Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Been reading a great little book called "The Future is Open" (German), a dialogue between Karl Popper and Konrad Lorenz, from 1983. It's interesting that both categorically reject the Darwinian idea that "random processes" can lead anywhere, and both stretch the importance of the creative force that must be involved. They don't talk about God - Lorenz says even calling God by the name He, i.e. making him a man, is blasphemy - but emphasize that everything does things consciously, by exploring and trying things out, and therefore develops. Everything is active, and not just passively reacting to the environment. In fact, everything "shapes" the environment just as it is shaped by it. Both thinkers call materialism and the denial of the existence of a soul "nonsense". Funny isn't it, considering that all those true believers in "settled science" always scream "Popper" and "Falsification" whenever someone starts talking about religion, Intelligent Design and so on.

Popper's line of thought is this: we explore, try new things, which is the creative and difficult activity. Then we repeat what is new, and therefore relegate it to the unconsciousness, giving it up as knowledge so to speak. Lorenz adds that this is the foundation on which our consciousness and creative nature must depend. So we explore things, add them to our unconsciousness over time, which then frees up new energy to further explore/be creative. Rinse and repeat.

***

What's been on my mind lately and what I want to further explore is this: the Cs said that the difference between 3D and 4D is simply awareness. Now the question is: how can we get there? What could 4D awareness mean? The problem is that it's pretty useless to "imagine" some 4D world based on 3D understanding. It's also the problem of much of the channelled material - we imagine all kinds of weird beings with weird powers, but since our awareness is still limited, it just confuses us and leads to wrong conclusions.

Kant already saw this problem when he wrote in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals:

But beyond the character of his own subject, which is made up out of these mere appearances, he necessarily assumes something else underlying it, namely his I as it is in itself. Thus in respect to mere perception and receptivity to sensations he must count himself as belonging to the sensible world; but in respect to whatever pure activity there may be in himself (which reaches his consciousness directly and not by affecting the·inner or outer·senses) he must count himself as belonging to the intellectual world—though he doesn’t know anything more about it.

A thoughtful person must come to some such conclusion as this about all the things that present themselves to him. Even someone with a very ordinary mind is likely to have this thought, because we know that such people are strongly inclined to expect something invisibly active at work behind the objects of the senses; but they don’t learn anything from this because they soon spoil it by trying to make the ‘invisible something’ perceptible, i.e. to make it an object of intuition.·They do this by wondering ‘What is it like, this unknown something that lurks behind the appearances of things?’, when their only concept of what a thing can be like is made from the concept of how things appear to them.
So we need to go beyond "how things appear to us" - but how? There is no simple or easy way it seems, only lots of pieces to the puzzle...

One may be this: Popper has a theory of "three worlds". The first world is the physical world. The second world is the world of experience - which includes 2D/animals. The third world is exclusively human: the world of the products of the mind. That is, speech, written language and so on.

The human mind develops collectively in a sort of feedback mechanism: we produce "products of the mind", and we take them in, which changes our minds, and therefore the products of our minds, and so on.

Now Popper has an interesting thought: the animal experience is severely limited, because it cannot distinguish between itself and its theories about the world. It has certain theories - if I do that, this will happen, I need to do this etc. - which are genetically determined, or in any event, the animal cannot question them. We humans, of course, can question our theories about the world, discuss them etc. (we are not identical to them), producing and reflecting "products of the mind".

So, says Popper: what are the theories that WE as humans cannot escape? He believes what Kant called "a priori" truths could be such inescapable theories: time, causality and so on. He said that Kant has erred when he thought these concepts are "necessarily true" - Popper indeed believes these are genetically determined!

Which of course leads to the question: if our concepts of time and causality, for example, are not necessarily true and genetically (or otherwise) determined, can these change? Does 4D awareness imply looking at the world without the perception of time and causality, for example? Or with a very different perception of these things - a removal of these "determined" filters? We cannot imagine how such a perception would be like.

Is it possible to change this "genetically determined" limited awareness? Animals don't seem to be able to go to the level of humans while still on earth; but 3D seems to be a special density where choices need to be made, and perhaps it IS possible to expand our awareness to 4D under certain circumstances.

How? And how does this relate to the STO/STS dynamic?

