Darwin and Evolution

[Thunderbird]

From what data? Provide sources for your statements (especially ones like 4.7%) or do not make them.

 

This is heresay without supporting evidence. There are many more factors to consider. Viruses are a major factor to consider. Evolutionary timeline is a major factor.

 

Please provide sources for your "data" or refrain from making unsupported claims.

 

This is not a court of law, it just food for thought, Get over yourself.:rolleyes:

[REASON]

This is not a court of law, it just food for thought...

 

Yeah, and we're choking on it.

 

I guess we'll just have to take your word for it as we consider your theories, is that right? :rolleyes:

[Thunderbird]

Yeah, and we're choking on it.

 

I guess we'll just have to take your word for it as we consider your theories, is that right? :cup:

It's not theory, Just extrapolation on a disparity in genetics between animals and plants, we do not have enough data to make any exact mathematical equations. This is obvious. :rolleyes:

[Thunderbird]

If the disparity is aprox 4.7% of DNA between producer/plant and consumer/animal, and the plant is using that same degree or more of genes to accommodate this relationship, this conjecture is a very reasonable one to accept.

 

 

This is the offending post, The two key words are if and conjecture.

 

Food for thought Gentlemen, not a crime. :rolleyes:

[REASON]

It's not theory, Just extrapolation on a disparity in genetics between animals and plants, we do not have enough data to make any exact mathematical equations. This is obvious. :rolleyes:

 

Well that's understandable.

 

Why didn't you just say that instead of using exact mathmatical statements like 4.7%? Numbers like that scream for reference.

 

On with the discussion. :cup:

[Thunderbird]

Well that's understandable.

 

Why didn't you just say that instead of using exact mathmatical statements like 4.7%? Numbers like that scream for reference.

 

On with the discussion. :rolleyes:

 

If people would actually read my post and explore the data instead of playing gotcha!, they would not have to go though this. Go back and read how many times in this one thread that my post has been taken out of context and it becomes obvious what the real game is here.

:cup:

[REASON]

If people would actually read my post and explore the data instead of playing gotcha!, they would not have to go though this. Go back and read how many times in this one thread that my post has been taken out of context and it becomes obvious what the real game is here.

:cup:

 

Well now I'm confused. :rolleyes:

 

What game do you think science is? Obviously you must understand the concept of peer review. Science isn't about sitting around postulating and daydreaming. That's for philosophy.

 

But as it's already been stated, you're operating in a biology forum, and the expectation here is a bit different. It's a lot more strict when it comes to making claims. The only gotchas I've read have been when you've drifted off track with your weak or unsupported assertions that are expected to be taken as understood. You should not be surprised if someone raises a red flag, that's the way it works. It is the game that's played if you choose to look at it that way.

 

All Freeztar, Craig, and Eclogite have been trying to do is point out that if you would like to make your points without continual interruption, and for the sake of maintaining the integrity and accuracy of information relating to the topic at hand, it is important to back up your claims, particulary in the event that they are contradictory to a current scientific understanding. And you also shouldn't be surprised if the supporting information you provide is challenged as well in those circumstances.

 

Complaining about the moderation of this discussion is not likely to help you in your endeavor to share your knowledge and understanding of evolution. Supporting your claims will.

[Thunderbird]

Well now I'm confused. :confused:

 

What game do you think science is? Obviously you must understand the concept of peer review. Science isn't about sitting around postulating and daydreaming. That's for philosophy.

 

But as it's already been stated, you're operating in a biology forum, and the expectation here is a bit different. It's a lot more strict when it comes to making claims. The only gotchas I've read have been when you've drifted off track with your weak or unsupported assertions that are expected to be taken as understood. You should not be surprised if someone raises a red flag, that's the way it works. It is the game that's played if you choose to look at it that way.

