~ Things I Can't Accept ~

[ken]

If all this hadn't actually happened I suspect most of us wouldn't have believed it because it all seems so unlikely

I like this. This applies also for just about everything human beings create, make and do. Not until it has happened most people would not believed it possible. For example, not until we are ALL living together peacefully in harmony most of us would not believe that this is possible. When it has had actually happened I also suspect most of us "today" would not have believed it, because it all seems so unlikely.

[ken]

We already know that intelligent species evolve if the conditions allow it. Evolutionary regression seems very possible in some underprivileged human groups as infrastructures break down. However, a continuation of exponential advancement also seems likely for the wealthy and their affiliates.

Perhaps the best way to avoid the distracting idea of purpose in evolution is to consider how "purposefully" (or not) you grew from a zygote to an adult. In biology there's simply a general drive to grow, multiply, expand in whatever way is possible. That's exactly what you did from zygote to adult, and exactly what the biosphere has done from "LUCA" to its current Holocene form.

If all this hadn't actually happened I suspect most of us wouldn't have believed it because it all seems so unlikely

I don't think there is such a thing like evolutionary regression. Like Hobbes says, if stupidity is what will survive, then natural selection will ensure that stupidity thrives. We might consider it a regression from intelligence to stupidity but from the evolutionary standpoint, it is what it is. The continuous mutations that occur and are passed on to successive generations keep ensuring a change towards something and natural selection does the rest. The something is not possible to know because nature seems to have a more vivid imagination than we do.

When the "something" is known, then it is known. Just because nature seems to have a more vivid imagination than that does not necessitate that "something" is not possible to know. Remember, 'we' are a part of nature. 'Every thing' once seemed not possible to know, but look at how many things we now know. Now, imagine what can and will be known, "one-day". Human beings can have just as much a vivid imagination as Nature Its Self does. In fact Nature reveals Its Self when 'we' are prepared and ready to receive the "something". "Something/everything" is revealed when we truly listen.

The continuous advancement you see in the wealthy is from the economic standpoint. You will find that it is the underprivileged who produce more offspring than the rich do. Also wealth is not a genetic trait. It is simply a temporary environmental factor and does not seem to last long enough to cause a lasting change in species. Today's wealthy can be tomorrow's poor. A hundred years would produce 5 generations or thereabouts. That is not enough length of an environment to be significant to the species. Only if the wealthy remain wealthy for maybe 25000 years or so would there be any evolutionary change.

'Intelligence' and 'stupidity' is also not a genetic trait. In fact it will be discovered that all thoughts and internal feelings are NOT genetically past on at all. And, it is thoughts and emotions that controls ALL of our behaviors, all stupid and intelligent behaviors included.

EVERY person has the ability to be just as intelligent and just as stupid as any other person. The way one thinks controls how stupid or intelligent we (re)act. By the way I am pretty sure all of us adults have been guilty of being both stupid and intelligent at some point in our lives.

[sthitapragya]

i thought i had explained better four posts back that the purpose of existence is NOT just for the evolution of an intelligent enough species. The purpose of existence is so that Existence ItSelf, can 'understand', see and know the beauty of what It is creating.

Well, that might or might not be true but unfortunately it has no relevance to reality. And we could debate about what you call beauty. We might agree that the universe is beautiful, but there is nothing beautiful about life and how it propagates. It is brutally violent and there is a lot of pain and suffering inherent in life. Also you seem to be assigning an emotion to existence itself. If you think the collective opinion of living organisms, particularly conscious organisms like humans is the lens through which Existence 'understands', then you also have to agree that the opinions it will get will be varied and confusing. A child suffering from a horrible disease will give existence the understanding that what it has created is hellish. So will a man or a woman who dies an excruciatingly slow and horrible death due to disease. However, a privileged person who sails through life and dies peacefully in his or her sleep will have the opinion that life is amazing and beautiful and rich. If existence is the lens of Existence, then it will never get a real picture, just subjective opinions.

Everything exists the way it does so that Existence can know Thy Self. 'I' am only able to do this through a species that has the brain capacity to gather, hold and store continual amounts of information. If that species becomes extinct, through their own wrong doings or from no fault of their own, then so be it. That does not matter one bit. 'I' am not in a hurry to go anywhere. 'I' just wait patiently because 'I' know another intelligent enough species will eventually come along, into existence, "one-day".

The other question is, what purpose will knowing Itself serve for Existence? Let us say it understands Itself finally after a series of experiences. Then what? What will it do with the understanding?

Existence does not necessarily need an intelligent species at all for existence to exist. Existence will still-always exist, obviously. Existence, exists, because of evolution in action.

Does existence exist because of evolution in action or is evolution a property of existence?

Existence will always exist. All species can come and go. But the more intelligent a species is then the longer that species could stay for, in existence. For example if a species was truly intelligent, then they would realise that they have a pretty big backyard to go and explore. The rest of the Universe is after all pretty big compared to say the home planet that they began and live on. A truly intelligent species, lets say, would not spend/waste trillions of dollars on defending themselves, from themselves. That IS stupidity, at its best, NOT intelligence. What a truly intelligent species would more likely be to do is to use that, actually worthless human-made paper they call money, on investing in themselves, e.g., in education, health and fitness, exploration, etc.

Unfortunately, these are not evolutionary traits. Also intelligence itself is a controversial word. There are people with low IQ who score very high on EQ and are equally successful. There are people with high IQ who score low on EQ and are socially awkward. And I think evolution still favours the fittest rather than the most intelligent. An intelligent species without the necessary physical traits to survive will become extinct. Then there are factors like comet hits or disease which can very possibly wipe out a species.

To me 'evolution', is just a word to describe the process of change, which is caused when every action causes a re-action.

That is absolutely not what evolution is. What you are talking about is a Newtonian law of physics, not evolution.

[sthitapragya]

When the "something" is known, then it is known. Just because nature seems to have a more vivid imagination than that does not necessitate that "something" is not possible to know. Remember, 'we' are a part of nature. 'Every thing' once seemed not possible to know, but look at how many things we now know. Now, imagine what can and will be known, "one-day". Human beings can have just as much a vivid imagination as Nature Its Self does. In fact Nature reveals Its Self when 'we' are prepared and ready to receive the "something". "Something/everything" is revealed when we truly listen.

I cannot argue with that because you have nothing to show which will prove it right and I have nothing to show which will prove it wrong.

'Intelligence' and 'stupidity' is also not a genetic trait. In fact it will be discovered that all thoughts and internal feelings are NOT genetically past on at all. And, it is thoughts and emotions that controls ALL of our behaviors, all stupid and intelligent behaviors included.

