sthitapragya wrote:sthitapragya wrote:ken wrote:
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.
sthitapragya wrote:ken wrote:
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.
sthitapragya wrote:ken wrote:
'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.
sthitapragya wrote: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.
sthitapragya wrote:ken wrote: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?
sthitapragya wrote:ken wrote: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?
sthitapragya wrote:ken wrote: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.
sthitapragya wrote:ken wrote: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.
sthitapragya wrote:ken wrote: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.
sthitapragya wrote:
That is absolutely not what evolution is. What you are talking about is a Newtonian law of physics, not evolution.
sthitapragya wrote:ken wrote: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?
sthitapragya wrote: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?
sthitapragya wrote:ken wrote: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.
sthitapragya wrote: 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?
sthitapragya wrote:ken wrote: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.
sthitapragya wrote: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?
sthitapragya wrote:ken wrote: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.