As far as animal minds are concerned, they are much different from human minds. They are evolving in different directions. Bats, whales, homing pigeons, all very different. None more fiy than any other. All is constantly evolving and adapting.

The Rupert Sheldrake video I posted earlier discusses the evolution of life in a general way.

Well this is prima facie not the case since the materialist explanation, whatever it is, is changing all the time and is nothing more than a spaghetti bowl of ideas that are tossed about as much as finding will allow. In other words, it is an outright mess without any proof and any hope for proof. But if you are satisfied with "it" (no one can describe what "it" is), then that is your choice. Personally, I never subscribe to obvious obfuscation. — Rich

There is no proof for most of those theories because there is nothing to prove. They only describe the chaotic reality. One of the few things that can be considered proven is the existence of atoms and molecyles and how they interact with each other, and that DNA for example exists and what it is like. These basic things aren't chaotic, they aren't the spaghetti. They're the existence of the bowl and the spaghetti, which are not changed.

As far as animal minds are concerned, they are much different from human minds. They are evolving in different directions. Bats, whales, homing pigeons, all very different. None more for than any other. — Rich

What facts point at that they're evolving in different directions because of their minds?

That's all it is. The mind is creatively adapting to changing circumstances, the mind operating at all instances of life. There is nothing more to the Elan vital. — Rich

What you're saying is that you have a mind that is creative and tries to adapt, and therefore there's a mind operating at all instances of life that is also creatively adapting, which explains the evolution. Élan vital means all the three sentences, I (and majority of the people, I think) only buy the first one.

Just observe the vast varieties of an species - say dogs.

One of the few things that can be considered proven is the existence of atoms and molecyles and how they interact with each other, — BlueBanana

Yes, they exist and they interact in a vast number of different ways, and they even act in a non-local manner in an unpredictable but probabilistic manner. That's just about it. Just because there are electronics interacting in a TV set does not mean that the source of the pictures is inside the electronics. In fact, such a reading of the nature of electronics would be considered strange.

The question is, what is bringing habit (probabilistic behavior) and novelty into our realm of experience. It's right there for everyone to observe, our minds.

What is spaghetti is the jumble of scientific theories of biological evolution which is continuously growing, changing, and morphing into new theories as materialistic science does everything it can to deny the mind. It's pretty extraordinary to observe what people will do for money.

What is spaghetti is the jumble of scientific theories of biological evolution which is continuously growing, changing, and morphing into new theories — Rich

It's not any more complex than the nature it's trying to describe, which is pretty damn complex. That's because those theories are there to describe, not to explain. Any of the selected few explaining theories are very simple and neat.

Just observe the vast varieties of an species - say dogs. — Rich

And what observations should I make from them?

Just because there are electronics interacting in a TV set does not mean that the source of the pictures is inside the electronics. — Rich

Furthermore, this can be easily proven by opening up the TV and inspecting its parts and how they work because of how advanced our technology is. We can do the same with living organisms or cells for example.

It's not any more complex than the nature it's trying to describe, which is pretty damn complex. That's because those theories are there to describe, not to explain. Any of the selected few explaining theories are very simple and neat. — BlueBanana

The problem is that science had become goal seeking, that is anything but the mind. The Church Inquisitor use to use the same tactics in order to preserve its dogma. Science no longer just observes and reports, now markets and creates theories for funding purposes. NGOs operate in the same way. This is euphemistically referred to as research bias.

And what observations should I make from them? — BlueBanana

It's what you observe, not what I observe. Everyone observes differently depending upon their history (memory).

Furthermore, this can be easily proven by opening up the TV and inspecting its parts and how they work because of how advanced our technology is. We can do the same with living organisms or cells for example. — BlueBanana

Exactly. Observe the brain. There are no images. There is no memory. There are no thoughts. There are no colors or sounds. There is no instinct for survival. Ditto for TV sets. The brain is a tool of the mind as it's the TV set, the difference being that the brain has life.

Observe the brain. There are no images. There is no memory. There are no thoughts. There are no colors or sounds. There is no instinct for survival. — Rich

If I was to continue further into the materialistic direction, I'd argue that yes there is. Look into a computer, can you see the images? No, but they're still within the computer. We already know how memories are in the brain.

Instead I'll rule the brain and consciousness out of the discussion both because they haven't been explained by materialists yet and because I don't think they can be. How about plants? From what you've said I've gotten the picture that according to you, mind exists in all living things and parts of our body, not only brain. What is that based on?

It's what you observe, not what I observe. Everyone observes differently depending upon their history (memory). — Rich

So how do you know I'll observe a proof to your opinion? What were your observations and how do they imply that the difference in mind causes differences in evolution?

The problem is that science had become goal seeking, that is anything but the mind. The Church Inquisitor use to use the same tactics in order to preserve its dogma. Science no longer just observes and reports, now markets and creates theories for funding purposes. NGOs operate in the same way. This is euphemistically referred to as research bias. — Rich

Do you have any actual first hand experience on microbiology research? Afaik we know how living organisms work and there are no gaps that élan vital would fill.

If I was to continue further into the materialistic direction, I'd argue that yes there is. Look into a computer, can you see the images? No, but they're still within the computer. We already know how memories are in the brain. — BlueBanana

There are no images in a computer anywhere. Just on-off states.

How about plants? From what you've said I've gotten the picture that according to you, mind exists in all living things and parts of our body, not only brain. What is that based on? — BlueBanana

In another thread I linked to various studies regarding plant sentience. Differences and similarities.

So how do you know I'll observe a proof to your opinion? What were your observations and how do they imply that the difference in mind causes differences in evolution? — BlueBanana

I have no idea what you will observe. However, in life, developing skills in observation, curiosity, and questioning (skepticism) can be very rewarding and helpful.

