A close analogy to the sort of “time” available to molecular consciousness…

…Biological precognition is firmly based in the chromosomes and genes, and reflected in the cells. The cell’s practically felt ‘Now” includes, then, what we think of as past and future, as simple conditions of Nowness. They maintain the body’s structure in our poised time only by manipulating themselves in a rich medium of probabilities. There is a constant give-and-take of communication between the cell as we know it in present time, and the cell as it ‘was’ in the past, or ‘will be.’

DNA, is often referred to as the”master molecule,” of the “basic building block” of life.

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 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 faces the challenge of “engineering” new kinds of life. Those urges are creative even when, as a designer, he goes against his/her own Darwinian concepts that there is no conscious plan involved in the design of his/her world.

The physical world that we recognize is made up of invisible patterns.

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

Your 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.

 

How does “Naive Realism” fit in with out-of-body travel (or “projection”)?

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.

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

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.

It’s often been shown mathematically that contrary to Darwinistic belief…

…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?

Any biologist who is a true Darwinist would find the statement “survival of the fittest,” to be anathema:

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 is trying hard to create some of that life itself. This is always done, or course, with the idea that the right combination of simple ingredients (water, methane, ammonia, etal.) 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.

 

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

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.

Compare the “Evolution” or Souls in terms of Value Fulfillment to Cellular Growth in our Physical Reality.

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.

The idea of one universe alone is basically nonsensical.

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.