EVERY person has the ability to be just as intelligent and just as stupid as any other person. The way one thinks controls how stupid or intelligent we (re)act. By the way I am pretty sure all of us adults have been guilty of being both stupid and intelligent at some point in our lives.

I am sorry. But intelligence is definitely a hereditary trait. However there is a range within which that intelligence falls and the environment in which the person grows up will determine whether he or she will be at the upper or lower end of the range. And I think you are confusing doing stupid things and smart things with intelligence. Intelligence has to do with cognitive abilities. How you use your intelligence is decided by your temperament where again a lot of behavioural traits are governed by genetics.

[sthitapragya]

Maybe this is where you are going wrong and you WindowsBC operating system is reasserting itself.

Honestly i am not sure what you actually mean here, but do you mean the 'brain in this body', the windows operating system, is just repeating itself. If that is not what you mean, then please explain more. If you want more clarity on what i am expressing, then just ask.

If, however, you believe there is not a reason, then there is nothing i can do about that. I accept that is your belief.

I think you misquoted me. I never said the above.

[ken]

i thought i had explained better four posts back that the purpose of existence is NOT just for the evolution of an intelligent enough species. The purpose of existence is so that Existence ItSelf, can 'understand', see and know the beauty of what It is creating.

Well, that might or might not be true but unfortunately it has no relevance to reality. And we could debate about what you call beauty. We might agree that the universe is beautiful, but there is nothing beautiful about life and how it propagates. It is brutally violent and there is a lot of pain and suffering inherent in life. Also you seem to be assigning an emotion to existence itself. If you think the collective opinion of living organisms, particularly conscious organisms like humans is the lens through which Existence 'understands', then you also have to agree that the opinions it will get will be varied and confusing. A child suffering from a horrible disease will give existence the understanding that what it has created is hellish. So will a man or a woman who dies an excruciatingly slow and horrible death due to disease. However, a privileged person who sails through life and dies peacefully in his or her sleep will have the opinion that life is amazing and beautiful and rich. If existence is the lens of Existence, then it will never get a real picture, just subjective opinions.

I was writing a reply to this when I lost it all. I will reply again soon. I accidentally highlighted everything and lost my work when i press the next letter. If anyone knows how to 'undo' like in microsoft word it would be most appreciated. At least twice this has happened to me after spending some time replying.

Everything exists the way it does so that Existence can know Thy Self. 'I' am only able to do this through a species that has the brain capacity to gather, hold and store continual amounts of information. If that species becomes extinct, through their own wrong doings or from no fault of their own, then so be it. That does not matter one bit. 'I' am not in a hurry to go anywhere. 'I' just wait patiently because 'I' know another intelligent enough species will eventually come along, into existence, "one-day".

The other question is, what purpose will knowing Itself serve for Existence? Let us say it understands Itself finally after a series of experiences. Then what? What will it do with the understanding?

The same as what any other thing can do with understanding. 'Understanding', is knowing WHY. For example, if and when human beings have an understanding of WHY something happened, then they have the cause, which they can then prevent from happening again. If prevention is truly better than the cure, then this could come in very handy. If we have understanding of WHY we behave and misbehave the way we do, then we also have the cause, the reason, which we can use to prevent other generations from doing the same wrong or making the same mistakes again. Once this WHY is gained the reason WHY we behave, and misbehave, is known. The reason WHY we do, what we do, is discovered, which will provide a bigger reason to prevent people from doing wrong again and make us want to do more of what is right. Also, while we are on this, how could a person truly forgive another, or them self even, if they do not know WHY they did something wrong in the first place? Understanding is a form of knowing, which by itself brings with it purpose.

What 'I' do with 'understanding' is 'I' am able to look and see without judging. i use understanding to learn and show how we can ALL live together the way that we ALL truly want. I am learning how do this in a way that every person can understand because i understand WHY people do not yet know. In other words 'I' use understanding to show what Our collective purpose is, i.e., to learn and teach how to live together in peace and harmony as One.

Existence does not necessarily need an intelligent species at all for existence to exist. Existence will still-always exist, obviously. Existence, exists, because of evolution in action.

Does existence exist because of evolution in action or is evolution a property of existence?

Sorry, I meant to write Existence, exists the way it is, because of evolution in action.

Evolution is a property of existence because Existence will always exist, no matter what form It is in. But the way Existence is in NOW, i.e., the way it is, is because Existence creates Its Self through evolution. The action of continual change, i.e., the process known as still-change, which is happening right NOW IS the One creation-evolution process. The way we human beings see Existence right NOW, the way it is, is because The Creator has created Its Self, that way, through evolution.

I hope i made that clearer, but after re-reading I am not sure I have for you. Just let me know.

Existence will always exist. All species can come and go. But the more intelligent a species is then the longer that species could stay for, in existence. For example if a species was truly intelligent, then they would realise that they have a pretty big backyard to go and explore. The rest of the Universe is after all pretty big compared to say the home planet that they began and live on. A truly intelligent species, lets say, would not spend/waste trillions of dollars on defending themselves, from themselves. That IS stupidity, at its best, NOT intelligence. What a truly intelligent species would more likely be to do is to use that, actually worthless human-made paper they call money, on investing in themselves, e.g., in education, health and fitness, exploration, etc.

Unfortunately, these are not evolutionary traits.

Hitherto.

'Understanding', itself, needs to be gained first before Existence's true evolutionary traits are uncovered, seen, recognized, revealed, and understood, etc.

People of "yesteryear" would have said what we have "today" are not evolutionary traits. Evolutionary, by definition, means things change in shape and form, including so called "traits".

Also intelligence itself is a controversial word. There are people with low IQ who score very high on EQ and are equally successful. There are people with high IQ who score low on EQ and are socially awkward.

The dictionary I looked in stated, 'intelligence', as the ability to learn, understand and reason. I think you will find in most IQ tests there are actually a lot of intellectual questions. 'intellect', being knowledge that has already been gained. What one already knows is certainly NOT the ability to learn, understand, and reason. In fact intellect can prevent and stop the ability that comes with intelligence. Some people actually call an IQ test an intelligence quotient test because that is the knowledge they have gained. When the truth is that test does not actually test the ability one has to learn, reason and understand.

What knowledge people actually gain and store can and DOES actually prevent and stop people from learning more. I will show how how this process actually works in my next response. I will provide evidence of this right now in your words.

And I think evolution still favours the fittest rather than the most intelligent. An intelligent species without the necessary physical traits to survive will become extinct.

ken used to always think evolution was NOT creation and vice-versa AND evolution was about the physically fittest of a species. However, after realizing and understanding that evolution and creation are intertwined as one and the same, i was watching television when they had a documentary about darwin and stated that darwin's 'fittest' did not mean what i thought it meant. The actual definition i can not recall now but here is a copy of wikipedia's version of darwin's 'fittest';
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

Depending on what view you want to take on what darwin wrote this will influence how you see things. Some people quote darwin's 'fittest' not to mean physical traits but rather.... Well again that depends on who is writing their perception on darwin and what darwin wrote. There are numerous amounts of perceptions to pick from.

