That is a facinating lecture, thanks for posting it.

I have to admit the possiblility that my use of DMT could have triggered a more active form of a latent schitzotypal tendency, as my spirituality came about as a result of smoking dmt, though not until my ~70th time and with THH...

Very interesting.

^^Its too bad all spiritually inclined people aren't more like you. I have no problem with people wanting to speculate and even worship these kinds of ideas. But I do have serious problems with the encroachment of religion and spirituality on science education and even direct attacks on scientific research. I find myself encountering more situations where science is under attack and I am trying to formulate my arguments better and this website helps practice Like I said this is one of few places where spiritual people are not dumb by any means.

Anyway Ill think more about some differences why cell and body aren't analogous to me anyway. I'll also try to apply the reasoning to solar system and galaxies.

The interview I posted by Dawkins and another scientist talks about this. They talk about how non living stuff can make living stuff and how non living stuff can make conscious stuff. They only really touch on the surface but there reasoning in my opinion is excellent especially from an evolutionary standpoint. Alot of people don't like Dawkins but I think hes doing something thats really important this day and age.

I have his book.. "The God Delusion" Very good book!

Religion has more functions then just manipulation. That doesn't mean its valid though.


As an ethiopian christian do you mean rastafarian? Do you think that emporer salasi was the second coming? Rastafarianism makes no sense both salasi and his family denied he was jesus or whatever rastas think.

Concerning the scalar analogies used to justify a living and conscious universe.

Why the solar system is not like an atom.

An atom is held together by electric and nuclear forces. The electron and proton are attracted due to electromagnetic forces. The nucleus of an atom is held together by the strong and weak nuclear forces. The solar system for the most part is held together by gravity.

The planets and the sun are not attracted because of opposite charge. Perhaps there is an overall net charge (i dont really know) but this doesn't cause the bodies to be attracted to or repel from each other in our solar system anyway. I am sure there are dust clouds is space with strong net charges and these electric charges play a big role in how these objects move but our solar system has a giant sun in the middle which has a lot of gravity which is by far the dominant force keeping our solar system together. Gravity alone is far too weak to hold atoms together.

Furthermore atoms and the subatomic particles that make them up are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. The solar system is for the most part governed by the laws of newtonian and relativistic physics. Quantum mechanics of course plays a role at the small scale but the way it does this is not at all analogous to our solar system. Planets don't just jump around in randomly all over the place at once. They follow clear patterns and orbits. The force of gravity is orders (lots of orders) of magnitude weaker then the electromagnetic and nuclear forces.



Concerning fractal mathematics as evidence for an intelligent universe. I though we should start out comical:




Anyway just because there are ordered patterns and fractals in nature does not indicate that they were designed. It has been mathematically provend that such patterns can occur on accident.

I found this just now but its a nice summary:

http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/courses/wolfram.html

A true mathematical fractal is infinite. All fractal patterns in nature are infinite. Not all patterns in nature are fractals either. Fractals are certainly all over but not everywhere. How does an atom resemble a fractal?


Why cells are not analogous to the universe as a whole. This is actually hard to respond to because I actually don't even see any resemblance to the structure of galaxies and a cell. So I am going to turn the argument around. Where the heck does the idea that a neuron resembles a galaxy come from?

Concerning the cell being analogous to the human form. Here is one simple example. Most of our cells asexually reproduce. But we cannot do that. We can reproduce sexually. Our cells can be cloned but I cannot just take in nutrients and double my genetic material and then split in half.


Also more on the Gaia hypothesis. The earth does not reproduce its not alive plain and simple.

I never indicated that the same forces needed to perform the same functions at higher/lower scalar levels. Conceptionally it is possible that gravity preforms the same functions at the scales of the very large, while electro-magnetism at the mid-small levels, and strong and weak forces at the scales of the very small. Their functions are exactly the same, holding things together. There is your unified theory, one force that holds things together on varying scales, using different "laws/mechanisms". The sun gives off positive energy (solar wind, radiation), the earth and the planets are attracted to (negative/gravity) and absorbers of that energy, a balannce between positive (radiating energy) and negative (absorbing energy). It is just a different mechanism for the same thing.



