Human Evolution—Natural Selection = Mental Regression?

Life is going in cycles. Are we smarter than ever before, or spiritually inept enough to outlast our progenitors?

If it is true (and it seems to be) that fitness outperforms advanced levels of perception (Hoffman Theory) it is quite possible the advanced, yet extinct higher civilizations of the past simply knew too much about reality. Humanity’s greatest, enduring structures built out of natural materials—still a mystery as to how it was done. Massive complex societies gone without a trace. Perhaps the present species of humans are inept enough to outlast them through belief.

Fitness does not mean smarter. “From a biological perspective, there is no such thing as devolution. All changes in the gene frequencies of populations–and quite often in the traits those genes influence–are by definition evolutionary changes. The notion that humans might regress or “devolve” presumes that there is a preferred hierarchy of structure and function (1)

Anthropocentric thinking has us at the pinnacle of existence (in our own minds) and maybe that persistent, false sense of superiority is our best chance at survival? It certainly isn’t a true perception of reality, but is a belief that keeps us from knowing too much, which is good for longevity.

I don’t really think we’re as smart as we used to be. The world is now full of end users led by a handful of innovators. Giza, Machu Pichu, and others, were complete societies of craftsman, artisans, engineers, and genius know how, while we are a large lot of specialists.

Following the trend in common sense it appears we have evolved to luke-warm overall intelligence with a smattering of self righteous imagination, which is apparently good for fitness.


Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

67 thoughts on “Human Evolution—Natural Selection = Mental Regression?”

  1. A scathing indictment, yet true. But not one I am willing to commit to. We have evolved biologically, physically, and in some ways even mentally. Our changes in those areas seem to be at a crawl at best, relatively speaking. But we are still evolving spiritually, and that is where our “salvation” will come from, if we have enough time to get there. We might not.
    Yet in my mind we have to live as though we have enough time. Other species can be more intelligent than us, other species can have more wondrous bodies than us, some species will definitely outsurvive us (I give honour here to the lowly cockroach who has watched other species come and go, yet they remain as they were a billion years ago or so!).
    I am, and have been for at least 50 years or so, a spiritual evolutionist. When I look at the world today, I can see the changes that have occurred in my lifetime alone. We humans are nothing like we were in the 1950s. Unfortunately there have been some devolutionary processes happening, and a lot of stationary non-movement going on. People refuse to believe what Nietzsche declared 140 years ago, that “God is dead!” Even though no god ever lived, still the idea of a god should have died a long time ago. But those people cannot stop the evolutionary processes. And those are the processes whose effects I can see. Call it an accumulative effect, for lack of a better term. But we are on our way, and as you say, evolution cannot be stopped. Why would we want it to?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Evolution at its core is random, purposeless and unguided. Just random variations in nature giving rise to natural and sexual selection. Evolution is without consciousness and therefore has no preferences, no right or wrong. If the ability to reason is merely a by-product of such a non rational process, then why should we have confidence in reasoning itself. Furthermore, how did the blind-watchmaker (not literal) of evolution become a father to self-awareness?

      If spiritual evolution comes from evolution of the species, then from where do the guidelines that should ideally be followed to achieve a preferred state come from? Who makes the rules, on what grounds and who decides what the preferred state is? Universal laws fundamentally built on observation in a quantum field where all options are in superposition with each other? Only through observation choices with their predictable outcome come into existence.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Evolution at its core is random, purposeless and unguided”—but mathematically predictable, so is it really as you say?
        Self awareness—that you are a separate entity, separate from the whole is a false sense of self awareness which fits the Hoffman model perfectly and predictably.
        If you had the understanding and awareness to see reality as it truly is it would quickly lead to extinction.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. I know you’ve touched on this in prior posts (ad nauseum), but I am curious why you make this statement: “If you had the understanding and awareness to see reality as it truly is it would quickly lead to extinction.”

