That’s evidence of diversity, not of ‘survival’ as the reason for diversity. The question isn’t ‘why are all these other species extinct?’ It’s ‘why has evolution led to our particular arrangement of systems and structures?’ This myth that survival, dominance and procreation are the prime directives - you know that’s not true. I believe we will go extinct only if we keep insisting that this is the plan
— Possibility

This is a very skewed logic in my opinion and It makes very little sense to me. — universeness

From the website you cited: “Zooming out to look at the bigger picture this means that everything living today is the result of an unbroken sequence of ancestors that goes back at least two billion years. You, me and everyone else on this forum are part of a lucky chain of survivors going back countless generations. Many others didn't make it (even very large groups that are abundant in the fossil record such as the dinosaurs, trilobites, ammonites, graptolites etc.) and most scientists agree this is more to do with luck than some inherent superiority of modern forms.“

If most scientists agree that survival is more luck than superiority, then the notion that they’re extinct because ‘they couldn’t do what humans can’ is unfounded. So, too, the notion that the purpose of evolution is survival, dominance and/or procreation. That, and ‘natural selection’ is a misnomer borrowed from the practice of pigeon breeding - the fact that some variations survived while others didn’t is circumstantial, not by deliberate selection (teleological). Not to mention the fact that our own ‘survival’ over the last 160,000 years is, relatively speaking, a minuscule achievement so far. Nothing to write home about next to so many species that have survived unchanged for many millions of years.

And our relative ‘success’ in terms of dominance and procreation have come at the cost of this ecosystem that sustains us. You said yourself that our prime directive is to ask questions: so what does ‘winning’ really look like? If we do manage to get through this, do you honestly think it will be because of a focus on maximising our individual/species survival, dominance and procreation, or on maximising awareness, connection and collaboration - ie. with the ecosystem/cosmos and each other?

And if we look at a broader, cosmic evolution of structures of existence, a slightly different pattern emerges to the one Darwin saw. A minority of collaborative, homeostatic systems with high variability arise as the foundation for cosmic development at every level, including atomic structure, a carbon basis to life, natural selection, DNA and sexual reproduction, neural networks, social value structures, etc. The high variability in each system enables awareness, which in turn enables connection, which opens the door to collaboration... it seems the cosmos has a trajectory with or without us. So, do we go with the flow, or stick with our own plan?

Well I appreciate you giving me a little room as maybe having genuinely beneficent intentions. — universeness

No problem - I sometimes get caught up in arguing over the little things, and forget to credit the ‘big picture’ thinking going on.

I applaud and approve of your skepticism. You would perhaps make a good scrutineer of those who have been trusted enough, to be given a position of power. I am an advocate of powerful checks and balances fully established and representative of the people who are being represented.
You are right not to trust what people say, only trust what they do and demonstrate. We must insist that if a person holds a significant position of power and influence then their actions must be in the full view of everyone they represent. No autocracy/plutocracy/aristocracy/cult of personality/cult of celebrity/religious doctrine etc should ever be able to gain and hold power at any significant level of society. — universeness

While I do believe in speaking truth to power, my approach is not so much top-down, but more about encouraging a groundswell that leaders will eventually be unable to ignore, isolate or exclude - even if democracy fails. I can really only determine what I think, say and do, after all. If I can’t start there, what hope do I have to change the world?

If most scientists agree that survival is more luck than superiority, then the notion that they’re extinct because ‘they couldn’t do what humans can’ is unfounded. — Possibility

No it's not. Scientists often try to communicate with the public in less 'elitist sounding scientific terminology.'
It's the same idea as saying the Earth is in the 'goldilocks,' zone.
So yes, humans are lucky to be here and not be extinct but the reason they are still here is due to their evolutionary path.

So, too, the notion that the purpose of evolution is survival, dominance and/or procreation. — Possibility

Evolution has no 'purpose,' it is what happens when vast variety combines in a vast number of ways.
Evolution is ongoing and always will be.

