Uyi Iredia:

I do take time in reading your (and other) posts. I certainly hope you do the same.




I recall asking the question first.



Not everyone is dogmatic on the question of the universe's origin. There are arguments for people on both sides: those who say it was created by God and those who say it is self-existent. You may, as you claim, not be dogmatic on the issue, but it's most evident you believe: there is no purpose, the universe is self-existent (hence there is no God) and concsciousness in humans is a product of chance.

Your answer is satisfactory. I still have misgivings (keep that in mind).



And the contextual definition is amongst the definitions of chance posted. Either way my point stands, you objectify chance (a concept) when you say it is an agent of change.



That's a lie. Here's what you said:

"In the not too distant past, thunderstorms, hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions had clearly defined purposes: They were seen as the wrathful manifestations of angry deities who needed one form of appeasement or another."

Furthermore, you said purpose doesn't exist till we mentally create it(which I said in a different way). How can you make these 2 propositions and now say "There is no purpose." That's contradictory. Admit it.

I did not make two propositions. I made one. Perhaps I did not construct my sentence in simpler way for you to understand.
I said" in the not too distant past, thunderstorms, earthquakes, ect. had clearly defined purposes. They were SEEN (being the key word here) as the wrathful manifestations of angry deities."
In any case, I meant purposeful for those who believed such.
I hope we are clear on that now.

plaetton:

I did not make two propositions. I made one. Perhaps I did not construct my sentence in simpler way for you to understand.
I said" in the not too distant past, thunderstorms, earthquakes, ect. had clearly defined purposes. They were SEEN (being the key word here) as the wrathful manifestations of angry deities."
In any case, I meant purposeful for those who believed such.
I hope we are clear on that now.

Yes, but that only answers one point. The other is that you said purpose exists when mentally created. That contradicts your conclusuon that there is no purpose.

Uyi Iredia:

Yes, but that only answers one point. The other is that you said purpose exists when mentally created. That contradicts your conclusuon that there is no purpose.

There is no purpose until we mentally create one. How is that a contradiction?

plaetton:
There is no purpose until we mentally create one. How is that a contradiction?

Statement 1: We mentally create purpose. Then purpose exists.
Statement 2: There is no purpose. So purpose doesn't exist.

That should clarify things.

Bump !

The Evolutionary process, whether one likes it's theme or not, whether one understands it fully or not, is why and how we are where we are today.
If there is a more sensible explanation for how the universe progressed from a ball of electromagnetic energy to simple particles and then up to the complex systems of life that we see today, then we are all eager to hear.

Creationism is simply too childish, too ridiculous and too irrational to even warrant a passing comment on this thread.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is simply an escape from the embarrassing irrationality of the creationist fable. Intelligent design proponents are people who want to eat their cake and still have it. They still want to give credit to an omni omni god, but without the magic wand.

Intelligent design without the agency of evolution is simply tooooo hollow to be taken seriously. It has absolutely nothing to stand upon.
So the intelligent designer designed the universe, and then what happened next? What has been happening to and in the universe over the past 14 billion years?

I also find it a bit funny when some people say they do not accept some parts of the theory of evolution. I can understand if one says they find it confusing or hard to grasp, but to say that one rejects some parts, just does not make any sense.
If there is any tiny trace of evolution in the universe, then evolution would be evidently manifest throughout the universe. For example, if galaxies, star systems and stars evolve, then everything contained within the star system should also evolve.
If the earth could evolve from a simple ball of fire some 4.7 billion years ago, to cool off, wobble for another billion years until it established a stable orbit, cools off further, an atmosphere evolves, water vapour forms, etc, to evolve a very the complex ecosystem that we have today, then it follows that everything within the earth, especially organic molecules would also evolve from simple molecules to very complex life systems that we have today.

Evolution is an infinite series of chance events, with one chance event creating the necessary stability suitable for the occurrence of next chance event, and so on.
Its all about equilibrium.

