Monthly Archives: June 2015

Evolution, Metaphysics, Uncategorized

DNA, the “master molecule”, of the “basic building block” of life.

7 Comments

DNA is an essential component of the protoplasmic substance of which genes and chromosomes are formed in the cell nucleus, and governs the heredity of all living things.

lt

In microbiology, the first stages of exciting and controversial “genetic engineering” are at hand. This long-sought goal of science involved the very sophisticated recombination of DNA from such different life forms as plants and mammals, say, into new forms not seen on earth before. Such work has been called vital for the understanding of many things–the genetics of all species, the control of at least some diseases, great improvements in the quality of food, plants, and so forth. It’s also been called outright interference with the evolutionary constraints that prevent the interbreeding of species. Although risks may be present in DNA research, such as the unforeseen creation of new diseases, it seems that within strict safeguards recombinant techniques are here to stay.

mdf

Once again, however, it’s obvious that as a whole, science is far removed from the idea that each of us–whether that “us” is a human being or a molecule of DNA–creates our own reality. And what if we can learn to assemble sections of DNA from various life forms into new forms? To at least some extent such basic genetic substances would cooperate in the efforts at recombination: for no matter what kind of life developed, it would represent a gestalt of myriad consciousnesses, embarking upon unique explorations.

r,md

For centuries now–most of them obviously preceding Darwin–man/woman themselves has been playing the role of a designer through his/her creation of certain breeds of animals and hybrid plants. But we see now that man/woman is no longer content to bring about changes within species, as in cattle, for instance: With vast excitement he/she faces the challenge of “engineering” new kinds of life. Those urges are creative even when, as a designer, he/she goes against his/her own Darwinian concepts that there is no conscious plan involved in the design of his/her world.

Inner universe, Metaphysics, Thoughts, Uncategorized

The physical world that recognizes invisible patterns

8 Comments

These patterns are ‘plastic,’ in that while they exist, their final form is a matter of probabilities directed by consciousness. Our senses perceive these patterns in their own way. The patterns themselves can be ‘activated’ in innumerable fashions. There is something out there to observe.

yhashas

Our sense apparatus determines what form that something will take, however. The mass world rises up before our eyes, but our eyes are part of that mass world. We cannot see our thoughts, so we do not realize that they have shape and form, even as, say clouds do. There are currents of thought as there are currents of air, and the mental patterns of man/woman’s feelings and thoughts rise up like flames from a fire, or steam from hot water, to fall like ashes or like rain.

iyih

These patterns of probabilities themselves are not inactive. They are possessed by the desire to be-actualized. Behind all realities there are mental states. These always seek form, though again there are other forms than those we recognize.

 

Evolution, Inner universe, Metaphysics, Thought

“Naive Realism” with out-of-body travel (or “projection”)

50 Comments

I have read nothing about the two together, which surely be some very interesting material on such a possible relationship. Paradoxically, our perceptions while out-of-body can be more tenuously connected to temporal reality than usual, yet more acute at the same time. However, our use if naive realism must often govern what we allow ourselves to experience while consciousness is separated from the body. I also think some out-of-body travels, apparently to “alien” nonphysical realities, may actually be based instead upon interior bodily states or events. But there are times when the projecting consciousness, free of frameworks like naive realism, at least approaches truly different realities, or probabilities.

Evolution, Inner universe, Metaphysics, Thought, Uncategorized

Evolutionary Thinking is challenged not only by questions of proteins synthesis, and energy/entropy

Leave a comment

Equally insistent are the puzzles posed by the missing intermediate forms in the fossil record: Where are all the remnants of those creatures that linked birds, reptiles, cats, monkeys, and human beings? The hypothetical evolutionary tree of life demands that such in-between forms existed; it seems that by now paleontologists should have unearthed enough signs of them to make at least a modest case for their belief systems; the lack of scientific evidence is embarrassing. Since  my mind works that way, I could make minutely detailed drawings of a graduated series of such entities (gradualism being a basic premise in Charles Darwin’s theory), but would the creatures shown have been viable? Could they actually have existed for the necessary millennia while evolving into the species whose fossil remains have been discovered, or that live today? Evolutionists are serving goodly portions or speculation along with inadequate theory–or, really, hypothesis.

o7tk

It is truer to say that heredity operates from the future backward into the past, than it is to say that it operates from the past into the present. Neither statement would be precisely correct in any case, because our present is a poised balance affected as much by the probable future as the probable past.

ewwcf

In our terms–the phrase is necessary–the moment point, the present, is the point of interaction between all existences and reality. All probabilities flow through it, though one of our moment points may be experienced as centuries, or as a breath, in other probable realities of which we are a part.

o4rmrtty

All kinds of time–backward and forward–emerge from the basic unpredictable nature of consciousness, and are due to’series’ of significances.