That, and ‘natural selection’ is a misnomer borrowed from the practice of pigeon breeding - the fact that some variations survived while others didn’t is circumstantial, not by deliberate selection (teleological). — Possibility

Pigeon breeding is deliberate selection yes, natural selection is not a deliberate selection it's a natural selection there is no misnomer. the natural world does entail 'circumstances' within which some survive and some don't so your point is trivial here. Would you prefer the term 'circumstantial selection?' is that the big point you are making here?

And our relative ‘success’ in terms of dominance and procreation have come at the cost of this ecosystem that sustains us — Possibility

Don't blame the many for the actions of those few who nurture wealth, power and personal status over nurturing people, the planet and all the flora and fauna on it. Join the fight against the nefarious.

If we do manage to get through this, do you honestly think it will be because of a focus on maximising our individual/species survival, dominance and procreation, or on maximising awareness, connection and collaboration - ie. with the ecosystem/cosmos and each other? — Possibility

I think we can and must do both. I don't advocate for an uncontrolled human population explosion that cannot be adequately catered to.

And if we look at a broader, cosmic evolution of structures of existence, a slightly different pattern emerges to the one Darwin saw. — Possibility

What are you referring to here? stars forming from nebulous clouds of hydrogen? acretion disks producing planets? galaxy formation?

A minority of collaborative, homeostatic systems with high variability arise as the foundation for cosmic development at every level, including atomic structure, a carbon basis to life, natural selection, DNA and sexual reproduction, neural networks, social value structures, etc. — Possibility

I think it might be easier to understand what you are typing about if you offer one or two real-world examples to illustrate the points you are trying to make rather than offer a list of generalities.
For example, carbon-based lifeforms are all we know of yes but I don't see what that's got to do with your attempted downplay of the facts of evolution. There may be other base lifeforms in the vast Universe. That would not downplay the facts of evolution as they happened on Earth either.

The high variability in each system enables awareness, which in turn enables connection, which opens the door to collaboration... it seems the cosmos has a trajectory with or without us. So, do we go with the flow, or stick with our own plan? — Possibility

So are these just words in support of a panpsychist viewpoint or are you trying to make some other rather esoteric or metaphysical point I am missing?
I certainly don't think there is a self-aware, manifestation of individuality that we can assign to the word 'cosmos,' which has a 'plan,' or a 'trajectory,' that it's trying to ensure happens.
What do you mean 'go with the flow?' Do you mean stagnate? wait for the 'cosmos' to demonstrate its plan whilst we just watch the pretty flowers grow? Is that the alternate choice to 'stick with our own plan?'

While I do believe in speaking truth to power, my approach is not so much top-down, but more about encouraging a groundswell that leaders will eventually be unable to ignore, isolate or exclude - even if democracy fails. I can really only determine what I think, say and do, after all. If I can’t start there, what hope do I have to change the world? — Possibility

This sounds much more hopeful! I don't care whether you go top-down or bottom-up as long as you are part of the solutions rather than part of the problems. You sound a bit downhearted to me and a bit disappointed in your whole species. In my opinion, the majority of human beings are good and strive, damn hard, every day, to give, build, create, embellish, enhance and pass the baton, not take, destroy, control, indulge, use up and wear out, as the nefarious do. I think you are in the majority.

So yes, humans are lucky to be here and not be extinct but the reason they are still here is due to their evolutionary path. — universeness

Yes, but that path isn't necessarily determined by genes accidentally mutating in a way that the organism changes and the best adapted survives. That's what the dogma of molecular biology tells, but there is zero evidence for that (which is exactly why it's a dogma).