 

All Freeztar, Craig, and Eclogite have been trying to do is point out that if you would like to make your points without continual interruption, and for the sake of maintaining the integrity and accuracy of information relating to the topic at hand, it is important to back up your claims, particulary in the event that they are contradictory to a current scientific understanding. And you also shouldn't be surprised if the supporting information you provide is challenged as well in those circumstances.

 

Complaining about the moderation of this discussion is not likely to help you in your endeavor to share your knowledge and understanding of evolution. Supporting your claims will.

 

 

 

What Claims? your like the sheep that jumps over the stick thats no longer there.

 

This is a great book that got me thinking about animal/plant co evolution

 

 

The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World

 

Michael Pollan

 

 

 

From Publishers Weekly

Erudite, engaging and highly original, journalist Pollan's fascinating account of four everyday plants and their coevolution with human society challenges traditional views about humans and nature. Using the histories of apples, tulips, potatoes and cannabis to illustrate the complex, reciprocal relationship between humans and the natural world, he shows how these species have successfully exploited human desires to flourish. "It makes just as much sense to think of agriculture as something the grasses did to people as a way to conquer the trees," Pollan writes as he seamlessly weaves little-known facts, historical events and even a few amusing personal anecdotes to tell each species' story. For instance, he describes how the apple's sweetness and the appeal of hard cider enticed settlers to plant orchards throughout the American colonies, vastly expanding the plant's range. He evokes the tulip craze of 17th-century Amsterdam, where the flower's beauty led to a frenzy of speculative trading, and explores the intoxicating appeal of marijuana by talking to scientists, perusing literature and even visiting a modern marijuana garden in Amsterdam. Finally, he considers how the potato plant demonstrates man's age-old desire to control nature, leading to modern agribusiness's experiments with biotechnology. Pollan's clear, elegant style enlivens even his most scientific material, and his wide-ranging references and charming manner do much to support his basic contention that man and nature are and will always be "in this boat together."

[REASON]

What Claims? your like the sheep that jumps over the stick thats no longer there.

 

Well, I noted the following, there may be others:

 

1. "It is not suitability, as much as adaptability and adaptability is dependent on genetic complexity." - Post #16

 

2. "If not for the increase in complexity evolution would not take place." - Post #23

 

3. "Genetic complexity can be applied to the genome in its self, or to the variety of species that it gives rise to though genetic drift. In this contexts, complexity would be defined as the opposite of homogeneity." - Post # 25

 

4. "I have been saying the same thing for several post, Complexity is integral to evolution and the study of evolution." - Post #41

 

5. "As far as why are brains are concerned, canabinoids are important in assisting the memory process. It acts as a memory wash to delete unimportant information, A major function of memory is to forget." - Post #79

 

6. "If the disparity is aprox 4.7% of DNA between producer/plant and consumer/animal, and the plant is using that same degree or more of genes to accommodate this relationship, this conjecture is a very reasonable one to accept." - Post #90

 

7. "your like the sheep that jumps over the stick thats no longer there." - Post #110

 

Each of these remains unsupported or unresolved as for as I could tell, and each elicited a challenge, except for number 7. I'll go ahead and ignore that one. :confused:

[Thunderbird]

Well, I noted the following, there may be others:

 

1. "It is not suitability, as much as adaptability and adaptability is dependent on genetic complexity." - Post #16

 

2. "If not for the increase in complexity evolution would not take place." - Post #23

 

3. "Genetic complexity can be applied to the genome in its self, or to the variety of species that it gives rise to though genetic drift. In this contexts, complexity would be defined as the opposite of homogeneity." - Post # 25

 

4. "I have been saying the same thing for several post, Complexity is integral to evolution and the study of evolution." - Post #41

 

5. "As far as why are brains are concerned, canabinoids are important in assisting the memory process. It acts as a memory wash to delete unimportant information, A major function of memory is to forget." - Post #79

 

6. "If the disparity is aprox 4.7% of DNA between producer/plant and consumer/animal, and the plant is using that same degree or more of genes to accommodate this relationship, this conjecture is a very reasonable one to accept." - Post #90

