Our body does not have an “I”. - Uchiyama Roshi relates to this. - If we injure our leg our body will take care of it. - However there is no focusing for this purpose. - There is no central headquarters which apparently must head the healing elements. - What happens happens naturally.
- The body is a whole in this sense. - it is not in need of a central point off which everything is to be handled. - In our conscious action and life things are different. - Obviously. - Most would imagine there is no other way. But there is. Actually our way is somewhat (or not just somewhat) distorted.
- Those who believe life are merely an outcome of random occurrences of physical matter will naturally think the way they know is the only way. They might imagine stupidly advanced beings on other planets having arrived at this or that but will generally always maintain themselves altogether off course.
- I wrote an earlier related post. - “10.2.22 – Free mentality in primitive organisms and divine beings”.
- This one here will not necessarily add. - But still it doesn't mean it is worthless. - There is another way of being. - It may somewhat not be so much like what some would think of as “being”. - If you consider a sea anemone or a jellyfish - there is no brain, - therefore there is no self consciousness as we know, - if each part of the body acts independently than there could be no central consciousness as we know. As we are familiar with.
How do these feel then? What is their mind like? Imagine. Try to.
- Actually I am saying their state is fundamentally the better state. Just fundamentally. I don't mean it is better to be a sea anemone or a jellyfish. This would be obviously foolish. - But relating to the principle itself, eventually, - we better shed off one day our mental disability and let ourselves go. - “You say stop, - I say go, go, go”. - (- “You say goodbye, - I say hello”) I can not say I know what it is like. I don't know if it is like at all. - I might suppose it would have to do with consciousness fading away too. But it would obviously be wider, - we cannot imagine a wider consciousness really, - what would such a thing be like. Just don't be afraid of it. Like locking yourself inside of something tying your heart down thinking this is the best way. - It is not.
the Peak of Intellectuality
There was a previous post entitled “the Pinnacle of Modernism”. - (- August 2021) This one is about another outstanding phenomenon manifested by mankind. - On two spaceships known as “Pioneer 10” and the subsequent “Pioneer 11” there was installed a small plaque (9″x6″) carrying a message aimed at other intelligent beings from our humanity residing here on the solid ground of planet Earth. - Or rather perhaps we should say from approximately the harshest depths of stupidity where certain leaders of ours are treading their path.
- I referred to how harsh is a similar phenomenon expressed in the changing view of what is now knowed as the LGTB. - I will not repeat that. You can go and check what I have said elsewhere - here on the blog too. - But these plaques seem to reveal how wrong can human minds go much earlier. - Has any intelligent being met these messages not practically aware beforehand of our humanity and its state, - not previously knowing where we are and what we are prior to seeing these small pieces of metal, - assuming the intended language there would be interpreted as intended, - the shock would be likely to be of how stupid can we be and how deep has our humanity descended away from wisdom and away from reasonability too.
- Of course such a situation does not seem possible. Though thinking of learned intellectuals of the sort of those initiating this program it may be practically doubtful whether we would be able to say “of course” as here above in the last sentence. - It also might tell of how close we are to animals. - See here as for how we are different from them still. - Any beings capable of noticing these miserable pieces of junk we sent into space with such a great effort and these small plates they carry as referred to here - would not be in any need to interpret the inscribed writings and drawings there, - they would have much simpler and also more natural ways of telling. - We are ever viewed. So called contemporary “science” heading way up into a blind dark nowhere inevitably sucks. - There are intelligent beings anywhere. We just don’t see them. Most of us that is.
- Some might ask, suppose there is a God, or suppose there are higher beings in general all around us, - why does it not manifest in letters of fire in the sky of New York City, - and all would be then clear? - Why would they not make it clear to us that they are there, - but instead allow us to continue to live in deep ignorance?
- I will not answer the question. Though I do think an answer ought to be presented these days. I am not a Buddha, not one who has escalated to the top of existence, - or - more accuraetly perhaps, - removed the obstacles to any clear vision at the foundation. Not only for this reason I don’t think I could provide an answer that would really be in place sufficiently. However this is the way things are, - these days, - in our time.
- But still, - the ignorance of so called contemporary science, is worse than the primitive state of religions in early ages contemporary “scientists” may so naturally mock at. - The situation is different, obviously, - in older times people didn’t go to the trouble of imagining themselves to be rational. - Having related to the question of why does heaven not display letters of fire in the sky of New York City - I might mention that if people were walking daily following a pillar of fire in the Sinai desert 3,000 years ago, - than the question would not necessarily arise. - If various occurrences which might be named miracles did take place in earlier times as the Bible claims, - than accordingly it would have been easy to hold views which would correspond to them. - When such happenings were no longer happening, too, - it was quite obviously natural for the same attitude to still prevail for a while until it would then gradually fade. - Most today take it for granted that all these things never happened, - but still do ask yourself, - suppose they did, - what would the evidence be today? - Does the possibility they did really disagree with the current situation today? - Back to the issue, - today, as in earlier times, - human herds generally believe what they are told in primary school, or generally absorb in an early age. - The sources of what they hear are different.
- Can I convince many of the faultness of these days through this one post? No. I do not hope to. - Still the situation is harsh and it is clearly not just my personal view. - And the phenomenon about which all this is (as related to in the beginning) is one which is particularly mind capturing.
- Coming to realize the way things are is not easy, - otherwise we wouldn’t have such a wide “scientific” establishment deeped in ignorance above its severely over used head. - Why is it that we are here where we are? - It seems to me that to a great deal seeking objectivity drows things toward shallow regions, but this is a significant point in itself not discussed here.
- I did not mean to question this. - I just wanted to point to how ridiculous and miserable is the placing of the plaques by the organizations which are supposed to be or represent about the peak of human advancement. - To draw the mind to the striking contrast. - The mind of those who are able to see it of course. - But as for others, - how do we point to a severe mistake? - I don’t know. - Those who do get a real idea usually get it off other paths. - It may be just a matter of seeing in general, - does “natural selection” feel right? - Does what we hear about the way things came to be feel natural? - The main point which could be noticed may be here. Other stuff science tells you may not be so troublesome. - And there is the issue of objectivity I mentioned: - It is certainly much harder to gain clairvoyance than to sit in a University and get your degree, - some will come to notice things, - but it is not easy to verify in a manner idiots will normally demand as “objective”. - So, - for those reasons, - among others - the world may be as it is.
- As I have already clarified, - my intention was not to make typical materialistics change their views completely and cease being what they are; - rather it was to point to the noticeable peak of a phenomenon present everywhere for a long time, - it is not just someone who has said something. It is not just an outstanding figure who did. - It is the most accepted establishment supposed to be leading us far ahead, who in clear accordance with the most accepted views displays the stupidity of humanity totally unaware of the reversed episode. - For those who are aware of what the surroundings are really like, - and they are not necessarily as rare as you may think since for obvious reasons they might not many times speak, - this sharp contrast is worthy of noting. - It is as ignorant as a person proudly attempting to present his invention of a steam engine in a conference dealing with nuclear energy. - No less.
There is no blessing in stupidity. - Much worse if you are totally blind to it.
- I referred to how harsh is a similar phenomenon expressed in the changing view of what is now knowed as the LGTB. - I will not repeat that. You can go and check what I have said elsewhere - here on the blog too. - But these plaques seem to reveal how wrong can human minds go much earlier. - Has any intelligent being met these messages not practically aware beforehand of our humanity and its state, - not previously knowing where we are and what we are prior to seeing these small pieces of metal, - assuming the intended language there would be interpreted as intended, - the shock would be likely to be of how stupid can we be and how deep has our humanity descended away from wisdom and away from reasonability too.
