Is Consciousness Inevitable?

Consciousness, is it inevitable?

When we look at energy we see it runs toward entropy and likes to take the fastest path there. So, from that we have determined that energy goes into order and higher organization in fact to reach the fastest path to entropy. More energy will be used up. 

However- this seems to mean that high organization of particles is inevitable then. Though you can say this accident happen or that random thing...it seems eventually the higher organization will occur. Then, Consciousness occurs in this higher organization of things...consciousness is like a by product of this higher order of particles....and it seems inevitable to me because nature goes from random to non-random and chaos to order and because nature keeps moving forward building upon itself and is persisting toward the fastest path to entropy. But then it is also inevitable. So, my question now is on one hand consciousness seems inevitable and on the other hand there are many 'accidents or random things that occur' before it happens. So it is like an inevitable accident?

Or perhaps the game is set up to allow for random and accidents, but in the end consciousness will eventually prevail.

Are morals independent or absolute or what?

Morality is an independent reality?

Morals don't exist for an individual. They are a Collective. Just like particles interacting with the environment do so as a collective. Then they conform.

 Morality and ethics are a collective. If you take any group you look at you cannot then look at it with you on it from an external force onto an inward one. You have to see how the people in the group feel and think . From the inside to the inside. If those people are feeling oppressed or hurt or they feel pain about this sacrificing of children then for that group it is not good. If no one in the group had any feelings or care about a sacrifice of a child, even the child itself then is it morally wrong for the group? If they were say robots with no care of their death? For them then that would not be immoral. But that is because morality is contingent upon the collective. Nature works as a collective.

I then came across this article which seems to think somewhat like  I mentioned:

"Law instead follows from collective behavior, as do things that flow from it, such as logic and mathematics. The reason our minds can anticipate and master what the physical world does is not because we are geniuses but because nature facilitates understanding by organizing itself and generating law." -http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/laughlin.cfm

I would add this law comes from the collective, how the parts work together and this is really how morals and ethics evolve as well.

Of course this is Laughlin who Kruass criticized, but I agree with Laughlin here. 

I completely disagree that without science you can't have morals or ethics. Compassion and how you feel, empathy and being selfless has nothing to do with science. You might be able to understand better what it is or where it came from...but yes you have to understand consequences to have some judgment of it, but you don't need science for that either. You simply need reason/logic/understanding a sequence of events. This is not science. Again science may help us understand what logic and reason is or where it came from, but it is not science itself. Reason and emotion determine your ethics and morals. Science simply helps us understand how and why of all of it.

As a mother Bonobo looks at her baby, she follows her instincts and her compassion and the level of teaching of care giving from her small community. She knows nothing of science. She is merely following her emotions and level of reason.

As an outside judgment of humans we can look at them and judge, but they are judgers of their own culture and own behavior. What they have deemed acceptable will pass and what is not will not in their group. That is their moral and ethic code.

Compassion and Evolution-What do you think?

I have seen that compassion is actually taught. For instance my cat naturally if we want to say genetics and evolved traits- was naturally more aggressive. Of course, he is wild like all cats. 

But I am very affectionate and loving and compassionate to him and so in time, he has begun to exhibit these traits in return. The more I kiss him or hug him, the more he reciprocates. But if he is startled outside he reverts back to agrees ion with me for a moment. So, he is capable of both.

But what will he be depends on his environment. 

I have seen a study on television where when you are compassionate to another human being, that part of their brain actually goes on and developes more. You even develop yours more the more you use it. 

So, compassion is defiantly something, in my opinion, something that can be taught and is carried on by living organisms exhibiting this trait to others.

Not just a born with it and so you got it kind of thing.

So, in this very symbiotic sense is where the evolution of compassion takes place, I think.

So- that is why in my opinion religion has played a big part in this evolution of compassion.

Yes, human beings have evolved the capacity to be violent and also to be kind, just like most animals.

But what traits persist and grow and evolve further?

Evolution is a participatory natural process in my opinion. We don't sit on the side lines and everything just happens to us. We are contributing to our own evolution and this is a very important part for people to understand.

What you put in the mixing pot is going to come out of it. 

This is where religion or culture plays a very instrumental part of morals or compassion in my opinion, continuing to evolve and hopefully for the better. 

Any animal can show meanness or kindness. Chicken fights is an environment that supports violence and so the chickens become more violent. Chickens in small spaces even pluck each other to death.
Kinda like children misbehave when in small spaces.

So our environment, the non-living environment as well as the living environment, which includes the consciousness there, effects the evolutional progression. 

Culture is a part of all animals consciousness in my opinion.

Religion is a part of human's consciousness, and is another aspect of culture. 

So, we have to consider both when we consider compassion and the effects both have played. 

The 5 elementals of true religion

The Self, indeed, is below.  It is above.  It is behind.  It is before.
It is to the south.  It is to the north.  The Self, indeed, is all this.
Verily, he who sees this, reflects on this, and understands this delights
in the Self, sports with the Self, rejoices in the Self, revels in the
Self.  Even while living in the body he becomes a self-ruler.  He wields
unlimited freedom in all the worlds.  But those who think differently from
this have others for their rulers; they live in perishable worlds.  They
have no freedom at all in the worlds.

                  Hinduism.  Chandogya Upanishad 7.25.2

In my travels and explorations of cultures and religious over the past ten years, I have found that there are five elements to the four major religions that would define, in my opinion, true religion. Everything else is just the extra stuff or the extra fluff. The extra stuff can be enhancing, but the extra fluff can be dividing.

The five elements that to me constitute true religion and is found in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism are teachings of: Love, Compassion, Oneness, UnSelfishness, Transformation.

This means that these teachings are found by their major prophets, gurus, monks, or such and found in their major scriptures. This does mean that all who claim to be of the faith or religion practice these teachings and often people will misuse, misinterpret for their benefit, and manipulate scripture for their own purposes. 

