is, I highly doubt this particular planet formed by this particular big bang is the only place to go.
Probably so. Then we'd better not get to attached to any places on Earth, since we probably won't be coming back here. Hopefully the beings on the planet where we end up will be managing it better than humans did, here.
Aw, hey... Don't be so down on us humans, we are learning as we go and we make mistakes. Sure, no other species has caused suffering on such a grand scale but no other species has the ability yet either.
Every poster that has posted these loving and concerned posts has been human so far.
All we have to do is clean up our act and by looking at the youth of today I'd say we're not too far off from a new kind of society with far less division.
I think a positive outlook is beneficial especially when talking about something like a continuation after death.
I'm not even sure mind dies or ever makes it all the way to death because of how time behaves in dreams. I've had dreams that have taken place over days or even longer but I only had a few hours sleep. We could possibly live many lifetimes in that last blink of an eye.
I'm not sure I explained that very well but it could be possible that what we truly think will happen is what will happen. That's why I think the idea of Hell is a horrible belief for those deemed "not good enough" by anyone's standards but especially their own.
@lobster said: @Will_Baker the implications are for me more like the transfer through language (that you mention), life experience stories, behaviour memes, social and dharma heritage and so on.
The idea that a human becomes a worm, other than as a meal - and then back again is an ancient discredited evolutionary, non-evidential, superstitious, superseded model. I do not need to buy it when better models of how development occurs exist.
I found this earlier conversation helpful, particularly the last comment, which might be pertinent to your point ... http://opcoa.st/PdsX2
Remember the candle flame. It continues to burn so long as the conditions are present, even though at any one moment you can say the entirety of the flame is different than it was a moment ago. It's the same with our mind and all the vastness it contains; as long as the conditions are present to support it, it will continue to burn... but it will change dependent upon conditions as well, so it can discern the true nature of reality and become free of ignorance.
I agree. There is no stability but there IS continuity. So the candle flame is continually changing but it does have continuity while the supporting conditions persist.
Spiny
-From my perspective, one implication suggests perhaps we are like cells of a broader organism that is regenerating itself, much like the cells in the human body...
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@lobster said: @Will_Baker the implications are for me more like the transfer through language (that you mention), life experience stories, behaviour memes, social and dharma heritage and so on.
The idea that a human becomes a worm, other than as a meal - and then back again is an ancient discredited evolutionary, non-evidential, superstitious, superseded model. I do not need to buy it when better models of how development occurs exist.
I found this earlier conversation helpful, particularly the last comment, which might be pertinent to your point ... http://opcoa.st/PdsX2
Remember the candle flame. It continues to burn so long as the conditions are present, even though at any one moment you can say the entirety of the flame is different than it was a moment ago. It's the same with our mind and all the vastness it contains; as long as the conditions are present to support it, it will continue to burn... but it will change dependent upon conditions as well, so it can discern the true nature of reality and become free of ignorance.
I agree. There is no stability but there IS continuity. So the candle flame is continually changing but it does have continuity while the supporting conditions persist.
Spiny
-From my perspective, one implication suggests perhaps we are like cells of a broader organism that is regenerating itself, much like the cells in the human body...
I've often wondered if natural selection is really a kind of instinct.
@lobster said: @Will_Baker the implications are for me more like the transfer through language (that you mention), life experience stories, behaviour memes, social and dharma heritage and so on.
The idea that a human becomes a worm, other than as a meal - and then back again is an ancient discredited evolutionary, non-evidential, superstitious, superseded model. I do not need to buy it when better models of how development occurs exist.
I found this earlier conversation helpful, particularly the last comment, which might be pertinent to your point ... http://opcoa.st/PdsX2
Remember the candle flame. It continues to burn so long as the conditions are present, even though at any one moment you can say the entirety of the flame is different than it was a moment ago. It's the same with our mind and all the vastness it contains; as long as the conditions are present to support it, it will continue to burn... but it will change dependent upon conditions as well, so it can discern the true nature of reality and become free of ignorance.
I agree. There is no stability but there IS continuity. So the candle flame is continually changing but it does have continuity while the supporting conditions persist.
Spiny
-From my perspective, one implication suggests perhaps we are like cells of a broader organism that is regenerating itself, much like the cells in the human body...
I've often wondered if natural selection is really a kind of instinct.
-I've been pursuing this line of inquiry for the past ten years (no joke, though it sounds like one :-) and I've reached the conclusion if there is a Broader Organism, it would appear that it probably has only one main attribute: self preservation/creation (read: continuity of the Broader Organism), and a mechanism is evolution...
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@lobster said: @Will_Baker the implications are for me more like the transfer through language (that you mention), life experience stories, behaviour memes, social and dharma heritage and so on.
The idea that a human becomes a worm, other than as a meal - and then back again is an ancient discredited evolutionary, non-evidential, superstitious, superseded model. I do not need to buy it when better models of how development occurs exist.
I found this earlier conversation helpful, particularly the last comment, which might be pertinent to your point ... http://opcoa.st/PdsX2
Remember the candle flame. It continues to burn so long as the conditions are present, even though at any one moment you can say the entirety of the flame is different than it was a moment ago. It's the same with our mind and all the vastness it contains; as long as the conditions are present to support it, it will continue to burn... but it will change dependent upon conditions as well, so it can discern the true nature of reality and become free of ignorance.