          Personally (perhaps due to the advantage of “old age”), I see the human race continuing, but devolving. Oh yes, we will continue to make “great” discoveries that will increase human comforts, but as a species, I’m not sure that we’re going to improve much. The anger and violence and jealousy that permeates present society seems to be ever increasing. One wonders if we won’t someday be the agent behind our own destruction.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. The reason I touched in that is in the 100’s of thousands of evolution simulations, the greater the perception of actual reality the lower the chance at survival.
            If you saw reality, let’s say, the entire chemistry and molecular structure of everything around you, all of its connections and intricacies your senses would be completely overwhelmed, even with a blade of grass. So we see the blade, not what makes it a blade. Like your desktop, you see the icons, but under that is millions of lines of code even their creators can’t imagine wholly, only bit by bit.
            We can extrapolate this further into science as well, the more we understand the more muddled with obfuscation it becomes.
            So we’ve advanced enough now to require specialist in every field, but in most cases they dare not cross certain boundaries or it leads to even more obfuscation.
            There are experts now that try to interpret the data, but in no way can they account for the variables that will arise. Covid is a good example of that.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. GPS is working only because Einstein’s law of relativity is taken into account. Scientifically speaking we are all separate observers on the fabric of space-time. Mathematics that works like clockwork. If this is a false sense of isolated self-awareness then prove me wrong. Gathering food and wood to stock for the winter is planning that depends consciousness (a state that is aware that it is me in here). It requires perception of the arrow of time with its changing seasons. It is a trait that leads to survival. Memories are separate and unique to each observer, but its lessons can be passed on (great-grandpa John died of starvation during winter). Memories is a part of self-awareness, without it there is only here and now. Exclusively separate moments. The wonders your refer to build in ancient times would not have been made without the perspective of time. Impossible due to only events and responses according to blind instincts would be playing out.

          “Self-awareness—that you are a separate entity, separate from the whole is a false sense of self-awareness”

          In evolution consciousness came with the cerebral cortex. Giving us language and the arrow of time (pre frontal cortex). This combination made it possible for our species to form societies that learned from mistakes in the past and planned into the future. Sustaining actions with the absence of immediate consequences/rewards. Societies relies on people coming together and not behaving as self-serving separate entities. That they cooperate for the greater good.

          Consciousness is awareness of one’s body and one’s environment. We can recognize ourselves in a mirror (the mirror test). Now this allows our species to adapt and modify behaviour as separate entities, but for the greater good for those around us.


        3. “Evolution at its core is random, purposeless and unguided”—but mathematically predictable, so is it really as you say?”

          Just to be clear is not just me saying that time is linked to evolution, it is in the very definition of evolution itself. Very small changes that are favoured due to survival stretching over time. As for math being predictable on the quantum level, well one can only predict the likelihood of outcomes.


      2. Ah, maybe I left something out. I thought I had, so thank you for asking. I do not think of myself as just being ” human,” though sometimes my words can read that way. Before I am human, I am life. A living being. The same and equal to any living being anywhere in the cosmos there are living beings. We exist (seemingly) in the physical universe, but the physical universe is just that part of the cosmos that we can see at this time.
        Therefore it is easy to think of evolution just being physical. We take all our cues from those parts of evolution we can see. And while I am not saying evolution isn’t random (there are way more failures than successes), the successes always seem to improve on what went before. We started out as single-celled beings (if anything came before that we cannot say for sure) and over the billions of years we have grown into beings with quadrillions or more cells all working together to one individual purpose. But yet, on earth alone, all the who-knows-how-many-illions-of-beings-there-are, we still have to work together to keep our world fit for life. Is it possible there is still just one LIFE on earth, or in the Cosmos, slowly improving itself to some ultimate end that we humans cannot conceive of?
        The thing about evolution, as we have come to understand it, is that its successes always improve on what has gone before, completely randomly as far as we can understand.
        So, if you will pardon my inability to express myself scientifically, spiritual evolution does not involve “only our species,” but every species that has existed, exists today, or ever will exist. Physical evolution may not have rules we can understand, or it just may have no rules at all. But it has tendencies, to always improve on what has preceded each evolutionary advancement. And that is what is key for me. Improvement. If we have spirits (not souls or any religious crap) then just like our physical bodies those spirits would also be improving. And in my eyes, my understandings, that is exactly what is happening.
        In your eyes, or your understandings, I may be a total crackpot, but thst’s okay. Crackpots are a part of the evolutionary chain… I can only be whom I am….

