In short, natural selection is a nothing theory that explains nothing other than "things happen" but it does provide fodder for supremacists and of course materialists/atheists get i their Genesis story. The nice thing though is that there are many, many more theories being dished out by scientists like a Chinese banquet meal, thanks to all the money that is being thrown at it. Of course, all theories support No Mind. Industry only supports materialism because business depends on it.

How about a Superlative Gene Theory that explains why Billionaires are the superior race? Any chance for funding?

Let me provide my own theory of evolution:

The more money that is available for research, the faster the theory of evolution will mutate.

Scientists on the whole can be quite creative when it comes to fundraising.

"Magic" isn't a scientific term. However it is a term used by the religious. Magic is the basis of all religion, actually - not science. — Harry Hindu

Well that's the point, isn't it?

Mutations happen — Harry Hindu

An yes, the it just happens explanation.

Natural selection is just a nice story, without a shred of evidence, that appeals to those seeking fitter and not fitter. The Nazis loved it.

A brief survey of life will reveal that everyone is living, everyone is dying, some a bit earlier than others and some a bit later than others. No big deal either way and as far as humans are concerned, much sooner than turtles and trees. That's about it after billions of years. Lots of variety and as always lots of surprises. The one thing I haven't figured out is why elephants haven't evolved to shoot guns back at the hunters and why we haven't evolved into cockroaches?

This kind of stuff gives me a headache, but for those so inclined here is one perspective of the current state of the evolution of evolutionary theory:

https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

and another:

They are running way in a very novel, creative way, by throwing in a myriad of ancillary new co-theories which neatly hides the old ones. It is such a spaghetti of ideas that any one theory can easily be ignored because there are dozens more being fabricated all the time. That is what $billions of research dollars buys you - new epiphanies one after another. It's crazy observing the conveyor belt of theories rolling out of each research institute. One thing is for sure, natural selection is really old hat. No research dollars for that.

Then we are all just experiments? Humans are simply the current fancy of some intelligent designer and when it grows bored it will eradicate us in favor of something more interesting. — Harry Hindu

The mind experiments and comes up with enumerable variations, and variations within variations. Everyone is experimenting continuously, all of the time, and everyone is continuously adapting. We all have minds and they are always active. The physical manifestations are just one aspect of the experiment. Everything comes and everything goes. There is nothing more fitter or less first than others.

Does knowing that you are merely an experiment make you feel better about yourself than knowing that you are the result of exponential random mutations over eons? — Harry Hindu

The preposterous story of magical mutations that just happen out of thin air and which magically work. Even biologists are running away from. But they can't run to far because then they would have to admit that once again they are all wrong, which would upset the devotees if these magical myths of "it just happens .... over very, very, long periods of time". Behold the wonders of "it just happens".

Evolution is exactly as it seems. Minds, all minds, experimenting, learning, and constantly adapting. Let's just call natural selection a nice tale created by minds for the exactly the same reasons Genesis was created - to fulfill a need.

Life is not a numbers game. It is a learning game.

Trump it's merely a manifestation of middle America anger toward a government that is controlled by and serves the ultra-rich and itself - a mantra of both Sanders and Trump. It is an experiment in throwing chaos into D.C. and we will all learn what we learn from this experiment. Politics is highly unpredicable (as the last election demonstrated) but it is probable that the ultra-rich will stay in control.

The term is relational of course - what is adequate depends on the environment in which a species finds itself. — StreetlightX

All to admire the innumerable variations of all life that inhabits all environments both internal and external. The creative mind, as in football plays, comes up with an enormous variety of ways to play the game, and like a good football player, is always adjusting as the play and game unfolds.

Again, it's not survival of he fittest but survival of the adequate — StreetlightX

All of these definitions come without any definition. What is fittest? What is adequate?

The terms are self-defining. It is adequate until it no longer is.

All of life is an experiment and we learn from it. Stephen Hawkings had survived those doctors who pronounced his early death. Life is going forward without knowing what will be unfold. There is no fittest or adequate, just experimentation.

But what would make some variant useful under the CEM, if not great environmental change? — Harry Hindu

Usefulness is not the guage of creativity. Creativity is interesting onto itself. Most of my life is spent creating. This is why I study the arts. It is precisely the same creativity that a child feels when playing with blocks.

"Mutations" are just experiments. "Let's see what will happen if I do this?"

