Tag Archives: Time

Uncategorized

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.

 

Uncategorized

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

…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.

Metaphysics, Thoughts, Uncategorized

“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?

bio67

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.

i4i

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.

nrns

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.

i67u

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?

h66g

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.

Uncategorized

Science wants only what Science believes

While postulating that life is basically meaningless or goal-less [DNA doesn’t care what its host looks like], science fights awfully hard to convince everyone that it’s right–thus attaching the most rigid kind of meaning or direction to its professional views! At the same time, in mathematical and biological detail much too complicated to go into, the author of many a scientific work favor of evolution has ended up by undermining, unwittingly, I’m sure, the very themes he or she so devoutly believes in.

nere

The brain’s great creative neocortex is held especially accountable for problems that may lead to humanity’s self-destruction.

Uncategorized

the ordinary concept of evolution becomes very complex if one chooses to make it so

The process can be discussed from many viewpoints.

The members of each “pressure group,” whatever its orientation, want to see things their way–very human performances. Once it’s created, each school of thought takes upon itself, and often with great intellectual and emotional arrogance, the right to advance its own belief systems in the world at the expense of its rivals.

To imagine that an entire environment is an accident is intellectually outrageous and emotionally sterile.

Uncategorized

To a molecule of DNA the conventional notion of evolution

Could such an entity grasp that idea, or even want to-might be hilarious indeed, given its own enhanced time scheme. Actually it would be more to the point if perhaps with the aid of hypnosis and or visualization, we tried from our giant-sized viewpoints to touch such minute consciousnesses with our own, and so extend our knowledge in unexpected ways. Some probable realities might be reached–potential conscious achievements that I think are already within the reach of certain gifted individuals. We each create our own reality, with all that that implies.

pt5,l

Our real challenge is knowing our own species, and others, may lie in our cultivating the ability to understand the interacting consciousnesses involved, rather than to search only for physical relationships supposedly created through evolutionary processes. The challenge is profound. The consciousnesses of numerous other species may be so different from ours, and miss the essences of others entirely. To give just two examples, at this time we are surely opaque to the seemingly endless search for value fulfillment that consciousness displays through the  “lowly” lung fish and the “unattractive” cockroach. Yet those entities are quite immune to our notions of evolution, and they explore time contexts in ways far beyond our current human comprehension. As far as science knows, both have existed with very little change for over 300 million years.

Uncategorized

The Great biochemical differences among human beings at the molecular level

The  genetic structures of numerous proteins have been shown to be much more varied than was suspected. Even more pronounced are the differences among proteins between species. Each of us is seen to be truly unique–but at the same time those studying biological Darwinistic beliefs. Instead, I think that what has been learned so far offers only possible variations within the idea of evolution, for the talk is still about the origin of life out of non-life, followed by the climb up the scale of living complexity; most evolutionists think that natural selection, or the survival of the fittest, still applies.

bio56j

Any role that consciousness might play in such biochemical processes isn’t considered, of course, nor is there any sort of mystical comprehension of what we’re up to as creatures. No matter how beautifully man works out a hypothesis of theory, he still does so with out any thought of consciousness coming first. Through the habitual (and perhaps unwitting) use of naive realism, he projects his or her own basic creativity outsides of himself or herself or any of his or her parts. He also projects upon cellular components like genes and DNA learned concepts of “protection” and “selfishness”: DNA is said to care only about its own survival and “knowledge,” and not whether its host is man, plant, or animal. Only man would think to burden such pervasive parts of his or her own being, and those of other entities, with such negative concepts! I don’t believe the allegations, how could the very stuff controlling inheritance not care about the nature of what it created? DNA doesn’t deserve to be regarded in such a fashion, no matter how much we push it around through recombination techniques.

bioi

DNA has motives for its physical existence [units of consciousness or conscious units ] that considerably enlarge upon its assigned function as the “master molecule” of life as we know it. Deoxyribo-nucleic acid may exist within its host, whether man, plant, or animal–or bacteria or virus–in cooperative altruistic ventures with its carrier that are quite beside purely survival ones.Some of those goals, such as the exploration of concepts like the moment point, or probabilities [and reincarnation ], really defy our ordinary conscious perception. In terms we can more easily grasp, social relationships within and between species maybe explored, starting at that biochemical level and working “upward.” Basically, then the postulated deadly struggle for survival of the fittest, whether between man and molecules, say, or among members of the same species. We have consciousness seeking to know itself in as many ways as possible, while being aware all of the time, in those terms, of the forth-coming “death” of its medium of expression, DNA, and of DNA’s host, or “physical machine.”