Evolution, Metaphysics, Thought, Uncategorized

contrary to DARWINISTic belief, MATHEMATICALLY…

Leave a comment

…Enormous time spans (in the millions of years, say) will not aid in the chance formation of even the chemical precursors to life–the protein or nucleic acid molecules–but will instead   make their creation even less likely. For with time, the even distribution or equilibrium of matter increases, moving it away from the ordered sequences necessary to support life. Scientifically, in the closed system of our universe, the second law of thermodynamics and entropy eventually conquer all.

n7en

Nor can solar energy be thought of as the agent that directly turned nonliving matter into its living counterpart; in those terms, life required its inter-mediate molecules, which sunlight is not able to construct. Life needs protein in order to “be”, and to sustain it through metabolism–then it can use solar energy! Darwin’s theory that life arose by chance poses a basic contradiction: What made the protein that sustains the processes of life, before that life was present to make the protein?

nnnnnnn5ny

Many times in laboratory studies, substances called proteinoids (often misleadingly defined in dictionaries as “primitive proteins”) have been observed forming from amino acids, which are sub units of proteins. Some researchers think of proteinoids as the forerunners of the protein that life needs to ride true biological proteins and do not lead to life. I strongly object to being told that dead matter turns itself into living matter. Just how does this transformation come about?

Evolution, Inner universe, Metaphysics, Thought, Uncategorized

a true Darwinist would find the statement “survival of the fittest,” to be anathema.

Leave a comment

Psychic and religious ideas, then, despite many drawbacks, are far more important in terms of ‘evolution’ than is recognized. And I am telling you that so-called evolution and religion are closely connected. Consciousness always creates form, and not the other way around.

a734

We are biologically connected, chemically connected with the Earth that we know. How is it that as living creatures we’re made up of ingredients–atoms of iron, molecules of water, for instance–from a supposedly dead world? In the scientific view we’re utterly dependent upon that contradictory situation. No one denies the amazing structure or design of our physical universe, from the scale of subatomic particles on “up” (regardless of what cosmological theory is used to explain the universe’s  beginning). The study of design as one of the links between “living” and “nonliving” systems would certainly be a difficult challenge–but a most rewarding one, I think–for science. I have little idea of how the work would be carried out. Evidently it would lead from biology through microbiology to physics with, ultimately, a search that at  least approached electromagnetic energy units and units of consciousness. Both classes of “particles” are in actuality nonphysical; as best words can note, they have their realities on scales so minute that we cannot hope to detect then through our present technology.

ath5

Yet here we run into irony and paradox: Any scientist who considered the existence of electromagnetic energy units and units of consciousness would be called a heretic by his more conventional colleagues, for he would be acknowledging the possibility that all matter, being made up of such conscious entities, was living. From that viewpoint, at least, there would be no link through design to be discovered.

as6

I think it very interesting and revealing that several millennia before Darwin, man himself began playing the role of a designer within the framework of nature, through his selective breeding of animals and his hybridization of plants. These activities certainly represent evolution through conscious intent, guided by the same creature who insists that no sort of consciousness could have been responsible for the origin or development of “life,” let alone the “dead” matter of his/her planet. Not only that: We read that even now in his/her laboratories man or woman is trying hard to create some of that life itself. This is always done, of course, with the idea that the right combination of simple ingredients (water, methane, ammonia, ethanol.) in the test tube, stimulated by the right kind of energy under just the right conditions, will automatically  produce life. It’s confidently predicted that eventually at least one such experiment will succeed. I have yet to see in those accounts anything about the role consciousness will play in this truly miraculous conversion of dead matter into that of living. Perhaps those involved in the experiments fear that the idea of consciousness will impugn the scientific “purity” of their work.

 

Inner universe, Metaphysics, Uncategorized

Compare the second law of the inner universe with the second law of thermodynamics of our “Camouflage” physical sciences

Leave a comment

Both deal with energy, yet to me they’re opposites. At the same time I see them as linked through our distorted perception of that inner reality, that “the so-called laws of our camouflage universe do not apply to inner universe. The three laws of thermodynamics, and how they define energy/heat relationships in our universe.

ttv

There are no closed systems, energy is constantly exchanged between then, regardless of whether such transfers can be detected. The second law of thermodynamics, on the other hand, tell us that our universe is a closed system–and that it’s fated to eventually run down because the amount of energy available for useful work is always decreasing, even though the supply of that energy is constant. A measure of this unavailable energy is called entropy.

tt3r

“Energy transformation” I can best express it intuitively: In physics, that well-known second law of thermodynamics may usually be so reliable for us, distorted as it is, just because of our limited physical interpretation as mediated by the central nervous system.

tefv

At the same time, it’s worth noting that the second law of thermodynamics is still questioned by some theoreticians–the idea being that it’s impossible to prove a scientific “truth” in each of an unlimited number of instances.

Evolution, Uncategorized

Souls in terms of Value Fulfillment to Cellular Growth in Physical Reality.

