Ongoing confrontation ... biology and technology ... powerful.

When I was in college the question my paleotology professor asked us to ponder is:

Why has evolution constantly tended toward greater complexity?

There is nothing that makes a human being better able to survive than an amoeba. The cockroach is another example of a fairly simple animal that's been around (or other creatures similar) for geologic ages. Science hasn't been able to answer why evolution tends in a direction toward greater complexity but it does. The world could have got along fine with nothing but a bunch of 1 celled organisms in it and they all would have and actually did survive fine, with or without more complex organisms, but instead there's been this progression.

So the answer I came up with is that there must be a greater force other than evolution at play in the world. Call it God or some other force of nature, but something created the progression. Either that, or you have to dismiss evolution all together as a construct of humans doing bad science.

Gary, why is it not fair in not liking someone or something? It's not only fair, but it's our right if there's good reason. And here's my reason reason in this case:

For all of his verbal brilliance, I'm wary of Silva and his view. He's entitled to it, but it makes no sense to me in the largest sense, and in fact it seems dangerous if just swallowed without a critical look -- or listen.

Boiled down, he's preaching the supremacy of thinking mind over all else. Mind over biology, over nature. Implicit in that view is the rejection of a grand order or intelligence or presence, which frankly is an essential element of my own experience of life, the world. Silva seems to me to be a high-pressure and very slick apologist for the current order of things, at the heart of which is the man-above-nature belief that has been ruling our collective western thinking for thousands of years -- especially since the birth of materialistic science. It's about perpetuating this fundamental dualism, not a recognition of unity. And we have only to look at the world we've built in order to see the results: on the whole, a horror.

I don't believe that we can have a better world by continuing what has produced this one. That's my honest view, and so I naturally don't "like" Silva's. As a "civilization" we're not doing anything fundamentally new with our new technological capabilities; the only thing new is whatever is new in the technology itself.

Silva is preaching the continuation of what we've been doing, only in subtler and more powerful ways. He still sees man as dominating the world: he says, "The mind has overpowered the biosphere." That sentence is a red flag for me. Is it about harmony, unity, even respect for the natural order of things? This is the opposite of what quantum physics and all of the "mystical" spiritual traditions that I know of are revealing to us.

I listen carefully to his words, and often they don't even make sense. For example, "linguistically pliable"; he throws it out there with no explanation. His words don't make a rational argument; they present captivating images that paint a grand picture -- I believe, to create a mood of compliance for the same old program of making over evetrything -- from the DNA level on up -- according to the light of our own thinking minds, which is manifestly dim compared to the exquisite intelligence and wisdom inherent in what has already been created. In short, business (figuratively and literally) as usual -- just more intensely, more completely.

I love technology, which holds wonderful promise in the hands of people with some humility (in this case a sense of the limits of our own understanding), but in the hands of creatures diseased by hubris, it can only add to the mind-boggling disaster we call western civilization. There's no trace of himility in Silva's presentations.

In my opinion.

I guess I end up appreciating Wendy's view.

Well of course it's your right.

What I meant is that it's not fair to YOURSELF or ANY VALID IDEA coming from Silva (or anyone else you have judged or invalidated).

I pretty much agree that there's evidence of design in evolution. In fact I go farther and say we are the leading edge of the designs fruition. Where evolution and design meet, approaching the designer.

I'd like to express another thing not pertaining to what you have said.

Ultimately, I think this is what Silva is getting at, is that we are what we seek (God, magic, happiness, understanding, the design).

Ultimately, this is what I'm trying to get at, is that whatever that (if we're going to become the god or the magic or the etc) entails (from us, in the past, present or future), we have to embrace it or at least recognise it, to trigger the progression of the design. We can't embrace ourselves and keep railing against ourselves.

Perhaps there's another approach.