The saddest part of when 'new' writings are being expressed is they are usually just denied or refuted because people believe otherwise. They are rarely questioned and challenged sufficiently to prove one way or the other when they writer is around to be challenged. The sadness of this fact is reflected very close to us here because there was a great deal of Truth in what leo was writing. But very sadly from now on leo can not be questioned on what he was really trying to express. For ever more what he was actually trying to express will now only come from other people's interpretations.

From this (wikipedia) version of darwin's "fittest" in the last sentence it could even be argued that if an extremely physically "unfit" human body left the most copies of itself in successive generations than an extremely physically "fit" human body did, then that far more "unfit" human body was actually "fitter". But what did darwin, him self, actually mean and was trying to express we can only imagine.

Absolutely every thing depends on how we look at it and/or from where we are looking from. If we look from the brain viewpoint, and thus from the knowledge we already have stored in our brains, then that could give us a completely, even opposing, different view than if we look from a completely open Mind viewpoint. In other words depending on what you have read, heard or seen before can and will influence how you see and look now.

This looking from the brain perspective only process is again shown and proved in your last sentence in this reply.

Then there are factors like comet hits or disease which can very possibly wipe out a species.

Which is EXACTLY what I said. Sometimes i really wonder what some people are actually reading and seeing when they look at my writings.

If that species becomes extinct, through their own wrong doings or from no fault of their own, then so be it. That does not matter one bit.

To me 'evolution', is just a word to describe the process of change, which is caused when every action causes a re-action.

That is absolutely not what evolution is. What you are talking about is a Newtonian law of physics, not evolution.

Ok if it is NOT evolution, then what IS evolution?

Does not every action, which causes a reaction, then also cause a change in the shape and form of any thing, continuously? If so, then that is change within a species, which is evolution. Change within a species is evolution, is it not? 'A' species refers to Existence Its Self as well as every other species, them selves.

By the way i did NOT say what evolution IS, as an absolute and/or unchangeable fact. I just said what evolution is, to me. The definition i gave fits perfectly with, and into, a big picture of Life, that I am continually discovering is right. That is NOT to say that picture IS right, but so far to me that picture appears right, true, and correct.

Just because you are looking at my writings only from the knowledge you have already gained does not mean you know absolutely sure what is right. If you have noticed, knowledge itself, also changes, which means it also evolves. Sometimes for the better. You WILL find that what I write does not dispute what is already known. 'I' only change/re-word it, for the better. I am just trying to get people to look from a more simpler and natural viewpoint. The Truth I found is much easier to see from this perspective.

I can accept every thing that exists, including knowledge, because 'I' have 'understanding' but I can also change what I do not like, about it, for the better.

When people change the way they look and view things, then they can start to see and know things that they thought were not possible. They will also discover how to change themselves, for the better, which will in turn make a much better "world" for everyone.

[sthitapragya]

The other question is, what purpose will knowing Itself serve for Existence? Let us say it understands Itself finally after a series of experiences. Then what? What will it do with the understanding?

The same as what any other thing can do with understanding. 'Understanding', is knowing WHY. For example, if and when human beings have an understanding of WHY something happened, then they have the cause, which they can then prevent from happening again. If prevention is truly better than the cure, then this could come in very handy. If we have understanding of WHY we behave and misbehave the way we do, then we also have the cause, the reason, which we can use to prevent other generations from doing the same wrong or making the same mistakes again. Once this WHY is gained the reason WHY we behave, and misbehave, is known. The reason WHY we do, what we do, is discovered, which will provide a bigger reason to prevent people from doing wrong again and make us want to do more of what is right. Also, while we are on this, how could a person truly forgive another, or them self even, if they do not know WHY they did something wrong in the first place? Understanding is a form of knowing, which by itself brings with it purpose.

What 'I' do with 'understanding' is 'I' am able to look and see without judging. i use understanding to learn and show how we can ALL live together the way that we ALL truly want. I am learning how do this in a way that every person can understand because i understand WHY people do not yet know. In other words 'I' use understanding to show what Our collective purpose is, i.e., to learn and teach how to live together in peace and harmony as One.

So you mean to say Existence had the intelligence to create the universe but still needs to learn something to run it properly?

Evolution is a property of existence because Existence will always exist, no matter what form It is in. But the way Existence is in NOW, i.e., the way it is, is because Existence creates Its Self through evolution. The action of continual change, i.e., the process known as still-change, which is happening right NOW IS the One creation-evolution process. The way we human beings see Existence right NOW, the way it is, is because The Creator has created Its Self, that way, through evolution.

I hope i made that clearer, but after re-reading I am not sure I have for you. Just let me know.

Well, these are declarations of your belief. There is no supporting evidence to make me believe it, nor do I have any evidence to disprove it.

'Understanding', itself, needs to be gained first before Existence's true evolutionary traits are uncovered, seen, recognized, revealed, and understood, etc.

People of "yesteryear" would have said what we have "today" are not evolutionary traits. Evolutionary, by definition, means things change in shape and form, including so called "traits".

Again, you claim to know something I don't but have nothing by way of evidence to prove that what you say is true. You are making a prediction and I don't believe predicting the future is possible.

Also intelligence itself is a controversial word. There are people with low IQ who score very high on EQ and are equally successful. There are people with high IQ who score low on EQ and are socially awkward.

The dictionary I looked in stated, 'intelligence', as the ability to learn, understand and reason. I think you will find in most IQ tests there are actually a lot of intellectual questions. 'intellect', being knowledge that has already been gained. What one already knows is certainly NOT the ability to learn, understand, and reason. In fact intellect can prevent and stop the ability that comes with intelligence. Some people actually call an IQ test an intelligence quotient test because that is the knowledge they have gained. When the truth is that test does not actually test the ability one has to learn, reason and understand.

You seem to be confusing intelligence with knowledge. A person with a higher intelligence will learn something faster than a person with lower intelligence. But if they read the same thing, then at the end both will have the same knowledge.

What knowledge people actually gain and store can and DOES actually prevent and stop people from learning more. I will show how how this process actually works in my next response. I will provide evidence of this right now in your words.