I agree. There is no stability but there IS continuity. So the candle flame is continually changing but it does have continuity while the supporting conditions persist.
Spiny
-From my perspective, one implication suggests perhaps we are like cells of a broader organism that is regenerating itself, much like the cells in the human body...
I've often wondered if natural selection is really a kind of instinct.
-I've been pursuing this line of inquiry for the past ten years (no joke, though it sounds like one :-) and I've reached the conclusion if there is a Broader Organism, it would appear that it probably has only one main attribute: self preservation/creation (read: continuity of the Broader Organism), and a mechanism is evolution...
What exactly do you mean by this broader organism? Like are we like the cells or proteins for some multi universe being? What sort of things make or allow you to think this could be the case?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@lobster said: @Will_Baker the implications are for me more like the transfer through language (that you mention), life experience stories, behaviour memes, social and dharma heritage and so on.
The idea that a human becomes a worm, other than as a meal - and then back again is an ancient discredited evolutionary, non-evidential, superstitious, superseded model. I do not need to buy it when better models of how development occurs exist.
I found this earlier conversation helpful, particularly the last comment, which might be pertinent to your point ... http://opcoa.st/PdsX2
Remember the candle flame. It continues to burn so long as the conditions are present, even though at any one moment you can say the entirety of the flame is different than it was a moment ago. It's the same with our mind and all the vastness it contains; as long as the conditions are present to support it, it will continue to burn... but it will change dependent upon conditions as well, so it can discern the true nature of reality and become free of ignorance.
I agree. There is no stability but there IS continuity. So the candle flame is continually changing but it does have continuity while the supporting conditions persist.
Spiny
-From my perspective, one implication suggests perhaps we are like cells of a broader organism that is regenerating itself, much like the cells in the human body...
I've often wondered if natural selection is really a kind of instinct.
An instinct of the universe? So like evolution has some sort of intentional direction?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
A good argument for brain development. It doesn't address the hard problem of consciousness though, namely how does the development of brain processes give rise to subjective experiences. What in the physical workings of the brain gives us a clue that we have consciousness?
Personally I think the alternative is more likely and better informed.
At what point in a degenerative close down does the consciousness leave?
Here is again a more informed understanding. I am sure better examples/models can be found ... http://opcoa.st/PdSK5
I'll take this opportunity to point out the flaw I see with this article.
Firstly the author is the founder of Skeptic magazine and sort of a lead public spokesman for the Skepticism movement. So he's not really giving the scientific argument, he's giving the skeptic argument using science to back up his view.
Mostly the article refutes an idealistic view of the mind, that the mind does the processing and the brain only acts as the receiver and that mind actually produces matter. I agree with his refutation of this notion and I think his arguments are solid. So I think he is refuting a sort of straw man notion of consciousness compared to the actual "hard problem of consciousness" which he doesn't address but claims to refute.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@lobster said: @Will_Baker the implications are for me more like the transfer through language (that you mention), life experience stories, behaviour memes, social and dharma heritage and so on.
The idea that a human becomes a worm, other than as a meal - and then back again is an ancient discredited evolutionary, non-evidential, superstitious, superseded model. I do not need to buy it when better models of how development occurs exist.
I found this earlier conversation helpful, particularly the last comment, which might be pertinent to your point ... http://opcoa.st/PdsX2
Remember the candle flame. It continues to burn so long as the conditions are present, even though at any one moment you can say the entirety of the flame is different than it was a moment ago. It's the same with our mind and all the vastness it contains; as long as the conditions are present to support it, it will continue to burn... but it will change dependent upon conditions as well, so it can discern the true nature of reality and become free of ignorance.
I agree. There is no stability but there IS continuity. So the candle flame is continually changing but it does have continuity while the supporting conditions persist.
Spiny
-From my perspective, one implication suggests perhaps we are like cells of a broader organism that is regenerating itself, much like the cells in the human body...
I've often wondered if natural selection is really a kind of instinct.
An instinct of the universe? So like evolution has some sort of intentional direction?
I don't think intent plays a role in instinct but there does seem to be a mechanism that chooses what is beneficial.
@Blondel said:
In Buddhism it is consciousness (viññāna/vijnāna) that transmigrates.
'Or if consciousness, having entered the mother's womb, were to be deflected, would mind-and-body [nama-rupa] come to birth in this life?' 'No, Lord.' 'And if the consciousness of such a tender young being, boy or girl, were thus cut off, would mind-and-body grow, develop and mature?' 'No, Lord.' 'Therefore, Ananda , just this, namely consciousness, is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition of mind-and-body" (D.ii.63).
If consciosness does transmigrate, it would be no different than atoms reforming, or matter being rearranged because there is no self involved.
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html
In other words we have no say in how consciousness arises, departs, or predetermine its length.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@lobster said: @Will_Baker the implications are for me more like the transfer through language (that you mention), life experience stories, behaviour memes, social and dharma heritage and so on.
The idea that a human becomes a worm, other than as a meal - and then back again is an ancient discredited evolutionary, non-evidential, superstitious, superseded model. I do not need to buy it when better models of how development occurs exist.
I found this earlier conversation helpful, particularly the last comment, which might be pertinent to your point ... http://opcoa.st/PdsX2
Remember the candle flame. It continues to burn so long as the conditions are present, even though at any one moment you can say the entirety of the flame is different than it was a moment ago. It's the same with our mind and all the vastness it contains; as long as the conditions are present to support it, it will continue to burn... but it will change dependent upon conditions as well, so it can discern the true nature of reality and become free of ignorance.
