Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

Isn't Evolution Reincarnation?

1 post in this topic

What does death import to a Monarch Butterfly, which achieves maturity through transmutation and cares for its young only by careful consideration of where they will find themselves hatching?

With no tutoring it navigates farther than most people have travelled from home, as if it had GPS. Is it ever expecting to die and lose its gifts; or is the old axiom that being cognizant of one’s death is the signature of sentience as preposterous and egomanic as most previously debunked conclusions?

Does the butterfly feel like a model that is in no way individual and so never existed as an individual; or is being that butterfly an act of having learned an astronomical amount long before birth? When will it evolve sentience, or has it already done so but only a child who is still trusting to spontaneity to function as a gift and not a lapse of control may still have enough in common with it to empathize?

Can DNA trace the trail of an individual back from death when it has nothing to learn, or has so little to learn that it is hard to detect from one generation to the next? Or do individuals die to never return, even when they have no use for tutoring or mentors?

Why would evolution perpetually evolve advanced iterations just to have them test-fly themselves?

It’s difficult to say that an individual specimen has come back from the dead if its previous life-span made any difference in its DNA (difficult because then it isn’t identical), and why else would it have one span after the other but to make a difference? We would have to make a lot more sense of DNA information before we could say that this is a discovery process contiguous over life-spans, because some specific bit could not be discovered before that specific bit discovered in the previous body.

The factor compounding the question of what returns from death is where the young very obviously learn things from elders which learning then becomes identity-markers. We take a gorilla, for example, and teach it to sign and to touch symbols on a monitor. What is that in the view of its evolution? Is it going to be sitting in the commuter-train one day going to the office with us? And if not, do we have any more business going to the office than it has? How did we evolve to be doing that? Could anything actually evolve to be doing it, or is it pure connivance?

Is evolution what we love to be doing, and the learning that is forced or connived into us what we are apathetic about doing like horses pulling wagons, so that we must have our reward for it and must keep ignoring the guys with the assault rifles, or pretend they work for us (they don’t, you know; it is intimidation, and as long as you are duly intimidated their target remains elsewhere)? Can man really feel elevated by existing technology or its sanctimonious social paradigm, or is the pride merely the flattery designed to dissemble the ongoing double-cross having become the mantras of the credulous?

Is there a quality of life at the top that signals evolution having arrived at it and therefore isn’t just a bigger weapon of more pronounced vindictiveness, whenever it isn’t just plain dull?

Looking again at DNA, what is it to learn a trick? Is the trick a trait to evolution, or is it the vacuousness of it that is a trait? If we teach some animal a trick, and can observe something this changes in its DNA, will we be right in assuming that this change is the trick itself, or can only an emotion affect the evolving or de-evolving organism?

Can a society of inventors be driven by anything but a hierarchy of greed and the commensurate contempt of the parasites for their host-masses? One individual can build a hut, and many can build a palace; so is building the palace oligarch-worship, or is the oligarch himself his sole authentic worshipper?

Think of the Catholics who installed Kings by Divine Right. Worship the Kings or go to Hell for eternity! Did that give the common people pause! A similar rule had the Japanese crawling on the floor at the feet of their bosses: wealth is God’s way of saying you are doing his work. Even many Hindus pray for redemption so they can come back from death wealthy.

Cognitive science tends to be like religion: the guy with the venerable old book overrules the guy with the telescope and a lifetime of accumulated data. For that reason you have to discover for yourself that meaning itself is a trick, until it becomes a flash of emotion. Conversely, that emotion never was emotion, but was meaning.

The trick of meaning emotes as trickery. Two aspects of mind, with two versions of cognitive scope, one immortal. The trick is adopted by ignoring how it emotes, how tedious it is going to be from now on.

In other words the search for understanding is the search for emotion (not “emotion” as the conscious regards it, the conscious being what has dispensed with or disposed of what was born, as we will see in a moment), be it a search inspired by some meaning or not. Meaning can be harbored, but when the emotion arrives it is becoming the nature of the creature and the meaning has become puerile.

Note how these two things cannot be reconciled. If emotion is the consummate meaningfulness, then meaning is not meaningful at all, but is just a trick. So before we can have meaning that isn’t emotion we have to consign emotion to some safe and isolated place, the subconscious; a burial of the living. Once that's done we have a “you” that means so many different things, a wealth of things to ponder, and yet will never return from the dead because its emotions are trash that rots more with every year because only youth has something to flaunt that isn’t a bribe and only baseness will even the odds.

How do emotions get themselves deposed? By dissimulation! You are personally administrating this process with every child who even looks your way! Any normal adult indulges in privacy of thought garnered from applied histrionic skill before any human witness. This privacy is predicated upon an obsession with being witnessed that is perpetually bordering on an extreme anxiety disorders, and will be doing so more now that there are so many ways of snooping that are always becoming more affordable and commonplace.

When we are permitting each other this privacy (or accommodating each other with it) we are interacting with emotions that are mere tricks of the voice and the muscles. It is like reading the words, “God loves us.”, and taking comfort in them, while the comfort the trees rely upon is in sucking up the actual light (like suckling newborn) that defines and evolves the relationship.

The emotional meaning of light is love (not meaning you should adopt it as a conscious meaning) , which is why younger kids are often so emotional about the difference implied by turning one off.

Such a child could operate a photon emitter and not provoke the observer-effect in the double-slit experiment.

Interacting solely with the persona generated by the histrionic skill is not optional in any culture that has been studied, just as drinking in a nation of drunks is not optional. Children may not know how, but it is something they will learn, and there is no way they will not learn it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.