I believe that prior to the big b.ang, undifferentiated electromagnetic energy existed in a state of dynamic equilibrium. I suppose that at some point, perhaps in response to its own yet to be determined internal dynamics, the equilibrium was altered. In an attempt to nullify the change, the closed system exploded in what we call the big b.a.ng.
In other words, I believe the big bang is attempt by a closed system to regain its equilibrium. It is a continuing process.
Therefore, to me, equilibrium is the driving force for evolution. We have been told by scientists that at some point in the future, the universe will simply collapse and revert back to its original state of equilibrium: undifferentiated energy.
This is what we observe in the smallest piece of undifferentiated matter.
Every atomic particle seeks equilibrium, stability, permanent stability. Every interaction of matter shows this trend,every combination of electrons, elements, molecules and compounds follow the same trend.

Everything is in motion. Everything is pulling and tugging at each other. Everything is in a flux because everything is seeking it's own equilibrium, the original equilibrium that existed prior tot he big band. In the process of seeking and attaining equilibrium, new complex systems are randomly formed and reformed over extended periods of time.

So, although the evolutionary process marches on through infinite series of chance events, the overall goal or guiding impetus is the tendency towards equilibrium. That is how we go from very simple units to very complex systems over a period of time.

I laugh at people who point to the human eye or human brain as being far too complex to have evolved by a series of chance events.
I say to them , WHY NOT?
When chance events occur, they either create stable or unstable results . The unstable result is weeded out or annulled, while the stable result becomes the staging ground for the next chance event. Over millions or billions of years, a simple unit can evolve into very complex and very stable systems and subsystems.
I cant make it any simpler than this.

N:B This is more to come.
Using what we know today about foetal development and the growth of computing power over the past 40 yrs, I intend to show how consciousness, life, sentience and self-awareness may have evolved as chance events.

Repeat Post

Repeat Post

plaetton:

Evolution is an infinite series of chance events, with one chance event creating the necessary stability suitable for the occurrence of next chance event, and so on.
Its all about equilibrium.

I believe that prior to the big b.ang, undifferentiated electromagnetic energy existed in a state of dynamic equilibrium.

You really need to start all over again. With every respect, you have articulated a most contradictory hypothesis which just makes no sense whatsoever.

For you propose a series of chance events borne from a NEED for equilibrium - which started from a point where there was ALREADY equilibrium.

This knocks off absolutely everything you have written and renders it entirely contradictory and wrong.

Therefore, to me, equilibrium is the driving force for evolution. We have been told by scientists that at some point in the future, the universe will simply collapse and revert back to its original state of equilibrium: undifferentiated energy.

If it started from equilibrium and will revert to equilibrium, you really need to account for the x factor that caused such disequilibrium, speed, power and life suddenly and meaninglessly.

True equilibrium will eternally remain in a state of equilibrium.

I laugh at people who point to the human eye or human brain as being far too complex to have evolved by a series of chance events.
I say to them , WHY NOT?

You laugh in vain.

In fact, you laugh in nothing but the greatest delusion and fantasy. So great, that it appears to the thinking mind as terrible as some Harry Potter contrivance.

It would also seem that you have no knowledge of these organs whatsoever, to make such a comment.

I see that you are struggling to contextualize your reality. Please that is normal. Do not let it lead you to exceedingly f.oolish conclusions such as this laughter at people who reject chance on the matter of the brain and eye, no offence, big bro.

Deep Sight: Repeat Post

Let me rephrase that so that you can understand me better.
A system is an flux, trying desperately to regain equilibrium. In the flux, trillion billion chance collisions are occurring every micro-second. When a particle collides and accidentally hooks up with another particle, it stays that way if the hinges or hooks are tight. The two particles get a tiny measure of stability in their new format, and the collisions continue. Over a period of time, stable complex chains are formed which may perform a specific functions within the system. And this process continues indefinitely.
Over millions of years, we may see form integrated with function, and then we try to infer purposeful design in what we see.

And yes, chaos came out from a prior state of equilibrium. I did admit the it is yet to be determined, what exactly upset the original equilibrium.
That search continues.

And yes, again, systems in equilibrium want to stay permanently in equilibrium. When that equilibrium is altered, the system will change so as to tend to annul the change. This is called Le Chataleir's principle.
In the case of the universe, the system (and I mean every single unit of energy in the universe)is still trying to regain its original equilibrium even after 14 billion years.

plaetton:

Let me rephrase that so that you can understand me better.
A system is an flux, trying desperately to regain equilibrium.

I repeat: true equilibrium can never be lost in the first place!

NOTHING can make that happen.

