I too would like to see that kind of stuff explained satisfactorily as I am now not satisfied with any round about suggestions as to what it is. I, however, doubt the idea that such a thing is not material, even if it is what people report it to be, able to see what's going on in another room, etc. I do have a feeling that the answer is simpler than I can imagine it to be, but still, it is all rather baffling.
But what about dinosaurs and the beings living back then? How planned, in terms of eugenics, is the evolution from reptile to bird, for example? It could be argued that eugenics is inherent to evolution anyway -- so my question remains. (Eugenics as the human representation of natural selection.)
Why would it need to be? It must necessarily be an expression of first principles (whatever they be), no?
I suppose it matter how fundamentalist of a view you take of Eugenics. I think that, as you mentioned, Eugenics IS inherent in evolution. You (general sense) are attracted to a mate who will create offspring with aspects you value. At the most subtle level, sex with an attractive person in an effort to produce a child is Eugenics. At the most absurd level you have Nazis. All species are driven by instincts, at the mos base level, for survial of the species and survival of the individual. If you have traits that are beneficial to the survival of the species in you current environment, you are attractive. This drives evolution of the species toward benefitting the species as a whole. Imagine you are a dinosaur when it starts getting cold and food starts getting scarce. What would be attractive to you as a potential mate? One who needs less food (smaller) and can keep warm (scales splitting into feather-like structures). Dinosaurs evolving into birds is driven by a subtle natural form of Eugenics. Galton just gave it a name.
Is a plan, of whatever kind or form, a NECESSARY prerequsite for evolution? If it is an expression of first principles, then these principles are the ones setting up the plan/being the plan, no?
There are basic patterns that repeat itself because they work best. Animals living in the sea tend to have similar solutions, because they work best. They all do it differently though.
Well, it appears Hermann is only here to regurgitate previous posts and whatevers on his website, stuff thats already been refuted. He's probably not even a physicist.
The principles are all that are required I'd think. If you call "a set of rules expressed in the local reference frame" a plan, then yes. I wouldn't call it a plan, no. I'd call it "fruition of circumstance" or something.
How would I know? I'd say the first principles exist because they evidently must (or can) - whatever they are. When I say circumstance I basically mean something like "the evolution of the moment", meaning "the everlasting change of state in the everpresent now" for any reference frame. One thing, one one thing, leads to a nuh uh uh-ther.
You should know, if you are making claims about them. So those first principles are necessary? Or does the universe exist and things happen in it -- just because they can? Either the first principles are eternal (and if you can't define what they are, it is kinda pointless to talk about them anyway), or they came from somewhere. Which is it?
I agree with wesmorris: The purpose of life is “to evolve” as an individual, as a soul. Water, I don’t think evolution is planned. The biological evolution goes on by chance and by survival of the fittest. But this combination is in average an upwardly directed eugenic process fulfilling certain purposes. The German science journalist Hoimar von Ditfurth once observed: “We have ears, because there is sound, which we can hear. We have eyes, because there is light allowing us to see. The archaic parts of our brain are needed for controlling our body functions and for spontaneous reactions to certain events. But why did evolution provide us with the huge brain (the cerebrum) allowing intelligent and creative actions? Is there something we have to be adapted for? If there would be a spiritual world and individual souls, an interface to our material body would be needed, which could be within the brain.” This is a very interesting point, but of course, such thoughts are far from any scientific considerations today.
If there would be a real interest in science to prove the existence of a spiritual world it could be done easily by detailed NDE studies performed by a group of researchers with different orientation. Now there's a sure fire way to flush valued research dollars down the toilet. But it seems to me, that there is no interest in science, because they fear to lose the dogma of materialism. Or, they haven't lost their minds.
I only claim there are some. Physics gives us some pretty decent models that describe them, but the model isn't complete. How the shit can a human, who is necessarily part of the consequence of first principles, have any rational stance on their necessity? If they exist, they simply ARE. Necessity has about squat to do with it. *sigh* Nobody can define what they are, as physics currently falls short of unification. Until there is a unification thoery, it's gonna be tough to say where it came from. I think it will likely be found within the next 50 years. If and when it's established, we might have more to talk about here.
