Article on reincarnation

[Sriram]

People who are infected with a meme cannot decide the usefulness or otherwise of that meme. Only those who are not infected with it, can and should.

[ippy]

You don't understand. Evidence is all around us for hundreds of things. We just can't see it or connect it with the relevant phenomenon. Someone suddenly connects the dots and hey presto....we have evidence for something that has always been there but no one noticed.

Even evolution is like that. The similarities between animals and humans is obvious...but no one made the connection (Hindus did make the connection and developed the idea of evolution of human consciousness through reincarnation from animals.....but not biological evolution).

Evidence is not as simple and straight forward as we might think.

So you assert Sriram.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

People who are infected with a meme cannot decide the usefulness or otherwise of that meme. Only those who are not infected with it, can and should.

Memes are shite.

[Stranger]

People who are infected with a meme cannot decide the usefulness or otherwise of that meme. Only those who are not infected with it, can and should.

• If this is the case, you should be listening to what others have said about your meme 'infections': reincarnation, purpose and direction in evolution, two boxes, and so on, and so on...
  
  
• We can actually assess the usefulness of memes by their (objective) results - hence we can be sure that the scientific method is useful because it has produced tangible, objective results.
  
  
• As your statement above is a meme that you are clearly 'infected' with, I am telling you (as someone who isn't) that it isn't a generally useful one.

[Stranger]

Memes are shite.

Are they? Oh well, given that you have made such a comprehensive, well argued, and logically compelling case, I'll have to concede your point...

...oh, hang on a minute, you didn't, did you? It was just another baseless and ill-informed assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are they? Oh well, given that you have made such a comprehensive, well argued, and logically compelling case, I'll have to concede your point...

...oh, hang on a minute, you didn't, did you? It was just another baseless and ill-informed assertion.

Memetics cannot eliminate including the intelligently designed idea into itself. What implications for the ultra darwinistic basis of Memetics do you think that has.

Memetics is just a bit of intellectual imperialism on the part of scientism. It is a useless redefinition.

[Dicky Underpants]

You old school guys don't like the views of young scientists like Richard Watson and Simon Powell,then!??!

Nothing new about such views. They'd been proposed before I was born by Bergson, A.N. Whitehead (Russell's mathematical collaborator) Hans Driesch and popularised by the novelist Samuel Butler and the dramatist G.B.Shaw.
Bergson wasn't a scientist per se, and Whitehead was of course a mathematician and philosopher. Driesch was a biologist. None of their views have really passed muster in the years of scientific criticism and research which followed them.

[Dicky Underpants]

Yeah, I agree that Simon Powell is not a scientist. Sorry!

But the idea of Intelligence being inherent in nature is almost obvious. It is not necessarily about religion or God or anything like that.

Where do you think evolution is 'going'?

[Stranger]

Memetics cannot eliminate including the intelligently designed idea into itself. What implications for the ultra darwinistic basis of Memetics do you think that has.

Do you want to try that again, using coherent English?

Memetics is just a bit of intellectual imperialism on the part of scientism. It is a useless redefinition.

Why should I believe this naked assertion?

[Maeght]

Such a simple conclusion isn't it?! LOL!   Thanks Maeght.

 

Its really obvious I'm afraid.

[Maeght]

People who are infected with a meme cannot decide the usefulness or otherwise of that meme. Only those who are not infected with it, can and should.

Have you read your own posts?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you want to try that again, using coherent English?

Why should I believe this naked assertion?

Memeticists would have to admit that many or most memes would be intelligently designed therefore going against the Darwinian assumptions of those who have been prominent in pushing it.

It just repackages ideas like concept, idea, signs and symbols which have been a staple of other fields of study. Memetics is therefore linguistic and intellectual imperialism on the part of scientism.

IMHO it represents a dumbing down of language for a neotenised intelligentsia. Pop science.

Now if you think there are memes not only do you have to demonstrate them since you are making a claim, but you have to show that they patch any inadequacy in other fields of study.

[Stranger]

Memeticists would have to admit that many or most memes would be intelligently designed therefore going against the Darwinian assumptions of those who have been prominent in pushing it.

Of course some memes would be intelligently designed by people. I have no idea why you think that goes against the assumption of Darwinian-like differential reproduction - which is the point.

It just repackages ideas like concept, idea, signs and symbols which have been a staple of other fields of study. Memetics is therefore linguistic and intellectual imperialism on the part of scientism.

IMHO it represents a dumbing down of language for a neotenised intelligentsia. Pop science.

Paranoid rantings.

