Shedding Light On How Cells Communicate (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 14, 2012, 17:34 (4369 days ago) @ BBella

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.