Interpenetrating Participatory Role of Consciousness in Guiding Evolution:
The act of procreation is performed by perspectives of consciousness, if not at the level of self-awareness, then at least at the level of sensateness. In other words, some level or aspect of consciousness always participates in choosing whether, when, and where to procreate. Procreation is generally not divorced from consciousness, even if only at the level of sensateness.
Indeed, human beings will soon be consciously, artificially, and directly re-engineering and mutating their genes. Thus, we have conscious, direct, Artificial Evolution, not “natural selection” free of artifice or conscious choice making.
Specific, artificial choice-makings among perspectives of consciousness are not very well or reliably predicted or determined. Nor may we purely or only reduce choice-makings to blind natural determination, devoid of guidance expressed through facilities that defy precise scientific measurement or complete prediction.
Nor are choices affecting evolutionary decisions directed solely on account of precise electrical impulses confined within a “physical” cell or brain. Rather, even impulses within brains are generally triggered in responses synchronized with holographic waves of stimuli from sources including those external to the brain’s experience and beyond its complete measure.
In large part, evolution is byproduct associated with inter-functioning consciousness of choice-making, which itself is byproduct associated with an entire environment of experience of each holographic perspective of consciousness.
A notion of natural selection that supposes evolution is blind or impervious to choices of holographic or holistic consciousness is neither coherent nor helpful to the advancing of a testable or reliable hypothesis. To expect, in pure science, to precisely and indifferently model, control, direct, or predict the evolution of a specifically prescribed complex form of living behavior or consciousness, independent of skilled, artistic, and dignified applications of empathy and mutual faith, is to be religiously incoherent.
When not inconsistent, the notion of natural selection tends to say little more than a truism, that: “What happened, happened.” As a scientifically causal explanation, such a notion utterly fails, partaking more of babbling of incoherent religion than of rigor of science.
The way to get a synchronizing path of evolution across fractal holographies is with a synchronizing agency. The agency that always functions in the eternal-present is the agency that is conscious of the present, i.e., consciousness. Absent consciousness at some level, there is no basis for measuring or apprehending change. There is little meaning to evolutionary change apart from some basis for recording or measuring change.
Whatever the factors that may “cause” change, they cannot be entirely impervious to consciousness. Some level of consciousness always interprets our existential being’ness. No meaningful concept of evolution should ignore that.
It should be no part of a scientific theory relating to evolution to expect to disprove a holistically synchronizing, guiding role for interpenetrating, cooperative, competing, subconscious, intentional, artistic, ambiguous aspects, layers, fluxes, and dignified perspectives of Consciousness (aka, “God”).
The act of procreation is performed by perspectives of consciousness, if not at the level of self-awareness, then at least at the level of sensateness. In other words, some level or aspect of consciousness always participates in choosing whether, when, and where to procreate. Procreation is generally not divorced from consciousness, even if only at the level of sensateness.
Indeed, human beings will soon be consciously, artificially, and directly re-engineering and mutating their genes. Thus, we have conscious, direct, Artificial Evolution, not “natural selection” free of artifice or conscious choice making.
Specific, artificial choice-makings among perspectives of consciousness are not very well or reliably predicted or determined. Nor may we purely or only reduce choice-makings to blind natural determination, devoid of guidance expressed through facilities that defy precise scientific measurement or complete prediction.
Nor are choices affecting evolutionary decisions directed solely on account of precise electrical impulses confined within a “physical” cell or brain. Rather, even impulses within brains are generally triggered in responses synchronized with holographic waves of stimuli from sources including those external to the brain’s experience and beyond its complete measure.
In large part, evolution is byproduct associated with inter-functioning consciousness of choice-making, which itself is byproduct associated with an entire environment of experience of each holographic perspective of consciousness.
A notion of natural selection that supposes evolution is blind or impervious to choices of holographic or holistic consciousness is neither coherent nor helpful to the advancing of a testable or reliable hypothesis. To expect, in pure science, to precisely and indifferently model, control, direct, or predict the evolution of a specifically prescribed complex form of living behavior or consciousness, independent of skilled, artistic, and dignified applications of empathy and mutual faith, is to be religiously incoherent.
When not inconsistent, the notion of natural selection tends to say little more than a truism, that: “What happened, happened.” As a scientifically causal explanation, such a notion utterly fails, partaking more of babbling of incoherent religion than of rigor of science.
The way to get a synchronizing path of evolution across fractal holographies is with a synchronizing agency. The agency that always functions in the eternal-present is the agency that is conscious of the present, i.e., consciousness. Absent consciousness at some level, there is no basis for measuring or apprehending change. There is little meaning to evolutionary change apart from some basis for recording or measuring change.
Whatever the factors that may “cause” change, they cannot be entirely impervious to consciousness. Some level of consciousness always interprets our existential being’ness. No meaningful concept of evolution should ignore that.
It should be no part of a scientific theory relating to evolution to expect to disprove a holistically synchronizing, guiding role for interpenetrating, cooperative, competing, subconscious, intentional, artistic, ambiguous aspects, layers, fluxes, and dignified perspectives of Consciousness (aka, “God”).
.
****
EVOLUTION:
Missing Link --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6DkH9BD8jk; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjUQSGWBOSs&feature=related
Frankenstein Quality of Sentient Evolution --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnKY0Kh8jwA.
1 comment:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/change_some_may_not_want_you_t.html:
Marshallgill ("There are NO scientific theories besides evolution"):
Well, there is little that is scientific about saying, "What happened, happened."
Rather, that is just one form of philosophy.
An alternative form is, "What happened, was caused to happen."
Another alternative form is, "What happened, was intelligently directed to happen."
Another alternative form is, "What happened, happened as a result of consciously artistic play within rules of a game as imaged in a superior Mind."
So, there are alternatives.
And science cannot prove or falsify any such alternative notions, which are not "theories."
But science (or even better, math) may inform reason to rotate one's preference, depending upon context and purpose.
Post a Comment