There is free will or are we predestined?

[dapifo]

Last studies says that decisions are taked before we realize. them Does it mean that they ar only the result of physical laws?

So scientists, led by neuroscientist John-Dylan Haynes, located with precision concrete signs of brain activity up to 10 seconds before participants were aware of their own choice.

According to what Haynes said to the magazine NewSientist , this study has shown that "our decisions are predetermined unconsciously a long time before our own conscience the launch."

 

As early as 1983, the American neuroscientist Benjamin Libet proposed that "decisions taken by any subject are first carried out in the unconscious and subsequently transferred to the conscious, and that the subject's belief that its decision depends on your will is due only to the retrospective view of the process. "

Edited June 22, 2012 by dapifo

[immortal]

How Physics and Neuroscience Dictate your free will:Scientific American

[Mohammad Shafiq Khan]

Humans have the freedom of action. The will is defined by the creator and what humans will is already defined through the human instincts by the entities which interact with the body to convey the will. Human desires are as the result of interaction of the body & entities resposible for human instincts and with the innate knowledge of right & wrong, humans act for which he has absolute freedom.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Mohammad Shafiq Khan

[Greg H.]

... the innate knowledge of right & wrong, humans act for which he has absolute freedom.

 

If knowledge of right and wrong is innate, why do children seem to have such a hard time grasping it?

[Dekan]

Humans have the freedom of action. The will is defined by the creator and what humans will is already defined through the human instincts by the entities which interact with the body to convey the will. Human desires are as the result of interaction of the body & entities resposible for human instincts and with the innate knowledge of right & wrong, humans act for which he has absolute freedom.

 

Yes - humans have the power to override all instinctual desires of the body. Even the most compelling instinct, which is "Survive!". Humans can consciously choose not to survive.

 

When Captain Oates, in 1912, walked out of the snow-bound polar hut, he knew he was going to certain death. The freezing Antartic blizzards would soon kill his body. All the instincts of his body must have been screaming at him "Don't do this!"

 

But these instincts were overcome by his human will. He knew he was going to lose his life. But he believed that by sacrificing his own life, he could help his companions. So he did it, and died.

 

Doesn't the amazing ability to do a thing like that, prove the freedom, and supremacy, of the human will?

[Phi for All]

Human desires are as the result of interaction of the body & entities resposible for human instincts and with the innate knowledge of right & wrong, humans act for which he has absolute freedom.

Which "entities" do you think are responsible for human instincts?

 

And since right and wrong are culturally relative, how can they possibly be innate?

 

Finally, no one could possibly have "absolute" freedom; this may seem like nitpicking, but such all-encompassing terms have meaning when they're used correctly, and therefore it's very important to carefully maintain that meaning in any discussion.

[Mohammad Shafiq Khan]

Supremacy is with the decision for taking an action. Decision about an action would depend upon what human wills with the innate knowledge of whether that will is right or wrong. Decision is the freedom of human being with prior knowledge that decision being right or wrong. How humans use their innate knowledge of right & wrong about actions in their activities would determine the destination of the human beings.

[Greg H.]

Supremacy is with the decision for taking an action. Decision about an action would depend upon what human wills with the innate knowledge of whether that will is right or wrong. Decision is the freedom of human being with prior knowledge that decision being right or wrong. How humans use their innate knowledge of right & wrong about actions in their activities would determine the destination of the human beings.

 

I'll ask it again, since you glossed right over it:

 

What makes the knowledge of right and wrong innate? Especially since different cultures have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

[Mohammad Shafiq Khan]

I'll ask it again, since you glossed right over it:

 

What makes the knowledge of right and wrong innate? Especially since different cultures have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

 

Moral code & innate knowledge within human beings has been studied by numerous philosophers like Descartes, Hume, Kant and several others. Read them thoroughly to know how moral code is innate. Taboos & traditions do not define what is right & what is wrong.

[Joatmon]

I have often wondered just how much of what we do is instinctive. Although there are exceptions, we seem to be "herd animals" seeking company and avoiding isolation. In general we like a stable base we call home rather than a nomadic life. Most of us prefer the stability and certainty of one mate, our spouse, rather than philandering. We even tend to park our car in the same space in a car park we use regularly. In each of these examples we had a choice - but was there an irresistible element behind each choice forcing us in a particular direction. This missing element putting the thoughts such as "I would not want isolation so must find company", "I must make myself a safe stable location to sleep in", "It's time for me to think about starting my own family", "my car has always been safe in this parking space so I'll use it again". Perhaps we only fine tune the decisions made by our instincts.

[Greg H.]

Moral code & innate knowledge within human beings has been studied by numerous philosophers like Descartes, Hume, Kant and several others. Read them thoroughly to know how moral code is innate. Taboos & traditions do not define what is right & what is wrong.

 

I'm familiar with Descartes and Hume's work. I disagree with the idea that ideas of morality are innate. If they were innate, children would know it was wrong to take other people's toys without asking (stealing is wrong), that you shouldn't hurt other people (violence is wrong), and that you should always tell the truth (lying is wrong). Nothing I have seen convinces me that there is a universal idea of right and wrong. We learn those concepts from our parents (or guardians) directly, and from our society more broadly.

[Mohammad Shafiq Khan]

I'm familiar with Descartes and Hume's work. I disagree with the idea that ideas of morality are innate. If they were innate, children would know it was wrong to take other people's toys without asking (stealing is wrong), that you shouldn't hurt other people (violence is wrong), and that you should always tell the truth (lying is wrong). Nothing I have seen convinces me that there is a universal idea of right and wrong. We learn those concepts from our parents (or guardians) directly, and from our society more broadly.

 

 

Human being is the most intelligent and perfect creature on thisplanet and our basic and primary concern should be to strive to understand theorigin, constituents and purpose of human being. Unless and until correct,logical and rational answers are found, nothing could be right about the lifeof the human beings on this planet. Human beings have reached almost to thepoint of climax of scientific and intellectual development and with theavailable knowledge & information, it is high time and it should not bevery difficult to find out answers of these basic and fundamental questions.