Uncategorized

flesh and blood creatures’, interior aspects of perception have physical counterparts.

But material awareness and bodily response to it would be impossible were it not for these internal web-works. I am saying that all exterior events, including our own bodies with their insides, all objects, all physical materialization, are the outside structure of inside ones that are composed of interior sound and invisible light, interwoven in electro-magnetic patterns.

igb;

Beneath temporal perception, then each object and event exists in these terms, in patterns that interact with each other. On a physical level we seem to be separated from everything it seems to be and it is an assumption that we usually take for granted.

There are few verbal equivalents for some explanations.

Uncategorized

Naive Realism.

The philosophical concept could be considered any time, since proponents believe that it’s unconsciously involved in practically all of our daily activities. Simply put, naive realism teaches that our visual and bodily senses several to us an external world as it really is–that we “see” actual physical objects, for instance.  Disbelievers say that neurological evidence contradicts this theory; that from the neurological standpoint the events in our lives and within our bodies depend upon interpretation by the brain, that we can know nothing directly, but only experience transmitted through–and so “colored” by–the central nervous system. The perceptual time lag, caused by the limited speed of light, is also involved in objections to naive realism, or some mind-brain idea very much like it, is habitually used whether we’re considering evolution within a time-oriented camouflage universe, painting a picture, or running a house hold. And after many centuries, the debate over the relationship between mind and brain continues, if first the existence of the mind is even agreed upon!

b752h

We actually create the typical camouflage patterns of our own universe in the same manner that we form a pattern with our breath in a glass pane. I do not necessarily mean that we are the creators of the universe. I am merely saying that we are the creators of the physical world as we know it–and here in, lies a vast tale.

Uncategorized

The precognitive abilities of a species

Biologists don’t see any evidence of it in their work. In evolutionary theory, such attributes violate not only the operation of chance mutation and the struggle for existence, but our ideas of consecutive time [which is associated with “naive realism”–the belief that things really as we perceive them to be]. Not that scientifically the concept of a far more flexible time–even a backward flow of time–is all that new. In atomic physics, for example, no special meaning or place is given to any particular moment, and fundamentally the past and future all but merge in the interactions of elementary particles–thus  at least approaching simultaneous time. At that level there’s change, or value fulfillment, but no evolution. To my way of thinking, if there’s value fulfillment there’s consciousness, expressed through Conscious Units, or units of consciousness.

srr

But to some degree many scientists outside physics regard such esoteric particle relationships as being of theoretical interest mainly within that discipline; the concepts aren’t seen as posing any threat to biology, zoology, or geology, for instance, nor do they tinker with naive realism. The biological sciences can cling to mechanistic theories of evolution by employing the conservative physics of cause and effect to support their conclusions while being aware, perhaps, of tenets of particle physics. Such “casual analysis” then proves itself over and over again. I’ve read the theory of evolution is used to prove the theory of evolution.

s5t

I find it very interesting, then, to consider that the theory of evolution is a creature of our coarser world of “physical” construction. Our ordinary, chosen sensual perceptions move us forward, within “the time system that the species adopted.” The moment point encompasses the seeming paradox through which consecutive time can be allowed expression within simultaneous time.

Uncategorized

The experiments with man-animals didn’t work out

1 Comment

But the ghost memories of those probabilities still linger in our biological structure. The growth of ego-consciousness by itself set up both challenges and limitations. For many centuries there was no clear-cut differentiation between various aspects of man and animal, there were innumerable species of man-in-the-making in our terms.

Evolution does not exist as we think of it, in any kind of one-line ape-to-man sequence. No other species developed in that manner, either. Instead, there are parallel developments. Our time perception shows us but one slice of the whole cake, for instance.

2fd4

In thinking in terms of consecutive time, however, evolution does not march from the past into the future. Instead, precognitively the species is aware of those changes it wants to make, and from the “future” it alters the “present” state of the chromosomes and genes to bring about in the probable future the specific changes it desires. Both above and below our usual conscious focus, then, time is experienced in an entirely different fashion and is constantly manipulated, as we physically manipulate matter. If you’re wanting more information on how the human brain perceives time and the passage of time, take a look into and read the latest on slowing-down time perception, and how to slow time down to enjoy those moments that matter most to you.