In the flux, trillion billion chance collisions are occurring every micro-second. When a particle collides and accidentally hooks up with another particle, it stays that way if the hinges or hooks are tight. The two particles get a tiny measure of stability in their new format, and the collisions continue. Over a period of time, stable complex chains are formed which may perform a specific functions within the system. And this process continues indefinitely.
Over millions of years, we may see form integrated with function, and then we try to infer purposeful design in what we see.

While this is good as playful thinking a la, lego, it would never account for consciousness, much as no amount of lego pieces put together would ever become conscious.

And yes, chaos came out from a prior state of equilibrium. I did admit the it is yet to be determined, exactly upset the original equilibrium.
That search continues.

You use the word 'equilibrium most carelessly and without thought.

True equilibrium, especially when you refer to the "prior state" which was presumably all that existed from all eternity, could only, my dear, permanently remain in equilibrium.

Unless acted upon by an external factor.

Which of course, immediately shows that it was not all that existed.

Repeat Post.

^^^
This is what drives all motion in the universe, flux, change, and what we call evolution.

Look at at map of the globe. Look at the oceans, the continental divisions, the mountains, valleys, deserts, rivers and lakes. No matter how beautiful, elegant and purposeful they seem, All these evolved to their present forms over great periods of time through an infinite series of chance events.

plaetton: ^^^
This is what drives all motion in the universe, flux, change, and what we call evolution.

Look at at map of the globe. Look at the oceans, the continental divisions, the mountains, valleys, deserts, rivers and lakes. No matter how beautiful, elegant and purposeful they seem, All these evolved to their present forms over great periods of time through an infinite series of chance events.

^^^Then you must hold that there was never equilibrium to start with, and there never will be.

Your proposition is simply logically flawed.

Not to speak, of course, of the fact that said proposition is conveniently silent on where the initial factors which began to interact in "chance events" appeared from!

Deep Sight:

I repeat: true equilibrium can never be lost in the first place!

NOTHING can make that happen.



While this is good as playful thinking a la, lego, it would never account for consciousness, much as no amount of lego pieces put together would ever become conscious.



You use the word 'equilibrium most carelessly and without thought.

True equilibrium, especially when you refer to the "prior state" which was presumably all that existed from all eternity, could only, my dear, permanently remain in equilibrium.

Unless acted upon by an external factor.

Which of course, immediately shows that it was not all that existed.

Equilibrium states are not immutable. Infact, most equilibrium states are unstable and temporary. Equilibrium systems are altered and regained many times in your everyday life. Your refrigerator and your airconditioner are typical systems where equilibrium states are lost and regained regularly.
When you set your room ac to 32 degrees, your thermostat adjust the compressor to attain and maintain that temperature. Now, if the door is opened ,hot hair comes in and cold air seeps out, The room temperature rises. The equilibrium state set by your thermostat is altered. The system quickly responds to annul that change having the thermostat adjust the compressor to pump harder to blow more cold air in an attempt to maintain the 32 degrees temperature.

Everything else in the universe works in the much the same way. Our ecosystem works in the same way. The universe is still in that very process from the beginning.
This is what drives every motion in the universe.
Motion = change = evolution.

plaetton:

Equilibrium states are not immutable. Infact, most equilibrium states are unstable and temporary. Equilibrium systems are altered and regained many times in your everyday life. Your refrigerator and your airconditioner are typical systems where equilibrium states are lost and regained regularly.
When you set your room ac to 32 degrees, your thermostat adjust the compressor to attain and maintain that temperature. Now, if the door is opened ,hot hair comes in and cold air seeps out, The room temperature rises. The equilibrium state set by your thermostat is altered. The system quickly responds to annul that change having the thermostat adjust the compressor to pump harder to blow more cold air in an attempt to maintain the 32 degrees temperature.

Everything else in the universe works in the much the same way. Our ecosystem works in the same way. The universe is still in that very process from the beginning.
This is what drives every motion in the universe.
Motion = change = evolution.

I am surprised that you cannot see that this shows up the necessity of an external influence which I mentioned. Look at the bold.

Nothing in a true equilibrium will ever change if it is not acted upon by an external factor.

Nothing.

Your example above, in the bold, proves that I am right in so saying.