There may be other base lifeforms in the vast Universe. — universeness

That's the same heliocentric (or geocentric) worldview all over again. Why should Earth be special wrt the evolution of life. It's more likely it's based on the same stuff everywhere, around every star. And if interaction is important to consciousness, it's likely that dead matter contains the seed of consciousness. Not that the universe contains god, but it carries their imprint. Who knows what's the nature of the basic stuff they created? It's divine! :starstruck:

So yes, humans are lucky to be here and not be extinct but the reason they are still here is due to their evolutionary path. — universeness

But the evolutionary narrative is not ‘survival’, as much as we wish it was. The reason humans are still here is due to a series of variably stable structural relations.

Evolution has no 'purpose,' it is what happens when vast variety combines in a vast number of ways.
Evolution is ongoing and always will be. — universeness

Agreed. So why configure it as a narrative of ‘survival’, except to allay our primal fears?

I think it might be easier to understand what you are typing about if you offer one or two real-world examples to illustrate the points you are trying to make rather than offer a list of generalities.
For example, carbon-based lifeforms are all we know of yes but I don't see what that's got to do with your attempted downplay of the facts of evolution. There may be other base lifeforms in the vast Universe. That would not downplay the facts of evolution as they happened on Earth either. — universeness

I’m not downplaying the facts of evolution, only questioning the narrative, and suggesting an alternative. And these are not generalities, but ‘goldilocks’ system structures. The imagined possibility of non-carbon-based lifeforms, for example, is along the lines of alchemy. There is nothing beyond logical possibility and curious fascination to suggest it’s worth pursuing. That doesn’t necessarily mean we won’t find any, but it’s hardly a reason to justify our resources at this stage. And preserving the current evolutionary narrative based on this imagined possibility doesn’t seem reasonable, despite the logic.

The logic behind silicon as the most likely candidate for alternative lifeforms is its similarity to the carbon atom in stable variability. The carbon atom is the ‘goldilocks’ of atomic structure: an optimal relation of stability and variability. Before it on the periodic table are less variable atomic structures, after it are less stable ones. This makes it systematically ideal to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration with everything else.

So are these just words in support of a panpsychist viewpoint or are you trying to make some other rather esoteric or metaphysical point I am missing?
I certainly don't think there is a self-aware, manifestation of individuality that we can assign to the word 'cosmos,' which has a 'plan,' or a 'trajectory,' that it's trying to ensure happens.
What do you mean 'go with the flow?' Do you mean stagnate? wait for the 'cosmos' to demonstrate its plan whilst we just watch the pretty flowers grow? Is that the alternate choice to 'stick with our own plan?' — universeness

It’s interesting that I say trajectory, and you assume conscious intentionality. No, I’m not supporting a panpsychist viewpoint, or saying that the cosmos is trying to ensure anything in particular happens. It just all appears to be moving in a particular direction, and we happen to be part of that. Evolution, which we agree to be ongoing and without purpose, is also part of that. We can work with this direction, and in doing so maximise our survival with minimal effort, or we can insist that we’re inherently equipped to determine our own survival plan, and continue to wrestle with forces we’ve yet to fully understand.

Go with the flow does not mean stagnate - that should be obvious. But why fight against a natural flow simply because it’s oblivious to us? Does it make us feel weak? This is where the Tao Te Ching talks about wu wei. When you’re caught in an ocean rip, do you struggle against it to get back to shore? Or do you accept that it will move you in a particular direction, and work with that to reach a better situation without exhausting yourself? We don’t own the effort, attention and time we have available to us. It comes to us from the cosmos and we return it, and everything else does the same. When we understand that, it’s no longer so important that WE are the one to achieve anything.

This sounds much more hopeful! I don't care whether you go top-down or bottom-up as long as you are part of the solutions rather than part of the problems. You sound a bit downhearted to me and a bit disappointed in your whole species. In my opinion, the majority of human beings are good and strive, damn hard, every day, to give, build, create, embellish, enhance and pass the baton, not take, destroy, control, indulge, use up and wear out, as the nefarious do. I think you are in the majority. — universeness

I don’t think I am in the majority on a lot of this, but don’t mistake this awareness for disappointment or pessimism. ALL humans retain some potential to increase awareness, connection and collaboration - even the so-called ‘nefarious’. Most just need a particular type of interaction under ideal circumstances...

