The Primacy of Consciousness?: #TheLifeboatNews #Sheldrake #EmergenceTheory #Emoto #Kirlian #Chladni #CERN

This thread was so good (and so much fun), I thought I'd post it here, all posts reproduced in full (spell-checked only otherwise significant edits are highlighted), thank you The Lifeboat News Crew. Happy New Year 2018..!

Brand: #034 Science Vs God - Is There A Life Force That Transcends Matter? (with Rupert Sheldrake)

Posted by Sinister Burt

Thought you might like this Rhisiart. I've got some issues with his stuff, but i like the idea of it: https://art19.com/shows/under-the-skin/episodes/ef512f31-9891-4986-a641-0546f428fef8

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Logos Posted by Gerard Vril, chi, prana..pervade the world of matter giving it animus...Kirlian shows that pre-forms exist in the ether....they are the "resonant framework" of matter...trouble is we're so far down the rabbit hole now this sounds like absolute gobble-de-gook to many...remember though Kirlian has never been "disproved" only ignored...as is Emoto and much of the work of Chladni..ground penetrating radar very recently proved that the decaying organism continues to display an electro-magnetic profile for (possibly this has yet to be confirmed as I understand it), hundreds of years (one of the "attributes" of Stonehenge?), ... Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Logos Posted by Sinister Burt Chaldni's work on vibrating plates and what's called cymatics are not ignored - they're well understood through acoustic theory (resonance/harmonics of a surface (closely related to the shape of atomic orbitals)). Emoto's pictures are pretty but he wasn't very scientific. I find Sheldrake interesting, but i felt that both him and brand were slightly guilty of arguing with a strawman of baddie materialist science in places - fair enough for brand, but Sheldrake should be better than that (i suppose so many years of only getting the flaky gigs his spiel has adapted to his environment) - maybe it was just me. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Logos Posted by Ken Waldron slightly guilty of arguing with a strawman of baddie materialist science in places... ... maybe it was just me. No. I felt that too. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Logos Posted by Subhi "a strawman of baddie materialist science" I wonder if you might find this text interesting, written by Longchen Rabjam, it deals with an approach to understanding apparent reality, the source of situations and experience from a quite different angle that of the basic space of phenomena if you are not familiar with the arcane and difficult philosophical underpinnings of all this I think the wonder of Lonchenpa was that he expresses this view with such forceful simplicity if you're unfamiliar with it and interested in these things you may enjoy, to avoid some early jargon and religious like stuff i would suggest going to page five and starting from "Mind itself is a vast expanse, the realm of unchanging space. Its indeterminate display is the expanse of the magical expression of its responsiveness." link is to a pdf of the whole text, despite its outrageous imperious assertions a lot of history behind it all, its good fun and very different analysis, from the point of view of Dzogchen or "the Great Perfection" an amalgamation of shamanism, sanskrit madhyamika philosophy and the psycho-physical disciplines of Vajrayana Buddhism, if that hasn't put you off link below http://promienie.net/images/dharma/books/longchenpa_treasury-of-the-basic-space-of-phenomena.pdf Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Logos Posted by Sinister Burt Thanks - My dad was a Buddhist and he'd talk to me about Dzogchen among other stuff, so that didn't put me off (the length of the text might). I certainly see the value in the philosophy and epistemology, and even physics and cosmology of lots of Buddhist thought (as well as the 'spiritual' aspects), even if I’m not a Buddhist (i like the pictures too). I'll give it a read (though i should look through my shelves because my dad probably had it (i inherited his books)) Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Logos Posted by Gerard Elegantly put...I know exactly what you mean...it's easier to run down people than it is their ideas...it's not constructive..just bats the ball back and forward..but it's amazing how lucrative that can be... Top of Form Bottom of Form

Consciousness: Physics and eastern wisdom Posted by Sherwoodian I find the subject of consciousness fascinating, esp. the different approaches taken by science (consciousness arises spontaneously when a huge number of neural cells link together to form a computer made of meat) and by eastern teachings which is that consciousness is a basic property of the universe, like matter, space, time, etc. Many physicists (Tom Campbell, Peter Russell, Amit Goswami, and Deepak Chopra (a medic)) have great works on this topic, eg: Top of Form Bottom of Form

Got to add a Tom Campbell link to this thread, obviously. To my mind his Big TOE is the most compreh Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym -ensive handling of this matter that I know; and a theory that rings with that deeply satisfying, occamistic elegance which scientists so prize as a reliable mark of authenticity. For my money, the video sequences, though long, are the easiest way into Tom's oeuvre, with the presentations at Calgary U and - more recently - in Los Angeles as the most lucid expositions of the science behind his view. Forty years or more in the development, and lots of repeated experimental work done in that time to refine his grasp of the realities of which he speaks. Literally, I know of no-one else who's done so much in this field. I always reckon he's destined to be the next big name in the history of science, following on in the sequence: Copernicus/Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Darwin, the quantum mechanics, Einstein/Bohr; one of the main pioneers of the next big paradigm shift; the next big Kuhnian scientific revolution: http://www.my-big-toe.com Most highly recommended for determined, persistent study - and practice too, please note; Tom teaches a good deal about how to use his insights practically, in daily life; and about the soul-liberating, optimistic worldview that springs from his theory (sic!); a liberation urgently needed in this time of global pessimism. (Do you get an inkling of why, despite all the gloom in the news, I remain cheerful and optimistic?) As you learn more about his TOE, you notice - as does Tom himself - that his ideas tally closely with the 'ancient wisdom' traditions of such philosophies as Tibetan Buddhism, Taoism, much of the early foundations of Hinduism, Christian and Sufi mysticism, Toltec nagualism (as described by Castaneda), and so on; many streams of thought, all originating in very ancient insights gleaned from the widely - no, universally - distributed shamanism of human prehistory. In the long-standing strife between materialism and idealism, the pendulum is now beginning a big new swing back towards the idealism pole, as we finally have to come to terms with the primacy of mind in all branches of scientific endeavour; particularly physics, piquantly enough. It's the big ferment there now... No wonder the bigoted apostles of extreme materialist scientism are so pissed off with people like Rupert Sheldrake, who's been demonstrating this reality with lots of elegant experimental work for years. And him a biologist too rather than a physicist! As he jokes himself, he's seen as the antichrist of physics! Top of Form Bottom of Form