 

7. "your like the sheep that jumps over the stick thats no longer there." - Post #110

 

Each of these remains unsupported or unresolved as for as I could tell, and each elicited a challenge, except for number 7. I'll go ahead and ignore that one. :confused:

 

Well, pick one. and we will debate it.:rant:

[REASON]

Well, pick one. and we will debate it.:rant:

 

Well you know, I'd love to debate No. 7 with you. I happen to be an expert in why your claim is absolutely false. Unfortunately, I'm gonna go listen to my buddies' band jam for a while. Maybe some other time. ;)

 

As for the others, those debates have already been waged and the winners are yet to be determined. Apparently, there's been a number of requests for rulings. :confused:

 

Have a good night. :)

[Thunderbird]

:);):confused::(:rant:::

[HydrogenBond]

Genetics is the hard drive of the cell in the sense that it contains all the data possibilities for that cell. The cell interacts with the environment, which is analogous to the input-output interface. The question is whether the input-output interface can alter the hard drive's contents. This has been demonstrated with adverse chemicals able to change genes. So the question really becomes whether the overall potential between the environment and the DNA hard drive causes a bulk movement toward genetic drift.

 

The existing theory tends to model the DNA hard drive as a semi-stable hard drive that is subject to errors called mutations. But another way of looking at it, is the potential between the input-output interface, due to the environment, is what is causing the instability in the DNA hard drive. This instability reflects a need to move toward lower potential with the interface. It is not lady luck throwing the dice of evolution. Rather the environmental need is setting the potential for lady luck to throw the dice, with the goal of hitting seven as much as possible. The lucky seven is what will minimize the potential and therefore will develop genetic stability.

 

Let me give an example. Say we take a dozen cuttings from a plant so they are all clones with the same DNA. We place all of them in slightly different environments with respect to lighting and soil conditions. This will give us twelve input-output interfaces with the same DNA. Although the DNA is the same, the potentials with the environment will dictate what the hard drive can do. It is not a random thing where the best plants will grow under the worse conditions, due to the hard drive being the driving force. The interface potential is very logical and the DNA will react predictably.

 

If we cultivate these twelve environments so the plants can produce seeds, the genetic drift in the seeds will also reflect lowering potential with that environment, i.e., adaptation. In other words, there is an optimum environment which minimizes the potential of the DNA, i.e., allows the DNA to expresses its full potential. The DNA under the adverse conditions has more potential than it can use. So there is a greater degree of genetic potential needing to be expressed creating greater DNA instability. The plant can't easily alter the environmental potentials, so it needs to adapt. The result is that each environment will induce its own genetic drift.

[Eclogite]

If people would actually read my post and explore the data instead of playing gotcha!, they would not have to go though this. Go back and read how many times in this one thread that my post has been taken out of context and it becomes obvious what the real game is here.

Two points:

a) You may be referring to one of my own requests for clarification. You stated that life may be an inherent property of the universe. Now either you mean that it can later emerge as a consequence of natural laws, or you mean it is always present. You deny the latter, so I have to ask why you have to introduce another term, inherent, when we have the perfectly acceptable, defined and scientifically understood term, emergent?

Perhaps if you were more rigorous in your terminology and careful in your expression you would find fewer challenges.

:) The real game here Thunderbird is that we (i.e. the forum admins and mods) require a scientific discussion be conducted in a scientific manner. Mindful of the range of talents and backgrounds who post here we shall be very lenient with the novices. However, someone who claims to be well founded in the sciences - for who else would be presumptuous enough to present new theories - is expected to be aware of how a scientific discussion should be conducted. You have frequently not followed accepted guidelines and then have become upset when called to account.

Please reflect on this so we may proceed without the bickering.

[Michaelangelica]

I agree HB- are you talking epigenetics or drift?

I though you might have something to say about the quantum hydrogen bond level of genetics?

