Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate (Introduction)
by BBella 
, Monday, November 05, 2012, 01:04 (4403 days ago)
edited by unknown, Monday, November 05, 2012, 01:25
For the last few months I've been reading and contemplating the conversations here; how cells communicate - where the intelligence comes from - how that intelligence moves between cells - how cells recreate themselves into a new image, etc,. Personally, I have believed since having an odd dream years ago when I was "frozen in time" and later, in doing research, that light/photons, is the path to take to research and understand the intelligence within and without all things. I've been hoping the conversation at some point would be steered that way, altho haven't been able to formulate for myself any good way to inject or begin a conversation around this idea. -Then, today, having some time to myself for the first time in a while, I decided to try and find the old website that I first began my research after the dream - on bio-luminescence, tho didn't find it, but did come across a few very interesting articles that I thought might give a jumping off platform to possibly lead the conversation, or at least, expand understanding of the intelligent cell and hopefully bring us toward more light on the subject(pun intended).-1st site: The Light In Our Cells (this was the first site I explored today). http://transpersonal.de/mbischof/englisch/webbookeng.htm -The amount of information this article brings to "light" is overwhelming and is a lot to absorb and research just in the Table of Contents alone given for this book. Two of the chapters notably stood out to some things I've personally been contemplating lately: 1)#12 which talks about Prigogine's dissipative structures that led to the study of self organization/equilibrium systems (or balance within the system of the ALL, as I've mention before here). 2)#38 The biophoton field - mediator between body and soul - information related to a discussion we've had here before as well. 3)I also noticed, coincidentally (altho I don't believe in coincidences), that Microtubuli is mention in #24 Harmonical structures. -2nd site: Biophotons: The Lights In Our Cells: Takes the same info in the article above but expands into many different fields (a lot of great info on this site that I would love to have the time to delve into and be refreshed on info I've researched before, as I saw there was links to articles, again, coincidentally, like David Bohm and the Implicate order and Holographic Universe). http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_fuerzasuniverso06.htm -I was truly amazed at how both these articles and/or sites on the study of the biophoton/light, hit on, or brought together in one place, so many of my own and researched thoughts and ideas. I'm sure it's because when we seek to understand light and it's movement within the All That IS, we strike out on a path that brings all things, including knowledge, into being, and for without this one Universal Constant, there is nothing, not even the darkness.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Monday, November 05, 2012, 14:58 (4402 days ago) @ BBella
> bBella I was truly amazed at how both these articles and/or sites on the study of the biophoton/light, hit on, or brought together in one place, so many of my own and researched thoughts and ideas. I'm sure it's because when we seek to understand light and it's movement within the All That IS, we strike out on a path that brings all things, including knowledge, into being, and for without this one Universal Constant, there is nothing, not even the darkness.-Your research is not surprising. Our universe at its base is energy, nothing else. At the quantum level the entire universe is interconnected, not constrained by the speed of light. Light/photons are examples of pure energy. The living body appears to our receptors as solid matter, but it is energy 'on the outside'. All matter is energy on the outside. It is no surprise that the ongoing chemical processes of living give off a byproduct of light. And, of course, in NDE's light is a major component. That our consciousness can be active and survive transient death means that it must use, if that term can be applied, the quantum network while the neo-cortex (human brain thinking area/layer of the cortex)is non-fuctional. This ties in well with the Hameroff/Penrose theory. All of the avid researchers into the theories of NDE use this approach in their thinking. Where else could a disembodied consciousness go to hide? What meaning do you give this?
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by BBella , Thursday, November 08, 2012, 07:45 (4400 days ago) @ David Turell
> > bBella I was truly amazed at how both these articles and/or sites on the study of the biophoton/light, hit on, or brought together in one place, so many of my own and researched thoughts and ideas. I'm sure it's because when we seek to understand light and it's movement within the All That IS, we strike out on a path that brings all things, including knowledge, into being, and for without this one Universal Constant, there is nothing, not even the darkness. > > [David] What meaning do you give this?-It's very difficult to put into words. But it has to do with light carrying the building blocks /messages/ information for all life and changing and/or exchanging information when light particles/waves bundle with other light particle/waves, which creates life, thought, forms, etc. -Here is another site and a quote from the site with very interesting information about biophotons:-http://meridianenergies.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-are-biophotons.html-"Where do biophotons come from? There are various theories. Nobody knows how biophotons are being produced or what process produces biophotons. One thing seems certain is that they are messengers or bosons. They carry information."
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
BBella: For the last few months I've been reading and contemplating the conversations here; how cells communicate - where the intelligence comes from - how that intelligence moves between cells - how cells recreate themselves into a new image, etc,. Personally, I have believed since having an odd dream years ago when I was "frozen in time" and later, in doing research, that light/photons, is the path to take to research and understand the intelligence within and without all things. I've been hoping the conversation at some point would be steered that way, altho haven't been able to formulate for myself any good way to inject or begin a conversation around this idea.-Not for the first time, BBella, you've taken our discussions into (for me) new territory. The beginning of the discussion on cell communication (see Living cells communicate) was David's reference to a new study which indicated that communication between cells was done by chemicals. I must say I find light much more pleasing, philosophically and aesthetically! David's reply to you, though, brings the two together: "It is no surprise that the ongoing chemical processes of living give off a byproduct of light."-He has asked you what meaning you give to this, though you say you're not sure yourself how to formulate a conversation around the idea. What we're all doing on this forum is trying to formulate conversations around ideas which ultimately defy formulation! My attempt to push the concept of the intelligent cell is deliberately confined to answering concrete questions thrown up by Darwin's theory. You are taking it one vital step further to the intelligence that seems to bind the whole cosmos together. The common link seems to be energy, which the theist deems to be conscious of itself, and that is really the question from which our forum started out. So although this is probably not the conversation you wanted to initiate, I'd like to try and link the cell argument to your "intelligence within and without all things."-I'm thinking now of the body (a community of billions of cells) as a macrocosm. The individual cells (microcosms) are all interconnected and function intelligently, but are they conscious of themselves in the way we are? (On another level, we see animals behaving with extraordinary intelligence, but are they conscious of themselves in the way we are?) In the macrocosm of the universe, energy behaves intelligently, but is it conscious of itself in the way we are, or are we humans unique in being conscious of our own intelligence? If we believe that the individual intelligent cells that make up the body ... and have invented every innovation in the history of evolution ... are not conscious of themselves, the atheist analogy might be that the universe and life have arisen out of the actions of intelligent but non-self-conscious energy (= what George calls the laws of Nature). In other words, David's beloved First Cause would then be intelligent but non-self-conscious energy, which gives us design without a designer! -This argument clearly hinges on distinctions between intelligence and consciousness, and on different levels of consciousness, and I would not like to be pinned down when it comes to definitions or demarcations! Perhaps in the long run it really doesn't matter anyway. Your ALL THAT IS is still an ALL IS ONE, whether universal intelligence is conscious of itself or not. It will only matter if our own self-consciousness doesn't actually depend on those intelligent cells ... but that's another topic.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 06, 2012, 19:52 (4401 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: If we believe that the individual intelligent cells that make up the body ... and have invented every innovation in the history of evolution ... are not conscious of themselves, the atheist analogy might be that the universe and life have arisen out of the actions of intelligent but non-self-conscious energy (= what George calls the laws of Nature). In other words, David's beloved First Cause would then be intelligent but non-self-conscious energy, which gives us design without a designer! -Please don't assume you can change my Firt Cause! It is self-conscious, and conveys information in a teleological way. You have agreed that chance can't create ALL THAT IS. A non-self-conscious First Cause is a rogue mass of energy on the loose. There has to be a sense of organizaiton at the start or the future developments are setting off with total disorganization. The evolution of the universe clearly follows a pattern, one that allows us to exist. > > dhw: This argument clearly hinges on distinctions between intelligence and consciousness, and on different levels of consciousness-All consciousness has some degree of intelligence. Animals have some, we have an enormous amount. Even plants show some consciousness and signal of danger with chemical gas. Is this intelligence to a tiny degree, or instinct? How much instinct is really a very small intelligence? Isn't the entire universe somewhat conscious because of quantum entanglement?
