Guest guest Posted April 6, 2005 Report Share Posted April 6, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > But the illusion of transcending is there, such as homo sapien > sapiens, or what we are called, evolving from apes, if that theory is > correct, and even if it is not correct, we can see that computer > technology, for example, 'evolves'. > > al. sam: A friend sent me this link and I thought it fits in rather well in context of your proposal. http://patrickgibson.com/news/andsuch/bush_monkey.php Seriously, my friend defines evolution/god using this particular terminology. quote: " Is there an ultimate creator? " Evolution requires many small coincidences. But for a complex creator figure to exist, without any other cause, would be an incredibly huge coincidence. So, evolution is far more likely. So, if there is a creator, it must have evolved. So, the ultimate creator is evolution. " (who am I to argue with him?) What is your view on his definition? I know the debate about nothing real being created and nothing ultimately is being created could be volleyed back and forth from the perspective of illusion, however, within the context of the non- reality realm, which we all occupy, the idea of evolution as a spontaneous thing, which this paragraph suggests, doesn't address humans never-ending hard wired drive to examine the purpose and role behind that which evolution is creating (regardless of it's non- real/illusory properties.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > But the illusion of transcending is there, such as homo sapien > > sapiens, or what we are called, evolving from apes, if that theory > is > > correct, and even if it is not correct, we can see that computer > > technology, for example, 'evolves'. > > > > al. > > > sam: A friend sent me this link and I thought it fits in rather well > in context of your proposal. > > http://patrickgibson.com/news/andsuch/bush_monkey.php > > Seriously, my friend defines evolution/god using this particular > terminology. > > quote: > " Is there an ultimate creator? > " Evolution requires many small coincidences. But for a complex > creator figure to exist, without any other cause, would be an > incredibly huge coincidence. So, evolution is far more likely. > So, if there is a creator, it must have evolved. > So, the ultimate creator is evolution. " > > (who am I to argue with him?) > What is your view on his definition? > I know the debate about nothing real being created and nothing > ultimately is being created could be volleyed back and forth from > the perspective of illusion, however, within the context of the non- > reality realm, which we all occupy, the idea of evolution as a > spontaneous thing, which this paragraph suggests, doesn't address > humans never-ending hard wired drive to examine the purpose and role > behind that which evolution is creating (regardless of it's non- > real/illusory properties.) My idea is that evolution has to do with complexity unfolding. It's very hard to give a clear definition of what complexity is, but we know more or less intuitively what we mean by complexity. In my view complexity is in itself changeless. What happens in evolution is that complexity continously expands through a set of all possibilities. Imagine complexity as the ability to pick interesting (complex) patterns out of a set of pure randomness (infinite possibilities). Complexity has no beginning and no end, it just _is_. Complexity is a part of the set of infinite possibilities. Due to its timeless nature, compexity is neither a creator or something created. Complexity is _creation_ and is more like a property of existence rather than an object. Complexity expands infinitely fast. How fast is that? Just look around you, and what you see is complexity expanding infinitely fast. This creates the arrow of time, a flow from past to future, but all this happens in a timeless now. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 - anders_lindman Nisargadatta Thursday, April 07, 2005 7:28 AM Re: Brain in a Bottle - evolved from apes? Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > But the illusion of transcending is there, such as homo sapien > > sapiens, or what we are called, evolving from apes, if that theory > is > > correct, and even if it is not correct, we can see that computer > > technology, for example, 'evolves'. > > > > al. > > > sam: A friend sent me this link and I thought it fits in rather well > in context of your proposal. > > http://patrickgibson.com/news/andsuch/bush_monkey.php > > Seriously, my friend defines evolution/god using this particular > terminology. > > quote: > " Is there an ultimate creator? > " Evolution requires many small coincidences. But for a complex > creator figure to exist, without any other cause, would be an > incredibly huge coincidence. So, evolution is far more likely. > So, if there is a creator, it must have evolved. > So, the ultimate creator is evolution. " > > (who am I to argue with him?) > What is your view on his definition? > I know the debate about nothing real being created and nothing > ultimately is being created could be volleyed back and forth from > the perspective of illusion, however, within the context of the non- > reality realm, which