 

But, rather than bring new info to the table, wouldn't it be more fun, just sitting back watching everyone else fight with Thunderbird?:)

 

I do object a bit to computer analogies of humans.

They are not even in the same ball park in terms of the complexity of life.

 

Another thing that affects gene expression is position.

Where and how the DNA/RNA directs the organism to lay itself out from birth (eg 'this is the "top" this is the "bottom"')

I remember reading one astounding experiment where scientists grew teeth in chickens. Not by giving them the genes for teeth but by positioning DNA of teeth wearing organisms near the bit that made chicken beaks.

As we are being very "scientific" here You could probably find the reference somewhere in "Darwin re-visited"

[CraigD]

I remember reading one astounding experiment where scientists grew teeth in chickens. Not by giving them the genes for teeth but by positioning DNA of teeth wearing organisms near the bit that made chicken beaks.

I Remember reading something similar. Though this wasn’t the original source I read, I suspect we’re both recalling reports of ca. 2006 experiments by Mark Ferguson and others originally published in the 2/2006 Current Biology article “The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant” (full article available to guests via links).

 

Summarizing the article, what Ferguson and collaborators did was infect the skin (epidermis) of developing chicken embryos with genes from Alligator embryos by inserting the latter into retroviruses, and injecting the viruses into the chicken embryos. The alligator genes were not genes coding for proteins involved in teeth formation, but ones that activate genes for teeth formation common in many animals, including chickens and alligators. These activators caused the chicken embryos to express usually dormant genes, and grow teeth.

 

Note that it wasn’t necessary to give the chickens teeth genes, because they already have them, nor was it necessary to inject the alligator-derived activator genes near the chicken embryos’ beaks, because the teeth would form as appendages on whatever section of skin was infected. Also, lest we be kept up at night thinking of toothy genetically manipulated chicks :doh:, note that this manipulation had severe side effects to the embryos’ development, preventing them from possibly surviving to hatch

 

Note also that Ferguson et al weren’t inventing this process from scratch. They already knew that a naturally occurring fatal developmental defect, know as a Talpid mutation, causes teeth to form in chicken embryos. Their research explored the biochemical cause of this mutation, inducing it in genetically normal embryos.

 

:) For those of us who prefer their reptile/avian genetics and embryology in fictional form, a much more dramatic experiment along these same lines can be found in the classic B-movie “Carnosaur”, in which a brilliant but mad geneticists attempts the dual trick of exterminating mankind and hatching man-eating dinosaurs from chick eggs. Despite this movies many scathingly harsh reviews, I found its science well above average for the scifi horror genre. Although I’ve not read it, I understand the movie is based on a fairly well-respected John Brosnan (as Harry Adam Knight) novel of the same name (written in 1984, 6 years before Crichton’s much more popular but arguably less scientifically plausible novel “Jurrasic Park”).

[Thunderbird]

Two points:

a) You may be referring to one of my own requests for clarification. You stated that life may be an inherent property of the universe. Now either you mean that it can later emerge as a consequence of natural laws, or you mean it is always present. You deny the latter, so I have to ask why you have to introduce another term, inherent, when we have the perfectly acceptable, defined and scientifically understood term, emergent?

Perhaps if you were more rigorous in your terminology and careful in your expression you would find fewer challenges.

QUOTE]

 

Emergent, intrinsic, inherent, and here is another implicate....

Inherent; Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic

Bohm's Gnosis: The Implicate Order

 

 

This article discusses the vision David Bohm intuited from his insight (gnosis) into the quantum world. This vision discerns the characteristics of an evolving cosmos in process; and, also, it ponders upon the implications for humanity. Bohm's scientific presentations are not in this article; however, they can be found in his books listed in the Reference Section at the end of these series of articles.