It's funny how silva's blurbs always stir up some comments here. Bob, I winced at the same comments you did, plus the one about nano technology. And Wendy, the same thoughts have passed through my mind, but I let them go,because I don't see it as more complex. Wait, let me rephrase that,,"I believe that the technology seems complex, trying to explain how it works is like trying to explain how the human brain works,,,,which we can't do.. We are just kids playing in the lab... But ultimately, I believe it will become more simplified. Reading Bob's words, and his point about the re-discovery of what some ancient cultures knew, I get even more excited about the future. Outside of some celestial event or cataclysm that knocks us back to the stone age, technology isn't going anywhere. I would be the first to agree that science took a wrong turn long ago, (as Nassim Haramein said at the int. gathering of physicists, everything we have created is based on blowing stuff up,,), meaning, all our tech has been based on the expansion of the universe, while the contraction factor was left out. Splitting the atom as opposed to fusing it. And we all know on some level that the real "good " side of the tech, the clean side, has been kept from us and why. It needs to be taken away from those who control it now and used to balance instead of destroy... It is interesting why Silva never talks about the true "state of the union" when talking about tech. And I always find pieces of his rants that I don't care for,, but I also get something from them. I often stop and wonder in awe about the subjects he proposes. And, I don't know about others here, but it seems so clear to me that all this tech is a primitive , physical manifestation of what we are capable of when we go within. It is a step that,like it or not, we are right in the middle of in this amazing time we live in. We have the same task to accomplish within now as we do in our physical world... Taking the reins back from those who have controlled and restricted the release and development of tech is the equivalent of becoming responsible enough to handle what we are truly capable of within. I don't believe we need the the physical tv's or computers or phones that we have now.I believe the tech has been much more advanced for a long time, but they still make them,wasting precious resources and creating long term problems just to feed economies. Maybe this is not the best example, but to me, this conundrum about how to change the course of tech in our outer world can only be solved by developing ourselves within. I don't think we need to shun it, resistance only strengthens it,,,,but, as we, I mean,if we make "progress" within, our illusory "need" for "it" would decrease, and I can't think of a better more "peacefully non-compliant way to reshape our world around us.

I have a hard time imagining how the people who have developed computer chips do it,,but there has to be some subconcious link to building a human brain. I think that there have been many discoveries in the new physics that aren't being used for good. The discovery that our neuro networks can be rewired, to me, was one of the greatest in a long time. I'm sure they are using that in the quest for AI,, but,,,we should be using it to make progress within, as that little discovery showed us,,,,if we chose to see it,,,that anything is possible! How huge is that? Maybe it just wasn't astounding enough to slap people in the face these days, not dramatic enough, but it closed the door on one of our oldest beliefs(that we are stuck with what we got!,and,,that's just the way I am), and opened the door to endless possibilities! It will force us to take responsibility for ourselves, the opposite of what our society does.We can't blame it on the computer anymore, or genetics,or some pundit,as we have the power to change it

I wouldn't worry about Jason so much,,,he always starts with a famous quote,,,then runs off with it. He seems to be stuck on the wonder of the state of technology around us, but never seems to get past it being an extension of the human mind.I think that is only half the story. I would rather see it as a circle that will lead us back to our inner selves.....that gives it a purpose,and in that respect, something that could help us on our path...and we can use all the help we can get (smiley icon here)

I look forward to the day when humans realize that the mind and the brain are two separate entities. It's been proven that the mind does not need the brain in order to function. Whereas the brain is the physical apparatus, the mind can generate images and thoughts even after a person is dead.

There are countless accounts of people who have died (ie. no heart, lung, or brain function), then they travel through a tunnel towards the light or whatever, and afterward re-enter the physical body to tell us of their experiences. How could they remember such things if thought is soley dependent on the brain? How can these vivid memories possibly be produced by a brain that is dead? It is the mind, connected with the infinite, that makes these things possible.

The brain is a remarkable organ, but it is earthbound and its impulses are dependent upon other body systems. It is the interpretor --not the originator of thought -- as we've been taught. The mind, on the other hand, is the bridge between physical manifestation and Creation itself.

Those who have explored the rabbit hole understand that the Darwinian theory of evolution is just another scam to keep humanity thinking that we're just the offspring of apes. Humans are unique and precious expressions of the Divine. I think it's high time we realized our value within the universe and stop embracing unfettered and unconscionable consumerism as the way forward. (Whose agenda does this really serve?) We don't need all this crap! We must remember that all these high-tech components are non-biodegradable and highly toxic to the earth. In my opinion, the Egyptians, Incas, Mayans, etc. were far more technologically-advanced than "modern man", and if we go back to the Atlanteans and Lemurians, our current system of cut and burn, rape and plunder seems quite primitive and immature. (Not to mention, irresponsible and suicidal.)

As for Silva, Bob and Todd have expressed my sentiments well. Instead of constantly peddling the transhumanism agenda, I'd like to see him put his charismatic speaking skills to better use by speaking to how technology can be used responsibly to help us undo the damage we've done to the planet. Our survival may depend upon us uncovering our true history and learning its lessons. At this point in time, I think the way back is the way forward.

Or two or ...