- Of course such a situation does not seem possible. Though thinking of learned intellectuals of the sort of those initiating this program it may be practically doubtful whether we would be able to say “of course” as here above in the last sentence. - It also might tell of how close we are to animals. - See here as for how we are different from them still. - Any beings capable of noticing these miserable pieces of junk we sent into space with such a great effort and these small plates they carry as referred to here - would not be in any need to interpret the inscribed writings and drawings there, - they would have much simpler and also more natural ways of telling. - We are ever viewed. So called contemporary “science” heading way up into a blind dark nowhere inevitably sucks. - There are intelligent beings anywhere. We just don’t see them. Most of us that is.
- I will not answer the question. Though I do think an answer ought to be presented these days. I am not a Buddha, not one who has escalated to the top of existence, - or - more accuraetly perhaps, - removed the obstacles to any clear vision at the foundation. Not only for this reason I don’t think I could provide an answer that would really be in place sufficiently. However this is the way things are, - these days, - in our time.
- Can I convince many of the faultness of these days through this one post? No. I do not hope to. - Still the situation is harsh and it is clearly not just my personal view. - And the phenomenon about which all this is (as related to in the beginning) is one which is particularly mind capturing.
- Coming to realize the way things are is not easy, - otherwise we wouldn’t have such a wide “scientific” establishment deeped in ignorance above its severely over used head. - Why is it that we are here where we are? - It seems to me that to a great deal seeking objectivity drows things toward shallow regions, but this is a significant point in itself not discussed here.
There is no blessing in stupidity. - Much worse if you are totally blind to it.
Evolution, - one other point
I have written two posts about evolution but I have not related to this one point: - Obviously there are two lines of plants and animals. - Animals could not have appeared simultaneously with plants because they can not feed off minerals like plants but need plants (or other animals) to feed on. - So the two lines as I said couldn't have appeared together. That is to say at first only plants appeared. Then what? - Could have animals developed off plants? As it seems - obviously not.
- So should we assume some time after plants have already been present again an altogether different line appeared independently? - Neither one of the possibilities appears to be acceptable. Why has this not been mentioned earlier? Perhaps it has.
One other point, - quite clearly, - man too is a different line from the animals. It is not so easy to prove this to contemporary so called “scientists” so mentioning it does not seem to be so useful, - but still I believe off those who arrive at my blog relatively many will understand this point too.
So far.
- So should we assume some time after plants have already been present again an altogether different line appeared independently? - Neither one of the possibilities appears to be acceptable. Why has this not been mentioned earlier? Perhaps it has.
One other point, - quite clearly, - man too is a different line from the animals. It is not so easy to prove this to contemporary so called “scientists” so mentioning it does not seem to be so useful, - but still I believe off those who arrive at my blog relatively many will understand this point too.
So far.
Returning to where we come from (following an earlier post)
I have earlier written a post related to evolution. - I there mistakenly used the term “natural choice” instead of “natural selection”. In translating “natural selection″ to Hebrew - as the Hebrew term I knew, - and then translating it back to English, - you would normally get “natural choice”. It was only years later that I found out about the mistake.
- This post will somewhat repeat what I said there. - I do not see a point in writing it differently.
The older post is at https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2016/06/natural-choice-examined.html. - The comments I added there are to be considered a part of it. - This one I believe will be more complete.
- Some time ago (April 28 2022) I was in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. As I was walking out of there I saw three people walking out of one of the buildings I was passing next to. - Judging by the building they came out of I could guess they were biologists or at least had to do with the issue. - And apparently at least one or two of them were. We had a short conversation, - about as long as it took them to pass from the building they came out of to the one next to it, - and subsequently one of them - Prof. Tamar Keasar, normally related to Haifa University I think, - sent me an e-mail message. She sent me a file of this book, and a link to this page.
- Sometime later I sent her a reply message. (May 19) It included the following:
(In English:
I never got an answer. Though it did say at the end I will be waiting for one. - What did happen is that the possibility to add comments on the page she had sent me a link to (on a site of the Weizmann Institute in Israel) disappeared. The whole comments section there disappeared.
- The page is entitled “the Scientific Answer to Arguments Countering Evolution”. (In Hebrew) Perhaps here I ought to clarify I don't oppose the idea of evolution itself. I didn't even know about the opposition so much else than having found out off the site of the Weizmann Institute subsequent to the link Prof. Keasar has sent me as I said.
- I don't see reasonability in negating the idea of evolution itself. But the theory of “natural selection” is a joke. - Things which may be often referred to are the development of bacteria resistant to antibiotics and insects being able to become immuned to insecticides. But these are cases in which the attempt is to eliminate the relevant population. - Suppose we put to death every person whose height is below 170 cm in a reasonably or relatively isolated surroundings. - In consistent repetition this would obviously lead to an obvious change in the general distribution there. - Does this prove the reasonability or validity of the theory of natural selection? I do not think an answer is necessary. - Similarly with the bacteria and the insects.
- I think it is a historical matter. - As far as I know before Darwin the view generally has been in accord with the story told in the first chapter of the book of Genesis. - Then Darwin came and following observation he conducted presented his well known idea.
It has been initially most controversial and faced great opposition. Subsequently findings seem to have affirmed the idea of evolution in an unquestionable manner. - But this never proved the idea of what was supposed to have been what was standing behind the evolution. - Darwin referred to evolution and to his idea of natural-selection which were both new then to all, - and saw no need to separate his presentation. So the two were wrapped together as far as relevant interested individuals may have generally noticed, - be those materialistic scientists or conservative men of religion.
- Therefore when apparently the idea of evolution has gained heavy support off finding of fossils, continually, - quite absent-mindedly perhaps - the notion was as if this verifies Darwin's idea of natural selection as well.
I am not learned in the issue or the subject, - but the general idea seems somewhat inevitable.
- Else - I might mention one quote from the book mentioned earlier - I did not read the book and I don't suppose I will, - I came across this reference off which I am quoting: (- …) “We shall keep in mind the fact that these very same ingredients, at least in some rudimentary form, must have arisen spontaneously on the early Earth, otherwise cumulative selection, and therefore life, would never have got started in the first place“. - It seems the author initially assumes the rightness of his idea he wishes to support, - considering its truth inevitable, - and - probably somewhat absent mindedly - practically relies on this supposed inevitability in order to prove what he wishes. I will return to this book in the end. Here the issue he wishes to deal with is the development of the initial tools prior to the possibility of natural selection which are necessary in order to make it possible. It is also what the first point in the main part of this post is about.
However, - after this long passage following my assertion that I don't have an issue with the idea of evolution in itself, - let's get back to where we were. - I said the possibility to comment on the Internet page I mentioned disappeared. Here you can see the page as it was before I sent the e-mail message to Prof. Keasar. (The capture is from January 26, it is the last capture of this page on the Wayback Machine before May 19 when I sent the message) Here you can see the page as I found it subsequently. (Here the capture is from September 19, - the first after the same date of May 19)
Obviously this is not a coincidence. The e-mail message I sent and quoted here has led to this consequence. - Is this the way of science? The reason is obvious, - the learned individuals involved are so certain of their ideas that the point I referred to in the quote above is merely considered a hindrance in their eyes. - They can't answer it, and never will be able to, - but such a thing they think is just an accident where their inability to respond would mislead innocent readers causing them to assume I am right.
- Materialistic people often refer to countering ideas as irrational. - The views negating brute materialism are considered so. - An attitude such as described here causing the disappearance of the comments section on the Internet page so that I will not be able to present what I did in the e-mail message there too, - is not always wrong. - But we should consider it concretely. - What does it display? - What does it reveal?