To me, this is the core of true religion and is at the very heart of true religion. All the extra fluff like the clothing, the diet, the geography, the language,  the superstitions, the magic, the rituals, the gods can all be points of separation and add to keeping people into boxes of division, but in fact we are not divided except by illusion.

We are all one. It is when we are living in the illusion of division, separateness where we find hate, arrogance, manipulation, and selfishness. Because when we realize we are one with everything else, when we try to take something down we than realize we are only taking down ourselves, and when we try to lift something up only then are we lifting up ourselves.

(We also find quantum physics is leading us to the understanding that everything is not just as I would say spiritually one, but literally one. Physicists have a hard time understanding how everything appears separate yet acts as one. The whole is in all the parts.) 

As Christ said, "Whoever is last is first and whoever is first is last."

We also find Christ said "Be as one with the Father as I am one with the father." In Hinduism and Buddhism there are also teachings of becoming one. They teach about the experience of Brahmin and the oneness with God which would be a perfect state of being. While Hindus call it Moksha and Buddhist call it Nirvana, the idea is similar. It is a state that ends all suffering. It is a state where all is one. Hindus believe all is one and everything is spiritually connected. All reality outside of Brahmin is considered an illusion. This makes sense when you look through the eyes of spiritualism or even through the eyes of quantum physics. 

In Kabbalah we learn that God, the spirit, closed and this formed a vacuum from which everything came, starting as the size of a grain of sand. Yes, this is what they said 500 years ago. In some Eastern beliefs we learn everything is inside of God. The spirit is both inside of all things, including us and outside of everything, in my view. All pervading and everywhere -yet nowhere because a where implies a thing and God, the spirit, is not a thing. The spirit was all there was, until it closed. When everything birthed from the vacuum of nothingness, the spirit then breathed, opened and encompassed everything. 

Christ speaks of denying the self. He also says, if anyone should come after me, let him deny himself and pick up his cross daily and follow me. This means to say no to yourself. This is because of our nature. Our nature and our spirit our in conflict. Because the father is spirit, or true reality is spirit than we have to see things in spiritual form and context, not in our illusionary physical and natural world. In Judaism the Torah states, The Torah abides only with him who regards himself as nothing.

                   Judaism.  Talmud, Sota 21b

The link below shows more similarity in denial of self with Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. 

"All states are without self." -Buddhism Dhammapada 277-79

To me, this reminds me of looking at everything through the eyes of evolution. We 

think this is a cat or frog, but in fact we were all something else before and will  become something new in the future. Lines we draw to define this or that are fleeting and not very real, for the real is that we are all connected and not divided, 

not this or that but always in-between. To understand in the definition of a self, whatever form that takes, we are limiting our own understanding is grand. 

Our goal should not be to enhance the self, but as Christ said to deny the self and become one with the Father. Through this, we understand our oneness with everything, with God -the all pervading spirit that is everything. We then unite with this God and with our true form. Divisions then disappear. The illusion of the physical  crumples.   

    http://www.unification.net/ws/theme126.htm

Self-denial is necessary to overcome the hindrances of egoism, 

pride, and selfish desires which obscure the true nature within. The

person who is always concerned with himself or herself, is trapped in
"the ego-cage of 'I', 'me' and 'mine.'"  Consequently, he can neither
realize his own true self nor relate to Ultimate Reality.  From a Hindu
perspective, denying "I," "me," and "mine" is in fact a way to find the
true "I" that is transcendent and one with Reality.  In the Western per-
spective it is a way to recover the true self, which is loving and comp-
assionate, having been created in the image of God.  Both perspectives
affirm the paradox that "he who loves his life loses it, and he who hates
his life will keep it."  For more on this paradox, see Reversal and
Restoration, pp. 544-50.

       Buddhism also teaches that the path to the religious goal requires
one to deny the self and all egoistic grasping.  But it goes further,
grounding the practice of self-denial on the ontological statement that
any form of a self is unreal.  Buddhism is most sensitive to the insight
that self-denial, when done for the purpose of seeking unity with an Abso-
lute Self or God, can become subtly perverted into a form of pride and
self-affirmation.  Total self-denial should therefore dispense even with
the goal of a transcendent Self.  There is no self, either on earth or in
heaven; all forms are transient, subject to birth and death.  A number of
texts explaining this doctrine of No-self (anatta) are collected here:
more may be found under Formless, Emptiness, Mystery, pp. 85-92 and Orig-
inal Mind, No-mind, pp. 217-23.


He who has no thought of "I" and "mine" whatever towards his mind and
body, he who grieves not for that which he has not, he is, indeed, called
a bhikkhu.

                   Buddhism.  Dhammapada 367


They are forever free who renounce all selfish desires and break away
from the ego-cage of "I," "me," and "mine" to be united with the Lord.
Attain to this, and pass from death to immortality.

                   Hinduism.  Bhagavad Gita 2.71




Dhammapada 367: Cf. Madhyamakavatara 3, p. 412; Diamond Sutra 14, p. 888.
Bhagavad Gita 2.71: Cf. Bhagavad Gita 5.10-12, p 774; Maitri Upanishad
3.2, p. 412; Srimad Bhagavatam 11.4, p. 412; Katha Upanishad 3.13, p. 840.




If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross
and follow me.  For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever
loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.

                   Christianity.  Mark 8.34-36


Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth
and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.  He who
loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep
it for eternal life.

                   Christianity.  John 12.24-25


O Son of Man!  If you love Me, turn away from yourself; and if you seek My
pleasure, regard not your own; that you may die in Me and I may eternally
live in you.

                   Baha'i Faith.  Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah, Arabic 7


The Man of the Way wins no fame,
The highest virtue wins no gain,
The Great Man has no self.

