Such scientist in our future will be able to allow his/her consciousness to flow into the many open doors (of inner realities) that can be found with no instrument, but with the mind. To throw ones’ consciousness into small physical instruments (computer components, for instance), and perceive their inner activity at the level of, say, electrons. Tuned into his/her own “side-pools of consciousness,” his/her own “probable neurological materialization.”
Category Archives: Metaphysics
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
The physical world that recognizes 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.
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.
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.
“Naive Realism” 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.
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.
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.
All kinds of time–backward and forward–emerge from the basic unpredictable nature of consciousness, and are due to’series’ of significances.
contrary to DARWINISTic belief, MATHEMATICALLY…
…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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
man appeared in several different ages–not from an animal ancestor in the way generally supposed
Their were men/women-animals, but they were not our stock. They did not “lead” to anything. They were species in their own right.
There were animal-men/women. The terms are for our convenience. In some species the animal-like tendencies predominated, in others the manlike and womanlike tendencies did so: Some were more like men and women, some more like animals. The Russian steppes had a particular giant-sized species. Some also i believe in Spain–that area.
There is considerable confusion, for that matter, as to geological ages as they are understood. Such species existed in many of these ages. Man and woman, as we think of him or her, shared the earth with the other creatures just mentioned. In those terms so-called modern man and woman, with our skull structure and so forth, existed alongside of the creatures now supposed to be his/her ancestors.
There was some rivalry among these groups as well as some cooperation. Several species, say, of modern man and woman died out. There was some mating among these groups–that is, among the groups in existence at any given time.
The brain capacities of our particular species have always been the same. Many of the man/woman-animal groups had their own communities. To us they may seem to have been limited, yet they combined animal and human characteristics beautifully, and they used tools quite well. In a manner of speaking they had the earth to themselves for many centuries, in that modern man and woman did not compete with them.
Both the man/women-animals and the animal-men/women were born with stronger instincts. They did not need long periods of protection as infants, but in animal fashion were physically more agile at younger ages than, say, human infants.
The earth has gone through entire cycles unsuspected by our scientists. Modern man and woman, then, existed with other manlike and womanlike species, and appeared in many different places on the earth, and at different ages.
There were then also animal-men/women and man/women-animal civilizations of their kinds, and there were complete civilizations of modern man and woman, existing [long] before the ages now given for, say, the birth of writing(in 3100 b.c.)
“Theory of Evolution”, has caused unfortunate beliefs.
For how can you look at ourselves with self-respect, with dignity or with joy, if we believe that we are the end product of forces in which the fittest survive? Being the fittest implies those given most to what would appear to be murderous intent–for we must survive at the expense of our fellows, be you leaf, frog, plant or animal.
We do not survive through cooperation, according to that theory, and nature is not given a kind or creative intent, but a murderous one. And if we see ourselves as the end result of such a species, then how can we expect goodness or merit or creativity for oneself, or from others? How can we believe that we live in a safe universe when each species exists because it survives through claw, if it must hunt and kill out of murderous intent, as implied in the theories of evolution and of reality itself?
So when we think of our beliefs and who we are, we must also think of our species, and how we are told our species came to be. For your private beliefs are also based upon those theories, and the beliefs, culturally, of our times.
It is seldom that we really question our biological origins, what they mean, and how we interpret them. Are we physically composed of murderous cells, then each spontaneously out to get the others? If so, our physical being is more miraculous a product. If our cells did not cooperate so well, we would not be reading these words.As you read this, the cooperative, creative adventure within our bodies continues, and in terms of continuity reaches back prehistorically and into future. Because consciousness creates form with joy, there is no murder that you have not projected out of misunderstanding and ignorance of the nature of the consciousness.
Roots do not struggle to exist. One species does not fight against the others to live. Instead creativity emerges, and cooperatively the environments of the world is known and planned by all the species. What appears to be struggle and death to us at those levels is not, now, for the experience of consciousness itself is different there, as is the experience or our own cellular composition.
Our bodies knows how to walk. The knowledge is built in and acted upon. The body knows how to heal itself, how to use its nourishment, how to replace its tissues–yet in our terms the body itself has no access to the kind of information the mind possesses. Being so ignorant, how does it perform so well?
If it were scientifically inclined, the body would know that such spontaneous performance was impossible, for science cannot explain the reality of life itself in its present form, much less its origins. Consciousness within the body knows that its existence is within the body’s context, and apart from it at the same time.