I dare say the person having written the book referred to here seems like a very stupid one to me. Off reasons not mentioned here. But I can not tell really, - St. Paul was a fanatic persecutor of Christians up to a certain point. - However, - I think this occurrence is quite significant. Particularly since one can really see the point brought [- in the e-mail message quoted here] cannot be bypassed. - It is an actual negation of the common assumption. - And while at the side of other points brought here it obviously stands stronger and clearer.
- Are those imagining themselves to be scientists really rational? Do they follow pure logic? - Or are they sunk in their nearby surroundings where they and their fellow men and women mutually absorb each other's sentiments and ideas? - I might say, at the time I studied math, - (one of the most foolish things I ever did) one time the teacher (in Tel Aviv University) made a mistake in proving a theorem. Out of, I guess, about 300 students - I was the only one who noticed it. I tried to mention it, but I was not sure I was right, so I hesitated, and things went on. - At the end of the course on a special class added then intended as a preparation for the exam I again referred to the matter. - I was right and the proof was not valid. (The course was of set theory) The teacher having made a mistake may certainly be reasonable, - it is known that brilliant mathematicians make mistakes too. - But the practical case where about 300 students have read the proof twice, - first just after the class in which it was presented, and second at the end of the course while preparing for the exam, - and not one of them notices it does not really prove what it is supposed to, - raises questions regarding science in general. - And math is supposed to be just the most solid science of all. - Actually the mistake was not very serious and very easy to correct so the proof would be valid then; - but still - one might ask as for the way things really are. - Regarding the matter we have began with here, - how reasonable are those engaging in life science and biology investigating the issue? - And are they people of independent thought, or somehow somewhere in the vicinity of sheeps in a herd?
Time will tell, inevitably. - But we are here in the present, deeped in ignorance and blindness of selected humans of shallow personality and their own chosen materialistic means.
- Before going to what was supposed to be the main part of this post I wish to make another comment: -
Quite obviously without having particular knowledge about the subject one may assume it is possible to have an estimation of how frequent would mutations occur. Further it is also quite obvious it would be possible as well to estimate how often would these mutations be of use, - contribute to the suggested process of natural selection - have any weight in this sense that is. Then as well it could be estimated how many of these practically useful mutations ought to be necessary for the purpose of the development of any particular organ, or appearance of any new species, or perhaps any other detectable change in a living being as well.
This means it is possible as well to calculate what would be the reasonable pace or speed of such a phenomenon. How long would it take for such things to happen, how much time would it demand or require. Such results - however possibly somewhat inaccurate, - should be compared to what has been found off the findings of fossils. - Assuming the numbers will be at reasonable agreement, - at an acceptable correspondence, - than this would render the theory some support. - Either greater or less significant, - but anyway some reasonability could be claimed. - I have never come across any reference to such a thing, - either on the Weizmann Institute site, or anywhere else. Without such an examination the attitude could not be said to be serious. - It does seem quite obvious too. - It seems it could easily be guessed those involved are simply so sure of the rightness of their theory the need hardly occurs to them, or that for the same reason they find it unnecessary.
- Next is what I referred to as the main part here:
1. - Obviously the theory of natural selection relies on the existence of a mechanism which needs to be in place before it begins to operate. This is unquestionable. - The appearance of such a mechanism of course can not rely on the idea by which the evolution is supposed to take place. - The reasonable possibility of the appearance of such a mechanism does not merely rely on the fundamental possibility of chemical reactions needed for the spontaneous construction perhaps assumed. The actual chances for a random continual process as thought of are most significant for a real actual estimation of the reasonability of the theory. Here, as it seems, - one needs not have professional knowledge of biology or chemistry in order to say that the complex structure of the DNA and whichever other elements necessary accompanying it are such that it would be most unreasonable to think that they would come to be by mere random occurrences as assumed.
I have not thoroughly investigated the matter but I never came across any reference to the matter of the chances. Of the probability. Putting this aside makes no sense. - Again, not relating to this I do not think the engagement could even be called serious. I am quite sure there would be mathematical means today which could serve the purpose.
- One other comment about this matter: - If we accept the idea, we must inevitably assume that all has begun with one single cell. - Assuming the process would have taken place more than once, - than obviously we would get two different mechanisms unable to mutually correspond and which could not (practically) be of the same structure or somewhat even of the same principle. - But the DNA, as far as I know, - is the same everywhere. - All works by the same principle. - Further: - If one wishes to assume that the living cell and the DNA within it did come to be by utter random reactions in a primeval world, it seems that than it would be natural to assume as well that such a process would take place more than ones. - If such a thing could happen once, - than why would it be the only unique occurrence throughout the life of the Earth? - If it could happen by chance, - within a surrounding existing at the time described today by contemporary scientists, - common sense would generally imply we should expect that such an occurrence would not be one which will never be repeated or occur in a similar manner. Unless you assume the period in which conditions enabling the process or convenient for the process was just long enough so that we might expect about a single occurrence of this kind. A funny assumption, I believe all will agree. - If you accept the probability for the event is reasonable you can hardly expect at the same time that only one event will take place altogether. You must guess an event would generally appear in an average every suitable period of time. Unlike that it seems - if one excepts the theory in question, - that all life on Earth came to be through one and only unique occurrence in which a living cell randomly has been constructed through no intention or guiding mechanism. - This also means all life here, including all it has brought, - might as well have not appeared at all, if it had not been for this only happening unintended where pure lifeless matter just fell into place somehow through the mere laws of physics and chemistry.
One thing one should say still is that an idea may be raised of various similar beginnings of which only the one we know today survived. I don't think it is of much worth but still it ought to be mentioned.
2. - Next there is the point I wrote about to Prof. Keasar which made Dr. Garti (of the Weizmann Institute) cease the ability to post comments on the relevant web page. - Clearly no one could argue that natural selection is active within humanity today. - This is also true for a period of time earlier. - Since our survival does not depend on our inherited features the process is not relevant to us. - If we look back and consider when has the situation not been like that, as for human beings that is, - the period we would be thinking of would be such that in particular ways at least the possible development would be most limited.
- This would refer to man in a time when the conditions within which he had lived could no-doubt only contribute in certain ways. - Put aside the physical issue, - as for the mental features there was nothing around which would promote or cause advancement beyond a most initial and fundamental level. - If man was living in a rather primitive situation still any mental capacities which could in any way develop through natural selection would be of course in accord with this. But we do know the mental abilities of humans are far beyond that, - particularly in recent time the evidence is clear and unbreakable: - The construction of buildings including skyscrapers including the engineering work necessary, - the construction of vehicles from sport cars to jets and spaceships, - regarding math - even the work done centuries ago in ancient Greece is unexplainable, but high math today and modern physics go much further. - All computer work including the internet is most obvious today too. The above is most easily noticed and understood, - but actually there are also the abilities as displayed by Master Dogen, Goethe, or Mozart, - art may not be as easy to use as an example which would form solid evidence in the eyes of all, - but in truth is not less significant. However, - inevitably, - the theory discussed sucks heavily in an irreversible manner. There is no doubt there is another force acting in the matter. - And if so, obviously, - there is not a reason to think it could not act elsewhere. Then all is different and the so called “scientists” are similar to the people of clergy having convicted Galileo Galilei asserting that his views are wrong and absurd. (- https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/)
3. - Next, - there is the phenomenon of the mind itself. - Off where is its existence?
- Obviously, clearly, doubtlessly, - no materialistic theory dealing with physical matter only could reason this phenomenon.