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
dhw: If we believe that the individual intelligent cells that make up the body ... and have invented every innovation in the history of evolution ... are not conscious of themselves, the atheist analogy might be that the universe and life have arisen out of the actions of intelligent but non-self-conscious energy (= what George calls the laws of Nature). In other words, David's beloved First Cause would then be intelligent but non-self-conscious energy, which gives us design without a designer!-DAVID: Please don't assume you can change my First Cause! It is self-conscious, and conveys information in a teleological way. You have agreed that chance can't create ALL THAT IS. A non-self-conscious First Cause is a rogue mass of energy on the loose. There has to be a sense of organization at the start or the future developments are setting off with total disorganization. The evolution of the universe clearly follows a pattern, one that allows us to exist.-I don't assume anything, and I wouldn't dream of trying to (persuade you) to change your First Cause! I am merely suggesting an equally hypothetical alternative. But your comment that this alternative = "a rogue mass of energy on the loose" is itself an assumption. The whole of my post is geared to the possibility that the eternal energy we are BOTH postulating as First Cause may be intelligent in the way we ascribe intelligence to cells, animals, and (as you point out later) plants, without their being self-conscious. They are all creative, but we do not believe they are consciously so. The hypothesis, then, is that eternal energy is NOT a disorganized rogue mass, and that its nature is to organize itself (= George's natural laws). You even go on to ask: "Isn't the entire universe somewhat conscious because of quantum entanglement?" On another post you write: "Richard Feynman admitted no one understands quantum whatever", so the term is not exactly enlightening, but "somewhat conscious" will do for me as a substitute for "intelligent". And that would explain why, like the intelligent cell I never tire of invoking, it keeps on putting itself in different orders. Only a hypothesis, but at least it has two possible advantages over the atheist and theist hypotheses: 1) it doesn't depend on chance, and 2) we don't need an eternally self-conscious god figure to explain life and the universe.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 07, 2012, 20:19 (4400 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: Please don't assume you can change my First Cause! It is self-conscious, and conveys information in a teleological way. -> > dhw:I don't assume anything, and I wouldn't dream of trying to (persuade you) to change your First Cause! I am merely suggesting an equally hypothetical alternative. ....... Only a hypothesis, but at least it has two possible advantages over the atheist and theist hypotheses: 1) it doesn't depend on chance, and 2) we don't need an eternally self-conscious god figure to explain life and the universe. What you don't tell us is where does the 'intelligent cell' get its intelligence? By chance? How intelligent is chance? An intelligent cell requires thoughtful construction.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
Dhw: The whole of my post is geared to the possibility that the eternal energy we are BOTH postulating as First Cause may be intelligent in the way we ascribe intelligence to cells, animals, and (as you point out later) plants, without their being self-conscious. They are all creative, but we do not believe they are consciously so. The hypothesis, then, is that eternal energy is NOT a disorganized rogue mass, and that its nature is to organize itself (= George's natural laws). You even go on to ask: "Isn't the entire universe somewhat conscious because of quantum entanglement?" In another post you write: "Richard Feynman admitted no one understands quantum whatever", so the term is not exactly enlightening, but "somewhat conscious" will do for me as a substitute for "intelligent". And that would explain why, like the intelligent cell I never tire of invoking, it keeps on putting itself in different orders. Only a hypothesis, but at least it has two possible advantages over the atheist and theist hypotheses: 1) it doesn't depend on chance, and 2) we don't need an eternally self-conscious god figure to explain life and the universe. -DAVID: What you don't tell us is where does the 'intelligent cell' get its intelligence? By chance? How intelligent is chance? An intelligent cell requires thoughtful construction.-But does it require construction by a self-conscious form of intelligence? Your question bypasses the hypothesis I have proposed above: namely, that the eternal "first cause" is an intelligent, self-organizing, but NOT self-conscious energy, and that lack of self-awareness does not mean a disorganized "rogue mass" (your expression). I'm suggesting that the intelligent cell mirrors this energy, in so far as it is able to create functioning combinations without the level of human self-awareness that we believe is unique to ourselves. We see Nature performing all its miracles without this level (or so we assume), and that may be a mirror image of how eternal energy functions as well.-The distinction between these two "first cause" concepts boils down to the level of self-awareness. The question of where intelligence itself springs from applies to both, but the theist concept requires a superhuman level of awareness, whereas the alternative that I'm trying to formulate brings it down to the impersonal unselfconscious (but not unconscious) level of Nature. It should go without saying that I'm not advocating either!-Interestingly, in your response to BBella you write: "The comments at the end of the article you presented tried to sneak in a biophoton version of a theory of consciousness. Again, back to a theory of consciousness at the quantum level. Our consciousness makes the universe conscious, or is it the other way around? The universe was always conscious and our brains developed into receivers and participants."-My alternative is that the universe was always intelligent (= one layer of consciousness), but only we are self-conscious.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Friday, November 09, 2012, 18:10 (4398 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:But does it require construction by a self-conscious form of intelligence? Your question bypasses the hypothesis I have proposed above: namely, that the eternal "first cause" is an intelligent, self-organizing, but NOT self-conscious energy, and that lack of self-awareness does not mean a disorganized "rogue mass" -I've bypassed your hypothesis because it doesn't fit what we know. see my entry of 2 1/2 hours ago. The simplistic Central Dogma of Neo-Darwinism is too simplistic for reality as shown in current cell mechanics research. Here we see molecules wandering around in a very coordinated fashion, seemingly acting independently but obviously under systematic control. -Planning for this type of living factories requires thought and then analysis of the results, an introspection that implies a self-aware consciousness. That is the way we design and plan. It is hard to conclude taht our human consciousness is any different than a universal consciousness.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
DAVID: What you don't tell us is where does the 'intelligent cell' get its intelligence? [...] An intelligent cell requires thoughtful construction.-dhw: But does it require construction by a self-conscious form of intelligence? Your question bypasses the hypothesis I have proposed above: namely, that the eternal "first cause" is an intelligent, self-organizing, but NOT self-conscious energy, and that lack of self-awareness does not mean a disorganized "rogue mass" -DAVID: I've bypassed your hypothesis because it doesn't fit what we know. This is badly worded. We "know" that we are in a life-sustaining universe. We do not know how it got this way or how life originated. Your eternal, self-aware creator is one explanatory hypothesis, chance is another explanatory hypothesis, an intelligent but unselfconscious form of energy (the orderly laws of Nature) is another explanatory hypothesis. All of them fit what we "know", but different people will decide for themselves which seems to fit best.-DAVID: See my entry of 2 1/2 hours ago. The simplistic Central Dogma of Neo-Darwinism is too simplistic for reality as shown in current cell mechanics research. Here we see molecules wandering around in a very coordinated fashion, seemingly acting independently but obviously under systematic control. Planning for this type of living factories requires thought and then analysis of the results, an introspection that implies a self-aware consciousness. That is the way we design and plan. It is hard to conclude that our human consciousness is any different than a universal consciousness.-Your entry under "Cell complexity" gives a wonderful boost to the argument that the intelligent cell is the driving force behind evolution, but its only relevance to my first cause hypothesis, as far as I can see, is your claim that this self-organizing mechanism could only have been created by a self-aware consciousness. That, of course, is a matter of belief. I myself find it just as "hard to conclude" that there is an eternal and infinite, self-aware form of energy as that the intelligent cell is the product of sheer chance. An eternal and infinite form of energy sounds like a very feasible hypothesis to me, but its level of intelligence/consciousness/self-consciousness is the unknowable factor.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Saturday, November 10, 2012, 15:21 (4397 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: We "know" that we are in a life-sustaining universe. We do not know how it got this way or how life originated. Your eternal, self-aware creator is one explanatory hypothesis, chance is another explanatory hypothesis, an intelligent but unselfconscious form of energy (the orderly laws of Nature) is another explanatory hypothesis. -Laws are rules. Rules are logical concepts, guidelines. Therefore rules are information/intelligence. Where did those iniital laws come from? Are they eternal or were they composed? From something or from nothing? And we get nothing from true nothing.-> > dhw: An eternal and infinite form of energy sounds like a very feasible hypothesis to me, but its level of intelligence/consciousness/self-consciousness is the unknowable factor.- Not if you seriously look at what has been accomplished/organized from a pure energy beginning.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by BBella , Sunday, November 11, 2012, 05:04 (4397 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Sunday, November 11, 2012, 05:09
> > [dhw]But does it require construction by a self-conscious form of intelligence? Your question bypasses the hypothesis I have proposed above: namely, that the eternal "first cause" is an intelligent, self-organizing, but NOT self-conscious energy, and that lack of self-awareness does not mean a disorganized "rogue mass" > >[David]Planning for this type of living factories requires thought and then analysis of the results, an introspection that implies a self-aware consciousness. That is the way we design and plan. It is hard to conclude taht our human consciousness is any different than a universal consciousness.-How great a chance though, David, that the reason we "self-aware conscious humans" view the All That Is/God/our Maker/Creator, this way, is not necessarily because we/everything is created by a self-aware consciousness we call God, but because we have evolved this self-aware consciousness ability to see a self-aware consciousness that we believe we ourselves reflect and have called it God? -Yet, maybe the reason we have done this is because we identify with the very soup from which we are made? We KNOW we are made from the soup, and we have self-conscious awareness so that's what we see when we look at the soup reflecting back to us. The "idea" of a God may have been imposed/implanted within our minds from our own minds (or like minds) thru the words from our scriptures - "made in the image of God" because this is what man began to see when they first became self aware. Maybe, again, what we see is what has always been, yet thru the lense of self-aware consciousness, we have imposed an image looking back at us from "out there?" So we assume God is a self aware consciousness. -This brings to mind a scripture in the Old Testament that asks, "Can the clay say to the potter, why have you made me this way?" Maybe the answer is simply NO. The reason being, the potter is not a self aware consciousness being "like" we are. Possibly, self awareness is only a "by-product" of the All That Is, like poo is a "by-product" of man. Man, as a species, may have just moved up one rung or so from dust when we became a self-aware species. And, possibly, by the quality material/energy that is the All That Is, we are next to nothing, or even less, only a by-product. -Maybe, holographically (another quality of the ATI), the All That Is does now have self awareness within it that possibly it didn't have before (maybe it did, maybe it didn't). But that doesn't necessarily mean that either, this is a "moving on up" of the Universe as a higher more self aware conscious being, or that we humans have been created to evolve to be a higher being growing ever more toward our creator, the self aware God. It may only mean, simply, that the eternal infinity made a poo and we are it. -The thing is, what we sometimes seem to get stuck on within our conversations here, or even within our own thinking, is the insatiable need to always look backwards toward: first cause? - big bang? - where did we come from? - is there a God? - can we prove or disprove it?, when maybe, we are just asking the wrong questions and chasing our "tale" like a dog. And as my mom always says, there is one thing for certain and two things for sure, we ARE "fearfully and wonderfully made" out of a pliable energy we have only just begun to take baby steps toward comprehending. So why not follow this rabbit hole instead of the old one? Possibility?