 

Presently the humanlife is in a state of confused existence and will continue to be so, if thetask of finding the answers of these basic questions is not undertaken.

 

Let us first considerthe origin of human life. There could be only two possibilities as to how lifeon this planet, including the human life, came into existence. Either the lifecame into being by itself or life has been created by some creator. One has tobear in mind that either of the two possibilities could be right.

 

Human knowledge isbasically information regarding the effects and in some cases the mechanism ofeffects and in almost all the cases have no knowledge of the cause. Scientistspresent hypothesis, theories and even conclude that they possess the knowledge,but they basically have either the information of the effect or informationregarding the mechanism of the effect. This applies to most of the physicalsciences, especially the biological sciences. To substantiate this a fewexamples are quoted here. Newton was basically a philosopher who concluded thatmatter attracts matter and called it gravitation by philosophically observingand analyzing the falling of an apple from the tree. This is a universal factand scientists have put forward a theory that gravitation is due to theexchange of gravitons, which being the infinitely small particles. Thegravitation being the effect and the theory of exchange of gravitons being themechanism of effect but the actual cause of this effect shall continue to be themystery till the causative factor of gravitation is discovered. Physicists knowthat the opposite charged particles attract and the same charged particlesrepel. These are the effects which physicists know but the actual cause ofattraction or repulsion is not known. To explain the mechanism of attraction orrepulsion, physicists say that the attraction or repulsion is due to theelectric field which in turn, according to some theoretical physicists, is dueto exchange of infinitely small particles, but what is the actual causes ofemission of such particles is not known. Thus the actual cause shall continueto remain the mystery. The cosmological theories are simple theories of theeffect, but the actual cause is unknown. The Big Bang Theory concerns theeffect as the cause remains a mystery. Fertilization is an effect and the causeof the fertilization shall remain a mystery, unless and until serious attemptsare made to know the cause.

 

With this backgroundlet us explore the first possibility that life came into existence by itself.There is one theory which has been put forward which claims that life evolvednaturally in time by mere chance under the influence of the environmentalfactors without any intervention from any external factor; which is calledDarwin’s Theory of Evolution. Before we examine the Darwin’s Theory let us lookinto the life history of Darwin. It has to be accepted that Darwin was anintelligent person of his time. Initially he got associated with the Church forsome time and after remaining associated with the Church he could not reconcilewith some irrational and illogical concepts of Christianity as the result of whichhe disassociated with the Church. To justify his disassociation with the Churchhe looked for ways & means to defy the existence of God. I would like toreproduce his three quotes and make comments on his quotes. The first quote is‘Believing as I do that man in thedistant future will be far more perfect creature than he now is, it is anintolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed tocomplete annihilation after such long continued slow progress’. The presentday science has made it crystal clear that the life on this planet has to endsooner or later. The universe as well as the world is living on the edge andthe whole equilibrium can get disturbed at any time. Sun is emitting theradiation in space around it continuously as the result of the nuclear reactioncalled nuclear fusion. The reaction could stop at any point of time andemission of radiation could stop and this radiation being the source of life onthis planet and resultantly the life on this planet would annihilate. Secondlywithout doing any calculations, the nuclear fuel in the sun has to exhaust atone time, however long it may take, as the result of which the life on thisplanet is destined to annihilate. Thirdly the sun is emitting radiationcontinuously and a small portion of this radiation reaches this planet. Part ofthis radiation is reflected and part of it is being absorbed by this planet bymeans of photosynthesis and other mechanisms. Thus the energy level of theatmosphere of this planet is continuously increasing resulting the averagetemperature of the atmosphere is also increasing with time. Let us not takeinto account the increase in temperature due to artificial carbon and other gasemissions. Thus the average temperature of this planet will continue toincrease as long as sun emits the radiation and water level will continue toincrease in the seas due to the melting of the glaciers; all or most of theland mass will be drowned, if the glaciers contain that much of water whichcould drown the whole land mass otherwise land mass will be partly drowned. Thedrowning of the land mass will annihilate most of the life forms of thisplanet. This should prove that Darwin had wrong beliefs which cannot stand thetest of science.

 

The second quote ofDarwin (Introduction to the descent of Man, 1871) is a very beautiful quote andI wonder had he pondered on this quote with an open vision, he would not havepresented his Theory of Evolution. The quote is ‘Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge; it isthose who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert thatthis or that problem will never be solved’. Keeping in view the scientificknowledge available today, Darwin’s knowledge could be compared with ignoranceof today. He did not imagine that the basic unit of life which is a cell couldbe studied with the help of modern technologies to the extent it is beingstudied today. Had he foreseen the complexities of the cell and that of theDNA, he would have considered himself as an ignorant being and would not havetried to solve the problem of understanding the origin of life with his virtualignorance. His theory draws inferences, without considering the cause, oneffects and assumes that the cause is a natural phenomenon. The cause as suchis taken for granted and thereby denied. Unless and until the possible causesor mechanism of any phenomenon are discussed and proper provision kept in thetheory for the mechanism or causative factors, the theory cannot be justified.Darwin closed the doors of any possibility of finding the mechanism or thecause and declared nature, time and environment to be the cause. This revealsthat Darwin had the wrong conception of the basic principles of science.

 

The third quote ofDarwin (Descent of Man) is ‘false factsare highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long,but false views, if supported by some evidence do little harm, for everyonetakes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done,one path towards errors is closed and road to truth is often at the same timeopened’. It we analyze this quote, it is not the false facts which areinjurious to the progress of science because sooner or later science will provefalse facts to be false. But false views, if supported by some evidence about someobscure matter are more injurious to the progress of science. The views whetherfalse or true views continue till the obscurity of the matter is resolved.Since the obscurity of the origin of life has not been solved till date,Darwin’s views continue to be held despite the lapse of about one and halfcentury. If we assume, at this stage, that Darwin’s views were wrong thenhumanity after assessing the damage Darwin’s views have done to the humanityscientifically, socially, politically and morally, will never forgive Darwinfor his false views. Darwin never considered this possibility whatsoever, whichreveals that he had wrong understanding as well.

