The Evolutionary Theory is a theory. There is indirect evidence which would suggest that the theory is more likely than not, true. Furthermore, no one has provided an alternative and logical answer as to how human kind / life came into existance.

I have used the Evolutionary Theory (ET) as an example to put forward a strong case for the fact that the mind has intangible qualities (exists beyond time and space). No one has proved that thought process is something which is exclusively the product of chemical reactions within the mind. And there is much indirect evidence which proves that there are no limits to the imagination (or how the mind works), such evidence demonstrated by the rockets we send into space and by the mobile communications and technology we use today.

So on this basis, I would say that there just a strong case for the above mind theory as there is for ET. Anyone disagree?

Those who do not accept the Evolutionary Theory, please do not respond to this post.

"Self-knower, self-hangman"

I am not so sure we even know what we mean by the word "mind," let alone be able to talk about whether mental activity is strictly a biological function or not. What kind of evidence could there be either way? We certainly see the effects of human beings everywhere, from filmclips of walking on the moon to MMORGS to Elgar's Enigma Variations; such is a reality endowed by human meaning. But either assumption could be the cause of human phenonema.

Nor am I so sure, without some discussion, about what one would mean by "intangible qualities" that exist beyond time and space, and what kind of existence these would have. Even ideas exist in time (I am having an idea right now, and it is "I" sitting here who is having it).

And if we have no understanding of what mental activity is, we have even less about what is having it---or for that matter, that there anything else remaining after we factor out the activity itself. "I think, therefore I am" can just as easily been seen as only "there now is thinking."

And would it not be more "scientific" to assume for now that beyond the physical activities of the brain, complex as they are, there is no deus ex machina, no ghost in the machine, given our understand of science and how it analyses actual data?

Just some thoughts to add to the discussion.......
Z

I think we have some understanding of the mind. It's the place where ideas comes together, it's what defines the qualities of an individual, it's the place where decision-making takes place. It would be scientific to assume that there is no deus ex machina, since science is based on observation (physical) and evidence. This is the difficulty; I don't think science can ever prove things which aren't intanigble. The only evidence we have is our mind and the ideas which flow from it (the evolutionary theory...today's technology...etc...). Isn't to deny the mind's own existance to deny ourselves and our greatness?

Dear MIT

I know I don't subscribe to the "evolutionary theory", however, may I please say: I, on a level, agree with you.

When the most intellegent people only use 10% of the brain, it begs the question, what does the other 90% do? I believe the human mind is much more powerful than learned people have been able to discover.

I firmly believe the mind can heal and make one sick. I believe, a long time ago, I observed exactly this.

My Grandmother in 1976 was diagnosed with colon cancer. The cancer was successfully removed and she went another 8 years cancer free. As someone who has dealt first hand with cancer, I am aware that after 5 years clean, the medical community considers you cured. This is where the brain part comes in, for those 8 years my grandmother insisted that they had missed some cancer and that she was dying. The doctors could find nothing for those 8 years, then one day, up pops colon cancer again which eventually took her life.

This leads me to only one conclusion, she gave the cancer back to herself, through will. If you believe something strongly enough, I believe you can make it occur.

Of course this is only just my opinion.

I wanted to ad something.
Evolution states that when something needed to be "upgraded" then the animal would evolve and get that part or turn into a different animal made for that situation.

You reminded me of something I had heard when I saw the topic. I hope you do not mind if I post it.

Our Brain has more space and capacity than we need we dont even use hardly any of the processing power let alone the space yet its there. Evolution states things evolve when they need more....the brain breaks that theory.

This post has been edited by cowsgonemadd3: Apr 7 2008, 10:46 PM

The original argument, as I understand it, begins with the division of the universe into two parts. First, there is the natural world, if you will the world of raw sense data and generally the object of scientific inquiry. Second, there is the purposeful human world, which includes the objects created from the natural world, history, civilisation, and artistic culture.
This distinction between the two aspects is at once obvious and valid.

The second step in the argument seems to run something like this: given the human world has "intangible" qualities, then they must have their origin in "intangible" qualities within the human mind. This seems to imply that only like causes can produce like effects, which is not as clear as the distinction between realms in the universe, since we understand that supposed non-physical causes can produce physical effects, as in the case of my creating a chair. Implied as well in this second step is that there is an enduring object, called "mind" and that this is something unique working independently of what we would normally call nature. Both of these assumptions in the second step, I suggest, require a great amount of discussion.
Z

That's not necessarily true. The brain sends out over 100 trillion messages a second, so I'm pretty sure most of our brain is being used for things we don't actively think about. Evolution could have brought about larger brains, because early humans that happened to develop larger brains survived more successfully than those without. Yes, some of our brain we may not use, but larger brains also means there is a larger portion of the parts of the brain we do actively use. Therefore, survival of the fittest deemed that larger brains were a necessity, so early humans evolved (over a very large period of time) to humans that have larger brains.

Just an observation:
If there is no such thing as evolution, then why has the average person gotten taller than centuries ago?

The way I understand it - not necessarily, although probably ultimately.

By that I mean that sometimes the evolutionary process produces a "downgrade". The resultant animal (or plant) may or may not then continue to exist, or it may again evolve into something slightly different which does.

For example, some evolutionary processes are better for a warmer climate while others work out better for a colder climate and the process continues from there.

Overslimplifying the concept removes the nuances when it really is the nuances that make the theory work.

Just an observation.

I didn't really want to get into the 'upgraded argument', but here it goes anyway...

It's correct that evolution is about adapting to change/need. The brain theory, I imagine, would be relevant in the stage before evolution occurs... You think about achieving something, you then set about implementing it. Your mind knows no bounds, it's physically that one is constrained, and with time physical change occurs...

Doesn't sound scientific at all, but the logic should flow somewhere in that paragraph...