PS: Great Russ/Rupe chat! Well worth the time. Diolch yn fawr, Burt! NOM Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Got to add a Tom Campbell link to this thread, obviously. To my mind his Big TOE is the most compreh Posted by Gerard Consciousness does indeed have "primacy"...very interesting Rhis thanks... Top of Form Bottom of Form

Consciousness is the matterless piece of the unverse that we capture when born Posted by Shyaku ..and which rejoins the universe when we die. And awareness is the extent of our ability to know this. Physically, we are complex machines for interpreting the physical world to our consciousness. Mentally, we are storing and learning and interpreting the physical information. There is a dualism: This dualism exists as the two problems that will always remain to science: (a) The nature of consciousness (it is without matter in our 4 dimensional world that the brain can interpret), (b) What existed before the big bang? Everything since then, in the span of time we can measure, in the material world we can interpret, being within the 4 dimensional world that we interact with. - Regards, Shyaku Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness is the matterless piece of the unverse that we capture when born Posted by Gerard "Mentally, we are storing and learning and interpreting the physical information." Yes but what for? #Karma Top of Form Bottom of Form

To escape prey, make fire and build tools! Posted by Shyaku That is the easy part to answer. If we could not escape prey and build defensive tools, use fire to light caves and frighten off predators when we descended from the tree tops to the savannah, we would not be here sunshine :-) Shyaku Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: To escape prey, make fire and build tools! Posted by Gerard Ah...yes agreed..but I meant individually...if it's all gonna be deleted when you die..what's it for...! Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: To escape prey, make fire and build tools! Posted by Shyaku I think I understand your question: You are saying that reincarnation takes something, some quality, from one life to the next, and what is this quality (?) Its a good question, I guess if reincarnation exists, then there is a two-way interaction between awareness and consciousness such that a growing awareness of consciousness in a lifetime propels a larger portion into a new life at the time of death in a process that only stops when that portion becomes infinite in size meaning that full awareness is achieved (the person becomes pure consciousness). Something like that, perhaps? Top of Form Bottom of Form

BAD #Karma? Posted by Gerard Sorry missed this one..yes indeedy...indeedy do! Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: To escape prey, make fire and build tools! Posted by Gerard "a larger portion into a new life at the time of death" Something like that..although the 3d notion of size is perhaps a little mechanistic..perhaps "more coherent"..or "in greater harmony"..or not (you might come back as a gastropod according to some systems), which is where we get notions of "heaven and hell" in the monotheistic religions (even though "Hel" was nicked from the Pantheists -the notion that they might "want it back" is not one I have until now considered-), Buddhism sees this "Hel" as endless repetition, never progressing... Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: "Hel" Her not "it"..apologies.. nm Posted by Gerard .. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Thanks for the correction. Nm. Posted by Shyaku .. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Yes Posted by Shyaku Yes I was also thinking, while I was writing that the notion of size makes no sense, I agree. It would be a quality that acts as a surrogate for magnitude. After all, in particle physics, quarks have named character such as 'charm', 'color', 'strangeness' etc that are purely anthropomorphic. I really like your ideas of 'more coherent', 'greater harmony' etc. Best regards, Shyaku Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Yes Posted by Gerard Then you are no fool..check Muz out he's a scream!! "Sharing The Quest" Is the book..highly recommended a very, very good read (Element Books), ..his website is linked from the YouTube channel (below), . Top of Form Bottom of Form

Good math though.. Posted by Gerard It does if you're considering a wave that expands until ultimate harmonic resonance is achieved.... (as an ongoing thought experiment? Comment 05/01/18 Ed.) Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness is the matterless piece of the unverse that we capture when born Posted by Gerard "What existed before the big bang? Everything since then, in the span of time we can measure*, in the material world we can interpret, being within the 4 dimensional world that we interact with." *Time is relative. Nothing..because there wasn't one....having one presupposes there was a before..this Big Bang "took and shook the world" alright....it was universal in it's effects (the bomb), quantum does indeed apply... In The Vedas and the Bible "The beginning was the word"..and what is the "word"? It is the realisation of the potential of human consciousness, principle applied resolves the dichotomy..the only way it ever was a "Big Bang" is in the sexual sense...Nuith and Hadith..the male and female principles.....Kernunnnos and Arianrhod..the lingam and the yoni...is it any coincidence that in his "nuts and bolts" obsession man has lost his nuts and replaced them with Frankenstein’s bolts? Western man controls the material (he thinks), all that is without is under his control...but he has over extended himself, the inner being withers and dies and the outer world collapses as a result...we are weak within, Turtleman will recognise the being I describe...in truth friend an organism that needs good psychotherapy far more..but psychotherapy on a mind controlling drugs?! You may as well just poor petrol on the fire..the new intersectionalities are there as distractions....they have the vocabulary (well some of it), but none of the application, unless that is you are in the military and they think you may still be of some use killing people! Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness is the matterless piece of the unverse that we capture when born Posted by Shyaku The span of time we can measure is 13.7 billion years. That is the time since space-time began. What came before time? It is a zen koan because time started 13.7 billion years ago. That was the beginning of our 4-dimensional universe. By inference, this universe must have been created from a higher, or different dimensionality since the time dimension did not exist prior to the start of time in our universe. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Misapprehension old fruit.. Posted by Gerard We can only measure that which our devices span..that which experientially we have quantified..think of say the supernova issue...if a big enough one goes off relatively locally we could be wiped out by gamma rays....but the experience of the species (and we are approaching the Chandrasekhar limit here -consciousness-), does not yet extend to that conception therefore we ignore it.....human kind needs first to understand that these things effect it before it can quantify those effects...all is not as it seems... "*The Bose-Einsteinian halo (see italiscised re: Heisenberg -below-), demographic cannot be established (strange that that doesn't seem to have been), for this is where the Continuum Hypothesis and the Axiom of Choice meet (n'est ce pas?), .. (similar to Chandrasekhar), simply banging-the-rocks-together in frustration doesn't change the facts! Sigma..the "standard variation" is hardly that! It may pertain here to the "Standard" model but its variables are Khaos, the demographic cannot be populated..as a result the whole particle beam "theory" disappears.. ("if I bash this with a hammer it will break!" Good "theory"?)., look at it this way.."imagine you have two watches, you want to see how a watch works so you smash them together and examine what remains!" Examine what remains? It never occurred to anyone to invent a screwdriver? (...or maybe it did?) The notion of an "event horizon" was (apparently), de-popularised by Stephen Hawking, however I am not necessarily at variance with the good doctor here because as I think Prof. Hawking would point out we have been tending since inception, our current observations are simply that..what is not fully realised is that we are now "relatively" closer to the event concerned, go to: http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583 Quote: "Perhaps the questions we need to ask Prof.Hawking are;"If we can observe multiple singularities does this tell us that there are multiple Universes or that there are multiple potential Universes, or quite the reverse (that there are not)?" "Unsustainable Economy"; another way of expressing zero? Newton: The point about "Deflation" is that it is an accelerative process (hence "Mobius"), our participation precludes observation (some might say, "obviously" ), if you take-this-on-board and then include "Emergence Theory" tensor calculus the results become extremely suggestive (go to: http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~sfoster/ )" Go to: http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/hawking-susskind-and-cohen-sets-and.html Politically too the administration of CERN must surely be questioned with regard to its "closeness" to firms such as Lockheed Martin whose (not un-publicly disclosed), aim is to capitalise on its investment by building fusion reactors using fuel produced in L.H.Cs. Perpetual motion snake-oil salesmen (and women)! Only gravity can create a star...fusion reactions can be produced, fusion reactors are a juvenile fantasy (at least the Drake Equation was originally treated as a "bit of fun", strange how it has crept back into the standard text, however the sensitive nature of the initial conditions must not be overlooked -re: the creation of life-),....... "What happened to him?" "He said, "think outside the box"." "Yeah?" "To the cat!" "It's a dark telescope that illuminates nothing!" "Expanded from what into what?" Isn't a joke..there is a sensitive dependence on the initial conditions..mathematically you cannot proceed from this point (or as the Irishman said; "If you want to get to Rome I wouldn't start from here"), try it.... It is for these reasons (and many others), that we do not postulate that The Universe began at 3.42 pm on a wet Thursday afternoon sometime in April (in Guildford!), ...Time (the continuum), is relative you were not born when I was born, I will not die when you die (as a general rule -those "others" we might define as "star-crossed"-), and our individual environments, bodily functions, actions etc. during the day all occur at? Different speeds......Time does indeed display both Alpha and Omega but these are relative for all who inhabit the continuum. When we do commune it is necessary to harmonise these energies (a riot is a good example of "disharmonious" energy)." http://www.arafel.co.uk/2015/09/the-epidemiology-of-khaos-or-problem.html Consider the Antikythera Mechanism, all has reference to itself..through observation...but these frequencies and periodicities do not describe a linear process..this is because time is relative.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

