Posted on 06/15/2003 10:36:08 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
I do need to clarify however that I am not a Kabbalist, nor am I promoting any Kabbalist view of evolution. There are various flavors of Kabbalah and I’m not aware of any official view of evolution among them.
However, I do love ancient manuscripts and it would be impossible to study such manuscripts without being aware of Kabbala which literally means “tradition.” But because it is “tradition” – dating of the Kabbala depends largely on who you ask.
For instance, according to the Britannica article it is a "Jewish mysticism as it developed in the 12th century and after. Essentially an oral tradition, it laid claim to secret wisdom of the unwritten Torah communicated by God to Adam and Moses."
And in this collection of notes on the early Kabbala (pdf) which is exhaustive, the early phase is defined as 1180 to 1300 A.D. However, it also notes that Jewish mysticism is ultimately based on the Hebrew Bible. It describes the pre-Kabbalist streams of Jewish mysticism, between the close of the Old Testament and the early Kabbala as follows:
In the period between the First and Second Temples (586 BC - 515 BC), it was already being studied in groups. Following the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE) and until this generation, there have been three particularly important periods in the development of Kabbalah, during which the most important writings on Kabbalah study methods were written….
And I'd also like to ditto this point:
Wouldn't be surprised if such formulation occurred in part due to exilic stompings into things Farsi. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if there were corrupted traditions that were Hebrew in at least their human origins, earlier on, perhaps tainted oral and scribed traditions going way, way back.
BTW, for yet another subject, have you seen or heard D. James Kennedy's views on an innocent origin of the Zodiac?
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. - I John 4:1-3
I don’t know if the Kabbalists picked up anything from the Persians. It has been said though that Philo was influenced by the great Greek philosophers.
Getting back to Jung and the “collective” – the article I linked that betty boop is reading suggests a mechanism for the evolution of consciousness. It seemed appropriate after reading the review of Sheldrake's work.
However, since I believe that the soul is non-spatial, non-temporal and non-corporeal – consciousness at that level (neshama/ruach) is beyond evolution altogether in my worldview. But as far as the "animal" is concerned (nephesh) perhaps there is a group-think or hive-mind involved.
I could see where a man could be easily deceived by such a force in the nephesh, and reorienting himself (ruach) in that direction, he would lose awareness of his own soul (neshamah, the breath of God.) Hmmmm....
All I have to add is that a number of scientists consider themselves to be materialist or physicalist in their research (epistemology) but nevertheless believe in God. I believe one line of thought is that God created the physical realm and then walked away from it. The rationale is that He is perfect, so He would have no need to intervene, the evidence is an absence of miracles.
I obviously strongly disagree and have explained my view in the above article. To that I would add that I have been on the receiving end of some of those miracles and answered prayers.
random change -> select -> random change -> select -> random change -> select (etc.)
The above is a fallacy similar to the gambler's fallacy. Let's say one is trying to change a gene with 300 bit pairs and one needs 5 mutations to achieve a favorable outcome. The first try has one in 4^300 chances (1.15 10^180). The 2nd would have the same chances as would the 3rd 4th and 5th they would not have 1 in 4^299, 4^298, 4^297, and 4^296 chances because random processes have no memory.
However this is the problem for evolution - the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and fifth tries may very well replace the first change. The problem is even more complicated than that in actuality. Mutations in the wrong place will be harmful and destroy the organism. Therefore, aside from the 5 which will be beneficial, the others changes which are likely to happen due to the randomness of the process would most likely be destructive and thereby the whole process would have to start over again. This is one of the many reasons for the total impossibility of evolution.
Earlier on the thread Freepers tortoise and Nebullis had a most excellent sidebar discussion, which I decided to summarize on-thread with a few comments - and will include in the above article in the next draft. Basically, my summary is this:
they are pre-programmed in ancestors (intelligent design) or
they are a common building block (creationism.)
This runs contrary to the classical evolution hypothesis that the branches of the “tree of life” developed as a result of random mutations. It may however be explained by automata – autonomous self-organizing complexity (tortoise, Wolfram, Rocha, Pattee.)
IMHO, the automata alternative hypothesis is not otherwise counter-indicative to any of the three viewpoints: evolution, intelligent design, creationism. For that reason, I expect it to become the most widely accepted view in the future.
I also predict that the significance of "random mutation" will survive but will become more narrowly construed to virology and bacteriology.
Thanks for the note, A-G. I'd be interested in what you opine per Atilla for fun.
I'd also like to know about how one conncieves, percieves, reconzies, reasons the humnan soul (presuming you mean or also mean "spirit") with timelessness. I'm not at all sure that Eternity for us will be uneventful.
I have been reading the discussion on automata, and have a few problems with it. The biggest perhaps is that it seems to me that organisms, being based on DNA, are really based on information. I have a very big problem with information arising in any way other than through an intelligent agency. Sure, you can rearrange parts in a semi-random manner like a kaleidoscope does and get some pretty arrangements. However you need quite a bit more than that to accomplish changes in an organism. I also have a problem with anyone claiming that it would be possible to write a great play in such a manner (as would most people) however, a human organism is far more intricately complex than the best plays.