I agree. There is no stability but there IS continuity. So the candle flame is continually changing but it does have continuity while the supporting conditions persist.
Spiny
-From my perspective, one implication suggests perhaps we are like cells of a broader organism that is regenerating itself, much like the cells in the human body...
I've often wondered if natural selection is really a kind of instinct.
An instinct of the universe? So like evolution has some sort of intentional direction?
I don't think intent plays a role in instinct but there does seem to be a mechanism that chooses what is beneficial.
Some of the arguments against Intelligent Design come to mind. Like if there is a mechanism outside of "survival of the fittest" how would you explain bad designs like the laryngeal nerve of the girrafe or the blind spot in the human eye. These things don't seem to be beneficial but are explainable by evolution. Also, why did it take so many millions and billions of years to get to where we are, with dead ends and unbeneficial characteristics if there was a hidden mechanism promoting beneficial traits?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@lobster said: @Will_Baker the implications are for me more like the transfer through language (that you mention), life experience stories, behaviour memes, social and dharma heritage and so on.
The idea that a human becomes a worm, other than as a meal - and then back again is an ancient discredited evolutionary, non-evidential, superstitious, superseded model. I do not need to buy it when better models of how development occurs exist.
I found this earlier conversation helpful, particularly the last comment, which might be pertinent to your point ... http://opcoa.st/PdsX2
Remember the candle flame. It continues to burn so long as the conditions are present, even though at any one moment you can say the entirety of the flame is different than it was a moment ago. It's the same with our mind and all the vastness it contains; as long as the conditions are present to support it, it will continue to burn... but it will change dependent upon conditions as well, so it can discern the true nature of reality and become free of ignorance.
I agree. There is no stability but there IS continuity. So the candle flame is continually changing but it does have continuity while the supporting conditions persist.
Spiny
-From my perspective, one implication suggests perhaps we are like cells of a broader organism that is regenerating itself, much like the cells in the human body...
I've often wondered if natural selection is really a kind of instinct.
An instinct of the universe? So like evolution has some sort of intentional direction?
I don't think intent plays a role in instinct but there does seem to be a mechanism that chooses what is beneficial.
Some of the arguments against Intelligent Design come to mind. Like if there is a mechanism outside of "survival of the fittest" how would you explain bad designs like the laryngeal nerve of the girrafe or the blind spot in the human eye. These things don't seem to be beneficial but are explainable by evolution. Also, why did it take so many millions and billions of years to get to where we are, with dead ends and unbeneficial characteristics if there was a hidden mechanism promoting beneficial traits?
Trial and error. That would seem to indicate some kind of intent or motivating factor but not all the information is available. If the cosmos is a kind of intelligence it doesn't follow that it is all powerful or even knows what's going on or how it does what it does.
I reject the idea of intelligent design or creationism but that's a different ball of wax.
I'm haven't come to any conclusions but there's probably more to this than meets the eye.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@lobster said: @Will_Baker the implications are for me more like the transfer through language (that you mention), life experience stories, behaviour memes, social and dharma heritage and so on.
The idea that a human becomes a worm, other than as a meal - and then back again is an ancient discredited evolutionary, non-evidential, superstitious, superseded model. I do not need to buy it when better models of how development occurs exist.
I found this earlier conversation helpful, particularly the last comment, which might be pertinent to your point ... http://opcoa.st/PdsX2
Remember the candle flame. It continues to burn so long as the conditions are present, even though at any one moment you can say the entirety of the flame is different than it was a moment ago. It's the same with our mind and all the vastness it contains; as long as the conditions are present to support it, it will continue to burn... but it will change dependent upon conditions as well, so it can discern the true nature of reality and become free of ignorance.
I agree. There is no stability but there IS continuity. So the candle flame is continually changing but it does have continuity while the supporting conditions persist.
Spiny
-From my perspective, one implication suggests perhaps we are like cells of a broader organism that is regenerating itself, much like the cells in the human body...
I've often wondered if natural selection is really a kind of instinct.
An instinct of the universe? So like evolution has some sort of intentional direction?
I don't think intent plays a role in instinct but there does seem to be a mechanism that chooses what is beneficial.
Some of the arguments against Intelligent Design come to mind. Like if there is a mechanism outside of "survival of the fittest" how would you explain bad designs like the laryngeal nerve of the girrafe or the blind spot in the human eye. These things don't seem to be beneficial but are explainable by evolution. Also, why did it take so many millions and billions of years to get to where we are, with dead ends and unbeneficial characteristics if there was a hidden mechanism promoting beneficial traits?
Trial and error.
I'm haven't come to any conclusions but there's probably more to it than meets the eye.
Alright, yeah, that's the way science says it works. I guess I don't understand then what factor that instinct you posited plays in the whole thing.
I think the current Theory explains it well enough if not fully. The intuitive appearance of evolution seems to show some direction or purpose but when I understood the way it is explained via random mutation and natural selection, or trial and error, there doesn't seem to be any need for anything else.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@lobster said: @Will_Baker the implications are for me more like the transfer through language (that you mention), life experience stories, behaviour memes, social and dharma heritage and so on.
The idea that a human becomes a worm, other than as a meal - and then back again is an ancient discredited evolutionary, non-evidential, superstitious, superseded model. I do not need to buy it when better models of how development occurs exist.
