You got me to look up “noosphere” in order to compare it to my own preference for the genetic vs memetic terminology. It was quite an interesting read. They are indeed essentially the same thing, since in both cases we are talking about something completely physical (as in the natural sciences) rather than anything like Descartian dualism. “Memetic” is simply more focused on the inheritance and life aspect of the human mind, whereas “noosphere” like “biosphere” is more focused on the ecology and impact on the Earth as a whole and thus more directly includes human society and technology as a manifestation of memetic life.
I have tried in vain to find someplace where the translation stated that god’s blood was mixed with “ape” like creatures. It must have been expunged sometime in the last 5 years. It was not my idea either. I read it from another online poster. Probably more a Stitchin addition to make his point. It was in a massive debate about his ideology.
I think my favorite version of the Enuma Elish was online at one time done by a class of 5th graders.
I became aware of Teilhard’s writing (and his concept of the Noosphere) about the time of his death–about the time I was trying to absorb Evolution–the Modern Synthesis. It was enticing to speculate that each of the three phases in the history of our Universe may have developed through evolution; albeit following somewhat different ‘laws’. With respect to the “self-organizing” ability of matter, and the increase in total information, my lack of mathematical training quickly leaves me in in the dust.
I do envy anyone who can combine, in their struggle to comprehend the nature(?) of God, the images of Super Mathematician and Super Lover.
Al Leo
1 Like
I read farrell’s article Evolution & Original Sin and agreed with most of it. His strongest point I think is that there is no place for the traditionally understood Adam and Eve in the scientific record.
I’ve read most of the above comments, but found them frustrating because they seem to ignore the science. Whatever we make of the Biblical Text, there can be no further progress until people understand that we can no longer argue as if A&E existed. Instead we have to recognize that God’s “Book of Creation” has ruled that out. Ignoring these facts relegates to arguing endless about something that didn’t happen.
The main roadblock in this seems to be the reluctance to do away with the idea that God at some specific point in time gave a spriitual soul to humans. Perhaps the more fruitful discussion might be to look critically at how humans could be created by God through evolutionary events and could from that divine creation exhibit soul-like behavior. To say that we can’t have freewill or rational thinking without the duality of introducing a spiritual soul gets in the way of such critical thinking. Recent brain studies such as those by Stanislaus Dehaenes show clearly that free will is what the brain does all the time even though biased by many influences, and that intellection is also how the brain operates. This doesn’t mean we don’t have spiritual souls, but it does say we pretty much don’t need them for everyday life.
1 Like
Very well put. Thank you
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.