As for contemporary “scientific” attitude, - it might just ignore it. It might just relate to bodily and/or physical things while assuming the mind is nothing but some kind of a manifestation of these. But I would say anyway the existence of the mind is undeniable. - We witness its existence as we do this of physical phenomena, even prior to those. - Could science escape supplying any reasoning or explanation for this actual fact we closely know? - Whichever ideas or suggestions may be brought up, - it will never supply the slightest progress toward the understanding of the phenomenon. - It doesn't matter what physical processes (chemical included) you will suppose - it will not bring forth any reason for an appearance of what we know as mind, consciousness, actual consciousness. - The tendency is to not consider this fact meaningful. Why? There is no real reason.
- The matter is not to be ignored. - And if you accept views other than those so common today there is an explanation. - Other spheres existed prior to the existence of the physical plane, our physical world. Mind has existed there already. - Life means other factors entering physical elements here in our world. Different factors for plants, something added for animals, and something again added for man. - Thus the mind is an expression of a different element undetectable through our physical senses. Is this irrational? Dummies will thoughtlessly claim so. But why?
Anyway, - contemporary materialistic “science” may be said to for ever not be able to do. Another explanation exists. If you accept it it again changes the whole picture. - If you accept the existence of “higher” spheres than things you may have considered as a must will no longer be so. - Influence from spheres we do not know (or at least most do not) may have taken place in the development of life on Earth too. - You know your mind. - In order to explain its existence and origin it is inevitable to accept there is something (- ! -) else than just physical matter as we know it here, - otherwise it could not have come to be. - At least this.
- You need not accept what I say beyond that. But you do need to realize the existing theory here too faces a barrier it is eternally unable to pass. You must think further. The suggested explanations today supplied by those considered to be authorities are inevitably unable to create an acceptable model.
4. - The fourth point is about the wing. Again it is not just something contemporary “science” has not yet found a reasoning to, - but a point which one can see could not be explained through the idea the aforementioned “science” wishes to adopt. - It is about the development of the wing. Someone has pointed to the fact that (in some cases) the development of the wing means at first degeneration of the limb off which it develops. - The arm or leg off which the is supposed to develop, - quite clearly and inevitably loses its ability to function as one, while the wing has not yet come to be. - No one would argue the process is short, - it is clear this means a situation being carried on for a very long period of time, - while the being supposed to be in the intermediate period is not only not making progress in a way which could move the process of the natural selection, - but also is in a deplorable state unrelated to this. - Two of its arms or legs are useless and fundamentally just a burden to it. - It is a being we would expect to be extincted even unrelated to the theory of the natural selection.
- But not relying on this too: - Just considering the development of the wing itslef: - The wing is a flat surface needing to be wide enogh in order to be useful as what it is. - As long as it has not acquired the necessary measurements it could not be useful. How could its development begin? - The theory related to here could never suggest an actual line of progress.
- The wing has appeared four times: - In pterosaurs, birds, bats, and insects too. - Each time it appeared independently. - This means of course the above repeated itself four separate times. - There is no coincidence by which it could have come to be according to the existing view in the common scientific establishment, - but even if you would wish to assume one - you would have than to assume it took place four times, or that some alternations of it did anyway.
- As I said at the beginning of this fourth fascicle, - it again is not just something an answer has not been found to yet, - it is, apparently, - a proof the theory could not be valid. - And, as I already mentioned, - if we do know a different force or factor or element was active in creating and shaping the different forms of living beings here on our planet, - than all is different because there is no reason not to allow the possibility it was active elsewhere too, - unlike the common attitude assuming nothing else is possible other than mere physical random occurrences of lifeless matter first, and then through the principle of the natural selection.
So far for this.
- Else I would like at the end to refer to some things off the book I mentioned at the beginning Prof. Keasar sent me. - One reasonable thing said there is that relating to odds - odds of life or particularly a living cell appearing in the ocean here on Earth, - one could not necessarily think of just our “Earth” we know alone, - but of chances of this occurring generally in the universe we know, - on any of the planets thought of as possibly suitable for such an occurrence. - One could not say this does not make any sense. However, - dealing with numbers, - this will not necessarily bring things into reasonability.
- If we wish to relate to a concrete number indicating the estimated probability - it may be so low that even multiplying it by the great number Dawkins implies would still leave it far off what would be thought of as reasonable.
Else, - I wanted to relate to some quotes off the book, - but I will only settle for one: - “To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer”. - Here one might need to relate to a quote to which Dawkins relates in the title of his book:
- This is from a book I don't know called Natural Theology by a person called William Paley. - Never mind this. - There may be the question of how stupid could a person be. - I mean Dawkins himself picked this idea. - Now suppose you find a watch on the beach, - and suppose you consider the question of how did it come to be; - and then suppose you happen to meet the watchmaker who made it - or come to know him - or come to know of him: - Does it explain nothing?
- Precisely nothing?
...
- It does seem the most significant difference between quite meaningless dry intellectualism unable to actually relate to reality and true realistic thinking capturing pictures rather than just mere chains of conclusions put together mechanically is to be considered here.
- Unlike what this apparently extreme idiot might say watches are not living beings. - We do not - looking at our surroundings, - wonder how did rocks and stones, sand and water, - minerals in general - come about. - Put aside what contemporary ideas might say about this. - The Appearance of plants and animals, and human beings, - is initially or intuitively baffling. - This is naturally questioned.
Materialists will not deny this too. - They would assume explanations they reject will arise off this phenomenon. - However we have no immediate idea of how did living organisms come to be at first in the same way that our mineral surrounding is natural to us.
Now to the main point here: - For one who is familiar with the higher spheres of existence - for one who knows them - those spheres off which our physical plane has derived its existence, - questions as harsh materialists may be troubled by do not practically arise. - The view is natural and reasonable. You need not accept this. But saying anyway even if you do accept this route it leads nowhere is not acceptable. This is dry materialism.
This is the stupidity of Richard Dawkins. - By the way, - his definition of what living beings are is entirely off course. I never read his book. I do not intend to. - But I did have a look at it, and read a bit here and there. - Very little. - At the beginning he seems to define living beings including manmade objects as such too. - This might tell you of the nature of his mentality. - But I will not proceed. - He is not the subject and I am truly not familiar with him.
I will end at this. There is one other point in a post I have already written which will be on on February. - I started writing this long ago. It could have been finished quite long ago too. But things happened. Never mind. I would have scheduled it to the same date anyway.
- This post will somewhat repeat what I said there. - I do not see a point in writing it differently.
The older post is at https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2016/06/natural-choice-examined.html. - The comments I added there are to be considered a part of it. - This one I believe will be more complete.
- Some time ago (April 28 2022) I was in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. As I was walking out of there I saw three people walking out of one of the buildings I was passing next to. - Judging by the building they came out of I could guess they were biologists or at least had to do with the issue. - And apparently at least one or two of them were. We had a short conversation, - about as long as it took them to pass from the building they came out of to the one next to it, - and subsequently one of them - Prof. Tamar Keasar, normally related to Haifa University I think, - sent me an e-mail message. She sent me a file of this book, and a link to this page.
- Sometime later I sent her a reply message. (May 19) It included the following:
«לעניין תהליך הברירה הטבעית, - הרעיון הפשוט ביותר עשוי לומר שאם צבי מסויים ירוץ במהירות גבוהה יותר מאחרים סיכויי הישרדותו גבוהים יותר ולכן עם הזמן נמצא צבאים מהירים יותר משהוו קדם לכן.
