Tag: Bennett

Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s Theory by Mike Sutton | Curtis Press

A while back we discussed the charges of Darwin plagiarizing Wallace, but now they are both accused of plagiarizing Patrick Matthews.
One must be careful not to trust anything here and the connection with Patrick Matthews has been around for a long time without the charge of plagiarism. The connection of Darwin with Wallace is also most suspicious, and I was ‘sort of’ aware of Wallace’s knowledge of Mathews. To interpret this situation as plagiarism is interesting to say the least. I will read the book.

These discussions sometimes have the effect of defending natural selection theory indirectly while exposing the priority issue.
Let’s not forget that the theory of natural selection is false, very clearly so on the simplest statistical grounds and the issue of priority while important is about a theory that isn’t science. Perhaps this situation exposes also the difficulty of finding a real theory and the while the mystery falls into oversimplification. But how is it that generations of biologists could not debried this theory? The answer is that an agenda, or set of agendas is at work. Secularists are determined to enforce Darwin’s theory to buttress atheism, while the capitalist mafia is downright ‘that’s groovy’ on the subject of vicious cruelty and competitive survival of the fittest. What a windfall in the process of brainwashing the public, with a nary a peep form the professional idiots at work here.
We must not forget that the fact of evolution is clear as an empirical finding but that the mechanism of evolution is way beyond us. Natural selection allowed scientists to bury their heads in the sand and produce a reductionist science. It is a complete fantasy. But evolution has to be hypercomplex, most probably teleological and with a hypercomplex design construction argument. Scientists sensing their plight: evolution as beyond current science, fall into a kind of hysterical mental derangement and pretend to have a theory when they don’t. We have explored a number of other approaches starting with the Kantian teleomechanists and most of all Lamarck who was the first with the best common sense about evolution: it was a rise of complexity over long eras on one level and an environmental interaction on a lower level: he was the first to see the distinction of macro and micro and deserves to be considered the first real theorist of evolution, even granting the inchoate nature of his thinking. Darwin, or Mathews, reduced evolution to one level and there the whole progress got stuck until now.

It is almost incredible that biologists en masse are stuck still after more than a century and a half with a completely idiotic theory like natural selection. Part of the problem is that no one has observed the mechanism of evolution in deep time and are confined to guesswork against a void: seeing evolution as a fact is simple enough from the fossil record but the mechanism behind the construction of animal plans and species change is going to be a real humdinger.
We can infer a few things: ‘evolution’ must operate over the (whole) surface of a planet, be able to recall its previous interactions and return in place to remorph given structures, be able to construct/induce self-construction of hypercomplex body plans. The process seems thus a form of ‘intelligent design’ but that is probably another trap and is favored by the ID groups on the religious right and the result is a stealth theistic argument. But the god hypothesis fails for evolution: ‘god’ doesn’t interact in time, and in fact ‘god’ as a term has been so corrupted by pop monotheism as to be unusable for science altogether. The ‘god’ explanation has to be false because ‘god’ is omnipotent and wouldn’t have to bootstrap evolution in stages. That leaves a sort of ‘smart mechanism’ of unknown character which shows design which looks like mind in nature but the latter is still another metaphysical trap. Evolution looks more like an strange AI process that learns as its goes along, and self-constructs complexity with a set of boosts that defy the role of chance.
The reason that design arguments seem to fail is that explanations must be constructive and show in detail how a higher process interacts with nature to produce complex body plans. We can’t just guess with another a ‘god’ paranym like mind in nature. What we must suspect is that evolution has a cosmological dimension applied to planets, which are ‘gardens’ for the evolution of life and that natural structures emerge in a bootstrapping process that learns as it goes along: AI in a natural form a better approach.
We have often discussed J.G. Bennett’s take which is too controversial but still interesting: evolution is ‘hyparchic’ in his terminology, which is like a writer with successive drafts: nature remorphing its emergent products as it goes along, draft after draft. His hyparxis is hyperdimensional in a set of six dimensions: space/time in three/four, eternity a fifth, and hyparxis a sixth: hyparxis interacts with a form process in eternity and space-time, and computes future alternates. The implies that evolution is related to spooky physics.

Well, Bennett had a kind of new-age extravagance but he faced the real issues.

The so-called eonic model has its own insights, with the idea of a form factor bootstrapping on the surface of a planet to generate a biofield that can bootstrap body plans and regulate speciation over a planet. The eonic model is about civilizations, but offers a hint about early evolution.

Well, all well and good, but the eonic effect gives us a real insight into how a complex structure (here a civilization) can evolve over ten millennia, with data actually only over about half that. But that glimpse is telling, and gives us a sense of the awesome scale of evolution, cosmological, biological, and socio-cultural.

