Collective Unconscious & Unconscious Intelligence?

[dichotomy]

I thought I might move the Unconscious and Collective Unconscious debate out of the Biology forum.

 

Ok, I hope you do realize my comments on the ‘unconscious intellect’ are purely for hopefully interesting discussion and deeper insights, they are not considered by me as solid science at all. Honest.

 

1. The ‘unconscious intellect’ has no reason why it should drive anything; it just does, like the sun shines, like the cosmos exists. It is the primal force that drives matter into becoming life forms. It isn’t a divine consciousness. It is best seen as a tree that grows, simply because IT CAN. It has the resources around it, the evo pressures that are available to aid healthy growth.

The unconscious intellect (like the conscious intellect) is not always right in its decisions. I see it as something that spreads the risk to avoid all of life’s possible demise. Rather than something that logically chooses the correct option every time. If the unconscious did ‘consciously think’, it would see that the more life form options out there, the more likely life is to persist. Evolution (inc. technological evo), as shaky as it is, is the most solid vehicle for the development and perpetuation of healthy life. The unconscious energy is propelled along by evolutionary pressures. And here we may have measurable unconscious energy at work, in the minds of countless animals.

 

2. There is an unconscious intellect (let’s just use unconscious, as people are rightly confused with the use of intellect as it is seen as conscious); it is the same unconscious that humans use to problem solve in dreams with, to intuit with. Bees use it to build honey cones, spiders to build webs, forager ants to do complex spherical trigonometry.

 

3. Plants have an unconscious. I see proof in this by the way a tree moves towards the sun in search of greater light. If this unconscious is considered photosynthesis by science, I can go with this term. But underneath (or, embedded in) photosynthesis, is an unconscious at work driving this action.

 

4. I recently watched a docu on white blood cells in action. It was the clearest vision I have yet seen of them at work. Amazing vision. They to me resembled starfish or jellyfish at work. Again, the unconscious of whiteblood cells going into action. Sperm have an unconscious to get to the eggs. As do the ever rapidly evolving virii we think we know so well.

 

5. The greater ‘collective unconscious’ that Lucaspa reasonably needs proof of a housing for. Ok, now it gets really difficult [Dichotomy breaks into nervous sweat:eek: ]. I watched a docu of walruses playing follow the leader straight off a cliff to their deaths. Like dominos they went, one after the other. Tragic. Is this ‘collective unconsciousness’, i.e. a herd collectively thinking this is the correct thing to do and following suit, or, is it the individual’s unconscious and it’s deadly blind faith in leaders? I’ll say for the sake of argument that the herd’s ‘collective unconscious’ is transmitted between members. Like codes that can be transmitted by light, sound and odors. It maybe a spectrum, level, intensity that we have yet to discover. Like the stories of identical twins in very separate locations, somehow knowing that their twin needs help, or is in grave danger. This can not be easily explained by science because it is not easily testable. To test it correctly one of the twins needs to be in clear and present danger. This is of course is unethical. So, you see there can be other methods of receiving information from a collective unconscious. I didn’t say that they are easy to test and measure, particularly with our still very primitive knowledge.

 

Cheers.

[iNow]

Semantics and preconceived notions seem to impose an impasse when discussing the idea of unconscious intellect. What about replacing the term, perhaps with something more aligned with what you're truly discussing... like:

 

 

"Non-Random Behavioral Trends in Multiple Life Domains"

[dichotomy]

Semantics and preconceived notions seem to impose an impasse when discussing the idea of unconscious intellect. What about replacing the term, perhaps with something more aligned with what you're truly discussing... like:

 

 

"Non-Random Behavioral Trends in Multiple Life Domains"

 

 

I think my laymans approach to be much more transparent.

 

I’m not sure if randomness truly exists anyway. A random event may just be the result of an unfathomable trail of causes and effects. Maybe the initial cause was random? Or maybe it was caused by an effect? Which was caused by...