 

From the quotes ofDarwin it should be clear that Darwin had wrong beliefs, wrong conceptions andwrong understanding. This endeavor will prove this scientifically as well asphilosophically.

 

The basic unit of life is a ‘cell’ which is common to all life forms.Biologists now know almost everything physical about the cell as to what arethe constituents of the different types of cells, plant and animal, and whatfunctions different cells perform; of which Darwin at his time was not aware of.The cells, plant or animal, could be in three states; dead, living but dormant andliving. Again dead cells could be of three types; firstly dead cells with foodsupply stopped and constituents of the cell intact, secondly dead cells withfood supply intact but constituents of the cells damaged/disturbed and thirdlydead cells with food supply intact and constituents of cells intact. Theexistence of third type of dead cells is a phenomenon which cannot be explainedby any scientific demonstration, not to speak of Darwin’s Theory. According toDarwin’s Theory the cells have life as a natural phenomenon and there should belife in every cell with food supply intact and constituents of the cellsintact. The very existence of dead cells with food supply intact andconstituents of cells intact defies the Darwin’s Theory on simple &fundamental facts. It is believed thatDNA molecule in the nucleus of the cell contains all the information pertainingto the cell, organ or organism and to know about the cell and the DNA I willagain refer to two books again written by Adnan Oktar under the pen- name HarunYahya which are available on website www.harunyahya.com namely

 

01. The Miracle in the Cell

 

02. The secrets in the DNA

 

This has been done toavoid writing what is already written and to limit the size of this endeavor.Again I would request the readers to read with purely scientific perspective asin these books some material has been written with religious perspective.

 

With this in the background,recently the DNA of the chimpanzee has been matched with human DNA (R.J.Baitten 2002) and it has been demonstrated that the two DNA’s almost (95%)match. This defies the Theory of Evolution and almost puts the final nail inthe coffin of the Theory of Evolution, because two species with almost matchingDNA differ so much in physical and instinctive characteristics proves loudlyand clearly that DNA is not containing all the information regarding the cell,organ or organism and the inheritance & modification over time andenvironment is not based on facts. Darwin had conceded that ‘if it could bedemonstrated that any complex organ/organism existed, which could not possiblyhave been formed by numerous successive slight modifications my theory wouldabsolutely break-down’. This is exactly what the matching of chimpanzee &human DNA’s demonstrates. Two species do exist which have almost same DNA andeven the cell structures, proves that one species has not proceeded fromanother and live differently and separately. There is no question of anymodification. Thus this should be taken as scientific collapse of Darwin’sTheory of Evolution which even Darwin himself had conceded.

 

Let us analyze theDarwin’s Theory of Evolution philosophically. There are some basic, fundamentaland simple facts which need to be considered to understand the phenomenon oflife. Molecules and chemicals are known to have physical and chemicalproperties. Outside the cell, the basic unit of life, molecules and chemicalsin any composition or in any set of arrangement do not and cannot have theproperty of reproduction, growth, sense of identification of harmful and beneficialmolecules and chemicals and many other senses. How it is that all theconstituents of the cell when in the cell possess senses? Whatever the extentof information contained in the DNA, it cannot give the senses of reproduction,growth and many other senses to the cell, organ or organism; DNA can, at themost, be responsible for definite physical and chemical characteristics of thecell, organ or organism. The life in the cells or organic being cannot be dueto the mere arrangement of chemicals & molecules and by any means theinstincts cannot be stored and transmitted. Darwin and evolutionists assumethat because of special arrangement of chemicals and molecules in the cells andelsewhere, life exists as a natural phenomenon and the instincts in the organicbeing could be stored, transmitted and modified by the numerous, successive andslight modifications. This is due to the lack of philosophical mind on the partof biologists which includes the evolutionists. We need to understand thephenomenon of life before we could decide upon the origin of life. It will beproved that evolutionist’s basic presumption that life exists due to merearrangement of chemicals & molecules in the cells, organs or organisms iswrong. Philosophically it has been concluded, decades before, that the processof evolution as the origin of life is not tenable and there is something wrongwith the theory of evolution and explanation of phenomenon of life asunderstood by the biologists. This would be clear to the readers by the passagefrom Wildon Carr which is quoted as follows;

 

‘Ifintellect is a product of evolution the whole mechanistic concept of the natureand origin of life is absurd, and the principle which science has adopted mustclearly be revised. We have only to state it to see the self-contradiction. Howcan the intellect, a mode of apprehending reality, be itself an evolution ofsomething which only exists as an abstraction of that mode of apprehending,which is the intellect? If intellect is an evolution of life, then the conceptof the life which can evolve intellect as a particular mode of apprehendingreality must be the concept of a more concrete activity than that of anyabstract mechanical movement which the intellect can present to itself byanalyzing its apprehended content. And yet further, if the intellect be aproduct of the evolution of life, it is not absolute but relative to theactivity of the life which has evolved it; how then, in such case, can scienceexclude the subjective aspect of the knowing and build on the objectivepresentation as an absolute? Clearly the biological sciences necessitate areconsideration of the scientific principle.’

 

The readers should bear in mind that everyliving organism has the intellect of survival, growth & reproduction as thenatural instincts. It is due to the compartmentalization of different fields ofstudy that the biologists and evolutionists have not taken notice of such basic& fundamental philosophical problems of evolution & phenomenon of life.

 

Newton’s observationof gravitational force between matter was accepted as a natural phenomenonwithout going into the reason of attraction. This was accepted as a universalfact and physicists did not bother to look for the reasons or mechanism ofattraction between the matter for several centuries. Now the physicists havecome forward with the theory that matter attracts matter because of exchange ofinfinitesimally small particles called gravitons. Similarly the processes whichtake place within the cell, biologists assume that these processes are anatural phenomenon and no biologists has gone further as to how such processestake place within the cells and have given the names like protein-synthesis,cell-metabolism to cover up the mysterious functioning of the cells. Thebiologist have to give an explanation of causative factors for all theprocesses which take place within the cells and none of the micro-biologists,including molecular biologists, bio-chemists and genetic scientists have eventhought of any explanation. The food material being converted into amino acidswhich in turn are converted into 2,00,000 types of proteins in the cells as thehuman body uses this number of proteins. It is presumed by the biologists thatthe information of protein formation is encoded in the DNA and also theinformation of the proteins to be utilized within the cells & those whichare to be exported outside the cells. This is the illogical argument held by thebiologists to avoid defining the actual cause of the functioning of the cell.Unless there are means of communication between the DNA and the actualconstituent of the cell where the protein synthesis and other functions takeplace and these means of communication have to be identified which could passon such information. No such means of efficient communication have beenconceived not to speak of the identification. The functioning of the cell isaccepted as a mystery which needs to be resolved.