Source: Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s Theory by Mike Sutton | Curtis Press

Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s Theory by Mike Sutton | Curtis Press

A while back we discussed the charges of Darwin plagiarizing Wallace, but now they are both accused of plagiarizing Patrick Matthews.
One must be careful not to trust anything here and the connection with Patrick Matthews has been around for a long time without the charge of plagiarism. The connection of Darwin with Wallace is also most suspicious, and I was ‘sort of’ aware of Wallace’s knowledge of Mathews. To interpret this situation as plagiarism is interesting to say the least. I will read the book.

These discussions sometimes have the effect of defending natural selection theory indirectly while exposing the priority issue.
Let’s not forget that the theory of natural selection is false, very clearly so on the simplest statistical grounds and the issue of priority while important is about a theory that isn’t science. Perhaps this situation exposes also the difficulty of finding a real theory and the while the mystery falls into oversimplification. But how is it that generations of biologists could not debried this theory? The answer is that an agenda, or set of agendas is at work. Secularists are determined to enforce Darwin’s theory to buttress atheism, while the capitalist mafia is downright ‘that’s groovy’ on the subject of vicious cruelty and competitive survival of the fittest. What a windfall in the process of brainwashing the public, with a nary a peep form the professional idiots at work here.
We must not forget that the fact of evolution is clear as an empirical finding but that the mechanism of evolution is way beyond us. Natural selection allowed scientists to bury their heads in the sand and produce a reductionist science. It is a complete fantasy. But evolution has to be hypercomplex, most probably teleological and with a hypercomplex design construction argument. Scientists sensing their plight: evolution as beyond current science, fall into a kind of hysterical mental derangement and pretend to have a theory when they don’t. We have explored a number of other approaches starting with the Kantian teleomechanists and most of all Lamarck who was the first with the best common sense about evolution: it was a rise of complexity over long eras on one level and an environmental interaction on a lower level: he was the first to see the distinction of macro and micro and deserves to be considered the first real theorist of evolution, even granting the inchoate nature of his thinking. Darwin, or Mathews, reduced evolution to one level and there the whole progress got stuck until now.

It is almost incredible that biologists en masse are stuck still after more than a century and a half with a completely idiotic theory like natural selection. Part of the problem is that no one has observed the mechanism of evolution in deep time and are confined to guesswork against a void: seeing evolution as a fact is simple enough from the fossil record but the mechanism behind the construction of animal plans and species change is going to be a real humdinger.
We can infer a few things: ‘evolution’ must operate over the (whole) surface of a planet, be able to recall its previous interactions and return in place to remorph given structures, be able to construct/induce self-construction of hypercomplex body plans. The process seems thus a form of ‘intelligent design’ but that is probably another trap and is favored by the ID groups on the religious right and the result is a stealth theistic argument. But the god hypothesis fails for evolution: ‘god’ doesn’t interact in time, and in fact ‘god’ as a term has been so corrupted by pop monotheism as to be unusable for science altogether. The ‘god’ explanation has to be false because ‘god’ is omnipotent and wouldn’t have to bootstrap evolution in stages. That leaves a sort of ‘smart mechanism’ of unknown character which shows design which looks like mind in nature but the latter is still another metaphysical trap. Evolution looks more like an strange AI process that learns as its goes along, and self-constructs complexity with a set of boosts that defy the role of chance.
The reason that design arguments seem to fail is that explanations must be constructive and show in detail how a higher process interacts with nature to produce complex body plans. We can’t just guess with another a ‘god’ paranym like mind in nature. What we must suspect is that evolution has a cosmological dimension applied to planets, which are ‘gardens’ for the evolution of life and that natural structures emerge in a bootstrapping process that learns as it goes along: AI in a natural form a better approach.
We have often discussed J.G. Bennett’s take which is too controversial but still interesting: evolution is ‘hyparchic’ in his terminology, which is like a writer with successive drafts: nature remorphing its emergent products as it goes along, draft after draft. His hyparxis is hyperdimensional in a set of six dimensions: space/time in three/four, eternity a fifth, and hyparxis a sixth: hyparxis interacts with a form process in eternity and space-time, and computes future alternates. The implies that evolution is related to spooky physics.

Well, Bennett had a kind of new-age extravagance but he faced the real issues.

The so-called eonic model has its own insights, with the idea of a form factor bootstrapping on the surface of a planet to generate a biofield that can bootstrap body plans and regulate speciation over a planet. The eonic model is about civilizations, but offers a hint about early evolution.

Well, all well and good, but the eonic effect gives us a real insight into how a complex structure (here a civilization) can evolve over ten millennia, with data actually only over about half that. But that glimpse is telling, and gives us a sense of the awesome scale of evolution, cosmological, biological, and socio-cultural.