 

 

BOHM AND THE IMPLICATE ORDER: AN INTRODUCTION

 

 

David Bohm, an American, was one of the leading quantum physicists of our age. He died recently. Following a venerable career at the University of California (Berkeley) and at Princeton's Institute of Advanced Studies, he moved to become Professor of Theoretical Physics at Birkbeck College of the University of London. During his later years he linked a formidable knowledge of the history and philosophy of science to his keen experience as a physicist.

In recent years, Bohm attempted to explain an ontological basis for quantum theory. The basis of quantum theory can be summarized in three propositions:

1.) In the subatomic world, few things can be predicted with 100 percent precision; however, accurate predictions can be made about the probability of any particular outcome.

2.) One has to work with the probabilities rather than certainties, because it is impossible (for an observer) to describe all aspects of a particle at once (speed and location).

3.) Electromagnetic energy (such as light or heat) does not always behave like a continuous wave--rather it is grainy, because energy can be transferred only in quantum packages. Therefore, light has a dual character. Under certain circumstances, it may display wavelike aspects; and in other circumstances, it may have the characteristics of particles.

Referring to quantum theory, Bohm's basic assumption is that "elementary particles are actually systems of extremely complicated internal structure, acting essentially as amplifiers of *information* contained in a quantum wave." As a conseqence, he has evolved a new and controversial theory of the universe--a new model of reality that Bohm calls the "Implicate Order."

The theory of the Implicate Order contains an ultraholistic cosmic view; it connects everything with everything else. In principle, any individual element could reveal "detailed information about every other element in the universe." The central underlying theme of Bohm's theory is the "unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence as an undivided flowing movement without borders."

During the early 1980s Bohm developed his theory of the Implicate Order in order to explain the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles--behavior that quantum phyicists have not been able to explain. Basically, two subatomic particles that have once interacted can instantaneously "respond to each other's motions thousands of years later when they are light-years apart." This sort of particle interconnectedness requires superluminal signaling, which is faster than the speed of light. This odd phenomenon is called the EPR effect, named after the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen thought experiment.

Bohm believes that the bizarre behavior of the subatomic particles might be caused by unobserved subquantum forces and particles. Indeed, the apparent weirdness might be produced by hidden means that pose no conflict with ordinary ideas of causality and reality.

Bohm believes that this "hiddeness" may be reflective of a deeper dimension of reality. He maintains that space and time might actually be derived from an even deeper level of objective reality. This reality he calls the Implicate Order. Within the Implicate Order everything is connected; and, in theory, any individual element could reveal information about every other element in the universe.

Borrowing ideas from holographic photography, the *hologram* is Bohm's favorite metaphor for conveying the structure of the Implicate Order. Holography relies upon wave interference. If two wavelengths of light are of differing frequencies, they will interfere with each other and create a pattern. "Because a hologram is recording detail down to the wavelength of light itself, it is also a dense *information* storage." Bohm notes that the hologram clearly reveals how a "total content--in principle extending over the whole of space and time--is enfolded in the movement of waves (electromagnetic and other kinds) in any given region." The hologram illustrates how "information about the entire holographed scene is enfolded into every part of the film." It resembles the Implicate Order in the sense that every point on the film is "completely determined by the overall configuration of the interference patterns." Even a tiny chunk of the holographic film will reveal the unfolded form of an entire three-dimensional object.

Proceeding from his holographic analogy, Bohm proposes a new order--the Implicate Order where "everything is enfolded into everything." This is in contrast to the explicate order where things are unfolded. Bohm puts it thus:

"The actual order (the Implicate Order) itself has been recorded in the complex movement of electromagnetic fields, in the form of light waves. Such movement of light waves is present everywhere and in principle enfolds the entire universe of space and time in each region. This enfoldment and unfoldment takes place not only in the movement of the electromagnetic field but also in that of other fields (electronic, protonic, etc.). These fields obey quantum-mechanical laws, implying the properties of discontinuity and non-locality. The totality of the movement of enfoldment and unfoldment may go immensely beyond what has revealed itself to our observations. We call this totality by the name *holomovement.*"

Bohm believes that *the Implicate Order has to be extended into a multidimensional reality;* in other words, the holomovement endlessly enfolds and unfolds into infinite dimensionality. Within this milieu there are independent sub-totalities (such as physical elements and human entities) with relative autonomy. The layers of the Implicate Order can go deeper and deeper to the ultimately unknown. It is this "unknown and undescribable totality" that Bohm calls the holomovement. The holomovement is the "fundamental ground of all matter."

