Deduction for Future Evolution of Species

Technology Encourages Advanced Intellect

Knowledge presented by the scientific method shattered scholastic consideration for real-time events. Society began to question instead of take for granted the origins and purpose of life. {Peer} wrote: “The changes that are sometimes so hard for the scientific community to make in the society at large can be even harder to make within the scientific community.”

Yes, changes that greatly impact human existence are difficult to accept or reject, depending on one’s stance. Science not only discovers empirical fact, but they then have to figure out how to introduce new truth to society after they battle it out with their peers.

I like to do comparisons to see if we can predict any future historical happenings via deduction. Evolution and the printing press, if we allow these to be classified as encouraging progress, prepared humans for modernism. Once modern, humanity took a step back and developed post-modernism to correct the errors created by aggressive reason (rising ethics and repulsion to barbarism). Around this time, society received new input from offices of authority – the Internet piggy-backed off the printing press and Quantum Theory came roaring in to make evolution look like Link-in-Logs. One of the most cliché sayings, “History repeats itself,” is lingering…. If the printing press (15th c) presented the ability to issue in the scientific revolution (17th, 18th, 19th c) then we may deduce that approximately 200 years after the Internet (20th c) – maybe less if we account for the advancement of the human brain as means to reduce the rate of improvement – so…let us allot for exponential growth, say 115 years… with this rough estimation, science (though it might be called something different by then, think “natural philosophers” becoming specialist scientists) may expect another revolution around 2131 c.e.

This, of course, is under the assumption that Isis does not behead or blow up humanity, and that overpopulation has not encouraged the other organic systems to eradicate the human species as means of defense. The good news is that the advancement of species displays the immense possibilities for the future, but the bad news is that our intelligence may lead to unimaginable morphisms, which current consciousness fears the loss of human nature. I do not think the latter will happen. Human nature is adaptive, it will undoubtedly change but it will not disappear. Religion will also change, adapting to the demands of society – it has to because it is a human expression and a collective effort that creates society.

In one realm of existence, religion may stay the same until the people who believe its mantras no longer exist, but quantum theory tells us that there is a realm where religion merges with science, a realm where religion dies as well as one where science ends, and realms where chaos or harmony may be the result. In 115 years, human intelligence may balk or embrace multiple dimensional realms – we, unfortunately, are not yet evolved enough to accept the truth of the future.

Picture c/o:×300.jpg


Writing Prompt: Flex that Creativity

Future Self as Voyeur

Prompt:  In 100 words, capture what your future self would think of your current actions, or a reaction to this statement, “[Motivation is found] thinking that my future self is watching me through memories” (Evi, Pacifica Community Post).

Thank reason, I thought to myself while scrolling through my unorganized memory system, I finally released the intrusive urge for uniqueness of being. I knew the thought catalog would become fluid soon, now that reason is understood as natural and morality is released of dogmatic obligations. I smile and casually sip my coffee, as I remember how I relinquished authority from the supernatural. My younger-young self tragically shattered, she asked how a faery-creature could continue without wings…but the answer was simple – I had legs my own all along. What good are imagined wings when real feet carry one much further?

Picture c/o: Reminding us that Yes! it is okay to not believe. Thanks for a lovely image.

Discussion Request: Yep…on Consciousness

Currently reading JJ Semple’s The Biology of Consciousness:  Case Studies in Kundalini

Dear fellow blogger who recommended this title…Where for art thou? lol Let’s get an online “Consciousness Hangloose” rolling <>

I have only begun reading Semple’s piece, but I am eager to discuss what has transpired thus far. What I am finding as crucial is the value of variant experiences in regards to spirituality/consciousness, and the relation betwixt the two. What I mean is:  to define Kundalini, as primordial formative authority, takes more than one individual’s contemplation and it is better understood by multiple voices. Semple notes early on that no two experiences are the same, indicating that an individual’s connection to primeval life force is a personal “relationship.” On the negative side, for empirical considerations, if no two are the same than neither can be properly tested or observed. Semple attaches the senses – where empirical data is acquired – to consciousness, specifically to the Ego or “Conscious Spirit” as opposed to the “Primal Spirit” (21).