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Sunday, November 11, 2012, 15:41 (4396 days ago) @ BBella
> How great a chance though, David, that the reason we "self-aware conscious humans" view the All That Is/God/our Maker/Creator, this way, is not necessarily because we/everything is created by a self-aware consciousness we call God, but because we have evolved this self-aware consciousness ability to see a self-aware consciousness that we believe we ourselves reflect and have called it God?-It is hard for me to imagine that we have evolved beyond what existed before us.- > The "idea" of a God may have been imposed/implanted within our minds from our own minds (or like minds) thru the words from our scriptures - "made in the image of God" because this is what man began to see when they first became self aware. -The only way we are 'made in the image of God' is mental. And I cannot imagine it being of a 'different' quality of mental. We are enormously different than other animals, and the jump to a mental God may be even more enormous. that the universe became self-aware through us is a development of enormous importance, as Paul Davies notes. There has to be a message there, and I think it is that we were 'expected' to arrive with that capacity. > > This brings to mind a scripture in the Old Testament that asks, "Can the clay say to the potter, why have you made me this way?" Maybe the answer is simply NO. The reason being, the potter is not a self aware consciousness being "like" we are. Possibly, self awareness is only a "by-product" of the All That Is, like poo is a "by-product" of man. Man, as a species, may have just moved up one rung or so from dust when we became a self-aware species. And, possibly, by the quality material/energy that is the All That Is, we are next to nothing, or even less, only a by-product. -No, I don't buy that line of reasoning. I don't think we can evolve beyond what is already possible to exist. We know from quantum theory that the universe requires intelligence to study the quantum level, that there is quantum interconnectedness throghout the universe. We see a further connection when we experience an NDE and consciousness survives, most likely at a quantum level. > > Maybe, holographically (another quality of the ATI), the All That Is does now have self awareness within it that possibly it didn't have before (maybe it did, maybe it didn't). But that doesn't necessarily mean that either, this is a "moving on up" of the Universe as a higher more self aware conscious being, or that we humans have been created to evolve to be a higher being growing ever more toward our creator, the self aware God. It may only mean, simply, that the eternal infinity made a poo and we are it.-This line of reasoning which includes holography comes closer to where I am. I think memories are somewhat holographic in brain function. In my memory I 'see' places and things. And again I think this is at a quantum level. The best comment I've ever heard about a simple proof of God came from a potential candidate for the House seat in my district (national) who said the only way to look at quantum mechanics is to understand there is a God. > > The thing is, what we sometimes seem to get stuck on within our conversations here, or even within our own thinking, is the insatiable need to always look backwards toward: first cause? - big bang? - where did we come from? - is there a God? - can we prove or disprove it?, when maybe, we are just asking the wrong questions and chasing our "tale" like a dog. And as my mom always says, there is one thing for certain and two things for sure, we ARE "fearfully and wonderfully made" out of a pliable energy we have only just begun to take baby steps toward comprehending. So why not follow this rabbit hole instead of the old one? Possibility?-Some of us do have an insatiable need to ask 'why,how, what if', etc. Mankind has always looked for answers. Why are we so lucky? I wouldn't want to be a chimp or silveback. And we have the consciousness which allows us to ponder. Is it worth it? Has a person truly lived unless they did a little puzzling? Many never puzzle and are less rich for that lack of mental effort. For them living is filling time with another TV show, adding a tattoo. No thanks.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
BBELLA: How great a chance though, David, that the reason we "self-aware conscious humans" view the All That Is/God/our Maker/Creator, this way, is not necessarily because we/everything is created by a self-aware consciousness we call God, but because we have evolved this self-aware consciousness ability to see a self-aware consciousness that we believe we ourselves reflect and have called it God?-DAVID: It is hard for me to imagine that we have evolved beyond what existed before us.-Then you have clearly missed the point of my analogy. Since you believe in evolution, you already agree that we have evolved immeasurably "beyond what existed before us" ... unless you think bacteria are possessed of a self-awareness exceeding our own! By the same token, intelligent but unselfconscious energy in the course of its endless variations (just like the endless variations of intelligent but unselfconscious cells/cell communities) may have put together the mechanisms that made evolution possible, leading ultimately to our own self-awareness.-BBELLA: The thing is, what we sometimes seem to get stuck on within our conversations here, or even within our own thinking, is the insatiable need to always look backwards toward: first cause? - big bang? - where did we come from? - is there a God? - can we prove or disprove it?, when maybe, we are just asking the wrong questions and chasing our "tale" like a dog. And as my mom always says, there is one thing for certain and two things for sure, we ARE "fearfully and wonderfully made" out of a pliable energy we have only just begun to take baby steps toward comprehending. So why not follow this rabbit hole instead of the old one? Possibility?-DAVID: Some of us do have an insatiable need to ask 'why, how, what if', etc. Mankind has always looked for answers.-Of course you are right, BBella, in that we are chasing our own "tail" (our way of spelling it over here!) like a dog, because we'll never know the answers, but I do feel that during our discussions we gain new insights into different possibilities (and you are one of our star providers). I also get the impression that most of us are deeply conscious of being "wonderfully made" (I'm not so sure about "fearfully"), and part of the wonder is our ability to ask how it happened as well as how it works and where it's leading. "This rabbit hole instead of the old one". Why instead? Can't we go chasing both bunnies (as well as our own tail)?
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Monday, November 12, 2012, 15:03 (4395 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: It is hard for me to imagine that we have evolved beyond what existed before us. > > dhw: Then you have clearly missed the point of my analogy. Since you believe in evolution, you already agree that we have evolved immeasurably "beyond what existed before us" ... -I was referring to the issue of conscousness. Before us was inorganic dirt and consciousness. We evolved to consciousness, and as Tony has noted that evolution was a necessary method as he rightly views it.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
DAVID: It is hard for me to imagine that we have evolved beyond what existed before us. dhw: Then you have clearly missed the point of my analogy. Since you believe in evolution, you already agree that we have evolved immeasurably "beyond what existed before us". DAVID: I was referring to the issue of conscousness. Before us was inorganic dirt and consciousness. We evolved to consciousness, and as Tony has noted that evolution was a necessary method as he rightly views it.-Perhaps you meant that before us was inorganic dirt and unselfconsciousness, and that is the whole point. We evolved far, far beyond what was before us. I don't know about evolution being the "necessary" method ... the main thing is that we agree evolution WAS the method, and if we were able to evolve from unselfconscious matter to unselfconscious (but "intelligent") organisms to the selfconsciousness we have today, why by the same token should not those same unselfconscious (but "intelligent") organisms have evolved from unselfconscious (but "intelligent") energy? After all, it was you who pointed out that matter is merely another form of energy.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 13, 2012, 20:43 (4394 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Perhaps you meant that before us was inorganic dirt and unselfconsciousness, and that is the whole point. We evolved far, far beyond what was before us. I don't know about evolution being the "necessary" method ... the main thing is that we agree evolution WAS the method, and if we were able to evolve from unselfconscious matter to unselfconscious (but "intelligent") organisms to the selfconsciousness we have today, why by the same token should not those same unselfconscious (but "intelligent") organisms have evolved from unselfconscious (but "intelligent") energy? After all, it was you who pointed out that matter is merely another form of energy.-The universal consciouness was always self-conscious, and we have evolved to join it as a small part of it, all at a quantum level. With our big brain we had the receiver for consciousness.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by BBella , Monday, November 12, 2012, 21:31 (4395 days ago) @ dhw
Of course you are right, BBella, in that we are chasing our own "tail" (our way of spelling it over here!) like a dog, because we'll never know the answers, -I meant for the spelling to put a spin on my metaphor - we are as a dog chasing (seeking/searching) our own tale/story of how we came to be.->but I do feel that during our discussions we gain new insights into different possibilities (and you are one of our star providers). -I completely agree! And thank you (twinkle)!->I also get the impression that most of us are deeply conscious of being "wonderfully made" (I'm not so sure about "fearfully"), -"Fearfully and wonderfully made" is a scripture I was quoting. Fearfully I think means awe-fully. ->and part of the wonder is our ability to ask how it happened as well as how it works and where it's leading. -I completely agree and would never want to minimize any of our discussions or change them in any way here because they also spark my own rabbit hole search. ->"This rabbit hole instead of the old one". Why instead? Can't we go chasing both bunnies (as well as our own tail)?-I completely agree! We should all chase any rabbit hole as we are guided by our curiosity. My point was toward the discussion of light, holography, Quantum Physics and consciousness. Can we be sure what we think we see in the past is what is truly there or, is what we think we see is thru the lenses of what we have become? This is why I ask: With the qualities and attributes of light and it's ability to hold all information at all times - and holography, with it's ability to insert new information available to all cells at all times, and our new found ability of QP to see this happening all at once, are we seeing what we we are seeing or what we have inserted into the ATI with our own growth of consciousness?-If, the above has any validity or holds any possibility, then this leads to this question: If light holds all information at all times, and if the holographic nature of the universe disperses new information into the ATI at all times and every cell carries within it this information, and we develop the certainty to know absolutely that this is in fact is what is happening? Then what? Is the past really what is in the past? Or is there even a past? And what possibility does this hold for us?
