Higher Consciousness

[Rhiannon]

For me it's getting pen to paper. I would dream of talking to someone else the way I sometimes talk to myself. Getting it down on paper shows how absurd it is.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Starting from the assumption that all life has evolved due to random gene variation and NS...the natural logical conclusion would be that there is nothing higher or lower.  We are no better than fish or worms or bacteria. 

But obviously explaining the complexity of human mind/body and the necessity for the neo-cortex to evolve merely for the purpose of survival is rather difficult.

If however we start from the assumption that  spiritual evolution guides and directs physical evolution, then the emergence of human life and even the development of the neo-cortex and the frontal lobe makes perfect sense.

In this case... life is a gradation, like a school, and people (and other life forms) are at  different levels of development.  Using the higher brain functions as compared to the lower brain functions therefore is not just an accident but the very purpose of life and its evolution.  We are meant to acquire the higher qualities that the higher brain enables.

And...not surprisingly (to me) this is exactly what all spirituality and religions have been teaching for centuries.  We humans have been pushed by religions and other spiritual teachings for millennia towards using more and more of the higher brain functions while controlling the urges and instincts dictated by the reptilian brain. 

We can see here a clear union of spiritual goals and evolutionary direction IMO. Our spiritual leaders obviously knew about our 'higher' capabilities and the need to develop them, without even knowing about the neo-cortex and such other 'hardware' details.

So...there is no reason to shy away from using such terms as 'higher' and lower'....or to get all PC about it.   In any developmental process...higher and lower levels of development will be inevitable.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Rhiannon]

Which is where I depart from you, Sriram. We can't judge who is more 'highly developed' and who isn't. What does that even mean?

[Enki]

Hi Sriram,

I don't see it in your terms at all.  If you want to use the word 'higher' to simply mean 'more complex' or even 'better fitted to survive' I have no objection at all. However I have no reason or evidence to think that *spiritual evolution(whatever that may mean) guides and directs physical evolution.  Also, as plenty of species have developed certain abilities to a much greater extent than humans, the idea that this is a PC stance is rather ludicrous in my case.

*unless you mean that the physical development of the brain can aid survival, and, hence, through the process of evolution, can produce other physical effects which can also aid survival.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

If life (and evolution) has an objective or goal...those who are nearer the goal are 'higher' and those who are further away are 'lower'. As simple as that.  So..'higher' and 'lower' states of consciousness are relevant and meaningful in a philosophy that has a goal for life. 

Some people (a small minority) believe life to be an accident and therefore to them this may not be meaningful. But to most others it makes perfect sense.

And the fact that ancient religious teachings match evolutionary models (as in the OP) is even better!

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

If life (and evolution) has an objective or goal...those who are nearer the goal are 'higher' and those who are further away are 'lower'. As simple as that.  So..'higher' and 'lower' states of consciousness are relevant and meaningful in a philosophy that has a goal for life. 

There are no grounds for thinking that life has a goal though.  Humans evolved from monkeys but monkeys are still here.  Conditions in the cosmos are subject to incessant change, life evolves and adapts to fill changing niches. Considering one life form superior to another is a form of bias, like racism, there is no evidence for it, it is only personal prejudice speaking.

[jeremyp]

I know atheists like to think we are all the same.... just 'different'. But humans ARE superior to other animals. Some humans like Gandhi ARE superior to other humans like Hitler. 

Its in fact ego centric for people to think that they are the same as everyone else....and no one can be superior to them.   Superiority and inferiority is intrinsic to life.

"Superior" implies a scale that you are measuring against. There is no doubt that, measured on some scales, humans are superior to all other animals, but on others, not so much. If I put you in a cage with a lion, we'll soon discover who is superior.

[Sriram]

I know atheists like to think we are all the same.... just 'different'. But humans ARE superior to other animals. Some humans like Gandhi ARE superior to other humans like Hitler. 

Its in fact ego centric for people to think that they are the same as everyone else....and no one can be superior to them.   Superiority and inferiority is intrinsic to life.

"Superior" implies a scale that you are measuring against. There is no doubt that, measured on some scales, humans are superior to all other animals, but on others, not so much. If I put you in a cage with a lion, we'll soon discover who is superior.

And that's precisely what I have pointed out already.  Higher and lower aspects are part of life.

Because you assume an accidental and chance factor in life...you think there is no objective to life and therefore no inherent superiority/inferiority. 

I assume otherwise, as I have pointed out many times. People who are more loving, more intellectual, more selfless and more universal are superior to those who are selfish, violent and cruel....because that's the objective of life.   

[Leonard James]

I know atheists like to think we are all the same.... just 'different'. But humans ARE superior to other animals. Some humans like Gandhi ARE superior to other humans like Hitler. 

Its in fact ego centric for people to think that they are the same as everyone else....and no one can be superior to them.   Superiority and inferiority is intrinsic to life.

"Superior" implies a scale that you are measuring against. There is no doubt that, measured on some scales, humans are superior to all other animals, but on others, not so much. If I put you in a cage with a lion, we'll soon discover who is superior.

And that's precisely what I have pointed out already.  Higher and lower aspects are part of life.

Because you assume an accidental and chance factor in life...you think there is no objective to life and therefore no inherent superiority/inferiority. 

I assume otherwise, as I have pointed out many times. People who are more loving, more intellectual, more selfless and more universal are superior to those who are selfish, violent and cruel....because that's the objective of life.

Believing that there is an "objective" in life is nothing more than a human conceit.

The fact is that life is just a by-product of the properties of matter ... in short, a chemical process.

[Sriram]

Believing that there is an "objective" in life is nothing more than a human conceit.

The fact is that life is just a by-product of the properties of matter ... in short, a chemical process.

So...you believe!

[Leonard James]

Believing that there is an "objective" in life is nothing more than a human conceit.

The fact is that life is just a by-product of the properties of matter ... in short, a chemical process.

So...you believe!

Yes, until I am presented with evidence to the contrary.

[Sriram]

Yes, until I am presented with evidence to the contrary.

'Evidence'  is only what we are programmed to see and observe. It cannot be presented on a platter. We should have the ability to see it.

[Leonard James]

Yes, until I am presented with evidence to the contrary.

'Evidence'  is only what we are programmed to see and observe. It cannot be presented on a platter. We should have the ability to see it.

Indeed! Which is why I have come to the conclusion that life is nothing more than a chemical process.