Sunday, December 31, 2017

LIFE

Life is not an empirical phenomenon.  Life is whatever you experience at each moment.  That experience cannot be measured or observed.  All life is whatever that living being experiences at each moment, and that includes whatever phylum, whatever kingdom, whatever class or species of organism that being is filtering its life through.  An organism is the means by which consciousness has an opportunity to experience the world in a particular way.  Each organism provides a different experience.  Each organism of the same species provides a similar enough experience so that the beings that are attached to these same species' organisms  have the sense that they understand each other and do not experience their lives in total isolation.  Each organism of the same species is also different enough from each other so that the beings that occupy each of these different organisms has the capacity to surprise each other so that they do not experience their lives in total boredom.  Variation within a species also provides more survivability in the face of environmental threats. This is another benefit of variation, but certainly not the only one and not, necessarily, the most important one.

Science's insistence on studying purely what is observable, means that science can never study life, but only the apparatus, the organisms, that beings use to be able to experience their lives in  particular ways.  The being that occupies an organism is not what is observed, but the observer.  Science does not acknowledge this being so that within the organism there is no one that science recognizes who is enjoying the amazingly complex equipment whose workings scientists so elaborately describe.

Darwinian evolution is an attempt to describe life simply as material organisms and the awesome complexity of life due merely to an endlessly long and fantastically improbable series of molecular accidents.  From this perspective, consciousness, the ability to experience things, which is the very definition of life, is something that accidentally emerged by molecular mutation and stayed around  because it yielded a survival advantage over non-conscious life.  But non-conscious life is death.  Non-conscious life is an organism which is no longer the vehicle for anyone's experience, in other words, a corpse.  If evolution has anything to do with survival of the fittest, then that assumes that there is some entity that prefers surviving over not surviving.  The material world has no preferences. The only entity that prefers one state over another is a conscious entity, therefore, consciousness must be part of the definition of life from its inception.

When you say something is red, I can agree with you, but I have no way of knowing that the experience that you call 'red' is in any way similar to the experience that I am having when I call something 'red.'  We can agree on many terms to label the size and length and weight and color and emotional quality of our experience, but what any of these things actually means to each of us is beyond our knowing.  The only thing of which I can be sure is the self.  Everything I experience, I experience from the perspective of a unitary consciousness, which is me.  I am the non-physical bowl, the context, of my own experience; as you are the context of your own experience.

Desires are part of the milieu of consciousness.  All living things experience the world through the filter of an organism and each organism needs various things from its environment in order to survive and for their progeny to survive.  Although living beings need things from their environment in order to survive and propogate, they are not often consciously concerned with their survival.  They are concerned, however, with a series of desires whose fulfillment insures their survival for the longest possible time.  These desires include the desire to eat and the desire to eat specific foods which just happen to be the nutritionally best foods, or the best foods among whatever is available in their environment, to insure their survival.  The same with thirst, which is the desire for water.  The same with fatigue, which is the desire for rest.  The same with the experience of heat, which is the desire for coolness, and the experience of cold which is the desire for warmth.  The same with the experience of pain, which is the desire for that experience to end, and the experience of pleasure which is the desire to seek out and prolong that experience.  And it is the same with sexual desire, whose satisfaction unwittingly results in the production of progeny and the survival of one's species.

And each species is born with a particular set of desires that are perfectly suited to that species.  A male hippopotamus in heat, will trot past the most alluring human females to get to the watering hole where the real action awaits him in the form of a female hippopotamus, which will assure the production of progeny in a way that wasting time with Scarlett Johansson would not.  The dung beetle will march right through the kitchen past the smells of baking pies and roasting meats to go directly to the septic tank, drawn there by the truly alluring scent of human waste,  which just happens to be the most nutritionally perfect food for the dung beetle.

And each species has a way of organizing their experience, whether it is with the help of a brain or not, into which things are attractive and which are repellent, which are safe and which are dangerous, which are familiar and which are foreign, and who are kin and who are friends and who are enemies.