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by BBella , Monday, November 12, 2012, 20:31 (4395 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Monday, November 12, 2012, 20:40
> > [bbella] How great a chance though, David, that the reason we "self-aware conscious humans" view the All That Is/God/our Maker/Creator, this way, is not necessarily because we/everything is created by a self-aware consciousness we call God, but because we have evolved this self-aware consciousness ability to see a self-aware consciousness that we believe we ourselves reflect and have called it God? > > [david] It is hard for me to imagine that we have evolved beyond what existed before us.-Because of my time constraints I am just answering as brief as possible without edit and not sure how far I will get. Not sure, but I think you missed my implication. Do you think, as a species, we have evolved beyond what has existed before us, consciously or other wise? We were once a much less evolved creature and now we are a more evolved creature and we continue to evolve, toward what? Possibly, there is no "toward what". Maybe, we are using the material of the "what IS" and becoming whatever we can be with the use of this material/immaterial that we are made up of. This material/immaterial energy we could call God, but what it is has not been and most likely cannot be comprehended. So calling "it" a conscious or self aware God is just limiting it to our own comprehension which is as far as we ourselves have evolved. So we attribute consciousness to something that is so far beyond the word conscious or self aware only because that is as far as we ourselves have developed. Hope I'm not just muddying the waters here. > >[david] I don't think we can evolve beyond what is already possible to exist. We know from quantum theory that the universe requires intelligence to study the quantum level, that there is quantum interconnectedness throghout the universe. We see a further connection when we experience an NDE and consciousness survives, most likely at a quantum level.-I agree we do not see all possibilities that already exist within our universe as we might get to see in NDE's. But, you misunderstand if you think I am saying we have evolved beyond what has already existed before us (in a sense as the potential within What Is is so much more than consciousness itself). What I am saying is we have only just begun on the evolutionary scale of what is possible before us. Consciousness or self awareness is only a tiny minuscule glimpse of abilities and qualities that we can develop in our own evolutionary process. Possibly, somewhere in some dimension or time there may be development past our abilities. That may even answer why we have dreams and NDE's, who knows?->[David]The best comment I've ever heard about a simple proof of God came from a potential candidate for the House seat in my district (national) who said the only way to look at quantum mechanics is to understand there is a God.-This may well be, but what I am saying is QP is only a glimpse, a tiny twinkle into the What Is/God, the energy of All That Is. To label God (or the ATI) as a conscious self aware God is to limit God to what we ourselves have only just attained in the evolutionary process. ->[David]Some of us do have an insatiable need to ask 'why,how, what if', etc. Mankind has always looked for answers. -I think you missed my point (and not sure sometimes what my point is in re-saying any of this). Yes, you are right! I, of all people, would never encourage anyone not to seek answers to questions that they are passionate about, etc. That is one thing that gives me great joy in living as well. My point was made more toward comprehending the holographic nature of our universe. That, when we (the supposed bellwhether of nature) look into our distant past, we see what we think was before our own growth of consciousness or what led up to our growth of consciousness. So, what we should see is an unconscious universe. Yet, now that we are conscious, when we look into our past, before consciousness, holographically, we see/or look for/or seek to find consciousness, intelligence - God. And some do find it or see, just as you. Or at least, evidence of it (within the growing intelligent cell for example). But, can we truly have our answer from our past? Was there consciousness before we attained consciousness or was there not? Holographically, we cannot truly know the answer, because now we are conscious and self aware to boot. So now we see thru the lenses of consciousness, we see as we are seen - we see a mirror of what we are, we may even see what is not there, or is it now there because we have developed consciousness and holographically that past becoming conscious, just as we are. So, in a sense, we are unable to "know" if the past truly was with or without consciousness - so my metaphor; the dog chasing it's "tale" of how it came to be.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 13, 2012, 01:21 (4395 days ago) @ BBella
> bbella:I think you missed my point (and not sure sometimes what my point is in re-saying any of this). Yes, you are right! I, of all people, would never encourage anyone not to seek answers to questions that they are passionate about, etc. That is one thing that gives me great joy in living as well. My point was made more toward comprehending the holographic nature of our universe. -I'm not sure our universe is a hologram. They are plays in light and look real enough but you can walk through one. You are working at a more mystical level than I am. As you know I look at solid science and try to figure out what that means in terms of God. With my religious background I start and stop with one God, no trinity. I know that God is a person like no other person, if one can even approach the concept at that level. So I best conceive of Him as a universal mind, an organized bundle of energy with supreme self-aware consciousness. -I believe we have evolved beyond chimps and apes when there was no reason for that evolution. Chimps and apes have done just fine without evolving. We startd out as tree climbers, all even with the others. There is no logical reason, according to the theories of evolution, for our pushing forward into our current position. Over 20 million years ago a monkey had a vertebral change on the way to upright posture. Something pushed that! For it went on to partial tree climbing and partial walking and at the same time the unprecedented growth of our brain from 1/4 th its size (a la chimps) in 6-8 million years. -We had to learn to use that brain, to develop language, with a brain that appears to have a built-in syntax system. All languages follow the same patterns. Children can pick up any language, if under age eight, very quickly.-All of this cannot occur by chance mutation. I can only conceive it as guided, and that implies a 'guider', or a guiding program in DNA. And now we study ourselves and wonder. This cannot come from nothing.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by BBella , Saturday, November 17, 2012, 22:42 (4390 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Saturday, November 17, 2012, 22:54
I'm not sure our universe is a hologram...You are working at a more mystical level than I am. As you know I look at solid science and try to figure out what that means in terms of God. -I think I am considering the scientific view of the possibility that one of the qualities of the ATI/God, energetically, is holographic. When you get into QP do you not leave "solid" science behind and step into the mystical? Maybe the only difference between the mystical and science is science focusing on the mystical qualities of What Is, just in their own scientific way. Like looking for a back door when their is already a front door. Science, having their own philosophy, doesn't take doors that have any connection with the mystics - which I completely understand and am glad it is so. For the moment, I will leave the question open and ask maybe that you do more scientific research on the holographic nature of the universe and see if there might be something more to discuss "scientifically?" Or, I can research myself to bring more science in that area to the table. So, on to other questions and considerations: ->With my religious background I start and stop with one God, no trinity. I know that God is a person like no other person, if one can even approach the concept at that level.-Why do you call God a person (speaking of solid science)? When I think of the word person I think human. Even if God is like no other, in what way is God a person? Just curious. Of course I thought this way myself when I was religious, I pictured God the way I had been taught to see "him."->So I best conceive of Him as a universal mind, an organized bundle of energy with supreme self-aware consciousness.-Why does God have to be a self-aware consciousness person as if SAC is some kind of great feat just because humans have achieved it? What if, self-aware consciousness, as a "quality," is minuscule within the WHOLE of what God is? You say the word "supreme self-aware consciousness" as if this quality of SAC is the most greatest aspect there can possibly be within ATI. In my humble peon SAC, it doesn't seem so great just because we humans have it. It seems to me, the very "quality" of the energetic fabric of ATI, that has been and is still able to continuously create ATI, even as we humans only know it, and observe it's movement and becoming, as we watch, seems a far more greater quality than SAC. Sure, as SAC beings, we have been able to create from the created and can see within much of the created just what specific aspects may be (call it what we like: atom/molecule/cell/etc). But, we have yet even to comprehend this living fabric and it's miraculous quality, that even if we understood it just a bit, we, at this point in our SAC, could be very dangerous. The movie 'The Sphere' comes to mind. > I believe we have evolved beyond chimps and apes when there was no reason for that evolution. Chimps and apes have done just fine without evolving. We startd out as tree climbers, all even with the others. There is no logical reason, according to the theories of evolution, for our pushing forward into our current position. Over 20 million years ago a monkey had a vertebral change on the way to upright posture. Something pushed that! For it went on to partial tree climbing and partial walking and at the same time the unprecedented growth of our brain from 1/4 th its size (a la chimps) in 6-8 million years. We had to learn to use that brain, to develop language, with a brain that appears to have a built-in syntax system. All languages follow the same patterns. All of this cannot occur by chance mutation. I can only conceive it as guided, and that implies a 'guider', or a guiding program in DNA. And now we study ourselves and wonder. This cannot come from nothing. -I can understand why you would assume a God like person that interferes with evolution, from the view you are expressing above. But, in some way, you remind me of the scientist who wants to create a door where there is none. I think there is information "out there" you are not considering when it comes to this particular problem in evolution of which I have asked, here, for us to consider the possibility - of so called "gods" tinkering with evolution. But, like the true scientist that you are, you probably have not looked very far into that information since you had rather create your own door. Which, I, in no way would be critical of, because you may just find this very information, just by your own rules.-[EDITED]
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Sunday, November 18, 2012, 00:33 (4390 days ago) @ BBella