Why are we here in physicality and experiencing this 3D environment the way we do. Is it to learn to deny it? Or refute it? Is it to learn how not to be here? Is it some kind of punishment? Is it for some kind of persistent reminder of how stupid we can be? How stupid physicality is? I mean is there anything good about the physical world and if not then why the fuc*? We are geniuses at berating each others motives and existence. Can we really get any where if we don't go beyond this. Can we go beyond if we invalidate every thing we do? Do we need one more person to point the finger and state what has become the obvious now? Should we forget one more time that every single person that has discovered some profound new knowledge or understanding, has been chastised and ridiculed or even harmed or killed by traditionalists and conservatives that are in power, comfortable and don't want change? Do we not have enough laws or standards to hold ourselves to or box ourselves in with? Why is it that we always want to define and clearly state our stupidity in rigid lines as some kind of principle that needs to be followed and adhered to, when we just find out later we are way off the mark. We don't get it.

Or is it to take what we have in front of us and evolve it to be of some benefit or asset to our experience?

We HAVE to find a way to stop the battle and the constant conflict. The incessant objecting and warning and ridiculing and judging. There has to be a way to correct ourselves and our mistakes and mistaken objectives without berating one another's perspectives. We have to be able to be wrong without being an asshole or evil or someone not to be trusted or even someone that needs to be eliminated or broken. I believe with the right information, we would all want the same things. We limit our sources of useful information when we reject things to an absolute.

I don't know, it just hasn't done us any good up to this point and we keep right on operating the same way.

One other thing here. This is just my observation and I'm not saying anyone has to agree. I'm just honestly telling you what I see. So I'm not upset or mad and I hope no one else is. I don't think Silva is pushing anything. Some of the things some of you hear in his videos are nowhere to be found when I'm watching. I hear Silva observing what is and describing what he sees, from his POV, and what he imagines to come. Just because you can't view it that way doesn't mean he has some devious agenda. Honestly I don't know how you get to where you take him with your beliefs, determinations, judgements, opinions and guesses. There is a certain beauty to his descriptions of what he sees, devoid of any negativity and you totally miss the experience. I think you see what you will. Many things he opines are very, very close to dead on, whether you think it should be that way or not. Some things that evolve in this world, do so regardless of our supposed influence or desires, one way or the other. (I think that's called GRACE) While many of those things set uneasy with us, they will not be denied nonetheless. Many things that occur that way turn out to fit into the scheme of everything in such a way as we never even imagined.

And then you hear the proverbial "DOHT!" faintly in the wind.

Gary, each of us must walk our own path. Each sees the world through our own individual filters, so they'll never be total concensus. It doesn't "invalidate" some aspect of humanity when something that was said or done doesn't resonate as truth. When we disagree, we are exercising our freewill to choose... and that's a most beautiful, divine right (which is supposedly unique to this planet). So let's delight in it.

From my perspective, you would understand the answers to your questions much better if you looked within yourself instead of looking to outer influences for answers.

from a more right brain "broad brush" perspective, I see and hear Silva as an enthusiastic cheerleader, stoking the fires of hope and promise. At times using made up terms that fit his intuitive take on the thing or idea he is elaborating on.

on complexity, the Cosmos' apparent primary intention and push towards novelty, I refer to one of my all-time fav's, the late Terence McKenna who saw the Cosmos as a novelty engine. Complexity in and of itself is a dead giveaway for some form of an original primal "intelligent" thoughtful conscious self aware intention that set the path for complexity and novelty, complete with a deeelicious side of apparent constant entropy to make it all the more interesting in a yin yang conundrum sort of way...

Thanks Noah, for the advice.

As it were, the questions are actually rhetorical in nature, so the answers saught are not unsettled things that I'm grappling with, the answers to my questions would be thoughts and input from others is all. Just consideration of some consensus towards developing a different approach when dealing with different view points and especially beliefs.

You have a way of going right below my meaning and pulling it down. Perhaps I don't make myself clear.

I know everyone won't agree, it's just when we don't we could have a more purposeful, mature, civil and productive way of dissent and further consideration towards mutual understanding. I say let's sort out and delight in our mutual views, combining our abilities and efforts.

I'm not trying to get or wanting everyone to agree or think like me, I'm trying to get us to think together.

All I can say is ... yeah you're right.

Hi Gary,

Sorry if I came across overly critical. I think overall this post is actually very thought provoking and enjoyable - one of the better posts we've had here in a while. I'm sorry I didn't initially express more gratitude. I think I've been somewhat on the grumpy side at this website for a while so I extend my apologies to everyone here for not being more civil.

Thanks for your excellent post. Even though I don't usually agree with Silva, I like and appreciate his videos for stirring up new ways of thinking about things.