I found this earlier conversation helpful, particularly the last comment, which might be pertinent to your point ... http://opcoa.st/PdsX2
Remember the candle flame. It continues to burn so long as the conditions are present, even though at any one moment you can say the entirety of the flame is different than it was a moment ago. It's the same with our mind and all the vastness it contains; as long as the conditions are present to support it, it will continue to burn... but it will change dependent upon conditions as well, so it can discern the true nature of reality and become free of ignorance.
I agree. There is no stability but there IS continuity. So the candle flame is continually changing but it does have continuity while the supporting conditions persist.
Spiny
-From my perspective, one implication suggests perhaps we are like cells of a broader organism that is regenerating itself, much like the cells in the human body...
I've often wondered if natural selection is really a kind of instinct.
An instinct of the universe? So like evolution has some sort of intentional direction?
I don't think intent plays a role in instinct but there does seem to be a mechanism that chooses what is beneficial.
Some of the arguments against Intelligent Design come to mind. Like if there is a mechanism outside of "survival of the fittest" how would you explain bad designs like the laryngeal nerve of the girrafe or the blind spot in the human eye. These things don't seem to be beneficial but are explainable by evolution. Also, why did it take so many millions and billions of years to get to where we are, with dead ends and unbeneficial characteristics if there was a hidden mechanism promoting beneficial traits?
Trial and error.
I'm haven't come to any conclusions but there's probably more to it than meets the eye.
Alright, yeah, that's the way science says it works. I guess I don't understand then what factor that instinct you posited plays in the whole thing.
I didn't really posit instinctual evolution I am merely suggesting it's possible and even probable going from all the current information as I see it when instinct is taken into account.
I think the current Theory explains it well enough if not fully. The intuitive appearance of evolution seems to show some direction or purpose but when I understood the way it is explained via random mutation and natural selection, or trial and error, there doesn't seem to be any need for anything else.
What need are you referring to?
It could be argued that natural selection and trial and error imply a preferred outcome of sorts.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I think you aren't really understanding how evolution works. It seems to me like you're making a common error, thinking that random mutation is the end all be all of evolution.
It could be argued that natural selection and trial and error imply a preferred outcome of sorts.
Natural selection does imply a preferred outcome, it prefers the individuals more suited to their environment, that aspect of evolution is the opposite of random. If you have Netflix I'd recommend watching the second episode of Cosmos, it focuses on evolution.
Also remember evolution is not about 'gradual improvement'. It is about fitness for a niche arising. So for example some dinosaurs ended up in trees, as birds. Most died out. Humans could fall prey to highly adaptive 'stupid' viruses. Pattern seeking, an evolutionary human trait, insists on finding a mechanism to explain dukkha. Karma from previous incarnations is one such attempt.
... and now back to the rebirth of emptyness ...
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I think you aren't really understanding how evolution works. It seems to me like you're making a common error, thinking that random mutation is the end all be all of evolution.
Not at all. What makes you think that?
It could be argued that natural selection and trial and error imply a preferred outcome of sorts.
Natural selection does imply a preferred outcome, it prefers the individuals more suited to their environment, that aspect of evolution is the opposite of random. If you have Netflix I'd recommend watching the second episode of Cosmos, it focuses on evolution.
I've watched them all (one of my favorite shows). It doesn't negate the idea that evolution runs on instinct but I'm all ears if you can show it.
Also I didn't say anything about selection being random.
Are you sure you're understanding what I'm getting at?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I think you aren't really understanding how evolution works. It seems to me like you're making a common error, thinking that random mutation is the end all be all of evolution.
Not at all. What makes you think that?
I think I understand it, you think you understand it and yet we don't agree. I'm trying to figure out what we are disagreeing about exactly. Some sort of instinct which is additional to random mutation and natural selection.
It could be argued that natural selection and trial and error imply a preferred outcome of sorts.
Natural selection does imply a preferred outcome, it prefers the individuals more suited to their environment, that aspect of evolution is the opposite of random. If you have Netflix I'd recommend watching the second episode of Cosmos, it focuses on evolution.
I've watched them all (one of my favorite shows). It doesn't negate the idea that evolution runs on instinct but I'm all ears if you can show it.
Also I didn't say anything about selection being random.
Are you sure you're understanding what I'm getting at?
I absolutely am not picking up what you're putting down.
Are you talking about the instinct of the individual for survival propelling selection? Like if an individual preferred for survival and propagation didn't have the instinct for preservation then evolution wouldn't have a direction?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I think you aren't really understanding how evolution works. It seems to me like you're making a common error, thinking that random mutation is the end all be all of evolution.
Not at all. What makes you think that?
I think I understand it, you think you understand it and yet we don't agree. I'm trying to figure out what we are disagreeing about exactly. Some sort of instinct which is additional to random mutation and natural selection.
I have no idea what you are disagreeing with either. All I did was say I've often wondered if instinct plays a role in natural selection.
It could be argued that natural selection and trial and error imply a preferred outcome of sorts.
Natural selection does imply a preferred outcome, it prefers the individuals more suited to their environment, that aspect of evolution is the opposite of random. If you have Netflix I'd recommend watching the second episode of Cosmos, it focuses on evolution.
I've watched them all (one of my favorite shows). It doesn't negate the idea that evolution runs on instinct but I'm all ears if you can show it.