bbella: I will leave the question open and ask maybe that you do more scientific research on the holographic nature of the universe and see if there might be something more to discuss "scientifically?" Or, I can research myself to bring more science in that area to the table. -I've read Michael Talbot's book "The Holographic Universe, 1991. I assume you have also. Also reviewed David Bohm's thinking. I'm just not convinced about the holographic idea. I've seen holograms as playing with light. I can go no further. Although I admit this is a quantum universe, all interconnected with our human consciousness.-> > bbella: With my religious background I start and stop with one God, no trinity. I know that God is a person like no other person, if one can even approach the concept at that level. > Why do you call God a person (speaking of solid science)? When I think of the word person I think human. Even if God is like no other, in what way is God a person? Just curious. Of course I thought this way myself when I was religious, I pictured God the way I had been taught to see "him."-Mortimer J Adler, the prominent 20th Century Philosopher and advisor to the Catholic church uses exactly that terminology, and I follow his lead. > > > David: So I best conceive of Him as a universal mind, an organized bundle of energy with supreme self-aware consciousness. > > bbella: Why does God have to be a self-aware consciousness person as if SAC is some kind of great feat just because humans have achieved it? What if, self-aware consciousness, as a "quality," is minuscule within the WHOLE of what God is?-I don't conceive of consciousness as a miniscule achievment. The inorganic universe allowed life to appear, and through us the universe became self-aware. That is an amazing event whether there is a UI present or not. If a UI is present, then it is slightly less amazing. -> > bbella: I think there is information "out there" you are not considering when it comes to this particular problem in evolution of which I have asked, here, for us to consider the possibility - of so called "gods" tinkering with evolution.-I am sure there is information that runs the universe and is contained in DNA. The issue is where did that information come from? Not from formless inorganic matter. That is why I have told dhw there must be an intelligent First Cause, one with consciousnesds so that it can think and present cohesive information.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by BBella , Thursday, November 08, 2012, 08:27 (4400 days ago) @ dhw
>[dhw] I'm thinking now of the body (a community of billions of cells) as a macrocosm. The individual cells (microcosms) are all interconnected and function intelligently, but are they conscious of themselves in the way we are? -If light carries the information in the cell and functions as the messenger between the cells, then, it would seem to me, that it's not the cell that is intelligent but the light moving between the cells that's intelligent. So, in a sense, it would seem (seems like I've said something similar to this before in this forum), consciousness is the byproduct of the intelligence gathering within the cells, not the creator of it. Yet, once consciousness was created it holographically, in a sense, became a factor within creation itself. And, being light as well, consciousness continues to be drawn where it would be the most productive. So, is the individual cell conscious of itself in the way we are? I would say no, but possibly each cell, because of the light communicating between all cells within a body, holds all the information of consciousness within each cell. Possibly.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Thursday, November 08, 2012, 15:16 (4399 days ago) @ BBella
> bbella: If light carries the information in the cell and functions as the messenger between the cells, then, it would seem to me, that it's not the cell that is intelligent but the light moving between the cells that's intelligent.-I just looked at the Wikipedia entry on biophotons. Seemed like a fair summary. Added to the mix was the observation that photoreceptive proteins are in the brain! I have no idea how photons could carry information: as a digital code; by using the direction of spin? In the counterintuitive quantum world, anything is possible. I keep coming back to the comments about meditation and being AT ONE WITH THE UNIVERSE, much of the discussion is about light, extraordinary light. -The comments at the end of the article you presented tried to sneak in a biophoton version of a theory of consciousness. Again, back to a theory of consciousness at the quantum level. Our consciousness makes the universe conscious, or is it the other way around? The universe was always conscious and our brains developed into receivers and participants. Pim van Lommel is of this latter viewpoint.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
[dhw] I'm thinking now of the body (a community of billions of cells) as a macrocosm. The individual cells (microcosms) are all interconnected and function intelligently, but are they conscious of themselves in the way we are? BBella: If light carries the information in the cell and functions as the messenger between the cells, then, it would seem to me, that it's not the cell that is intelligent but the light moving between the cells that's intelligent. So, in a sense, it would seem (seems like I've said something similar to this before in this forum), consciousness is the byproduct of the intelligence gathering within the cells, not the creator of it. Yet, once consciousness was created it holographically, in a sense, became a factor within creation itself. And, being light as well, consciousness continues to be drawn where it would be the most productive. So, is the individual cell conscious of itself in the way we are? I would say no, but possibly each cell, because of the light communicating between all cells within a body, holds all the information of consciousness within each cell. Possibly.-There are so many difficult questions here, and of course none of us know the answers. Is the light generated by the cells, or does it have an independent existence (essential if we are to believe in the authenticity of NDEs)? Information in itself is of no use until it's processed and applied, and so if light is the messenger carrying information, what does the processing and applying? Could it not be that cells and light constitute different forms of intelligence? To what extent can we call intelligence consciousness, and to what extent is consciousness self-conscious? Where are the borderlines?-Earlier, I chickened out of answering that last question, though if this conversation continues, I suspect we shall need to come up with a few defining clucks in the end!
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by BBella , Tuesday, November 13, 2012, 06:20 (4395 days ago) @ dhw
[dhw] I'm thinking now of the body (a community of billions of cells) as a macrocosm. The individual cells (microcosms) are all interconnected and function intelligently, but are they conscious of themselves in the way we are? > > BBella: If light carries the information in the cell and functions as the messenger between the cells, then, it would seem to me, that it's not the cell that is intelligent but the light moving between the cells that's intelligent. So, in a sense, it would seem (seems like I've said something similar to this before in this forum), consciousness is the byproduct of the intelligence gathering within the cells, not the creator of it. Yet, once consciousness was created it holographically, in a sense, became a factor within creation itself. And, being light as well, consciousness continues to be drawn where it would be the most productive. So, is the individual cell conscious of itself in the way we are? I would say no, but possibly each cell, because of the light communicating between all cells within a body, holds all the information of consciousness within each cell. Possibly. > Sorry dhw, not sure how I missed your post above. I may have opened it but didn't have the chance to read it so assumed when I came back that I had.-> There are so many difficult questions here, and of course none of us know the answers. -I agree none of us have the answers about what we are discussing here, but I do think the answers are out there and there are scientist working on discovering more about the biophoton and how the information it carries works within the cell.->Is the light generated by the cells, or does it have an independent existence (essential if we are to believe in the authenticity of NDEs)? -I think information from light energy is used by the cell and then the cell releases what it doesn't need which then dissipates into the either. So maybe the biophoton scientist see being dispersed from the cell they assume is the cell generating these biophotons. That's just my take.->Information in itself is of no use until it's processed and applied, and so if light is the messenger carrying information, what does the processing and applying? -Possibly, the information or building blocks of life that have already created it's purpose within the cell processes the light info it needs and applies the information it has taken from the full "bank" of light that it's always afforded. I'm not sure and they are probably not sure either, but is why they are observing. They have to observe the process from the outside so I assume they are guessing at this point, just as I am guessing (altho without actually observing, just using a mental picture and logic). ->Could it not be that cells and light constitute different forms of intelligence? -The only way I can think to answer your question is how I imagine what I have gathered so far about the biophoton and how I imagine what I have thought about myself, and that's using numbers. It seems to me that light particle/waves carry an infinite amount of information which I will call numbers and cells are certain of these numbers that have gathered into certain spaces in time which built the cell, including the cell wall. So when more light filters thru the created cell, the cell gathers from the light whatever numbers (information) it is in need of at the time to continue it's processes/life/purpose. So I would think the answer is yes, that they are different forms of intelligence, only in the sense that the formed cell is certain numbers and not the formless infinite numbers of the light energy, but the formed cell does have access to the infinite numbers at all times. Which is what the discussion is about that I hope this all eventually leads to. ->To what extent can we call intelligence consciousness, -For me, and I know this isn't the way David sees it, I believe consciousness is a by product of the infinite All That Is. Consciousness, because it has evolved, is also now one aspect or a part of the Infinite ATI in a holographic sense. I think the energy/light/makeup of the ATI is a much greater thing (for lack of a better word) than consciousness can ever comprehend, so much so, that the words consciousness and intelligence cannot even begin to express just what IT is. Which is why the word God could have fit more appropriately, if we hadn't already put God in a box so to speak. ->and to what extent is consciousness self-conscious? Where are the borderlines?-I think consciousness is what humans had before they became self aware or self conscious. We can look about us and see what appears as consciousness, because we have evolved past it. But, as of yet, we do not see self awareness in any other species so we are the top of the line (because we are self aware) in all that we know to be (altho that remains to be seen). So I assume that the borderline between conscious and self conscious is the difference between the human species and other species.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 13, 2012, 15:30 (4394 days ago) @ BBella
bbella: For me, and I know this isn't the way David sees it, I believe consciousness is a by product of the infinite All That Is. Consciousness, because it has evolved, is also now one aspect or a part of the Infinite ATI in a holographic sense. I think the energy/light/makeup of the ATI is a much greater thing (for lack of a better word) than consciousness can ever comprehend, so much so, that the words consciousness and intelligence cannot even begin to express just what IT is. Which is why the word God could have fit more appropriately, if we hadn't already put God in a box so to speak.-My interpretation of your thoughts is that you envision a super-state or force beyond consciousness. Sounds very complex, and usually, when science works it out it is simpler. We know consciousness, even if we do not know what it is. It is deeply involved in quantum mechanics. We all realize this. as I envision it, God is concealed on the other side of it, not our side. God =s ATI. > > >dhw: and to what extent is consciousness self-conscious? Where are the borderlines? > > bbella: I think consciousness is what humans had before they became self aware or self conscious. We can look about us and see what appears as consciousness, because we have evolved past it. But, as of yet, we do not see self awareness in any other species so we are the top of the line (because we are self aware) in all that we know to be (altho that remains to be seen). So I assume that the borderline between conscious and self conscious is the difference between the human species and other species.-This thought is right on. As I commented yesterday, We had big brains but had to learn how to use them, and that use is still expanding. It is estimated that our use level is at 15% of capacity currently. They are a great gift. We are only 10K years from stoneage! If we don't destroy ourselves, what will the next 10K bring?