Leave a comment

According to my interpretation of this sentence, it stops short of telling us that in our reality all species–man, animals, and plant life (and viruses and bacteria too, for that matter)–developed from a single primordial living source. Evolutionary theory maintains that such a source spontaneously came into being, riding upon various protein molecules (or certain other kinds of molecules) that had themselves chemically–and miraculously–evolved out of nonliving matter, then demonstrated the ability to duplicate themselves.

pro,

Proteins, for instance, are very complex chains of amino acids, and consist of nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and or certain other elements. They exist in great variety in all animal and vegetable matter; in the body each protein supports a very definite function. But the the view that all life had a common origin, that by pure chance it originated on the earth–just once–without the aid of God, or any sort of designer, is today accepted by most scientist in biology and related disciplines. Such thinking stems from the work done in the 19th century by the English naturalist Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace.

p897o

I believe that at most the “facts of evolution” make up a working hypothesis–or unproven proposition–only, for many of evolution’s tenets, especially those involving energy/entropy are open to serious challenge. There’s plenty of evidence around for changes occurring within species, but the “upward” transmission of one species into another has not been scientifically proven from the index fossil record, nor has it been experimentally verified. The arguments about evolution can get very technical.

Uncategorized

one universe alone is basically nonsensical

Leave a comment

Our reality must be seen in its relationship to others. Otherwise we are always caught in question like ‘How did the universe begin?’ or ‘When will it end?’ All systems are constantly being created.  There is no closed systems and the backward and forward, inward and outward motion of time are real.

“Camouflage” refers not only to our physical world as one of the forms( or camouflages) taken by basic reality, but to another kind ot time as well–the medium of successive moments the outer ego is used to, and in which our ordinary world exists.

hwh

“Electromagnetic Energy” units, exist just below the range of physical matter, and accrete in response to emotional intensity; eventually, they form physical objects.

“Conscious units” or ‘units of consciousness” Are not units of particles. There is a basic unit of consciousness that, expressed, will not be broken down.

 

Uncategorized

a convergence, of the realities of science, nature, religion and, of course, mysticism.

Leave a comment

By mysticism I mean simply the institutional penetration of our camouflage reality to achieve deeper understandings relative to our physical and mental environments. No matter what our individual orientations may be, collectively we do have overall purposes in the world we’ve created. This realization alone can be a transforming one; it can be a , most useful one in practical, everyday life as well. Within that sort of framework, the evolution in whatever way it may concern the development of ideas, planets, creatures, or anything else–make sense.

Uncategorized

In science and religion we know little about our world and universe

Leave a comment

…Its origins, and its amazing variety of forms, both “living” and “nonliving.” Our own limitations may have something to do with our attitudes. Be careful about believing science or religion when either one tells us it can explain our world, for each of those disciplines ignores too much. No matter what the source of this camouflage reality may be, our conscious lack of knowledge and understanding as we manipulate within it, through naive realism or any other system of belief or perception, ought to make us humble indeed; all arrogance should be transcended as we become more and more aware of the limitless beauty, complexity, and mystery that surrounds us, and of which we are a part. I don’t think it all came through chance. The mind can ask too many questions to be satisfied with mechanistic explanations, and nurturing that characteristic of dissatisfaction alone may be one of the most valuable contributions.

o8854

To me, even “ordinary” linear knowledge as it accumulates through the next century or two, not to mention over longer spans of time, is certain to severely modify or make obsolete many concepts about origins and evolution that today are dispensed by those in authority–and which most people accept unthinkingly.

or4imr

For some years now, organized religion as a whole has been suffering from loss of faith and members, stripped of its mysteries by science, which, with the best of intentions, offer in religion’s place a secular humanism–the belief that one doesn’t need blind faith in a god in order to be morally concerned for the common welfare; paradoxically, however, this concern is most of the time expressed in religious terms, or with religious feeling. Yet science too has experienced many failures in theory and technology, and knows a new humility; at least partly because of these failures, anti-intellectualism has grown noticeably in recent years. How technology and religion have found a way to coexist, helping each other and others to grow and develop. Science frequently tries to explain the gaps that religion has been unable to explain, and religion has done so in kind of science. This tandem has maintained both parts of the spectrum from the smallest atom to the biggest technology companies.

omermrdu5

I certainly am not turned on to realize that a major religion, for instance, teaches the “facts” of man’s basically corrupt and sinful nature; surely a religion in the best sense can offer beliefs superior to those! At the same time, I take note of the latest efforts of biological researchers to explain how, millions of years ago, a primitive DNA molecule could begin to manufacture the protein upon which life “rides,” and thus get around the contradiction: What made the protein that sustains the processes of life, before that life was present to make the protein? The scientist involved hope the new hypothesis will survive further tests and become “fact,” thus giving clues to the riddles of origins and evolution. How does one deal with new facts that undermine old facts, in whatever field of endeavor? Do we say that reality has changed? Upon examination, facts give.