[Phi for All]

FYI, bubble text is only allowed in General Discussion threads. Not as big a deal in Pseudoscience as in Physics, but let's keep Gir and the rest in GD, please.

[iNow]

FYI, bubble text is only allowed in General Discussion threads. Not as big a deal in Pseudoscience as in Physics, but let's keep Gir and the rest in GD, please.

 

Hey. No problem. Let me know if I should edit it. How would one know about this anyway?

 

 

So, that aside...

 

How about it? Non-Random Behavioral Trends in Multiple Life Domains?

[dichotomy]

How about it? Non-Random Behavioral Trends in Multiple Life Domains?

 

Yep, this is fine too, if it makes more sense to the scientific mindset. It is essentially what I am saying, i suppose . I just haven't heard it phrased that way. Or maybe simply, non-random behaviour in life? Anyway, I think most would get what I mean.

 

cheers

[iNow]

Yep, this is fine too, if it makes more sense to the scientific mindset. It is essentially what I am saying, i suppose . I just haven't heard it phrased that way. Or maybe simply, non-random behaviour in life? Anyway, I think most would get what I mean.

 

cheers

 

I'm not married to it or anything (unless it's picked up in the general lexicon... then, I want royalties ), I've just noticed most attacks on your presentation seem to center on the disagreement surrounding the words "unconscious" and "collective." However, I don't think my phrasing accounts for your interest in the "collective" aspect of it.

 

 

Is this somehow tied to they ideas of Jung? He wrote a lot of great books, and one I particulary enjoyed was "Modern Man in Search of a Soul."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=U6lMnx8AQsYC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=dgSx4-7F7Q&sig=U5PKDzIg8IFvY1cSVqTNPHUK6js&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dspell%26resnum%3D0%26ct%3Dresult%26cd%3D1%26q%3D%2522modern%2Bman%2522%2Bjung%26spell%3D1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title

[dichotomy]

I'm not married to it or anything (unless it's picked up in the general lexicon... then, I want royalties ), I've just noticed most attacks on your presentation seem to center on the disagreement surrounding the words "unconscious" and "collective." However, I don't think my phrasing accounts for your interest in the "collective" aspect of it.

 

 

Is this somehow tied to they ideas of Jung? He wrote a lot of great books, and one I particulary enjoyed was "Modern Man in Search of a Soul."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=U6lMnx8AQsYC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=dgSx4-7F7Q&sig=U5PKDzIg8IFvY1cSVqTNPHUK6js&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26oi%3Dspell%26resnum%3D0%26ct%3Dresult%26cd%3D1%26q%3D%2522modern%2Bman%2522%2Bjung%26spell%3D1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title

 

 

I’m keen to read others thoughts on the existence of the unconscious powers of life. Including, in things such as white blood cells, plants, even energy and matter, and the cosmos.

 

Scientists seem to be comfortable with the idea of unconscious intellect operating in bees and ants, etc. They are also comfortable with the human dream life of unconscious problem solving. But, I think my stumbling block is examining it clearly when it comes to matter and energy, the cosmos, herds, plants. The collective, or, greater consciousness. I’m not sure what else to call it since it can’t easily be examined as yet. It’s all at a feeling level really, with my only observation that life needs to be driven into existence rather than magically chancing upon the right matter and energy combinations, in the right environment, at the right time. I can’t help looking at trees as the best example at present of a different consciousness operating, just looking at their motivation to survive and reproduce.

 

And yep, the ‘collective unconscious’ first came to my attention while reading, 'Modern man in search of a soul'. Jung uses it to describe man’s "reservoir of experiences of our species". Through archetypes, dreams, and intuition, and drives the person to make mistakes on purpose in order to evolve. I’m not using it the same way. I’m using it to describe a force that drives life into existence. Like the force of gravity that pulls things down to earth. Maybe I should call it, 'unconscious force', or some such.

 

Does this help, or just confuse?