        Liked by 2 people

        1. In my eyes, even though I do not know you, you are loved ❤ You are not a crackpot ❤ We are not supposed to fit in a mold ❤ You present your views very well. I do not have all the answers, and certainly not all knowing. I agree with you that life is fundamentally connected. The improvement that you explain is also true. However, it is more complicated than that. You know in Einstein's theory of relativity, space and time is always relative to the constant speed of light. Due to this, we all have our unique space time, meaning time and space isolates us into individual observers. This observer is always at the center of the universe no matter the location. The big bang happened everywhere from the tip of our toes to the edges of outer space. No matter the worldview a constant infinite in the life equation is needed to connect us all. As a Christian my belief is that life comes from our infinite Creator. He is the source of our connection in my view. Constant as he is light, and at the speed of light time stops. In other words, our universe, this result of the big bang ruled by time does not connect us.

          Then, improvement according to evolution is not always what we would label morally right. A lion that becomes the new alpha male kills the offspring from his predecessor, for it is more favorably for him to spread his genes. In humans you have this example:

          "Cosmos, slowly improving itself to some ultimate end that we humans cannot conceive of?"

          This would have to be something beyond certain destructive laws of this cosmos. Like for instance the second law of thermodynamics that does not seem to not improve the state of our universe.

          You may not embrace my views but;

          Hugs, Isabella


          1. Atheist here, but I accept and return your hug. The cosmos is bigger than the two of us, no matter what we believe, but two is stronger than one, as long as they believe in each other.
            Thank you.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. As to the Genesis Khan article, I had read that before at some point. In my own thinking on the matter, The Americas could have used some of those y-chromosomes here. Our leaders are somewhat lacking in superior qualities.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Well, according to scripture god would be the puppet master, as in Romans 13:1

              That’s it! The key to the Second Coming!
              The Messiah is back among us!

              “Beauty is all about loving who you are. And if you have a problem with that, may I suggest you try loving who I am?” – Miss Piggy

              Liked by 1 person

    2. The problem I see with your comment compared to the Hoffman Theory is advancing spiritually would mean increased awareness of reality, which actually lessens the chances of survival. That is the beauty of Christianity—it is a false sense of reality and that is optimum for organic survival.
      Speaking of the physical changes you’ve noticed, Donald Lippincot was basically a screw-off in college and set the world record in the 100M in 1912. 100 years later, with all the advances in training, technology, diet, and searching the world over for an Usain Bolt, he has gained 1 second.
      When physical activity is a way of life -vs- today, undoubtedly there have been evolutionary changes during this period of sedimentary lifestyle.


      1. The thing is, Jim, I pay no credence to anyone else’s theories, so I have no idea what the Hoffman Theory is. I cannot compare or contrast. I have to be able to alliow my mind to roam free, without context, so as not to create obstacles to my own sense of adventure.
        All this while choosing to accept certain theories without question, such as the Theory of Evolution. It feels right, so I go with it. It is simple and easily understood. But that is how I look at life, simple and easily understood–despite all the complexities other people look to find.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. “The ancients could kill you in a million different ways and give you a million different reasons why it needed to be done. In much of the pre-modern world, ritual sacrifice was framed as necessary for the good of the society at large — the only way to guarantee, say, a plentiful harvest or success in war.”

    Understandably you only allow one link per comment so I cannot share the vast amount of information about ancient barbaric traditions, but search and you will find. Humans being self-destructive repeats itself through history.

    Research do confirm though that for unknown reasons the level of IQ is dropping (since the 1970s) in the world-population.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Certainly barbarism is well acknowledged in ancient times. The thousands of simulations Hoffman has ran in his study shows that evolutionary fitness trumps every high level awareness of reality. Those with the highest degree of that awareness go extinct, every time. That is also evidence of our persistent survival and hebrew religions. That false sense of reality is key to our lasting as a specie. If we are to trust evolution, it has us in a pretty good spot to survive quite some time with this false sense of reality driven by irrelevant beliefs about the way the world actually is.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ritual killings was prevalent in societies with class systems (according to research), because the lower classes were dispensable. Therefore, if your claim is as you are stating, then the most aware genius innovators should have survived according to evolution.