 

There has to be a theory toexplain the mysterious functioning of the cells and that of organs andorganisms. If the theory can explain all the phenomena which have not beenexplained so far by scientists and the philosophers then one has to considerthe theory seriously. The theory has been conceived and is presented herein. Ifthat is done, the Darwin’s Theory summarily fails to explain the origin &phenomenon of life.

 

There has to be adriving force within the cells, organs or organisms which could be responsiblefor livingness of the cells, organs or organism. Human beings have to look forthis driving force which gives life to the cell to know the origin &phenomenon of life. It has to be done scientifically as well asphilosophically.

 

The existence of thedead cells with the food supply intact and the constituents of the cells alsointact is a phenomenon which in no case could be explained by any scientificdemonstration with the presumption of biologists that life exists as a naturalphenomenon in the cells. This phenomenon could be explained by existence ofsome driving force of livingness within the cells. There is absolutely no otheralternative but to accept this driving force or livingness or essence withinthe cells to explain existence of dead cells with food supply intact andconstituents of cells intact.

 

Secondly matching ofthe DNA in two species to the extent of 95% or more and their differences inphysical and instinctive characteristics, as wide as that between chimpanzeeand the humans, loudly and clearly proves the existence of some othersubstance, the driving force or livingness or essence as the cause ofdifferences in the physical and instinctive characteristics.

 

Thirdly despitetremendous advances in the molecular biology, bio-chemistry and genetics thefunctioning of a living cell remains a mystery. Unless and until we accept theexistence of a driving force or livingness in the cell, this mystery cannot be resolved.This substance within cell as the source of life has to be highly complex; morecomplex than the cell or DNA.

 

Fourthly we mightknow the processes from production of sperm or pollen and its fertilizationthen birth, growth, survival, reproduction and finally death of the organismsbut science has so far failed to assign or explain the causative factors to allthese processes.

 

Fifthly there aremany other phenomena such as sleep, mysticism or spirituality, mystical curingof diseased human beings, evil spirits etc. All these phenomena could only be explained bythe existence of this complex substance within the human beings.

 

The physicalcharacteristics of this complex substance are described as under: -

 

01. This substance has to be invisible to thenaked eye, microscope, electron microscope etc. because till date no such substancehas been seen or imagined to be existing in the cell or organic being exceptsome vague imaginations by some philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz,Avicenna and Averroes etc.

 

02. This substance has to be highly complexand interactive within the cells; otherwise this substance has to be inert andinactive with respect to other matter outside of the cells. This is due to thefact that physicists have not made any observations regarding such a substance.It has to be more inert than neutrinos outside the cells.

 

03. This substance when interacting with theconstituents of the cells or organic being gives senses of reproduction,growth, understanding or simply life to the cells or organic being.

 

04. This substance has to be highlyinteractive and communicating between different units of its existence withinthe organism & capable of having independent existence also.

 

Evidently thesubstance could be highly complex ‘energy’ which could have its independentexistence as well. This ‘energy’ is the source of life of every living thing,plant & animal.

 

At this stage,readers might feel that I am trying to resolve the mysteries of cell function andlife or human being by introducing some mysterious ‘energy’. But I will provethe existence of this ‘energy’ indirectly by explaining everything which hithertocould not be explained by science or philosophy; besides a direct proof will begiven to the human beings when they could simply feel the presence of this ‘energy’within them.

 

The humankind being aspecial and perfect creature and our primary concern, let our attention be onthe human beings only. This ‘energy’ is the source of life for all living things and in so far as the human being isconcerned in this ‘energy’ is embedded the ‘ego’ of the human being. This ‘ego’is the ‘soul’ of the human being. Thus living human being is not simply a setof different groups of cells but besides these cells, human being has this ‘energy’as the source of life and a ‘soul’. The physical body of the human being, ‘energy’and the ‘soul’ can have their independent existence also. The physical body inthe form of a dead body has neither ‘energy’ nor ‘soul’. In the condition ofsleep human being has physical body and ‘energy’ only. Acceptable explanationof all the phenomena by this design is a proof of existence of ‘energy’ and ‘soul’.

 

The body and the ‘soul’independently are inactive and with the help of interaction between the body,the ‘soul’ and the ‘energy’; human being is a living being capable of all theactivities which human being perform.

 

Due to theinteraction between the ‘energy’ and the human body thoughts are created eitherdue to the external stimuli or in situ. These thoughts after giving somefeelings reach the ‘soul’, where final decision of action is taken and opinionis formed. The ‘soul’ of the human being has the innate knowledge of right& wrong of every action, thought or opinion. Now if we prove that innateknowledge of right & wrong exists within the human being that willindirectly prove the existence of ‘energy’ and ‘soul’.

 

I have done intenseresearch by interacting with people of different education levels andintelligence quotients, of different classes of societies and of differentfinancial status and even observed the children of different ages of abovementioned classes of people. Every adult human being has agreed of having theinnate knowledge of right and wrong irrespective of religion and social taboo.Any intelligent reader will agree to it and he is free to consult any number ofpeople; then he will simply confirm that every individual including thechildren have the innate knowledge of right and wrong of all his actions andthoughts. This is the most convincing indirect proof of existence of the ‘energy’and ‘soul’ to all the people of the world and resultantly indirect proof of theultimate failure of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

 

The destiny of the human beinglies in as to how he applies his innate knowledge of right and wrong to all ofhis actions and thoughts.

