Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK
06-11-2014, 09:59 PM,
RE: Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK
Perhaps you should define what you mean by 'evolve' because in a previous post you said you do not mean it in a Darwinian sense.

I will give a description in a slightly Darwinian sense.

An individual in a collective? Let's see. One man amongst ten women - are they all women? One adult amongst 15 children - are they all children?

By calling it a collective you miss out on the importance of variation and what will survive. Here's a post-apocalyptic example. One man with a machine gun vs 30 men with only their fists. Lets say the 30 men were the last remaining atheists and the man with the machine gun is guarding a harem of women and is also a Christian. The man with the gun kills all the atheists who are after the harem in order to reproduce. The man had his gun due to paranoia over liberal governments while the atheists, in an attempt to appear more moral, decided guns are evil and would not use them. The man with the gun kills them all and his Christian philosophy will survive into the future where there are no atheists remaining. That is crudely how 'evolution' has worked and it does not mean the surviving people or philosophies are any better (or worse) - they just survived.

Now as the survivor, he is free to use any type of propaganda and history for his emerging people. As he is the only man, the new generation will match his DNA quite well until many generations pass and mutations occur which increases variation. This is also a little known constant that is rarely mentioned in politically correct evolutionary theory - that a minority of men actually have the majority of children throughout history. Eventually it occurs again where a large mass of people die off for whatever reason and variation is low again.

Therefore a collective is in fact a new generation taking over from an 'obsolete' one. Different dog breeds were not evolved simultaneously across the world - it took specific tampering in particular regions to create them. Many obsolete breeds went extinct simply because those in charge of their breeding did not allow their lines to continue.

Now why mention this?

Evolution itself is a confusing term which is usually confused with an improvement. Evolution is actually just a development and can go in a 'good' or a 'bad' direction. It is merely describing change.

The things you discuss are couched in an alleged improvement of the human condition. I can tell you that the vast majority of people do not intentionally mean to inflict 'evil' yet evil persists. Either people are inherently evil or there is another force at work - perhaps the elites of this world. If morphic resonance was true, surely the minority elites would not have so much power over the direction of this world? Especially if the majority of mankind have no intentions of doing harm. Or perhaps those elites are aware of how to create populations which influence morphic fields in the way they want - which is essentially saying the majority of people are 'contaminated'. Who can say but it certainly seems morphic resonance does not jive with majority sentiment simply because, if it is a law, it has to have been in use throughout human history just like gravity was and still is.

If you understand the agricultural origins of civilization, you will understand how domestication was applied to plants and animals. You will also need to understand that domestication was also applied to humans. If you study the slave system, you will look into its origins and you can comfortably take it back to the origins of civiliztion. If you understand that the mystery schools seem to be the constant philosophy of ruling elites throughout history, you will come across literature that I've mentioned to you before - namely Theosophy and how it claims to essentially do what I described in the hypothetical man with gun situation above which is take a few people and 'reseed' humanity just like Noah's Ark and just like the scheme of the machines in the Matrix movies.

Humanity is generally a conservative animal, preferring to retain a familiar way of life. Change or evolution is enforced from the outside whether that is environmentally or elite driven.

Do not forget when a species 'evolves' it usually entails the elimination of the species that preceded it.

Species usually tend to have a survival instinct however. The masses no longer use violence, instead they use philosophy. It is self-evident to me that by invoking a 'divine' evolution, proponents are essentially asking for protection. Just as Nietszche observed that Christianity was a slave morality, I see nothing in morphic resonance that suggests it is nothing but more slave morality constructed out of fear as the masses reach extinction just as the person at their death bed suddenly finds god.

These considerations are what I was hinting at when I mentioned self-acceptance through understanding what you are. Spiritual information almost always leaves out the biological side of life. You have a survival instinct; are you sure promoting morphic resonance is not your survival instinct talking at the expense of the truth you seek?

Ideas like morphic resonance are just nice ways to describe how collective evolution has always worked; it is simply one thing out of many which splits and becomes many again and usually the many become extinct. Ideas of collective evolution try to make out that all members of a species just magically 'evolve' at the same time when it is not the case at all. If you put your thinking cap on, you will see how such ideas are simply examples of altruistic narcissism.

I also have an answer I didn't mention in a previous thread where it was asked how do we explain the co-existence of promiscuity with a depopulation agenda? There is also another thread about r/K Selection Theory which will tell you that a species under the threat of extinction essentially attempts increased breeding in order to survive. Not everything is social/cultural conditioning - we are not blank slates that can be modified at will. We have a biological side which will come into play at some point.

So I hope that answers 'how is that possible', 'why the whole can't be changing' and whether or not I think a species can evolve.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK - R.R - 06-11-2014, 09:59 PM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey - Science or Scientism? thokling 0 1,058 03-13-2014, 06:41 AM
Last Post: thokling
  The "Most Relaxing Tune Ever",According to...Science? drummer 3 1,508 02-13-2012, 05:44 PM
Last Post: thokling
  Is science the new religion? hubbabubba 84 23,210 01-02-2012, 11:40 PM
Last Post: hubbabubba
  Recommended Reading for Science, Tech & Discoveries Easy Skanking 6 4,171 05-26-2011, 01:44 AM
Last Post: Easy Skanking
  Rupert Murdoch Says Google Is Stealing His Content joeblow 1 1,055 10-13-2009, 05:25 PM
Last Post: JFK
  Reboot Your Brain? Science Says It's Possible mastermg 0 1,203 09-18-2009, 04:24 AM
Last Post: mastermg
  Popular Science The Future of.. FastTadpole 0 1,091 09-16-2009, 05:08 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Science ponders 'zombie attack' Weyland 0 1,069 08-20-2009, 01:04 AM
Last Post: Weyland
  Don't Talk about the Weather --- 2 1,145 06-08-2009, 12:52 PM
Last Post: JazzRoc
  DARPA - Silent Talk 'Telepathy' Program --- 2 2,180 05-17-2009, 02:54 PM
Last Post: ---

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)