Finally, the manifest world is part of what Bohm refers to as the "explicate order." It is secondary, derivative; it "flows out of the law of the Implicate Order." Within the Implicate Order, there is a "totality of forms that have an approximate kind of recurrence (changing), stability, and separability." It is these forms, according to Bohm, that make up our manifest world.

Summarizing, Bohm uses analogies most ingeniously as he attempts to simplify his theory. Bohm suggests that instead of thinking of particles as the fundamental reality, the focus should be on discrete particle-like quanta in a continuous field. On the basis of this quantum field, Bohm breaks down the Implicate Order into three categories:

The first category is the original, "continuous field" itself along with its movement. Bohm likens this continuous field to a television screen displaying an infinite variety of explicate forms.

The second category is obtained by considering superquantum wave function acting upon the field. ("This is related to the whole field as the original quantum wave is related to the particle.") More complex and subtle, this second category applies to a "superfield" or *information* that guides and organizes the original quantum field. Bohm considers it to be similar to a computer which supplies the information that arranges the various forms--in the first category.

And last, Bohm believes that there is an underlying cosmic intelligence that supplies the information--the *Player* of this game who is the third category. Folling this analogy, Bohm sees the whole process as a closed loop; it goes from the screen to the computer to the Player and back to the screen.

Bohm's theory of the Implicate Order stresses that the cosmos is in a state of process. Bohm's cosmos is a "feedback" universe that continuously recycles forward into a greater mode of being and consciousness.

Bohm believes in a special cosmic interiority. It *is* the Implicate Order, and it implies enfoldment into everything. Everything that is and will be in this cosmos is enfolded within the Implicate Order. There is a special cosmic movement that carries forth the process of enfoldment and unfoldment (into the explicate order). This process of cosmic movement, in endless feedback cycles, creates an infinite variety of manifest forms and mentality. Bohm is of the opinion that a fundamental Cosmic Intelligence is the *Player* in this process; it is engaged in endless experimentation and creativity. This Player, the Cosmic Mind, is moving cyclically onward and onward accruing an infinity of experienced being!

The structural outline of Bohm's cosmic model is as follows: the Ground of All Existence, Matter, Consciousness, and the Cosmic Apex.

 

 

THE GROUND OF ALL EXISTENCE

 

 

At the very depths of the ground of all existence Bohm believes that there exists a special energy. For Bohm it is the plenum; it is an "immense background of energy." The energy of this ground is likened to one whole and unbroken movement by Bohm. He calls this the "holomovement." It is the holomovement that carries the Implicate Order.

Bohm also refers to a law in the holomovement. He theorizes that the 'order in every immediately perceptible aspect of the world is to be regarded as coming out of a more comprehensive Implicate Order, in which all aspects ultimately merge in the undefinable and immeasurable holomovement. Holonomy, through a wide range of aspects, can be considered a "movement in which new wholes are emerging."

What is it that emerges from this ultimate ground, this "unknown totality of the universal flux?" It is the extension of the Implicate Order into a multidimensional reality. It is the interplay between the implicate and the explicate orders. It is the flow of matter, manifested and interdependent, towards consciousness.

 

 

MATTER: INANIMATE AND ANIMATE

 

 

Right off Bohm refers to the particle, the most essential building- block of matter. He considers the particle, fundamentally, to be only an "abstraction that is manifest to our senses." Basically, for Bohm, the whole cosmos is matter; in his own words: "What *is* is always a totality of ensembles, all present together, in an orderly series of stages of enfoldment and unfoldment, which intermingle and interpenetrate each other in principle throughout the whole of space."