 

Dueto the external stimuli or in situ thoughts are created in the human being asthe result of the interaction between body and the ‘energy’. This gives rise tothe formation of feelings, which may require action or may not require action,and in ‘soul’, with the innate knowledge of the right and wrong, decisions aretaken about the action and opinion. Thus an attitude of a human being is formedby the way he acts and with time he develops a habit and finally a type ofpersonality is formed which determine the destiny of the human being. This allis represented in the figure 1 for easy and quick understanding

 

Evolutionistsassume that habits or instincts are inherited and transmitted to theoff-springs by their parents. But through genes only the physicalcharacteristics are transmitted to the off-springs. This fact is confirmed bythe fact that the DNA’s of the chimpanzee and the human being match to theextent of 95% because it could be acceptable that difference of 5% in the DNA’sof chimpanzee and human being could account for the physical differencesbetween the two. But the difference of 5% of DNA’s cannot explain the huge differenceof physical and instinctive characteristics between humans & chimpanzees.

 

Since physical characteristic couldbe stored and transmitted through genes as such for all the plant species thetype of ‘energy’ required as source of life could be uniform ‘energy’. But forthe animal life the ‘energy’ has to be different for different species, becauseinstinctive characteristics of different species are different. Evidently thereis no need of any ‘soul’ in respect of plant life on the whole and all of theanimal species except human being.

 

Keeping in view what has stated hereinand trying to understand the human being to be in a state in which we find him,we could easily draw the inference that the Theory of Evolution failsscientifically as well as philosophically. But the fact remains that the originof life has to be explained which I will do hereunder.

 

It stands cleared that the cell and‘energy’ in respect of plant life and all of the animal species except thehuman beings and cell, ‘energy’ and ‘soul’ in respect of human beings containall the information of physical characteristics and instinctive characteristicsincluding the senses of growth, reproduction, etc. The cell being the basicunit of life wherein the ‘energy’ is the source of life or driving force orlivingness and in respect of humans cells contain besides ‘energy’, the ‘soul’;the most convenient and acceptable origin of life has to be the cell but unlikeTheory of Evolution, cells have to originate for different species separately andindependently and secondly the place of origin of the cells have to be waterand thirdly the cells have to originate at different places on the planet asdifferent species, plants and animals, survive in different climatic zones.Human being is one of the species which can survive naturally in every climaticzone. In respect of human being we could accept that the whole humanityoriginated from the couple of cells; one cell of the male and another cell ofthe female. In that case one has to understand that the combination of cell and‘energy’ especially the ‘energy’ in respect of initial two cells, one male& one female to be slightly different, to allow for the fending in theinitial stages of the first human male and female like some of the animal specieswho survive in absence of the parents.

 

Having solved mystery of thefunctioning of the cell and proposed a theory of origin & phenomenon oflife; the question as to whether the initial cells for every species haveoriginated by itself or have been created, needs to be answered. After analysisof all the studies conducted regarding the cell and the DNA and also keeping inview what is contained herein one can easily conclude that there is negligibleprobability that the cells could come into being by itself. How could such acomplex and perfect entity come into existence without the intervention of theperfect designer or creator? Any statistician, biologist or a philosopher afterdue consideration of all aspects of science and philosophy would simply arriveat one and only solution, that the initial cells of every species have beencreated by a perfect designer or creator. Even if scientists may be in positionto assemble the cell but to give life to the cell would be beyond human reachbecause the ‘energy’ required for the cells to be live and functional is notunder the control of human being. This also substantiates the existence ofperfect designer or creator for as the only cause of creation of all life formson this planet.

 

The theory & design of the humanbeing which has been conceived herein had not been thought of by scientists sofar but several philosophers in the past have vaguely conceived the existenceof such a design of human being. These ancient philosophers namely Plato,Aristotle, Leibniz, Averroes, Plotinus,Avicenna etc. were the first who suggested the somewhat similar design of humanbeing, but since no scientific evidence & verification was possible atthose times, the designs remained only as ideas and virtually faded away withtime. Since during last two centuries philosophy was an almost forgotten fieldof study no scientist or researcher, also due to compartmentalization &specialization of scientific study, paid any attention to the great works ofthese ancient philosophers. Out of all the philosophers whom the world hasproduced till date Plato stands out as the visionary philosopher, which shallbe proved by the contents of this book also because his philosophy had a divinetouch. The contents of this work will make it clear that Aristotle, though agenius of his time, except his borrowed concept of ‘Ousia’ which he borrowedfrom Plato, all his philosophy especially his political philosophy had been onwrong foundations. Plato’s concept of ‘forms’ and his belief that the materialworld as it seems to us is not the real world, but only a shadow of the realworld, has been conceived & evidence gathered is this work. Leibniz hadalso put forward the concept of ‘monads’ in place of ‘energy’ of this work asthe source of life. In the ‘soul’ of the human being there is the concept ofperfect universal creator which human being feel as intuition which Descartesrealized and suggested that since humans have the feeling that God exists; Godmust exist. This design confirms the basic concept of Descartes. Descartes’concept was rejected by Kant later-on on the basis of his confusing philosophywhich was not based on the right principles. However, one must admit that a fewof the inferences which Kant drew from his confusing philosophy do hold goodbecause he in his philosophy accepted the existence of ‘a priori’ but hisdefinitions and classifications of ‘a priori’ are not tenable. Avicenna triedto apply the Greek philosophy especially the Aristotle’s philosophy, to thereligious thought but encountered certain genuine difficulties which he spelledout in his works because the existence of perfect universal creator has someserious difficulties in the Greek philosophy which have been resolved in thiswork. Algazel did painstaking work to point out certain basic difficulties inthe Greek philosophy and tried to solve the basic difficulties of religiousthought in his work namely “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” but failed.His failure of giving proper & justified explanations of the difficultiesin the religious thought has been described by Averroes in his work “The Incoherenceof the Incoherence”. Averroes rightly concluded that the difficulty cannot beexplained by another difficulty. However Averroes had also proposed a somewhatsimilar design of human being as contained in this work but lacked in details& description and scientific demonstration. Finally after Kant philosophyas a field of study was neglected by the world. This was all due to the factthat the Greek philosophy, especially the Aristotle’s philosophy, andsubsequent philosophies were based on wrong axioms of matter as the basematerial of everything in the universe and imagination of anything other thanmatter as the base material did not occur to any philosopher except a fewphilosophers like Russell but the application was vaguely done, as the resultthey could not derive other philosophical conclusions correctly. With thescientific knowledge presently available this foundation of philosophy has beenchallenged in this work with scientific evidence.