You are very, very good at what you do .. Posted by Shyaku Namely at increasing the entropy of the board by inserting randomness in random places. Fair enough, I suppose I asked for it. I hope my expression of respect for you skill is sufficient to bring this thread to an end now, but I am not posing that as a question. Top of Form Bottom of Form

What Khaos? Posted by Gerard ...I have done nothing but attempt to explain the science I have been taught (and learned myself), .. over more than three decades...my life's work mate..because as I'm sure the Man on the Clapham Omnibus would tell you...I don't do anything else....What randomness I ask again?...You are labouring under a misapprehension..fact....I'm sure you're not a bad person or a fool and I'm not attempting to run you down in any personal way (which you are), and this "skill" you describe is damn near all I have left friend..attempting to prevent further discourse is juvenile..do try to see the person as well as the issue.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: What Khaos? Posted by Shyaku I am very, very sorry about my misunderstanding. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: You are very, very good at what you do .. Posted by Gerard Is it the "supernova" segue that got you? It's called "thinking outside the box" Man! Applied logic...when man doesn't understand something "fight or flight" take over... Top of Form Bottom of Form

I apologize. Posted by Shyaku Brilliant, brilliant. Sorry. I am very, very sorry. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: I apologize. Posted by Gerard ..I hope the cheque is in the post!! Seriously..at least you're an honest sort.."Mr.Miyagi how come you Fukushima?" "Nobody prefecture!" Sorry I missed your other post...do check my response.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: I apologize. Posted by Shyaku You are right that I didn't understand your long post. This is true. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: I apologize. Posted by Gerard Honestly.....Getting "ducks in a row" is hard sometimes when the calculating mind has near atrophied...constantly irritates me how certain skills are taught but then never applied..because we weren't taught to apply them properly in the first place...it embarrasses me how cr*p I am am at math.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: I apologize. Posted by Shyaku I am the opposite: The analytical mind is tooooo active :-) I have to make a conscious effort not to make an analytical problem out of everything. Best regards, Shyaku. Top of Form Bottom of Form

It embarrasses me how crap I am at everything except maths (and most maths too, even more sadly!).nm Posted by Twirlip Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: It embarrasses me how crap I am at everything except maths (and most maths too, even more sadly!).nm Posted by Gerard He he he....oh ho ho ho ho.... (no not you), ...eh he he he he! Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: It embarrasses me how crap I am at everything except maths (and most maths too, even more sadly!).nm Posted by Gerard What you posted below would I think stretch most of us T.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Like Trump (one presumes), I don't lack "IQ" - but that doesn't mean I'm not an idiot. :) [nm] Posted by Twirlip nm Top of Form Bottom of Form

I've got a ferret sticking up my nose. [nm] Posted by Twirlip Top of Form Bottom of Form

Love you man. Nm. Posted by Shyaku .. Top of Form Bottom of Form

P.S Posted by Gerard That "Hammer" has a name... Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness is the matterless piece of the unverse that we capture when born Posted by turtleman The Big Bang is only a theory. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Dead right man .. Posted by Shyaku It is only a theory. ..or to be more precise... ..it is a theory :-) Regards, Shyaku Top of Form Bottom of Form