        1. Actually what it says is what has survived has little understanding of the underlying reality. Todays science is on a vector that has little to do with anything real or that which is permanent


            1. Maybe the difference is it makes no difference to me where the trail leads, where others are trying to prove what they believe?
              Have you ever worked with an alternate way of seeing things, just to see where it goes?


            2. This blog has an aim and a direction to bring down the common enemy faith with its traps. The actions and words being published and shared highly suggests that it is not just a matter of seeing how things go. Any science, discovery or source that is being referred to on this platform is used to support the atheist’s case. These sources of information are furthermore probably chosen and used due to trust. So, it is clear that you are trying to prove your case.

              “where others are trying to prove what they believe?”

              Trust is a synonym of the word believe.

              Are we working with two separate laws here? You are allowed to try to prove your views and I am not allowed to lay forth what I consider trusted evidence of mine? Even if mine requires other dimensions, multi-verse and string theory also involve that.


            3. This comment isn’t accurate. I’ve posted on many, many topics including in support spirituality. I have had many people state they can’t tell what my positions are because I’m am impartial and accepting. Probably have had my most heated discussions with atheist, not believers. And if faith has traps shouldn’t someone call attention to that? I find it interesting that most of the pure atheists no longer visit here. There is a reason for that.
              I don’t particularly like beliefs because they are always so heated yet indefensible, but they are likely necessary because nothing here is real. I find it interesting that Jesus would use this sort deception to test his creations.
              My position is this—true there are no deities, but is there nothing else at all? One of the great deceptions in life is to have two wrong answers to choose from. That is what we’re working with.


    2. History doesn’t record acts of kindness… all you see is “the bad” that’s been written down as a warning, so it’s easy to think the worst.

      Mankind is built on the strength and hope of good people doing what they had to do for their families. A great trait for survival and growth.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Mankind is built on the strength and hope of good people doing what they had to do for their families. A great trait for survival and growth.

        A great trait for almost all of our evolutionary history as primates, when we lived in small, related bands. Not so great when we started to congregate in large agricultural settlements where we neither knew well nor had close blood ties to the bulk of those who shared our communities.

        Maybe even maladaptive now that most of our daily interactions are with those we have little fundamentally in common with. That leaves those who control the mass media free to manufacture what we do have in common, thereby sculpting our empathy and shared values and understandings in ways that best suit their own purposes, not ours.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. You Stated — ” That leaves those who control the mass media free to manufacture what we do have in common, thereby sculpting our empathy and shared values and understandings in ways that best suit their own purposes, not ours.”

          My Response — It’s always been like that. What do you think Shaman were doing ;).

          Besides; this is only true for lazy thinkers. A small subset of people who are critical thinkers don’t follow the stream.


            1. You Stated — “People who believe they’re not affected by propaganda are lazy thinkers.”

              My Response — We are all immune to propaganda when it conflicts with our tribalism.

              This is to say most fully subscribe to the propaganda on their side but nearly completely ignore the propaganda from the other side.

              Propaganda only has influence if you are so inclined.

              On the other hand: Most critical thinkers are already alienated from their tribe, culture and politics.

              For one reason or another they never acclimated properly. They are only left with the last level of bias connected to survival and self-satisfaction.

              Keep in mind that this doesn’t mean they will be good people, it just means they could careless about anything people believe and have no receptors for charismatic influencers.

              Some of them pretend to believe things either for self gain or to maintain low visibility within groups. (Like preachers who are secretly atheist)

              The others make it publicly clear that they don’t care or believe in anything and accept being called outsiders as long as they can continue along their path unhindered. Like nomads, gurus, and mad scientists.


            2. Well, speaking as an autistic critical thinker who has never felt part of a tribe and whose ‘neurodiversity’ supposedly protects him from group think, I can say I just don’t have the hubris necessary to believe myself immune to propaganda.

              Of course I’m not aware of the propaganda I’m falling for now, but I can look back over my life and see many examples of when I bought into some kind of bullshit thinking, vacuous desire, twisted value or baseless ontology simply because I’d had it pitched at me and lacked the capacity to evaluate it clearly.