Yes, but that path isn't necessarily determined by genes accidentally mutating in a way that the organism changes and the best adapted survives — Haglund

Yes it is 'necessarily determined,' we have shown how we can MAKE it happen in our genetic manipulation of dogs, sheep, cows etc.

That's what the dogma of molecular biology tells, but there is zero evidence for that (which is exactly why it's a dogma). — Haglund

I think you are trying to constantly give the kiss of life to this limited and singular example of the use of the word 'dogma' in a science paper that you have found. You also ignore the fact that dogma is the foundation of all religions. I think the score remains scientific dogmatism:0, Theistic dogmatism: big BIG number!

That's the same heliocentric (or geocentric) worldview all over again. Why should Earth be special wrt the evolution of life — Haglund

What??? Please quote where you think I was being helio/geocentric?
We have had no contact from other lifeforms yet. We may be the first but I think that is highly unlikely.

it's likely that dead matter contains the seed of consciousness. Not that the universe contains god, but it carries their imprint. Who knows what's the nature of the basic stuff they created? It's divine! — Haglund

You are one of the most unconvincing theists I have encountered. You are role-playing, for your own reasons. That's the only logical conclusion I can make. I think you just enjoy taking the more esoteric viewpoint. I can't help seeing you try to convince yourself with 'I do believe, I do I do I do believe, I Do I DO I DO. But I am not convinced you do.

Yes it is 'necessarily determined,' we have shown how we can MAKE it happen in our genetic manipulation of dogs, sheep, cows etc. — universeness

The difference being that if we make it happen the organisms aren't determining it for themselves and we are basically playing for god.

think you are trying to constantly give the kiss of life to this limited and singular example of the use of the word 'dogma' in a science paper that you have found. You also ignore the fact that dogma is the foundation of all religions. I think the score remains scientific dogmatism:0, Theistic dogmatism: big BIG number! — universeness

The point is, it addresses all of life. All! Based on an unproved yes even improvable dogma. It's just stated organisms don't influence genes.

What??? Please quote where you think I was being helio/geocentric?
We have had no contact from other lifeforms yet. We may be the first but I think that is highly unlikely — universeness

Well, here I hesitated to write that actually. But you take Earth life as a comparison. And probably it's everywhere just the same. Which maybe makes me the heliocentrist, but I think it's the same in the whole universe. Why not?

You are one of the most unconvincing theists I have encountered. You are role-playing, for your own reasons. That's the only logical conclusion I can make. I think you just enjoy taking the more esoteric viewpoint. I can't help seeing you try to convince yourself with 'I do believe, I do I do I do believe, I Do I DO I DO. But I am not convinced you do. — universeness

What roleplaying? You think I fake to be a theist? To receive votes against it, which is my intention? That would be refined but I don't cos play. In fact I think I'm the toughest theist you have encountered. Dawkins and the likes are so easily de-masked. They just can't understand the concept and by going against theology try to consolidate their position in the church in science.

Your play...

But the evolutionary narrative is not ‘survival’, as much as we wish it was.The reason humans are still here is due to a series of variably stable structural relations. — Possibility

Based on what convincing, scientific, empirical evidence?

Agreed. So why configure it as a narrative of ‘survival’, except to allay our primal fears? — Possibility

Survival is the result of the process. The fact that a result or consequence occurs in the natural world is not evidence of intent.

This makes it systematically ideal to maximise awareness, connection and collaboration with everything else. — Possibility

All you offer is your opinions which is fair enough as on some points I am not offering much more.
I simply disagree with your imo generally pessimistic viewpoints. I think your 'scientific points' are trivial and incorrect.

It just all appears to be moving in a particular direction, and we happen to be part of that. — Possibility

You type that you don't believe in a Universal intent and then you type that it appears there might be.