 

To summarize the theory & designof the human being; human being consists of the body, ‘energy’ and ‘soul’. Allthe three constituents of the human being are capable of independent existence.The body occupies the defined space whereas ‘energy’ and ‘soul’ have no definedspace as they have no limitations of space. The body acts as material base and‘energy’ is the source of life, the driving force or livingness or essencewithin the body and has abundant properties; ‘energy’ could be initiallyuniform with all the human being and once in a human being it stores theinformation and subsequently gets labeled as ‘energy’ of a particularindividual. While interacting with the body it gives the senses of growth,reproduction, feelings, emotions and most importantly produces the thoughts ofright and wrong desires as the result of external stimuli or in situ. This ‘energy’under special conditions can have the senses of hearing, seeing and movementindependent of the body so much so this ‘energy’ can perceive the existence ofother ‘energy’ and know its content and quality and interact with the other ‘energy’.Besides it stands already described as to what the ‘energy’ in itself has tobe.

 

‘soul’ as already discussed isembedded in the ‘energy’ and capable of independent existence also wherein theconcept of existence of the creator is already existent besides it has theinnate knowledge of right and wrong and the decision of action or opinion lieswith the ‘soul’ and finally the ‘souls’ of every individual are already createdwith defined identification as every ‘soul’ has an ‘ego’ associated with it.

 

This final design of human beingwould require some more clarification. As already clarified that due toexternal stimuli or in situ interactions between body and the ‘energy’ thoughtsare created. These thoughts give rise to desires and these desires could beright or wrong. Since these desires have to have the approval of the ‘soul’, thishas the innate knowledge of a desire being right or wrong, before the humanbeing could take any action or form an opinion. It needs no clarification thatthe ‘soul’ of an individual has to be specific and no two ‘souls’ could besimilar or equivalent. The most important point which needs clarification isthat the ‘soul’ has the innate knowledge of existence of the perfect universalcreator. The manifestation of this innate knowledge is that most of the humanbeings hold on to the perception that there exists a perfect universal creatorirrespective of the religions they believe in. The intelligent human beings whostudy the religions deeply find that most of the religions are illogical andirrational but yet hold on to the perception that there exists a perfectuniversal creator. They also understand that the religions are corrupted, onemore than the other, and even though having rejected the religious beliefs (as mostpeople of the Europe and America and of advanced countries have) yet in theheart of hearts they know that there exists a perfect universal creator. Thiscould be sufficient proof to every intelligent human being that the ‘soul’ hasthe innate knowledge of the existence of a perfect universal creator.

 

The ‘energy’ under special conditionscan have certain properties/senses; could now be discussed to explain certainphenomena which hitherto have not been explained by science or philosophy.

 

It has been already clarified thatthoughts give rise to desires in the human beings. The pre-requisite forspirituality or mysticism is to have the monotheistic belief, irrespective ofreligion, and one has to sacrifice all the human desires right as well as wrongexcept the desire of feeding oneself to survive for the sake of one perfectuniversal creator. Besides there is another mode of mysticism; that is to adoptany of the monotheistic religion and carry out all the duties prescribed underthat religion as a normal human being, then under the guidance of a spiritualguide and defined practices one can attain the spiritual power. By spiritualpower is meant to have the control over his ‘energy’ through which he isexposed to different experiences which cannot be expressed by him. The mysticor Sufi has the control over his ‘energy’ and the degree of control varies frommystic to mystic depending upon the purity of his mind and intention. With timethe mystic attains the perfection through increase in control over his ‘energy’;if he sustains the hardships and maintains his purity of mind and intention.Through ‘energy’ within him, the mystic can have the senses of hearing, seeingand movement independent of the organs of hearing, seeing and those of movementof the body. The perfection of the mystic could reach the climax when themystic attains the power to influence the ‘energy’ of the other human being.

 

Since life in the human being is dueto the interaction of body and the ‘energy’ and through the influence on the ‘energy’the diseases of the diseased could be cured by mystic, whereas doctors throughchemicals, which influence different organs of the patient, cure the patients;besides doctors repair the damages of different organs/tissues throughoperations to cure the patients. Most of the diseases are due to somemalfunction of the cells/tissues either due to the attack of bacteria orviruses or otherwise or else because of the malfunction of the ‘energy’ withinthe cells/tissues. The mystic through the influence on the ‘energy’ within thecells/tissues can cure both types of diseases whereas the doctors could curethe cells/tissues by chemicals or operation. This should explain the mysticcuring of the patients which hitherto has been an unexplained phenomenon byscience, theology or philosophy.

 

In many religions also there arealso such practices by which they attain the control over the ‘energy’ of theself or other human being. The readers should know that mysticism orspirituality is also a way of life and some people sacrifice their lives forthis purpose. The existence of mysticism or spiritually or even poeticmysticism should be indirect proof of this design of human being.

 

This design of human being will alsohelp in scientific study of sleep, dreams and psychology.

 

This design of human beingrejects all the materialistic philosophies. I could discuss all materialisticphilosophies one by one and prove them to be wrong. Keeping in view thatreaders are not supposed to have knowledge of philosophy and also keeping inview that this work has to be concise and precise, instead of that all effortswill be made to prove the correctness of this design of human being byproviding sufficient evidence through published scientific articles. You will have to refer my published scientific articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals as a proof.

 

Lastly the child's brain is not developed enough to corelate the instincts with innate knowledge of right & wrong.

[Greg H.]