This brings us back to Popper's World 3, the world of the "products of the mind". In a completely honest and open exchange of ideas, experiences etc., we can create a feedback loop among a group of minds, a resonance operating at a certain frequency, which could lead us "up" towards the truth. This is what we are trying to do here. Perhaps there is a certain "breaking point" in the process when our "hard-coded theories" (time, causality etc.) break down and we can move beyond them - our awareness changes, the Kantian "filters" are removed...

This would be the STO mode of ascension - we all collect and receive information, immediately "dispense" it, and attain an ever higher level as a group - everyone is acting as part of the "antenna array". Popper also says that teaching is crucial in the process, which fits this picture.

Now how does this fit into the idea of the Wave and our planet undergoing a transformation to 4D? Could it be that we are causing this transformation? But that at the same time, our planet undergoes this transformation naturally? This seems paradoxical to us, but maybe just because we still have these darn Kantian "filters" in place, these Popperian "hard-coded theories"...

Well, more questions than answers as always, let's continue the hunt for clues...
 

Esote

Jedi Council Member
Could it be that we are causing this transformation? But that at the same time, our planet undergoes this transformation naturally?
Good question, thanks luc for your post !
Everything being linked together, I guess we are not really causing anything. We are rather accompanying the current situation, or so it seems to me.
Huge changes are occurring to our civilization and to our planet, even to our universe one may think. It's a whole process, where nothing acts separately, independently, where everything moves interdependently.
But as far as I know we have the choice, more or less, to be kind of a channel towards "yes" or "no", sts or sto etc. Therefore we may in some way strengthen (being part of) frequencies leading to an outcome or another...
Hard-coded conditioning is there, deeply embedded in our collective unconsciousness. We can't see as a bull/4D if we are a frog/3D, so to say. Anyway one or the other reality is basically illusion, delusion. Never mind, we are here-now as we are. The question is : which way am I consciously going to ? To... or not to... ? Enjoy the journey !
 

Color

Jedi Master
What's been on my mind lately and what I want to further explore is this: the Cs said that the difference between 3D and 4D is simply awareness. Now the question is: how can we get there?
Already answered many times: by doing the inner work on ourselves. The question in itself is contradictive cause of what we can gather about 4D and it's space/time attributes. There's nowhere to go, only to BE.

What could 4D awareness mean? The problem is that it's pretty useless to "imagine" some 4D world based on 3D understanding. It's also the problem of much of the channelled material - we imagine all kinds of weird beings with weird powers, but since our awareness is still limited, it just confuses us and leads to wrong conclusions.
The power of imagination is not a waste, it's a gift. Who's awareness exactly, the one of all humanity as a single entity? Is that what you're saying?

Kant already saw this problem when he wrote in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals:
So we need to go beyond "how things appear to us" - but how? There is no simple or easy way it seems, only lots of pieces to the puzzle...

One may be this: Popper has a theory of "three worlds". The first world is the physical world. The second world is the world of experience - which includes 2D/animals. The third world is exclusively human: the world of the products of the mind. That is, speech, written language and so on.
I don't know about you but since I was little I never felt or thought of myself as exclusively 'of this world'. I was in it, but never of it and I saw many members of this forum sharing similar experiences. You need a 4th world of some kind to make this theory work. Isn't that funny? ;)

The human mind develops collectively in a sort of feedback mechanism: we produce "products of the mind", and we take them in, which changes our minds, and therefore the products of our minds, and so on.
What about our hearts? Do they have anything to say in it?Like... Change of a heart?

Now Popper has an interesting thought: the animal experience is severely limited, because it cannot distinguish between itself and its theories about the world. It has certain theories - if I do that, this will happen, I need to do this etc. - which are genetically determined, or in any event, the animal cannot question them. We humans, of course, can question our theories about the world, discuss them etc. (we are not identical to them), producing and reflecting "products of the mind"..
What if some animals start to make connection deeper than a simple action-response? If that would happen and they start to explore it, we could even call them, I don't know, candidates for 3D STS? :)

So, says Popper: what are the theories that WE as humans cannot escape? He believes what Kant called "a priori" truths could be such inescapable theories: time, causality and so on. He said that Kant has erred when he thought these concepts are "necessarily true" - Popper indeed believes these are genetically determined

Which of course leads to the question: if our concepts of time and causality, for example, are not necessarily true and genetically (or otherwise) determined, can these change? Does 4D awareness imply looking at the world without the perception of time and causality, for example? Or with a very different perception of these things - a removal of these "determined" filters? We cannot imagine how such a perception would be like.