A theory .. Posted by Shyaku "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge. The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, the opposite its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of "prediction" in science versus everyday speech, where it denotes a mere hope." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory - Regards, Shyaku. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: A theory .. Posted by Gerard Hmmmm..circumlocution...do we now describe say "Plate Tectonics" as a "theory"..? Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: A theory .. Posted by Shyaku ...as opposed to ... ? Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: A theory .. Posted by Gerard "Plate Tectonics" ..sorry..but yes I think the scientists may be avoiding the linguistic niceties there because they're trying to pretend they can claw their way back out of the rabbit-hole..but that may just be me... Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: A theory .. Posted by turtleman Okay, but I use the word like scientists do (I reject the hopeful life). So, I theorize all the time but my theories aren't all that hopeful, and they are based on some kind of evidence. Big Bang can be a false reading of red shift, among many other things having to do with misunderstanding about space/time and our measurements of them over such grand cosmic scales. Etc. Also, Big Bang opens another can of worms, because if it is true, what does it mean. Is it an oscillating universe (bang-crunch-bang-crunch etc) or is it a one time thing? And that kind of shit leads to crazy yelling matches between religionists and rationalists, could even turn rationalists into religionists, so then you have the rationalists yelling at the born-again ex-rationalists and then the religionists are yelling at them over theologies and then they're all yelling back at the rationalists and . . . Isn't it just easier to believe in God, flood your senses with a daily dose of gratitude, love your neighbour as yourself, etc.?   turtleman Top of Form Bottom of Form

Big bang comes from the expanding universe .. Posted by Shyaku I guess every scientific theory: - Has assumptions - explains observations - makes predictions. The test of a good one is that early predictions are later confirmed by new observations, and no new observations seem to contradict it. A good theory tends to end up as the one that can account for (explain) the greatest number of observations (maybe all of them). I guess you can argue that the assumptions are wrong (measurements over large scale follow rules that we misunderstand), but then you are left with a whole body of observations in various areas for which there is no alternative explanation that can tie them all together ... At least not a scientific one :-) - Regards, Shyaku Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: A theory .. P.S. Posted by turtleman To be clear, when I ask, "Isn't it easier to believe in God. . . ?" I am asking it in context of comparing it with the difficulty of science or rationality to prove the nature of and reason for existence itself. I believe science and rationality are exceedingly limited (to near absolute zero) in its ability to answer such questions. Therefore, comparatively, it is far easier to believe in God (in the way I describe). But apart from that comparison, of course, believing in God (as I describe, which is to love others as yourself, and to daily flood your being with gratitude and awe) is exceedingly difficult to do, and those very few who achieve it are what I consider truly smart, wise, strong and heroic people. To explain the purpose of my posts in this thread: I have had an allergic reaction to arguments about the existence of God, the Big Bang, consciousness etc. for some time now. The reason is I believe the wrong questions are being asked, and therefore the apparent goal behind the common questions are missing the target. There is absolutely no way a human can prove what and why the universe is, or if there is or isn't a God (Prime Mover, creator, Unified Consciousness Field, whatever). So, neither believing in God, NOR "outgrowing" that belief (like one does with Santa Claus) will save us. Only gratitude, awe, love, courage, and faith will save us. Science is wonderful, but has its limits and proper place. Religion is wonderful, but has its limits and proper place. Mind, however, and Love, are limitless. The Golden Rule is our surest bet, if fervently applied, for gaining access to that infinite well. Very hard to do. We all fall way short. BUT, its endlessly easier to do than proving the nature of existence through science! turtleman Top of Form Bottom of Form

False alternative: monotheism (Christian or other) is not the sole alternative to scientism. Posted by Twirlip (But I share your aversion to discussing such things, which mostly seem to me to be too deep for words. Unfortunately, silence has never served me well, either!) Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: False alternative: monotheism (Christian or other) is not the sole alternative to scientism. Posted by turtleman God should not be seen as a thing or things (mono or poly) but as a way. The Golden Rule is not religious belief, but a law of life. I am not pushing or endorsing religion. There are hundreds of millions of religious people on earth. Hardly a "very few"! I wasn't referring to them, but the very few who attain a high degree of consciousness, wisdom, courage, faith and love. (And I don't count myself among such heroes!) The reason I have an aversion to discussions on the nature of existence is because it is an exceedingly pompous activity for mere humans to presume the ability to answer. It's the wrong question, and its goal is the wrong objective. I do, however, enjoy exultant discussions on the mystery of existence. When people gather around a table, with food and wine, and share moments of Holy KaZOWY frikkin' WOW . . . WOW WOW WOW . . . well, I LOVE that stuff. But 'scientific' discussions about love, God and the universe bore me. Although, I do love astronomy and chemistry and cosmology. But those disciplines don't attempt to define or dismiss God or explain the nature of existence. They simply map out, investigate and describe the physical phenomenon of cosmic mechanics. And Einstein was a fine example of a brilliant and advanced scientific mind who simultaneously lived in the Divine Question and viewed existence with humility and wonder. I guess it's the hard-core materialists that really burn my ass. turtleman Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: False alternative: monotheism (Christian or other) is not the sole alternative to scientism. Posted by Gerard However if we are about to gurgle ourselves out of existence (at our own infantile behest), a discussion on how things work is necessary....carpe diem is a principle of evolution...this is no time to rest on our laurels... Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: False alternative: monotheism (Christian or other) is not the sole alternative to scientism. Posted by Gerard The "Do" or "Dao"..indeed..Muz's book is called "Sharing the Quest" he's no fool and a very likeable guy..he teaches real yoga no dilettante rubbish..my Chan instructor too of-course also believes that our brooks should babel in harmony.....a very different conception from the Socially Darwinistic conception of supremacy that we have allowed to dominate our lives.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Disappointment arises from excessive expectation ... Posted by Shyaku Science is ONLY an explanation of the material world. Engineering is a triumphant validation of science's mastery of certain aspects of the material world. For example, I can communicate with Tman :-) BUT any claims by science to do more than the above, are likely to be false claims, or pseudoscience, junk science, etc. Don't look to science to resolve existential problems, and you won't be disappointed. Yes, science is converging now, on its boundary: The singularity at the time of the big bang - what was that? The brain, as the seat of both objective neurobiology and the subjectivity of our link with the soul - what's with that? Will science have a theory that fits subjective observations? I personally doubt it greatly, but I don't have any concrete insights to offer. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Disappointment arises from excessive expectation ... Posted by turtleman Well, yes I concur with most of that. Like I say, I liked Einstein's attitude and despise Dawkin's attitude. My beef is with the hard-core materialist atheists. As responsible humans we simply must revive the existential and moral imperative. cheers, turtleman Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Disappointment arises from excessive expectation ... Posted by Gerard You can be a decent moral humanist many are..it's evangilising for it that annoys me.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Disappointment arises from excessive expectation ... Posted by Shyaku Yup, this is true too. How about an evangelizing hard-core materialist? :-) Regards, Shyaku Top of Form Bottom of Form