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
Dhw: Of course you are right, BBella, in that we are chasing our own "tail" (our way of spelling it over here!) like a dog, because we'll never know the answers. BBELLA: I meant for the spelling to put a spin on my metaphor - we are as a dog chasing (seeking/searching) our own tale/story of how we came to be.-Abject apologies! I thought this was another instance of skeptic versus sceptic!-BBELLA: My point was toward the discussion of light, holography, Quantum Physics and consciousness. Can we be sure what we think we see in the past is what is truly there or, is what we think we see is thru the lenses of what we have become? This is why I ask: With the qualities and attributes of light and it's ability to hold all information at all times - and holography, with it's ability to insert new information available to all cells at all times, and our new found ability of QP to see this happening all at once, are we seeing what we we are seeing or what we have inserted into the ATI with our own growth of consciousness?-Of course we have no way of knowing in any context whether what we see corresponds to reality. Intersubjective consensus is our only guide. Theoretically, the past never dies since theoretically light holds all the information. As I wrote in the brief guide: "If I had a telescope that could focus on an object 660 million miles away, I would see it as it was an hour ago. The greater the distance, the further back into the past we can see. Modern technology is working on this even as I write and as you read. We can already see things millions of light years away. Theoretically, it means that nothing is lost so long as light is able to travel. A telescope on a planet X billion miles away would enable the observer to watch the crucifixion. There are, then, waves that go on for ever." But even then, we can't be sure that what we see really happened. And similarly, we can never know whether David's vision of a god is simply a reflection of his own self-consciousness. Nothing is certain.-I don't want to reproduce all that you say about light, cells, intelligence and consciousness as this post will overshoot its space, and in any case I find some of it hard to follow. It might help if I think aloud in my own rather simple fashion, and then you can correct me. I get the impression that your "light" is David's "energy", and since we are a part of the ALL THAT IS, our cells absorb a limited quantity of the infinite amount of information contained in the light/energy. Theoretically, there is no limit to the amount we can absorb, but in real life we can never take in more than the tiniest fraction. Therefore we can have no idea of the true nature of the ATI, and any concepts we might have of it are quite likely to be distorted by the impositions of our own self-awareness. None of this, though, is tied to "light" as a particular key to our understanding of the ATI. What I have written above concerns the storage of information, and not how the information comes into being, or how it is processed and applied. So I am stuck as far as the creative/active properties of light are concerned. Perhaps you can clarify that for me. Meanwhile, I'd like to comment on David's reply to you, but again this involves what may be a wrong interpretation of your posts. DAVID (to BBELLA): You are working at a more mystical level than I am. As you know I look at solid science and try to figure out what that means in terms of God. With my religious background I start and stop with one God, no trinity. I know that God is a person like no other person, if one can even approach the concept at that level. So I best conceive of Him as a universal mind, an organized bundle of energy with supreme self-aware consciousness.-I hope you know by now, David, how much respect and admiration I have for your use of science in your quest for the truth, but you know yourself that science can only go so far, and then it HAS to give way to faith. This discussion with you and BBella is an admirable illustration: solid science doesn't tell you that there is one God or that there is a supreme self-aware consciousness. That is mysticism. It may be that mysticism ultimately is a more reliable guide to truth than solid science. Or perhaps mysticism and quantum physics are an intersecting point, since nobody understands QP. BBella's ALL THAT IS is a totally neutral description, and while you impose self-awareness on it, someone else can impose a natural but not self-aware orderliness that has ultimately evolved into what we believe is our own unique self-awareness. This does not require a mystical "person like no other person", or a planner with a purpose. For a long time you have argued against concepts of a Universal Intelligence that endow it with attributes. If I've understood BBella's ATI correctly, that is precisely what she has presented you with.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Thursday, November 15, 2012, 01:54 (4393 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:I hope you know by now, David, how much respect and admiration I have for your use of science in your quest for the truth, but you know yourself that science can only go so far, and then it HAS to give way to faith............. For a long time you have argued against concepts of a Universal Intelligence that endow it with attributes. If I've understood BBella's ATI correctly, that is precisely what she has presented you with.-I do not apply human attributes, such as love or meanness to the UI. When I say do not humanize God, I mean remove all human emotions. Self-awareness is a different issue. It is an attribute of the kind of consciousness we humans have, and I feel the UI has and has had before we achieved it.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
DAVID: I do not apply human attributes such as love or meanness to the UI. When I say do not humanize God, I mean remove all human emotions. Self-awareness is a different issue. It is an attribute of the kind of consciousness we humans have, and I feel the UI has and has had before we achieve it.-I must confess I find this totally inconceivable. A UI that is self-aware will know why it is creating life. I don't think the sun, the rain and the earthworm are aware of any purpose in what they are doing, but a self-aware God who creates life MUST have a reason, and whatever that may be (curiosity, boredom, love, pleasure) must count as a human attribute. However, if your God's self-awareness makes him aware that he is nothing but a blank, he might just as well not be self-aware! BBella's ALL THAT IS at least gives us the possibility that our own attributes may be part of it. -You said earlier: "It is hard for me to imagine that we have evolved beyond what existed before us" ... which was a reference to God, not to bacteria. In that case I can only ask, don't you find it hard to imagine a God that does not have the capacity to feel all the things we humans feel?
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Friday, November 16, 2012, 15:00 (4391 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You said earlier: "It is hard for me to imagine that we have evolved beyond what existed before us" ... which was a reference to God, not to bacteria. In that case I can only ask, don't you find it hard to imagine a God that does not have the capacity to feel all the things we humans feel?-Since God is such an extraordinary person, I don't know that we can envision what He feels or how He feels. Religions tells us He is love. But just as likely He is sitting back watching his experiment, as you suggest. We can imply a personality with feelings, but we don't know. It is back to faith, which is a leap away from science.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
dhw: You said earlier: "It is hard for me to imagine that we have evolved beyond what existed before us" ... which was a reference to God, not to bacteria. In that case I can only ask, don't you find it hard to imagine a God that does not have the capacity to feel all the things we humans feel?-DAVID: Since God is such an extraordinary person, I don't know that we can envision what He feels or how He feels. Religions tells us He is love. But just as likely He is sitting back watching his experiment, as you suggest. We can imply a personality with feelings, but we don't know. It is back to faith, which is a leap away from science.-Agreed. It would therefore be as pointless to insist that God does not have certain attributes as it is to insist that he does have them. For me there are two opposing clues: -1) It is difficult to imagine a self-conscious creator making something totally alien to himself ... i.e. he must be able to feel whatever we feel.-2) The impersonality of Nature suggests the absence, lack of interest, insensitivity, or non-existence of a god. This impersonality also fits in perfectly with the concept of an intelligent but unself-conscious first cause.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Saturday, November 17, 2012, 15:10 (4390 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Agreed. It would therefore be as pointless to insist that God does not have certain attributes as it is to insist that he does have them. For me there are two opposing clues: > > 1) It is difficult to imagine a self-conscious creator making something totally alien to himself ... i.e. he must be able to feel whatever we feel. > > 2) The impersonality of Nature suggests the absence, lack of interest, insensitivity, or non-existence of a god. This impersonality also fits in perfectly with the concept of an intelligent but unself-conscious first cause.-As for 1) I'm in agreement that a Creator can feel what we feel, but his reactions may differ. We do not know.-Your 2) is a problem for me: Nature in its totality and in the progress of evolution arrived at US. That is not impersonal and we are self-aware. As Paul Davies has pointed out in his famous quote, that is a fact of tremendous significance.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
Dhw: 2) The impersonality of Nature suggests the absence, lack of interest, insensitivity, or non-existence of a god. This impersonality also fits in perfectly with the concept of an intelligent but unself-conscious first cause.-DAVID: Your 2) is a problem for me: Nature in its totality and in the progress of evolution arrived at US. That is not impersonal and we are self-aware. As Paul Davies has pointed out in his famous quote, that is a fact of tremendous significance.-The fact that we are self-aware is certainly of tremendous significance (to us), but it does not mean that Nature is aware of us, let alone that it consciously cares about us. The fact that evolution arrived at us does not mean that the forces which drive evolution ... perhaps your unknown mechanism in DNA or my "intelligent cell", plus the environment ... are aware of us or consciously care about us. That is what I mean by impersonal.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Sunday, November 18, 2012, 22:09 (4389 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The fact that we are self-aware is certainly of tremendous significance (to us), but it does not mean that Nature is aware of us, let alone that it consciously cares about us. The fact that evolution arrived at us does not mean that the forces which drive evolution ... perhaps your unknown mechanism in DNA or my "intelligent cell", plus the environment ... are aware of us or consciously care about us. That is what I mean by impersonal.-Whatever you want to call Nature, an inoganic universe is interconnected by a quantum network. You are ignoring the fact that consciousness is required for quantum research. I think we have a strong inference that the universal quantum network is conscious and our brain has learned to use it. Our consciousness is not emergent. Only the methodological materialists in science and the atheists believe that it is.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
dhw: The fact that we are self-aware is certainly of tremendous significance (to us), but it does not mean that Nature is aware of us, let alone that it consciously cares about us. The fact that evolution arrived at us does not mean that the forces which drive evolution ... perhaps your unknown mechanism in DNA or my "intelligent cell", plus the environment ... are aware of us or consciously care about us. That is what I mean by impersonal.-DAVID: Whatever you want to call Nature, an inorganic universe is interconnected by a quantum network. You are ignoring the fact that consciousness is required for quantum research. I think we have a strong inference that the universal quantum network is conscious and our brain has learned to use it. Our consciousness is not emergent. Only the methodological materialists in science and the atheists believe that it is.-The fact that consciousness is required for any kind of research does not mean that what is being researched is conscious. Of course you may be right that first cause energy/the universal quantum network/a UI or whatever name we care to give it is conscious and self-conscious, and that consciousness does not emerge from the physical brain but uses the brain as its receiver and transmitter. But nobody knows. "Inferences" are as strong as believers and non-believers consider them to be, and that is precisely what this whole debate is about.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 20, 2012, 19:06 (4387 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:The fact that consciousness is required for any kind of research does not mean that what is being researched is conscious. .....But nobody knows. "Inferences" are as strong as believers and non-believers consider them to be, and that is precisely what this whole debate is about.-We will have to agree that no one knows what consciousness arises from. We all experience it. And we have to leave it at that. All else is theory.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
DAVID (under Proving common descent): NDE's are a form of proof that consciousness is universal. That is how the brain can formulate NDE stories while totally non-functional.-dhw: Or perhaps they are proof that energy as processed by the brain survives the death of the brain and brings human consciousness into the energy that first gave rise to life on Earth. Otherwise, how would the ND-experiencer preserve his/her identity? It's interesting that ND-ers see certain people from their own world. That = individual and intersubjective consciousness, but NOT universal consciousness.-DAVID: I don't think we have to go as far back as the energy of first cause unless you will agree that the UI is the same thing as first cause. -It depends what we mean by these terms. My hypothesis has been that first cause energy may be intelligent in the sense that ... like Nature and the "intelligent cell" ... it spontaneously created and is still creating some sort of functioning order without necessarily being conscious or self-conscious. Only in this sense could my hypothetical first cause be called a UI.-DAVID: The NDE'rs keep an intact module of their own consciousness during the episode, that is obvious, but they might very well be using a portion of the energy of the UI in doing that. All quantum activity is interconnected. The only problem with all this theorizing is we do not know what consciousness is. We only know what we experience, not its foundation. DAVID: We will have to agree that no one knows what consciousness arises from. We all experience it. And we have to leave it at that. All else is theory.-Exactly. Perhaps consciousness is produced by the brain, is received by the brain, is influenced by the brain, influences the brain...Perhaps first cause energy acts randomly, perhaps it is intelligent, perhaps it is conscious, perhaps it is self-conscious. Theists and atheists alike have nothing but a series of 'perhapses'!-DAVID (under Standard model; quantum mechanics): Great review of what it does not tell us:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/surely_its_disc066461.html-"The conclusion that follows from these observations is inevitable. There is no such thing as the world, or the universe to which the SM unequivocally points. And so there can be no large and general conclusions about what the study of the world, the universe, or of Nature reveal about the existence of God."-Put all these perhapses and theories and hypotheses and don't-knows together, and it sounds to me like a pretty good case for agnosticism!
