The randomness of Evolution

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Greg for your very thought provoking response to the last thread.
You asked "is consciousness following the path of least resistance"Yes probally!
You mentioned natural selection.advantage of consciouness!Where did it arise from?
Did this follow thepath of least resistance too?For me Greg consciousness has always
been present,I see every atom in the universe as a point of consciousness.Evolution
as I try to understand it,is about evolving and expanding that consciousness,until there
is a "dawning" an awareness of "self"the consciouness becomes Self-consciousness
and the inner life form becomes "self-aware",the atom is consciousness,but has no
awareness of its Beingness,and has no sense of I AM.


regards michael.

[Graybeard]

Evolution as I try to understand it, is about evolving and expanding the consciousness, until there is a "dawning" an awareness of "self"

The consciouness becomes Self-consciousness, and the inner life form becomes "self-aware", the atom is consciousness, but has no awareness of its Beingness, and has no sense of I AM.

regards michael.

Michael ... I do get your drift. I am very sorry to be pedantic ......

But if an Hydrogen atom is un-aware of itself..... and if the Universe was ALL Hydrogen in the beginning ..... then the Universe was un-aware!

And we, ourselves, a more complicated form of Hydrogen, admittedly having passed thru the fiery furnace of fusion, forming carbon and oxygen etc. and in our present form are part of the Universe.... AND we are self-aware ... then ..... The change must have occurred somewhere in between.

That is, the change between Unaware and Self-Aware must have occurred somewhere during the history of the Universe after the Big Bang. Would you label this change as the 'Conscious'

Only a Universe that is 'Aware' prior to the Big Bang can claim Intelligent Design .... any other Universe must start out randomly, and therefore Consciousness or awareness is a part of this random process. Any process that starts out randomly, no matter how extraordinary or esoteric its outcome is still a random process.

I don't deny that we become more aware, as we become more knowledgeable. More perceptive as we pass thru different and difficult experiences. But ... if the 'Consciousness' is to take its place in the TOE, and if it is truly no more than the outcome of random processes ... as quantum mechanics, classical mathematics, and Thermodynamics all imply ... then we must live with, and accept, that Evolution has no goal .... its simply an ongoing process that changes to suit the situation it finds itself in.

This, to me, when you truly think on it, is a revelation just as extraordinary, as awesome, as Saul's vision on the road to Damascus, as Budda's teachings, as any Saint's insight, as a bucket full of Archangels would be to the Pope.

The fact that a random arrangement of the the Universe, gave rise to us, that we comprehend this, that we are the tiniest insignificant pinpoint in this, is awesome!!

The randomness of Natural Selection is as valid, as any other explanation I have heard.

Just my opinions ...... greg

[mkirkpatrick]

Greg,thanks for your last post,my reply is.But if an Hydrogen atom is un-aware of itself..... and if the Universe was ALL Hydrogen in the beginning ..... then the Universe was un-aware!
It had consciousness Greg,but was unaware yes!There is a difference.

Only a Universe that is 'Aware' prior to the Big Bang can claim Intelligent Design .... any other Universe must start out randomly, and therefore Consciousness or awareness is a part of this random process. Any process that starts out randomly, no matter how extraordinary or esoteric its outcome is still a random process.

I think we may be straining on a gnat here and in danger of swallowing a camel?The
word awareness and consciousness are not the same!The universe was indeed enveloped
in consciousness,but had no "awareness" the word awareness implies the abilty to reflect
to be able to cognise,consciousness does not!

We each see the process of evolution somewhat differently,we can both agree,that indeed
there is a thing called evolution,and we are all caught up in its mightty embrace,how that
embrace actually operates,we tend to differ in opinion!

As I have previously mentioned I can see that both run simultaneously together,that of
randomness,ie,comets asteroids,dinosuar extinctions,and such,and a universal law
unfolding in an ordered sequence of expansion.

Greg.please forgive the mess of this reply,I tried to use the multi-quote,but made a
right mess of it!How does it work! Any suggestions.
regards michael.

[r.p.bibra]

Greg,thanks for your last post,my reply is.
But if an Hydrogen atom is un-aware of itself..... and if the Universe was ALL Hydrogen in the beginning ..... then the Universe was un-aware!
It had consciousness Greg,but was unaware yes!There is a difference.