Life is no more complicated than observing what is actually on occurring. Of course, out of a desire to be creative, one can create all kinds of explanations. However, one creates all kinds of issues in ones life if one chooses to deny and suppress the creative/intelligent aspect that permeates the whole of life.

The mystery is not: How is there Consciousness? but How is there Unconsciousness? That's the thing that's unprovable, unreachable, unimaginable. — Dominic Osborn

Unconsciousness (blackout, dream states, death?) would appear to be a state where access to memory had been impaired, sort of like a TV set that no longer can get a transmission signal. It certainly feels like Will (the Elan vital) has gone yet it can spark to life again once access to memory is restored. It is an extremely interesting phenomenon, yet almost nothing is written about it in any philosophical literature.

One can say this is the transition point.

Of course, one must ask why would a piece of matter with no consciousness seek to survive? Being this, where is any evidence of such a thing? That something survives?? But it also doesn't! Why hasn't all life evolved into rocks following the course of entropy?

Anyway, here is Sheldrake's take on the belief system of science: Naturally the scientists sitting on TED's Board and representing the funding interests had it banned promoting 1.3 million views.

https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

The go to person with all problems relating to current biological theory and an alternative to it would be Rupert Sheldrake. Numerous videos on Youtube. Here is one:

https://youtu.be/MtgLklXZo3U

Yes, this is an interesting aspect. Bergson writes that the disorder (decay) is the waste of life. In other words spent Elan vital.

There's could be a problem of restraint here Rich. Creativity by definition is working against rigidity - against restraint, and yet you've defined it as a restraint on entropy. However without restraint it is entropic in nature. — MikeL

Choice is constrained. Life is self-organizing.

Process is something the mind perceives. Like I said it is second nature to imbue all kinds intelligence into chemicals (processes or otherwise). Whitehead, who was intellectually honest with himself, understood that there had to be a creative mind somewhere and so acknowledged as a form of Divinity. Whitehead was influenced by Bergson. With your explanation it is just "natural". Chemicals that signal each other "yes" is something natural as is awareness of each other. They are just little humans - the processes that is.

I sometimes wonder how many students notice this little sleight of hands but are too scared to question it because they want the A.

Where was "the mind" said or implied? — apokrisis

No where ... except every other word. Imbuing chemicals with a mind has become second nature. What was that again? They signal "yes"? In Morse code maybe or maybe semaphores? That would be an interesting question on a college exam: how do chemicals signal yes to each other? Answer: with a wink of an eye.

The point is that if we actually look at the ground level of life, there is just no mystery. You get intelligent behaviour due to semiotics. A mechanical chain of events connects information to action as a hardwired interpretive habit. — apokrisis

Let's count the number of traits of the mind that this statement attributes to a soup of chemicals:

1) We
2) look
3) mystery
4) intelligent
5) behavior
6) events
7) information
8) interpretative
9) habit

With this little trick of imbuing the mind into a thick group of chemicals we get ..... the mind! Now how did a soup of chemicals come by all of this human characteristics? Well, it took a long time. Simple and straightforward. One only has to buy into talking and self-aware chemicals that miraculously decided to start creating things.

How does mind turn into quanta? How does quanta turn into energy? How does energy turn into solid matter? It doesn't! It is all the same. The mind simply interprets it differently depending upon characteristics (e.g. vibrational frequency). Thus the equivalence as one turns into another. Very simple and such a paradigm doesn't require chemicals desperately trying to survive by all of a sudden working against entropy nor does it require chemicals to start arguing among each other.

Everything we experience is of minds creating together.

This, though, is a people interacting with people issue; not a methodology issue. — javra

Unless it is possible to divorce people from science, then the scientific method will remain a textbook concept. The politics of science are overwhelmingly biased toward money making thus making it goal seeking. No way around it.

Do you know of a better means of figuring out what occurs in our phenomenal/physical world in a way that is minimally clouded by hearsay, personal tall tales, and, sometimes, power seeking deceptions? — javra

The process I use is direct experience which is cross-referenced against many, many references from many disciplines. I look for patterns. Bohm described it as solving paradoxes by seeking differences within similarities and similarities within differences. As a result, I have developed my own system of living my life.