              Probably the most ubiquitous for most of my life was the individualist/dualist delusion that I’m a separate being that can somehow assert itself against its environment with some sort of intrinsic attribute that wasn’t just as conditioned by the environment as the rest of me. Yeah, sure, I knew in theory it was untrue, but it was so embedded in the assumptions of my society and language that had been drilled into me since before I could even talk – much less think critically – that I never really got past it until I was in my fifties.

              And yeah, all the notions I shared with most people that if I just achieved or obtained sufficient possessions/fame/love/willpower/sex/good health/knowledge/drugs/community/recognition/creativity/empathy/wisdom/equanimity/tranquillity/enlightenment/whatever that my life would be profoundly changed and my suffering alleviated. I see now that in every case I picked it up from an institution or individual trying to sell me something and in doing so I made myself vulnerable to manipulation by those who seemed to hold whatever ‘answer’ I sought at the time.

              If even Mick can’t get it, I sure as hell can’t.

              So looking back on a life of that sort of thing, and around at a world full of people who seem to be falling for the same or similar pitches, it would require a feat of arrogance beyond even my capacities to imagine that just because I can’t presently see it in myself that I’ve liberated myself from it. Propaganda only works when it’s invisible.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. You Stated — “I’m not aware of the propaganda I’m falling for now, but I can look back over my life and see many examples of when I bought into some kind of bullshit thinking”

              My Response — Interesting, I’ve had a different experience. I don’t believe anything anyone says as a default, it comes natural, I don’t have to focus or try hard to do it. Charismatic people seem nonsensical to me. Truth is at best relative. I choose to support any side that benefits me or my goals directly, whether they are right or wrong doesn’t seem to be of any importance.

              You Stated — “for most of my life was the individualist/dualist delusion that I’m a separate being”

              My Response — I’m whatever people believe or want me to be. I don’t see any reason to define myself. People seem much happier if they can define me and it makes my job easier. From a personal perspective I don’t care what type of being I am. I use any tool in the box to move forward that works. I don’t even care if a tool only works on one person or a group of people, none of it means anything to me. People around me seem to have a need to be someone or something and to heavily define what is true or what works. I only care about what works at the moment or for a specific goal or with certain people to obtain a goal.

              You Stated — “if I just achieved or obtained sufficient possessions / fame / love / willpower / sex /good/wealth/knowledge/drugs/community/recognition/creativity/empathy/wisdom/equanimity/tranquillity/enlightenment/ whatever that my life would be profoundly changed and my suffering alleviated.

              My Response — I have achieved OR loss all of those with the exception of “good”, that one seems like a typo, also fame was short lived and tiny. If someone mentioned that they clear away suffering I wasn’t paying attention. For me they just happened I wasn’t trying to obtain them. They seem worthy of obtaining but not by force… only by curiosity.

              You Stated — “it would require a feat of arrogance beyond even my capacities to imagine that just because I can’t presently see it in myself that I’ve liberated myself from it. Propaganda only works when it’s invisible.”

              My Response — Even by your own admittance you are arrogant. I would add that simply because “you” can’t avoid falling for propaganda you then feel that it’s impossible for the less equipped remaining people to avoid it lol. That is shear arrogance at it’s best.

              Mankind is funny, everything is so important to them but from my perspective it’s just endless entertainment, If you want to take them seriously be my guest:

              Liked by 1 person

  3. I think we see stupid people and think the species must be declining but in reality, a 10-year-old now has more understanding about the universe than the entire human race just a few generations ago.

    We are the smartest dumb animal yet.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. More understanding or more hypothesis, more possible explanations, but knowledge? Maybe. Look at you desktop icons. You have a general knowledge of what each one does, but to fully understand perceptually the millions of lines of code embedded in each one is impossible. Even you with your programming skills, can only imagine what lies beneath the clicks. That is how we have evolved, to perceive the least amount of reality necessary to produce offspring.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. You Stated — “That is how we have evolved, to perceive the least amount of reality necessary to produce offspring.”