Now if you think there are memes not only do you have to demonstrate them since you are making a claim, but you have to show that they patch any inadequacy in other fields of study.

To the best of my knowledge, that is a work in progress. I don't think the concept is sufficiently developed yet to constitute a scientific hypothesis - so it's pointless to criticise on that basis. Dennett uses the idea extensively but he's doing philosophy, not science.

On the other hand, I think there are undoubtedly some parallels between genes and concepts and ideas, in the way in which they spread through populations. Some ideas spread despite being wrong, misleading, and unhelpful - one has to ask who or what benefits? For example, why do so many people think that Darwin wrote a book called The Origin of the Species?

[Sriram]

Where do you think evolution is 'going'?

Its a long story....but to cut it short.

Evolution is about development of Consciousness..not some accidental biological phenomenon.   Organisms die, species become extinct but consciousness continues....through a process of reincarnation.  That's the idea.

[torridon]

Its a long story....but to cut it short.

Evolution is about development of Consciousness..not some accidental biological phenomenon.   Organisms die, species become extinct but consciousness continues....through a process of reincarnation.  That's the idea.

and how would that work ?  If consciousness is something that evolves independently of biology through reincarnation, how does it survive a mass extinction event when there are no suitable biological organisms alive able to host previously highly developed forms of consciousness ?  If humans get taken out by an asteroid and there is nothing more complex than ants remaining, do the ants end up hosting all that reincarnated human consciousness ?

[Stranger]

Evolution is about development of Consciousness..not some accidental biological phenomenon.   Organisms die, species become extinct but consciousness continues....through a process of reincarnation.  That's the idea.

So, you're ignoring the evidence and relying on wishful thinking and blind faith...           

[Gordon]

Its a long story....but to cut it short.

Evolution is about development of Consciousness..not some accidental biological phenomenon.   Organisms die, species become extinct but consciousness continues....through a process of reincarnation.  That's the idea.

Then I think you need to revisit the idea.

[ippy]

Its a long story....but to cut it short.

Evolution is about development of Consciousness..not some accidental biological phenomenon.   Organisms die, species become extinct but consciousness continues....through a process of reincarnation.  That's the idea.

Where are all of these supposed reincarnation records, memories etc, kept waiting Sriram, I assume, waiting to be handed down to the next recipient?

If you don't know perhaps blue elephant man can help you?

Blue elephant man?

I don't know?

Makes as much sense as any other superstitious belief, I suppose?

Regards ippy

[Sriram]

and how would that work ?  If consciousness is something that evolves independently of biology through reincarnation, how does it survive a mass extinction event when there are no suitable biological organisms alive able to host previously highly developed forms of consciousness ?  If humans get taken out by an asteroid and there is nothing more complex than ants remaining, do the ants end up hosting all that reincarnated human consciousness ?

You can ask lots of questions I am sure. We all can ask lots of questions about Darwin's theory, cosmology, QM and everything else. That's easy.

The point is that the evolution and development of humans and our civilizations is a clear indicator of development of consciousness.  The evidence is right there in us and our societies.   There can be no doubt about that fact.

The question is whether all this is chance  brought about by random variation or whether it has a purpose.  Without going into spiritual ideas, we can just take some ideas from eminent scientists.

Max Planck has said...  "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

Wheeler has said..."We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?"

Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle proposes that Consciousness participates in the development of the world.

The idea that Consciousness is what is truly evolving and developing in the process of biological evolution, if taken up seriously for research in science I am sure lot more will be discovered about Consciousness and its role in evolution.

[Maeght]

What about evolution of other species which do not display the same level of consciousness as humans? Where does that fit into this idea?

[ippy]

You can ask lots of questions I am sure. We all can ask lots of questions about Darwin's theory, cosmology, QM and everything else. That's easy.

The point is that the evolution and development of humans and our civilizations is a clear indicator of development of consciousness.  The evidence is right there in us and our societies.   There can be no doubt about that fact.

The question is whether all this is chance  brought about by random variation or whether it has a purpose.  Without going into spiritual ideas, we can just take some ideas from eminent scientists.

Max Planck has said...  "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

Wheeler has said..."We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?"

Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle proposes that Consciousness participates in the development of the world.

The idea that Consciousness is what is truly evolving and developing in the process of biological evolution, if taken up seriously for research in science I am sure lot more will be discovered about Consciousness and its role in evolution.

There's evidence for random variation/chance and virtually zero evidence to show purpose.

