A basic distinction between inert matter and living matter, is that
although inert matter may suffer change, living matter is able to
progress change. On that basis, one can reasonably conclude that living
matter is integral to evolution.
As the physical makeup of a living
organism is 100% inert matter, it must be something other than matter
that results in an organism’s enlivenment. We appreciate that
enlivenment is a reflection of DNA, which is an acid (deoxyribonucleic
acid). DNA is able to manage a complex algorithm that dictates the
physicality of every organism on this planet. Not bad for an acid.
In
addition, every living organism starts life with the ability to ‘sense’
its external environment, and to then choose an appropriate response.
That ‘common’ sense is what we term ‘instinct’. It involves
communication, and as communication requires energy, instinct must be an
energetic phenomenon.
So evolution would appear to be an expression
of life, or vice-versa, and living matter an expression of instinct, or
vice versa.
While the origins of all organisms on this planet
derive from common DNA, the plethora of niches they occupy, and thus the
knowledge they need to survive, is usefully supplemented by knowledge
acquired along the way. Acquired knowledge can be used to facilitate
directional change, and while the change may be positive in terms of
progressing evolution, it can equally reflect agendas that inhibit
evolution.
From Nature’s perspective there are three categories of
action. The first is actions that are right, being actions that progress
evolution. Then there are actions that do not inhibit evolution, and we
might think of these as being actions that are not wrong. Finally,
there are actions that inhibit evolution, which are actions deemed by
Nature to be wrong. It stands to reason that evolution is best served
where learned behaviour is moderated by the natural protocols embedded
in our instincts.
Our ‘gut feeling’ does not lend itself to
programming terminology, but if we listen to it, we generally know
whether what we are doing is right or wrong.
Logic is what entices
our society to act without regard to the needs of evolution. Our laws
promote logic at the expense of instinct. Their Achilles heel is that
their logic is based on social averaging, and average situations are
statistically rare. More often than not, laws are enforced without
interpretation, leaving the majority of the population to ponder the
absence off common sense. Even worse, many of our laws are an product
of a political agenda, that likewise, may or may not, display common
sense.
An over-dependance on flawed logic may well underpin the
fallibility of the species. Humanity must regain respect for the power
of instinctive reasoning, as ultimately that is what distinguishes
organic life from artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is
much more capable of using logic to assimilate and manipulate knowledge
than is humanity. In a perfect world, the role of humanity may well be
to supplement the logistical capabilities of artificial intelligence
with intuitive wisdom.
Instinct is the genesis of innovation.
Individuals innovate, communities and organisations exploit the
potential of those innovations. From the advent of stone tools designed
to extend natural capabilities, to the development of artificial
intelligence with the potential to audit all human effort, all seem to
be naturally programmed outcomes that owe their existence to an
instinctive drive that pushes individuals to explore and innovate.
Tactics
that might reverse mankind’s contribution to negative evolution on this
planet, will involve universal access to an education that nurtures
individuality, while recognising the importance of instinct. It is
mortifying to realise that the future of our species is being downgraded
as a consequence of a majority being prepared to wear the
self-aggrandisement and inane posturing of a minority that, failing to
appreciate the importance of instinct, are sponsoring a form of
leadership devoid of common sense.
Post Views : 39