A dogmatic thought process stops people from learning more, not knowledge.

ken used to always think evolution was NOT creation and vice-versa AND evolution was about the physically fittest of a species. However, after realizing and understanding that evolution and creation are intertwined as one and the same, i was watching television when they had a documentary about darwin and stated that darwin's 'fittest' did not mean what i thought it meant. The actual definition i can not recall now but here is a copy of wikipedia's version of darwin's 'fittest';
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

That is a perfectly acceptable description of evolution.

From this (wikipedia) version of darwin's "fittest" in the last sentence it could even be argued that if an extremely physically "unfit" human body left the most copies of itself in successive generations than an extremely physically "fit" human body did, then that far more "unfit" human body was actually "fitter". But what did darwin, him self, actually mean and was trying to express we can only imagine.

That becomes a hypothetical because an extremely unfit human body might not survive long enough to procreate. In fact, very few will survive against a very large number of extremely fit human bodies. And natural selection will ensure that the extremely unfit human bodies are weeded out. That is how it works. If however, the few number of extremely unfit human bodies are the only ones surviving, and assuming that there are no more fit human bodies left for some extraordinary reason, in successive generations the unfit human bodies will become fewer and fewer and eventually extinct.

Absolutely every thing depends on how we look at it and/or from where we are looking from. If we look from the brain viewpoint, and thus from the knowledge we already have stored in our brains, then that could give us a completely, even opposing, different view than if we look from a completely open Mind viewpoint. In other words depending on what you have read, heard or seen before can and will influence how you see and look now.

Not really. If you read about gene theory in depth, there is only one way to look at it. This is not religion that it can be interpreted in different ways. This is science with hard data to back it. The different interpretations will only exist if you do not understand the concept properly.

That is absolutely not what evolution is. What you are talking about is a Newtonian law of physics, not evolution.

Ok if it is NOT evolution, then what IS evolution?

Does not every action, which causes a reaction, then also cause a change in the shape and form of any thing, continuously? If so, then that is change within a species, which is evolution. Change within a species is evolution, is it not? 'A' species refers to Existence Its Self as well as every other species, them selves.

Change within species is evolution, yes but the reasons for evolution are not cause and effect alone. Mutations occur continuously. If they are transferred to the next generation and if they are changes which give the next generation an advantage, they continue to be spread. If the mutations are disadvantageous to the next generation, they get weeded out. It is not as if mutations have a singlemindedness of purpose to make the organism better. They just happen. If they work to the advantage of the organism, they survive otherwise they get weeded out.

By the way i did NOT say what evolution IS, as an absolute and/or unchangeable fact. I just said what evolution is, to me. The definition i gave fits perfectly with, and into, a big picture of Life, that I am continually discovering is right. That is NOT to say that picture IS right, but so far to me that picture appears right, true, and correct.

Again, this is not a religion that you can interpret it to your liking. This is science. It works only one way. If it does not fit into your picture of life, you have the option of changing the picture of life, not the theory of evolution which is what it is. If you insist on sticking to your picture of life and are willing to change the theory of evolution without studying it properly, that is an option too. But that is not learning. That is dogma. It is a choice you have to make.

Just because you are looking at my writings only from the knowledge you have already gained does not mean you know absolutely sure what is right. If you have noticed, knowledge itself, also changes, which means it also evolves. Sometimes for the better. You WILL find that what I write does not dispute what is already known. 'I' only change/re-word it, for the better. I am just trying to get people to look from a more simpler and natural viewpoint. The Truth I found is much easier to see from this perspective.

Sorry, but it does dispute what is already known of science. The religious part of it I cannot argue about because there are too many interpretations and no evidence. So I cannot say anything about any such theory.

I can accept every thing that exists, including knowledge, because 'I' have 'understanding' but I can also change what I do not like, about it, for the better.

That is an option.

When people change the way they look and view things, then they can start to see and know things that they thought were not possible. They will also discover how to change themselves, for the better, which will in turn make a much better "world" for everyone.

I think everyone knows this at a very young age so I can only agree, though I do not understand why you are pointing out the obvious to me in the context of this discussion.

[ken]

When the "something" is known, then it is known. Just because nature seems to have a more vivid imagination than that does not necessitate that "something" is not possible to know. Remember, 'we' are a part of nature. 'Every thing' once seemed not possible to know, but look at how many things we now know. Now, imagine what can and will be known, "one-day". Human beings can have just as much a vivid imagination as Nature Its Self does. In fact Nature reveals Its Self when 'we' are prepared and ready to receive the "something". "Something/everything" is revealed when we truly listen.

I cannot argue with that because you have nothing to show which will prove it right and I have nothing to show which will prove it wrong.

I do have things, and a lot of them, which will prove "it" right. But half the battle is learning how to put all those things in a way that will be fully understood by everyone. This forum is certainly not the place for that. I am just here to learn how to write and express My self better. I also use this forum to show and prove what I am saying. Obviously this is not been seen and noticed "now", at the time i am writing it. I never expected it would be. In fact I would be totally surprised if it was seen and understood already. But I do know some people are starting to see and understand already.

'Intelligence' and 'stupidity' is also not a genetic trait. In fact it will be discovered that all thoughts and internal feelings are NOT genetically past on at all. And, it is thoughts and emotions that controls ALL of our behaviors, all stupid and intelligent behaviors included.

EVERY person has the ability to be just as intelligent and just as stupid as any other person. The way one thinks controls how stupid or intelligent we (re)act. By the way I am pretty sure all of us adults have been guilty of being both stupid and intelligent at some point in our lives.

I am sorry. But intelligence is definitely a hereditary trait. However there is a range within which that intelligence falls and the environment in which the person grows up will determine whether he or she will be at the upper or lower end of the range. And I think you are confusing doing stupid things and smart things with intelligence. Intelligence has to do with cognitive abilities. How you use your intelligence is decided by your temperament where again a lot of behavioural traits are governed by genetics.

By the use of the word 'definitely' in your "intelligence is definitely a hereditary trait" statement then that means you believe wholeheartedly that what I write is definitely wrong and what you think and/or believe and write is definitely right. Therefore, there is nothing i can say nor do to show otherwise. I accept that this is the case here for now.

I am not confusing doing stupid things and smart things with intelligence. I just use the word 'intelligence' differently than you. There is no particular right or wrong way to use 'a' word. But if all the words I use, and the definitions of those words that I give, shows me a true and FULL big picture of Life and of a much more meaningful Life without any confusion at all, then I think this is better than using words that one is not really able to explain fully and will actually be shown to contradict what they are saying. For example;

Intelligence may have to do with cognitive abilities. But I will ask you, "What exactly are 'those abilities', and how exactly do they have to do with intelligence, to you?" And, "What by the way exactly is 'intelligence', to you?"

Let us start by you giving your meanings and definitions. I am very interested to learn and know what 'intelligence' is exactly, and how intelligence is definitely a hereditary trait. Please explain. i am all ears.Then, we can and will see who is actually confusing things.