Go bang you head! nm Posted by Gerard ... Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Disappointment arises from excessive expectation ... Posted by Shyaku I am totally with you on that. - Regards, Shyaku. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: A theory .. P.S. Posted by Gerard Not "prove" only share...agreed.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

What is Mind? Posted by turtleman Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness: Physics and eastern wisdom Posted by Sinister Burt I tend (at the moment) towards thinking that consciousness is a property of the universe but only in the sense that it inevitably will emerge from self-organisation (or is a complex form of the same), which itself is an inevitable property of the universe (eg the way i described resonance in an answer to Gerard below). The property of self-organisation (if you can call it a property) balances together with entropy like the dance of shiva (in my vague understanding). (Self-)consciousness doesn't/can't exist in a single neuron, but only in connecting together with billions of others - it's the connection or pattern of relation that's where the self-consciousness lives - just the same way that one ant doesn't make an ant colony - the colony emerges from the ants following a few simple chemical rules. To separate awareness/consciousness from self-consciousness - I have experienced dissolution of my self-consciousness and was left with a timeless sort of awareness - i speculated that maybe this was either my 'left brain' turning off or the underlying collective awareness of all my cells. Whether it's this or something even less tangible (eg unprovable macguffins like string theory, '"God"' or quantum doodads), it fit the general description of brahman or similar concepts. I could just have been on drugs though When i said sheldrake was addressing a strawman, i meant that in modern complexity theory seems to be some potential to explain many of the things he touches on wihtout recourse to non-materialism - eg study of how complex systems create novelty spontaneously, and even learn or 'remember' things (eg the DNA system). That's not to say i'm arguing against him from a position of materialism necessarily, just that i would have been interested in how he addressed that stuff. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness: Physics and eastern wisdom Posted by Shyaku The more complex the organism, the bigger the chunk of universal consciousness it can capture. I feel that consciousness does not emerge from complex organization, but rather, complex organization captures a bigger chunk of a universal consciousness as the complexity arises and fur the duration of its period of life. The question of populations is a fascinating one. Biology enacts all incremental solutions, from chemical signaling (dictyostelium, quorum sensing) to behavioral solutions only (ants, dolphins) to evolutionary solutions (quasi-species) to none at all. In all cases though, the key to precise definition is in the realm genetic lineage. This distinguishes mosaicism from multicellularity. - Regards, Shyaku. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Karma Posted by Gerard Yes..but where you and the mystics et.al differ is that they believe this "missing piece" has autonomy once manifested and can only "return" (as you might put it), to the Ocean of "Being" (or non-being depending on your bent), once those aspects of the Universe required to manifest in the first place are re-integrated (for want of a better word), into the "Cosmic All"...Karma....the other perspective carries no lessons or "education", the little self just disappears no consequences to its incarnation (in other words "Do what Thou Wilt"), Another example (one perhaps you're more familiar with), take vegetarianism or veganism People argue "but we are an omnivorous species, why shouldn't I be a carnivore?" The answer is you are omnivorous because you have (and I'm "going there") , "Free Will" (for want of a more prosiac PC term), and can therefore choose such-and-such course of action this includes with regard to conservation and husbandry et.al*), ...without the ability to choose we are nothing...and (but you may not like this), would not exist! "The Snake, The Tree and The Apple" "Good afternoon Isssssac may I be of sssssome asssssssisssssstanccce?" *Edit underlined 01/01/18 and 05/01/18 Ed. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Karma Posted by Shyaku Thanks, yes, I agree that if every belief system is taken literally they clash. Best regards, Shyaku Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness: Physics and eastern wisdom Posted by Sinister Burt I've sympathy with that view and have had it myself (ie consciousness underlies reality in some way), but at the moment it's too much to assume for me. When i see how novelty can arise from nothing more mysterious than having an excess of energy and multiple interacting parts, and this alongside darwinian selection can be enough to create the chain of complexity all the way up to self-consciousness, this seems enough to me. Genetic lineage is the incremental base from which interacting complex networks can possibly create the more substantial less incremental changes at the cellular level (eg a hox gene switching an extra leg on). You could abstract the process of self-organisation and call it a form of consciousness (ie tendency to novelty), balanced against the tendency towards information loss (entropy, which is also a bottom up self-organised process in a sense (ie only visible at large scales)) I distinguish consciousness from self-consciousness and tend to believe consciousness is the same as aliveness and present in all cells that can react/interact with the environment. Maybe this is the basis of the underlying awareness which we (as cellular beings) experience as ground of being/brahman/underlying consciousness (or maybe a similar principle applies all the way down into chemistry/physics). Another subjective view i've had is that the dichotomy between our lived experience and 'timeless god space' is simply time: when we're alive we're stuck in a linear experience of time unfolding in only one direction, but upon death or dissolution of consciousness we revert to inherent timelessness of all matter; namely we still exist in all the moments we lived through all at once for ever in a big Einstein-style four dimensional manifold (or in short the afterlife is your whole life (bit like Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence)). I oscillate in these views all the time though (Depends which book i've been reading recently) - (disclaimer: and as you can tell it's all unqualified waffle as usual). Top of Form Bottom of Form

