|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2015 11:40:08 GMT -5
What I tend toward is, if it's a zebra it's an illusion, but if it's a loin chasing me, I don't give a fig what it is. Practical!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 17, 2015 13:24:22 GMT -5
I wonder if life 'came from' somewhere else. Last I read/heard, the theory that Earth was "seeded" with the process of organic chemistry from a "meteor" during the time of it's formation was gaining in popularity and validity. I put meteor in quotes because, as the process of formation was the aggregation of material by gravity, the line between the fragments that were part of the initial formation and stuff that fell down onto that later is ultimately arbitrary. We could say that the Earth is a work in progress. Francis Crick along with James Watson discovered the structure of DNA. After this Crick began studying consciousness in relation to the brain, IOW neuroscience, with Christof Koch. Crick came to believe that life could not have originated on earth as there wasn't enough time for nature to have evolved life, on earth, via accidental combinations of amino acids and such. So he came up with the idea that life must have originated on another planet and was somehow brought to earth. (This is the premise of the film Promethius.........). His theory is called Panspermia, the Panspermia hypothesis. There are two versions, one, life is spread by accident. The other is called Directed Panspermia, where advanced civilizations deliberately spread life. And of course now we know that the building blocks of life, amino acids, are abundant, have been discovered on meteors. But this doesn't explain the origination of life. To have life you have to have a something that replicates itself. Biologists know that DNA itself is too complicated to have been the originating thingy that copied itself. RNA, which is a little simpler than DNA is likewise too complicated, incapable of being the originating thingy that started the replicating process. IOW, life always comes from life as far as scientists can show now, 2-17-15. IOW, scientists still can't explain how life on earth began, thus Crick's hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2015 14:15:30 GMT -5
Last I read/heard, the theory that Earth was "seeded" with the process of organic chemistry from a "meteor" during the time of it's formation was gaining in popularity and validity. I put meteor in quotes because, as the process of formation was the aggregation of material by gravity, the line between the fragments that were part of the initial formation and stuff that fell down onto that later is ultimately arbitrary. We could say that the Earth is a work in progress. Francis Crick along with James Watson discovered the structure of DNA. After this Crick began studying consciousness in relation to the brain, IOW neuroscience, with Christof Koch. Crick came to believe that life could not have originated on earth as there wasn't enough time for nature to have evolved life, on earth, via accidental combinations of amino acids and such. So he came up with the idea that life must have originated on another planet and was somehow brought to earth. (This is the premise of the film Promethius.........). His theory is called Panspermia, the Panspermia hypothesis. There are two versions, one, life is spread by accident. The other is called Directed Panspermia, where advanced civilizations deliberately spread life. And of course now we know that the building blocks of life, amino acids, are abundant, have been discovered on meteors. But this doesn't explain the origination of life. To have life you have to have a something that replicates itself. Biologists know that DNA itself is too complicated to have been the originating thingy that copied itself. RNA, which is a little simpler than DNA is likewise too complicated, incapable of being the originating thingy that started the replicating process. IOW, life always comes from life as far as scientists can show now, 2-17-15. IOW, scientists still can't explain how life on earth began, thus Crick's hypothesis. It's an interesting fact that noone has yet replicated the transition from inorganic to organic chemistry in the lab. The development that increased the attractiveness of the meteor theory was the discovery of evidence of life on Earth prior to the impact that resulted in the creation of the Moon. I first read about that in " The Fifth Miracle". ... ( <butthead> heh heh you said "sperm" heh heh </butthead> ) ...