Bohm's explicate order, however, is secondary--derivative. It flows out of the law of the Implicate Order, a law that stresses the relationships between the enfolded structures that interweave each other throughout cosmic space rather than between the "abstracted and separate forms that manifest to the senses."

Bohm's explanation of "manifest" is basically that in certain sub-orders, within the "whole set" of Implicate Order, there is a "totality of forms that have an approximate kind of recurrence, stability and separability." These forms are capable of appearing tangible, solid, and thus make up our manifest world.

Bohm also declares that the "implicate order has to be extended into a multidimensional reality." He proceeds: "In principle this reality is one unbroken whole, including the entire universe with all its fields and particles. Thus we have to say that the holomovement enfolds and unfolds in a multidimensional order, the dimensionality of which is effectively infinite. Thus the principle of relative autonomy of sub-totalities--is now seen to extend to the multi-dimensional order of reality."

Bohm illustrates this higher-dimensional reality by showing the relationship of two televised images of a fish tank, where the fish are seen through two walls at right angles to one another. What is seen is that there is a certain "relationship between the images appearing on the two screens." We know, Bohm notes, that the two fish tank images are interacting actualities, but they are not two independently existent realities. "Rather, they refer to a single actuality, which is the common ground of both." For Bohm this single actuality is of higher dimensionality, because the television images are two-dimensional projections of a three-dimensional reality, which "holds these two-dimensional projections within it." These projections are only abstractions, but the "three-dimensional reality *is* neither of these--rather it is something else, something of a nature beyond both."

If there is apparent evolution in the universe, it is *because the different scales or dimensions of reality are already implicit in its structure.* Bohm uses the analogy of the seed being "informed" to produce a living plant. The same can be said of all living matter. "Life is enfolded in the totality and--even when it is not manifest, it is somehow implicit." The holomovement is the ground for both life and matter. There is no dichotomy.

What lies ahead? For Bohm it is the development of consciousness!

 

 

CONSCIOUSNESS

 

 

Bohm conceives of consciousness as more than information and the brain; rather it is information that enters into consciousness. For Bohm consciousness "involves awareness, attention, perception, acts of understanding, and perhaps yet more." Further, Bohm parallels the activity of consciousness with that of the Implicate Order in general.

Consciousness, Bohm notes, can be "described in terms of a series of moments." Basically, "one moment gives rise to the next, in which context that was previously implicate is now explicate while the previous explicate content has become implicate." Consciousness is an interchange; it is a feedback process that results in a growing accumulation of understanding.

Bohm considers the human individual to be an "intrinsic feature of the universe, which would be incomplete--in some fundamental sense" if the person did not exist. He believes that individuals participate in the whole and consequently give it meaning. Because of human participation, the "Implicate Order is getting to know itself better."

Bohm also senses a new development. The individual is in total contact with the Implicate Order, the individual is part of the whole of mankind, and he is the "focus for something beyond mankind." Using the analogy of the transformation of the atom ultimately into a power and chain reaction, Bohm believes that the individual who uses inner energy and intelligence can transform mankind. The collectivity of individuals have reached the "principle of the consciousness of mankind," but they have not quite the "energy to reach the whole, to put it all on fire."

Continuing with this theme on the transformation of consciousness, Bohm goes on to suggest that an intense heightening of individuals who have shaken off the "pollution of the ages" (wrong worldviews that propagate ignorance), who come into close and trusting relationship with one another, can begin to generate the immense power needed to ignite the whole consciousness of the world. In the depths of the Implicate Order, there is a "consciousness, deep down--of the whole of mankind."

It is this collective consciousness of mankind that is truly significant for Bohm. It is this collective consciousness that is truly one and indivisible, and it is the responsibility of each human person to contribute towards the building of this consciousness of mankind, this noosphere! "There's nothing else to do--there is no other way out. That is absolutely what has to be done and nothing else can work."

