Does idealism square with intelligent design?

[Ed Konderla]

In a recent interview , BK talks of MAL using a "push from behind" rather than a pull from a pre-planned future. So, driven by what it finds increasingly interesting (in the same way as the warmer colder game), MAL's instinctive push happens.

How can a mere 'instinctive push' without intelligence (from the past, future or whatever) even if driven by 'interests' create such an amazingly complex, efficient and self-reproducing thing like a living cell? A cell is a much more complex object than the most sophisticated supercomputer, airplane, rocket or spaceship. Supercomputers, airplanes, rockets or spaceships don't self-assembleitself by mere instincts, let alone reproduce. And it is implausible that this could happen even after 13.8 billion years of instincts. This issue is reminiscent of the combination problem: one can't see why and how putting together gazillions of mechanistic instincts, no matter how much time passes, should supposedly lead to anything creative and cognitively more developed other than yet another blind superinstinct. I like BKs ideas, but here one finds an explanatory gap in his theory.

Anybody that buys the explanation of Darwinian Evolution regardless of their intellect are seriously over reaching. They lack the capacity to say "I don't know or I don't understand".

[Ben Iscatus]

How can a mere 'instinctive push' without intelligence (from the past, future or whatever) even if driven by 'interests' create such an amazingly complex, efficient and self-reproducing thing like a living cell?

No, not at all "without intelligence". Intelligence does not need consciousness, as demonstrated by AI (which has no inner life). BK has often pointed out that MAL has an intuitional intelligence rather like an idiot savant: it knows, but does not know how it knows, because it is not self-reflective.

So far as the living cell is concerned, your statement seems rather dualistic. Under Analytic Idealism, the cell is only an image or representation of an aspect of intuitional intelligence in Nature (or MAL) when sensed by a dissociated alter.

[AshvinP]

In a recent interview , BK talks of MAL using a "push from behind" rather than a pull from a pre-planned future. So, driven by what it finds increasingly interesting (in the same way as the warmer colder game), MAL's instinctive push happens.

How can a mere 'instinctive push' without intelligence (from the past, future or whatever) even if driven by 'interests' create such an amazingly complex, efficient and self-reproducing thing like a living cell? A cell is a much more complex object than the most sophisticated supercomputer, airplane, rocket or spaceship. Supercomputers, airplanes, rockets or spaceships don't self-assembleitself by mere instincts, let alone reproduce. And it is implausible that this could happen even after 13.8 billion years of instincts. This issue is reminiscent of the combination problem: one can't see why and how putting together gazillions of mechanistic instincts, no matter how much time passes, should supposedly lead to anything creative and cognitively more developed other than yet another blind superinstinct. I like BKs ideas, but here one finds an explanatory gap in his theory.

Much of this gap depends on how we are framing the issue. If we are assuming a naïve materialist foundation for evolutionary theory, then yes the gaps will remain enormous. But the theory itself without any such assumptions does not rule out selection by intelligent forces. For ex., we could look at sexual selection in humans and see that we have about twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors - that is because each woman had on average two children and most men had none (while a few men had a bunch). Women have traditionally 'outsourced' the selection of reproductive partners to the 'dominance hierarchies' of men, in which men compete for wealth and status, and then women only consider men who are at the same level or higher as themselves. In such a scenario, is it incorrect to say the Spirit of woman became a selective force in the human environment? I don't think so, and it reveals that evolutionary theory can encompass deeper metaphysical-spiritual truths when unshackled from unwarranted assumptions.

[Marco Masi]

No, not at all "without intelligence". Intelligence does not need consciousness, as demonstrated by AI (which has no inner life). BK has often pointed out that MAL has an intuitional intelligence rather like an idiot savant: it knows, but does not know how it knows, because it is not self-reflective.

That intelligence, and which is considered a product of mind, is not consciousness, I could only wholeheartedly agree. But then one wonders why people (BK included) use mind and consciousness as synonymous and conflate one with the other?

As to AI, facts have shown how it spectacularly failed in meeting the expectations in reproducing what we commonly mean by 'intelligence'. It is now becoming all to evident that AI has been overhyped for a decade. I really hope that MAL is not just a dumb AI. )

Can you tell where BK talked of "MAL having an intuitional intelligence"? I only found him speaking of a will that is blind instinct. For me 'blind instinct' is hunger, sex, fear, unreflective reactions to pain and pleasure, etc. I don't see how this connects with intuition which is insight, wisdom, inspiration, truth-knowledge, etc. The two things can hardly be equated as being the same thing.