        My Response — I would agree that this is true for the majority but the opposite for the visionaries and philosophers.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Nice post! I agree about human intelligence decreasing. According to the Hindus, the world goes through ‘cosmic cycles’ called yugas, each with its own characterizations. There are 4 cycles: Satya (golden age), Treta, Dvapara and Kali, each lasting thousands of yrs.

    We are now living in Kali Yuga age (not to be confused with cabrogal’s Kāli, who is the Mother goddess and Shiva’s fiery companion ☺)

    Kali Yuga is an age of “darkness and ignorance”, when people lack virtue, they prefer lies over truth, are slaves to their passions, they eat forbidden and dirty food (ie meat), the environment is heavily polluted and causing a scarcity in food and water, wealth is heavily diminished, rulers will confiscate property and use it badly and will stop protecting people.~ Wiki
    We don’t have to look far to see how this is true.

    I think there are 71 such cycles in the life course of a universe, after which the universe enters a state of sleep, or rest. Then, it starts again. Kinda like a human day, or a human life time, no? Surrounded by a sleep.

    Evolution is highly non-linear and oftentimes intelligence seems to play very little role. For example, some creature are living fossils and haven’t changed much in 3 or 4 hundred million years. Others seem to evolve in a relative blink of an eye.👁

    Liked by 2 people

    1. But according to the Hoffman studies, perception, not intelligence plays the bigger role. If we could all see beyond the superficial it would not be good for longevity. Why do you think that is so?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Well, it’s not like nature comes and pounds you down once you reach a higher level of awareness. Your question is “Why does nature obstructs us from having a true perception of reality?” It doesn’t. Those highly advanced civilizations died off due to wars and disease.

        When you say “If we could all see beyond the superficial…” what do you really want to see?? the quantum field? the smallest particles?? then ask yourself, why do you want to see that, and what would that change? don’t assume that seeing more will expand awareness. in meditation, we close our eyes to truly see 😉

        Liked by 2 people

    2. You Stated — “they eat forbidden and dirty food (ie meat)”

      My Response — AKA the most delicious thing ever. AKA that which makes happy face. AKA Yum Yum.

      You Stated — “I think there are 71 such cycles in the life course of a universe”

      My Response — OR There is just one… make more rocks. The universe seems to be in a 24/7 rock-making process as the main job. Human making process around 1% of the time.

      Even in our own solar system, we find ourselves outnumbered by rocks on all sides no matter where we point a telescope.

      Just saying


  5. First you posited that there is no devolution, but then concluded that humans have actually devolved. Seems contradictory to me.

    It seems that our trajectory (as it randomly happens) has us on a course toward self-destruction as a species, mostly because we’ve become incredibly selfish and self-absorbed.


    1. I don’t think of it as devolution , but cycles. It’s all evolution. For now maybe you’re right, but that’s what it may take to have another breakthrough. But if we focus too much on the destruction prize I’m sure we can achieve it.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Of course there’s more than one kind of reality.

    Hoffman is suggesting a rationalist-objective approach to reality is essentially bankrupt because evolution hasn’t equipped us with the cognitive or perceptual means of apprehending it. I tend to agree.

    Chalmers, OTOH, has spent much of his professional career trying to come to grips with the nature of consciousness, so adopts an empirical-subjective approach to reality. To him reality is essentially an internal phenomena you can’t misapprehend because misapprehension too is part of that reality.

    Hence today’s summary of his thoughts on virtual reality in the Guardian.

    “A common way of thinking about virtual realities is that they’re somehow fake realities, that what you perceive in VR isn’t real. I think that’s wrong,” he told the Guardian. “The virtual worlds we’re interacting with can be as real as our ordinary physical world. Virtual reality is genuine reality.”

    It all started, as these things can, with the French philosopher René Descartes. Chalmers was pondering his question of how we can know anything about the external world. Modern philosophy often reframes this as a Matrix-style poser: how can we know we are not in a simulation? To cut to the chase, we can’t, Chalmers says.

    All of which leads to virtual reality. In the decades ahead, Chalmers suspects we will ditch the clunky headsets for brain-computer interfaces, or BCIs, that allow us to experience virtual worlds with our full suite of senses. With advances in computing – in the next century, perhaps – those worlds would seem as real as the physical world around us.