Very interesting thoughts Posted by Shyaku Thanks I cannot argue against your view, since everything I state beyond it is 100% subjective. You can say that everything including consciousness is material, and you can say that a 'god like' state is merely the absence of the linear time dimension. Two predictions may follow from your position: (1) if consciousness is material, the soul has mass. Even if it is pure energy it still has mass because mass is energy. Similarly, it should be ablatable either physically or genetically. We already have 20,000 or so mouse strains with individual coding-gene knockouts. (2) As neuroscience progresses over the next 25 yrs, as it will tremendously and maybe exponentially, there should be no progress at all in defining the nature of consciousness if it is in the realm of the non-material. Best regards, Shyaku, Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Very interesting thoughts Posted by Gerard Or the soul as the traveling wave? Bert's very clear..we are all products of our backgrounds and cultures...I'm sure most here have noticed how "catholic" my tastes are for instance...good post B you're being a d**n site more coherent than many who speculate about this stuff.. (esp. those who do so for their own gain), .. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Very interesting thoughts Posted by Sinister Burt But if consciousness is, like other complex things only present in the relation of lots of parts interacting, but it's not in the parts themselves, is this pattern of relation material or non-material? (Considering that information can be abstracted and converted into other forms). Is a symphony material? the strings of the violins are but the symphony doesn't exist there, and yet a symphony can be thought to have an existence and a place in time (this is Paul Davies' analogy). Is information material? i'm not sure - these are slippery subjects (eg i seem to remember someone saying matter is information), but i have the feeling that the material/nonmaterial dichotomy is unhelpful or misleading, or simply dependant on what a person considers material eg if we discovered proof of string theory would lots of things previously considered non-material just become a new materialism? Would some of the present non-materialists then just find some new thing to be non-materialist about? Top of Form Bottom of Form

Spirits in the material Posted by Gerard ..I don't think so... #EmergenceTheory you see..quantum applies the realisation cannot come without the actualisation..therefore in order to evolve man must detach himself (literally), from the material world...people may not like religion but it's in many of them and as we know the Maya predicted a "jumping off" point which is why they didn't continue the almanac, they knew that under such conditions our choice was either/or and you can't predict choices.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Spirits in the material Posted by Gerard ..although that's not quite what you asked..non-materialist remain non-materialists?..Yes I should think so..until they don't need to be anymore.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Emergent properties ... Posted by Shyaku Thanks for your incredibly insightful and enriching thoughts. Yes, one of the things that makes biology unique, with respect to chemistry and physics for example, is 'emergent properties'. Totally true. I would maybe suggest, however, that the symphony doesn't exist :-) and maybe information doesn't exist. What exists may be your reaction to or interpretation of patterns in the medium? Regards, Shyaku. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Emergent properties ... Posted by Gerard Possibly...trouble is in an "Emergency" the sword cuts both ways.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Emergent properties ... Posted by Sinister Burt Too kind, ta, but i'm probably just regurgitating from Fritjof Capra's 'Systems View of Life' (which i bought after someone here mentioned it) among other books. Maybe so (the symphony) - if so, is non-existence the same as non-material? The symphony can only exist in relation between multiple people and objects, just as a society can, and even a personality (no man is an island etc) - each of these could be said to not be 'real' in a reductionist physical sense, only in patterns of connections which are only detectable holistically at a certain scale, and yet they seem to be more objective/real than an internal perceptual construct of my own (we're back to Kant now i guess). As i touched on above (or maybe in another post - the thread's confusing now), i understand entropy to also be an emergent property (it doesn't exist in a single particle) and maybe the fundamental forces too (emergent from 'superforce'); along with many complex systems that don't qualify as biology (stars etc). Maybe the definition of biology needs to be expanded, or maybe there simply is no division and the tendency to self organisation found throughout inorganic matter is the same as the similar systems found in organic matter (obviously organic chemistry will have the more impressive systems - that's what defines it as organic) - this view handily can also dovetail with all manner of pantheistic cosmologies (that i'm also attracted to 'subjectively'). As for information, i wont pretend to fully understand (more than usual anyway) how physicists talk about it, but this link is an interesting round up i found when trying to answer your last point: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/04/is-information-fundamental/ Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Emergent properties ... Posted by Gerard Reminds me of Schrodinger's cat... Does a man born into a situation where after parenting they are alone exist? He would exist only in the memories of his parents..his own memories... Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness: Physics and eastern wisdom Posted by Gerard "String theory" is a large mite (particle do-dah), more provable than "Ghaad!".. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness: Physics and eastern wisdom Posted by Sinister Burt Not really - it's pretty maths that would explain a lot (if you assume 11 or 21 extra dimensions (i forget the number), but it's by definition unprovable (in the terms of the theory - at least currently), which is why many physicists don't bother thinking about it much. I consider string theory to be similar to god in provability - that's not to denigrate either view particularly; i'm agnostic on both. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness: Physics and eastern wisdom Posted by Gerard I would suggest other more experiential methodologies for my proof there...involving the use of energies...."Arian -Rhod" was also "Spider-Goddess" the thread spinner and web weaver..in yoga there are 72,000 nadis which connect us to the patterns at our moment of birth and the rest of the universe...these energy channels* are part of what inform acupressure and acupuncture etc. *"Harmonic axioms" Edited today 01/01/18 Ed. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness: Physics and eastern wisdom Posted by Twirlip You wrote: I tend (at the moment) towards thinking that consciousness is a property of the universe but only in the sense that it inevitably will emerge from self-organisation (or is a complex form of the same), which itself is an inevitable property of the universe (eg the way i described resonance in an answer to Gerard below). The property of self-organisation (if you can call it a property) balances together with entropy like the dance of Shiva (in my vague understanding). (Self-)consciousness doesn't/can't exist in a single neuron, but only in connecting together with billions of others - it's the connection or pattern of relation that's where the self-consciousness lives - just the same way that one ant doesn't make an ant colony - the colony emerges from the ants following a few simple chemical rules. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that this is true. Now, contemplate another universe in which exactly the same complex physical processes go on, following exactly the same physical laws, but there is no consciousness. How, physically, could one tell these two universes apart? If there is no physical way to tell them apart, then how can it be true, as supposed, that physical processes, merely by manifesting complexity, necessarily give rise to consciousness? This would appear to be a case of a physical theory purporting to explain a phenomena that is not known in an objective physical manner, even while, by definition, the theory contains no terms involving the phenomenon in question. But no theory can honestly explain a phenomenon that cannot even be named in terms of that theory! (I hope I've put that clearly - I don't tend to get involved in philosophical arguments - but if it seems to make some sense, yet isn't quite clear enough, I'll see if I can rephrase it.) Top of Form Bottom of Form

Correction: please change "a phenomena" to "a phenomenon"! (Unfinished edit.) [nm] Posted by Twirlip nm Top of Form Bottom of Form