If by the way you start to feel you unable to explain, or that you are just not ready yet, or that you are starting to contradict yourself, in your definitions or in what you mean, then do not feel embarrassed nor ashamed. I totally understand. Again, feel perfectly free to question and challenge me about anything at all that I write. Because if you use words like 'definitely' and 'absolutely not', especially in bold and underlined, in relation to what things may or may not be or mean, then expect to be challenged, by Me. Even if what you say I totally agree with I will still challenge you to see how much you exactly know of what you are talking about. If a person here wants to come across as knowing, for sure, what they are saying, then I want to see how much they actually do know. dontaskme is a good example of this. People here will one day be actually very surprised about that what dontaskme says. There is Truth in there that is being expressed. Just the way dontaskme is going about it is, to me, completely wrong. I have offered help, but I was rejected. I have spoken with clarifying questions but I was not shown any clarification. The very thing dontaskme says to do, i.e., LISTEN, dontaskme actually does not do.

I can accept what every person does because I understand WHY every person does it, I may not like what they do and I seriously want to change those wrong behaviors that every person does, including ken, but I can not help them to change if they do not want to help themselves. Thus the reason I am here. By continually learning how to better express, i.e., be heard, I can then be better heard. I want to express what I see as being a way that people can find answers by themselves, and that is done by seriously wanting to change one's own wrong behaviors, but as duszek so rightly said,

"Nobody likes to be given advice without having asked for it.
It is patronizing.

However:

We can formulate our friendly advice to the world by formulating it as something we ourselves want to do.

Let me try:

"It seems to me that truth is not found in mental chatter, therefore I try to be calm and to contemplate some revealing aspects of life.

Would you like me to share my modest results with you ?"

I am not a psychologist but I suppose that some people would get curious and ask you for some results.



I have certainly not written as eloquently as this, but i, on a few occasions, have made it quite clear that I think i have had a few answers revealed to me, which on writing this way would invite some challenging and clarifying questions from others, but sadly not so. I have even gone as far as using the letter 'I' and God in the same sentences hoping this would get some people curious, but again to no avail. I have even gone to the other extreme of not showing any signs of having things revealed to me and just asking clarifying questions of others instead hoping that this would lead to further discoveries for both of us, but to no avail. It appears, to me, that people either believe that they know, for sure, certain things and/or that others can not know, for sure, certain things.

Let me give it a try:

"It seems to me that Truth and meaningful answers to questions like, "Who am 'I'?", "What is our purpose for being here?", etc., etc. are found not in the search for them but just by wanting to change one's self, for the better, in a truly open and honest manner. The truth is no person is perfect and so makes mistakes, i.e., does wrong. In the seeking of help in how to change myself, for the better, I "stumbled" across answers, which were revealed to me, by just being totally open and honest to and with everything that was happening around me. By truly listening ALL answers and Truth is revealed.

I was going to say would you like me to share my modest results with you? But they are NOT 'my' results. They are answers and Truth which were revealed to me. They are the results that are uncovered when one truly seeks change and is truly open and honest in that quest for change."

The hurdle I have found with this though is people will not accept things that are not already in agreement with their own beliefs and views. I also do not want just share what I see as being right or wrong even if others will change and agree with it. I want people to learn how to change the way they look and let them see things for themselves AND if the things, which are revealed to them, and they start seeing are the same, then great. We are on the same path. If they are not the same, then even better. Because they will be able to show me where I am wrong and more importantly WHY I am wrong.

[ken]

Maybe this is where you are going wrong and you WindowsBC operating system is reasserting itself.

Honestly i am not sure what you actually mean here, but do you mean the 'brain in this body', the windows operating system, is just repeating itself. If that is not what you mean, then please explain more. If you want more clarity on what i am expressing, then just ask.

If, however, you believe there is not a reason, then there is nothing i can do about that. I accept that is your belief.

I think you misquoted me. I never said the above.

Yes, very sorry about that. That was hobbes' choice's quote. Again, apologies.

[Greta]

We already know that intelligent species evolve if the conditions allow it. Evolutionary regression seems very possible in some underprivileged human groups as infrastructures break down. However, a continuation of exponential advancement also seems likely for the wealthy and their affiliates.

Perhaps the best way to avoid the distracting idea of purpose in evolution is to consider how "purposefully" (or not) you grew from a zygote to an adult. In biology there's simply a general drive to grow, multiply, expand in whatever way is possible. That's exactly what you did from zygote to adult, and exactly what the biosphere has done from "LUCA" to its current Holocene form.

If all this hadn't actually happened I suspect most of us wouldn't have believed it because it all seems so unlikely

I know this is a fiction, but there is much truth in it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Evolution is the consequence of reproductive success. As any fool can have a baby, or many babies; foolishness is as much an adaptive trait as any other.
If you have to pass an intelligence test before conceiving, then babies more likely to pass the same test would be born.

In some ways civilisation was no friend of preferred evolution, if your preference is smartness.

PS By LUCA do you mean Lucy? Clearly being a naked ape in a natural environment demanded only the smartest ape would thrive to be able to have successful progeny.

LOL no, not Lucy (fun movie). LUCA stands for "last universal common ancestor". Basically some very basic microbe, the opposite of Lucy.

Yes, any fool can breed, but most of them seem to be doing it tough. As in nature, small species with hazardous lives tend to breed rapidly and die young while the big and powerful breed slowly but live much longer. Ditto the rich and poor to some extent.

There's some merit to the idea of gross stupidity in the future based on the increased vapid descent into reality TV and shallow, overcooked display behaviours. Orwell and Huxley had roughly the same idea, but bear in mind that that's the LCD. By definition, they've never been too flash.

Specialisation, while making human groups more powerful, disempowers individuals. Specialised group members have strong abilities in a few areas but numerous deficits, as compared with the more rounded skills of ancient peoples. Heh, or of our great grandparents for that matter.

[Lacewing]

There's some merit to the idea of gross stupidity in the future based on the increased vapid descent into reality TV and shallow, overcooked display behaviours.

Great description!

When the system collapses (which it surely must eventually, as all systems do) from the weight of its bloated self, all of the shallow-dwelling screen-gazers shall surely perish -- and those who have real skills and flexible thinking will build something new and different from the ashes. Fortunately, there are some really aware people of all ages who are not represented by the hypnotized masses, and when the time comes, I think NATURE will demonstrate that it has the adaptable components in place to evolve.

[ken]

The other question is, what purpose will knowing Itself serve for Existence? Let us say it understands Itself finally after a series of experiences. Then what? What will it do with the understanding?