No, the planets don't jump around in their orbits. But they do have specific orbits, which are governed mathmatically (Keppler's Thrid Law, the Law of Harmonies) just as the electrons around a neucleus always form in particular "shells" and follow clear orbits. Same thing different scales, different mechanics but similar enough to see the analogy.

Quantum mechanics = Very small
Newtonian/relativistic physics = very large.

Same thing, diffrent names, different numerical values involved. But they perform the same general functions. They hold things together.




That made me lol, I am not saying the universe is intelligent. I am saying the universe is Conscious.



I never said they were designed. I just said they are ubiquitious thoughout nature, in just about everything we see. I'll read that article, but im curious, fractals are mathmatic, and there are many diffrent equations that give you fractals, Mandelbrot Sets are one, Julia Sets are another. Not everything has to be perfect, and of course there will be exceptions, otherwise evolution could not occur. Change is the only constant.



Because an atom resembles a solar system.



This is hard/impossilbe to see, because we are not aware of those scalar levels which are above us, and what organization or function they may or may not have. In my example it was a general outline, the structure will be more similar to the scalar levels closer to eachother than those further apart? I dunno, in some cases this works, and others it does not. There does and does not appear to be a direct correlation between scalar levels.

I never said a neuron resembles a galaxy, I said it resembles a cluster of galaxies.





But they still reproduce. There are living organisms that produce asexually: bacteria, fungi, plants, aphids, turkeys can sometimes, same with hammerhead/blacktip sharks (In both cases, the sharks had reached sexual maturity in captivity in the absence of males, and in both cases the offspring were shown to be genetically identical to the mothers.) Not exactly a cell dividing, but the exact same result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

They all have cells don't they?



But all life on it reproduces, and is inextricably linked in a web of life, every species of living thing on the planet is like a cell that makes up the whole which is Gaia. That is why we call her Mother Earth. But...as a correlary to this, it is not necessary to reproduce! I do not have children, and don't plan on having any...am I not a living thing then?


You are taking too strict a perception of what I am talking about. I'm saying both are blue, and you're telling me, well they are not at the exact same wavelegth in angstoms, so there is no correlation. It is a matter of degrees, they do not have to be exact. The similarities are there, enough so that it makes sense to me and I can see the big picture.

[quote=Saidin
You are taking too strict a perception of what I am talking about. I'm saying both are blue, and you're telling me, well they are not at the exact same wavelegth in angstoms, so there is no correlation. It is a matter of degrees, they do not have to be exact. The similarities are there, enough so that it makes sense to me and I can see the big picture.
[/quote]

I definitely see what your saying here Saidin.

That brain cell actually looks like lava

I just read that article, and if anything, it proves the point I'm making...every example they show is of order arising out of chaos by mathmatical means.

It is the nature of the universe to make order out of chaos, on different scalar levels.

Well yes the universe tends to order itself but it does this because the laws of nature allow it too.

Anyway no solar wind is not the same as electric charge and gravity is not the same as the other 3 fundamental forces. They may only be the same during periods of super high density and temperature such as found at the beginning of the universe. This is called supersymetry. Its a testable idea.

The point is NONE of this stuff indicates that the universe is conscious. Just because a bunch of galaxies look from at artists rendered to be like neurons doesn't mean they have the same function as neurons on whatever scale length. Its not like I am saying there is minor differences. There are MAJOR differences.


I am not being too strict with my definition of life. By you and others definitions of life EVERYTHING could be alive. There are reasons we don't consider a protein on its own alive. There are reason we don't consider a virus alive. There are reasons a bacteria is alive. There are reasons we are alive. That difference is real.