Wow! nm Posted by Gerard ... Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness: Physics and eastern wisdom Posted by Gerard There are however physical and mental processes which when combined with a willingness to apply an open mind intimate a greater dialogue than the myopic material driven obsessions we all beef about here everyday, simple ones too like visiting a stone circle or standing stone.....circle dancing round a large Scots Pine with 25 other people might do it......human potential is unlimited...we limit ourselves..there are many otherwise "occult" practices which give a glimpse...we just need to make space for them in our lives.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness: Physics and eastern wisdom Posted by Sinister Burt Twirlip: Well i was probably just trying to agree and not agree like i do (pathetic people pleaser that i am) - after all an emergent property can't really be inherent (but that would go for entropy too i guess, or even the fundamental forces in some views (superforce etc)). I suppose i was also slipping into Teillhard de Chardin type of view of thinking increase in information/complexity would inevitably lead to more consciousness over time; but i'm meaning consciousness in the wider sense of just life i suppose rather than necessarily self-consciousness as we'd understand; and further i'd accept a quite wide definition of consciousness in this context - eg a star responds to it's environment and finds a fairly improbable equilibrium through self-organisation - seems quite alive to me, like many non-organic complex systems that simply exist as patterns of relation - maybe i'm just conflating self-organisation with consciousness (but we're abstracting anyway). This emergent view of consciousness that i currently entertain (always open to offers) is a little 'ghost in the machine' for some people (but i guess it would be ironic for the average non-materialist to argue from this position). But also a physical theory can have completely unpredictable/novel results even if it's all determined at a physical/particle level eg the exact path of evolution (including consciousness) cannot be known in advance even in principle, just like long term weather, and yet it would still be considered a strong physical theory (or a subset of physics). I'm not wording any of this well as i'm vaguely remembering stuff from Stuart Kauffman, Melanie Mitchell and Fritjof Capra books i read not long ago (from what you've said before i think i trust your understanding of maths and probably theory better than my own (my maths is mostly visual/data flow programming max/pd (ie trial and error)) Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness: Physics and eastern wisdom Posted by Gerard "after all an emergent property can't really be inherent" Yes it can...the continuum of potential remains until actualised..this requires the application of principle...but emergence is inherent to potential..that consciousness should "expand" is something I think we can agree on....just that consciousness that needs to stretch into space and see itself in relation to the true potential for destruction that is inherent to the process.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Consciousness: Physics and eastern wisdom Posted by Sinister Burt I meant in the sense that if the eventual system that emerges is inherently unpredictable, then the particular system that results can only be loosely termed as inherent. Semantics i suppose. The example of evolution is obvious; run the tape again and you'd have very different results, albeit likely ending up in convergence in the various niches - you could say the generality is inherent, but not the specifics, which may or may not include self-consciousness (whatever that's even worth in the biological scheme of things). Less tangible, but the particular properties of the fundamental forces may be similar, in that some people think that the symmetry could have broken in different ways ending up with slightly different values - that all the values are what they are and so suitable for life to emerge is possibly the anthropic principle 'selecting' from many inhospitable universes with nothing like our self-consciousness possible. Top of Form Bottom of Form

The resolution to this quantum problem.. (you might want to read this one as rightly or wrongly Posted by Gerard this is the conclusion to the "theory"), ..is to include ourselves in the equation...not in a limited Cartesian sense (not that he was but it would be here), where only the binary (so called "rational" now-days -"rational"? Certainly NOT logical-), mind appreciates the equations but where the whole being is involved in the trans-formative process. This perforce must involve the rediscovery of humanity as community...evolutionary progress not corrupted by the brutality and viciousness of Social Darwinism....the consequences of which we can no longer avoid...chemicals do it..ecosystems do it...species do it..evolution does not progress only in soft-slopes and gentle movements...it's just that from the perspective of the end of one period of gradual change (and I don't mean technology here I mean the philosophy of the Man on the Clapham Omnibus), the last great upheaval is too far distant to be remembered (and recognised), well by the communal psyche.... Top of Form Bottom of Form

P.S Neither do these "revelations" belong soley.. Posted by Gerard to one secular or religious community.... Top of Form Bottom of Form

Conclusion! Posted by Gerard ..but as we've examined without consciousness the universe is an empty noise...ah that's right should be on this one...we collude in creation when we harmonise with the universe...without our involvement (in a positive sense), the universe cannot maintain coherence and collapses into Khaos...yes that's right it's what I meant to say earlier... time is not what we think it is... Top of Form Bottom of Form

P.S.. Posted by Gerard "If you stare long enough into the abyss the abyss stares back into you!" Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Conclusion! Posted by Gerard Top of Form Bottom of Form

Dr. Moninder Singh Modgil considers how retro-causality is possible Posted by Gerard Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Logos Posted by Gerard It's not applied properly Bert not by a loooong way...sonics in healing and harmonic profiling etc..The point is we need to use the work of all three..and modern "standard model" science more or less ignores the lot! Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Logos Posted by Gerard Same with Emoto...who's electron microscopy and scientific method are faultless..but his work has lead to him holding those "strange views" some find off-putting..and far too weird to integrate into their mechanistic lives.. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Logos Posted by Sinister Burt Why can't other people replicate Emoto's work, and why was he so tight lipped about his exact methods in taking those photos? (selling a book is my default suspicion when a person is, uh, selling a book). I use acoustic theory resonance and harmonics all the time in analysing or creating sound. Resonance is an amazing property that forms the basis of numerous aspects of reality (eg atomic orbitals or planetary orbits) but is quite simple to grasp eg when you push a swing at the end of it's cycle (in resonance) a small amount of energy can stored in the system and build up quickly, whereas if you try and push it when it's halfway back, not so much; this effectively performs a selection of resonant frequencies over non-resonant ones, and so is a form of self-organisation - (same way as on a plucked string - the pluck contains many frequencies; frequencies that can fit on the string (harmonics) can exist because their wavelength fits on the string, whereas non harmonic frequencies are the wrong length to fit and so are damped, leaving only tones (standing waves)). But nothing particularly mysterious is needed for this (except the mystery of how/why it all exists in the first place maybe). Top of Form Bottom of Form