From the perspective of life as a way of experiencing the world, we understand that we inherit not just an observable brain and organism but a set of species specific desires and species specific ways of defining the things and the other organisms that we encounter in our environment.  These desires and definitions are not a product of the genome and the brain, but rather, it is the genome and the brain which are organized to deliver a consistent and hopefully satisfying way of experiencing the world.

This is a way of looking at the universe as starting with consciousness.  This may seem fanciful to those of a materialist bent, but how would materialists imagine the origin of the universe?  Our imaginations are limited by the boundaries of time and space.  To go beyond those boundaries stretches all of us, no matter what our perspective is.  Do you think things began with an explosion, a Big Bang?  Yet what is it that was exploding?  Was it forces and not matter?  What was the origin, then, of those forces, and the precisely calibrated laws and ratios of forces that allowed a physical universe to materialize?  There are only two possibilities.  Either you postulate that there was nothing, as in literally nothing, no time, no space, no matter, nothing, and then, suddenly there was something, and something that was perfectly calibrated and designed to engender a physical universe (in fact that would have to be at least two somethings, since nothing could be engendered by one thing in isolation, it would have to be one thing reacting to at least one other thing), which seems, at least to me, to be utterly impossible; or there was something that is not a thing that has no beginning (and no end) which is consciousness, and the material world is an expression of that consciousness.  This is a much more satisfying explanation to me, because I realize that I am, in essence, of that very same stuff, consciousness; and I realize that, although my surroundings and my thoughts and my feelings and my body has changed many, many times in my lifetime, I still remain, in essence, the identical, unchangeable consciousness that I was when I first began.  I also realize that everything around me that is constructed by humans, is a manifestation of the conscious will and desires of humans.  The subtle creates the gross.  So I live in a world that is based in consciousness and is driven by will and intention.  I do not deny my most essential reality, consciousness, and I do not think of my 'self' and my ability to observe and experience the world as the product of a molecular accident, but as the very reason that I and the world around me exists.


The comment lamp is lit.

11 comments:

Sharon said...

Very much enjoyed this essay. Gives a reasoned argument as to what constitutes ”me” so thankyou for the thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Chait, your very subtly worded essay speaks volumes.

If you have not already read Dr.Robert Lanza, BIOCENTRISM, I strongly recommend it to you.Although Dr. Lanza is a 'scientist,'(stem cells) his barely concealed belief in a transcendental intelligence is preeminent throughout this work.

We have been sort of bullied by the materialists, who insist that matter is NOT conscious,and by extension, anything composed of matter. This flies directly in the face of all living organisms, including US, that are conscious by degrees - from an amoeba to a transcendental intelligence.

There is a biblical phrase that goes-"We live in the spirit-all else perishes." It can only be pure irony that Leon Lederman called the Higgs Boson the "G-d Particle."

I hope we can continue this enlightening conversation.

Martin Cosentino

Linda Dawkins said...

I don't have much to say except that I agree 100%.

Matt Chait said...

Linda,
Thank you for that. Do you know that this whole blog was originally conceived of as a spiritual antidote to the spiritually toxic writings of Richard Dawkins? He is no relation of yours, is he?

Linda Dawkins said...

Your welcome Matt,

I am familiar with Mr. Dawkins' writings, I agree with 'some' of his philosophy. It just makes logical sense.

I'm not sure of any biological relation, however, We, 'Dawkins' Usually say that "we are all related in some way, whether it's through marriage or birth."

Even though his teachings are quite peculiar, I find it interesting that Dawkins' family members, regardless of their location or if they have read, heard or have been taught, and for some strange reason, believe the same thing as is discussed.

Even before I heard of Richard Dawkins I had this toxic spiritual philosophy, so did my father, who is to blame for my present way of thinking, which corresponds to what is written here.

Perhaps We are related, Lol

They say that some aspects of human behavior and the way we process information may be built in our DNA. So, that would explain why Dawkins think alike I suppose. But who knows for sure!

-Linda





Matt Chait said...