Is it possible to change this "genetically determined" limited awareness? Animals don't seem to be able to go to the level of humans while still on earth; but 3D seems to be a special density where choices need to be made, and perhaps it IS possible to expand our awareness to 4D under certain circumstances.

How? And how does this relate to the STO/STS dynamic?
Some people use drugs, some use meditation, some have seemingly unintentional experiences and some use imagination, in a lack of experience. There's a question though- If 4D is a STATE OF AWARENESS, why are you talking about it as a 'destination' especially if, from all we know so far, we yet don't belong to?
 

Keit

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
And yet another new dinosaur was discovered. This one is a non-avian dinosaur, but still had rather impressive wings. In the paper they propose all kind of explanations to this fact, but it does look like someone was having fun and trying things. ;-) Maybe it was an early version of an ostrich. :-D


Here we report on a new paravian from the Cenomanian-Turonian (Late Cretaceous) of Río Negro province, NW Patagonia, Argentina. The new taxon exhibits a derived bird-like morphology of the forelimbs (e.g., robust ulna with prominent, anteriorly oriented, and proximally saddle-shaped radial cotyle and wide medial flange on metacarpal I) and a plesiomorphic foot with a raptorial pedal digit II.
Phylogenetic analysis recovers the new taxon in a monophyletic clade with Rahonavis, being the sister group of the remaining Avialae and more derived than other non-avian dinosaurs. Both exhibit derived forelimb traits in opposition with their plesiomorphic hind limbs. The position of the new taxon and Rahonavis as stem avialans indicates that Gondwanan basal paravians are represented by two different clades, at least. The new taxon probably constitutes a previously unknown grade in the avian-line theropods in which some flight-related adaptations of the forelimbs are present in cursorial taxa. The present discovery sheds light on the acquisition of flight-related traits in non-avian dinosaurs and on the still poorly known paravian radiation in Gondwana.

 
Last edited:
An interesting thing occurred to me today. It's about the 'is the coronavirus man-made' debate. Whether it's man-made is irrelevant here (although we kinda know it is).

The point is this: the belief that it's possible to tell whether a virus is man-made or not (which I haven't seen anybody dispute) is contrary to the belief in Darwinism.

If it's possible to tell a virus is man-made, it's by definition about detecting intelligent design. But if Darwinism is true, intelligent design can not be detected, because literally any life form could have evolved by random mutations and NS. Darwinists have gone far in denying even the slightest possibility that intelligent design could be detected in any life forms. Dembski and others have explained detecting intelligent design in great detail, and Darwinists did what they could to deny it all.

So people who have no problem with the idea of recognising a man-made virus but believe in Darwinian evolution are holding contradictory beliefs.

And there are plenty of such contradictions within the scientific community, most of which they're not even aware of.
 

wmu9

Jedi
I'm not defending Darwin, but they believe in a genetic code and modifying that genetic code. That's not the same as requiring a design or designer. Once you believe code emerged by a billion years of random chance,the rest follows without challenging their core beliefs. Randomness is a magic wand, they're not going to give up.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
An interesting thing occurred to me today. It's about the 'is the coronavirus man-made' debate. Whether it's man-made is irrelevant here (although we kinda know it is).

The point is this: the belief that it's possible to tell whether a virus is man-made or not (which I haven't seen anybody dispute) is contrary to the belief in Darwinism.

If it's possible to tell a virus is man-made, it's by definition about detecting intelligent design. But if Darwinism is true, intelligent design can not be detected, because literally any life form could have evolved by random mutations and NS. Darwinists have gone far in denying even the slightest possibility that intelligent design could be detected in any life forms. Dembski and others have explained detecting intelligent design in great detail, and Darwinists did what they could to deny it all.

So people who have no problem with the idea of recognising a man-made virus but believe in Darwinian evolution are holding contradictory beliefs.