[iNow]

I think my stumbling block is examining it clearly when it comes to matter and energy, the cosmos, herds, plants. The collective, or, greater consciousness. I’m not sure what else to call it since it can’t easily be examined as yet. It’s all at a feeling level really, with my only observation that life needs to be driven into existence rather than magically chancing upon the right matter and energy combinations, in the right environment, at the right time.

The search is fun. It's clear that this is something in which you are deeply interested. If you take a moment to read the quoted text above though, I think you will see you are in search of evidence which confirms preconceived notions. You may be able to make more progress by allowing the evidence to shape those notions in the first place, and try approaching life as tabula rasa.

 

nd yep, the ‘collective unconscious’ first came to my attention while reading, 'Modern man in search of a soul'. Jung uses it to describe man’s "reservoir of experiences of our species". Through archetypes, dreams, and intuition, and drives the person to make mistakes on purpose in order to evolve. I’m not using it the same way. I’m using it to describe a force that drives life into existence. Like the force of gravity that pulls things down to earth. Maybe I should call it, 'unconscious force', or some such.

 

Does this help, or just confuse?

 

I'm fine with it, but perhaps the next step would be to spend more time on describing the parameters, impact, and mechanisms tied to this concept (I concede that this is no easy task), instead of spending all of our time discussing how to label it.

 

So... what is this "thing," this "force" which interests you, how is it different from evolutionary chance, and how might we measure it? Those are my questions. Feel free to disregard and explore your own path though. I'm just another random member of this online community like yourself.

 

 

Thought surfing the waves of curiosity...

[dichotomy]

So... what is this "thing," this "force" which interests you, how is it different from evolutionary chance, and how might we measure it?

 

 

‘Cosmic unconscious force’ or CUF (it could stand for chimerical unconscious force ).

 

 

1. It differs from evolution in that ULF makes evolutionary chance, natural selection and adaptability much more likely to succeed.

2. ULF makes the improbability of life much more probable by unconsciously working away to make it a reality. Like a plant evolving into a Venus flytrap that unconsciously develops a mouth to catch insects, because it unconsciously hopes this will work to it’s advantage.

3. It can possibly be measured by means of probability. That is, how likely is life to evolve from energy and matter (or is it just matter we are really looking at)? If the answer is extremely unlikely, then ULF can be seen to increase the chance dramatically, albeit in a hit and miss, blind, kind of way.

 

 

Why I reason a cosmic unconscious is at work?

 

The human being is the highest form of conscious matter that we know of. I see our bodies as a microcosm of the greater cosmos. If we have evolved from unconscious beginnings (which I believe we have) to our present level of consciousness, then I see the cosmos operating the same way, except without our current level of evolved consciousness. So, all of matter is unconsciously driven like a trees roots blindly searching for water. Matter then becomes many combinations of things. Combinations that can become life matter (‘life matter’ as in the common human perception of what constitutes an animal or vegetable).

 

This is as far as I can go with this at present. The rest is up to others.

 

Cheers.

[lucaspa]

I thought I might move the Unconscious and Collective Unconscious debate out of the Biology forum.

 

3. Plants have an unconscious. I see proof in this by the way a tree moves towards the sun in search of greater light. If this unconscious is considered photosynthesis by science, I can go with this term. But underneath (or, embedded in) photosynthesis, is an unconscious at work driving this action.

 

You have done what a lot of people have done: mistakenly tried to insert teleology and consciousness into evolution.

 

What you have in movement of plants (and forager ants "doing" spherical trignometry) is natural selection, not "unconscious". Those plants who had a variation such that chemicals moved to rotate leaves to face the light did better than those plants that did not. Natural selection then ensured that, after several generations, all plants had that ability through the fact that they were all descended from that one lucky plant.

 

Natural selection is an unintelligent process that gives design. What has confused you (as so many others) is that design looks like it is the product of intelligence. Therefore you keep looking for some sort of intelligence to give the designs we see in plants and animals.

 

Some people do this by divine intelligence. You are doing it by "unconscious" intelligence.