- אבל אם נניח שמהירותו (כ-) 100 קמ"ש, ואם נניח כמו"כ שמהירותו של טורף פוטנציאלי (- נאמר צ'יטה) עשויה להגיע ל-100 או 115 קמ"ש, - אז אם תגיע מהירותו של הצבי ל-150 או 200 קמ"ש, (כדוגמא מובהקת) כל עוד לא תגדל מהירותם של הטורפים הפוטנציאליים, - לא ימשך התהליך ולא יוסיפו הצבאים להיות מהירים יותר משהינם. לא נמצא צבאים שמהירותם תגיע ללמעלה מ-200 קמ"ש, ל-300 קמ"ש.
- כדוגמא אחרת צוארה של הג'ירפה לא יגיע למעלה מהגובה בו תוכל למצא עלים למאכל.
אבל: - לעניין האדם, - ברור ומובן שתהליך הברירה הטבעית אינו פועל מזה זמן. אינני מציין פרק זמן מתוך הבנה שתוכלי את להעריכו טוב ממני. - אם נתייחס לתקופה שבה עדיין היה ה-"מנוע" של תהליך הברירה הטבעית פעיל לעניינה של האנושות, - אז לעניין היכולות המנטליות המתפתחות על-ידו ניתן להעריך שלא היה בידו (של התהליך) להעמיד או ליצור הכרה (mind) המסוגלת ללמעלה מבניית אי-אילו בקתות קש או יצירת כלים כלשהם בעלי-מידת-מורכבות דומה. שום דבר שמתקרב ליכולות הנדרשות ליצירת רשת האינטרנט, לעיסוק במתמטיקה גבוהה או בפיזיקה גרעינית, לבניית גורדי שחקים, או לבניין כלים כחלליות וטילים הקיימים היום. - הדבר דומה למצב שבו מהירות ריצתו של צבי כבדוגמא מקדם תגיע ל-700 או 800 קמ"ש אם לא הרבה למעלה מכך.».
- אבל אם נניח שמהירותו (כ-) 100 קמ"ש, ואם נניח כמו"כ שמהירותו של טורף פוטנציאלי (- נאמר צ'יטה) עשויה להגיע ל-100 או 115 קמ"ש, - אז אם תגיע מהירותו של הצבי ל-150 או 200 קמ"ש, (כדוגמא מובהקת) כל עוד לא תגדל מהירותם של הטורפים הפוטנציאליים, - לא ימשך התהליך ולא יוסיפו הצבאים להיות מהירים יותר משהינם. לא נמצא צבאים שמהירותם תגיע ללמעלה מ-200 קמ"ש, ל-300 קמ"ש.
- כדוגמא אחרת צוארה של הג'ירפה לא יגיע למעלה מהגובה בו תוכל למצא עלים למאכל.
אבל: - לעניין האדם, - ברור ומובן שתהליך הברירה הטבעית אינו פועל מזה זמן. אינני מציין פרק זמן מתוך הבנה שתוכלי את להעריכו טוב ממני. - אם נתייחס לתקופה שבה עדיין היה ה-"מנוע" של תהליך הברירה הטבעית פעיל לעניינה של האנושות, - אז לעניין היכולות המנטליות המתפתחות על-ידו ניתן להעריך שלא היה בידו (של התהליך) להעמיד או ליצור הכרה (mind) המסוגלת ללמעלה מבניית אי-אילו בקתות קש או יצירת כלים כלשהם בעלי-מידת-מורכבות דומה. שום דבר שמתקרב ליכולות הנדרשות ליצירת רשת האינטרנט, לעיסוק במתמטיקה גבוהה או בפיזיקה גרעינית, לבניית גורדי שחקים, או לבניין כלים כחלליות וטילים הקיימים היום. - הדבר דומה למצב שבו מהירות ריצתו של צבי כבדוגמא מקדם תגיע ל-700 או 800 קמ"ש אם לא הרבה למעלה מכך.».
(In English:
“As for the process of natural selection, - the simplest idea may say that if a certain deer will run at a higher speed than others his chances of survival are higher and therefore with time we will find quicker deers than [those who] had been before.
But if we will assume its speed is (about) 100 km/h, and if we will assume as well that the speed of a potential predator (- say a cheetah) might arrive at 100 or 115 km/h, - than if the speed of the deer will arrive at 150 or 200 km/h, (as a clear example) as long as the speed of potential predators will not increase, - the process will not continue and deers will not further become quicker than they (presently) are. We will not find deers the speed of will reach higher than 200 km/h, - 300 km/h.
As another example the giraffe's neck will not reach higher than where it could find leaves to eat.
But: - As for man, - it is clear and understood that the natural selection process is not active for a period of time. I am not denoting a period out of an understanding that you will be able to estimate it better than myself. - If we relate to the period in which the ‘engine’ of the natural selection process was still active regarding humanity, - than as for the mental abilities developed by it it is possible to estimate that it (the process) was not capable of establishing or creating a mind capable of more than building a number of straw huts or creating any tools of a similar measure of complexity. Nothing coming near the abilities needed for creating the Internet, dealing with high math or nuclear physics, building skyscrapers, or constructing devices like spaceships and missiles existing today. - It is like a situation in which the speed of a deer as in the previous example will reach 700 or 800 km/h if not much further.”)
But if we will assume its speed is (about) 100 km/h, and if we will assume as well that the speed of a potential predator (- say a cheetah) might arrive at 100 or 115 km/h, - than if the speed of the deer will arrive at 150 or 200 km/h, (as a clear example) as long as the speed of potential predators will not increase, - the process will not continue and deers will not further become quicker than they (presently) are. We will not find deers the speed of will reach higher than 200 km/h, - 300 km/h.
As another example the giraffe's neck will not reach higher than where it could find leaves to eat.
But: - As for man, - it is clear and understood that the natural selection process is not active for a period of time. I am not denoting a period out of an understanding that you will be able to estimate it better than myself. - If we relate to the period in which the ‘engine’ of the natural selection process was still active regarding humanity, - than as for the mental abilities developed by it it is possible to estimate that it (the process) was not capable of establishing or creating a mind capable of more than building a number of straw huts or creating any tools of a similar measure of complexity. Nothing coming near the abilities needed for creating the Internet, dealing with high math or nuclear physics, building skyscrapers, or constructing devices like spaceships and missiles existing today. - It is like a situation in which the speed of a deer as in the previous example will reach 700 or 800 km/h if not much further.”)
- The page is entitled “the Scientific Answer to Arguments Countering Evolution”. (In Hebrew) Perhaps here I ought to clarify I don't oppose the idea of evolution itself. I didn't even know about the opposition so much else than having found out off the site of the Weizmann Institute subsequent to the link Prof. Keasar has sent me as I said.
- I don't see reasonability in negating the idea of evolution itself. But the theory of “natural selection” is a joke. - Things which may be often referred to are the development of bacteria resistant to antibiotics and insects being able to become immuned to insecticides. But these are cases in which the attempt is to eliminate the relevant population. - Suppose we put to death every person whose height is below 170 cm in a reasonably or relatively isolated surroundings. - In consistent repetition this would obviously lead to an obvious change in the general distribution there. - Does this prove the reasonability or validity of the theory of natural selection? I do not think an answer is necessary. - Similarly with the bacteria and the insects.
- I think it is a historical matter. - As far as I know before Darwin the view generally has been in accord with the story told in the first chapter of the book of Genesis. - Then Darwin came and following observation he conducted presented his well known idea.
It has been initially most controversial and faced great opposition. Subsequently findings seem to have affirmed the idea of evolution in an unquestionable manner. - But this never proved the idea of what was supposed to have been what was standing behind the evolution. - Darwin referred to evolution and to his idea of natural-selection which were both new then to all, - and saw no need to separate his presentation. So the two were wrapped together as far as relevant interested individuals may have generally noticed, - be those materialistic scientists or conservative men of religion.