Only a Universe that is 'Aware' prior to the Big Bang can claim Intelligent Design .... any other Universe must start out randomly, and therefore Consciousness or awareness is a part of this random process. Any process that starts out randomly, no matter how extraordinary or esoteric its outcome is still a random process.


I think we may be straining on a gnat here and in danger of swallowing a camel?The
word awareness and consciousness are not the same!The universe was indeed enveloped
in consciousness,but had no "awareness" the word awareness implies the abilty to reflect
to be able to cognise,consciousness does not!

We each see the process of evolution somewhat differently,we can both agree,that indeed
there is a thing called evolution,and we are all caught up in its mightty embrace,how that
embrace actually operates,we tend to differ in opinion!

As I have previously mentioned I can see that both run simultaneously together,that of
randomness,ie,comets asteroids,dinosuar extinctions,and such,and a universal law
unfolding in an ordered sequence of expansion.

regards michael.

michael keep on,you are doing wonderfully.the awareness vs. consciousness part is excellent.love&regards.

[mkirkpatrick]

Simultaneity that of randomness and that of natural law are the two prongs of evolution.
To me though it is also the law of expansion and unfoldment.Unfolding into higher more
receptive forms,capable of greater abilty to "respond" to stimuli.

As I have previously mentioned I believe that consciousness is inherit in all manifested
existance,atoms included.

So the law of expansion,unfoldment,evolution,is for me about developing a greater
abilty to respond,we as human beings are at the apex of this cycle,(albeit some would question this assertion?)

We have travelled along,long,road,to arrive where we are now,where we have to the
ability of reflection,to know that we know,who are self-conscious,and many in the
world have felt a connection through their heart and mind to all manifested form
and further can respond more fully to it?

To use the terms within the unfolding sequence,we are as buds,awaiting our time of
flowering and blossoming,this evolution of us,instead of the rising sun that will cause
our flowering,it will be instead the light and illumination from the higher mind.

regards michael.

[Graybeard]

sic (the universe) It had consciousness Greg, but was unaware yes

r.p.bibra ..... michael keep on,you are doing wonderfully.the awareness vs. consciousness part is excellent.

Michael, Bib .....Perhaps you both are seeing something entirely different to me. I don't understand how I can be 'Conscious' but not 'Aware', 'Aware' but not 'Conscious'. To claim this was the state of the Universe in the beginning would appear to be the ultimate in Anthropomorphobia.

Perhaps your views are such that they cannot be communicated, only experienced. In the words of the sufi, Rumi, when asked what coffee tasted like, replied 'He who tastes, knows, he who tastes not, knows not'. Cryptical, Mystical, Romantic, but not informative.

I will go so far with you as to agree that science is not capable of explaining the full truth about any individual object or thing. For example, if I was blind from birth, Science, which can define colour, would find it nearly impossible to define colour for me. If I was suddenly to receive the gift of vision, I would perceive colour in many different ways to what science had led me to expect. Frequency, Angstrom units, nano-meters would all fall by the wayside as I experienced all the different colours. This is individual perception, and science cannot compare with it.

But still, if you want to define Yellow, you must define its properties...... Science can give you the receipe to create the colour Yellow ... There is no other way to communicate Yellow. Once you create it, then you can experience it.

My question to you both is, can you define this 'difference' between 'aware' and 'conscious' in a manner I will be able to perceive. I am beginning to think that your understanding of the Evolutionary process are individual perceptions and don't necessarily agree with each other, and worse, are non-communicable.

In which case, if they are not communicable, of what help are they to someone like me who is trying to understand. Of what help are they to the TOE ??

Think it over. Believe me, no offence intended ..... greg

[mkirkpatrick]

Greg you have asked there some deep and profound questions,I will get back to try and
answer them later,have to go to work now!No worries mate,they are genuine inquiries and are indeed a challenge,I like challenges!

regards michael.