 

1. The ‘unconscious intellect’ has no reason why it should drive anything; it just does, like the sun shines, like the cosmos exists. It is the primal force that drives matter into becoming life forms.

 

There is no "primal force" involved in non-life becoming life. It is chemical reactions. No "force". Trees grow not because they "can", but because of the chemical reactions.

 

The unconscious energy is propelled along by evolutionary pressures. And here we may have measurable unconscious energy at work, in the minds of countless animals.

 

Then measure it. Find "unconscious energy".

 

4. I recently watched a docu on white blood cells in action. It was the clearest vision I have yet seen of them at work. Amazing vision. They to me resembled starfish or jellyfish at work. Again, the unconscious of whiteblood cells going into action. Sperm have an unconscious to get to the eggs. As do the ever rapidly evolving virii we think we know so well.

 

Again, you are looking at "design" and thinking there has to be an "intellect" at work. Where in virii do you hide an "unconscious". Yes, humans have one in our brains. Where do virii store theirs?

 

5. The greater ‘collective unconscious’ that Lucaspa reasonably needs proof of a housing for. Ok, now it gets really difficult [Dichotomy breaks into nervous sweat:eek: ]. ... I’ll say for the sake of argument that the herd’s ‘collective unconscious’ is transmitted between members.

 

How transmitted? Radio waves? Light, sound, colors? Like codes that can be transmitted by light, sound and odors. It maybe a spectrum, level, intensity that we have yet to discover.

 

Like the stories of identical twins in very separate locations, somehow knowing that their twin needs help, or is in grave danger.

 

Please document those. And document how many of them were accurate? This is selective data. After all, no one is going to report when they had a feeling the twin was in danger and the twin was NOT. Similarly, no one is going to report an absence of feeling and then find the twin was really in danger, are they?

 

However, that is irrelevant. All the speculation about twin communication and unknown means of communication comes from a single mistake: thinking that the designs in plants and animals must come from some sort of intellect. This was Darwin's great discovery: that design happens without any intellect -- conscious or unconscious. But the pre-Darwinian concept dies hard, it seems.

 

‘

1. It differs from evolution in that ULF makes evolutionary chance, natural selection and adaptability much more likely to succeed.

 

In that case the data refutes you. Remember, 99.99% of all species have gone extinct. Therefore there is no "much more likely" to succeed, since for each individual species the probability is so low.

 

2. ULF makes the improbability of life much more probable by unconsciously working away to make it a reality. Like a plant evolving into a Venus flytrap that unconsciously develops a mouth to catch insects, because it unconsciously hopes this will work to it’s advantage.

 

And again we see a misunderstanding of Darwinian selection. There is no desire on the part of the plant. If that were so, we would have many more species of insect catching plants.

 

The book you need to read is Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. You will see your desire for some form of intellect to drive evolution in the writings of others and how that is wrong.

 

3. It can possibly be measured by means of probability. That is, how likely is life to evolve from energy and matter (or is it just matter we are really looking at)?

 

VERY likely. BTW, life does NOT "evolve" from energy and matter. The transition of non-life to life is chemistry, not evolution. Evolution doesn't kick in until AFTER you have life. Again, if you are looking at "cosmic unconsciousness" as driving living organisms to get favorable adaptations, then why are only 0.01% of all living species still alive? That's a very low probability of succeeding. But you say the CU improves probability. Shouldn't that mean that most species and lineages would still be around?

 

Why I reason a cosmic unconscious is at work?

 

Where is the "cosmic unconsciousness" housed? You never really answered that one, did you?

 

The human being is the highest form of conscious matter that we know of. I see our bodies as a microcosm of the greater cosmos. If we have evolved from unconscious beginnings (which I believe we have) to our present level of consciousness, then I see the cosmos operating the same way, except without our current level of evolved consciousness. So, all of matter is unconsciously driven like a trees roots blindly searching for water.

 

Our unconsciousness comes from an interaction between neurons in our brain. Where does the "cosmic unconsciousness" come from? What interactions in matter and/or in the universe constitute this "unconsciousness". And then how does this translate to affecting the matter in plants and animals to change their form?