And there are plenty of such contradictions within the scientific community, most of which they're not even aware of.
I hadn't thought about it that way, but yeah, makes perfect sense and a brilliant insight IMO.
 

genero81

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
This brings us back to Popper's World 3, the world of the "products of the mind". In a completely honest and open exchange of ideas, experiences etc., we can create a feedback loop among a group of minds, a resonance operating at a certain frequency, which could lead us "up" towards the truth. This is what we are trying to do here. Perhaps there is a certain "breaking point" in the process when our "hard-coded theories" (time, causality etc.) break down and we can move beyond them - our awareness changes, the Kantian "filters" are removed...

This would be the STO mode of ascension - we all collect and receive information, immediately "dispense" it, and attain an ever higher level as a group - everyone is acting as part of the "antenna array". Popper also says that teaching is crucial in the process, which fits this picture.

Now how does this fit into the idea of the Wave and our planet undergoing a transformation to 4D? Could it be that we are causing this transformation? But that at the same time, our planet undergoes this transformation naturally? This seems paradoxical to us, but maybe just because we still have these darn Kantian "filters" in place, these Popperian "hard-coded theories"...
The Wave is moving this entire sector of space/time from 3rd to 4th density. The Earth is a convergence point maybe because we are the convergence point. The battle is through us. We are multidimensional beings moving into a realm border crossing, so is that not giving us access to ourselves at other densities? As the wave collapses, multiple possible futures sort out through our group's conscious awareness ascension, reorganizing beyond the limitations of 3rd density.

Or something like that! Hopefully we'll get to find out. Thought provoking post, luc!
 

Saman

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Reading your thoughts on page 80 of this thread bring to mind these several notions that the C's have talked about, which I think are all combined lessons of the four ways in the Work in the All's chosen cosmic school, the current focus of a relatively rare number of students on our little planet earth in becoming aware of our variably chosen and reflected karmic lessons profiles from 'above' here in grade 3D. The latter fragmented consciousness units/Souls are seeking to learn and expand their manifested 3D BEings in the natural process of balancing and tuning to the frequency of their potentially growing/co-existing 4D Beings as the Wave moves through 3D in the eternal present. "One leads oneself, through physical actions, as well as psychic ones" when one's consciousness/soul is ready to, step by step, has reached another expand their BEing in what the C's once called the 'One cycle', which I think refers to the one learning cycle here and here:

Density means level of development as measured in terms of closeness to union with the one...Cycle.
A: "Passion" does not set one "free," quite the opposite!
Q: (L) But what if your passion is for knowledge?
A: That is not passion, it is soul questing.
Q: (L) What is it that gives some people this drive, this steamroller effect that they are determined to get to the absolute bottom of everything and strip away every lie until there is nothing left but the naked truth? What is the source of this desire?
A: Wrong concept. It is simply that one is at that point on the learning cycle. At that point, no drive is needed.
Q: (L) So, you more or less are there because some critical mass has been reached that 'jumps' you to the point where
seeking truth is simply who you are? It defines the parameters of your being. (MM) Are these learning cycles
similar to the layers... all over the earth, remember the red dust all over the earth?
A: No.
Q: (L) Is it more like a 360 degree circle, and each person is a different point on the circle, and the whole thing cycles, and you never change relative to the people behind and in front of you, and the only real thing you can do to help anyone is to move the circle by moving yourself, thereby pushing the one ahead of you up, and pulling the one behind you into your previous place? And where you are on the cycle determines what you do?
A: It is a single cycle, yes. There is only one learning cycle, and where you are upon it, determines your
EXPERIENCES, and vice versa.

Q: (L) Is there ever any point where lines connect from one point on the cycle so that you can 'jump' from one point to
another? Like a wormhole in space or something?
A: Refer to facts 1 and 2 and 3.
Q: (L) So, no short cuts?
A: Now, refer to 3, 4 and 5.
Q: (L) So, certain events and circumstances could help a
person to make 'leaps?'
A: No "leap," acceleration.
So there is no cheating our Beings of the essential/due experiences needed for the growth of our BEings with 'leaps', no free lunch, which then means continuous stages/lessons of suffering followed by continues stages/lessons of joy, or in other words, the continous process of small "deaths" and "rebirths" within when knowledge, utilized, becomes Knoweldge in the continues chain of Understanding, manifesting both inwardly and outwardly; the whole notions that the C's explained here with:

You are all a duplicate of the universe within which you dwell. Your mind represents all that exists. It is "fun" to see how much you can access.
There is that idea of our 3D BEings being a reflection/"duplicate" of rays of creation or what don Juan calls the "Eagles Emanations" coming 'above'/4D again. But networking, and perhaps other methods, such as the effort put forth to learn an uncorrupted practice of Reiki can accelerate and mitigate the durations and levels of the sufferings in other lessons because it is conscious suffering application through knowledge rather than subjective application of suffering due to prejudice entering the picture and stagnating the acceleration of the lessons. But even manifested forms of obsessions or stagnations in our various lives, or our Soul's simultaneous lives, are part our lessons which the C's are talking about here:

Q: (A) What?! A disc. Sometimes we ask them questions and we get answers to other questions... Last question: I am in a general state of desperation because there are so many things to learn, so many paths to follow, so many things to be investigated, so many theorems to prove, so many mathematical concepts that can be developed, and so many things beyond mathematics and physics that need to be investigated, crop circles, for instance, that I really don't know where to start. I don't want to go in a maze that goes nowhere... What to do?
A: When confronted with such a quandary, it is best to simply do, without prejudice, nor fear of error. Let the path create itself, in other words. And, on that note, good night.
Q: Okay, you said that memory is subjective and an atom is not. If memory is subjective, what you have just been describing means that each and every person has a slightly different perspective, even if they are involved with the same incident or the same time sequence.
A: Of course!
Q: But it also implies...
A: That is the treasury of learning.
Q: Who is the treasurer?
A: The learner.
Q: But still, what you said still implies that an atom has an
objective existence. Is this correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you please tell us what constitutes objectivity?
A: The effort on the part of the observer to leave prejudice "at the door."
Q: How does the effort on the part of the observer to leave prejudice at the door relate to the objective existence of an atom?
A: An atom, as with absolutely everything else, cannot exist without an observer.
Q: So, in the case of the objectivity of an atom, if the human observers are not objective, where is the observer who makes the atom objective, or does the atom not exist if there is no observer?
A: Yes. to the latter comment.
Q: Yes to which part?
A: The latter comment.
Q: So there must be an observer. Must the observer be human?
A: The observer must be a consciousness.
Q: If you say that an atom has an objective existence, yet it only exists if it is perceived by a consciousness, then an atom does not have an objective existence, correct?
A: No.
Q: Okay, what is the distinction? You say that objectivity is the ATTEMPT on the part of the observer to leave prejudice at the door.
A: Without consciousness, there is neither objective or subjective!!
Q: So the crux is the attempt to leave prejudice at the door in the same manner as one would be non-anticipatory in order to create?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, that is a VERY tricky... (A) Is consciousness objective?
A: Consciousness is objective, until it has the capacity to choose to be otherwise.
Q: What is the stimulus for the change, for the giving of the capacity to choose?
A: The introduction of prejudice.

Q: In a cosmic sense, cosmic consciousness, in the sense of The One Unified Consciousness, what is the stimulus there for the ability to choose?
A: When the journey has reached union with The One, all such lessons have been completed.
Q: But, that doesn't answer the question.
A: Yes, it does!
Q: (V) The next question - and I asked Laura about this - is it possible, in a meaningful way, to send healing energy, Reiki, directly to the subconscious through the ether tube connector symbol?
A: Yes. This has also been discussed. Application increases circuit imprint.
Q: (L) I think the way the question was asked before - does repeated applications of Reiki heal Karma even, and the answer was 'yes'. I think that something that heals Karma just about covers everything...since that is very often our major concern in this reality.
Q: Are the levels of initiation and levels of the staircase as presented by Mouravieff fairly accurate?
A: Yes, but different levels accessed in other so-called lives can relieve the intensity of some levels in "another" life.
Q: (L) So work on the self in different incarnations - assuming one is not an organic portal - can be cumulative? You can pick up where you left off if you screw up?
A: Yes. To some extent. For now, then, good night.
So now I am thinking, since the C's have said that both 3D and 4D beings have 4 levels of consciousness/awareness here:

A: But why unhappy? Think, my dear... And remember, your consciousness operates on four levels, not just one!
Q: And what are these four levels?
A: Physical body, consciousness, genetic body and spirit-etheric body.
Q: Are those the four composites of the human manifestation in 3rd density?
A: 3rd and 4th. One leads oneself, through physical actions, as well as psychic ones, to develop these "problems" when one is preparing to "bump it up" a notch.
And if we connect this concept to the hermetic adage of "as above, so below", that 3D is a continuously variable reflection of what is going on in 4D, with what the C's say here:

A: We are all the names of God. Remember, this is a conduit. This means that both termination/origination points
are of equal value, importance.