Also I didn't say anything about selection being random.
Are you sure you're understanding what I'm getting at?
I absolutely am not picking up what you're putting down.
Are you talking about the instinct of the individual for survival propelling selection? Like if an individual preferred for survival and propagation didn't have the instinct for preservation then evolution wouldn't have a direction?
Uhh... No.
No idea how you got that out of what I said.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I think you aren't really understanding how evolution works. It seems to me like you're making a common error, thinking that random mutation is the end all be all of evolution.
Not at all. What makes you think that?
I think I understand it, you think you understand it and yet we don't agree. I'm trying to figure out what we are disagreeing about exactly. Some sort of instinct which is additional to random mutation and natural selection.
I have no idea what you are disagreeing with either. All I did was say I've often wondered if instinct plays a role in natural selection.
It could be argued that natural selection and trial and error imply a preferred outcome of sorts.
Natural selection does imply a preferred outcome, it prefers the individuals more suited to their environment, that aspect of evolution is the opposite of random. If you have Netflix I'd recommend watching the second episode of Cosmos, it focuses on evolution.
I've watched them all (one of my favorite shows). It doesn't negate the idea that evolution runs on instinct but I'm all ears if you can show it.
Also I didn't say anything about selection being random.
Are you sure you're understanding what I'm getting at?
I absolutely am not picking up what you're putting down.
Are you talking about the instinct of the individual for survival propelling selection? Like if an individual preferred for survival and propagation didn't have the instinct for preservation then evolution wouldn't have a direction?
Uhh... No.
I guess I don't understand what you mean by instinct in this case. I could keep guessing but it'd probably be better if you can try to explain what role instinct might play in evolution.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@person, all I'm saying is that it's possible that the universe itself behaves certain ways because of an instinctual awareness not unlike the role instinct plays in the individual organism but I am not staking a claim in any case.
Natural selection may have a preferred outcome but I don't. I'm just curious.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said: @person, all I'm saying is that it's possible that the universe itself behaves certain ways because of an instinctual awareness not unlike the role instinct plays in the individual organism but I am not staking a claim in any case.
Natural selection may have a preferred outcome but I don't. I'm just curious.
Thanks, I guess it can't really be ruled out. But evolution works just fine without it so I don't think anything in evolution gives an indication for the existence of a universal instinctual awareness.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Is anybody still talking about 'Mind after Death, at all? or are we swinging through the branches of Darwin's origins of the species?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@federica said:
Is anybody still talking about 'Mind after Death, at all? or are we swinging through the branches of Darwin's origins of the species?
I think so. The possibilities are staggering and if there is some sort of primordial state of mind then there are possible implications for the relationship between mind and body and mind after body.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said: @person, all I'm saying is that it's possible that the universe itself behaves certain ways because of an instinctual awareness not unlike the role instinct plays in the individual organism but I am not staking a claim in any case.
Natural selection may have a preferred outcome but I don't. I'm just curious.
Thanks, I guess it can't really be ruled out. But evolution works just fine without it so I don't think anything in evolution gives an indication for the existence of a universal instinctual awareness.
I'm not saying the theory doesn't work without adding to it but evolution doesn't fully account for or explain things like instinct, the hard problem of consciousness or the true nature of mind.
And it isn't supposed to.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited September 2016
@David said:....I think so. The possibilities are staggering and if there is some sort of primordial state of mind then there are possible implications for the relationship between mind and body and mind after body.
Ok, well, here's part of a message I wrote to someone which I think may be appropriate here:
..."While I do not exclude myself from this at all, we all tend to steer away from the topic in hand, and divert the discussion rather freely. It's just a question of keeping the original 'chat' in mind. The things you post are interesting. New threads are always welcome as appropriate.
Bear in mind also, that the original poster was asking a question, the responses to which, now, may be completely beyond their comprehension, or interest.
There's an element of, how can I put it....'disrespect'...? when the thread is "hijacked" for 'your' (generic) own personal agenda of discussion.
Bear in mind that if the thread is not 'yours' (again, generic) it's kinder to stay as much on topic for the thread starter as such discussion will permit.
Do you see?"
2
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:....I think so. The possibilities are staggering and if there is some sort of primordial state of mind then there are possible implications for the relationship between mind and body and mind after body.
Ok, well, here's part of a message I wrote to someone which I think may be appropriate here:
..."While I do not exclude myself from this at all, we all tend to steer away from the topic in hand, and divert the discussion rather freely. It's just a question of keeping the original 'chat' in mind. The things you post are interesting. New threads are always welcome as appropriate.
Bear in mind also, that the original poster was asking a question, the responses to which, now, may be completely beyond their comprehension, or interest.
There's an element of, how can I put it....'disrespect'...? when the thread is "hijacked" for 'your' (generic) own personal agenda of discussion.
Bear in mind that if the thread is not 'yours' (again, generic) it's kinder to stay as much on topic for the thread starter as such discussion will permit.
Do you see?"
Yes, the evolution thing did kind of get off track. But evolution was tied into the possibility of a larger universal intelligence which has a tangential relation to mind after death.
Anyway, I was looking for clarification on @David's first mention of instinct and the back and forth took off.
And now back to your originally scheduled thread...
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I do see and I didn't mean to go off track but when we get into the nitty-gritty of these sorts of threads it's bound to get tangled. Even just asking for clarification on one aspect of the discussion can lead down a rabbit hole.