Also, your example strongly suggests -

1. The existence of a system designed for a purpose and maintained by a specific set of laws to achieve and maintain that purpose

2. The existence of things already - your proposition says nothing of how the factors at play came to exist in the first place.

Deep Sight:

^^^Then you must hold that there was [b]never equilibrium to start with, and there never will be.[/b]

Your proposition is simply logically flawed.

Not to speak, of course, of the fact that said proposition is conveniently silent on where the initial factors which began to interact in "chance events" appeared from!

We have to assume there was equilibrium. Energy in a state of dynamic Equilibrium is the only sensible way to grasp the idea of non-existence or prior existence of matter.
Also,we see the same process in nature. So it is not just an assumption, but an a sensible and logical inference from what we observe in nature, our micro-universe.

Every micro-system mirrors the workings of the macro-system, the universe.

Deep Sight:

I am surprised that you cannot see that this shows up the necessity of an external influence which I mentioned. Look at the bold.

Nothing in a true equilibrium will ever change if it is not acted upon by an external factor.

Nothing.

Your example above, in the bold, proves that I am right in so saying.

Also, your example strongly suggests -

1. The existence of a system designed for a purpose and maintained by a specific set of laws to achieve and maintain that purpose

2. The existence of things already - your proposition says nothing of how the factors at play came to exist in the first place.

Used the A/C example as just a simple way of demonstrating how an equilibrium system works.

The most honest thing I can say here is that we don't know yet what upset the equilibrium and triggered the big ban.g.
For you, an intelligent being would seem to be in the right place at the right time.
Fine. But remember the infinite regression conundrum. Let's not got here.

Energy is the only self-existence thing. Infact, it is the only thing that is, for every other thing in creation is therefrom.
So, simply put, 14 billion yrs ago, a singular sel-existent ball of energy went berserk and scattered itself. Ever since, it has been ceaselessly trying to re-assemble itself to its' original form.
Everything in the universe has come to be as a result of this ceaseless quest to regain lost equilibrium.

^^^^^^
In other words, the universe is trying to cancel itself out.
That is the only purpose that makes any sense.

Again we don't have to look very for evidence this than our human life. We start as simple cells of sperm and egg that evolve, over nine months to complex machines. We live, grow, we cause other events, both temporary and permanent, to occur. At a certain time, our system begin to break up, to annul itself, to revert back to our constituent elements. We call it death. Nothing is lost. Dynamic equilibrium.

Deep Sight:

I am surprised that you cannot see that this shows up the necessity of an external influence which I mentioned. Look at the bold.

Nothing in a true equilibrium will ever change if it is not acted upon by an external factor.

Nothing.

Your example above, in the bold, proves that I am right in so saying.

Also, your example strongly suggests -

1. The existence of a system designed for a purpose and maintained by a specific set of laws to achieve and maintain that purpose

2. The existence of things already - your proposition says nothing of how the factors at play came to exist in the first place.

In truth, I laughed twice when I read the post you replied. First when he said equilibrium states are UNSTABLE and temporary and when he said opening a door alters a thermostat's equilibrium (without noting it as the external factor you pointed out earlier)

Deep Sight:

I am surprised that you cannot see that this shows up the necessity of an external influence which I mentioned. Look at the bold.

Nothing in a true equilibrium will ever change if it is not acted upon by an external factor.

Nothing.

Your example above, in the bold, proves that I am right in so saying.

Also, your example strongly suggests -

1. The existence of a system designed for a purpose and maintained by a specific set of laws to achieve and maintain that purpose

2. The existence of things already - your proposition says nothing of how the factors at play came to exist in the first place.

In truth, I laughed twice when I read the post you replied. First, when he said equilibrium states are UNSTABLE and temporary; and when he said opening a door alters a thermostat's equilibrium (without noting it as the NECESSARY external factor you pointed out earlier)

Uyi Iredia:

In truth, I laughed twice when I read the post you replied. First, when he said equilibrium states are UNSTABLE and temporary; and when he said opening a door alters a thermostat's equilibrium (without noting it as the NECESSARY external factor you pointed out earlier)

I still think you are too quick with the trigger. You take things out of context.
It doesn't take a genius to know that opening a door is an external factor. Le Chatelier's priciple, which I quoted earlier, clearly states that something outside the equilibrium must alter it.
So that is not news.