We call life life for a reason. I listed the definitions already. Most of the replies you made about the earth are only superficially correct but I won't go through them all. Rocks are not alive. The earth is not alive. The universe is not alive. Its fine to speculate that it is but when there is NO evidence for such a thing its just as bad as believing in the big man who lives in the clouds. Life must be capable of replicating itself and metabolizing etc etc. Otherwise its not life. If anyone can come up with a BETTER definition of life then that found in the average biology text please by all means knock yourself out.


This is now where I must turn to my objections about spiritualism in general. Spiritualism JUST LIKE RELIGION encourages nonsensical beliefs that are based on nothing except outdated ideas about the universe or ideas that were influenced by the taking of psychoactive drugs or otherwise fantastical thinking. It can be just as dangerous. Let me just list a few examples of the silly things modern spiritualism encourages: crystal healing, homeopathic medicines (note I mean the water not the diet life style ideas), astrology, 2012 myths, distrust in the sciences, faith based healing, and to me the most important is a lack of understanding of scientific principles.

Why do I find all this junk so dangerous? Honestly I could care less if someone tries to heal themselves with crystals or whatever its not my problem. But when legit researcher have to spend YEARS to prove and reprove and prove again that the chemicals they are trying to make medicines out of are safe while these idiots get to run around committing blatant fraud its kind of unfair. Furthermore these spiritual beliefs clearly break down peoples understanding and trust of the sciences in general. This means people will not be capable of making important decisions about real dangers we face in society. People can be 100% swayed by emotions about almost anything these days. Its pathetic.

hehe (added later) sorry Burnt had an argument with creationists recently.

Additionally, we live in an increasingly technological world. It's a good thing for people to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of how stuff works. Where the products we rely on come from.

I fear the rotting of societies critical thinking fueled by spiritualism leading to a state where nobody can maintain the technologies everyone relies on to survive. Humanity is passing the threshold where we need high technology to support our huge population. This could cause a real dark age for human kind where many would die and all would have enormously reduced quality of life.

Now you might argue that technology does not really increase the quality of life but it would be a little silly to argue this on an internet message board

This is a long term 'sci-fi' outcome of rampant spiritualism and superstition. There are other, more tangible worries too.

If you teach your children a bunch of superstitions at the expense of critical thinking you are putting them at a huge disadvantage. You are directly reducing the quality of their life to satisfy your own sensibilities. This is child abuse.

You might, in fact, be squelching a genius mind who otherwise could have helped improve life for everyone. The people who construct these pseudoscience new age mythologies come off as damn smart people. I beleive that they are but they're wasting it selfishly. They're using their innate genius to 1. satisfy their own morbid dread. 2. make money off impressionable youths who are not equipped with the necessary critical thinking skills to tell the difference between shit and shine-o-la.

I might not have made that last point strong enough. There is a chance for a runaway feed-back loop here.

1. Softening of critical thinking by teaching spiritual pseudoscience. -> 2. More superstition and less fact based critical analysis of the world. -> 3. even worse critical thinking. -> 4. even more superstition and so on.

It's scary. I want humanity to constantly improve and strive towards a star-trek future. religion is the enemy of that future.

My only problem with religion is how they see this life as a test for a greater "after-life". Makes people think if they tread carefully they'll get a shot at paradise.

In a perfect world... well we'd realise it's right here... if we want it.

Yea I find it particularly disturbing when I hear people say they don't care about their life because they know that there is something better in store for them. Its a very dangerous view point. Suicide bombing is probably the most f'ed up example of this kind of thinking.



You like thinking about feedback loops don't you? Hehe

This is something that concerns me a lot and I am not sure what the solution is. I think education is important and part of the solution. But just throwing money at lets say the department of education in the U.S. won't solve the problem. Its more complex then that. Federal control over education could be part of the problem not part of the solution. I dunno.

All in all...what makes our "definition" of something being conscious correct vs. someone elses?


"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared
to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing"

Yes, that disturbs me alot also.

Yes, and the most common form these laws of nature order things into is fractal.