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Thursday, November 22, 2012, 23:32 (4385 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Put all these perhapses and theories and hypotheses and don't-knows together, and it sounds to me like a pretty good case for agnosticism!-Of course no one knows the answers. That is why agnosticism is a refuge from the debate. Most debates declare a winner. In timed sports events that play to a tie, there is overtime to try for a winner. No one likes a tie result. Agnosticism is a tie result. But it is an honest position.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by BBella , Friday, November 23, 2012, 08:59 (4385 days ago) @ dhw
I get the impression that your "light" is David's "energy", and since we are a part of the ALL THAT IS, our cells absorb a limited quantity of the infinite amount of information contained in the light/energy. Theoretically, there is no limit to the amount we can absorb, but in real life we can never take in more than the tiniest fraction. Therefore we can have no idea of the true nature of the ATI,-I agree that we, or science, does not have, at this time, much of an idea about the true nature of the ATI, but I do think that in time science will learn more about the ATI when they begin to notice (and quite a few already have) that their findings crisscross the same paths as the mystics. Maybe when they take into consideration the findings of the mystics and study with this knowledge of the mystics in mind they will gain further access into the workings of the ATI. I believe trying to avoid anything "mystical" has hampered science but many scientists have begun to accept and step into the light of the mystics and explore with a more open mind. > None of this, though, is tied to "light" as a particular key to our understanding of the ATI. -I was thinking that the article, by shedding more light on how cells communicate, did provide a key to understanding more of how the ATI operates. If we think of the ATI, as David has said, like a giant body, the whole of communication within every cell of our body is some how connected to our whole body and yet we are unaware of anything that goes on within our body. The mystics do say that the mind is not in the head it's within every cell, all working as one yet independently at the same time with no conscious awareness of each other. ->What I have written above concerns the storage of information, and not how the information comes into being, or how it is processed and applied. So I am stuck as far as the creative/active properties of light are concerned. Perhaps you can clarify that for me. -I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, but I will try and answer what I think you may be asking and what I think I am understanding (but may well be off base in what I think the information is relaying). Light, in a sense, feeds the cell, not only with the building blocks of information (in a sense information is like food for the cell), for whatever the cell needs, but with the fuel/energy for using the information the cell keeps and uses as well. And since the light holds all knowledge within and without all cells (including all new information created by each cell) within the ATI, the light is able to always keep the balance within the ATI as well. -Meanwhile, I'd like to comment on David's reply to you, but again this involves what may be a wrong interpretation of your posts. > > DAVID (to BBELLA): You are working at a more mystical level than I am. As you know I look at solid science and try to figure out what that means in terms of God. With my religious background I start and stop with one God, no trinity. I know that God is a person like no other person, if one can even approach the concept at that level. So I best conceive of Him as a universal mind, an organized bundle of energy with supreme self-aware consciousness. > >[dhw]BBella's ALL THAT IS is a totally neutral description, -It is only a neutral description in the sense that all of my body, if it was the ATI, runs as one being - yet all parts, every cell, within the ATI (me) is also the ATI (me), yet I, as the ATI, am not personally aware of all the activity of all cells just like I am not aware of the activity of all my cells, yet all are all me/one. I would not say that my conscious awareness is all that I am, which is what David is saying God is. If God is just conscious awareness (first and at all times) then all the tiny cells would not be each doing something different within the whole. Because then, all cells would know that it is God. -What I am saying, is consciousness and self awareness is but one part of ATI just like it is one part of me. Yet, my whole body runs as one in almost perfect unison. To me, this typifies God. Because I do have conscious awareness, all cells of my body also has access, thru light, to this information within my consciousness, and if a cell needs or wants to use that information to tweak itself, it does, but it's not that information. My explanations and metaphors may just be too far out or not explanatory enough or just wrong. I'm probably just spinning my wheels here?
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Friday, November 23, 2012, 15:39 (4384 days ago) @ BBella
> I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, but I will try and answer what I think you may be asking and what I think I am understanding (but may well be off base in what I think the information is relaying). Light, in a sense, feeds the cell, not only with the building blocks of information (in a sense information is like food for the cell), for whatever the cell needs, but with the fuel/energy for using the information the cell keeps and uses as well. -I'd like to drop in here recent research on nano-protein machines and the electric current produced. I wonder if photons are also involved as suggested:-http://phys.org/news/2012-11-electronics-nature-nano-machines.html
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by BBella , Friday, November 23, 2012, 21:52 (4384 days ago) @ David Turell
> > I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, but I will try and answer what I think you may be asking and what I think I am understanding (but may well be off base in what I think the information is relaying). Light, in a sense, feeds the cell, not only with the building blocks of information (in a sense information is like food for the cell), for whatever the cell needs, but with the fuel/energy for using the information the cell keeps and uses as well. > > I'd like to drop in here recent research on nano-protein machines and the electric current produced. I wonder if photons are also involved as suggested: > > http://phys.org/news/2012-11-electronics-nature-nano-machines.html-Maybe what scientist are observing thru the movement of these proteins that are about their business doing their thing, is actually their movement along by/thru light and sound, possibly above or within the quantum level. These two articles have different views, one from light and one from sound, but sometimes interchangeable. The first one is a more thorough look at the Popp article I began this original post from.-http://www.viewzone.com/dnax.html-http://www.biotune.net/Power-Of-Sound.php (the references given for this article was even more interesting).
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Friday, November 23, 2012, 23:53 (4384 days ago) @ BBella
> Maybe what scientist are observing thru the movement of these proteins that are about their business doing their thing, is actually their movement along by/thru light and sound, possibly above or within the quantum level. These two articles have different views, one from light and one from sound, but sometimes interchangeable. The first one is a more thorough look at the Popp article I began this original post from. > > http://www.viewzone.com/dnax.html > > http://www.biotune.net/Power-Of-Sound.php (the references given for this article was even more interesting).-All of these fascinating observations are at a quantum level. Makes perfect sense since we know a quantum network underlies the entire universe. It certainly warrents a lot more work. Penrose's idea of quantum tubules and consciousness is fascinating. It all fits with the idea that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Saturday, November 24, 2012, 15:18 (4383 days ago) @ David Turell
> All of these fascinating observations are at a quantum level. Makes perfect sense since we know a quantum network underlies the entire universe. -a table-top experiment to test the foam quantum structure of the universe:- http://phys.org/news/2012-11-physicist-simple-foam-like-universe.html
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
BBELLA: I believe trying to avoid anything "mystical" has hampered science but many scientists have begun to accept and step into the light of the mystics and explore with a more open mind.-Of course science by its nature can only deal with the material world, which is the very opposite of the mystical world. I think that in this respect, science is struggling, because in so many fundamental areas of life it comes up against apparently insoluble mysteries. Materialists like Dawkins can only hope it will find explanations to fit in with their own particular faith. Whether David's beloved quantum world will reveal the answers we really don't know, but at present it seems to me more mystic than scientific.-You explained how light contained information, and I asked how light could create and/or process it. Earlier I had written that I had the impression your "light" was David's "energy". I'm certainly the one who has been off base, as I think far more literally than scientifically. I've logged onto the various websites you and David have referred us to, and I think I now understand the concept of "light-energy", so it's not surprising you found my question difficult to understand! My apologies.-In your comment on David's post and my response (that your ATI is neutral) you write: "I would not say that my conscious awareness is all that I am" and that it is "but one part of the ATI" because you are/it is not aware of the activity of all the cells in your/its body. This is sort of in line with the analogy that I've been trying to draw, except that I'm questioning whether the ATI actually has self-awareness at all. Perhaps it is composed of nothing but unselfconscious yet functioning "cells" like ours.-You write: "Maybe my explanations and metaphors may just be too far out or not explanatory enough or just wrong." We all have the same problem, but I do feel that these discussions throw little shafts of light into our general darkness, and I for one learn a great deal from them - viz. light-energy!