    On the point of philosophy, Chalmers argues that even today’s virtual worlds are “real”. A conversation in VR is a real conversation, he says. The objects in the virtual worlds are real too, he asserts, just made of bits instead of quarks and electrons. As virtual worlds become rich and convincing we will build virtual societies, take on virtual jobs, and have motivations, desires and goals that play out in those environments. “Most of the factors that make life meaningful are going to be there in virtual worlds,” he says. “There’s no good reason to think that life in VR will be meaningless or valueless.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Realities we are not equipped to comprehend doesn’t mean they are not real. Agree. Btw, when I refer to the world as an illusion, to me that means things aren’t only what they seem to be. My objective is to show there are other/more valid ways of sensing reality ontologically, outside of judeo-christian thought which is deceptively narrow and contradictory. I have no motive outside of this.
      Wheras others like Isabella, are trying to link every way of science and philosophy to Jesus as the starting point.
      I really like the Hoffman theory, yet the Chalmers summary you offer is also an excellent observation.
      Over the last several years I have presented 100’s of alternate, legitimate viewpoints and is has been suggested INE and again that these are my beliefs. I don’t believe anything except there is only one, non contradictory path to our beginnings, so how hard can it be? Haha.
      True there are no deities, but is there anything else? It seems the choices we have been given are really the wrong questions. That’s what leaned my needle to the east. It found me—I didn’t find it.


      1. I don’t believe anything except there is only one, non contradictory path to our beginnings, so how hard can it be? Haha.

        Not sure how ironically you mean that, but it seems clear to me there’s loads of paths from our origins, but they’re all mythical in that they use storytelling to allude to something beyond our comprehension.

        The Big Bang is one such story, based on interpretations of evidence very few have seen using theories probably no one person can fully grasp. It tries to tell us not just how and why matter and energy are distributed the way they are but even how time and space came into existence.

        How the hell are we supposed to comprehend that? We can’t even express it with language. Saying ‘time came into existence’ implies there was a time before there was time.

        But other creation poems and stories also speak profoundly to me of the origins of things, some of them unfolding outside time.

        To me the Fall is a story of dualistic differentiation. Of eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil that cast us from blissful Oneness into binary distinction, separation, judgement, rejection and incompleteness. Instead of being woven seamlessly throughout the entire cosmos we realised ourselves naked before it and were ashamed. I think that says at least as much of how we became what we are as any stories about the formation of neutrinos and nebulae.

        The Nasadiya Sukta speaks of the origins of knowledge itself and of the beginning of all stories. It reminds us that all we believe is conditioned and resting on foundations of pure ignorance. We don’t ‘think therefore we are’, we are what we think – and those thoughts are ephemeral and empty. Like the Emperor’s New Clothes, our stories are woven from nothingness.

        Many creation stories are cyclical. They teach us there is no beginning or ending. Just eternal being.

        I could go on and on. Poems, myths, philosophical conjecture, jokes, bedtime stories, koans, even low quality genre fiction (check out Heinlein’s ‘By His Bootstraps’), all can offer unique viewpoints as to how we came from nothing to be what we are. And how we’re constantly coming from nothing. Are any of them more or less true than the others? I guess that depends a lot on what they say to you.

        There’s far too much to explain with any one storyline or to squeeze into any one way of knowing. To hold fast to one to the exclusion of the rest strikes me as cruel self-impoverishment.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Self impoverishment classes are offered every Sunday…. I get what you’re saying and I’m not really focused on any one line of thought, I just follow each one out as far as I can and then check out whatever else fall in my lap. I think I’ve got nearly 800 posts here that express that. It’s good dialog for me to learn and process.
          One thing I’ve noticed is the change in participants over the course of my changes. Much of what I’m exploring now is intolerable to hard core atheism—which shows how much of THAT, can turn into a belief system as well.
          It is belief, or disbelief, that binds; for disbelief and belief are the same: they are the opposite sides of the same coin. So we should completely put aside positive or negative belief; the believer and the non-believer are the same”