Do you have any actual first hand experience on microbiology research? Afaik we know how living organisms work and there are no gaps that élan vital would fill. — BlueBanana

I had friends who will because they could no longer stomach it. Most of their time was devoted to developing marketing pitches for fundraising purposes. Their superiors had to be paid their grand salaries for doing absolutely nothing in some way, right? Cure for cancer was always good.

There are no images in a computer anywhere. Just on-off states. — Rich

That form the image. With TV you had a point because the images aren't stored in the TV but they come from outside it. Why couldn't the mind, images or memories be stored in the brain as electric signals or chemicals?

I have no idea what you will observe. However, in life, developing skills in observation, curiosity, and questioning (skepticism) can be very rewarding and helpful. — Rich

So if you din't know that I'll observe an answer to my question, why the advice? Could you give the answer?

I had friends who will because they could no longer stomach it. — Rich

Ask those friends whether a movement of a signal in a nerve can be explained by the chemicals interacting with each other or whether there's a need for a force that isn't explained by science.

That form the image. With TV you had a point because the images aren't stored in the TV but they come from outside it. Why couldn't the mind, images or memories be stored in the brain as electric signals or chemicals? — BlueBanana

It is the mind that forms the image. The computer like the TV set like the brain are receiving/transmission tools, but the brain is living and this can adapt.

So if you din't know that I'll observe an answer to my question, why the advice? Could you give the answer? — BlueBanana

Results are always unpredictable. It is the nature of life that it develops differently. But, observing all the batteries of dogs, may provide some interesting insights and new ideas.

Ask those friends whether a movement of a signal in a nerve can be explained by the chemicals interacting with each other or whether there's a need for a force that isn't explained by science. — BlueBanana

My friends didn't believe in any of this but a job is a job - until you quit. Academia and research is all politics.

It is the mind that forms the image. The computer like the TV set like the brain are receiving/transmission tools, but the brain is living and this can adapt. — Rich

If the computer is the receiver, what sends the image? Nothing, it exists in the computer, just in another form.

If the computer is the receiver, what sends the image? Nothing, it exists in the computer, just in another form. — BlueBanana

The computer sends some pixels to an output device that arranges the pixels in a manner that the programmer's mind chose. The observer's mind than looks at the representation and forms an image in the mind.

Let me assure you, because it seems you are not familiar with computer electronics, there are no images in the computer or the TV set. It is all formed in minds. Did someone tell you differently?

I am familiar with how a computer works. What we're disagreeing on whether it's the image anymore if it's coded as 0s and 1s. The image is information and as that information is there, the image is there as information.

Back to the subject, why can't memories exist as electric signals in the brain and be transformed into memories as we perceive them by the brain?

The image is information and as that information is there, the image is there as information. — BlueBanana

There are on and off bits. How they are interpreted once they are projected into some output device, based upon some human developed program, is up to each individual mind. If one just looks at some electronic component, there is absolutely no image and again, I invite you to observe.

Natural selection is just a nice story, without a shred of evidence, that appeals to those seeking fitter and not fitter. — Rich

Really?

Would you like to pitch biological evolution (roughly as currently understood) against creationism over in the science (or religion) department?

I'll open a new post referring to your claim, if asked, and if you promise to show evolution the door (or justify your claim I mean). Might include a poll.

Per se, abiogenesis is a hypothesis, and evolution is established.

This is all 100% irrelevant and just semantics. Do you agree on that memories exist as electric signals in the brain and are transformed into memories as we perceive them by the brain?

of course there are signals, in TV sets, in computers, in brains, but it is the mind that forms the image. Without the mind there are just signals. This is extremely relevant. The mind is always there to form that image.

Of course the mind is there, but why not the materialistic or even any non-creative evolutionist interpretation of mind?

Materialism does not allow for a mind. Only signals. Everything else is either an illusion or "just happens". The illusion just springs into existence. For me, it's a pretty odd story, created just so there is no formative, creative mind. Exactly how are all of those bits organized without a mind?

Materialism does not allow for a mind. — Rich

Let's say I agree. How about any non-creative evolutionist view? And to get back to the track, is there any scenario the spaghetti bowl doesn't explain, or is the only reason for denying it that it's a bowl of spaghetti?

The spaghetti bowl essentially explains nothing. Wiping away all of the tomato sauce meatballs, parmesan cheese, and olives, what you have left are stands of noodles all shouting out the same thing: It just happens.

So in essence you have a continuous string of miracles just happening.

What is amazing is that at once, you have this society of minds creating this magnificent story, and you have larger society of minds believing it (or having great faith in it), all last the same time time denying their own minds that are participating in it. It is truly amazing to observe from the audience.

It just happens. Denying scientific truths because they are too messy and chaotic or don't reveal a big reason and explanation behind everything is disturbingly close to creationism and conspiracy theories.

It just happens. Denying scientific truths because they are too messy and chaotic or don't reveal a big reason and explanation behind everything is disturbingly close to creationism and conspiracy theories. — BlueBanana

If your curiosity ends at "It just happens", and you want to deny your own mind in favor of some constantly changing stories, (I imagine this is what is the current garden variety truths), then whom am I to suggest to you otherwise. You have no mind and "It just happens". Ok. Many believe in miracles.

1) They aren't stories because they are descriptions, not explanations, and based on either our observations or common sense.
2) None of them contradicts the existence of mind.
3) Isn't a magical, unexplained existence of mind a miracle in itself?
4) When you look at how wonderful and beautiful life is, does it not feel miraculous to you?