[Infinite Consciousness]

Michael, Bib .....Perhaps you both are seeing something entirely different to me. I don't understand how I can be 'Conscious' but not 'Aware', 'Aware' but not 'Conscious'. To claim this was the state of the Universe in the beginning would appear to be the ultimate in Anthropomorphobia.

Perhaps your views are such that they cannot be communicated, only experienced. In the words of the sufi, Rumi, when asked what coffee tasted like, replied 'He who tastes, knows, he who tastes not, knows not'. Cryptical, Mystical, Romantic, but not informative.

I will go so far with you as to agree that science is not capable of explaining the full truth about any individual object or thing. For example, if I was blind from birth, Science, which can define colour, would find it nearly impossible to define colour for me. If I was suddenly to receive the gift of vision, I would perceive colour in many different ways to what science had led me to expect. Frequency, Angstrom units, nano-meters would all fall by the wayside as I experienced all the different colours. This is individual perception, and science cannot compare with it.

But still, if you want to define Yellow, you must define its properties...... Science can give you the receipe to create the colour Yellow ... There is no other way to communicate Yellow. Once you create it, then you can experience it.

My question to you both is, can you define this 'difference' between 'aware' and 'conscious' in a manner I will be able to perceive. I am beginning to think that your understanding of the Evolutionary process are individual perceptions and don't necessarily agree with each other, and worse, are non-communicable.

In which case, if they are not communicable, of what help are they to someone like me who is trying to understand. Of what help are they to the TOE ??

Think it over. Believe me, no offence intended ..... greg

Graybeard, There will be no T.O.E. and no ability to understand a T.O.E. even if it is presented here - unless and until the question you posed, (re "can you define this 'difference' between 'aware' and 'conscious' in a manner that you and everyone else along with you will be able to perceive ?) is not only answered but far more importantly answered correctly.

The true and correct answer to this question is so important that there will be no T.O.E. without IT ! ! ! ! !

Consciousness holds the key to the Theory of Everything but understanding the difference between aware and conscious (i.e. as the cause and its effects) "IS THE KEY" to the T.O.E. both IN TRUTH and IN THEORY"!

[mkirkpatrick]

You asked Greg the question,define the difference between awareness and conscious in a manner that you will be able to percieve!A tall order my friend.
I am consciously aware of the difficulty ahead?Where to start,an atom has consciousness
and obeys the "rules" depicted and exorcised by natural law,ie;attraction and repulsion
without question ever,why you ask?Simply because the atom has no "awareness" of its
being,there is no "I" atom,only atom with no I.Because there is no awareness,and
morever when there is no awarenress,there is always complete obediance to natural
law! It cannot do otherwise,as it lacks any inner correspondence to do otherwise!

Now if we move up the evolutionary ladder to where awareness has been added to
consciousness,then we find very different story.Now we need to always be mindful
that when we say that awareness has been added to consciousness,this has come about
through the process of Un-fold-ment-the opening out of the life principle.it has come
from within,as it always does,there is NO without,that is illusion.

If we now move up the ladder to where animated physical life abound,we see varying
degrees of conscious awareness,few would argue that a mouse seemed more aware
than say a slug!When we come to mammals the distinction between them and us seems
somewhat blurred,there seems to be missing one vital ingredient in all the others,and
present only in us!That of the sense of "I" I am,If I had a horse,and tied that horse to
a post,went inside and left it there,rain started falling heavily,the temperature dropped,
the horse standing there,would no doubt feel cold,and wet,and if the cord were loosened
would no doubt run back into the stables,but at no time would the horse,feel sorry for itself,it would not think that I am a thoughtless owner for doing this,the horse has no sense of "I".

Now to try and bring all this together,we started at the atom,which I said was conscious
but not aware,and that it obeyed natural law without question,because it could not do otherwise.We then come to man,who is fully conscious,and self-aware,ego-centric,now
a man can do something that no other manifestation can really do,and that is,to go
against natural law,man can defy the universal laws,albeit he pays a terrible price for it
but he has that choice,which other forms do not have.

So what then is the real difference between awareness and consciousness?Choice? one
has to respond the other can say No!Consciouness is be-awareness is being?Be has
no choice,and must always obey,being has choice,and options,and an inner correspondence,within itself,a soul,which sees the unity in all diversity.

regards michael.