The same as what any other thing can do with understanding. 'Understanding', is knowing WHY. For example, if and when human beings have an understanding of WHY something happened, then they have the cause, which they can then prevent from happening again. If prevention is truly better than the cure, then this could come in very handy. If we have understanding of WHY we behave and misbehave the way we do, then we also have the cause, the reason, which we can use to prevent other generations from doing the same wrong or making the same mistakes again. Once this WHY is gained the reason WHY we behave, and misbehave, is known. The reason WHY we do, what we do, is discovered, which will provide a bigger reason to prevent people from doing wrong again and make us want to do more of what is right. Also, while we are on this, how could a person truly forgive another, or them self even, if they do not know WHY they did something wrong in the first place? Understanding is a form of knowing, which by itself brings with it purpose.

What 'I' do with 'understanding' is 'I' am able to look and see without judging. i use understanding to learn and show how we can ALL live together the way that we ALL truly want. I am learning how do this in a way that every person can understand because i understand WHY people do not yet know. In other words 'I' use understanding to show what Our collective purpose is, i.e., to learn and teach how to live together in peace and harmony as One.

So you mean to say Existence had the intelligence to create the universe but still needs to learn something to run it properly?

Thank you for the clarifying questions, but are you trying to express it as though Existence and the Universe are two completely separate things, and, that Existence created the Universe like with a 'beginning'?

Because forum discussions take a while for a reply I will just answer as i see fit. I do NOT mean to say what I 'think' you proposed. I say, if the Universe is ALL things and the Universe is alive, then the Universe is Existence, ItSelf.

By definition the 'Universe' is made up of ALL things.
The Universe is a living thing, existing.
Therefore, the Universe is Existence, ItSelf.

Existence did NOT create the Universe at any given point, other than at the continuous flow of NOW. Existence, by definition, is existing. The Universe in whatever shape and form It is in NOW is also always changing in shape and form. So the Universe is always 'being' created. The Universe is a living 'be-ing'. The Universe, in whatever shape and form is what It is meant to be and whatever shape and form it will be is what It will be-come. The Universe is a continual forever-NOW changing be-ing.

Anyway, Existence, It Self, does not need to learn something to run "it" [anything] properly. Existence, It Self, learns what It is through an intelligent enough species. Nothing more and nothing less. Because of the way the Universe is able to change absolutely freely in any way, shape and form, then there is nothing stopping the Universe allowing/creating an intelligent enough species to evolve with the creative powers of the Universe, It Self. That just means Nature's vivid imagination can be exposed through a just as open and free system of learning, understanding and reasoning, which obviously comes from having an Open Mind. Everything that humans have learnt and known as well has have imagined and created has come through and from the Open Mind.

Existence, It Self, did not have the intelligence to create the Universe. The Universe, It Self, has the creative ability and power, through evolution, to create intelligence, with-in a species. This intelligence is what will show what the Universe and Existence, It Self really are.

Existence is just the existing Universe. Existence will always exist, no matter what. Existence It Self does not need to nor wants to learn anything. There is no 'proper' in how the Universe works or runs. The Universe always "runs". However, if a so called 'intelligent race' wants to keep existing and running, for as long as possible, then they NEED to learn how to 'live' properly.

Evolution is a property of existence because Existence will always exist, no matter what form It is in. But the way Existence is in NOW, i.e., the way it is, is because Existence creates Its Self through evolution. The action of continual change, i.e., the process known as still-change, which is happening right NOW IS the One creation-evolution process. The way we human beings see Existence right NOW, the way it is, is because The Creator has created Its Self, that way, through evolution.

I hope i made that clearer, but after re-reading I am not sure I have for you. Just let me know.

Well, these are declarations of your belief. There is no supporting evidence to make me believe it, nor do I have any evidence to disprove it.

What part of "these" do you say are declarations of my "belief"? All of them or just some or...?

Also what evidence would you like?

Can you not see that through evolution every thing, besides the Universe It Self, is created? Actually, the Universe IS being created right HERE and NOW.

I have to admit that the Universe, all there is, may have been created, from no thing at all, but I just can not see that (yet?). That is not to say it is not true. So, the fact is that is NOT a belief I have nor hold. As I have explained previously I do not have nor maintain beliefs in the form that you think I do.

'Understanding', itself, needs to be gained first before Existence's true evolutionary traits are uncovered, seen, recognized, revealed, and understood, etc.

People of "yesteryear" would have said what we have "today" are not evolutionary traits. Evolutionary, by definition, means things change in shape and form, including so called "traits".

Again, you claim to know something I don't but have nothing by way of evidence to prove that what you say is true. You are making a prediction and I don't believe predicting the future is possible.

Fair enough and TOTALLY reasonable.

But I could and will, if possible, provide evidence if you just tell me what evidence you would like.

Or at least say exactly what it is i claiming to know that you do not know.

Also intelligence itself is a controversial word. There are people with low IQ who score very high on EQ and are equally successful. There are people with high IQ who score low on EQ and are socially awkward.

The dictionary I looked in stated, 'intelligence', as the ability to learn, understand and reason. I think you will find in most IQ tests there are actually a lot of intellectual questions. 'intellect', being knowledge that has already been gained. What one already knows is certainly NOT the ability to learn, understand, and reason. In fact intellect can prevent and stop the ability that comes with intelligence. Some people actually call an IQ test an intelligence quotient test because that is the knowledge they have gained. When the truth is that test does not actually test the ability one has to learn, reason and understand.

You seem to be confusing intelligence with knowledge. A person with a higher intelligence will learn something faster than a person with lower intelligence. But if they read the same thing, then at the end both will have the same knowledge.

How do you propose exactly that I am confusing intelligence with knowledge. Look at the words I have written. I gave my two definitions for intelligence and intellect. I seriously do not see how you could even imagine I am confusing intelligence with knowledge.

What is a "higher intelligence" to you?

What knowledge people actually gain and store can and DOES actually prevent and stop people from learning more. I will show how how this process actually works in my next response. I will provide evidence of this right now in your words.

A dogmatic thought process stops people from learning more, not knowledge.

Would not a dogmatic thought process come from some sort of already gained knowledge?

I agree it is the process itself that stops people from learning more. I say that process comes from the 'belief system'. And, we human beings would only believe in 'something' that we would only see as being true, right, and/or correct, right? That 'something', would have to be some kind of knowledge, or information, that has already been gained, right?

ken used to always think evolution was NOT creation and vice-versa AND evolution was about the physically fittest of a species. However, after realizing and understanding that evolution and creation are intertwined as one and the same, i was watching television when they had a documentary about darwin and stated that darwin's 'fittest' did not mean what i thought it meant. The actual definition i can not recall now but here is a copy of wikipedia's version of darwin's 'fittest';
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

That is a perfectly acceptable description of evolution.

