Tag Archives: Unknown

Evolution, Inner universe, Metaphysics, Thought, Uncategorized

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.

Evolution, Metaphysics, Thought, Uncategorized

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

a6j

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.

a7k

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.

a64uj

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.)

Uncategorized

Verbal difficulties with the definition of life

Because of the psychological strength of preconceived notions. Our kind of conscious mind is splendid and unique. It causes us, however, to interpret all other kinds of life according to our own specifications and experiences.

There is no such thing , in our terms, as nonliving matter. There is simply a point that we recognize as having the characteristics that we have arbitrarily ascribed to life, or living conditions. For there is no particular point at which life was inserted into nonliving matter.

d7

If we must speak in terms of continuity, which I regret, then in those terms we could say that life in the physical universe, on our planet, “began” spontaneously in a given number of species at the same time. Words do nearly forsake me, the semantic differences are so vast. In those terms there was a point where consciousness through intent, impressed itself into matter. That “breakthrough” cannot be logically explained, but only compared at once, that became a medium for life as we define it. It had nothing to do with the propensity of certain kinds of cells to reproduce–[all cells are] imbued with the set the conditions in which life was possible as we think of it; and at that imaginary, hypothetical point, all species became latent. The inner pulsations of the invisible universe reached certain intensities that “impregnated” the entire physical system simultaneously. That illumination was everywhere then at every point aware of itself, and of the conditions formed by its presence.

eeem,

At the same time, Electromagnetic Energy units became manifest. The universe expands as an idea does, and so the visible universe sprang into being in the same manner. The same energy that gave birth to the universe is, in those terms, still being created. The Electromagnetic Energy units contain within themselves the latent knowledge of all of the various species that can emerge under those conditions. It is according to our relative position. We can say that it took untold centuries for Electromagnetic Energy units to “initially” combine, forming classifications of matter and various species and of the entire environment. In those terms the environment forms the species and the species form the environment. There were fully developed men and women–that is, of full intellect, emotion, and will–living at the same time, in our terms, as those creatures supposed to be man’s and woman’s evolutionary ancestors

fg

However, as we begin to question the nature of time itself, then the “when” of the universe is beside the point. The motion and energy of the universe still comes from within. I certainly realize that this is hardly a scientific statement–yet the moment that All That Is conceived of a physical system it was invisibly created, endowed with creativity, and bound to emerge [into physical reality].

eeff

There is a design and a designer, but they are so combined, the one within the other, the one within and one without, that it is impossible to separate them. The creator is within its creations, and the creations themselves are gifted with creativity. The world comes to know itself, to discover itself, for the planner left room for divine surprise, and the plan was nowhere foreordained. Nor is there anywhere within it anything that corresponds to our “survival of the fittest” theories.

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.