Evolution, which we agree to be ongoing and without purpose, is also part of that. We can work with this direction, and in doing so maximise our survival with minimal effort, or we can insist that we’re inherently equipped to determine our own survival plan, and continue to wrestle with forces we’ve yet to fully understand. — Possibility

So, give us some actual examples of what you think we should stop doing and what you think we should do more of. Don't make any obvious suggestions such as 'stop hurting the planet,' or stop warring with each other etc

When we understand that, it’s no longer so important that WE are the one to achieve anything. — Possibility

Well, you sound like you would be attracted to a more buddhist or tao type approach to life and living. Not for me. I am happy to be labeled anthropocentric in general but not to the extremes of fanaticism.

I think you are trying to constantly give the kiss of life to this limited and singular example of the use of the word 'dogma' in a science paper that you have found. You also ignore the fact that dogma is the foundation of all religions. I think the score remains scientific dogmatism:0, Theistic dogmatism: big BIG number! — universeness

The point is that it's the worst kind of dogma there is. It projects thing in the real, material world which is just an assumption to fit the ideal. There is absolutely no evidence for it. And there are a lot of different dogmatic views. The Standard Model being one of them.

So, is the theory of evolution dogmatic? Yes...

You are one of the most unconvincing theists I have encountered. You are role-playing, for your own reasons. That's the only logical conclusion I can make. I think you just enjoy taking the more esoteric viewpoint. I can't help seeing you try to convince yourself with 'I do believe, I do I do I do believe, I Do I DO I DO. But I am not convinced you do. — universeness

You can try to rationalize me, because you don't understand... to no avail. I stick with the gods story!

Already at fundamental level soul bestows the universe. Developing in ever more complexity during universal evolution, only to end in fading, diluting memories of it in a far photonic future. After which the sign at the start is given to replay the story. In different colors and sounds.

The difference being that if we make it happen the organisms aren't determining it for themselves and we are basically playing for god — Haglund

Yeah but unlike the, if existent, then totally vile, gods, we have to understand and accept that with great power comes great responsibility.

I think I'm the toughest theist you have encountered. — Haglund

No sorry but you are the opposite. You have not even indicated that you engage in any particular theistic daily practices. Do you pray? do you congregate with like-minded theists, do you financially contribute? does your theism manifest or gravitate towards any organised religion? Do/have your god(s) intervened in your personal life? Your polytheism even includes dino gods. You seem to give space to every god ever invented by humans. So, yes, I think your theism is contrived but I don't think you have any malice aforethought. I think your primal fears have manifested in complex ways and you are attracted to passing on responsibility to imagined god(s). I know I am attempting to psychoanalyse you with no experience in the field other than my knowledge of people I have interacted with, in my lifetime.
If my opinion is unwelcome then ignore it. I intend no offense but sometimes offense is inevitable if you wish to speak your mind. Feel free to psychoanalyse me right back!

The other few responses you posted to me above do not add anything new to the dialogue between us and I have nothing more to add based on your addendums above.

No sorry but you are the opposite. You have not even indicated that you engage in any particular theistic daily practices — universeness

Why should you engage in daily practices? That's merely you prejudice speaking. And besides, me living my life is practicing. That's exactly what the gods wants. Life living as in heaven. In heaven there are no churches. Every life on Earth has a god in heaven. I think your god is nodding his head looking at you. The only reason I believe in gods is because it gives me a free feeling. Not from primal fear, whatever that may be, but from the supposed explicative power of the sciences. The only way to explain life is gods who made the universal stuff. Science describes that stuff.

You are just confirming my view of your proposed polytheism.

You are just confirming my view of your proposed polytheism — universeness

You're just as dogmatic as Dawkins. There is no escape!

But believe what you like! Thanks for the discussion! :razz:

You're just as dogmatic as Dawkins. There is no escape! — Haglund

I do not claim to be 100% atheist, neither does Dawkings but you claim to be 100% polytheist!
You win the dogmatist award.