Still, the scientific method is not the culprit here. — javra

The so-called scientific method only exists in textbooks. It has no counterpart anywhere in the world whether in academia or industry. Science had morphed into part goal seeking for monetary benefits and party religion promising people some hope for their utopian dreams (cancer cures are right around the corner and robots will be doing everything while we ball in the sun.). It's really instructive to observe how science has become quite a religion in its own right with adherents who embrace it for the same reasons any religion is embraced, a combination of money, hope, and social benefits.

I in a substantive sense agree with this. It’s easy to then declare myself a panpsychist of sorts, but the truth is that my current gut feelings (which can always be wrong) find a sharp division between inanimate identities and animate ones; logically, I’ve no idea how panspsychism would work. This is what I’m diggin’ in the dirt for. What attribute would an inanimate identity hold that, though not itself being the awareness of life, could be logically presented not as a divide but as a continuum. — javra

Bergson is the go to person for great insight into these ideas. Stephen Robbins in his videos on YouTube does a great job in elucidating on some of Bergson's thoughts. Rupert Sheldrake also takes a partial cut at it.

In so far as the difference of life and inanimate, you can think of the differences as moving in different directions in regards to entropy, inanimate being some decaying aspects of what was formerly life. Call it life's waste product. Interestingly, the preeminent architect Louis Kahn described inanimate matter as the waste of light. Similar ideas. Light is an important phenomenon to study weekend considering the nature of life. All spirituality revolves around life.

Any physicalist is necessarily going to imbue human characteristics or traits into any fundamental
idea. The only alternative is the "it just happens miracle". Whitehead developed a process philosophy but still he needed an impetus so he instilled a God or creative force in his philosophy. It is inevitable. There is a need for some impetus. Bergson called the impetus the Elan vital.

Again, the intended theme here is how one can logically go from inanimate matter to conscious agency.] — javra

This, what is suggested to be a little leap, is actually one giant Whopper of a Tale. Any reference to any mind-trait (e.g. information), is just more obfuscation combined with sleight of hand. To only way science gets away with it, is by saying it very quickly and not waiting for any hands to be raised in object.

This miracle of chemicals developing awareness is in every sense of the phrase a Tall Tale. It was nice viewing the video on the other thread where at least a few academics are brave enough to declare that this Emperor is Buck Naked.

Survival of the Fittest model. — MikeL

The feeling of wanting to survive is a trait of life, not of a soup of chemicals. Survival works against entropy. Materialists have no explanation of how such a trait magically, miraculously springs from some soup of chemicals, in such a way that the chemicals start fighting among each other for survival. They hope that no one notices how outlandish is this story (which is why the indoctrination begins at a very young age, when children cannot question), and if someone should notice, the answer is "It's very complicated and it takes a long time". Is such an answer and more scientific than God did it? There is literally zero evidence for any of this.

A more concrete answer it's that the mind, life, works against entropy in order to create. When one thinks about it, the metaphorical description in the Bible is probably a better description of life and far less miraculous in nature than the story that Evolutionists concocted, i.e. the famous "selfish gene".

The holographic-like universe is patterns of energy and our minds sense some of this energy via our senses. Sound has a vibrationally aspect to it that different minds will interpret in different ways. Ditto for light which the mind interprets with different qualia (intensity, color). Because in differences in our history (and I'm also referring to the transcendental memory of life that sounds multiple physical lives) we perceive differently but because there are species similarities, we will agree on many things, in an approximate sort of way. But nothing is universal. As a snowflake has similarities with differences with other snowflakes, and differences within similarities, so does all of life and life within species.

Such an idea will have a profound impact on the way one views life and lives life. For example, every cell is living and intelligently communicating with other cells (and the bacteria and viruses that are ten times as many as cells in the body), and has the intelligence to heal (correct) if allowed to. Interference in such processes will harm not assist the body. Thus the Body adapts as a whole. The best way to have a healthy life is to nurture the health of your whole body, physically, mentally, spiritually.

Just to change topic a bit: Rich, did you read my post in this thread on seeing sound? How does that fit in with your holographic model of the real world? Is the mind reconstructing the world as it is, or only those aspects it chooses to see? (much like the theme of this OP). — MikeL

Sorry, I missed your post on sound. If you wish to copy it here, I'll read it and see if I have any comments to share with you.

The mind filters and constructs through the brain. Each person (the individual mind) filters and constructs differently. Ditto for each form of life. No one approach is superior or inferior, just different because if creative evolution. So what is "out there" is the result of all like creative evolution. What we perceive is our own evolution. I suspect the humans are far behind other species in its ability to perceive and communicate. What humans are good at are tools.