Source: Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s Theory by Mike Sutton | Curtis Press

science, scientism and the failure of reductionism…//Dualism and Materialism in Modern Neuroscience  – 1848+: The End(s) of History

I am a student of science bar none, but I have also learned from the larger sphere of culture and global diversity the limits of science and its failure so far to provide a world view that can stand beyond a provincial form of cliche/science in the realms of sociology, psychology, and finally evolution. And the ream of quantum science and beyond has failed to provide a world view in the way that the Newtonian era produced a very (dogmatic) fundamentalism of scientism. Marxism foundered in this legacy and is a dogmatic and out-of-date failed ideology. An urgent need for a replacement haunts the cult of Marx and his early nineteenth-century formulas for a ‘science of history’ as economic stages or epochs of production. The mood of reductionism is a curse for a revolutionary ideology that must speak to the largest cultural sphere but is self-condemned to the narrowest of science cultism that incidentally we might note spawned the great Romantic reaction.
The issue of ‘will’ is typical of the limits of the older dead paradigm, and in the end Marx so strangely condemned the left of his milieu to long-term failure against the larger and more flexible sphere of twentieth-century diversity of thought.
We have discussed multiple times the issue of ‘will’ in the context of scientism along with the question of evolution. The world of modern culture has been forced to pay its dues to science and then to ignore the vacuum of explanation in the realm of man as a whole: https://redfortyeight.com/?s=will%2C+bennett

The reality is that both religion and science spheres have lost their grip on the question of ‘reality’ and the general culture flounders in a curious incoherence of world views, not least the endless confusion over ‘free will’, the nature of man, and the question of will in general

The left is paralyzed by its Marxist axioms and cannot produce a real anthropology at this point. And citing Bennett, more or less a liberal thinker, we should note the way he became entangled in the ‘new age’ right’s attempt to outflank scientism with a potentially superior critique of the limits of science and in the process seeding the fascist right that we see coming into existence all over again in our own time: the world of Gurdjieff and various Sufis, not even religious traditionalists as such, promoted such an attack on modernity, freedom and democracy, yet had a far broader view of man than the sterile world of scientism stuck in its Darwinism, Newtonian fictions, etc….

This is a cogent critique, but perhaps misses the point in terms of the category of materialism: the result is as usual put in the context of a theological debate, but the real issue is, what are t…

Source: Dualism and Materialism in Modern Neuroscience  – 1848+: The End(s) of History

The mystery of evolution

update: it is useful to cite J.G. Bennett’s account of evolution to those who think a ‘religious’ thinker should inject theism into the account. Bennett tries to actually construct an evolutionary dynamic using his model of space/time/’eternity’/hyparxis as a novel geometry, a striking anticipation probably muddled of spooky physics. The point seems to be that the hyparchic dimension gives a hint of the way a potential form factor computes form potentials which then realize as experimental new species instances. Continue reading “The mystery of evolution” →

The Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures ver13ax

The Last Revolution_Postcapitalist_Futures_ver13ax

The previous version had a problem so here is version 13ax with a new title: The Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures…we already have two other books called Postcapitalist Futures…

I also put in the original much better essay on Samkhya: Ancient and Modern, with a cautionary note. The realms of yoga and sufism have many who absolutely detest Marxists. The ancient sutras belong to humanity, public domain since the Neolithic. But a lot of predatory guru types don’t always think so. The lore of original samkhya however is probably harmless, ditto for the now comically global so-called (hatha) ‘yoga’. The issue of the Marxist dialectic in relation to ancient Samkhya is almost comic.

The Brain Does Not Create the Mind; It Constrains It. | Mind Matters – The Gurdjieff Con – 1848+: The End(s) of History

This website often has good stuff, but its perspective (the site appears to be connected to the ID blog EvolutionNews, et al) is marred by the obsessive diatribes against materialism, not surprising if you promote religion.
But materialism has many varieties and we have often explored the version given by J.G.Bennett who made clear once and for all that universal materialism is appropriate even for spiritual s0-called discussions. That springs from the tradition of Samkhya with its universal materialism of triads and consciousness. A muddled subject but the echo of an very ancient now lost ‘spirituality’. Many philosophies are themselves ‘triadic hybrids’, as in Bennett’s Being, Function, Will. Note that for him ‘matter is merely an aspect of being, and ditto for spirit, which is non-such, another form under the being aspect, the mirror image of the material. The dividing line here is Kant who breakthrough distinction of noumenal/phenomenal is a still better hybrid, and the key to the confusions of soul-man and matter-man, viz the noumenal aspect of man lies in the ‘soul category/confusion/muddle. Noone can make use of the work of Kant which throws the whole question of soul into a new mode. But it is clear that the noumenal aspect divides the body-soul into false duality, the soul as metaphysical.  In any case there is no reason the ‘soul’ can’t be considered material, but not in the usual sense. Be skeptical here, but the muddle of current scientism is almost pathological. The ancient soul of man was a material entity of mysterious origin. The tradition still exists in some forms of sufism where the ‘soul’ in some new form is injected into the solar plexus region, somehow. This is a different brand from the common soul-state of homo sapiens. Most sufis and moslems are themselves ignorant here, and one suspects the whole spiritual technology and its mysterious got ripped off somehow and is in the possession of dark side rogue sufis, Gurdjieff being an example with his incessant discussions of body energies and soul.