Sometimes words mean nothing, but sometimes their improper choice may determine endless confusion or antipodal understandings and worldviews.

[Eugene I]

But then one wonders why people (BK included) use mind and consciousness as synonymous and conflate one with the other?

Exactly

[Ben Iscatus]

Can you tell where BK talked of "MAL having an intuitional intelligence"? I only found him speaking of a will that is blind instinct.

I'm sorry, Marco, I can't find a link to the old forum. There were at least two interviews where he discussed this a few months ago.

[Eugene I]

I just gave a link to a typical NDE in another thread, and there are thousands of similar NDE accounts. And, unless we want to stay in a denialist mode together with materialists, these accounts suggest that the Consciousness at Large is nothing like being non-metacognitive or instinctive, but quite the opposite. I will not attempt to describe it in any positive words, and any descriptions in those NDE accounts are never accurate, but still based on what they are trying to convey to us it seems to be quite far from the Bernardo's description of it.

[Lou Gold]

Back to the path of heart, it seemed confusing long ago when Castaneda's Don Juan said that all paths lead nowhere. However, the trick in the spell of English can convert "nowhere" to "now here." "Here" may be a hole into despair or a portal into joy. Whether the path has heart can be seen as the difference making the difference.

Additionally, as age advances, learning how to make dependence joyous takes on a greater priority. Friendship helps and there's a whole spiritual adventure in learning how to do it well.

I was 34 years old when I had stumbled across this. Raised Catholic I had a strong religious background but it never attracted me. I was working for a Saudi company in the heart of an extremely fundamental Muslim environment in Saudi Arabia. Since I have always been accepting of all people they constantly targeted me for conversion. They were nice but persistent. That wasn't going to happen. I stumbled on to Don Juan and I swear I was hooked in 5 minutes. I don't know why but the change was complete and permanent. Never cared for Castaneda himself and after Don Juan was out of the picture I just found Castaneda's stuff irritating. I never ever looked back even for a second. Beats hell out of me why. Of course the Warriors path is not restricted to the Americas. I have researched it extensively and many cultures had similar concepts. It's is basically the same thing when I stumbled across Bernardo and the concept of consciousness being fundamental. The difference for me is I see Bernardo as only the messenger. He is like Louis and Clark explaining their findings. They didn't invent the west only reported on it.

I have experienced paths leading no where many times in my own life. In fact I am 100% convinced accepting that was a secret to my "success". If someone wants a path to lead somewhere so be it. I have many friends that stuck to the path and retired. Many experienced the disaster of getting to the top of the ladder only to discover they had it leaning against the wrong wall. I started practicing being light on my feet, practicing "not doing". As much as I could dumping my personal history and now I look back and my God what a trip it has been. I wouldn't trade my life for any one else. I want no one to follow my path only in that to have the courage to make your life your own. That is what I attempt to teach my Ecuadorian apprentice David.

Perhaps the trick to just put a space in the right place, as in from "nowhere" to "now here."

[pandaproducts]

I just gave a link to a typical NDE in another thread, and there are thousands of similar NDE accounts. And, unless we want to stay in a denialist mode together with materialists, these accounts suggest that the Consciousness at Large is nothing like being non-metacognitive or instinctive, but quite the opposite. I will not attempt to describe it in any positive words, and any descriptions in those NDE accounts are never accurate, but still based on what they are trying to convey to us it seems to be quite far from the Bernardo's description of it.

Thank you. This idea of MAL being instinctive never squared with me, because I take NDEs very seriously. I also think cosmological fine-tuning basically kills the notion that MAL is instinctive.

[Shajan624]

Does idealism support Darwinian Evolution or Intelligent design?

I think Idealism cannot support Darwinian evolution or Intelligent Design.

Science can only describe how matter behaves, from the outside.

Suppose consciousness is actually directing evolution. How would it look like to science?

It would look exactly as Darwinism describes it - random. Consciousness as an “internal driving force” is not describable in terms of external behaviour. You could find a pattern in the process - like increasing complexity of progressive improvement in the sensory apparatus, but look for the mechanism - it would appear random.