Ahh…more dualism. The conscious human being is aware of the self’s inner abilities to think, observe, and theorize. The Primal Spirit, however, is the other half to the whole – the way an individual viewed the self before the individual was told what one was supposed to think {social conditioning}. The Primal Spirit is able to be in relation to the Conscious Spirit through Kundalini and mediation. If possible, this process – referred to as “Evolutionary Impulses” – the Primal Spirit is able to reconstruct, fix, or improve the individual based on one’s internal blueprints. Semple said, “Kundalini doesn’t only reengineer the body; it remakes the psyche” (22).

In the brain lies the blueprints for how the individual is supposed to be formed. Due to accidents throughout one’s life, development and growth may be stunted or halted. Semple claims that through Kundalini meditation and practice that the Primal Spirit can fix experience’s errors. <>Interesting.

This will be a challenge for me – to try Kundalini, not to read the book – as I am leery of the term spirituality because it initially conjures up images of the Transcendentalist movement and a rejection of the material world. Due to my graduate studies, my thinking process has greatly altered. Currently, I look to science for answers demonstrated through the empirical method. Semple says that one must discard what one knows to start fresh. Like he quotes in the text, I agree with Socrates in that “all I know is that I know nothing.” But, I’d like to note the context of this quote:  it is found in Plato’s The Republic and shows up when someone credits Socrates as the person who had the most knowledge – but Socrates, because he is wise, thinks that he knows very little because there is so much more knowledge to discover. On another level, the angle I think Semple is demonstrating, is that Socrates – or any human organism – is not formulated to understand primordial ordeals through the conscious mind. This indicates that there is another “voice,” one that is above the animal kingdom. The Primal Spirit – or primordial voice – sings in tunes that human ears cannot hear because we are blocked by Ego. By reducing the ego, the individual may commune with the primordial.

Important to Note:  the primordial voice is Natural and connected to natural selection and evolution; the primordial voice is biological and interactive with human consciousness.

I have a meditation routine I practice nightly to help me fall asleep. My motivation lies in the fact that I have 333 billion thoughts racing through my mind at every given moment. I use meditation to slow my brain and calm my breathing. I envision that I approach a plank, lie down on it stiffly, and let the plank move back and forth slowly swinging. By concentrating on breathing, I am able to ignore rampant thoughts. I tried one of Semple’s breathing methods last night, and I experienced something different than usual.

Kundalini Meditation Experiment #1

Something I can only describe as an intense “heat” or “energy” rooted in my spine mimicking the beating of my heart. I was more “aware” of my heartbeat, it’s weight, pulse and sound. I had to cease the breathing method and resort to my tried and true mediation breath patterns to “calm down” my heartbeat and blood circulation. I slept well and awoke refreshed. Will note next experience.

DISCUSSION:  How do you define spirituality? Can spirituality be compared to, or a parallel of, consciousness? How would you define Kundalini?

Works Cited

Semple, JJ. The Biology of Consciousness:  Case Studies in Kundalini. Bayside, California:  Life Force Books, 2013.

Picture c/o:

Science Speaks but Society Cherry-Picks Ideals

One question I still have for modern science is – have they been able to discover why the female brain is smaller than the male? Granted, I utilize deduction a good bit so my non-scientific conclusion to the brain size issue is that: men are bigger and stronger (biologically) than the female gender…therefore their brains by necessity would be slightly larger. I have always thought that organs were in proportion to their bodies.