Linda,
I'm confused. You say that you agree 100% with my post, but also that you have the same toxic spiritual philosophy as Richard Dawkins. Do you believe that things began with consciousness or with some uncanny accident, inexplicable really, that produced molecules, whose improbable (really impossible) collisions produced the physical universe and, much later, consciousness? Which is it?

Anonymous said...

I do honestly believe that Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dannett, Sam Harris and the whole school of New Atheists have earned their day in court. They are the logical, (and spiritual) result of the discovery of the quantum realm, which essentially tells us that Schrodinger's cat is alive and dead, AT THE SAME TIME. We have finally reached a time in the universe when we can accept contradiction and paradox as the 'eternal recurrence' that it truly is. Heisenberg said so.

But moreso, and with the greatest strength, can we also affirm a teaching that is now entering its third millenium - the gospels of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

We have now 'evolved' OUT OF 'religion. The rituals, the traditions the practices were all there to sustain the faith it would take to reach the 20th century, and the final gruesome price humanity would pay for this knowledge - Ardenne, Stalingrad, Dresden, Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

We have entered the age of 'Holy Science' and the materialists are painfully aware of the fact that 'determinism and objectivity' having served their purposes, are now obsolete spent rockets to be jettisoned as we expand further into the universe. The quantum realm is now in 'superposition,' that is, where G-d has always been '. . .since the foundation of the world,' and will remain there for the next millenia or two.

Scientists have already told us, by experiment, that the 'entangled particles' already KNOW what we are planning in the observation BEFORE we initiate the experiment. This is OLD information, as Jesus told us this in Matthew two millenia ago. A very subtle way of the divine telling the scientists, ' you are approaching the end of the road of denial."

Yet there is an aspect here of the Conscious Self, which Matt mentioned above, that is intrinsic to this quantum process, and it only remains to be described as a set of laws that have NOTHING to do with the material aspects of the quantum, but with the spiritual definition of INTENTION, which is the primeval seat of the will, the Unmoved Mover that sets in motion all matter. That is the unique gift given to every conscious being by the Creator, to be exercised in the most exalted fashion or, in the face of this indescrible precision, face the ultimate consequences of intention.

Matt, There is an abundance of evidence emerging daily on this issue, which I am happy to share with you.

Matt Chait said...

Leoncefalo,
Yes, please send me whatever evidence you can. I would also like you to read my post, Understanding The Quantum, and let me know what you think of that. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Matt,

Where can I find "Understanding the Quantum?"

thanks, L

Matt Chait said...

L,
There should be a bar at the top of the blog with an icon of a magnifying glass. Just click in "Understanding The Quantum" and it should take you there.
Matt

Unknown said...

I belong to a group of men here in San Diego [coronadomensconnection.org] who meet each month with a Ted Talk type forum. I am considering presenting to the group the topic; "Life, Liberty & Happiness: Is Life Sacred? When does life begin/end?" I'll be following a talk on "Technology: AI, Singularity Crisper-Gene Manipulation & Can Conscious Life Exist Outside the Body?" I find your blog to be enlightening. Years ago I gave a 7 part class on Heaven at my Wednesday evening church in Ft. Lauderdale, only because our minister declined to give a sermon on the subject claiming "it was too controversial". Like poking at a bee nest (which I did as a child and paid a price). My purpose in life however is not to avoid getting stung but rather discover and share the mysteries and joys of life. I might also add that I have felt the grace of God in my own life more than once. Having participated for 5 years in Jail Ministries I have witnessed those who have chosen not to believe in a Creator,chosen not to believe in Jesus Christ. I believe GOD will judge them fairly and loving so I'm not worried about them. God did not make us all the same nor did he place us in the same circumstances, however, I believe what is common to all is our purpose for living. I believe that is to be loving and joyful as much and as often as possible. As I said to many a man as I sat with them each Tuesday evening; Either there is or is not a Creator/God; How we "posit" this may well decide one's entire future here and ever after. Stephen J. Hanlon