Q: (L) So, it is a blending of the aspects of God?
A: No.
Q: (L) What do you mean? Does this mean that we are a
part of this?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, it has to do with...
A: Don't deify us. And, be sure all others with which you communicate understand this too!
Q: (L) Nobody cares about Phillip and his sister?
A: Nobody "cares" about individual units of the universal consciousness.
Q: (L) We realize that, but we, as units in bodies of flesh...
A: One must get past the idea that there is some sort of "cheerleading squad" attached to individual consciousness units if one is to progress... it just doesn't work that way!
Q: (L) Well, does this mean to just forget the rest of the questions?
A: No. All questions have great value if the answers are
comprehended.
Then it becomes clear that we have to take personal responsibility for Beings and put in the effort to learn to gather and utilize knowledge to grow, tune, and balance our "predator minds" to soul's contemplated karmic lesson profile, whatever we in various modes discover thos to be through paying attention to the cosmic symbols shown to us in our Lives to be, while at the same time energized by faith of the whole process of "soul questing" due to the Love for the Prime Creator manifesting through all of our Souls and manifested Beings. So again, this brings back in mind to the idea of learning in a practical way, all or perhaps a sufficient "51 percent" level of lessons on the four levels of consciousness BEing reflected from 4D to 3D. I also think that as the C's have mentioned here below in the context of a predominately spirit-etheric body awareness, it is not correct to think it is completely useless to have a conceptual and theoretical multi-density understanding while we are here in 3D, as I think I read on this page 80 of the thread, above, as long as the 'understanding' is non-rigid/non-dogmatic and a "fluid" blueprint to just "simply best to do with" through the effort of what knoweldge is currently available to current level of awareness and understanding:

Q: (L) Last week, the remark was made, regarding spirit release and exorcism, that if it is done properly, by the right person, that there is no side effects or eventualities that would bring detrimental conditions to the individuals and location involved. What was meant by "done correctly?" What is the correct format or mode for exorcism?
A: Correct manner involves honesty and understanding that one has complete faith and awareness of the activities pursued. In other words, when one performs an act which they proclaim to be having a desired result, and they do not have faith in their own actions as, in fact, producing the desired result, then the effort will collapse because of their lack of faith. Whereas when one has complete faith and multidensity understanding, their activities are indeed truth and useful as prescribed and this is the correct way to pursue them.
Q: (L) Isn't faith a difficult commodity to acquire?
A: Not at all. When you have found something of truth you will receive demonstrations which locks in your faith.
FWIW, I hope how I tried the describe my thoughts on connecting the 4 levels of consciousness that the C's have described with the practical ways described in the way of the fakir, monk, yogi, and the fourth way that is doing all three ways at once in everyday life, made some sense. I think I will need more experience and knowledge to really have enough of deeper level of understanding to to see if this notion holds any water. because when I try for example to connect the way of the monk to the just one of the 4 levels of consciousness that the C's talked about, it doesn't 'connect' because it seems that it can be combination of more then one, but each to various degrees; so its to me after writing this up to this point, that each three ways in the Fourth way utilizes various levels of each of the 4 levels of consciousness, but what exact degree for each, I do not know, and the more I think about it, I am not even sure if it even really matters to know in full detail to what exact degree for each. Perhaps al that is needed is for things to fall into place just put in the effort to learn without prejudice, and the answers will come, whenever that may be.
 
I'm looking into reiki too;
Because in following the ways of monk, faker, yogi, according to the fragmented strength of ones nature, it will lead to suffering until a choice presents from this friction of yes and no, between sts and sto.
So I'm hoping reiki can both amplify and ease this friction.
 

Saman

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
I'm looking into reiki too;
Because in following the ways of monk, faker, yogi, according to the fragmented strength of ones nature, it will lead to suffering until a choice presents from this friction of yes and no, between sts and sto.
So I'm hoping reiki can both amplify and ease this friction.
In regards to Reiki, I think if we learned and applied correctly, this would accelerate the step by step healing and learning to see what "friction"/influence we are currently under from "above", and then expand our Being and move on to the next cycle/lesson. But I don't think it will lessen what is essentially due for the whole process of conscious suffering. If at some point I reach better a understanding through more actual and ongoing practice, I will share it in the Reiki thread. At this point, I am not currently actively practicing and in a "pause" state.
 