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 17, 2015 16:05:02 GMT -5
Francis Crick along with James Watson discovered the structure of DNA. After this Crick began studying consciousness in relation to the brain, IOW neuroscience, with Christof Koch. Crick came to believe that life could not have originated on earth as there wasn't enough time for nature to have evolved life, on earth, via accidental combinations of amino acids and such. So he came up with the idea that life must have originated on another planet and was somehow brought to earth. (This is the premise of the film Promethius.........). His theory is called Panspermia, the Panspermia hypothesis. There are two versions, one, life is spread by accident. The other is called Directed Panspermia, where advanced civilizations deliberately spread life. And of course now we know that the building blocks of life, amino acids, are abundant, have been discovered on meteors. But this doesn't explain the origination of life. To have life you have to have a something that replicates itself. Biologists know that DNA itself is too complicated to have been the originating thingy that copied itself. RNA, which is a little simpler than DNA is likewise too complicated, incapable of being the originating thingy that started the replicating process. IOW, life always comes from life as far as scientists can show now, 2-17-15. IOW, scientists still can't explain how life on earth began, thus Crick's hypothesis. It's an interesting fact that noone has yet replicated the transition from inorganic to organic chemistry in the lab. The development that increased the attractiveness of the meteor theory was the discovery of evidence of life on Earth prior to the impact that resulted in the creation of the Moon. I first read about that in " The Fifth Miracle". ... ( <butthead> heh heh you said "sperm" heh heh </butthead> ) ...Yea. I read, I think within the last year, that a couple of labs think they are very close to creating life from scratch, I think the time period given was within a couple of years. But even then, it still wouldn't be from scratch, it would be from human intelligence, IOW, still life from life......
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 17, 2015 18:18:42 GMT -5
Why are you 'thinking' rather than 'living'? Why are you not 100% present for what is happening 'now', rather than speculating about what stuff is made of? Why are you thinking about what I am thinking about . Why are you not 100% present for what is happening 'now', rather than speculating about what I am thinking of . If you don't have an answer, or don't want to answer, that's cool.. honesty is appreciated, though..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 17, 2015 18:54:36 GMT -5
It's an interesting fact that noone has yet replicated the transition from inorganic to organic chemistry in the lab. The development that increased the attractiveness of the meteor theory was the discovery of evidence of life on Earth prior to the impact that resulted in the creation of the Moon. I first read about that in " The Fifth Miracle". ... ( <butthead> heh heh you said "sperm" heh heh </butthead> ) ... Yea. I read, I think within the last year, that a couple of labs think they are very close to creating life from scratch, I think the time period given was within a couple of years. But even then, it still wouldn't be from scratch, it would be from human intelligence, IOW, still life from life...... Artificial DNA is fundamentally different from a demonstration of the transition from inorganic to organic chemistry. Practically speaking it's the same result, but the key distinction is the way that the life form comes into existence.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 17, 2015 19:30:14 GMT -5
It's an interesting fact that noone has yet replicated the transition from inorganic to organic chemistry in the lab. The development that increased the attractiveness of the meteor theory was the discovery of evidence of life on Earth prior to the impact that resulted in the creation of the Moon. I first read about that in " The Fifth Miracle". ... ( <butthead> heh heh you said "sperm" heh heh </butthead> ) ... Yea. I read, I think within the last year, that a couple of labs think they are very close to creating life from scratch, I think the time period given was within a couple of years. But even then, it still wouldn't be from scratch, it would be from human intelligence, IOW, still life from life...... For me, it is enough that Life 'is', from which living it is preferable to thinking/imagining it..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 18, 2015 2:24:07 GMT -5
Is that the no sense of self that seems to have a strong preference for not being exposed to posts from L that reference that non-self? (** muttley snicker **)It is a craps, I tell ya!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 18, 2015 2:43:47 GMT -5
OK. I wonder if you would say anything about Earth, does it have any kind of consciousness? Everything that exists is conscious of their existence to some degree . So yes the earth is conscious . The mind houses conscious existence . It's fine if you choose to define existence in physical terms, but how have you concluded that all objects are conscious of their existence?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 18, 2015 2:45:57 GMT -5
I really should get me a loin cloth... just in case.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 18, 2015 2:49:35 GMT -5