I cannot remember which thread we were in, but I believe we discussed context – and taking things in or out of context. I see this as a huge hurdle for the historian. i.e.: Social Darwinism was the social reaction to Darwin’s theory – but they only took what they wanted, or could use, to further support their schematic. In “The Descent of Man (1871),” Darwin addressed the different physicalities of non-Europeans and Europeans, he said:

But since he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species… Nevertheless, all the races agree in so many unimportant details of structure and in so many mental peculiarities that these can be accounted for only by inheritance from a common progenitor; and a progenitor thus characterized would probably deserve to rank as man.[1]

Not only does Darwin credit the different races of human being as all being human, but he also extends the right of manhood to the ancient progenitor. This says that all races are human, and the species that we came from also as being human – for modern science, that could classify the Lucy specimen as more human than primate. Society shifted the concepts around to fit their liking and industrialism benefited more from deeming certain humans as unfit – because they could be paid less or nothing, taken advantage of like livestock, and worked to death without society batting an eye. If society allowed all races natural human rights, then their workforce would take a direct hit. Society read that same passage, but they focused in on the word “sub-species” to indicate that sub was below or not as good as.

I watched “Schindler’s List” last night to set the mood for my eugenics piece and to remind me how brutal and inhumane it is to look around and decide that a certain mass of people no longer have the right to take up space. This is why eugenics has such an ugly dating card – but the blame should fall on the human office, or the “what we do with our information,” and not the information itself. If eugenics were only “limited breeding” based on health factors it rather makes sense. i.e.: If I knew that I had a “bad” gene that could be passed down and would hinder or destroy my child’s life, then I would take necessary precautions to either not have children or ask science to alter the “bad” gene – I would not throw caution to the wind and leave it up to chance. I will even go farther, to address the overpopulation fear – there are too many people living on the earth, and with the growth rate of 1 birth every 8 seconds, and only 1 death every 10 seconds, the earth is in a world of trouble – at this moment the world population is 7,297,467,699+.[2] This is where it is an individual problem – why does one family need more than a normal amount of people? This is not 1862, and Farmer Elijah does not need thirteen young pups to man his field, nor do people have rational fears that their young children will not survive to ten years old. The individual responsibility is to keep one’s family at a reasonable size so that one can give each child a good life.



Darwin, Charles. “The Descent of Man (1871).” Darwin:  A Norton Critical Edition, Texts, Commentary. 3rd ed. Ed. Phillip Appleman. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. pp. 175-254.

United States Census Bureau. “U.S. and World Population Clock.” 2016. Web. 8 Jan 2016.

Picture c/o:

[1] Darwin, “The Descent of Man (1871),” p. 245.

[2] Census, “World Population Clock,” 8 Jan 2016, 9:04 a.m.

Bit on The Singularity

Humanity “evolving-out” Emotions

after reading Joel Garreau’s Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies – and What it Means to Be Human, I think if humanity continues to advance technologically, the upcoming Singularity will remove emotional consideration. However, it will eventually remove humanity, too, so there goes our endeavors and shortcomings. lol In short, humanity will be replaced by machines and “perfection” will finally be achieved. Sounds very sci-fi I know, but renowned programmer Bill Joy is so mortified of the possibility that he isolated himself from society. He bought an island {le gasp!} and ceased his own developing – Joy assisted in creating the Internet, but in March 2000 he predicted “something like extinction” of the human race.[1] Referred to as the Hell Scenario, humans enhance machines up to a point (the Singularity) where the machines begin to enhance themselves – developing consciousness and no longer needing the human element for continuation of life. The exponential rate is beyond human understanding, and a written in stone “prophecy” is not predictable. In effect, humans will be no longer be necessary or relevant in a world optimally ran by robotic machines. Homo sapiens will not be the most evolved species because humanity’s own creation will surpass the natural limits of life. Ray Kurzweil’s Heaven Scenario “assumes that when computers can perform sufficiently more operations per second than can our brains, they will inevitably seem conscious. That is, they will demonstrate true intelligence.”[2]Much like the human being evolved into a conscious state, so too our creations will culminate in their own subjective spiritual experience of awareness. Kurzweil is an optimist who believes that our robotic creations will feel obligated to ensure the survival of the human species, but, on a more (pessimistic) realistic standpoint – humanity is the problem for the earth’s grand continuation of species: if left to answer the question “What element negatively effects life on earth?” The non-emotional, non-sentimental, robotic answer would be by consumption and destruction forces – eliminate humanity to save life on earth. Yes, humanity writes lovely verses and builds fantastic industry – but it is at the expense of life and resources. Humanity prevails by consuming and destroying.