However, a hijacked thread is not the intent so hopefully the O/P isn't scared away.
@David said:....I think so. The possibilities are staggering and if there is some sort of primordial state of mind then there are possible implications for the relationship between mind and body and mind after body.
Ok, well, here's part of a message I wrote to someone which I think may be appropriate here:
..."While I do not exclude myself from this at all, we all tend to steer away from the topic in hand, and divert the discussion rather freely. It's just a question of keeping the original 'chat' in mind. The things you post are interesting. New threads are always welcome as appropriate.
Bear in mind also, that the original poster was asking a question, the responses to which, now, may be completely beyond their comprehension, or interest.
There's an element of, how can I put it....'disrespect'...? when the thread is "hijacked" for 'your' (generic) own personal agenda of discussion.
Bear in mind that if the thread is not 'yours' (again, generic) it's kinder to stay as much on topic for the thread starter as such discussion will permit.
Do you see?"
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said: @person, all I'm saying is that it's possible that the universe itself behaves certain ways because of an instinctual awareness not unlike the role instinct plays in the individual organism but I am not staking a claim in any case.
Natural selection may have a preferred outcome but I don't. I'm just curious.
Thanks, I guess it can't really be ruled out. But evolution works just fine without it so I don't think anything in evolution gives an indication for the existence of a universal instinctual awareness.
I'm not saying the theory doesn't work without adding to it but evolution doesn't fully account for or explain things like instinct, the hard problem of consciousness or the true nature of mind.
And it isn't supposed to.
At the risk of reigniting this tangent.
I think instinct is accounted for by evolution. Remember the example from Cosmos about the domestication of wolves. Some wolves' instinct was to stay away from man while some were less afraid and willing to get close enough to eat scraps. This difference in instinct led to dogs, other behaviors can be selected for just as readily as physical traits. There are loads of scientific papers on the evolution of behavior. Some behavior, of course, is environmentally learned. If you really want to fit karma in there, maybe there is some room in the random mutation part. Like maybe there is no such thing as randomness and karma is the hidden variable
The hard problem of consciousness hasn't been and might not be fully explainable by evolution, but thinking, feeling creatures are.
I don't know what you mean by the true nature of mind so I can't comment on that.
Comments
It's 'The Big Sleep' Raymond Chandler referred to, isn't it?
You mean like a finished smile does not go away or a brain feeding worms is still functioning/smiling independently of lips/means?
OP, IMO Dr. Alexander gets a little too religious in his accounting of his experience. He has a couple of videos on youtube where he discusses it, so I'll review those, and maybe we can discuss.
But yes, it's great that a neuroscientist has given a first-hand experience.
Another excellent book on the subject, a must-read, really, is Pim Van Lommel's Consciousness Beyond Life. The author is a heart surgeon who for years dismissed the NDE stories his patients told him after being revived from cardiac arrest or surgery, but after too many stories accumulated for him to ignore, he decided to investigate. He did some scientific research on current theory of physics on the nature of consciousness, as well as keeping records of procedures and medical equipment read-outs during surgery, files of patient interviews, etc. He has a chapter in which he presents all the arguments against NDE's, and refutes every one, including the hypoperfusion one from the aerospace industry.
Here's the book on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Beyond-Life-Near-Death-Experience/dp/0061777269
The more I think about mind, the more I sense a mystical aspect that my mundane mind wants to keep doubting.
True. Death is like never waking up again.
-No, I was referring to cause and effect; the electrical impulses imprinting on an organic computer and then the program/data being transferred such that it imprints on another organic computer. A related part would be along the lines of how a paradigm shift works or the phenomenon of group-think... Hegel's Weltgeist (read:World Spirit) touches on it. Did you invent the language you are using to communicate with? If not are the folks still alive who did develop the language? If they are dead but you are utilizing the language they developed, was this language program/data somehow transferred to you, and is it not running on your organic computer?
Does the Mind continue after Death?
One perspective is as follows:
Kai-jo-ju e-ku, Kai-jo-ju-e-ku....
Birth-age-maturity-decline-death, Birth-age...
Roughly put, but that is the wheel of life.
We are born (become sentient)
We age (mature)
We reach maturity (our peak)
We decline (grow 'old')
We die (enter non-sentience)
Repeat all the above
Again
Again...
Our goal is to not escape the cycle, but to remove the suffering(s) of the cycle
Thus our 'mind' does not cease - our awareness (sentience) comes and goes do waves upon the ocean.
Peace to all
I have always found the cases of children remembering their past lives or details about things in the past they could not have known pretty interesting. It makes for an interesting argument that perhaps all these memories are just locked away.
http://www.iisis.net/index.php?page=ian-stevenson-semkiw-childhood-memories-reincarnation-past-life-lives
I've been in that site. Found the Robert Snow one the most convincing.
What is the transfer mechanism? What evidence is there for it?
Do you mean something like this?
http://opcoa.st/PdDkd
-Well, Exhibit A of the evidence would be the fact that a language program is currently running on your organic computer that you did not invent/develop. Furthermore, this language program was most probably developed by folks who are long dead. In this case, one aspect of the transfer mechanism would be experiential learning...
Death is waking up and realizing you are home.
Aside from an opinion on an existence of a supposed "life after death," imagining the thought of it is deeply terrifying, reminscent of a supposed "hell."