                   Taoism.  Chuang Tzu 17


Torah abides only with him who regards himself as nothing.

                   Judaism.  Talmud, Sota 21b


Where egoism exists, Thou art not experienced,
Where Thou art, is not egoism.
You who are learned, expound in your mind
       this inexpressible proposition.

                   Sikhism.  Adi Granth, Maru-ki-Var, M.1, p. 1092


Yen Yan asked about perfect virtue.  The Master said, "To subdue one's
self and return to propriety is perfect virtue.  If a man can for one day
subdue himself and return to propriety, all under heaven will ascribe per-
fect virtue to him."

                   Confucianism.  Analects 12.1.1




Mark 8.34-36: To bear the cross and sacrifice oneself for others, one must
first deny the self and its desires.  Cf. Matthew 10.24-25, p. 821; 23.12, p.
545; Luke 14.26, p. 959; Philippians 2.6-11, p. 616; Romans 8.9-17, p. 576;
Acts 6.8-7.60, pp. 887f.  John 12.24-25: Cf. Matthew 16.24-25, p. 875.  Sota
21b: Cf. Abot 2.4, p. 771.  Maru-ki-Var, M.1: Cf. Diamond Sutra 9, p. 933.




The pursuit of learning is to increase day after day.
The pursuit of Tao is to decrease day after day.
It is to decrease and further decrease until one reaches the point of
     taking no action.
No action is undertaken, and yet nothing is left undone.

                   Taoism.  Tao Te Ching 48


If you do not deny yourself completely, restoration through indemnity is
impossible.  Indemnity conditions can be realized only by completely deny-
ing yourself.  The standard of absolute denial should be established tow-
ard the individual, the family, the race, the world, the cosmos, and God.

                   Unification Church.  Sun Myung Moon, 4-3-83


Would one die while living, thus crossing the ocean of existence.

                   Sikhism.  Adi Granth, Suhi Chhant, M.5, p. 777


In the evening do not expect [to live till] morning, and in the morning do
not expect evening.  Prepare as long as you are in good health for sick-
ness, and so long as you are alive for death.

                   Islam.  Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 40


I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ
who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in
the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

                   Christianity.  Bible, Galatians 2.20




Tao Te Ching 48: Cf. Tao Te Ching 16, p. 840; 19, p. 294; 22, p. 549; Chuang
Tzu 6, p. 584.  Sun Myung Moon, 4-3-83: Indemnity and Self-denial are necessary
because of the Fall; see Divine Principle I.3.2.1, p. 547n.  Cf. Luke 14.26, p.
959.  Galatians 2.20: Cf. Romans 8.9-17, p. 576; 12.1, p. 754; Ephesians
2.8-10, p. 756.  Mumonkan 46: The issue is grasping and dependence upon the
body and sense experience, and fear of going beyond its limits.  See Seng
Ts'an, p. 223.




Remember, those who fear death shall not escape it, and those who aspire
to immortality shall not achieve it.

                   Islam (Shiite).  Nahjul Balagha, Khutba 43


Seek not for life on earth or in heaven.  Thirst for life is delusion.
Knowing life to be transitory, wake up from this dream of ignorance and
strive to attain knowledge and freedom.

                   Hinduism.  Srimad Bhagavatam 11.13


You, who sit on the top of a hundred-foot pole, although you have entered
the Way you are not yet genuine.  Proceed on from the top of the pole, and
you will show your whole body in the ten directions.

Mumon's Comment: If you go on further and turn your body about, no place
is left where you are not the master.  But even so, tell me, how will you
go on further from the top of a hundred-foot pole? Eh?

                   Buddhism.  Mumonkan 46


A monk asked Baso, "What is the Buddha?"  Baso answered, "No mind, no
Buddha."

                   Buddhism.  Mumonkan 33


"All states are without self."  When one sees this in wisdom, then he be-
comes dispassionate towards the painful.  This is the path to purity.

                   Buddhism.  Dhammapada 277-79


       "The body, brethren, is not the self.  If body were the self, this
body would not be subject to sickness, and one could say of body, 'Let my
body be thus; let my body not be thus.'  But inasmuch as body is not the
self, that is why body is subject to sickness, and one cannot say of body,
'Let my body be thus; let my body not be thus.'

       "Feeling is not the self.  If feeling were the self, then feeling
would not be subject to sickness, and one could say of feeling, 'Let my
feeling be thus; let my feeling not be thus.'

       "Likewise perception... the [volitional] activities... and consc-
iousness are not the self.  If consciousness were the self, then con-
sciousness would not be subject to sickness, and one could say of
consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be
thus'; but inasmuch as consciousness is not the self, that is why
consciousness is subject to sickness, and that is why one cannot say of
consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be
thus.'

       "Now what do you think, brethren, is body permanent or impermanent?"
       "Impermanent, Lord."
       "And is the impermanent painful or pleasant?"
       "Painful, Lord."
       "Then what is impermanent, painful, and unstable by nature, is it
          fitting to consider as, 'this is mine, this am I, this is my
          self'?"
       "Surely not, Lord."

       "So also is it with feeling, perception, the activities, and consc-
iousness.  Therefore, brethren, every body whatever, be it past, future,
or present, be it inward or outward, gross or subtle, lowly or eminent,
far or near--every body should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right
insight--'this is not mine; this am not I; this is not my self.'

       "Every feeling whatever, every perception whatever, all activities
whatsoever, every consciousness whatever [must likewise be so regarded].

       "Thus perceiving, brethren, the well-taught noble disciple feels
disgust for body, feels disgust for feeling, for perception, for the acti-
vities, for consciousness.  Feeling disgust he is repelled; being repell-
ed, he is freed; knowledge arises that in the freed is emancipation; so he
knows, 'destroyed is rebirth; lived is the religious life; done is my
task; for life in these conditions there is no hereafter.'"

                   Buddhism. Samyutta Nikaya iii.68




Mumonkan 33: Implicit in this koan is the instruction to deny not only the
self but also any object of attainment--even the Buddha himself; see Sutta
Nipata 1072-76, p. 532; 919-920, p. 553; Sutra of Hui Neng 2, p. 90.  The
third of the Four Noble Truths speaks of the eradication of desire or
striving, even striving after enlightenment.  Compare Mumonkan 30, p. 116,
which asserts the seeming opposite.  Dhammapada 277-79: The self is right-
ly denied because it truly does not exist; this is the Buddhist teaching
on no-self (anatta).  See Sutta Nipata 1072-76, p. 532; 919-920, p. 553.
Samyutta Nikaya iii.68: Matter (the body), sensation (feelings), cognition
(perception), volition (the activities), and the consciousness which de-
pends upon them are called the five aggregates (skandhas).  The Buddha
taught that these aggregates, which are commonly thought to constitute the
self, are not the self.  They are impermanent and unreal, and so is the
self which is thought to consist of them.  Cf. Majjhima Nikaya i.142-45,
p. 929; Diamond Sutra 14, p. 888; Sutta Nipata 1072-76, p. 532.

Transformational concepts are also found in these religions. In Christianity we are told to renew our minds daily. Transform your minds from the things of this world unto the things of heaven. A transformation is very important. In my view, I would call this spiritual evolution. 

We find this concept in Hinduism and Buddhism as well as Judaism. It is a fundamental goal. To free oneself from suffering in Buddhism, one must transform. In Hinduism likewise. At this link you find Judaism and thoughts of self-transformation

http://daatelyon.org/category/self-transformation/

I encourage all my readers to research those five areas mentioned above to learn more about how the four major religions mentioned are very similar at their core. 

 

Randomness, guidance, purpose, science and the spirit

The natural is a process
The spiritual is a process

Both are a part of God's process. Both are a part of God, but God is not these processes.

There was a predetermined system that in this system there would be things undeterminable and determinable. Those things which are undeterminable are random. Man cannot determine these things because we lack all the variables. Man cannot foresee the undeterminable either. However this does mean that God does not foresee. In fact, if everything existed as one- in space and time and energy-if "God" is this one, and is a living God, then this God would see tomorrow just as we see today, all at the same time. In fact it seems electrons might just do this-but they are not conscious. If nature was alive it would see itself everywhere and every when.
Things that are determinable are not random. 

Perhaps the issue atheists have isn't that spiritual people don't understand science, but that they don't understand God?


It is very important to understand what one means when they say Random or Purposeless or without a Guide or Directionless. To a mathematician and a biologist those terms can mean different things. Even behaviorist and biologist will have different meanings. 

Random can mean unpredictable or without a cause for a mathematician. Random can also mean to a biologist purposeless or directionless. But then you also have to understand the connotations used by each user.

Is anything truly random? 

Well if we are looking through the eyes of man than, yes. I say this, because we simply do not know if a higher intelligence like an alien would have the same limits. We only know what we know through our own eyes. However they may be certain things --within the very fabric of nature itself- which always have a random value. Undeterminable. 

Where do we find randomness?

In physics we find randomness in virtual particles which are said to pop in and out of existence. For some this means for no cause, and for others there could be a cause we simply do not see yet, because we can't even really see the virtual particle itself.

Is it random in terms of unpredictability? It is interesting, because from my readings it seems that the beginning and end states of virtual particles are predictable, but it is the in-between states that are not. The end state could be predicted to be a quark. You could have several virtual particles pop in as a virtual photon and some as a virtual gluon- but in the end the overall number of virtual particles that pop in as a quark will be more and the particle will be defined as a quark. As the end state is "becoming" all kinds of things can happen. We can't predict all the in-between states, but the overall state is predictable.

Another point is that we can see particles having to take path A or path B and they chose one over the other. There is no reason we can see why one is better than the other or preferred, or different. They are the same and yet the particles can chose which path to take and retain all their internal order. However if it was determinable then that would mean it truly would have no choice in the path, it would always have to take the predicted path, certain points would always force it down a certain path. This freedom shows me the very freedom consciousness will soon have after evolutionary processes in biology and consciousness take effect billions of years later. 

So, this is unpredictable as to which path they will choose and apparently no cause per se. A computer game given the same problem will crash because it cannot compute what to do. Yet, our quantum universe can figure it out.

This is interesting to me, because it doesn't seem to matter that randomness is a factor, everything in the end will be deterministic in a way, predictable. However what paths things take we can not determine. This allows for freedom of choice. For non-living things this would be simply random processes vs natural laws which yield non random processes. BUT in living things, while we start out random (like bacteria until it finds an attractant) we end up non random because of memory and consciousness. Freedom to choose.

So, as an unconscious entity randomness allows for freedom of choice fundamentally and as a conscious entity we also have freedom of choice, but based now on our consciousness.

 If everything was deterministic and everything could be predicted, than everything would be set for us and we truly would have no freedom of choice.

This does show us that on a fundamental level, on a small level, nature is and can be very random and this is important, because this means that our paths are our choice---however in the end everything is set and will be as it is set to be. This is important too, because although something in undeterminable it does not mean it is unforeseeable. If we could see all things, we could see where it would end up though we'd have no why. 

Are variables hidden? We know it is possible. We do not see the reasons why virtual particles pop in and out, because we cannot even see the VP themselves and so perhaps there is something underlying in the quantum vacuum beyond what we can see that provides a cause, or perhaps not. Perhaps it just pops and in the right conditions, it will form a certain way and so the conditions are what are important for growth. I tend to think the later.

We also know through HUP that we cannot see the momentum and location of particles at the same time. That through our very interaction and observation, we have changed the nature of what we are observing. So, there certainly are aspects that are unseen or what I call hidden.

...If there existed no randomness in nature than mathematicians could predict everything that would happen if given the variables, if they could see all the variables.

The fact that some things seem to be truly random in nature on a fundamental level, the fact that man cannot actually see nature fully on a fundamental level keeps us somewhat in the dark about the future. We can't predict it like a gypsy in a crystal ball.

Man is limited in what he can see and perceive.

So, I'd say true randomness in nature is essential for nature to keep the future sealed, to keep the wool over our eyes. Or for God to do so. 

Energy seems to go from randomness to non-randomness as energies increase and become more complex. (This can also be found in the new theories of dynamic energy).


The true nature of randomness allows the future to be unseen while also allowing for true freedom of choice.

Randomness is not a bad thing! 

If you define random as unpredictable like a mathematician, then this definition makes perfect sense to me. Of course there are things we cannot see. We don't fully see nature and nature has a fundamental random aspect to it. Even our brains perceive random and non random events. This is because our brains evolved out of nature and so are wired to perceive it--both random and non random processes. Therefore, it makes sense that nature is both random and non random, because our brains perceive both as well.

Now, biologist tend to use this randomness to yield words such as purposeless or directionless or without guidance. 

There are certain events in biology such as genetic drift and draft that are defined as random. The scientist who first purposed genetic drift did not agree it was random. I tend to agree. Random would be unpredictable and while fire spreading and wiping out an entire population and therefore their genes, could be viewed as random...we still have cause and effect. Certain events caused others and certain effects took place. If we had been vigilant to these variables and causes and effects, I think we could predict these events. They had reasons for taking place. We simply lack the variables and cannot see all of the factors. But these random acts also were not purposeless, because they had a cause. A cause is a purpose. 

Some of genetic drift/draft does appear to be mathematically random at first. If given two different alleles in a population -let us say one blue and one red- and depending on the number of that allele in the population that will be its chance for survival (If I understood that correctly). So, if we have 50% red and 50% blue alleles in a population, each has an equal chance to survive. But only one will. This is because at some point one will become greater than the other and populations survive by common traits and that which is common becomes more poplar and chosen and eventually the population conforms. However, there is a chance the less likely will succeed. We can't predict this completely.

We see this in culture as well with apes and humans. If a few people in the group solve a problem one way and yet a few others solve it a different way, eventually the group will conform to one way. Everything tends to become homogeneous.

But, to me, this seems to be a fault on our part. We don't see all the variables. If we had all the variables, it seems it would be predictable. There are also causes, though we may not see all of them. So, I'm not really convinced of the use of randomness in biology.

Nature fulfills a chain of events —in time— much like our - memory- fulfills a series of events. As nature does this, or own memory does this, things seem to go from random to non random. Simple to complex. From Nothingness (chaos of virtual particles) into something. From chaos into order. From heterogeneous into homogenous. BUT there is a direction, an internal innate drive.

So, I would have to disagree with biologists when they say purposeless or directionless or without guide or without a goal. 

Firstly, the direction and guidance takes place when the natural law take effect. This is the guide, this is the direction.

Secondly, terms such as purpose and goal do not mean anything to an innate thing. If you are investigating a marble, something that is not conscious or aware, how will you find concepts that only reside in conscious things?  (Though it could be arguable that nature and the universe is all conscious on some level -but let us just stick to the non-conscious view for now).

Thirdly, Nature has its own way of doing things, whether we understand them or not. Nature  does have a direction. Energy persists toward entropy and life persists toward survival. Death and life is a constant circle. Additionally, everything goes from random to non random and simple to complex and chaotic to ordered. This is a direction. 

This seems to be fundamental, inside the very core of all things, innate. This is a direction. This is a purpose. This is a goal. It might not be a conscious one or an external one, but it certainly appears to be an internal one, an innate one. Just something nature does.

Fourthly, A marble in itself doesn't have a purpose or goal because it has no consciousness. But this does not mean the marble was not put in place by something with a higher energy of understanding than ourselves.

Even if there is no higher energy "God"  which put the marble into place, there certainly is an internal purpose and goal. Be it a very simple one. Life persists TO EXIST. TO BE. While energy heads toward entropy, it still bothered to exist at all. Why does it?

Without proving a "God", nature does have a internal purpose and goal. So, that idea just is not correct naturally or even when we consider the possibility that a "God" or other intelligence is behind it.

So, While I have no problems understanding the mathematical ideas of randomness, biologists seem to cross the line and take it a step further into realms they cannot prove or disprove and resort to the analysis of things that most people would consider unconscious to begin with and say, "see, it has no purpose or goal" and therefore nothing in the broader connotation of the word has any purpose or goal. But of course a particle doesn't have a goal as we have a goal. We are a consciousness, a particle is not. 

I can look at a marble all day long and see no consciousness and therefore no purpose or goal there. But then it is interesting that the marble bothered to exist at all (I'd say that is its purpose, to exist) and that it can exist, and follow its internal direction/guide. Further, I'm not looking at spiritual or higher intelligence such as aliens or "God". So, why would I find any of those inside a marble?

What about guidance?

I don't think God interferes with the natural world which is what many call guidance. I think God put everything into place exactly as it is and it is self-sufficient without the constant need of intervention.

However, I do think where we see the Spirit or God is in people's lives. The spirit can affect our minds, dreams, emotions and can speak to us and it is in this where we will find guidance.

Why? Because the spirit is immaterial and where we find its influence is with the immaterial things. 

However- God might USE the immaterial consciousness for fulfilling His benefits or USE the natural laws for fulfilling His purposes. But, He doesn't break the natural las in my view. So, what people call a miracle, is simply the natural laws being used for His purposes in my opinion. 