There are other problems when it comes to such changes in practice. For example in sexual species such changes would have to occur in a way that there is more than one individual which has changed.
I also wonder about how a directional process can achieve the variety which we certainly see in nature. It seems to me that as the process went on, we would see less variety in species instead of the greater variety we see in nature.
While I would not say that an all knowing God could not have overcome these and other possible objections and designed a process to overcome them, I think that that is not really what is being talked about in cellular automata. It seems that the discussion is more about the ability of organisms to change in an ad-hoc manner along a certain path. When looking at it that way one has to consider several problems. For example, we have eyes with lots of cones that enable us to see color. This however would be bad for bats which need to see in the dark and need lots of rods in their eyes. Thus a development that would be good for one species would be harmful to another. If one postulates a pathway which is travelled towards greater complexity, it is clear that such species specific needs could not be met as the opportunity for them might have passed. In short, it seems that species are very well designed and that any sort of an ad-hoc process (even with some directionality) would not be able to achieve the synergy between various abilities to enable them to be successful.
I’m not sure I follow your question about perceiving the human soul with timelessness. But I’ll take a stab at what I think you mean. Here’s my “take” on the subject:
From the Word, we can see that God breathed (neshama) into Adam and he became a living soul and was placed in eternity (higher dimension, bird view.) But Adam was not an eternal being in heaven like the angels, and to prevent him from becoming one, due to his disobedience, he was banished to mortality (the 4D physical realm, the frog view):
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. – Genesis 2:8-9
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. – Revelation 21:3-7
We may have a philosophical difference in how we see the hypothesis of autonomous self-organizing complexity. And differences of opinion are always ok with me!
In the creationism v intelligent design v evolution biology debate, the disciplines of math, information theory and physics are pointing out that only autonomous self-organizing complexity could explain the function complexity we observe and its distribution across phyla. That is only one battle but a very important one.
Meanwhile, the same disciplines of math, information theory and physics are pointing out that there is not a viable mechanism in nature yet discovered to account for the bootstrap of this process of autonomous self-organizing complexity.
They are looking with a bias, trying to uphold abiogenesis - which would strengthen the theory of evolution. This is a very good thing in my view – because these disciplines are well known for their epistemological zeal. If they continue to be unable to explain it – that fact will support both intelligent design and creationism.
Conversely, if they are able to explain it – and the explanation requires a finite state mechanism of complexity beyond what could arise under the physical laws, i.e. a bootstrap “algorithm” of the type Rocha mentions, then that would point directly to an intelligent designer.
I don’t see a downside here for either intelligent design or creationism. For instance, although I am strongly pro-life, I don’t demand a total victory right now – and thus, can be very happy over the ban on partial birth abortion.
And I don’t see a Scriptural conflict in this either, because whereas the Word makes it clear that God is the Creator, Genesis is brief. The passages don’t specify a mechanism (yea or nay) whereby God's instruction to the non-living creature (water and earth) to "bring forth" the living creature is actualized. Likewise, the passages don't specify a mechanism (yea or nay) whereby creatures are brought forth (breed, adapt etc.) after their own “kind.”
So, in other words, when we are talking about evolution biological pathways, it sounds like “kind” to me and when we are talking about Hox and Pax genes, it sounds like adaption, i.e. “bringing forth”, to me.
Ack! Do we have to go through this again?
Everything is information and no pattern is more special than any other pattern of equivalent Kolmogorov complexity. Thermodynamics encourages the Kolmogorov complexity of systems to increase. Therefore it should not be surprising that the Kolmogorov complexity of information in quasi-stable systems of automata increases as well. It falls out as a natural consequence of the mathematics. You may have a "problem" with it, but that problem lies solely within your prejudices and pre-/mis-conceptions. It is not a theoretical problem. All the handwaving and assertions to the contrary are in clear violation of the mathematics.
The information is always there. Quasi-stable automata systems that operate within useful parameters are not, though they certainly exist in relative abundance in non-biotic nature.
Don't count on it. The Kolmogorov complexity of truly universal bootstrap systems that we know about is getting smaller and smaller. In fact, the smallest ones we know about are small enough that their random emergence in nature is well within the bounds of reasonable probability. It takes more than a bootstrap though, it also requires a semi-stable and suitable environment that lasts long enough for the bootstrap to bootstrap to interesting and better protected structures. I think the latter is more likely to be the rate limiting factor than the emergence of a bootstrap itself.
Thus if the bootstrap is "Very unlikely. Deeply, shockingly unlikely." like Sir Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers" - you will say so.
And then IMHO the Hawking/Aristotles among you would invoke the anthropic principle and quit looking --- but the Penrose/Platonists among you would keep looking until it makes sense. LOL!