An eternity of conciousness. And an eternity after that, and infinitely so on. This, I find, is far harder to comprehend than death of the body and consciousness. It also seems infinitely awful and torturous.
Very interesting questions/thoughts. Maybe it's not so much the possibility of 'eternal' life/consciousness of some sort, but the imagining (!) that it's something that we have no control over - it very well may be that we do. It's a matter of figuring out how to take control.
-In re-reading this thread I realize I didn't comment on the content in your link. In one way, yes, this is where I'm coming from, but in a more academic sense :-) What interests me most, though, are the implications which flow from my position...
@Will_Baker the implications are for me more like the transfer through language (that you mention), life experience stories, behaviour memes, social and dharma heritage and so on.
The idea that a human becomes a worm, other than as a meal - and then back again is an ancient discredited evolutionary, non-evidential, superstitious, superseded model. I do not need to buy it when better models of how development occurs exist.
I found this earlier conversation helpful, particularly the last comment, which might be pertinent to your point ...
http://opcoa.st/PdsX2
I agree. There is no stability but there IS continuity. So the candle flame is continually changing but it does have continuity while the supporting conditions persist.
Spiny
You'll be so blissed out, you won't even notice the infinite nature of it.
So where will we go then, if we want to be reborn, and have another go?
What concerns me a little is that by the time we all keel, and go through a process "on the other side", and arrive at a point when we might feel ready to try "life" again, the planet we've come to know and love will be toast.
Beats me if there is such a system but if there is, I highly doubt this particular planet formed by this particular big bang is the only place to go.
In Buddhism it is consciousness (viññāna/vijnāna) that transmigrates.
Given the state of knowledge at the time, a reasonable but in my opinion, flawed understanding
Alternatively:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/
Personally I think the alternative is more likely and better informed.
At what point in a degenerative close down does the consciousness leave?
Here is again a more informed understanding. I am sure better examples/models can be found ...
http://opcoa.st/PdSK5
Clearly not all Buddhists require ancient ignorance or adherence to dogma ...
Some do.
That's very interesting. Thank you for posting this. So, how, or whence, does consciousness enter the mother's womb? This is fascinating.
I think the perspective of the Near Death Experiencers to some extent conforms to the Buddhist view; as life is snuffed out, the consciousness leaves the body and goes to another realm. Eventually, it returns to inspire another life, entering sometime before birth.
Probably so. Then we'd better not get to attached to any places on Earth, since we probably won't be coming back here.
Hopefully the beings on the planet where we end up will be managing it better than humans did, here.
Aw, hey... Don't be so down on us humans, we are learning as we go and we make mistakes. Sure, no other species has caused suffering on such a grand scale but no other species has the ability yet either.
Every poster that has posted these loving and concerned posts has been human so far.
All we have to do is clean up our act and by looking at the youth of today I'd say we're not too far off from a new kind of society with far less division.
I think a positive outlook is beneficial especially when talking about something like a continuation after death.
I'm not even sure mind dies or ever makes it all the way to death because of how time behaves in dreams. I've had dreams that have taken place over days or even longer but I only had a few hours sleep. We could possibly live many lifetimes in that last blink of an eye.
I'm not sure I explained that very well but it could be possible that what we truly think will happen is what will happen. That's why I think the idea of Hell is a horrible belief for those deemed "not good enough" by anyone's standards but especially their own.
Geez, that was kind of a ramble.
-From my perspective, one implication suggests perhaps we are like cells of a broader organism that is regenerating itself, much like the cells in the human body...
I've often wondered if natural selection is really a kind of instinct.
-I've been pursuing this line of inquiry for the past ten years (no joke, though it sounds like one :-) and I've reached the conclusion if there is a Broader Organism, it would appear that it probably has only one main attribute: self preservation/creation (read: continuity of the Broader Organism), and a mechanism is evolution...
What exactly do you mean by this broader organism? Like are we like the cells or proteins for some multi universe being? What sort of things make or allow you to think this could be the case?
An instinct of the universe? So like evolution has some sort of intentional direction?
A good argument for brain development. It doesn't address the hard problem of consciousness though, namely how does the development of brain processes give rise to subjective experiences. What in the physical workings of the brain gives us a clue that we have consciousness?
I'll take this opportunity to point out the flaw I see with this article.
Firstly the author is the founder of Skeptic magazine and sort of a lead public spokesman for the Skepticism movement. So he's not really giving the scientific argument, he's giving the skeptic argument using science to back up his view.
Mostly the article refutes an idealistic view of the mind, that the mind does the processing and the brain only acts as the receiver and that mind actually produces matter. I agree with his refutation of this notion and I think his arguments are solid. So I think he is refuting a sort of straw man notion of consciousness compared to the actual "hard problem of consciousness" which he doesn't address but claims to refute.
I don't think intent plays a role in instinct but there does seem to be a mechanism that chooses what is beneficial.
If consciosness does transmigrate, it would be no different than atoms reforming, or matter being rearranged because there is no self involved.
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html
In other words we have no say in how consciousness arises, departs, or predetermine its length.
Some of the arguments against Intelligent Design come to mind. Like if there is a mechanism outside of "survival of the fittest" how would you explain bad designs like the laryngeal nerve of the girrafe or the blind spot in the human eye. These things don't seem to be beneficial but are explainable by evolution. Also, why did it take so many millions and billions of years to get to where we are, with dead ends and unbeneficial characteristics if there was a hidden mechanism promoting beneficial traits?