I used the that particular example to show Deepsight that equilibrium systems are not some kind of infinitely immutable systems that he was trying to portray.

Lolz. Plaetton, you have tried to think, and this is good, but I am afraid you have not built your thoughts properly.

My apologies for not attending to this thread with my full thoughts yet: it provoked too much thought in me and some of the thoughts are even frightening (and challenge my sanity, no kidding) in terms of understanding reality. Also I am trying to wax myself into the zone to write the epistle that this thread warrants.

Uyi Iredia:

In truth, I laughed twice when I read the post you replied. First, when he said equilibrium states are UNSTABLE and temporary; and when he said opening a door alters a thermostat's equilibrium (without noting it as the NECESSARY external factor you pointed out earlier)

I am verily surprised that he does not see the very clear problems and contradictions therein.

In fact, that he does not see, that that acknowledgement of the necessity of an external factor, kills off his argument.

plaetton:
he most honest thing I can say here is that we don't know yet what upset the equilibrium and triggered the big ban.g.

Well then, you have at the minimum agreed that it was something.

And that it was external.

That's a start.

plaetton: The Evolutionary process, whether one likes it's theme or not, whether one understands it fully or not, is why and how we are where we are today.

I disagree.

plaetton:
If there is a more sensible explanation for how the universe progressed from a ball of electromagnetic energy to simple particles and then up to the complex systems of life that we see today, then we are all eager to hear.

You aren't eager to hear. You are wrapped up in your theory. ID identifies what's necessary for life - intelligence.

plaetton: Creationism is simply too childish, too ridiculous and too irrational to even warrant a passing comment on this thread.

Ad hominems based on stereotypes. I doubt you have checked out their sites. Their criticisms of the evolutionary theory hold true.

plaetton: Intelligent design, on the other hand, is simply an escape from the embarrassing irrationality of the creationist fable. Intelligent design proponents are people who want to eat their cake and still have it. They still want to give credit to an omni omni god, but without the magic wand.

Very typical of evolutionists. 'The Wedge Document' conspiracy theories must have gotten to you.

plaetton: Intelligent design without the agency of evolution is simply too hollow to be taken seriously. It has absolutely nothing to stand upon.

You mean the castle in the air the TOE is, because last time I checked we have not and cannot see macroevolution occur.

plaetton: So the intelligent designer designed the universe, and then what happened next? What has been happening to and in the universe over the past 14 billion years?

ID is about the origin of life, not the universe.

plaetton: I also find it a bit funny when some people say they do not accept some parts of the theory of evolution. I can understand if one says they find it confusing or hard to grasp, but to say that one rejects some parts, just does not make any sense.
If there is any tiny trace of evolution in the universe, then evolution would be evidently manifest throughout the universe. For example, if galaxies, star systems and stars evolve, then everything contained within the star system should also evolve.

Okay.

plaetton: If the earth could evolve from a simple ball of fire some 4.7 billion years ago, to cool off, wobble for another billion years until it established a stable orbit, cools off further, an atmosphere evolves, water vapour forms, etc, to evolve a very the complex ecosystem that we have today, then it follows that everything within the earth, especially organic molecules would also evolve from simple molecules to very complex life systems that we have today.

A just-so story. Only lacking in supernatural elements found in Genesis. I suggest you back up your story here.

plaetton: Evolution is an infinite series of chance events, with one chance event creating the necessary stability suitable for the occurrence of next chance event, and so on.
Its all about equilibrium.

Okay. Evolutionists maintain that biological evolution involves a non-random component - natural selection. Do you agree ? What do you think is meant by non-random ?

plaetton: I believe that prior to the big b.ang, undifferentiated electromagnetic energy existed in a state of dynamic equilibrium. I suppose that at some point, perhaps in response to its own yet to be determined internal dynamics, the equilibrium was altered. In an attempt to nullify the change, the closed system exploded in what we call the big b.a.ng.

Yada, Yada, Yada. You don't even know how this dynamic equilibrium was like.

plaetton: So, although the evolutionary process marches on through infinite series of chance events, the overall goal or guiding impetus is the tendency towards equilibrium. That is how we go from very simple units to very complex systems over a period of time.

Equilibrium doesn't build specified complexity.

plaetton: I laugh at people who point to the human eye or human brain as being far too complex to have evolved by a series of chance events.
I say to them , WHY NOT?