So physically fit, as in strength, really does not have that much really to do with evolution? I know that physical strength is observed in a lot of male animals here on earth before propagation is performed. But if the body ken lives in, which could be seen as one the least fittest and weakest bodies, could propagate with far more others than some fitter and stronger male bodies could, which would leave the most copies of "ken's" body, then that is NOT survival of the "fittest" in the physical sense. That is just ken wanting to procreate more.

Also, if ken propagates an idea/theory of how we human beings could live together in peace and harmony forever more, and this generation start seeing how this is possible and then start living that way, then that form will leave the most copies of 'itself' in successive generations. But we can never forget we are only because of what laid before us.

If, however, 'evolution', IS survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations, then that form is the Universe, Its Self. The form of the Universe DOES leave the most copies of Its Self in successive generations, forever it could even be argued. This is no different from what I have been saying all along. What I write may have appeared different on first glance but it will be seen NOT to be any different, just better, in my view.

From this (wikipedia) version of darwin's "fittest" in the last sentence it could even be argued that if an extremely physically "unfit" human body left the most copies of itself in successive generations than an extremely physically "fit" human body did, then that far more "unfit" human body was actually "fitter". But what did darwin, him self, actually mean and was trying to express we can only imagine.

That becomes a hypothetical because an extremely unfit human body might not survive long enough to procreate. In fact, very few will survive against a very large number of extremely fit human bodies. And natural selection will ensure that the extremely unfit human bodies are weeded out. That is how it works. If however, the few number of extremely unfit human bodies are the only ones surviving, and assuming that there are no more fit human bodies left for some extraordinary reason, in successive generations the unfit human bodies will become fewer and fewer and eventually extinct.

Did you or did you not just agree that "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations." is a perfectly acceptable description of evolution?

If you did, then there is nothing in there that suggests anything about unfit or fit human bodies. You are looking at evolution from only one successive generation only. In fact it also stated, "The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success." Reproductive success. Re-productive success does NOT, i think, mean what one fit or unfit body can or can not do but rather what can be produced and reproduced and re-reproduced so on most successfully. I think stephen hawking would not mind me saying this but the body stephen hawking resides in is NOT the fittest human body in the world today, BUT if the form of that body happens to mutate/evolve with the form of another body, there does after all need to be at least two things in order for any thing to evolve AND be created, and that form just happened to successfully reproduce more times and thus leave a copy of itself more times than any other form, then that body/form would be the most "fittest". This is how I read it, and which makes far more sense to me than what you are saying. Sure I have heard what you are saying many times before and I actually thought that was how darwin was proposing "fittest" also. But the more i heard the more it seems that was NOT what darwin was meaning.

Absolutely every thing depends on how we look at it and/or from where we are looking from. If we look from the brain viewpoint, and thus from the knowledge we already have stored in our brains, then that could give us a completely, even opposing, different view than if we look from a completely open Mind viewpoint. In other words depending on what you have read, heard or seen before can and will influence how you see and look now.

Not really. If you read about gene theory in depth, there is only one way to look at it. This is not religion that it can be interpreted in different ways. This is science with hard data to back it. The different interpretations will only exist if you do not understand the concept properly.

Obviously, to you, I do not understand the concept "properly".

But why is it always the case with you that if another does not agree with you, then it is they who have not read about "topic" deep enough? And, if they do not see it the same way as you, then it is they who is looking at it the wrong way? Do you not find it the least bit amusing that you yourself always appear to be the only one who is able to see that "there is only one way to look at it"? Which, by the way, fits coincidentally perfectly with exactly how you yourself see it.

That is absolutely not what evolution is. What you are talking about is a Newtonian law of physics, not evolution.

Ok if it is NOT evolution, then what IS evolution?

Does not every action, which causes a reaction, then also cause a change in the shape and form of any thing, continuously? If so, then that is change within a species, which is evolution. Change within a species is evolution, is it not? 'A' species refers to Existence Its Self as well as every other species, them selves.

Change within species is evolution, yes but the reasons for evolution are not cause and effect alone.

What ELSE could possibly cause, effects, if cause does not do it alone?

Mutations occur continuously. If they are transferred to the next generation and if they are changes which give the next generation an advantage, they continue to be spread. If the mutations are disadvantageous to the next generation, they get weeded out. It is not as if mutations have a singlemindedness of purpose to make the organism better. They just happen. If they work to the advantage of the organism, they survive otherwise they get weeded out.

Out of all, if not most, animals here on earth human beings have the weakest bodies of them. The "fittest" are certainly not the ones surviving here. The "weakest" are slowly weeding out the others while we human beings continue to propagate and plunder.

If 'mutations' occur, then this is an effect, in of itself. So, something must have caused it, right?

If cause and effect alone are NOT the reasons for evolution, then what are the reasons for evolution?

By the way i did NOT say what evolution IS, as an absolute and/or unchangeable fact. I just said what evolution is, to me. The definition i gave fits perfectly with, and into, a big picture of Life, that I am continually discovering is right. That is NOT to say that picture IS right, but so far to me that picture appears right, true, and correct.

Again, this is not a religion that you can interpret it to your liking. This is science. It works only one way.

Are you absolutely sure all science does not also change and only works one way?

If it does not fit into your picture of life, you have the option of changing the picture of life, not the theory of evolution which is what it is.

If anything is a 'theory' then it is open to interpretation.

If you insist on sticking to your picture of life and are willing to change the theory of evolution without studying it properly, that is an option too. But that is not learning. That is dogma. It is a choice you have to make.

If a picture, which coincidentally I did NOT happen to make, actually happens to make far more sense than the 7 billion other ones that are being proposed to me, then I will "stick" to that one, for "now". If, however, a better, truer or bigger picture comes along, then I AM the first one to accept and admit it because I AM the one, I think, who is most open to it.

By the way if you read what I write better, then you will notice that I am NOT wanting to change the theory of evolution.

I just say there is a better way of looking at it and every thing else.

Was sticking to a picture of life, that the earth revolves the sun, and being willing to change the other view, that the sun revolves the earth, whilst 'being accused' of not studying it properly also NOT learning, and, just dogma too?

Was saying that actually there is no space, whilst "all" of science says there is, also not studying, not learning, and just dogma also?

What if leo was right all along? Are you going to accept it or will you wait till it is written enough times by enough of the "right" people before you will then begin to read and study it?

I know if you re-read these posts more thoroughly you will find that what you you actually understand in relation to the theory of evolution is not what the theory of evolution actually says, from what i have read. That is NOT to say that what I have read is right. But just like religious writings, which of the multitude different versions is one expected to think or believe is right? "Science", itself, on a lot of occasions can act just like other religious institutions. That is causing more confusion than clarity.