Why If man always had a soul, would he need to also acquire one? I have no idea. But there is the obvious difference between the ‘soul/mind’ in reincarnation and a spiritual soul going beyond space-time./???? The species ‘soul’ of man is something like his larger ‘mind’ as it emerges as  complex package complete no doubt with spooky physics: at the noumenal/phenomenal greyzone. The other soul is who knows, but I suspect this doctrine was present in early christianity and then died out, and that, a guess, it first appears in Egyptian religion, and before that in Gurdjieff’s ‘pre-sand Egypt’, the neolithic. Buddhism’s ‘no soul’ teaching is no doubt connected in some mysterious way.

Try trotting over to sufi land and ask/harangue to be included, be  loud and obnoxious, thence from blank stares to the Big Blob. Worth a try.

But in the ten thousand years of human civilization since 10K BCE not a single civilization or religion has been able to provide man with a definition of who he is, his psychology and being. None. Not even Buddhism. Christianity was a mysterious fake, as Islam, and the whole esoteric tradition can’t show any real exemplars, our front. Garbage in, Garbage out, all the way. The age of science has proven no better, and somewhere between rat psychology and psychoanalysis a new and more studied incoherence has taken center stage with high hopes for a science.

If this is wrong, say so, and prove it wrong. J.G. Bennett suggested the obvious reason here: man’s psychology is so complex he can’t decipher himself. A psychology of man has to be more complicated than quantum physics, no doubt. But physics just goes into a funk on consciousness.

A cynical neurosurgeon colleague told Michael Egnor that he could not account for how a child patient’s NDE account described the operation accurately. Source: The Brain Does Not Create the Mind; I…

Source: The Brain Does Not Create the Mind; It Constrains It. | Mind Matters – The Gurdjieff Con – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Hyparxis, new agism, and a future left…//A developing discussion – The Gurdjieff Con

I have a long discussion of hyparxis at the Gurdjieff Con prefaced by this personal, almost incoherent, account of travels through the New Age movement. Leftist historical materialists will find this so appalling they might just ‘wig out’ in a dead faint. But if the left has to somehow mediate the cultural streams of the past, the new age movement becomes a research topic and a very difficult one. And dangerous. Behind the love beads and mantras stands a core of mostly hidden superreactionaries. You cannot fail to know your enemy here. These superreactionaries will eat marxists for breakfast (haha, a historical materialist). These people lurk behind the new right’s fascism in a direct connection so muddled it seems at first harmless. But the connection of figures like Bannon to Ouspensky are there.
Bennett is a sad figure: his original work is cluttered with mystical bum steers but he points to a way the left could accelerate into a viewpoint on yogas, paths, materialism of the Samkhya type. The left has to confront Christianity (Islam), Hinduism, Buddhism, and much else. Perhaps it is essential to ditch marxism and start over. Marx is confusing here: historical materialism struck a blow for secular humanism, but then tended to reduce Marxists into flatlanders. And then the ominous latent strain of Stalinism enters, and there is a serious risk to new agers of downright liquidation.
The left could construct a kind of lingua franca of cultural interaction entering socialism around the ideas of Samkhya yoga, its atheist materialism, and dialectic and strange connection to Christian theology.
We have to leave the junk new agism stuck in the past but the core of human exploration can’t be deleted in a degenerate socialism of leftist robots.

The idea of hyparxis is one of the few original ideas applied to evolutionary theories. I may have misunderstood it, and find it short of science, but its basic idea suggests that (pace Bennett) evolution mediates time and eternity (pure from, like ideal mathematical Ideas) as hyparxis. A man writing a novel mediates the ‘eternal’ dimension as the idea of a novel and its envisioned plot in a series of drafts and revisions, hyparxis, as the form of species emerges into environments that test that realization. It is a prodigiously ambitious attempt to storm the gates of glory with new approaches to evolution in the void left by the idiocy of natural selection fantasy theory.

I had an email exchange that resulted in some essays from me which I will try to reproduce as an essay. Nemonemini I am a veteran of new age movement but somewhat beyond it. I have ha…

Source: A developing discussion – The Gurdjieff Con