[dichotomy]

You have done what a lot of people have done: mistakenly tried to insert teleology and consciousness into evolution.

 

I find it surprising and sad that consciousness in not considered part of evolution.

 

Then measure it. Find "unconscious energy".

 

I’d love to, but I have no idea how to. So I’m just putting the idea out there for someone much brighter than myself to hopefully do just that. Or to totally and completely bury the plausibility of a CUF.

 

Please document those. And document how many of them were accurate? This is selective data. After all, no one is going to report when they had a feeling the twin was in danger and the twin was NOT. Similarly, no one is going to report an absence of feeling and then find the twin was really in danger, are they?

 

How does one accurately measure an individual’s accurate intuition? It can’t scientifically be done at present. This means it is blind to science. Only the individual has the true knowledge of their own intuitions power. But, this doesn’t mean the individual has fully harnessed this power, or has full control of it. BTW, I’m not having a go at science because of its blindness to an individual’s mind experiences. Science needs to operate the way it does in order to prove/disprove things objectively.

 

However, that is irrelevant. All the speculation about twin communication and unknown means of communication comes from a single mistake: thinking that the designs in plants and animals must come from some sort of intellect. This was Darwin's great discovery: that design happens without any intellect -- conscious or unconscious. But the pre-Darwinian concept dies hard, it seems.

 

All concepts (scientific, philosophical, and artistic) should periodically be tested/challenged, no matter how great they are. Challenges generally reaffirm scientific concepts as hard realities, and strengthen them. It’s healthy don’t you agree?

 

 

In that case the data refutes you. Remember, 99.99% of all species have gone extinct. Therefore there is no "much more likely" to succeed, since for each individual species the probability is so low.

 

Here you misunderstand my point. The fact that just a tiny 0.01% of species are alive, this to me is a form of proof that a type of CUF is required to make life a probability at all, be it an observably remote one. So, without it biological life has ‘0’ chance. BTW, I view all life (and all things) as a chemical reaction. So we are all an inseparable part of the cosmos in this respect.

 

Our unconsciousness comes from an interaction between neurons in our brain. Where does the "cosmic unconsciousness" come from? What interactions in matter and/or in the universe constitute this "unconsciousness". And then how does this translate to affecting the matter in plants and animals to change their form?

 

Well, my assumption would be. The neurons of the cosmos are woven within all matter. The cosmos has a chemical reaction powered unconscious just like our mini version. To explore this then we need to explore our own unconscious more diligently.

 

cheers.

 

Again, if you are looking at "cosmic unconsciousness" as driving living organisms to get favorable adaptations, then why are only 0.01% of all living species still alive? That's a very low probability of succeeding. But you say the CU improves probability. Shouldn't that mean that most species and lineages would still be around?

 

 

 

Just because 99.9% of all species have gone extinct (and I’d love to know how this was estimated considering that most of life is at the microbe level, and we don’t know how many living species of those there are, let alone extinct) doesn’t disprove the existence of a CUF. All it might prove is that evolution relies on extinction and changes in a life form’s body form. Logically, evolutionary changes in life forms over billions of years would leave a vast trail of various extinct ‘bodies’. Those ‘bodies’ have either branched out into other species, and so on, and so forth, or became completely extinct, creating the 99.9% figure. The 99.9% data does not refute a ‘cosmic unconscious force’. Instead it actually helps to weigh in its favour. Without CUF the chances of bio life, and particularly, bio life’s diversity would be ‘0’. Life would be a complete mathematical improbability. Face it, the cosmos needs a chemical unconscious just like the one in all of our brains.

 

Cheers.

[lucaspa]

I find it surprising and sad that consciousness in not considered part of evolution.

 

It's not that it is not considered. Indeed, several early evolutionists such as Asa Gray, DID consider it. It's just that consciousness is 1) not needed and 2) is actually refuted. I'll go into this in more detail below.