Often when science sees an accident, it may very well be the breath or word of God--but then words and breath of the spiritual are not visible/measurable things and therefore would not be seen.  

God as Originator and Sustainer

God as sustainer and I had mentioned it is like saying, "can the Earth exist without the universe?" To further this inquiry:

To me God is casting a shadow. We can measure this shadow, see this shadow, measure its angel in relation to the sun and the sidewalk it sits on. We can experience this shadow. God casts this shadow. Without God, the shadow would not be there. If God moved, the shadow would move. If God vanished, the shadow would vanish. God casts this shadow and so in a sense God is this shadow. However, the shadow is not God. We can see this shadow and scientists can learn about it, however we cannot see God and measure God in the same scientific manner. God is everything, but everything is not God.

When the sun dies out and the sidewalk eventually erodes away, the shadow will cease to be as well. But God will still remain.

In this sense, the shadow is temporary, the shadow is not real, the shadow is an illusion of what really is. The energy that is forming this shadow is simply a reflection of the absolute energy which is God. Energy takes many forms. Sometimes it looks like a tree, sometimes like the sky, sometimes like an atom. But it is the most fundamental form of this energy which is real, which is spirit to me. All other forms of this energy are not eternal and therefore not real in a sense, because they fade away, they are always changing, they are not permanent. 

What is real is that which is permanent, eternal and everlasting. What is real is this spirit of God. The spiritual energy. 

This is how God is the sustainer to me. This is why the world/physical/material is an illusion. 

So, how is God the sustainer? Because without God breathing, everything would cease. 

Now, God as originator, to me, is like this:

God, the spirit, exists everywhere and every when and is in fact is No Thing. This is why the spirit to me is very much synonymous with nothing. Nothing does not really mean non existence. Non existence does not really exist. 

Science kinda shows this now as well, that true non existence does not exist. What nothing is is simply the place where No Thing exists. Nothing measurable, nothing physical, nothing material. But something is always happening with nothing. It is constantly moving in a sense. 

To me, this is the spirit, God. One might also think of this as another form of energy, where energy takes the form of No Thing, or nothing.  Energy can also take the form of something, or anything, and in fact seems to want to do that all the time. 

Now, before anything was, only Nothing was. Everywhere. Every when. I would say this nothing means where the spirit of God is, however one could look at it as simply meaning the absence of everything measurable that we would call things/physical/material. 

Now for myself, this No Thing, or Spirit, must close itself in order to allow something to be born. It becomes unstable and In doing so, the vacuum from which Big Bang arose was born.  The vacuum is a place devoid of everything. Then this No Thing began to expand, began to pop inside of this vacuum, or "breath" and everything started to take affect. The space-time began to expand and gravity took hold, pulling virtual particles out of the nothing and into the something so that they became real particles. 

As gravity began to do this, particles began to behave in their environment of space-time --conforming and fitting into their environment (fighting for survival in a sense--to persist to exist), because they could not return to the nothing since gravity holds them...and dark energy kept pulling the space time further and further  and as this took place the particles began to not only interact with their new environment, but with each other, establishing "forces' and eventually all this behavior would come to be called what we see as the natural laws. 

 So, how is God the originator? Because without God's closing and subsequent breath, nothing would  still exist. 

   

Is science all knowing?

Our consciousness is invisible, it is immaterial and certainly we can study it and are getting somewhere. In my view, the spirit is linked to this.

I find it ridiculous that people think science shows there is no evidence of God and therefore there is not one.

Firstly, science to me reveals more about an all pervading, all knowing, illimitable, infinite, (spirit) the more I learn. The spirit aspect is which is not seen by science, but everything we learn about electrons, and virtual particles tells us all kinds of amazing things nature can do which we never would have imagined. Things like timeless electrons, 'knowing' electrons, infinite virtual particles/energy, illimitable virtual particle/energy.

I'm going to reduce this 'God' word to the spirit, since that is the word that makes most sense to me, not God.

Einstein did not agree with religions of the day, but he did say his religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable, infinite spirit. Spirit being the key word here.

Religions don't have a perfect model of the spirit, true! But science doesn't have a perfect model of nature either! One addresses spiritual while the other the natural. Neither have models that fit perfectly to what the reality of nature and the spirit are. The both ask different questions.

A spirit perhaps that pervades everything before and after the material or perhaps a spirit that is an echo of natural conscious energies itself.

When did science become all knowing? Further when did we?

What makes us think science shows everything about nature? Aren't there possible aspects of nature that science will never be able to know or delve into? What if the spirit is not supernatural, but that nature is simply another aspect of this pervading spirit?

If what is the most simple, most basic, most fundamental is in fact a spiritual energy and from that all material things came to be then the nature we are studying is simply a result of this spiritual aspect. In fact there could be other aspects of the spirit in which we are not privy to in studying just science, but only the natural.

By usual definition there is the spirit and there is the natural.  Science is talking about the material nature, not the immaterial aspect of nature which is spirit. Science doesn't see the immaterial or the spirit. But the spirit has been experienced by the immaterial consciousness.

Our consciousness is in fact immaterial. Our thoughts and emotions are immaterial.

Some say consciousness might be an illusion. I say the material is the illusion, the grand delusion. The whole material experience is a temporary fake. The only thing real is the immaterial.

God has to do something to exist? God is immaterial and basic just like our consciousness is both immaterial and basic.

What you believe has partly to do with where you were born? Many people change faiths as they grow up, and  people come to faiths because of their life experiences. But it doesn't matter what faith you are, because none of the models are perfect models of the spirit! They are all attempts like science has models to attempt to qualify the natural.

The point is in investigating it and learning it and figuring it out yourself.