- Therefore when apparently the idea of evolution has gained heavy support off finding of fossils, continually, - quite absent-mindedly perhaps - the notion was as if this verifies Darwin's idea of natural selection as well.
I am not learned in the issue or the subject, - but the general idea seems somewhat inevitable.
- Else - I might mention one quote from the book mentioned earlier - I did not read the book and I don't suppose I will, - I came across this reference off which I am quoting: (- …) “We shall keep in mind the fact that these very same ingredients, at least in some rudimentary form, must have arisen spontaneously on the early Earth, otherwise cumulative selection, and therefore life, would never have got started in the first place“. - It seems the author initially assumes the rightness of his idea he wishes to support, - considering its truth inevitable, - and - probably somewhat absent mindedly - practically relies on this supposed inevitability in order to prove what he wishes. I will return to this book in the end. Here the issue he wishes to deal with is the development of the initial tools prior to the possibility of natural selection which are necessary in order to make it possible. It is also what the first point in the main part of this post is about.
However, - after this long passage following my assertion that I don't have an issue with the idea of evolution in itself, - let's get back to where we were. - I said the possibility to comment on the Internet page I mentioned disappeared. Here you can see the page as it was before I sent the e-mail message to Prof. Keasar. (The capture is from January 26, it is the last capture of this page on the Wayback Machine before May 19 when I sent the message) Here you can see the page as I found it subsequently. (Here the capture is from September 19, - the first after the same date of May 19)
Obviously this is not a coincidence. The e-mail message I sent and quoted here has led to this consequence. - Is this the way of science? The reason is obvious, - the learned individuals involved are so certain of their ideas that the point I referred to in the quote above is merely considered a hindrance in their eyes. - They can't answer it, and never will be able to, - but such a thing they think is just an accident where their inability to respond would mislead innocent readers causing them to assume I am right.
- Materialistic people often refer to countering ideas as irrational. - The views negating brute materialism are considered so. - An attitude such as described here causing the disappearance of the comments section on the Internet page so that I will not be able to present what I did in the e-mail message there too, - is not always wrong. - But we should consider it concretely. - What does it display? - What does it reveal?
I dare say the person having written the book referred to here seems like a very stupid one to me. Off reasons not mentioned here. But I can not tell really, - St. Paul was a fanatic persecutor of Christians up to a certain point. - However, - I think this occurrence is quite significant. Particularly since one can really see the point brought [- in the e-mail message quoted here] cannot be bypassed. - It is an actual negation of the common assumption. - And while at the side of other points brought here it obviously stands stronger and clearer.
- Are those imagining themselves to be scientists really rational? Do they follow pure logic? - Or are they sunk in their nearby surroundings where they and their fellow men and women mutually absorb each other's sentiments and ideas? - I might say, at the time I studied math, - (one of the most foolish things I ever did) one time the teacher (in Tel Aviv University) made a mistake in proving a theorem. Out of, I guess, about 300 students - I was the only one who noticed it. I tried to mention it, but I was not sure I was right, so I hesitated, and things went on. - At the end of the course on a special class added then intended as a preparation for the exam I again referred to the matter. - I was right and the proof was not valid. (The course was of set theory) The teacher having made a mistake may certainly be reasonable, - it is known that brilliant mathematicians make mistakes too. - But the practical case where about 300 students have read the proof twice, - first just after the class in which it was presented, and second at the end of the course while preparing for the exam, - and not one of them notices it does not really prove what it is supposed to, - raises questions regarding science in general. - And math is supposed to be just the most solid science of all. - Actually the mistake was not very serious and very easy to correct so the proof would be valid then; - but still - one might ask as for the way things really are. - Regarding the matter we have began with here, - how reasonable are those engaging in life science and biology investigating the issue? - And are they people of independent thought, or somehow somewhere in the vicinity of sheeps in a herd?
Time will tell, inevitably. - But we are here in the present, deeped in ignorance and blindness of selected humans of shallow personality and their own chosen materialistic means.
- Before going to what was supposed to be the main part of this post I wish to make another comment: -
Quite obviously without having particular knowledge about the subject one may assume it is possible to have an estimation of how frequent would mutations occur. Further it is also quite obvious it would be possible as well to estimate how often would these mutations be of use, - contribute to the suggested process of natural selection - have any weight in this sense that is. Then as well it could be estimated how many of these practically useful mutations ought to be necessary for the purpose of the development of any particular organ, or appearance of any new species, or perhaps any other detectable change in a living being as well.
This means it is possible as well to calculate what would be the reasonable pace or speed of such a phenomenon. How long would it take for such things to happen, how much time would it demand or require. Such results - however possibly somewhat inaccurate, - should be compared to what has been found off the findings of fossils. - Assuming the numbers will be at reasonable agreement, - at an acceptable correspondence, - than this would render the theory some support. - Either greater or less significant, - but anyway some reasonability could be claimed. - I have never come across any reference to such a thing, - either on the Weizmann Institute site, or anywhere else. Without such an examination the attitude could not be said to be serious. - It does seem quite obvious too. - It seems it could easily be guessed those involved are simply so sure of the rightness of their theory the need hardly occurs to them, or that for the same reason they find it unnecessary.
- Next is what I referred to as the main part here:
1. - Obviously the theory of natural selection relies on the existence of a mechanism which needs to be in place before it begins to operate. This is unquestionable. - The appearance of such a mechanism of course can not rely on the idea by which the evolution is supposed to take place. - The reasonable possibility of the appearance of such a mechanism does not merely rely on the fundamental possibility of chemical reactions needed for the spontaneous construction perhaps assumed. The actual chances for a random continual process as thought of are most significant for a real actual estimation of the reasonability of the theory. Here, as it seems, - one needs not have professional knowledge of biology or chemistry in order to say that the complex structure of the DNA and whichever other elements necessary accompanying it are such that it would be most unreasonable to think that they would come to be by mere random occurrences as assumed.
I have not thoroughly investigated the matter but I never came across any reference to the matter of the chances. Of the probability. Putting this aside makes no sense. - Again, not relating to this I do not think the engagement could even be called serious. I am quite sure there would be mathematical means today which could serve the purpose.
- One other comment about this matter: - If we accept the idea, we must inevitably assume that all has begun with one single cell. - Assuming the process would have taken place more than once, - than obviously we would get two different mechanisms unable to mutually correspond and which could not (practically) be of the same structure or somewhat even of the same principle. - But the DNA, as far as I know, - is the same everywhere. - All works by the same principle. - Further: - If one wishes to assume that the living cell and the DNA within it did come to be by utter random reactions in a primeval world, it seems that than it would be natural to assume as well that such a process would take place more than ones. - If such a thing could happen once, - than why would it be the only unique occurrence throughout the life of the Earth? - If it could happen by chance, - within a surrounding existing at the time described today by contemporary scientists, - common sense would generally imply we should expect that such an occurrence would not be one which will never be repeated or occur in a similar manner. Unless you assume the period in which conditions enabling the process or convenient for the process was just long enough so that we might expect about a single occurrence of this kind. A funny assumption, I believe all will agree. - If you accept the probability for the event is reasonable you can hardly expect at the same time that only one event will take place altogether. You must guess an event would generally appear in an average every suitable period of time. Unlike that it seems - if one excepts the theory in question, - that all life on Earth came to be through one and only unique occurrence in which a living cell randomly has been constructed through no intention or guiding mechanism. - This also means all life here, including all it has brought, - might as well have not appeared at all, if it had not been for this only happening unintended where pure lifeless matter just fell into place somehow through the mere laws of physics and chemistry.