The strong nuclear force, and gravity perform the same basic function, but on different scales. They hold things together, whether it be protons in a neucleus, or hydrogen atoms in a star trying to get away from eachother due to their electrons, it is the same basic fuction in nature. Things are blue, they are not exactly 475nm. The weak force and electro magnitism are smiliar, they both transmit energy among other things, they are not exactly the same but carry some of the same properties. This is now, today, not billioniths of a second after the big bang. They have evolved from the same unifying force, their roles are different today, but similar. Just as Apes and Humans are similar, not exact but they share many of the same characteristics, there are major differences, but there are also major similarities. Things change over time. Heck, I believe they have even proven that the speed of light has changed over time...so much for immutable laws of nature!

All my points suggest a conceptional framework as to how the universe could be conscious. It does not prove anything. What is your take on the Holographic Universe theory, or Super String/Membrane Theory? If either or those theories were true, then in all likelihood the universe would be conscious.



Yes, but you are looking at it from a purely scientific perspective, crunching the numbers and applying an ontological materialism to the equation. That is fine, we need people just like you in order to "prove" the big questions, with numbers and symbols that very few people outside your particular "club" can understand. We also need the artists, and creative thinkers to point people in possible directions to help uncover the mysteries that strict book knowledge won't be able to conceptualize. Critical thinking is necessary, but so is creative.



Ahh, but the similarities are there, some more superficial than others. You would do better to say, it is unlikely rocks are alive, the earth is alive, the universe is alive. You are stating a fact, where you cannot state it. I have given a framework to indicate how it is possible these things could be conscious. Certian "in favor" cosmological theories would lend creedence to my hypothesis. Torsion fields and implosion physics would provide that evidence as well. Sure it is speculation at the moment, but one that is being backed by more and more sicence every day.



How is Holographic/super-sting/membrane theory outdated?

As for the others, I would agree with you, they are dangerous if taken without careful scrutiny and knowledge of all options available, or if they are adhered to as dogma. I personally have seen energy work (Reiki) work on people, and know people who have been healed by it. Whether it was psychosomatic or not I cannot say. I have experienced the energy flows from it as well, and they are very real. Should people put their whole faith in them? Absolutely not, they should seek out all options available for them, and take the ones that have the best proven record of working. But to say all esoteric science is dangerous would be incorrect. Ignorance is never a good thing in any circumstance.



Ahh, but there is a problem here as well. Legit researchers will continue to hold onto their theories in the face of new evidence, EXACTLY because they have spent a lifetime creating/supporting/defending their theories. It happens all over science. People never like to be proven wrong, especially when you have invested your life's work in something, and will fight tooth and nail to keep their ideas from becoming "outdated" Science has its own speed bumps to progress, and are distrustful of new ideas which contradict established beliefs. Blatant fraud is wrong, but it happens in science as well. No one is immune, its just that science generally is better equipped and has a larger platform for calling people out for it.

Is the rotting of societies critical thinking fueled by religion/spiritualism? Or is it due to the educational system? Religion has been around a lot longer than science, has been more prevalent than science for almost all of human histroy. To cry woe is us at this point, seems kind of silly. Science has a place of honor in society, the lay people accept what they are told is true even though very few can actually understand what is being said, or the "proof" behind it. We have been in the dark ages, they ended long ago. The real threat of a dark age is if a coronal mass ejection heads directly toward our planet, wiping out all our communication systems, electricty and the like. Humanity would be thrown backwards 200+ years instantaneously, and it has nothing to do with ignorance of technology, it has to do with the fact that we have become so dependent upon it. Doesn't matter how much you know about how a cell phone signal works, or how to make a semi-conductor, if those things are completely destroyed, your knowledge is most likely irrelevant. Our society is so compartmentalized now, so interdependent upon other's knowledge that it would take a very very long time to return to even a rudimentary quality of life we currently have. No one will care about the internet/computers/television when you are only concerned about where your next meal comes from, how to get fresh water, or how you are going to survive the winter with no heat.