Is that the no sense of self that seems to have a strong preference for not being exposed to posts from L that reference that non-self? I don't know what you are saying exactly, but strong preferences arise at times as part of the experience. Bearing in mind there is a GA, I am reluctant to say more specifically. You really do go into 'what?' mode at times when you don't want to hear. That's a distinctly unconscious mode.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 18, 2015 2:57:26 GMT -5
Everything that exists is conscious of their existence to some degree . So yes the earth is conscious . The mind houses conscious existence . I get what you are saying, and this could be just a language difference, but it doesn't quite sit with me to say that the remote control or the lamp 'is conscious of it's existence'. I would say that everything has a consciousness (to use zindarud's turn of phrase), and can therefore be communicated with (I talk to my car loads and have a strong relationship with it lol), but being conscious of our existence implies a kind of 'self-consciousness' to me, which I would say applies only to certain kinds of expression. It's an important point you are making though, because you are pointing away from the idea that even a remote control is just dead metal. I wouldn't say objects are dead exactly, but I also wouldn't say they have consciousness. These things are arising in/as consciousness in the larger context. In the context of sentient life, your remote control is dead metal. (The fact that you talk to your car is irrelevant, albeit disturbing)
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 18, 2015 4:53:33 GMT -5
I get what you are saying, and this could be just a language difference, but it doesn't quite sit with me to say that the remote control or the lamp 'is conscious of it's existence'. I would say that everything has a consciousness (to use zindarud's turn of phrase), and can therefore be communicated with (I talk to my car loads and have a strong relationship with it lol), but being conscious of our existence implies a kind of 'self-consciousness' to me, which I would say applies only to certain kinds of expression. It's an important point you are making though, because you are pointing away from the idea that even a remote control is just dead metal. I wouldn't say objects are dead exactly, but I also wouldn't say they have consciousness. These things are arising in/as consciousness in the larger context. In the context of sentient life, your remote control is dead metal. (The fact that you talk to your car is irrelevant, albeit disturbing) There's a lot of different contexts surrounding the word 'consciousness'. I have no problem with 'expressions of consciousness', 'appearances in consciousness' and I also have no problem with the idea that all things HAVE a consciousness. Nevertheless I agree that remote controls are not sentient and in that particular sense are 'dead metal', though it is not something I would say. I genuinely feel my car has a consciousness and responds to me. I know of course that you think that is insane, but our understandings will be quite different on this subject. To me, there is nothing that is not alive and responsive, even if it's not all sentient.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 18, 2015 5:01:07 GMT -5
I don't know what you are saying exactly, but strong preferences arise at times as part of the experience. Bearing in mind there is a GA, I am reluctant to say more specifically. You really do go into 'what?' mode at times when you don't want to hear. That's a distinctly unconscious mode. Sometimes when you seem a bit irritable, you make odd conversational leaps that require a fair bit of reading between the lines. Two aspects of what you said in that previous single sentence required me to read between the lines, and so my feeling is that you were probably a bit irritable and unconscious when you wrote that. If you would like me to go into what those aspects were, I might be willing.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 18, 2015 6:53:41 GMT -5
When the sense of Andrew is not there, it is possible that there is a sense of 'what I am' present somewhere, the point is though that it's not 'localized' i.e. the only thing relevant at that moment is the feelings and tastes etc. This is just one example though, when the turkey is finished, something else begins, and there may or may not be a sense of what I am that is present locally. Again, writing that last sentence...there was just a sense of focused attention and thought. There are lot of different types of meditation activity that happen here, and in some of those, I might sit with a deep sense of 'I'. In other meditations, there really is just...nothing though. In one way, it is possible that all this is God Godding, and there is no 'I' or 'you', there is just the sense of an 'I' or 'you' that arises from time to time as a pattern within experience. Having said that, this is not 'my' preferred way of thinking on the subject, I'm just trying to illustrate something here about the way 'I' see things. I agree that self is not localised although self has a point of awareness . The point of perception . So the point of perception is either through the mind body that what you are relates to andy that eats turkey or it is somewhere else . What is the crux of that scenario is whether or not one is aware of being conscious somewhere else .I once lived this, simultaneous with what I was doing 'on earth'. I was walking down a street and I got conscious of being somewhere else also. Perhaps such 'accidents' happen to people from time to time? It happened only once and the important thing was, I felt that there had to be something between the two ...whats? two me's? By 'something' I mean, some kind of link. I don't know how to express. If no link, then my existence on earth would not be any different than a stone rolling because of this or that impact.
|
|