Consciousness and what it all means

 

The real question for me would be how does consciousness exist anyway, and I don't mean just evolutionary explanations...but if the universe and nature in itself is not conscious, then we can see and understand nature yet nature can't do this itself...that just seems strange. Are we somehow superior then to nature and how did consciousness come from something that wasn't conscious? And if the past/present/future are all one and physically, scientifically, everything is one...then wouldn't consciousness be one with it all?

God is not Complex!

I don't agree "God" is complex as many Atheists (Krauss and Dawkins lectures) propose and so this complicates things and makes its existence highly unlikely. They use the argument that things go from simple to complex and so if God existed, how would this highly complex entity exist as the first source per se...

If "God" exists, it would be the most fundamental and simplest form of reality. A Spirit is essentially Nothing or No Thing. 

Complexity adds limits--

Simplicity brings limitlessness--

We see this with empty space, virtual particles, electrons.

Before we knew of these things, we might think something that can cross the universe in a blink of an eye (electrons), something that is entangled to every other part- knowing what and where it is all the time (electrons), something seemingly timeless (electrons in universe), something seemingly limitless (empty space quantum fluctuations), something eternal (energy), something that pops something out of nothing, seemingly all powerful and limitless (virtual particles)....Would have to be a complicated thing.

But of course it is in nature, the most simplest form of nature.

"God" would be the simplest and most fundamental reality. Not being bound by space, time or matter provides limitlessness in its simplicity.

Complexity comes because of matter, space and time....we are complex humans and so we are also very limited -bound by that which makes us complex.

Electrons are very simple and yet very powerful.

The simplest form of nature we have found is electrons and empty space quantum fluctuations. This is the simplest form of energy we know exists.

I think this is one aspect of this infinite energy.

But much of its true nature is hidden from us and we don't experience it in its true fullness. 

What about Characteristics?

I can’t prove to you God is loving or caring, but I tend to think so. I know love exists. I know care exists and I can’t prove those to you either. 

But I do know our brains are a reflection of nature itself. Our brains perceive random and non-randomness and our brains are mathematical. Nature is those three things as well.

So, how did consciousness evolve? how did language? how did love? 

You can say it is an accident or planned, either way it doesn’t matter for this purpose, because the point is those qualities now exist and how does something without the innate capability of forming such qualities-form those qualities?

It does beg the question whether there is an aspect to this fundamental energy, this fundamental reality, that possess qualities such as these. 

But love and care come in a package of living things. We’ve never seen a non-living thing have those qualities, and so we would think then that those qualities would have to exist in a consciousness at least, if not living in the same form as ourselves.

What about consciousness? Intelligence? 

We find these two qualities in highly complex begins, humans we will use as the example. We find humans with intelligence and consciousness; however, it took a lot of time for them to acquire this and we have no examples of either existing without space or time or a physical body that developed into something complex. But I would argue that our consciousness and intelligence is very limited and in fact is limited because our physical bodies our bound by our space-time. However, HOW do electrons know what other electrons they are entangled with are doing? Because they are not bound by Time. They are not physical like we are, but are on a more simple energy form. 

I think electrons are timeless. 

So, if electrons can be timeless and do this, why couldn't a spiritual energy also know things in a way unfamiliar to us?

In a sense this could be called a consciousness, but that would also limit what it actually is because in fact our ideas of consciousness are limited to our very understanding of it which exist in our minds which have limits. 

This is the same with intelligence. When we say this is intelligent. What does that mean? Does this mean God has an IQ of 200? It is very limiting and in fact our own understanding of intelligence is very limited by our own experiences with it within our own minds.

so- God's intelligence and consciousness would work like nothing we know. It would be boundless consciousness and intelligence. Limitless. 

Because of this, it would also come in a simple form. I propose this simplest form is Spiritual energy. 

However- we could use an argument that is more of a physical (measurable) form. 

The main question is does consciousness or can consciousness exist as a simple, fundamental form of reality? or can it only exist as a side effect of a more complex living thing?

Well, we know from the above God could not be complex. So, whatever this consciousness is it would have to be on the scale of simple and fundamental. We do see the quantum nature of things showing us this possibility. So, God would have to fall toward the quantum sphere. 

Does consciousness have to exist in a living thing. Are computers living? I would say no, because they are not born naturally and while they do die and do need energy as food, they don’t grow. Although, a self learning computer could be argued to be growing. But they still were not born naturally, they were made by man. so, by scientific current definitions of living I would say they are not living. 

Yet, perhaps on another planet there are beings that are fully silicon based and live as “computer people” or hybrids of half-silicon and half-carbon. So, there may actually be examples out there that we don’t have of computer type of entities that are living. 

However living things are not only born, they die, need food, and grow. 

God would do none of those things (except possibly grow)

In fact, you could argue the entire universe is like one big quantum computer that at some fundamental level as not born, won’t die and doesn’t eat. But you could argue it does grow. But then does it ever really change since it always remains fundamentally the same stuff?  

Could that entity possess consciousness?

If computers are found to be able to have consciousness I would argue that for sure a God could have consciousness and in fact it could be like the consciousness of a quantum computer. 

This is how consciousness exists without being a living thing as we are used to seeing consciousness appear. 

HOWEVER, By definition God is infinite and so how would God die? If God couldn’t die, then God is not living by standard definitions either. God doesn’t eat and God doesn’t grow. (Or does he?) 

This doesn’t mean God doesn’t have a consciousness. This simply means by our definitions of what qualifies a living thing, in order to be living you must also be able to die and if you can’t then you are not living. Our Computers then are not truly living either, because they were made, not born. However, one day they may be shown to acquire consciousness.  

I’m not so if our computers can have a true consciousness —following in the work of Hameroff and Penrose— which makes this job much more difficult, but the argument for a consciousness in a computer is sometimes compelling and when looking at the quantum level of nature and the possibilities of quantum computers, one has to wonder if these dreams will one day prove to become reality. 