 

Or to totally and completely bury the plausibility of a CUF.

 

Do you really mean this? Or are you going to continue to postulate ad hoc hypotheses to avoid falsification of CUF. Below is an example of one of your ad hoc hypotheses:

Logically, evolutionary changes in life forms over billions of years would leave a vast trail of various extinct ‘bodies’. Those ‘bodies’ have either branched out into other species, and so on, and so forth, or became completely extinct, creating the 99.9% figure.

 

By the statements you are making, we shouldn't find all the dead ends in extinct species! Instead, we should find a very few chronospecies as the species used the CUF to change with changing environments. For instance, in the elephant lineage, why should the mammoths have gone extinct? With the changing climate, a consequence of the CUF would have been to reduce the amount of hair and other adaptations to a cold environment and adjust them to live in the warmer climate. Multiply that over the enormous number of species that have gone extinct by backing themselves into an ecological corner. Why did the CUF permit that?

 

Remember, you are positing that the CUF is "intelligent" enough to look ahead and think how good it would be for the Venus flytrap to be able to trap insects. Then why isn't the CUF "intelligent" enough to look ahead and see that shorter fur is going to be advantageous for mammoths and adapt the species accordingly? You can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously give the CUF the ability to see into the future and "drive" a population toward ultimately beneficial adaptations but then say that the CUF did not do so for 99.99% of the species on the planet.

 

(BTW, the estimate is made mainly by looking at the fossil record for invertebrates -- which is much fuller than for vertebrates -- and comparing the number of species that existed vs the number that are here. But it also works well for larger vertebrates. For instance, there is ONE living elephant species in the genus of the Indian elephant. However, over the last 4 million years there have been TEN. Thus, 90% of the species in the genus Elephas have become extinct. Instead, by CUF theory, Elephas ekorensis should still be around or, at most there should be 1 or 2 intermediate species between E. ekorensis and modern Indian elephants. Not all those extinct side branches.)

 

You keep saying that CUF improves probability and the CUF is a driving force for adaptation. But a 0.01% probability of a species continuing is very low. This is "improvement"?

 

Without CUF the chances of bio life, and particularly, bio life’s diversity would be ‘0’. Life would be a complete mathematical improbability.

 

How did you come to this conclusion? Nice assertions, but no data to back them up. Please provide some data and/or arguments.

 

The chances of life from non-life are very high. So high that you can "create" life in your kitchen or backyard with simple chemicals!

Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7145 and one bottle of R 7131 amino acids solutions (you need both to get all the amino acids http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/formulation/M5550for.pdf ). They will cost you about $40 plus shipping for both. Empty the bottles into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 15 more minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. They are alive. If this is too "artificial" for you, then put the solution out on a hot rock for the afternoon and let it evaporate. Then add water (rain).

 

So, once you get life, then diversity comes from that thru the processes Darwin and others have outlined -- particularly allopatric and sympatric speciation.

 

Cumulative (natural or Darwinian) selection actually reduces odds. Let's try a simple example:

 

Let me give you an example of the power of cumulative selection to cut down odds. You have a 1 in 1024 chance of correctly winning 10 coin tosses in a row. But I can guarantee you I can find someone who can do so. How? Simple, use cumulative selection in the form of a single elimination tournament. I start with 1024 people and pair them up. Then each pair tosses a coin. The 512 winners are selected to go to the next round. Again they are paired and do a coin toss; the 256 winners are selected to go to the next round. Repeat this 7 more times. Now you have 2 people who have won 9 coin tosses in a row. The winner of this round has won 10 coin tosses in a row. And it is a certainty that such a person will be found with this method. We have taken odds of 1 in 1024 and converted that into virtual certainty. Now, I don't know which individual will win the tosses, but it is certain that one of them will, given the algorithm of the competition. Evolution by natural selection is a competition algorithm, more complex but analogous to the single elimination tournament algorithm. We don't have enough knowledge of the total environment to know which individual will have the necessary design elements to compete better, nor in competition between species do we have enough knowledge in most cases to predict which species has the better design. But it is certain that such a competitive edge does exist, and it will be selected for.