Jones

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Intelligent design when the pouch is back the front for a good purpose. Wombats dig burrows in the ground to live in. They mainly eat grasses, but they also eat the roots they uncover when they are burrowing. Their young are born tiny and hairless and if the pouch was facing the other way, it would fill up with dirt when the mother was digging.

Screen Shot 2020-07-03 at 7.00.05 pm.png

A poem by William Blake come to mind when I was thinking about this.


Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies.
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain,
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp,
Dare its deadly terrors clasp!

When the stars threw down their spears
And water'd heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tyger Tyger burning bright,
In the forests of the night:
What immortal hand or eye,
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?
 

SOTTREADER

Jedi Council Member
Not sure where to put this...

If panspermia is true, then doesn't this prove there's life beyond earth?

If viruses were / are brought to earth from space, then this means there must be an abundance of life out there?

A virus doesn't really perform an action e.g. multiply and produce progeny until it's in a cell i.e. from the lytic cycle. I think that means viruses must have come from a cell?

However, we also learn from the Lysogenic cycle that viruses (proviruses) don't necessarily always lead to the death of a cell but can integrate into the genomic make up of the cell. We then also learn e.g. from Mikovits that stressors can activate these dormant viruses from within the cell thus leading to Lysis i.e. the viruses multiplying, overcoming the cell and being ejected outwards to the rest of the body and the wider environment as the cell bursts.

In any case, it seems inconceivable that viruses would exist in comets / meteors etc if those meteors / comets haven't come into contact with something that was alive i.e. had cells!

This also has some troubling implications for time... In a way you can make the argument that cells could not evolve without viruses but then viruses could not proliferate without cells... There's a symbiosis here that makes it hard to figure which came first?
 

woneill1701

The Force is Strong With This One
Wow - inspiring post! So many profound points to wake-up to!

If panspermia is true, then doesn't this prove there's life beyond earth?

If viruses were / are brought to earth from space, then this means there must be an abundance of life out there?
Without anything to back it up, my own belief is that space is about as "sterile" as the earth's oceans.

I think that means viruses must have come from a cell?
Unless they were "engineered"...

(In my teens, and as a machine code programmer, I experimented with the creation of a number of computer viruses just to understand them and how their replication mechanisms worked. Note for the record: I never released any into the wild!)

There's a symbiosis here that makes it hard to figure which came first?
Without claiming to know the answer, I would suggest that for viruses (as we know them) to exist, there also had to exist DNA/RNA and a replication mechanism. I believe that none of the viruses we have seen, so far, contain their own replication process - so the chances are that they came into being as DNA parasites rather than as an agent of creation.

Your final question also resonates with one I have had for some time: What is the minimum viable unit of life?

A "modern" cell is clearly a very advanced symbiotic life form with organelles and mitochondria (which appear to be symbiotic passengers with their own life cycles). Cancer has demonstrated an earlier pre-mitochondrial cellular stage of life that is also (horrifically) viable in the concentrated presence of nutrients.

Where I am going with this is a similar question to yours: Which came first, a "cell" or DNA/RNA and its replication mechanism?

Could the DNA/RNA have spontaneously formed (along with its replication mechanism) in a nutrient rich soup, which then, over time, generated the cellular membrane and structures necessary to concentrate and maintain charge and nutrient density? Or was the cell there first, in some form of lipid membrane that just managed to capture enough of a combination of nutrients and minerals for them to magically have the exact combination of properties necessary for them to become a vehicle for life?

I have stated in a prior post elsewhere on the forum that I believe we are not just descendants of the first cell/DNA-fragment, but ARE PART OF that same entity (because all cells/DNA appear to multiply by division).

But, what was the first/original minimum viable entity, and where did that come from?

There are a lot of arguments about Evolution vs ID, but I feel that the arguments still exist only because we are looking in the wrong place: if we can identify the minimum viable unit of life, my bet is that the arguments about ID vs Evolution would (largely) evaporate...
 
Top Bottom