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by BBella , Wednesday, November 28, 2012, 07:13 (4380 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Wednesday, November 28, 2012, 07:21
In your comment on David's post and my response (that your ATI is neutral) you write: "I would not say that my conscious awareness is all that I am" and that it is "but one part of the ATI" because you are/it is not aware of the activity of all the cells in your/its body. This is sort of in line with the analogy that I've been trying to draw, except that I'm questioning whether the ATI actually has self-awareness at all. Perhaps it is composed of nothing but unselfconscious yet functioning "cells" like ours. > -Just some thoughts on a few facts we know: 1) The ATI is composed of such a malleable energy that unconscious, conscious and self conscious matter/beings have been created from it or by it. 2) The human mind/consciousness is also made from this same malleable energy. 3) Human consciousness has the ability to dream and to experience NDE and OBE's and many other "mystical" experiences that also lends to the idea of malleable energy within consciousness itself. 4) Human consciousness has the ability to conceive and then to create exactly what it has conceived (even if it's only on a screen, paper, book or movie, etc) which also lends to malleable energy of conception (which more times than not ends up an actual created thing). 5) The Humans consciousness, as a whole, is rarely satisfied to rest on their laurels. The deep yearning to achieve even more than we already have achieved is gifted to us by/from this malleable energy that is inherently creative in nature and ever changing. Go farther, go faster, go deeper, see further into, see ourselves further from ourselves, understand more about ourselves, know and see our space surrounding us from the consciousness outward and, not least - know and see ATI/God. -So we "know" we have the ability to take the malleable energy of ATI and create and understand whatever we put our minds to create, know and understand. This ability to conceive, create, understand and know, we know for sure, comes from the ATI. So, since (not if) we have this ability to create what we can conceive, and we know that we do, at some point this knowledge will gain momentum and will have it's flash point. Then we will put our creative abilities to a greater use for the good of the whole and no telling what we will become and what we can achieve for the greater good of all. -So whether the ATI has self awareness of itself or not, or awareness of us or not, for me, is a moot point - since, the greatest quality of ATI/God is this malleable energy that humans have been created from and with. What we can create and become (because of this energy) is also what ATI creates and becomes (which is my main idea I've been pushing toward with this post). "We" are one and the same. What we (us/ the ATI) can become (together) is so much greater than any one part that we are, no matter how great that one part is.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 28, 2012, 14:07 (4379 days ago) @ BBella
> So whether the ATI has self awareness of itself or not, or awareness of us or not, for me, is a moot point - since, the greatest quality of ATI/God is this malleable energy that humans have been created from and with. What we can create and become (because of this energy) is also what ATI creates and becomes (which is my main idea I've been pushing toward with this post). "We" are one and the same. What we (us/ the ATI) can become (together) is so much greater than any one part that we are, no matter how great that one part is.-Your whole post is beautifuly stated and fits my concept of a universal consciousness of which each of us is a small part. It contains the planning and information that must exist to explain what we observe and are capable of doing.It is a better description than religions supply.
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
BBELLA: Then we will put our creative abilities to a greater use for the good of the whole and no telling what we will become and what we can achieve for the greater good of all. -So whether the ATI has self awareness of itself or not, or awareness of us or not, for me, is a moot point - since, the greatest quality of ATI/God is this malleable energy that humans have been created from and with. What we can create and become (because of this energy) is also what ATI creates and becomes (which is my main idea I've been pushing toward with this post). "We" are one and the same. What we (us/ the ATI) can become (together) is so much greater than any one part that we are, no matter how great that one part is.-This is a very rich post, and it's only the above conclusion I find problematical. Of course I have no answers, so please forgive me if my response is too earthbound! For me, there are two major issues: 1) Is the ATI self-aware or not? 2) Is my individual identity a permanent part of the ATI?-Your "good of the whole" clearly refers to the ATI, but the "greater good of all" could refer to human life on Earth. Since this is finite (you once spoke of souls choosing to be reborn, but reincarnation is not much use to me if I have no knowledge of having been here before), you're presumably referring to an afterlife ... especially as you talk of NDEs and OBEs. This is already a colossal leap of faith, but even if I were to leap with you, it still presents major problems.-If we were deliberately created by a self-aware power, it's inconceivable to me that such a power would not have had a purpose, and that takes us into ontological, theological and teleological territory we'd better stay clear of for the moment. But if we evolved from a mechanism that assembled itself out of universal energy without self-awareness, the only self-awareness within ATI will be ours (barring other life forms that have evolved like ourselves). And so an afterlife will consist of our human spirits minus our bodies creating...what? Are we to love spiritually, play with never-to-grow-up children, hear telepathic symphonies, taste virtual chocolate, play virtual cricket for ever? On Earth, the rest of our good side is spent putting right the wrongs of our bad side (so where do the tyrants, murderers, rapists, child-abusers fit into the "greater good" of the afterlife?) or the ills caused by Nature/the ATI. Will that carry over into the next world? What else can there be if ours is the only self-awareness? If we can only think as humans now, why should we think otherwise then? And what else can you visualize that would be meaningful to us if the ATI does turn out to be self-aware? -You also seem to be implying that the spirit world in which we shall find ourselves is more real/meaningful/creatively "good" than this one. In that case, why did the ATI bother to create this one in the first place? (Inevitably we're back to purposes.)-"We are one and the same"..."What we/us/the ATI can become (together) is so much greater than any one part that we are, no matter how great that one part is": to me this means loss of identity. And if I'm not aware of myself as myself, I may as well not be part of this great whole. The experiences of some NDErs do, however, suggest retention of identity AND a merging with something greater ... a feeling also experienced by mystics. It's very attractive, but quite apart from all the questions I've asked above about a possible afterlife, the sceptic in me also asks why so few resuscitated patients have any such experience, and whether the feeling of oneness that I too occasionally have is not quite simply going to resolve itself as my personal materials and energies returning (impersonally and unconsciously) to the great unconscious ATI. Whatever may lie ahead, might we not eventually long for perfect peace anyway? And what could be more peaceful than eternal death? So why bother with a spiritual world? (Purposes again!)-In brief, without my individual, self-conscious identity I may as well not be there. If I keep it, what can I do with it for ever and ever? Without its own self-conscious identity, the ATI will also be unaware of us. If it does have a self-conscious identity, it must have created us deliberately (and let's not forget that it preceded us by an eternity), so we're into the realm of interpreting its purposes and its nature, which you seem to take for granted is devoted to "the greater good of all". ***********-I've just read David's response. I certainly agree with you, David, about the beauty of BBella's ideas, but as I understand them, they do not necessarily chime in with your belief that the UI is self-aware and created us deliberately. This belief to me makes it inevitable that we discuss its purpose and nature (see above), but you always point out that this can only be pure speculation. In other words, you prefer to remain agnostic on the subject. An afterlife and the self-awareness of the UI or the ATI are also pure (though fascinating) speculation. So won't you come and sit with me?
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by David Turell , Thursday, November 29, 2012, 15:09 (4378 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:I've just read David's response. I certainly agree with you, David, about the beauty of BBella's ideas, but as I understand them, they do not necessarily chime in with your belief that the UI is self-aware and created us deliberately. This belief to me makes it inevitable that we discuss its purpose and nature (see above), but you always point out that this can only be pure speculation. In other words, you prefer to remain agnostic on the subject. An afterlife and the self-awareness of the UI or the ATI are also pure (though fascinating) speculation. So won't you come and sit with me?-Remember, I look at all of this as a scientist. From the science of the universe and biology, I see what has appeared from the Big Bang on and judge what might be behind it all. There MUST be intelligence. The information contained in DNA is too complex, and the code itself is also more complex than the human coders currently can invent at their level of accomplishment. Also, an intelligence of that ability MUST be self-aware because the creation of such a code requires analysis and self-aware feedback to be sure the creation of the code accomplilshes the desired goal for functionality. Our consciousness MUST be a mirror for the universal consciousness. I can see its purpose. We are here thinking about the UI. As for afterlife, the NDE's support strong evidence beyond speculation. No picket fence for me!
Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate
by BBella , Friday, November 30, 2012, 06:09 (4378 days ago) @ dhw
This is a very rich post, and it's only the above conclusion I find problematical. Of course I have no answers, so please forgive me if my response is too earthbound! > > For me, there are two major issues: 1) Is the ATI self-aware or not? 2) Is my individual identity a permanent part of the ATI?....you once spoke of souls choosing to be reborn, but reincarnation is not much use to me if I have no knowledge of having been here before), you're presumably referring to an afterlife ... especially as you talk of NDEs and OBEs. This is already a colossal leap of faith, but even if I were to leap with you, it still presents major problems.->But if we evolved from a mechanism that assembled itself out of universal energy without self-awareness, the only self-awareness within ATI will be ours (barring other life forms that have evolved like ourselves). -We know for sure that the energy we are created from/by is malleable to the point that we have become self aware creatures and creators ourselves. We can only guess at whether we evolved from a "mechanism that assembled itself". The last post I wrote was about "what we know for sure."->And so an afterlife will consist of our human spirits minus our bodies creating...what? ...........-I have imagined an after life just for my own comfort. But my post wasn't about the afterlife (or NDE's and OBE's), which we are not for sure of, it was about what we do know for sure. ->And what else can you visualize that would be meaningful to us if the ATI does turn out to be self-aware?-If the ATI is self aware, I don't think anything would be any different than it is at this point. That's why I said, it's neither here nor there to me since we can't know for sure. But, what we do know for sure, is that we have, and are made from/by, this malleable energy that is at our disposal, and given that fact, what does it mean to us as a species, and what could we do as self aware humans to make things better for the greater good of all? This was what the whole post was centered around; what we know for sure and what we could do with what we "know". ->Without its own self-conscious identity, the ATI will also be unaware of us. -Whether the ATI is self aware or aware of us matters not to me, and doesn't make any difference in the scheme of things, since we have at our disposal such a malleable energy that knowing this, we could, at a certain point (I mentioned a flash point), or gradually, whatever - there is no telling what we could accomplish for the greater good for the earth, mankind and all that is. -Not sure if this post helped clear anything up for the other post. The whole post before this one was about "what we know for sure" and was not meant to discuss NDE's, OBE's, the Afterlife, mystical experiences, or the ATI's purpose in creating us (which I have no problem discussing - just wanted to make my last post clearer).