 

 

Face it, the cosmos needs a chemical unconscious just like the one in all of our brains.

 

No it doesn't. The physical processes are sufficient -- as material causes -- of getting everything we see in the universe. There is no other material "cause" needed.

 

On the one hand you ascribe some form of "intelligence" to the CUF -- such as to get the Venus flytrap. But when you look at all the bad designs in nature, then you have to wonder at the CUF. Let's look at the Panda and it's "thumb". You might say that the CUF drove the panda to evolve an elongated wristbone to enable it to grasp bamboo. But you are overlooking that the panda ALREADY has a thumb. It is fused to the other fingers. So why didn't the CUF take the simpler path and simply unfuse the thumb?

 

Or take the beaks of birds. Yes, it was "smart" of the CUF to evolve ancestors of birds not to have teeth because that reduced weight and let them fly better. BUT, when you look at embryonic development in birds, you see that the teeth do form, but are then resorbed. Wouldn't the CUF simply drive evolution so that the teeth never formed and saved the energy involved?

 

Or look at humans. Humans have a repair mechanism in bones to keep microfractures from accumulating and destroying the bones. When humans started being bipedal, they also needed a repair mechanism for the intervertebral discs because the increased weight on them (as opposed to quadrupeds) cause them to microfracture and eventually disintegrate. Virtually every human gets a herniated disc sometime in their life. Was the CUF taking a nap and didn't put in that adaptation?

 

Again, you can't have it both ways. You can't invoke a CUF as necessary for the "intelligence" of designs in organisms but then say that the CUF is NOT "intelligent"!

 

If you say that the CUF is not intelligent, then you don't need it at all! After all, natural selection is already an unintelligent process that gives design. So natural selection can already give you the "good" designs and the "stupid" ones as well as account for extinctions: unlike the CUF, natural selection can't look ahead to see what would be useful in the far future, but only what is useful in the NOW.

 

As I said, please read Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. You are not the first to insist that natural selection has to have "help" and propose some type of guiding agent for evolution. The reason we don't have one now is partly because of the information provided here, but there is considerable additional information that refutes the notion. Dennett (with a lot more space) provides a lot more of the evidence.

 

All concepts (scientific, philosophical, and artistic) should periodically be tested/challenged, no matter how great they are.

 

Do you REALLY think so? Do you think that we need to periodically challenge the concept that the earth is round? Or that the planets orbit the sun?

 

I submit such challenges are merely a waste of time and represent ignorance on the part of the challenger. The challenge you are posing falls into that category.

[dichotomy]

It's not that it is not considered. Indeed, several early evolutionists such as Asa Gray, DID consider it. It's just that consciousness is 1) not needed and 2) is actually refuted. I'll go into this in more detail below.

 

Well then, thanks for clarifying your point.

 

By the statements you are making, we shouldn't find all the dead ends in extinct species! Instead, we should find a very few chronospecies as the species used the CUF to change with changing environments. For instance, in the elephant lineage, why should the mammoths have gone extinct? With the changing climate, a consequence of the CUF would have been to reduce the amount of hair and other adaptations to a cold environment and adjust them to live in the warmer climate. Multiply that over the enormous number of species that have gone extinct by backing themselves into an ecological corner. Why did the CUF permit that?

 

One last attempt at making this abundantly clear to you. 99.9% extinction of life on earth figure could simply mean that CUF ‘felt’ it necessary in order for life to survive in the lower % it is surviving in. Using a 99.9% extinction rate is like saying there are more dead humans than living ones, there are, so what, it is a figure that proves nothing of the non-existence of CUF. It only proves that death rates will always be higher than ‘current existing’ life rates of all species. It could prove that CUF feels that extinction and death are indeed important to the constant renewal of life.

 

why should the mammoths have gone extinct?