Human being is the most intelligent and perfect creature on thisplanet and our basic and primary concern should be to strive to understand theorigin, constituents and purpose of human being. Unless and until correct,logical and rational answers are found, nothing could be right about the lifeof the human beings on this planet. Human beings have reached almost to thepoint of climax of scientific and intellectual development and with theavailable knowledge & information, it is high time and it should not bevery difficult to find out answers of these basic and fundamental questions.

Human beings are the most intelligent and perfect beings on the planet? By what unbiased, objective standard?

 

The humankind being aspecial and perfect creature and our primary concern, let our attention be onthe human beings only.

As I highly doubt your initial premise is correct, I'm finding your conclusions based on that premise to be less than convincing.

By spiritualpower is meant to have the control over his 'energy' through which he isexposed to different experiences which cannot be expressed by him. The mysticor Sufi has the control over his 'energy' and the degree of control varies frommystic to mystic depending upon the purity of his mind and intention. With timethe mystic attains the perfection through increase in control over his 'energy';if he sustains the hardships and maintains his purity of mind and intention.Through 'energy' within him, the mystic can have the senses of hearing, seeingand movement independent of the organs of hearing, seeing and those of movementof the body. The perfection of the mystic could reach the climax when themystic attains the power to influence the 'energy' of the other human being.

 

Since life in the human being is dueto the interaction of body and the 'energy' and through the influence on the 'energy'the diseases of the diseased could be cured by mystic, whereas doctors throughchemicals, which influence different organs of the patient, cure the patients;besides doctors repair the damages of different organs/tissues throughoperations to cure the patients. Most of the diseases are due to somemalfunction of the cells/tissues either due to the attack of bacteria orviruses or otherwise or else because of the malfunction of the 'energy' withinthe cells/tissues. The mystic through the influence on the 'energy' within thecells/tissues can cure both types of diseases whereas the doctors could curethe cells/tissues by chemicals or operation. This should explain the mysticcuring of the patients which hitherto has been an unexplained phenomenon byscience, theology or philosophy.

By what stretch of the imagination does this have anything to with the topic at hand? Furthermore, I can explain anything by saying "Goddidit". That doesn't actually answer the question, it just moves the goal posts.

 

Lastly the child's brain is not developed enough to corelate the instincts with innate knowledge of right & wrong.

 

So you're saying it's something that they learn. If they have to learn it, how is it innate?

 

This is yet more of your obfuscation of answers to push forward your pet theories concerning why science is wrong is religion is right. I was hoping you had moved past your earlier poor arguments.

[Phi for All]

Any statistician, biologist or a philosopher afterdue consideration of all aspects of science and philosophy would simply arriveat one and only solution, that the initial cells of every species have beencreated by a perfect designer or creator.

I really object to your bringing this wad of garbage generalization into this discussion. You were asked some very specific questions and have responded with unsupported opinion (which has been copied from a source that may or not be yours) stated as undeniable fact. Very disappointing and unprofessional. Your post is being reported.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Mohammad,

Firstly, if you are going to quote something from somewhere else, you need to credit it. Direct copy pastes from websites or papers or books, etc. without crediting the source is plagiarism and is against the rules. I recognize that the second part of your post comes from what appears to be something you have authored. The first website does not have an author that I could see and so would require some form of citation.

Secondly, it would be a courtesy to other members here to please only copy relevant quotes instead of giant walls of text. Additionally, this is a discussion forum and it would be advisable if you could not make entire posts containing only uncredited words of others.

[HenryB]

A child’s innate behavior, like any other animal is adaptive to what’s good, not what’s bad. A healthy newborn brain knows what to do before its first inhale. Every innate thing in the brain knows what’s good and reacts accordingly.

 

 

The brain is born with a lot of stuff it knows to do before it does it. As for the bad thing aspect, unfortunately, that’s something the brain learns after birth.

 

 

The adaptive nature of the “inherited” brain is a product of all the good things that were experienced by the parent. A good thing makes you feel good. A bad thing is not worth remembering

[Mohammad Shafiq Khan]

!

Moderator Note

Mohammad,

 

Firstly, if you are going to quote something from somewhere else, you need to credit it. Direct copy pastes from websites or papers or books, etc. without crediting the source is plagiarism and is against the rules. I recognize that the second part of your post comes from what appears to be something you have authored. The first website does not have an author that I could see and so would require some form of citation.

 

Secondly, it would be a courtesy to other members here to please only copy relevant quotes instead of giant walls of text. Additionally, this is a discussion forum and it would be advisable if you could not make entire posts containing only uncredited words of others.

 

The post is from a book written by me and proved by published scientific articles in the peer-reviewed journals. The published scientific aricles are available on www.indjst.org, www.elixirjournal.org, www.gsjournal.net, www.worldsci.org, viXra,Intellectual Archives.

 

With the reply to the moderator wherein the source & proof has been provided. I am under no obligation to reply to the non-sense of Greg H & Phi for All.

[hypervalent_iodine]

The post is from a book written by me and proved by published scientific articles in the peer-reviewed journals. The published scientific aricles are available on www.indjst.org, www.elixirjournal.org, www.gsjournal.net, www.worldsci.org, viXra,Intellectual Archives.

 

With the reply to the moderator wherein the source & proof has been provided. I am under no obligation to reply to the non-sense of Greg H & Phi for All.

 

I was mostly referring to the first half of your post, which comes from here and had no apparent author.

 

And no, I suppose you aren't obliged to reply to anyone. Not that it matters anymore anyway.

[dapifo]

Humans have the freedom of action. The will is defined by the creator and what humans will is already defined through the human instincts by the entities which interact with the body to convey the will. Human desires are as the result of interaction of the body & entities resposible for human instincts and with the innate knowledge of right & wrong, humans act for which he has absolute freedom.

 

 

OK...and the other animals (dors, cats,.ants, octopuses, mites, mussels, ...)...they also have freedom of action?...they know wat is right & wrong?

[dapifo]

I will make a very simple statement that may clarify the discussion.

 

I suppose that we can all agree that if there was not life in the universe, everything is governed by physical laws.