Then, I’d have to really wonder if the quantum universe truly is conscious on some level. Because if quantum computers can acquire consciousness that does leave the spooky door open for the possibility of our quantum universe itself. 

So- we’ve determined the basic characteristics of God as possible.

We’ve determined consciousness could be possible without a “living thing” and since this consciousness would exist in a quantum level ,this consciousness is not complex either, it is as simple as you get —limitless quantum consciousness so to speak.

But can consciousness exist in a simple —not complex- living thing? Well, by our current definitions of living, no. But then God wouldn’t eat and metabolize and God wasn’t born and won’t die. 

So, the important part here isn’t whether God would be living by our scientific current definitions, but whether God would have consciousness?  

And what if the real definition of being alive was truly broader? What if being alive didn’t have to include the scientific current understanding of “living thing”. What if being alive just meant a conscious entity. This would definitely include our computers—because being born would not be a hang-up. 

In fact, the quantum universe is kinda acting like a mother, giving birth to all kinds of non-living and living things. Except, is this universe alive and conscious?

I would propose that true reality is that which we don’t see, hidden or unseen. I would propose it is in this where energy is alive and acts like a conscious quantum computer. And the moment it is seen by us or by nature, it behaves in accordance to our natural laws.  

Consciousness can do all kinds of things from what we’ve seen in nature and in ourselves. It can communicate. It can understand spacial concepts, mathematical concepts, randomness, non randomness, it can have relationships with other non-living things and living things and even with itself. It enjoys music and create sounds. 

...

So God would be a simple infinite illimitable eternal quantum conscious spirit so to speak. But then I'd also argue every definition we impose on God , limits God and God is limitless...so the definition would not truly suit either. 

But it is also possible this consciousness is not derived from the quantum aspects, but derived from the spirit itself and that the quantum nature of the universe simply facilitates this spiritual consciousness. 

On purpose, guidance, and randomness

 Is anything truly random? Are there any true accidents?

Well if we are looking through the eyes of man than yes. 

If there existed no randomness in nature than mathematicians could predict everything that would happen if given the variables, if they could see the variables.

The fact that some things seem to be truly random or accidental in nature, the fact that man cannot actually see nature fully keeps us somewhat in the dark about the future. We can't predict it like a gypsy in a crystal ball.

Man is limited in what he can see and perceive.

So, I'd say true randomness in nature is essential for nature to keep the future sealed, to keep the wool over our eyes.

If you define random as unpredictable, there are certain events that are in biology such as genetic drift and draft. We don't have all the variable to predict what will happen and some events seem mathematically random.

In physics, such on the quantum level where particles can take path A or B - the paths are both similar and there is no reason why it would take one over the other, nothing governing it to take one over the other. So, it seems random. But it always keeps its internal order with whatever path it takes over the other. What prompts it do take that path? We don't really know, it seems random. 

BUT does it even matter what path it takes, even if it is truly random, since both paths lead to the same predictable destination? And the end state is predictable from my readings. It is the in-between states that are not predictable, truly random.

This is interesting, because for one it doesn't seem to matter that randomness is a factor, because everything in the end will be deterministic in a way, predictable. However what paths things take we can not determine. This allows for freedom of choice in a way. For non-living things this would be simply random processes vs natural laws which yield non random processes. BUT in living things, while we start out random (like bacteria until it finds an attractant) we end up non random because of memory and consciousness. Freedom to choose.

See, it is important for a certain level of randomness to exist to allow for us true freedom of choice. If everything was deterministic and everything could be predicted, than everything would be set for us and we truly would have no freedom of choice.

This does show us that on a fundamental level, on a small level, nature is and can be very random and this is important.

Nature fulfills a chain of events —in time— much like our memory fulfills a series of events. As nature does this, or own memory does this, things seem to go from random to non random. Simple to complex. From Nothingness (chaos of virtual particles) into something. BUT there is a direction, an internal innate drive.

Energy seems to go from randomness to non-randomness as energies increase and become more complex. (This can also be found in the new theories of dynamic energy).


The true nature of randomness allows the future to be unseen while also allowing for true freedom of choice.

Randomness is not a bad thing! 

HOWEVER--while mathematicians prefer the definition above to that of unpredictability, biological scientists like to use randomness to mean something without purpose or goal.

This is where the problem comes in for many people who see there is something more than just the physical world we can measure scientifically/naturally.

If you define randomness as without purpose or goal -- that is just meaningless and crossing line, because now you are applying your own subjective meaning of things.

 How are we defining the terms?

Nature has its own way to do things, whether we understand them or not. What scientists are looking at is nature- not a spirit or a God.

A marble in itself doesn't have a purpose or goal because it has no consciousness. But this does not mean the marble was not put in place by something with a higher energy and understanding than ourselves.

Also- energy persists toward entropy and life persists toward survival. This seems to be fundamental, inside the very core of all things, innate. This is a purpose and goal. It might not be a conscious one or an external one, but it certainly appears to be an internal one. Just something nature does.

So, even if there is no higher energy "God"  which put the marble into place, there certainly is an internal purpose and goal. Be it a very simple one. Life persists TO EXIST. TO BE. And while energy heads toward entropy, it still bothered to exist at all. Why does it?

So, While I have no problems understanding the mathematical ideas of randomness, biologists seem to cross the line and take it a step further into realms they cannot prove or disprove and so are walking out of the very bounds of science.

And in fact I'd say Nature, even without proving a God, does have a internal purpose and goal. So, that idea just is not correct naturally or even when we consider the possibility that a "God" is behind it.

What about guidance?

I don't think God interferes with the natural world which is what many call guidance. I think God put everything into place exactly as it is and it is self-sufficient without the constant need of intervention.

However, I do think where we see the Spirit or God is in people's lives. The spirit can affect our minds, dreams, emotions and can speak to us and it is in this where we will find guidance.