I would be a moron to agruge against this premise. Technology massively increases the quality of life. But what are we doing with that quality of life? Sitting around watching TV, Movies, computer games, internet porn? My belief is that technology allows us the free time away from labor and toil to consider the bigger questions of life. Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going? What is the meaning of life? SOme of those questions can be answered by science, others cannot. Technology frees us to explore all those options. Unfortunately that is not the case in most instances, people remain as blind and ignorant as ever, squandering the opportunities presented to them by progress to ponder the truly meaningful questions.



Rampant spiritualism and superstition? This is not the middle ages, this is the 21st century. I think this comment is a gross overstatement of reality. You are talking about a very narrow section of society in the United States, not some broad global conspiracy of ignorance. In fact people are less spiritual and superstitious now than in any other time in human history. There seems to have been a rise in it lately though, could be due to the religious right having grabbed the nutsack of the US for the past 8 years. It could be that something is happening that is making large groups of people, from various educational and social backgrounds to realize there may be something more going on than what we have been beliving. 2012 is resonating with many people, and in a fundamentally different way than other millenial movements for example. Apparent "awakening" is happening all over the planet all at the same time. Who knows what is behind it, but you can see from evidence on this website that more and more people are exploring the possibilities that surround us. Something is happening, and it is not necessairily a bad thing. There is no good information, and no bad information, it is all what you do with it. Seeking and questioning are always good things. Being dogmatic and closed to new ideas and possibilitis is always a bad thing.



This is so much a black or white statement that it cannot be justified. It is the all or nothing argument and is faulty. In addition, who are you to decide what is best for others, and how they should or should not raise their children? You are projecting your beliefs onto others and dehumanizing them if they do not conform to what you believe to be "right". How many "intelligent" children who were brought up in religious households go on to become fervert practioners of that faith? Probably less than half. A religious upbringing does not necessairily lead to a religious adult. Critical thinking is not the one and only way to raise children. I put at least as much creedence upon creative thinking, as critical. Should they have both? Of course, a well rounded individual will most likely contribute more to society and in turn make my life and everyone else's better. But to say there is only one way, and to not do it that way is child abuse, is just absurd. Also it is not for you to decide how genius expresses itself. Maybe one of these geniuses will prove the existence of god. Maybe one will discover free energy. Maybe one will find a way to heal with a touch. There are great mysteries and unanswered questions in every aspect of life. Let those find their own path and make contributions in that which gives them joy. As Joseph Campbell would say, "Find your bliss and follow it"

I'll take a Motzart equally with an Einstein. We need them both. They both improve life for everyone.

Sorry i'm making short posts but awesome posts Saidin! And everyone that has contributed! Very interesting from "both" sides. Both make valid points.


And my whole take on this: See sig

Agree creativity is important and beneficial to society.



Torsion fields I don't know much about but is as far as I know high controversial. I know about particle's spin but I don't see what that has to do with proving the universe is conscious of telepathy or whatever else these theories claim to prove.



The laws of nature could very well change as well as be different in other universes. No qualms there.



This area particularly gets on my nerves. People use these theories to justify spiritual phenomenon. You can't use these theories which we still have a small understanding off to confirm spiritual ideas. Furthermore these theories may one day be falsified. They need experimental backing. Although some argue string theory won't even be testable I think there are some indirect ways of testing. Even if they are true how does that prove that the universe is conscious?



There are plenty of scientists who are arrogant and stubborn agree. Theories advance and thats the point.


Anyway I just want to ask how does scientific theories about strings or extra dimensions prove the universe is alive or conscious or thus confirm any spiritual notions about anything?

Another question. How would you go about redefining life to consider something like the earth alive?

DMTtripping2space



Again you must define consciousness. If consciousness can just mean anything well then yes anything could be conscious. But that kind of reasoning has no merit. Its just giving in to someone else's view point even if that view point is based on nothing at all.