HOW SO ? If chance events built a brain why can't they make cell phones or electric fans. They are A LOT LESS COMPLEX than brains and eyes.

plaetton: When chance events occur, they either create stable or unstable results . The unstable result is weeded out or annulled, while the stable result becomes the staging ground for the next chance event. Over millions or billions of years, a simple unit can evolve into very complex and very stable systems and subsystems.
I cant make it any simpler than this.

This is facile, not simple.

plaetton: N:B This is more to come.
Using what we know today about foetal development and the growth of computing power over the past 40 yrs, I intend to show how consciousness, life, sentience and self-awareness may have evolved as chance events.

Interesting. Just keep in mind that knowledge of foetal development and growth in computing are products of one thing: intelligence.

Uyi Iredia:

I disagree.



You aren't eager to hear. You are wrapped up in your theory. ID identifies what's necessary for life - intelligence.



Ad hominems based on stereotypes. I doubt you have checked out their sites. Their criticisms of the evolutionary theory hold true.



Very typical of evolutionists. 'The Wedge Document' conspiracy theories must have gotten to you.



You mean the castle in the air the TOE is, because last time I checked we have not and cannot see macroevolution occur.



ID is about the origin of life, not the universe.




Okay.



A just-so story. Only lacking in supernatural elements found in Genesis. I suggest you back up your story here.



Okay. Evolutionists maintain that biological evolution involves a non-random component - natural selection. Do you agree ? What do you think is meant by non-random ?



Yada, Yada, Yada. You don't even know how this dynamic equilibrium was like.



Equilibrium doesn't build specified complexity.



HOW SO ? If chance events built a brain why can't they make cell phones or electric fans. They are A LOT LESS COMPLEX than brains and eyes.



This is facile, not simple.



Interesting. Just keep in mind that knowledge of foetal development and growth in computing are products of one thing: intelligence.

Ha ha ha.
I remind you that the thread is not about advancing theological or dogmatic positions, but about discussing and speculating on not just origin, but also of events that followed, like evolution, consciousness, self-awareness, etc.
So feel free to get off your Point-and-kill mode (LOL) and join the discussion with your own ideas and quit the labelling.

We can only speculate about origin. But how simple particles evolved to great complexity are not mysteries. The processes are well understood.We do not have to go back in time 14 billion yrs ago to understand some things.

The hermetic anxiom of " As it is above, so it is below, all the work of one" holds true in science, because, every atom is a micro-universe. The same geometry, the same motions, the same forces that act within the universe are also observed within atoms.

I say that intelligent design has no leg to stand on because it makes no attempt to unmask the designer, makes no attempt to offer a sensible chronology of events, and is conspicuously silent on how design unfolds from divine blueprint to complex reality.
If intelligent design cannot address these questions, then like I said, it's nothing but an emergency escape hatch from the embarrassing irrationality of creationism.

plaetton:
But how simple particles evolved to great complexity are not mysteries. The processes are well understood.

Oh my God!!!!!!

You didnt just say this did you? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Deep Sight:

Oh my God!!!!!!

You didnt just say this did you? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Yeah Deepsight.
We do understand what happens when particles collide.
We do understand what happens when electrons collide, how they bond in atoms to form complex molecules, how chains of molecules form compounds, etc.

That is what I meant.
What did you understand?

So what's the big ?

^^^ In that case you should be able to describe in specifics what happened to cause the first life: the first living organism.

Go ahead.

Deep Sight:
^^^ In that case you should be able to describe in specifics what happened to cause the first life: the first living organism.

Go ahead.

Oh c'mon.
I have already stated that we can only speculate on the origin.
But We can speculate based on what we already know and what might be probable.

But I want to build the pillars of my argument before I offer my own wild speculations on the possible origins of life.
So ,be patient.

You on the other hand, have to elaborated on your earlier statement regarding " some form of evolution".
I need you to come out and explain exactly what you meant by that so we can try to harmonise our basic understanding of evolution.

plaetton:

We can only speculate about origin.

But how simple particles evolved to great complexity are not mysteries. The processes are well understood.

The blue contradicts the red, and since this thread is about the development of consciousness, the red is outrightly false as far as that is concerned.