Trial and error. That would seem to indicate some kind of intent or motivating factor but not all the information is available. If the cosmos is a kind of intelligence it doesn't follow that it is all powerful or even knows what's going on or how it does what it does.
I reject the idea of intelligent design or creationism but that's a different ball of wax.
I'm haven't come to any conclusions but there's probably more to this than meets the eye.
Alright, yeah, that's the way science says it works. I guess I don't understand then what factor that instinct you posited plays in the whole thing.
I think the current Theory explains it well enough if not fully. The intuitive appearance of evolution seems to show some direction or purpose but when I understood the way it is explained via random mutation and natural selection, or trial and error, there doesn't seem to be any need for anything else.
I didn't really posit instinctual evolution I am merely suggesting it's possible and even probable going from all the current information as I see it when instinct is taken into account.
What need are you referring to?
It could be argued that natural selection and trial and error imply a preferred outcome of sorts.
@David
I think you aren't really understanding how evolution works. It seems to me like you're making a common error, thinking that random mutation is the end all be all of evolution.
Natural selection does imply a preferred outcome, it prefers the individuals more suited to their environment, that aspect of evolution is the opposite of random. If you have Netflix I'd recommend watching the second episode of Cosmos, it focuses on evolution.
Also remember evolution is not about 'gradual improvement'. It is about fitness for a niche arising. So for example some dinosaurs ended up in trees, as birds. Most died out. Humans could fall prey to highly adaptive 'stupid' viruses. Pattern seeking, an evolutionary human trait, insists on finding a mechanism to explain dukkha. Karma from previous incarnations is one such attempt.
... and now back to the rebirth of emptyness ...
Not at all. What makes you think that?
I've watched them all (one of my favorite shows). It doesn't negate the idea that evolution runs on instinct but I'm all ears if you can show it.
Also I didn't say anything about selection being random.
Are you sure you're understanding what I'm getting at?
I think I understand it, you think you understand it and yet we don't agree. I'm trying to figure out what we are disagreeing about exactly. Some sort of instinct which is additional to random mutation and natural selection.
I absolutely am not picking up what you're putting down.
Are you talking about the instinct of the individual for survival propelling selection? Like if an individual preferred for survival and propagation didn't have the instinct for preservation then evolution wouldn't have a direction?
I have no idea what you are disagreeing with either. All I did was say I've often wondered if instinct plays a role in natural selection.
Uhh... No.
No idea how you got that out of what I said.
I guess I don't understand what you mean by instinct in this case. I could keep guessing but it'd probably be better if you can try to explain what role instinct might play in evolution.
@person, all I'm saying is that it's possible that the universe itself behaves certain ways because of an instinctual awareness not unlike the role instinct plays in the individual organism but I am not staking a claim in any case.
Natural selection may have a preferred outcome but I don't. I'm just curious.
Thanks, I guess it can't really be ruled out. But evolution works just fine without it so I don't think anything in evolution gives an indication for the existence of a universal instinctual awareness.
Is anybody still talking about 'Mind after Death, at all? or are we swinging through the branches of Darwin's origins of the species?
I think so. The possibilities are staggering and if there is some sort of primordial state of mind then there are possible implications for the relationship between mind and body and mind after body.
I'm not saying the theory doesn't work without adding to it but evolution doesn't fully account for or explain things like instinct, the hard problem of consciousness or the true nature of mind.
And it isn't supposed to.
Ok, well, here's part of a message I wrote to someone which I think may be appropriate here:
..."While I do not exclude myself from this at all, we all tend to steer away from the topic in hand, and divert the discussion rather freely. It's just a question of keeping the original 'chat' in mind. The things you post are interesting. New threads are always welcome as appropriate.
Bear in mind also, that the original poster was asking a question, the responses to which, now, may be completely beyond their comprehension, or interest.
There's an element of, how can I put it....'disrespect'...? when the thread is "hijacked" for 'your' (generic) own personal agenda of discussion.
Bear in mind that if the thread is not 'yours' (again, generic) it's kinder to stay as much on topic for the thread starter as such discussion will permit.
Do you see?"
Yes, the evolution thing did kind of get off track. But evolution was tied into the possibility of a larger universal intelligence which has a tangential relation to mind after death.
Anyway, I was looking for clarification on @David's first mention of instinct and the back and forth took off.
And now back to your originally scheduled thread...
I do see and I didn't mean to go off track but when we get into the nitty-gritty of these sorts of threads it's bound to get tangled. Even just asking for clarification on one aspect of the discussion can lead down a rabbit hole.
However, a hijacked thread is not the intent so hopefully the O/P isn't scared away.
At the risk of reigniting this tangent.
I think instinct is accounted for by evolution. Remember the example from Cosmos about the domestication of wolves. Some wolves' instinct was to stay away from man while some were less afraid and willing to get close enough to eat scraps. This difference in instinct led to dogs, other behaviors can be selected for just as readily as physical traits. There are loads of scientific papers on the evolution of behavior. Some behavior, of course, is environmentally learned. If you really want to fit karma in there, maybe there is some room in the random mutation part. Like maybe there is no such thing as randomness and karma is the hidden variable
The hard problem of consciousness hasn't been and might not be fully explainable by evolution, but thinking, feeling creatures are.
I don't know what you mean by the true nature of mind so I can't comment on that.