we all occupy, the idea of evolution as a > spontaneous thing, which this paragraph suggests, doesn't address > humans never-ending hard wired drive to examine the purpose and role > behind that which evolution is creating (regardless of it's non- > real/illusory properties.) My idea is that evolution has to do with complexity unfolding. It's very hard to give a clear definition of what complexity is, but we know more or less intuitively what we mean by complexity. In my view complexity is in itself changeless. What happens in evolution is that complexity continously expands through a set of all possibilities. Imagine complexity as the ability to pick interesting (complex) patterns out of a set of pure randomness (infinite possibilities). Complexity has no beginning and no end, it just _is_. Complexity is a part of the set of infinite possibilities. Due to its timeless nature, compexity is neither a creator or something created. Complexity is _creation_ and is more like a property of existence rather than an object. Complexity expands infinitely fast. How fast is that? Just look around you, and what you see is complexity expanding infinitely fast. This creates the arrow of time, a flow from past to future, but all this happens in a timeless now. al. Good Morning Al, Or, this moment evolving into the next, taking All That Is with it.....including the evolving of the evolving love, anna p.s. still married? ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > anders_lindman > Nisargadatta > Thursday, April 07, 2005 7:28 AM > Re: Brain in a Bottle - evolved from apes? > > > > Nisargadatta , " sam_t_7 " <sam_t_7> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > But the illusion of transcending is there, such as homo sapien > > > sapiens, or what we are called, evolving from apes, if that theory > > is > > > correct, and even if it is not correct, we can see that computer > > > technology, for example, 'evolves'. > > > > > > al. > > > > > > sam: A friend sent me this link and I thought it fits in rather well > > in context of your proposal. > > > > http://patrickgibson.com/news/andsuch/bush_monkey.php > > > > Seriously, my friend defines evolution/god using this particular > > terminology. > > > > quote: > > " Is there an ultimate creator? > > " Evolution requires many small coincidences. But for a complex > > creator figure to exist, without any other cause, would be an > > incredibly huge coincidence. So, evolution is far more likely. > > So, if there is a creator, it must have evolved. > > So, the ultimate creator is evolution. " > > > > (who am I to argue with him?) > > What is your view on his definition? > > I know the debate about nothing real being created and nothing > > ultimately is being created could be volleyed back and forth from > > the perspective of illusion, however, within the context of the non- > > reality realm, which we all occupy, the idea of evolution as a > > spontaneous thing, which this paragraph suggests, doesn't address > > humans never-ending hard wired drive to examine the purpose and role > > behind that which evolution is creating (regardless of it's non- > > real/illusory properties.) > > My idea is that evolution has to do with complexity unfolding. It's > very hard to give a clear definition of what complexity is, but we > know more or less intuitively what we mean by complexity. In my view > complexity is in itself changeless. What happens in evolution is that > complexity continously expands through a set of all possibilities. > Imagine complexity as the ability to pick interesting (complex) > patterns out of a set of pure randomness (infinite possibilities). > Complexity has no beginning and no end, it just _is_. Complexity is a > part of the set of infinite possibilities. Due to its timeless nature, > compexity is neither a creator or something created. Complexity is > _creation_ and is more like a property of existence rather than an > object. Complexity expands infinitely fast. How fast is that? Just > look around you, and what you see is complexity expanding infinitely > fast. This creates the arrow of time, a flow from past to future, but > all this happens in a timeless now. > > al. > > > > > Good Morning Al, > Or, this moment evolving into the next, taking All That Is with it.....including the evolving of the evolving > > love, anna > > p.s. still married? > Good Morning, Anna I'm still not married. Moving from one moment to the next happens as a result of a continuous collapse of the _one_ quantum wave function, which is the same as saying that the wave function (complexity) selects the next moment. Individual free will is a part of this property, not separate from it. We, as human beings, are evolution in action; we _are_ the one quantum wave function. And I agree that the collapse of the wavefunction also takes this moment and evolves it into the next. Interestingly, I found this text on the web site Kip gave a link to ( http://www.thymos.com/science/qc.html ): " This statement describes the fact that the state of the universe is represented by a wave function which is a compendium of all the wave functions that each of us can cause to collapse with her or his observations. " al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.