Some do, some don't. Roulette doesn't; blackjack does. (At least from the point of view of the marks.)
Alamo-Girl, this paper is simply stunning. I got to page 26 (of 35) and just had to stop. I’ll quote what made me “stop” in just a minute. But first, just wanted to mention what Grandpierre had done, by that time:
(1) Given a seemingly plausible and highly detailed technical description of the physical basis of your “transceiver theory”;
(2) Explored the nature of self-organizing systems, with their essential properties of transparent information transfer, spontaneous targeting, and “action-in-distance”;
(3) Suggested a plausible and quite elegant solution to the seemingly intractable “measurement problem” of quantum mechanics, the problem of the observer.
(4) And more, regarding certain uniformities that, in effect, demonstrate as “patterned behavior” all the way from quantum state to cosmic state – but I’ll cut to the chase here.
By page 26, it was apparent to me that Grandpierre was breaking new ground WRT all of these problems. And then he said this:
* * * * * *
“The evolution of consciousness – as the evolution of the Universe shows us – actually is in contrast to the presently accepted evolutionary theories, which want to build up the whole from the parts. In reality, evolution started from the whole and progressively differentiated into parts, from the timeless-spaceless form (e.g. the ‘implicit order,’ or ‘pre-space’ of D. Bohm and J. A. Wheeler), through galaxies, through the development of the Solar System and the Earth, the appearance of the biosphere and mankind, until the development of smaller and smaller sub-systems of consciousness, until the human individual. ‘Cosmologies of wholeness’ are emerging (see Laszlo, E., 1993; Harris, 1988). All of the cosmic evolution formed sub-systems within systems. Evolution begins with ‘systems,’ ‘elements’ develop only later on. Every system originates as a sub-system of a larger, inclusive system. The organisation of the sub-system is made by the creator system, and the organisational factor acts from within, as well. This fact assumes that the creator system is in a certain way transformed into the to-be-created subsystem, the ‘whole’ is transformed to the ‘part.’ This global-local transformation is a necessary condition of the generation of the new system. Therefore the Universe acted continuously as an agent with organisational ability, and is progressively transformed from the largest of its subsystems into the smallest ones. The trend in evolution is simultaneously going towards a higher complexity and this way towards more and more complex subsystems, and in this way the real evolution is also accompanied by the state of becoming more and more complex and towards higher and higher forms of consciousness. Ervin Laszlo remarked: ‘Evolution acts on species and populations and not only – or even mainly – on individual reproducers. Individual variations do not contribute significantly to the emergence of new species.’ This trend, the primacy of ‘global’ over ‘local’ appears in the history of mankind (Grandpierre, E. K. this volume), starting with cosmic consciousness in the Golden Age of mankind. Later a break set up in the trend of human evolution, attempting to cut down [i.e., “derive”] the ‘whole’ from the ‘part,’ the Cosmos from the living beings. The complex subsystem of human collectives preferred only one side of this cosmic trend, the more and more divided and separate complexity, the specification to individual human being, at the expense of general context and cosmic laws, drawing away and retiring from the growing collective order, loosing the connections to the larger, embracing levels of existence. As Andras Angyal expresses it the autonomous, self-maintaining tendency dominates over its dual brother, the homonymous, self-replicating tendency (1941), the basic need for direct, sensual, artistic life-experience. According to my research, the three inevitable motivating, life-long motivational instincts in our lives are the life-instinct, sustaining our individual life, the species-instinct, sustaining the life of our species, and the world-instinct, sustaining the life-functions of the Universe. The world-instinct is the basis of the other two, and it involves the imagination, intuition, curiosity, the desire for a meaningful life, to form healthy, alive communities, to correspond to larger units, to the Nature and the Universe (Grandpierre, A., 1991), therefore it is the world of the primary perception.
If we do not want to leave the road of cosmic evolution for ever, we may find again the path how to reveal our natural completion, the already hidden powers which the all-embracing cosmic evolution generated in our genes and basic constitution. Unfortunately, it has not been explored until now, how far we reached from our first-handed, natural drives, and what is the meaning that the Universe mediates to us. In order to form again a human…society, in which every individual sees the meaning of her/his activity and life, a meaning which is able to give an ultimate, lifelong satisfaction, we should recover the destination of mankind, and, besides it, the destination of the Universe. There is not any other task, which may be able to give a common perspective to all of us, than to explore and regain our destiny, to regain the harmony with the Nature and the Universe. Only this elevating and touching task may give back our harmony with ourselves. To do this, first we have to explore the nature of the Universe and understand the super-organism called biosphere – an organism with a collective consciousness.
[Grandpierre, a Hungarian, speaks the international language of the scientific abstract – English – as a second language. By the gets along pretty well, if you ask me.]
* * * * * *
IMO, pretty amazing stuff! Thanks so much for directing me to this source, Alamo-Girl. Am going to go finish reading this astounding paper now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.