Bohm also believes that the individual will eventually be fulfilled upon the completion of cosmic noogenesis. Referring to all the elements of the cosmos, including human beings, as projections of an ultimate totality, Bohm notes that as a "human being takes part in the process of this totality, he is fundamentally changed in the very activity in which his aim is to change that reality, which is the content of his consciousness." Bohm is intuiting that the human person and mankind collectively, upon accomplishing a successful noogenesis, will come to fullness within that greater dimension of reality--the Cosmic Apex.

 

 

THE COSMIC APEX

 

 

Bohm refers to this ultimate level--the source of the nonmanifest--as the Subtle Nonmanifest, something akin to spirit, a mover, but still matter in the sense that it is a part of the Implicate Order. For Bohm, the Subtle Nonmanifest is an *active intelligence* beyond any of the "energies defined in thought."

Trying to describe the Subtle Nonmanifest, Bohm states that the "subtle is what is basic and the manifest is its result." T îve intelligence "directly transforms matter." And finally, Bohm says it straight: "there's a truth, an actuality, a being beyond what can be grasped in thought, and this is intelligence, the sacred, the holy."

Bohm poetically thinks of this cosmic Subtle Nonmanifest in a state of meditation. But what is it doing? Meditation means "to reflect, to turn something over in the mind, and to pay close attention." Without explanation, Bohm wonders aloud that while we meditate on that which we term the subtle nonmanifest, does the Subtle Nonmanifest concentrate on *its* Subtle Nonmanifest?" Does this mean that the Cosmic Apex ponders upon something beyond or outside of itself? Possibly Bohm is considering the infinite potential of what he terms "multidimensional reality." He might also be thinking of the possibility of Something Separate.

For Bohm, the Cosmic Apex is a Holy Intelligence. It is a Player who operates in a feedback universe. The Player *is* the Impicate Order. Bohm provides the analogy of the "continuous field," the information, and the Player of the whole game. This process is ever endless, ever expanding or evolving, as the Player gathers all to itself. The player continuously grasps itself. *This is the Play of the Cosmic Process!*

There are certain characteristics that can be discerned from Bohm's cosmic model. They are Order, Intelligence, Personalization, Creativity, and a sense of Holiness.

 

 

ORDER

 

 

Bohm believes that a special cosmic energy holds the All together, and this cosmic energy follows a cosmic law (order). Bohm refers to it as the law in the holomovement. His viewpoint is that of "wholeness." The law of his holographic cosmic system is simply a movement which enables new "wholes" to emerge. These new holistic aspects may appear possibly to have some autonomy, but ultimately they are all aspects of the All.

 

 

INTELLIGENCE

 

 

Before consciousness there is information; it is information, an inwardness, according to Bohm, that enters into consciousness. Bohm speculates that this inwardness in consciousness may be likened to an *insight* which could, if refined, be used as an instrument for letting the "energies (of the Subtle Nonmanifest) come through." Bohm refers to this as an "active intelligence."

Bohm considers thought as basically mechanical in its operation. What makes the mechanical thought process relevant is intelligence. Bohm puts it thus: "The perception of whether or not any particular thoughts are relevant or fitting requires the operation of an energy that is not mechanical, an energy that we shall call intelligence." He continues: "For example, one may be working on a puzzling problem for a long time. Suddenly, in a flash of understanding, one may see the irrelevance of one's whole way of thinking about the problem, along with a different approach--such a flash is essentially an *act of perception.*"

Bohm believes that if intelligence is an "unconditioned act of perception," than the intelligence cannot be grounded in "structures such as cells, molecules, atoms, and elementary particles." The operation of intelligence, for Bohm, has to be beyond any factors that can be included in any knowable law. The "ground of intelligence must be in the undetermined and unknown flux, that is also the ground of all definable forms of matter." For Bohm, intelligence has always been at the very core of the Implicate Order!

 

Bohm's Implicate Order