One thing one should say still is that an idea may be raised of various similar beginnings of which only the one we know today survived. I don't think it is of much worth but still it ought to be mentioned.
2. - Next there is the point I wrote about to Prof. Keasar which made Dr. Garti (of the Weizmann Institute) cease the ability to post comments on the relevant web page. - Clearly no one could argue that natural selection is active within humanity today. - This is also true for a period of time earlier. - Since our survival does not depend on our inherited features the process is not relevant to us. - If we look back and consider when has the situation not been like that, as for human beings that is, - the period we would be thinking of would be such that in particular ways at least the possible development would be most limited.
- This would refer to man in a time when the conditions within which he had lived could no-doubt only contribute in certain ways. - Put aside the physical issue, - as for the mental features there was nothing around which would promote or cause advancement beyond a most initial and fundamental level. - If man was living in a rather primitive situation still any mental capacities which could in any way develop through natural selection would be of course in accord with this. But we do know the mental abilities of humans are far beyond that, - particularly in recent time the evidence is clear and unbreakable: - The construction of buildings including skyscrapers including the engineering work necessary, - the construction of vehicles from sport cars to jets and spaceships, - regarding math - even the work done centuries ago in ancient Greece is unexplainable, but high math today and modern physics go much further. - All computer work including the internet is most obvious today too. The above is most easily noticed and understood, - but actually there are also the abilities as displayed by Master Dogen, Goethe, or Mozart, - art may not be as easy to use as an example which would form solid evidence in the eyes of all, - but in truth is not less significant. However, - inevitably, - the theory discussed sucks heavily in an irreversible manner. There is no doubt there is another force acting in the matter. - And if so, obviously, - there is not a reason to think it could not act elsewhere. Then all is different and the so called “scientists” are similar to the people of clergy having convicted Galileo Galilei asserting that his views are wrong and absurd. (- https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/)
3. - Next, - there is the phenomenon of the mind itself. - Off where is its existence?
- Obviously, clearly, doubtlessly, - no materialistic theory dealing with physical matter only could reason this phenomenon.
As for contemporary “scientific” attitude, - it might just ignore it. It might just relate to bodily and/or physical things while assuming the mind is nothing but some kind of a manifestation of these. But I would say anyway the existence of the mind is undeniable. - We witness its existence as we do this of physical phenomena, even prior to those. - Could science escape supplying any reasoning or explanation for this actual fact we closely know? - Whichever ideas or suggestions may be brought up, - it will never supply the slightest progress toward the understanding of the phenomenon. - It doesn't matter what physical processes (chemical included) you will suppose - it will not bring forth any reason for an appearance of what we know as mind, consciousness, actual consciousness. - The tendency is to not consider this fact meaningful. Why? There is no real reason.
- The matter is not to be ignored. - And if you accept views other than those so common today there is an explanation. - Other spheres existed prior to the existence of the physical plane, our physical world. Mind has existed there already. - Life means other factors entering physical elements here in our world. Different factors for plants, something added for animals, and something again added for man. - Thus the mind is an expression of a different element undetectable through our physical senses. Is this irrational? Dummies will thoughtlessly claim so. But why?
Anyway, - contemporary materialistic “science” may be said to for ever not be able to do. Another explanation exists. If you accept it it again changes the whole picture. - If you accept the existence of “higher” spheres than things you may have considered as a must will no longer be so. - Influence from spheres we do not know (or at least most do not) may have taken place in the development of life on Earth too. - You know your mind. - In order to explain its existence and origin it is inevitable to accept there is something (- ! -) else than just physical matter as we know it here, - otherwise it could not have come to be. - At least this.
- You need not accept what I say beyond that. But you do need to realize the existing theory here too faces a barrier it is eternally unable to pass. You must think further. The suggested explanations today supplied by those considered to be authorities are inevitably unable to create an acceptable model.
4. - The fourth point is about the wing. Again it is not just something contemporary “science” has not yet found a reasoning to, - but a point which one can see could not be explained through the idea the aforementioned “science” wishes to adopt. - It is about the development of the wing. Someone has pointed to the fact that (in some cases) the development of the wing means at first degeneration of the limb off which it develops. - The arm or leg off which the is supposed to develop, - quite clearly and inevitably loses its ability to function as one, while the wing has not yet come to be. - No one would argue the process is short, - it is clear this means a situation being carried on for a very long period of time, - while the being supposed to be in the intermediate period is not only not making progress in a way which could move the process of the natural selection, - but also is in a deplorable state unrelated to this. - Two of its arms or legs are useless and fundamentally just a burden to it. - It is a being we would expect to be extincted even unrelated to the theory of the natural selection.
- But not relying on this too: - Just considering the development of the wing itslef: - The wing is a flat surface needing to be wide enogh in order to be useful as what it is. - As long as it has not acquired the necessary measurements it could not be useful. How could its development begin? - The theory related to here could never suggest an actual line of progress.
- The wing has appeared four times: - In pterosaurs, birds, bats, and insects too. - Each time it appeared independently. - This means of course the above repeated itself four separate times. - There is no coincidence by which it could have come to be according to the existing view in the common scientific establishment, - but even if you would wish to assume one - you would have than to assume it took place four times, or that some alternations of it did anyway.
- As I said at the beginning of this fourth fascicle, - it again is not just something an answer has not been found to yet, - it is, apparently, - a proof the theory could not be valid. - And, as I already mentioned, - if we do know a different force or factor or element was active in creating and shaping the different forms of living beings here on our planet, - than all is different because there is no reason not to allow the possibility it was active elsewhere too, - unlike the common attitude assuming nothing else is possible other than mere physical random occurrences of lifeless matter first, and then through the principle of the natural selection.
So far for this.
- If we wish to relate to a concrete number indicating the estimated probability - it may be so low that even multiplying it by the great number Dawkins implies would still leave it far off what would be thought of as reasonable.
Else, - I wanted to relate to some quotes off the book, - but I will only settle for one: - “To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer”. - Here one might need to relate to a quote to which Dawkins relates in the title of his book:
- “In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive -- what we could not discover in the stone -- that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g., that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. To reckon up a few of the plainest of these parts and of their offices, all tending to one result; we see a cylindrical box containing a coiled elastic spring, which, by its endeavor to relax itself, turns round the box. We next observe a flexible chain -- artificially wrought for the sake of flexure -- communicating the action of the spring from the box to the fusee. We then find a series of wheels, the teeth of which catch in and apply to each other, conducting the motion from the fusee to the balance and from the balance to the pointer, and at the same time, by the size and shape of those wheels, so regulating that motion as to terminate in causing an index, by an equable and measured progression, to pass over a given space in a given time. We take notice that the wheels are made of brass, in order to keep them from rust; the springs of steel, no other metal being so elastic; that over the face of the watch there is placed a glass, a material employed in no other part of the work, but in the room of which, if there had been any other than a transparent substance, the hour could not be seen without opening the case. This mechanism being observed -- it requires indeed an examination of the instrument, and perhaps some previous knowledge of the subject, to perceive and understand it; but being once, as we have said, observed and understood -- the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker-that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.”.
- This is from a book I don't know called Natural Theology by a person called William Paley. - Never mind this. - There may be the question of how stupid could a person be. - I mean Dawkins himself picked this idea. - Now suppose you find a watch on the beach, - and suppose you consider the question of how did it come to be; - and then suppose you happen to meet the watchmaker who made it - or come to know him - or come to know of him: - Does it explain nothing?
- Precisely nothing?
...