With the emergence of life (elementary or not) can begin to raise doubts and questions about:

 

If you only have plants (trees, mushrooms, ...) in the universe, I suppose all will agree that everything would also be governed by the laws of physics. The plants have no power of "free choice" or "free will" and they move by biological laws (chemical and physical). Or is there anyone who believes otherwise?

 

What about animals (mussels, ants, worms, lizards, mice, lions, ...)? ... I guess everyone will agree that they are guided by instinct. What is instinct? ... Perform an action after computing (biological-chemical-physical) information (stimuli, ..) external. For me they would be governed also by the laws of physics. The animals doesn´t have "free will". Or is there anyone who believes otherwise?

What about the human? ... It's an animal?. That distinguishes men from animals?: The capacity for consciousness, reasoning, abstraction, ... Where do these differences come from? ... Are these differences sufficient to establish that man has "free will"? ... Or are simply a higher state of evolution of animals, but is still governed by the laws of physics?

 

The capacity for consciousness, reasoning, abstraction, ... can be understud as a consequences of the biological-chemical-physical laws?...or only could be understud with the existence of a "soul".

[shahid]

The existence of soul is characterized by existence of ego, a priori knowledge of existence of God in humans and a priori knowledge of moral code.

[Phoenix007]

Yes - humans have the power to override all instinctual desires of the body. Even the most compelling instinct, which is "Survive!". Humans can consciously choose not to survive.

 

When Captain Oates, in 1912, walked out of the snow-bound polar hut, he knew he was going to certain death. The freezing Antartic blizzards would soon kill his body. All the instincts of his body must have been screaming at him "Don't do this!"

 

But these instincts were overcome by his human will. He knew he was going to lose his life. But he believed that by sacrificing his own life, he could help his companions. So he did it, and died.

 

Doesn't the amazing ability to do a thing like that, prove the freedom, and supremacy, of the human will?

 

But you see, by letting himself die, he was trying to help his companions. So, in the end, the objective is still survival, survival of the group. This brings us back to square one, that humans are driven by the instinct to ensure a long, peaceful survival.

[Unity+]

I'm familiar with Descartes and Hume's work. I disagree with the idea that ideas of morality are innate. If they were innate, children would know it was wrong to take other people's toys without asking (stealing is wrong), that you shouldn't hurt other people (violence is wrong), and that you should always tell the truth (lying is wrong). Nothing I have seen convinces me that there is a universal idea of right and wrong. We learn those concepts from our parents (or guardians) directly, and from our society more broadly.

There is a misunderstanding of conception with your argument.

 

Children do not have a hard time determining right from wrong, rather they have a hard time determining how to react to such concepts. For example, a child may know that doing something may be wrong, however how they react to it is determined by how society teaches them. Parents teach their children how to react to certain feelings, emotions, and even situations.

 

Everyone is born with such forms of morality(whether instinctive or of some other form), however how you react to such moral concepts is up to the society that the child lived in .

 

But you see, by letting himself die, he was trying to help his companions. So, in the end, the objective is still survival, survival of the group. This brings us back to square one, that humans are driven by the instinct to ensure a long, peaceful survival.

But the problem with your argument is you would have argued the same way if he did not sacrifice himself for the others. The problem with the survival argument is how broad it is. Yes, evolution deals with survival of the fittest, but if either decision would have lead to the same conclusion then your argument is inconsistent. If he did not die for the others and survived himself he was for his own survival and tried to carry off his own offspring in one form or another. You could also argue that he helped the others for the survival of his species.

 

Also, I find that this scientific research(at the moment) should remain inconclusive about whether humans have a free choice mechanism or not. Yes they may have been able to predict the thoughts and actions of a person within a 10 second range, but you must realize that we are built in with a unnoticeable ability to predict actions in the first place based on previous actions that had occurred. I think the experiments are inconclusive until further results with less area for error are presented.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Unity+

[hyperion1is]

I'm familiar with Descartes and Hume's work. I disagree with the idea that ideas of morality are innate. If they were innate, children would know it was wrong to take other people's toys without asking (stealing is wrong), that you shouldn't hurt other people (violence is wrong), and that you should always tell the truth (lying is wrong). Nothing I have seen convinces me that there is a universal idea of right and wrong. We learn those concepts from our parents (or guardians) directly, and from our society more broadly.

 

 

The topic has changed a bit. Interested in your premise here. You try to disprove an empty statement with another?

"stealing is wrong", "violence is wrong", "lying is wrong" ? Says who? From where to where?

In a village of 10 people, 1 has all the resources and doesn't share (the other 9 have nothing). It's wrong for them (the other 9) to steal, or to use violence? If yes, isn't that also a crime? (9 lives) regardless of what values one puts on himself. Or killing your self is right or wrong? In a closed unbalanced system things change. The moral code/ethics may be about balance.

Balance is innate I think (that is enough?).

Anyway, studying human behavior at such young ages, 2-5 maybe can result in false readings (interpretations). If you report to the Human being, what is human? It does include self-consciousness? If yes, at what age is present?

 

About the free will. I believe that free will exists, but needs to be defined. It is determined by some parameters, related to the subject (the free agent). Maslow's pyramid or needs is one dimension of human nature? If yes, if the base of the pyramid is not met you can say you have free will?

About the John-Dylan Haynes experiment. The problem is interpreting the results. I see it as a delayed awareness, related to the cognitive functions involved.

If it's a delay between a free choice and observable action? If I want to move my right hand now, and observe that I can do it only 3 second later? I won't fell "trapped" ?

Free will is not a balloon suspended in ether. It's a "mechanism" incorporated in another mechanism, with feedback. Can be viewed as such ?

[sheever]

i think everything is neutral originally.it based on your past information sources how you define that what it actually is.anyhow,since nothing came by yourself ever you are a product of all your sources.amazingly everything as "wrong" or "good"it can change in any moment to its opposite.childrens has perception as "everything" is actually normal the way it is and one in itself apply as universal. for example giving leaf to a cow suggest them its the same with everything so they give it to the dog also.definition change contionusly with meaning behind and overwrite the information itself.homeless is not more than a people sitting on the ground but all your perception will be the definition of all previous information of the object in that moment so on its a projection only internal and you basically act upon that image.