What horror movie was it that the plants released a toxin that made humans end their own lives? How terrifying! Not just the notion of “evolved intelligent plants” who naturally produced the correct gas to formulate attack – but the thought that we really cannot get away from plants, we rather need them to continue the oxygen process. {casts skeptical glance at vased Paper-White plant}


Garreau, Joel. Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies – and What it Means to Be Human. New York:  Broadway Books, 2005.

Picture c/o:,204,203,200_.jpg

[1] Garreau, Radical Evolution, p. 138.

[2] Garreau, Radical Evolution, p. 177.


Plea to my Future Self:

Do Not Alienate a Questioning Mind

Throughout my journey in academia I have encountered variant professors. Certain scholars stand out from others – the Profs passionate about knowledge and curious for new solutions to old problems. I have been fortunate. The minds I have studied under are a vibrant tapestry of diverse thought; I know poetesses and writers, historians and seekers, deep-thinkers and intense pacifists. However, lurking in unsuspecting courses, one may encounter the false teacher:  one who is concerned more with their personal life than with their responsibilities of guiding eager minds, or…worse still… one who wears the shirt of religious toleration yet demonstrates vindictive sidespeak to the secular student.

I am a secular student. I look to science and empirical evidence in efforts to discover truth. I will not apologize for this as the scientific method is the most reasonable procedure available to integral consciousness. I have many questions, and I will not be held down by traditional convention. Not in life, not in philosophy, not in theory.

What I need to remember – for that glorious time when I am the Prof – is that minds have the right to question everything. Passion can be found in doubt. I will change, over time, as human nature is apt to do, but may I hold this always:  Beauty is found in doubt; therein lies our ability to search for truth.  I want to remember that not everyone thinks the same. Many people prefer following models set by tradition. I do not want to alienate the religious minds anymore than I would want them to alienate my #FreeThinkingMind. Human beings are diverse, we work with what we relate and understand.

Picture c/o:

~ Neither here nor there, but…when I searched “free image darwin and women” the first page is filled with woman’s shoes. {gnashing of teeth} We are so much more than footwear.


Meditation as Technology

I see how – when viewed as a human expression – both religion and science could be evolutionary modifiers of the human species.


Concerning meditation, {Peer} wrote: “The consensus was that these changes helped the individual become less self-aware and more universally conscience.”

This is an interesting point; as we’ve noted in other aspects, the Enlightenment acknowledged the individual as well as one’s natural right to liberty and freedom. However, in efforts to draw the individuals back into communal concerns, meditation presented the participant with connective abilities of relating not just to one’s own life but to life in general.

Jay Michaelson wrote “Evolving Dharma: Meditation, Buddhism, and the Next Generation of Enlightenment” (North Atlantic, 2013) to suggest that a healthy practice of meditation could improve an individual’s life. In his article, “Meditation is Not Religion or Spirituality—It’s Technology,” posted on the University of Southern California’s Religious Dispatch page, he describes meditation as “a technology of upgrading the mind that can enrich one’s life, including one’s religious life. We’re used to the idea of physical fitness. Time to get used to the idea of contemplative fitness, and practice at least as diligently.”[1] Meditation can soothe the mind and body.

This is not new information, however, the original concept of meditation according to Buddhism does not encourage change, only a passive state of being.[2] Michaelson believes there is more action available to an individual through heightened awareness. Knowing is not enough, positive actions should be taken to incorporate change for the betterment of the species. Michaelson thinks that by incorporating meditation the aware individual will develop a method to implement change for universal life.


Michaelson, Jay. “Meditation is not Religion or Spirituality – It’s Technology.”, 23 Oct 2013. Web. 17 Jan 2016.

Picture c/o:

[1] Michaelson, “Meditation is not Religion.”

[2] Michaelson, “Meditation is not Religion.”


My MacBook, Archimedes, ate all my categories. And now it is self-selecting for this post. {gnashing of teeth} Trying to fix, hope it works.