Working out problems takes lots of patience, lots of skill (it is detective work), a willingness to change and an ability to effect the change. Such an approach requires real dedication on everyone's part but it does make fundamental changes which can become permanent without using toxic drugs.

The other approach is to slam the body with very toxic, suppressive, mind deadening drugs (legal or illegal) and get immediate results. People seem to prefer easy, quick results without concern for the potential consequences. The consequences though are unpredictable since the body is being treated in a very dramatic manner. Addiction is almost a certainty.

It is like a garden. You can take care of weeds by a slow, meticulous process with resorting to chemicals and build a very healthy environment our you can slam it with chemicals and certainly kill the weeds but everything else with it.

Another huge issue is that the drug industry has insurance (particularly government insurance) in a hammer lock and so lots of non-drug treatments aren't covered. It's either taking toxic drugs or figuring out how to pay for it yourself.

You'll find life very easy to understand once the money becomes primary. Everything is exactly as it is experienced. No illusions. No miracles. No, it just happens. The moved is there, it is looking out (and in) there, everything is real, and we are all creating and learning. Results: a real real with purpose and an understanding of the nature of evolution through all life. What you lose is lots of fun trying to figure out how chemicals spring to life (this may have a major economic impact of you are doing it for a living).

Yep, man has evolved so that it claims it has become that what it loves most - a computer, and then spends all of its time its time sitting and playing with its true love while complaining of backaches. Then it takes toxic drugs (truly unique in nature) to kill the pain so that it can continue to sit and play with the computer. I believe man is experimenting with maximizing stupidity. Pretty successful so far.

And, contrary wise, humans can be remarkably dull and blunt. — Bitter Crank

For further evidence, just observe today where people choose over and over again to build their homes in Florida. And observe how many people in Florida choose to stop flying out of airports and spewing junk in the atmosphere creating the very environmental conditions that are destroying their homes. But then again, humans are quite certain that technology will save them against 15 foot storm surges.

I just want to add to this comment that they can. It's adaptation to the environment, best seen through consecutive generations. — MikeL

Yes, this is the essential feature of life. It is continuously learning, adapting and evolving. It is moving against entropy. Tools are in constant state of decaying. They are not self-organizing.

Let's contrast the "scientific explanation" to the creative mind explanation:

1) The Creative Mind explanation recognizes the universal, every day experience of the mind which defines "I".

Science declares it is all a magical illusion that took a very long time to naturally happen and with zero explanation why or how such an illusion can materialized out of a chemical goop.

2) The Creative Mind is constantly learning and evolving which accounts for the evolution and the process of sharing.

Science provides no explanation for the process of learning or communications. It just happen without any explanation of why a soup of chemicals might all of a sudden start sharing experiences or even what is an experience other than an illusion.

3) The Creative Mind seeks to survive so that it can experiment and create.

Science says the chemicals miraculously developed a need to survive in a form and continues to move against entropy in order to keep such a form until it miraculously decides not to.

Science essentially provides no explanation other than a series of nonsensical miracles that "just happen" and then "just stop happening". The Creative Mind recognizes and describes exactly what each person experiences and observed every day of life.

4) In Bergson's analysis everything that is being created is really out there. The Creative Mind is designing into the fabric of the universe (duration) and it is all being shared and observed as part of the universe We are existing in duration. This is real time. Duration is the canvas of the Creative Mind and all of life is involved in Creative Evolution.

Science claims it is all happening in the brain - everything, illusions and all, without any evidence of this or how this miracle developed.

Then what is the point of the hologram? — MikeL

The holographic-like image is the real thing that is being observed out there. The brain is creating the reconstructive wave that is revealing the object.

Right. When the Federal Reserve gives the ultra-rich unlimited access to 1% money, they can buy anything and everything and humans become disposable. Think of it as a game of Monopoly where one player has unlimited access to the bank. The government is owned by the banks and it works for them, just like it was in feudal/slave times. The ultra-rich get the cash and everyone else gets there debt.

You've said it a few times now, so I know it has some significance for you beyond just the words, but it is not giving me any direction for my thoughts. Can you be more precise? — MikeL

Observation is a skill that is developed over time. It is not reading.