 

Well, either because their extinction aided the survival of other species, and CUF works for the ‘greater good’ of life in general, CUF is therefore not species-centric, or, they didn’t become extinct, they just evolved in form, leaving a trail of former bodies behind them, just like homo sapiens.

 

If you say that the CUF is not intelligent, then you don't need it at all! After all, natural selection is already an unintelligent process that gives design. So natural selection can already give you the "good" designs and the "stupid" ones as well as account for extinctions: unlike the CUF, natural selection can't look ahead to see what would be useful in the far future, but only what is useful in the NOW.

 

Well, articulated. You have almost convinced me here. With the exception that I see CUF as unconscious ‘thought’, ‘guess work’ or ‘assumption’, for lack of a better term. It doesn’t ‘look ahead’ as you put it. I’ve already stated quite a few times that it unconsciously spreads risk. So, if evolutionary forces are the same as CUF, then evolutionary forces are unconsciously (like our human unconscious) working to non-randomly naturally select, and spread the risk of extinction, by diversifying life as much as environments allow it to. CUF may force extinction of a species to strengthen the chances of life’s collective survival. If evolution doesn’t differ from this, then I am talking about evolution after all. I think we just disagree on the ‘unconscious helper’ (me) vs. ‘random, lucky, blindness’ (you) bit, yes?

 

As I said, please read Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. You are not the first to insist that natural selection has to have "help" and propose some type of guiding agent for evolution. The reason we don't have one now is partly because of the information provided here, but there is considerable additional information that refutes the notion. Dennett (with a lot more space) provides a lot more of the evidence.

 

Thanks for the recommendation, I make some time for it at some point.

 

 

Do you REALLY think so? Do you think that we need to periodically challenge the concept that the earth is round? Or that the planets orbit the sun?

 

I submit such challenges are merely a waste of time and represent ignorance on the part of the challenger. The challenge you are posing falls into that category.

 

I don’t want to get into this rather short sighted argument of yours; it is a dangerous thought that holds absolutely no water at all. I really hope you are not serious about not challenging established theories. I think it is absolutely essential to challenge, and once again, prove theories periodically. Particularly for the new generations of thinkers and scientists that come through. Of course, there does need to be a level of practicality exercised here, obviously. Not all theories are water tight my friend.

 

BTW, I challenge your blind perception that the earth is round . I can prove that it has numourous modulations (eg. mountains and valleys), making it irregular in shape, and not 'round' as you say. Jot that down for future reference.

 

 

cheers .

[dichotomy]

The chances of life from non-life are very high. So high that you can "create" life in your kitchen or backyard with simple chemicals!

Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7145 and one bottle of R 7131 amino acids solutions (you need both to get all the amino acids http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/formulation/M5550for.pdf ). They will cost you about $40 plus shipping for both. Empty the bottles into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 15 more minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. They are alive. If this is too "artificial" for you, then put the solution out on a hot rock for the afternoon and let it evaporate. Then add water (rain).

 

Take your pick - Amino acids, diamonds, crystals, carbon, organic compounds, humans, cosmic rays, the entire cosmos and the speculated void beyond, all matter and energy. All these things could make-up the unconscious 'mind' at work (CUF). Driving primary matter and energy into various forms, stars, planets, galaxies, universes. Driving matter into life (just like Lucaspa drives amino acids into life on his BBQ) and driving matter into death (just as humans can). All life and death are merely chemical reactions to CUF. The CUF 'feels' (maybe as algae does) that IS-ness and simply existing, is really what actually matters.

 

Well, maybe there is no real death (to our way of thinking) as far as CUF is concerned. Matter and energy (including from the 'dead') are perpetually recycled and used in various and changing ways thoughout the cosmos. We are all made of ancient recycled particles. I speculate that death and suffering are merely momentary chemical reactions (like erupting volcanos that create still other opportunities for things) as far as the CUF is concerned.

 

Now, am I anthropomorphising CUF? Or, is the ALL that IS (CUF inc.) just like us. Because after all, the 'ALL that IS', is the matter we have been fabricated from?