Just because we haven't nailed the exact why, how and therefore about conciousness does nothing for the we don't know the explanation therefore god argument.(No matter what guise or how well the therefore god idea is concealed within the text)
 
Yes I suppose we did evolve to fit in with the psychical surroundings we by chance were born into, I doubt we had a lot of choice about that; makes me think of Duggies puddle, again.

Conciousness, I'd be more surprised if it wasn't an integral part of human evolution, you can't exactly put it to one side when trying to work things out or have ideas, I'd have thought that would come under the heading of 'The Bleeding Obvious'. 

Regards ippy

P S Having read some further posts I think I should have made more of your ever present references to Woo in your posts and I'm not wrong about that either, Blue Elephants Sriram, come on Sriram, Blue Elephants?

[Gordon]

You can ask lots of questions I am sure. We all can ask lots of questions about Darwin's theory, cosmology, QM and everything else. That's easy.

The point is that the evolution and development of humans and our civilizations is a clear indicator of development of consciousness.  The evidence is right there in us and our societies.   There can be no doubt about that fact.

The question is whether all this is chance  brought about by random variation or whether it has a purpose.  Without going into spiritual ideas, we can just take some ideas from eminent scientists.

Max Planck has said...  "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

Wheeler has said..."We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?"

Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle proposes that Consciousness participates in the development of the world.

The idea that Consciousness is what is truly evolving and developing in the process of biological evolution, if taken up seriously for research in science I am sure lot more will be discovered about Consciousness and its role in evolution.

Consciousness seems to be a biological function that has a one-to-one correspondence with each individual biological agent that is conscious: the idea that one instance (for want of a better term) of consciousness can migrate from one biological agent to a different and separate biological agent seems unfounded as things stand.

[Stranger]

Typical woo-peddling tactics from Sriram..

You can ask lots of questions I am sure. We all can ask lots of questions about Darwin's theory, cosmology, QM and everything else. That's easy.

The difference being that these are well established areas of science backed up by plentiful evidence, in much the same way as your fanciful ideas aren't.

The point is that the evolution and development of humans and our civilizations is a clear indicator of development of consciousness.  The evidence is right there in us and our societies.   There can be no doubt about that fact.

Humans (and human consciousness) evolved and then societies did. That isn't in dispute. This appears to be an attempt to pretend that this backs up your claims, which it does not.

The question is whether all this is chance  brought about by random variation or whether it has a purpose.

We have plenty of evidence for random variation and natural selection being the mechanism for evolution and no evidence of purpose - so, in the absence of new evidence, it isn't actually much of a question

Without going into spiritual ideas, we can just take some ideas from eminent scientists.

Carefully selected scientists, none of whom were talking about evolution or any supposed purpose for it - so we've now gone off at a tangent about quantum mechanics...

Max Planck has said...  "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

Wheeler has said..."We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?"

Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle proposes that Consciousness participates in the development of the world.

These are both connected to the interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is still an area of speculation. However, the discovery of decoherence has since explained how much of the quantum "weirdness" disappears at the macro scale - and it has nothing at all to do with consciousness. There really are very few scientists today that take a connection to consciousness seriously (some 6% of physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers according to a poll in 2011, see: Wikipedia).

The idea that Consciousness is what is truly evolving and developing in the process of biological evolution...

Now you are back to consciousness and evolution, as if the digression into QM had anything at all to do with it.

...if taken up seriously for research in science I am sure lot more will be discovered about Consciousness and its role in evolution.

Given the total lack of any evidence, how would you suggest this "research" should start?

[Sriram]

What about evolution of other species which do not display the same level of consciousness as humans? Where does that fit into this idea?

As I said, we all have many questions. Even I have many doubts about this.

Maybe consciousness spontaneously branches out in as many ways as possible to develop. Maybe it needs many avenues before it can grow. I have no idea frankly.

But that does not detract from the idea of consciousness evolving.   That we can see as a fact. 

[torridon]

As I said, we all have many questions. Even I have many doubts about this.

Maybe consciousness spontaneously branches out in as many ways as possible to develop. Maybe it needs many avenues before it can grow. I have no idea frankly.

But that does not detract from the idea of consciousness evolving.   That we can see as a fact.

There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness evolves independently of biological evolution though.  If consciousness evolves that is because conscious creatures evolve, and if there are more sophisticated implementations of it that will be because it is a phenomenon that confers a competitive advantage to the organism that benefits from it.  If all humans get wiped out tomorrow. all that sophisticated human consciousness is going to get wiped out too, trust me on this.  We are not going to see human consciousness reincarnated into the surviving insect populations.  If consciousness evolves, it is because species evolve.