Who has tried? Posted by Gerard I know nothing of this..what's your scientific objection to his work (for it certainly confirms and supports the other two)? Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Who has tried? Posted by Sinister Burt To be lazy, here's wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto Scientific Criticism Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community.[8][18] William A. Tiller, another researcher featured in the documentary What The Bleep Do We Know?, states that Emoto's experiments fall short of proof, since they do not control for other factors in the supercooling of water.[19] In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them prone to manipulation or human error influencing the findings.[8][10][20] Biochemist and Director of Microscopy at University College Cork William Reville wrote, "It is very unlikely that there is any reality behind Emoto's claims."[8] Reville noted the lack of scientific publication and pointed out that anyone who could demonstrate such a phenomenon would become immediately famous and probably wealthy.[8] Writing about Emoto's ideas in the Skeptical Inquirer, physician Harriet A. Hall concluded that it was "hard to see how anyone could mistake it for science".[21] Commenting on Emoto's ideas about clearing water polluted by algae, biologist Tyler Volk stated, "What he is saying has nothing to do with science as I know it."[3] Stephen Kiesling wrote in Spirituality & Health Magazine, "Perhaps Emoto is an evangelist who values the message of his images more than the particulars of science; nevertheless, this spiritual teacher might focus his future practice less on gratitude and more on honesty."[10] Emoto was personally invited to take the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge by James Randi in 2003, and would have received US$1,000,000 if he had been able to reproduce the experiment under test conditions agreed to by both parties. He did not participate.[22][23] Top of Form Bottom of Form

Other Voices Posted by Gerard "Perhaps Emoto is an evangelist who values the message of his images more than the particulars of science; nevertheless, this spiritual teacher might focus his future practice less on gratitude and more on honesty." Well that's Wiki..this is what I intimated..some questions over purity..but his instruments (or those of they who wish to repeat the experiments), can be checked ..and really it's about those..purity isn't so much an issue if each profile is still clear and distinct..what's causing it...? Water Molecule Clustering "Is water special? The main evidence against water having a memory is that of the very short (~ps) lifetime of hydrogen bonds between the water molecules [1209]. Clearly, in the absence of other materials or surfaces (see later), the specific hydrogen bonding pattern surrounding a solute does not persist when the solute is removed any more than would a cluster around any specified water molecule, or else water would not know which of its myriad past solutes took preference. Indeed the atoms that make up the water molecule only remain together for about a millisecond in liquid water due to proton exchange (see water dissociation). A recent NMR study shows no stable (>1 ms, >5 μM) water clusters are found in homeopathic preparations [712]. It should, however, be noted that the lifetime of hydrogen bonds does not control the lifetime of clusters in the same way that a sea wave may cross an ocean, remaining as a wave and with dependence on its history, but with its molecular content continuously changing*. a Also, the equilibrium concentration of any clusters are governed by thermodynamics not kinetics." http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory_of_water.html *italics mine. Top of Form Bottom of Form

Schauberger.... Posted by Gerard Funnily enough (one of), the other guy(s. Ed), who went for all this "stuff" was Viktor Schauberger.. "Shades of Nobel? Schauberger was deeply involved with water-molecule clustering theory and research, more recently "HADO" and the electron-microscopy of Dr.Masaru Emoto have confirmed its veracity. Quote: "Welcome to the homepage of the Centre for Implosion Research. Since 1997 we have been involved in subtle energy and water research, following largely the ideas of Viktor Schauberger. This has resulted in the development of a unique range of products, which are manufactured by us in-house and despatched all over the world. In the industrialised world of today, aqua vivens (= 'living', energetically charged water) is a rarity. In our drinking water supply systems, water is exposed to the detrimental energetic effects of straight unnatural water pipes, high mains pressures and chemical treatments. Water is not allowed to move in its naturally winding way thereby causing loss of life force. We believe that water has a "memory" which is attributed to the dipolar structure of the water. Hundreds of water molecules group together and form clusters, in which colloidal minerals and biophotons (light energy) interact. These clusters are very sensitive structures and are impressionable by vibrational influences. In this way water acts as a receiver and transmitter of information. Homeopathy is based on this principle. The natural world, which we are a part of, moves in a spiralling fashion. This is particularly obvious in shellfish, snails, antelope horns, pine cones and climbing plants such as clematis and ivy. In a more subtle way, all plants grow in a spiralling fashion always turning to face the sun. The DNA of all organisms forms a double helix spiral. Water flowing in a natural meandering river system forms whirls and eddies and never follows a straight path, and like all free falling objects, rain drops, too, fall in a subtly spiralling motion. We believe that this spiralling motion is fundamental to life and is important in ways which have not yet been understood by mainstream science." Go to: https://www.implosionresearch.com/index.html" http://www.arafel.co.uk/2015/09/forbidden-history-and-reich-of-black-sun.html Top of Form Bottom of Form

Re: Logos Posted by Gerard "(except the mystery of how/why it all exists in the first place maybe)." Well quite.. This guy really knows his mantra... ..and this one as-well.. #Mantra Posted by Gerard Top of Form Today's (01/01/18), post to The Lifeboat News message board, re: #StringTheory; ""Re: Consciousness: Physics and eastern wisdom Posted by Sinister Burt I meant in the sense that if the eventual system that emerges is inherently unpredictable, then the particular system that results can only be loosely termed as inherent. Semantics i suppose. The example of evolution is obvious; run the tape again and you'd have very different results, albeit likely ending up in convergence in the various niches - you could say the generality is inherent, but not the specifics, which may or may not include self-consciousness (whatever that's even worth in the biological scheme of things). Less tangible, but the particular properties of the fundamental forces may be similar, in that some people think that the symmetry could have broken in different ways ending up with slightly different values - that all the values are what they are and so suitable for life to emerge is possibly the anthropic principle 'selecting' from many inhospitable universes with nothing like our self-consciousness possible."" Ah Bert yes and also re: "String Theory"....hmmmm...see how valuable discussion is? Ha....."If the weatherman says it's raining etc.!" I put on a waterproof....."unpredictable" to whom? The nadis also inform astrology and ("aye there's the rub"), our individual astrology..string theory only makes sense to manifest consciousness whereby quantum applies...try it I believe those are two different lenses...Yesssss.." Bottom of Form

More on Jacques Benveniste; "The Memory of Water" go to: https://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/news041004-19.html

"One cannot avoid one's fate but one may determine one's own destiny!"