[Infinite Consciousness]

Originally Posted by Graybeard
Michael, Bib .....Perhaps you both are seeing something entirely different to me. I don't understand how I can be 'Conscious' but not 'Aware', 'Aware' but not 'Conscious'. To claim this was the state of the Universe in the beginning would appear to be the ultimate in Anthropomorphobia.

Perhaps your views are such that they cannot be communicated, only experienced. In the words of the sufi, Rumi, when asked what coffee tasted like, replied 'He who tastes, knows, he who tastes not, knows not'. Cryptical, Mystical, Romantic, but not informative.

My question to you both is, can you define this 'difference between 'aware' and 'conscious' in a manner i will be able to perceive.' I am beginning to think that your understanding of the Evolutionary process are individual perceptions and don't necessarily agree with each other, and worse, are non-communicable.

In which case, if they are not communicable, of what help are they to someone like me who is trying to understand. Of what help are they to the TOE ??


The difference between aware and conscious is clearly explained here in a manner that you and everyone else will be able to perceive. This information gives us the understanding of consciousness that we need to access the T.O.E. This in fact is the T.O.E. or Theory of Everything - that takes us to the T.O.E. or Truth of Everything - and when consciousness and awareness are reconnected together again IS Everything.

MARSHALL McLUHAN,

Re: The Medium Is the Message

" In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message.

" The instance of electric light may prove illuminating in this connection. The electric light is pure information. It is a medium without a message, as it were, unless it is used to spell out some verbal ad or name.

"This fact, characteristic of all media, means that the "content " of any medium is always another medium.

" Let us return to the electric light. Whether the light is being used for brain surgery or night baseball is a matter of indifference.

"It could be argued that these activities are in some way the "content" of the electric light, since they could not exist without the electric light. This fact merely underlines the point that " the medium is the message" because it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action. The content or uses of such media are as diverse as they are ineffectual in shaping the form of human association.

"Indeed, it is only too typical that the "content" of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium.

" The electric light escapes attention as a communication medium just because it has no "content." And this makes it an invaluable instance of how people fail to study media at all. For it is not till the electric light is used to spell out some brand name that it is noticed as a medium.

" Then it is not the light but the "content" (or what is really another medium) that is noticed."

From "The Medium Is the Message" we get three main points; (1) The "content" of any medium is always another medium;
(2) The "content" of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium; (3) Consciousness like the light escapes attention as a medium because it has no "content" i.e. its content is lost in outer expression

The "content" of consciousness is awareness. Awareness as the "content" of consciousness in outer expression is just another medium.

Awareness as another medium fully in outer expression is blinding us to the character of consciousness as "The Medium."

Consciousness as "the medium" escapes human attention because at the 8% human level it has no "content."

Consciousness has no "content" at the human level because its "content" awareness as attention has gone fully into outer expression.

Once we fully understand consciousness and awareness as its content and reconnect them - then and only then will each of us individually have Infinite Consciousness along with the T.O.E - the Truth of Everything - and the Tao.

Liberation of the soul from the bondage of mind and matter - is the desired result - so as to realize its own potential nature as distinct from body-consciousness, and then to rise into Cosmic Consciousness and further on into Super - Cosmic Consciousness.

It is the freed soul that has to experience "awareness" at varying levels, from realization of the "Self" to that of "Cosmic" and ultimately to that of "Super-Cosmic" or God.

The soul or consciousness is only freed when its "content" "awareness" is returned back within the soul and it no longer acts as a medium for the mind and its thinking - it is the freed soul's "awareness" per se that experiences the varying levels of "Self."

This "Self" or freed Soul then, is eternal, immutable, and complete, and in its essence, is ever the same at all times, under all conditions and in all states. This "Self" has three attributes of Sat, Chit, and Anand, i.e., pure existence, pure knowledge and pure bliss.

As the Self is complete in Itself, and by Itself, It has no activity of Its own, nor has any need for it, nor requires any outside agency. All-pervading and self-existent, It knows no limits and no motives.

Happy New Year ! Take this Theory of Everything - act on its information - experience the Truth of Everything - and this indeed will be a very "Happy" "New" "Year."