          Liked by 1 person

  7. It is reality by discussing replication, mutation, competition, selection, accumulation, etc in  biology and anthropology . In the long run, factors such as geographical isolation, changes in ecology, natural selection, adaptation, gene mutations, chromosome mutations, genetic recombination, genetic drift, etc Can. For example, about 40 million years ago, the ancestors of gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, monkeys, and apes split into one Common Ancestor, part of the Common Ancestor, part of the Hominoidea superfamily, and then another Common Ancestor 60-70 million years ago.  Humans and chimpanzees have evolved into different species and gradually reached modern chimpanzees and humans.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I think I get your point here. But without any more geographical isolation, mutation (change) may be hard to mentally decipher. I think the order is constantly being replaced by another, and resisting that change is every bit a function as embracing it. But to actually observe it takes an abrupt breakthrough which appears alarming at the time, but the new humans adapt to embrace it fully. Then repeat..

      Liked by 1 person

  8. How our beliefs interact with fitness are also beliefs. (I mean “beliefs” in the secular sense not religious sense) Appealing to our beliefs in order to show our beliefs are true is like quoting the bible in order to prove everything in the bible is true.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Knowing how much you enjoy stories about gullible Christians I thought I’d share this one with you jim.

    It’s a safe bet some Christians who’ve prayed to their God to help them overcome gambling and porn addictions are already having their prayers answered by online porn and gambling marketers.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Turning prayer into profits! It it troubling that your online prayers are data mined, but still no less effective as private prayer. Good find Cabrogal.


      1. still no less effective as private prayer

        Well, I’ve gotta admit I’ve never understood why Christians pray with their hand out to an omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving God. I mean He knows what’s best for you and is giving it to you already, right?

        But my prayers aren’t about begging for stuff, they’re about opening my perceptions and emotions to the realisation of the Goddess inherent in everything in my universe. I don’t practice it for any conscious reason beyond itself but I’ve gotta say it seems pretty effective.

        Firstly it blisses me out and fills me with awe. So there’s an immediate buzz. But probably more importantly it frees me from dualistic judgementalism for the duration. It’s hard to say how much enduring effect that has but it sure seems to me I’ve become more accepting, forgiving and capable of unconditional love since realising Kali.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. As soon as you mention “Goddess” (realisation of the Goddess), I immediately flinch. For me, it’s too close to a reference to “God” — the only exception being gender.

          Personally, I overcame this by the phrase: Universal Presence. No worship, no prayers, no genesis.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Personally, I overcame this by the phrase: Universal Presence. No worship, no prayers, no genesis.

            Fortunately I was never raised in theism so never had anything to ‘overcome’. Neither my parents nor grandparents identified as Christians. I was sometimes sent to Sunday School as a form of free childcare but was never encouraged by my family to take Biblical stories seriously.

            For most of my life I called myself an atheist because I always rejected (and still do) the simplistic God taught at Sunday School and scripture classes. I dropped that and adopted ‘agnostic’ partly because I’d developed a much broader appreciation of what ‘god’ could mean but mainly because I didn’t want to be identified with the arrogance, ignorance, hubris and scientism of the New Atheists.

            Ten years ago I had an overwhelming experience of a dynamic feminine force of creation and destruction immanent in every aspect of my phenomenological reality – including myself. It’s still open to my perception whenever I choose to drop the ego-based filters that construct my ‘self’ as something separate to the rest of the universe. There is no English word I’m aware of that can begin to describe what I perceive other than ‘Goddess’, but as I am well aware that whatever it is remains way beyond any hope of personal understanding or comprehension I still consider myself agnostic.

            So when you talk about ‘overcoming’ with slogans of disavowal you’re talking about denying my lived reality in favour of a narrow, blinkered ideology as well as delegitimising the profound changes I feel that realisation has brought to my life.
            I’ll pass on that.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Your last paragraph comes across as though I have insulted you. This was not my intention. Of course I was not aware of your experience and was only offering a phrase that has worked for me whenever “terminology” becomes part of a conversation that involves religion and/or spirituality.


            2. Well, yeah, it seemed to me you were suggesting that whenever I get the urge to use words you disapprove of, like ‘Goddess’, I should invoke a little slogan to make them go away.

              If you didn’t mean to be patronising I apologise for misinterpreting you. Word policing leaves me rather cold.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: