LRH, Natural Selection & The Dynamic Principle of Existence

[SpecialFrog]

Oh, and BTW, Lamarck is getting back into fashion in biology circles. It has been shown that adaptations to stressful living conditions in one lifetime can be transmitted via DNA to offspring who will display those adaptations even though the stressful conditions are no longer present. Lamarck lives on!

Do you mean Sheldrake? I think he has a ways to go to demonstrate that he is on to anything (as opposed to being on something). People who have collaborated on experiments with him have drawn the opposite conclusions from him using the same data.

 

[Rene Descartes]

Oh, and BTW, Lamarck is getting back into fashion in biology circles. It has been shown that adaptations to stressful living conditions in one lifetime can be transmitted via DNA to offspring who will display those adaptations even though the stressful conditions are no longer present. Lamarck lives on!

There we go talking about Natural Selection again

Rd00

 

[Rene Descartes]

Leon,

I figured sooner or later someone might come along and put the spin on things and promote the DPE.

The DPE might be a strong philosophical statement.

But it is quite unworthy as a Scientific Axiom.

If a scientist first developed the DPE as a scientific theory I suspect that after enough experiementation and observation someone would have come along and deemedit to be be inadequate and axiomized a concept like Natural Selection.

Rd00

 

[rich]

Note that Natural Selection explains what happened there to the dodo. But the Dynamic Principle of Existence does not.

.

Didn't LRH say somewhere that Darwin was wrong because ,obviously things tend to naturaly degrade rather than evolve? Or am I mis-atributing that quote?

 

[Leon]

Leon,

I figured sooner or later someone might come along and put the spin on things and promote the DPE.

The DPE might be a strong philosophical statement.

But it is quite unworthy as a Scientific Axiom.

If a scientist first developed the DPE as a scientific theory I suspect that after enough experiementation and observation someone would have come along and deemedit to be be inadequate and axiomized a concept like Natural Selection.

Rd00

I fully agree with you on this. And I would include most of his other "axioms" too.

 

[Leon]

Didn't LRH say somewhere that Darwin was wrong because ,obviously things tend to naturaly degrade rather than evolve? Or am I mis-atributing that quote?

If he did say this - and I don't recall seeing it before in his works - then he got it totally WRONG.

There is nothing "natural" about it. Decay and so on is a fully implanted datum set up as part of the game plan for this universe.

There is no fundamental reason why any creation should decay.

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

If he did say this - and I don't recall seeing it before in his works - then he got it totally WRONG.

There is nothing "natural" about it. Decay and so on is a fully implanted datum set up as part of the game plan for this universe.

There is no fundamental reason why any creation should decay.

Leon, there is a law of nature which corrupt everything, it is the second law of thermodynamics which states that disorder tend to increase in the universe. Thats the reason why you don't get younger, you grow old and die in the end. Drop a glass of water on the floor, and see its parts, and fine grained pieces scattering all over the ground, and that is the natural order of increased disorder through time because it would violate the second law if the reversed happened, namely the parts assembling themselves on the floor with water flowing into the glass and the whole glass jumping up into your hand!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Heat_death_of_the_universe

Hubbard changed his mind regarding evolution just as member rich has said!
http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_evolution.html

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Genes has built up organisms that want to survive so the genes can makes copies of themselves into the next generation!

Teleonomy : the quality of apparent purposefulness of structure or function in living organisms due to evolutionary adaptation!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleonomy

 

[Terril park]

Leon, there is a law of nature which corrupt everything, it is the second law of thermodynamics which states that disorder tend to increase in the universe. Thats the reason why you don't get younger, you grow old and die in the end. Drop a glass of water on the floor, and see its parts, and fine grained pieces scattering all over the ground, and that is the natural order of increased disorder through time because it would violate the second law if the reversed happened, namely the parts assembling themselves on the floor with water flowing into the glass and the whole glass jumping up into your hand!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Heat_death_of_the_universe

Hubbard changed his mind regarding evolution just as member rich has said!
http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_evolution.html

There is a concept in Scn and elsewhere that life is senior to matter. Valid as the second law is, creating a universe is a senior datum.

If one only had the second law there would be no life, no universe......and
no second law.

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

There is a concept in Scn and elsewhere that life is senior to matter. Valid as the second law is, creating a universe is a senior datum.

If one only had the second law there would be no life, no universe......and
no second law.

Na!
The second law in action is something observable, meanwhile life as senior to matter and creator of the universe is not observable, it is only a figment of your imagination. But on the other hand it is a grain of truth in it, a grain which can be seen only with “a microscope”. Life works in the other direction, life knows that something is out to get him he knows it through hunger that he will die if he doesn’t eat. But by breathing and eating and radiate heat trough sweating and thus sustaining his temperature at 37.0 degrees Celsius is life way to locally tell the second law that he is superior as long as he has a power source to draw upon.

Life can climb upwardly in evolution just as water can “climb uphill” by power of the sun through evaporation and raining on some hill and streaming down the hill and drive some waterwheel somewhere. A Waterwheel is a mechanical counterpart to an organism, but metaphorical speaking it comes with a price the second law can accept this if you give him his due by increasing disorder more globally than you can decrease locally so the second law holds truth. As is evidenced by high quality photons from the sun warming life on earth, and radiate off as low quality photons out to the outer space!

 

[Leon]

Leon, there is a law of nature which corrupt everything, it is the second law of thermodynamics which states that disorder tend to increase in the universe. Thats the reason why you don't get younger, you grow old and die in the end. Drop a glass of water on the floor, and see its parts, and fine grained pieces scattering all over the ground, and that is the natural order of increased disorder through time because it would violate the second law if the reversed happened, namely the parts assembling themselves on the floor with water flowing into the glass and the whole glass jumping up into your hand!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Heat_death_of_the_universe

Hubbard changed his mind regarding evolution just as member rich has said!
http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_evolution.html

What you say is correct, Peter. I don't dispute it. But it only applies to this universe and it applies because the idea of it was implanted into us all at the start of it as part of the "rules of the game" in this universe. The universe was itself structured to behave this way.

But at basic it is all bullshit. There is no fundamental reason why a creation should ever decay. It only does so (or appears to) when decay has been artificially built into the system.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Well, as for enthropy being bullshit.. You'd have to be God himself, prior to creation of the universe, to think so, and you'd have to be a bull too!

Now there's an 'image' of God for you..

Harrummph.. Implant!? - Now, an 'Implant', as we learned from Hubturd, is something that resides in a mind.. It is quite an 'expansion' of the concept to have the universe 'implanted' as such... But, such 'splattering' of a concept all over the place and reversing of logic IS a hallmark, if not a dynamic principle, of Hubturdian mindboggeling.. Hmm..

Anyway.. When Hubturd said that 'Survival was the 'Dynamic Principle of Existence', he was obviously thinking of that 'Principle' in the confines of this universe.. Because, as I've asked: Why would an immortal being concern himself with survival?

Ah.. I need to round this off with something really profound..

If you can't learn by your mistakes, there's no good reason to make another!

 

[Leon]

There's nothing profound about your "Why would an immortal being concern himself with survival" question. Hubbard himself saw the paradox in this and mentioned it in many earlier lectures.

And you don't need to call on God either, he doesn't come in to it. Just a plain old reference to basic principles is all one needs to recognize that the sort of programming I refer to must be present in some form. If you want to call it something other than Implanting then that is fine by me. But the programming is there and you and I and everyone else is running on it.