Also, if people who do "science" can not agree, then who says "science" is right?

Just look at global warming or climate change. The actual wording for "what it is" can not even be agreed upon, let alone the "science" of "it". You may have probably also noticed, if you have been looking at it from the right perspective, that each "side" both says the other "side" is not studying "it" properly.

Sometimes what is so obvious is obviously so overlooked.

"Science" does not necessarily work one way. And, if it did, then who's way would that be?

Just because you are looking at my writings only from the knowledge you have already gained does not mean you know absolutely sure what is right. If you have noticed, knowledge itself, also changes, which means it also evolves. Sometimes for the better. You WILL find that what I write does not dispute what is already known. 'I' only change/re-word it, for the better. I am just trying to get people to look from a more simpler and natural viewpoint. The Truth I found is much easier to see from this perspective.

Sorry, but it does dispute what is already known of science.

Do you MEAN what is already known of science, by 'you'? Or do you MEAN what is already known of 'science', itself?

If it is the former, my point stands and proven, i would say. You are looking at my writing with assumptions based on previous experiences only. So, I will also ask you to clarify exactly how what I say disputes what is already supposedly known of science.

If it is the latter, then 'you' are one very well read up person. The continual reading you must do to keep up with the continual changes of science must become tiring. Also, because you seem so sure of yourself here I will ask again to clarify how exactly does what i say dispute what is supposedly already known of science.

The religious part of it I cannot argue about because there are too many interpretations and no evidence. So I cannot say anything about any such theory.

What religious part exactly?

There is no religious part that I know of nor can see?

When people change the way they look and view things, then they can start to see and know things that they thought were not possible. They will also discover how to change themselves, for the better, which will in turn make a much better "world" for everyone.

I think everyone knows this at a very young age so I can only agree, though I do not understand why you are pointing out the obvious to me in the context of this discussion.

I am pointing it out now in this discussion because I am thinking that because you are ONLY looking and viewing my writings from the perspective of already gained knowledge, which I have highlighted in these writings to some others, then you may be willing and/or wanting to change the way you look and view things.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is a reason WHY it is in existence.

I'd agree there was a cause; but not a reason.

ken also once agreed there was a cause; but not a reason, BUT, that was until a perfectly sensible reason was revealed, which also made sense with and fitted in with all the other things, which were being revealed.

Maybe this is where you are going wrong and you WindowsBC operating system is reasserting itself.

Honestly i am not sure what you actually mean here, but do you mean the 'brain in this body', the windows operating system, is just repeating itself. If that is not what you mean, then please explain more. If you want more clarity on what i am expressing, then just ask.

If, however, you believe there is not a reason, then there is nothing i can do about that. I accept that is your belief.

I'm alluding to another thread, about our software being obsolete.

If there is a "reason" then you must have re-booted with your primitive teleology module and have discarded causality for God.
But don't bother to respond if you are going to talk about yourself in the third person.

[Hobbes' Choice]

We already know that intelligent species evolve if the conditions allow it. Evolutionary regression seems very possible in some underprivileged human groups as infrastructures break down. However, a continuation of exponential advancement also seems likely for the wealthy and their affiliates.

Perhaps the best way to avoid the distracting idea of purpose in evolution is to consider how "purposefully" (or not) you grew from a zygote to an adult. In biology there's simply a general drive to grow, multiply, expand in whatever way is possible. That's exactly what you did from zygote to adult, and exactly what the biosphere has done from "LUCA" to its current Holocene form.

If all this hadn't actually happened I suspect most of us wouldn't have believed it because it all seems so unlikely

I know this is a fiction, but there is much truth in it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Evolution is the consequence of reproductive success. As any fool can have a baby, or many babies; foolishness is as much an adaptive trait as any other.
If you have to pass an intelligence test before conceiving, then babies more likely to pass the same test would be born.

In some ways civilisation was no friend of preferred evolution, if your preference is smartness.

PS By LUCA do you mean Lucy? Clearly being a naked ape in a natural environment demanded only the smartest ape would thrive to be able to have successful progeny.

LOL no, not Lucy (fun movie). LUCA stands for "last universal common ancestor". Basically some very basic microbe, the opposite of Lucy.

Yes, any fool can breed, but most of them seem to be doing it tough. As in nature, small species with hazardous lives tend to breed rapidly and die young while the big and powerful breed slowly but live much longer. Ditto the rich and poor to some extent.

There's some merit to the idea of gross stupidity in the future based on the increased vapid descent into reality TV and shallow, overcooked display behaviours. Orwell and Huxley had roughly the same idea, but bear in mind that that's the LCD. By definition, they've never been too flash.

Specialisation, while making human groups more powerful, disempowers individuals. Specialised group members have strong abilities in a few areas but numerous deficits, as compared with the more rounded skills of ancient peoples. Heh, or of our great grandparents for that matter.

Okay - so the reason I did not recognise LUCA is that you are misusing the term. TO invoke such a concept you have to take TWO or more species and look back to the point in evolution where they diverged. Since you had not mentioned any species in particular then you've said nothing.
Additionally since you use the phrase "...the biosphere has done from "LUCA" to its current Holocene form." This implies you do not understand the term since LUCA cannot have a current form, but a multitude of forms in the present day; otherwise you are again not making sense.
Thirdly - LUCA cannot have an "opposite". Lucy could be a LUCA depending on what ever comparison you are making between two or more variations of human.

On the matter of specialisation; I don't think this problem applies somatically to humanity. It is however a serious problem introduced by civilisation at times of quick change, where people trained in specific skills end up on the scrap-heap. On an evolutionary scale the simple reason that babies are fairly blank slates, specialisation is no biggy. There are very few people who are not capable of a range of skills; its really mostly about learning.
Obviously some people are less capable of a range of skills acquisition than others.
For myself, I pride myself on being fairly Palaeolithic, being a generalist. My skills sets include art, craft, cooking, computer skills, growing vegetables, keeping animals for food, vehicle mechanics. I also have a Masters in Intellectual History and an interest in philosophy. I can play a drumkit, build stonework, and do carpentry. Sculpture alone encompasses a range of skills; most artists delegate their work to others, whilst I prefer to do the whole bang shoot.

[ken]

I'm alluding to another thread, about our software being obsolete.

I do not know that thread.

If there is a "reason" then you must have re-booted with your primitive teleology module and have discarded causality for God.

I do not recall ever having a causality for God, let alone discarding causality for God.

But I could see how re-booting with my primitive teleology module has led to finding a 'reason'.

But don't bother to respond if you are going to talk about yourself in the third person.

Sometimes this is necessary to be better understood.