Trying drawing something, anything or listening to music or trying to learn a new dance step. from a video. Maybe try growing something. Observe life as it unfolds. Really observe. Over time, you see more and more and more. Deeper and deeper. Wider and wider. Don't read about history, observe it closely as it unfolds. Don't read about medicine. Learn to observe your own health and signs that unfold that reveal healthy and unhealthy lifestyle habits. Look around and build the skill of observation. You'll be amazed at how much is revealed.

Viewing people a commodities is limited in our society. It is mostly held by those who can gain an economic by such propaganda - you know, stuff like people can be replaced by robots (when actually they are being replaced by slave labor all around the world). I have acquaintances in all economic strata, and you'll find such ideas commonplace among the ultra-rich and almost universally rejected by most other economic classes. Still, such ideas are constantly receiving media coverage, media that is now almost completely owned by the super-rich.

So, the hologram is formed, but who views it? — MikeL

Just observe. It is not complicated, though one can make it complicated in order to create a lifetime game or of it.

It is your Mind that is observing. It is peering out through your eyes.

Is the assertion that creativity and learning is the purpose for all life, including moss? — MikeL

Yes. Observe the beauty of the moss. Today, I saw some beautiful, multi-colored carrots grown on an organic farm. So much creative beauty all around us. Of course, the very advanced species of humans creates weapons and pollution. Talk about hubris.

these things (creativity and learning) not simply masks to enable learning that can be applied to survival via complex reasoning later on? — MikeL

No, the child is learning to create and should be encouraged to do so. We sent our child to a Montessori School. Creativity to life. Without it you end up with existentialism and other types of philosophies that suck life out of life. That's the Dark Side.

Creativity is what scientists are doing when the make humans into computers to advance their economic interests. It is also drawing a tree.

Once we begin to be viewed through the collective eyes of "society" we become very much commodified. — MikeL

You might be surprised at how limited is the population that actually believes in such goop. Those who work in the technology or medical fields might, in comes with the territory, but most people view such deplorable descriptions for what they are - propaganda of the ultra-rich. Slave owners of old as well as their feudal lord compatriots would spew out similar turn off phrases so they could use humans to gain wealth and then kill them off. Come to think of it, the Nazis had a very similar philosophy about non-Aryans.

BTW, one can thank modern day science for dehumanization. Humans have become expendable to the point that opioids have become acceptable killers. As for technology, half of all Americans have just had their identities stolen from Equifax and will have to spend a good part of their lives combatting all kinds of identify theft. Trust me, life user to be much, much better.

I totally agree that survival is a side effect without purpose. — MikeL

The purpose of survival is to allow the mind to create. To create and learn it's the purpose of life. If you don't believe me, just observe. This is the Science of Eastern philosophy.

The mind is no more a decoder than it is a steam roller or a cotton gin. I realize that neurology creates such some stories so that people buy into their total mastery of the mind (big money is to be had) but it is just more modern day scientific hogwash. Hoffman, and all academia, had to pay homage to such silliness in order to be academically acceptable (yes, universities have become churches controlled by the priests of the science industry), but I am in no such need to be accepted.

The easiest way to understand the mind is to simply observe patterns as they are actually unfolding in your we everyday experience. It is all real and it is exactly, precisely as you are experiencing it. Your mind is creating and observing what others are creating right smack in the fabric of duration real time). This is the Universe evolving. No decoding, because it is the mind.. Sure can play the mind-is-a-computer game with other academics, but at the end it is just a game and as such you might as well play chess, which is far more instructive about life.

Once you begin to explore the mind as it is, and not just create fireside stories as is popular in academic philosophy, you will find a very rich world to explore in many dimensions. Not only does it enrich life and bring in an abundance of joy and awe, it also allows you to develop a very keen sense of life with a multitude of practical uses, not the least of which is great health in into your senior years via an enriched and keen eyed soul.

Oh, this has to do with your pathological aversion to anything scientific. — Wayfarer

No, Russell obviously had the standard myopic education which apparently much of Western academia relishes. As I said there are some European authors who have allowed their curiosity to extend beyond the very narrow culture of Western Europe. Good for to them. Otherwise, wee can pretend that all history is Western Europe. Who really cares? Those who are curious will find out otherwise and those who aren't can revel in their glory.

BTW, you can do yourself a favor by studying the history of science. It's more than making weapons that go Boom! Or declaring that humans are computers.

If you don't mind, I'm really disgusted right now. I know Russell was narrow minded, but to be this poorly educated about the world is unbelievable. I mean he really said something like this? Well, there is always Jung.