- It does seem the most significant difference between quite meaningless dry intellectualism unable to actually relate to reality and true realistic thinking capturing pictures rather than just mere chains of conclusions put together mechanically is to be considered here.
- Unlike what this apparently extreme idiot might say watches are not living beings. - We do not - looking at our surroundings, - wonder how did rocks and stones, sand and water, - minerals in general - come about. - Put aside what contemporary ideas might say about this. - The Appearance of plants and animals, and human beings, - is initially or intuitively baffling. - This is naturally questioned.
Materialists will not deny this too. - They would assume explanations they reject will arise off this phenomenon. - However we have no immediate idea of how did living organisms come to be at first in the same way that our mineral surrounding is natural to us.
Now to the main point here: - For one who is familiar with the higher spheres of existence - for one who knows them - those spheres off which our physical plane has derived its existence, - questions as harsh materialists may be troubled by do not practically arise. - The view is natural and reasonable. You need not accept this. But saying anyway even if you do accept this route it leads nowhere is not acceptable. This is dry materialism.
This is the stupidity of Richard Dawkins. - By the way, - his definition of what living beings are is entirely off course. I never read his book. I do not intend to. - But I did have a look at it, and read a bit here and there. - Very little. - At the beginning he seems to define living beings including manmade objects as such too. - This might tell you of the nature of his mentality. - But I will not proceed. - He is not the subject and I am truly not familiar with him.
I will end at this. There is one other point in a post I have already written which will be on on February. - I started writing this long ago. It could have been finished quite long ago too. But things happened. Never mind. I would have scheduled it to the same date anyway.
- So far. -
Flexibilty of mind and freedom from fixed conceptions
Years ago we were in a different place. - Science, as foolish as it may have become, - has advanced. - Things most don’t doubt today might have been seen in a totally different manner in another time.
- Suppose we would tell of current technology of rather recent time to a person living before electricity has become known. - Nothing similar would have been familiar to him or her off his or her life else than legends perhaps or what would have been called magic. - Suppose “magic” was not accepted as a real phenomenon there would have been nothing else left. - What would a person in such a time (not so distant if you consider the age of humanity) think of you if you would try to tell him of what you know off your everyday life?
- Were you talking to people where beliefs in supernatural (so to speak) were still prevailing they might relate your ideas to those as the general appearance is rather the same. - But put this aside. - Suppose we are talking about a situation similar to the present one, - where materialistic ideas rule and materialistic attitudes are common. If you would have tried to speak of what you know as solid reality undoubted today by the great majority it might have been seriously difficult to gain serious attention. - At a time people were driving in carriages pulled by horses how could you tell them of spaceships going up to the moon? Of an autonomic car? - Of cars going at the speed racing cars can go at?
- People usually are affected by their surroundings. - Quite further than they imagine. - There is a phenomenon of absorbing views or ideas off these surroundings. - It is not necessarily easy for a person to accept views in disaccordance with those among whom he lives. - Though of course this is not the only point here. Or the main point.
- But still and again, - were we talking of those new things having entered our lives in the last decades, - smartphones, computers, - airplanes, spaceships I already mentioned, - TV screens, even radios, - to someone where reality had to do with carving wood or as well creating metal things and tools, nothing further than a steam engine. - What response would we gain? - What attitude would we face? - What would we ourselves seem to be in the eyes of such a person? - Depend on the person himself or herself of course, - but quite generally we might have been viewed as unwise or unhealthy.
- Particularly if we would repeatedly attempt to deliver the message. - Humanity would have been unprepared. There was not really a need for such a preparation at the time, - but anyway we can say that. - This is an allegory. A parable. - For another phenomenon existing today at the blindness of so many. - The reaction of a typical man or woman at a time we were discussing when hearing of future abilities of coming technology may be quite similar, in its nature, - to the typical reaction of typical materialists when relating to the occult. To what their physical senses cannot grasp. To what they are familiar to the denial of by their friends and acquaintances. - Being an intellectual is quite close to being stupid. Many are far from any awareness of this fact. - Wisdom has to do with depth. - Intellectual consideration is by nature shallow. - I will not explain this here. Many who are aware of it (of the severe minority they are generally) would not find it easy to make it comprehensible to others.
Eyes are not gained overnight. - Nor can one give his own to others. When their very existence is denied things get much harder. - Anyway, - I generally believe the general idea presented here, - of the similarity between the assumed view of one living at the mentioned time unable to accept reports of practically possible and real further advancements far from the nature of this-person’s everyday thinking - and the reaction we would find today among learned people fed with contemporary views shared by many, - could and will be easily understood. One needs to be no genius in order to get it. However, - the depth of grasping may differ. Obviously I don’t expect readers would utterly change what they think just reading this. But it would make its contribution. - So far.
- Suppose we would tell of current technology of rather recent time to a person living before electricity has become known. - Nothing similar would have been familiar to him or her off his or her life else than legends perhaps or what would have been called magic. - Suppose “magic” was not accepted as a real phenomenon there would have been nothing else left. - What would a person in such a time (not so distant if you consider the age of humanity) think of you if you would try to tell him of what you know off your everyday life?
- Were you talking to people where beliefs in supernatural (so to speak) were still prevailing they might relate your ideas to those as the general appearance is rather the same. - But put this aside. - Suppose we are talking about a situation similar to the present one, - where materialistic ideas rule and materialistic attitudes are common. If you would have tried to speak of what you know as solid reality undoubted today by the great majority it might have been seriously difficult to gain serious attention. - At a time people were driving in carriages pulled by horses how could you tell them of spaceships going up to the moon? Of an autonomic car? - Of cars going at the speed racing cars can go at?
- People usually are affected by their surroundings. - Quite further than they imagine. - There is a phenomenon of absorbing views or ideas off these surroundings. - It is not necessarily easy for a person to accept views in disaccordance with those among whom he lives. - Though of course this is not the only point here. Or the main point.
- But still and again, - were we talking of those new things having entered our lives in the last decades, - smartphones, computers, - airplanes, spaceships I already mentioned, - TV screens, even radios, - to someone where reality had to do with carving wood or as well creating metal things and tools, nothing further than a steam engine. - What response would we gain? - What attitude would we face? - What would we ourselves seem to be in the eyes of such a person? - Depend on the person himself or herself of course, - but quite generally we might have been viewed as unwise or unhealthy.
- Particularly if we would repeatedly attempt to deliver the message. - Humanity would have been unprepared. There was not really a need for such a preparation at the time, - but anyway we can say that. - This is an allegory. A parable. - For another phenomenon existing today at the blindness of so many. - The reaction of a typical man or woman at a time we were discussing when hearing of future abilities of coming technology may be quite similar, in its nature, - to the typical reaction of typical materialists when relating to the occult. To what their physical senses cannot grasp. To what they are familiar to the denial of by their friends and acquaintances. - Being an intellectual is quite close to being stupid. Many are far from any awareness of this fact. - Wisdom has to do with depth. - Intellectual consideration is by nature shallow. - I will not explain this here. Many who are aware of it (of the severe minority they are generally) would not find it easy to make it comprehensible to others.
Eyes are not gained overnight. - Nor can one give his own to others. When their very existence is denied things get much harder. - Anyway, - I generally believe the general idea presented here, - of the similarity between the assumed view of one living at the mentioned time unable to accept reports of practically possible and real further advancements far from the nature of this-person’s everyday thinking - and the reaction we would find today among learned people fed with contemporary views shared by many, - could and will be easily understood. One needs to be no genius in order to get it. However, - the depth of grasping may differ. Obviously I don’t expect readers would utterly change what they think just reading this. But it would make its contribution. - So far.
Written April 21st 2023.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)