But believe what you like! Thanks for the discussion! — Haglund

I do engage in belief systems, yes, but mostly, what I currently accept as true, is based on empirical evidence. I appreciate your permission to continue to do so even though I don't require it.
I wholeheartedly return your thanks for the discussion!

Survival is the result of the process. The fact that a result or consequence occurs in the natural world is not evidence of intent. — universeness

Survival is A result of the process, not THE result. And it’s the one we FEEL is most important, based on our fears. Any intent is in those writing the narrative, interpreting the evidence.

All you offer is your opinions which is fair enough as on some points I am not offering much more.
I simply disagree with your imo generally pessimistic viewpoints. I think your 'scientific points' are trivial and incorrect. — universeness

Then please point me to evidence that will set me straight. And I do mean evidence, not interpretations or conclusions. You’re not wrong that I offer little more than an alternative interpretation of the evidence, but I don’t think it’s pessimistic - what gives you that impression?

It just all appears to be moving in a particular direction, and we happen to be part of that.
— Possibility
You type that you don't believe in a Universal intent and then you type that it appears there might be. — universeness

Direction is not necessarily conscious intent. It exists without any need for awareness whatsoever of a final destination or purpose, let alone any action or force.

Direction: a general way in which someone or something is developing; a trend or tendency.

So, give us some actual examples of what you think we should stop doing and what you think we should do more of. Don't make any obvious suggestions such as 'stop hurting the planet,' or stop warring with each other etc — universeness

Choose with every interaction to increase awareness over ignorance, connection over isolation and collaboration over exclusion - despite fears and assumptions. Suffering comes from ignorance, isolation and exclusion, and infects every interaction with more of the same. If I feel excluded, I’m inclined to ignore those who exclude me, or to isolate myself from situations where I might feel this way. The only way to break the cycle is to face any fears we have, put away any assumptions, and choose to increase awareness, one step at a time. The more we learn about something or someone, the easier it becomes to connect, and the more we connect, the easier it becomes to collaborate.

There’s different homeless guys who sometimes sit alone outside my regular shopping centre (I live in a regional town, so we don’t see many). As a young girl growing up it was always drummed into me to “steer clear of strange men, especially if they look ‘dodgy’” - so it’s taken a while for me to work past my own fears and assumptions here, despite knowing how ridiculous they were. Action is more difficult than thoughts. The last couple of times one of them has been there when I walked in, I’ve added a bag of healthy snacks, bottle of juice, toothpaste, etc to my shopping trip and handed it to him on my way out, with a smile. The most recent time I stayed to chat about the weather and ask him where he’s from. It’s such a small thing, and it seems even more so describing it here - but it felt like a big change for me, and if it helps one person to feel a little less ignored and excluded, a little more connected, then it’s a small step in the right direction.

Well, you sound like you would be attracted to a more buddhist or tao type approach to life and living. Not for me. I am happy to be labeled anthropocentric in general but not to the extremes of fanaticism. — universeness

I don’t like labels much, and I’m notoriously difficult to define. While I am attracted to both Buddhism and the Tao Te Ching, I wouldn’t place myself within that category.

What would you consider to be extreme or fanatic anthropocentrism? Where would you draw this line?

Those who have experimented with psychedelics often describe a sensation of connectedness with objects around them, things like rocks, trees, or rivers. Sometimes the "connectedness" is more literal, as high doses of psychedelic drugs like LSD may cause users to believe the walls are talking to them.

[Eric Schank, SALON] :chin:

Those who have experimented with psychedelics often describe a sensation of connectedness with objects around them, things like rocks, trees, or rivers. Sometimes the "connectedness" is more literal, as high doses of psychedelic drugs like LSD may cause users to believe the walls are talking to them.
[Eric Schank, SALON] — jgill

Good point.