I ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Give me a logical answer

I don't know the how's and I don't know the why's, but I believe that there exists matter, energy and life forms, and that they have always existed, and that they develop (evolve) and decay.

From time to time (and there was no start and there will be no end to time), there is a mighty explosion (singularity?) when everything comes together and then explodes again.

Maybe we'll meet next time round?

As I said earlier I don't know if this scenario is possible given the Laws of Nature, but cycles which show themselves in Nature mimic that sort of process and Nature is consistent!

"The origin of life has been excessively ad infinitum"

I meant "The origin of life has been explained ad infinitum"

A possible Freudian slip there, what, unknown?

Yes, points of origin indeed.

Causing the ripple as opposed to riding the wave.

So, your point of origin potentially exists in the Big Bang and information is carried in the wave of its ripples.

....and who catches that information, by taping into that wavelength, at that particular moment in time and space, when it arives here from it's singular point of origin.

The center, the periphery of which is nowhere.

EVOLUTION !!!
Such an important issue, guys, and you´re making a storm in a cup of tea.
Evolution! Such an important issue, and look at all the posts on this thread.
Are we really evolving? Are we concerned with our evolution ? Or we are more concerned with a countless number of other issues ?
Who am I? Where am I going ? What is the meaning of my life ?
Are we still asking ourselves these questions ? Or are we trying to avoid them, as we´re trying to avoid the most significant questions of our existence ?
A human being lives unconsciously -- s/he is carried along by the flow of life, by the flow of every day routine. Yes, most of us live unconsciously and die unconsciously.
So, if the "normal" state of our consciousness is the so-called Waking Sleep, are we willing to awake, do we care to awake ? To what ? And why ?
What if a human being is not what s/he thinks s/he is ? What if there is something else ? What if there are dimensions to life, other possibilities ? The human impulse for evolution starts with these inner questions. If, as a humam being, you are not yet asking yourself these questions, you are not aware of your potential, nor are you aware of who you are.
Mechanical existence, dormant existence, conditioned existence is not a True Existence at all.

See Richard Dawkins and others. The theory has it that a self-replicating chemical system came about under the right initial conditions and here we are, much evolved, with a long way yet to go. The exact details of the original cell are not available yet, but there are several competing hypotheses, none of which is yet entirely satisfactory (that's why they are competing).

What is your suggestion?

Ah, Rick, here You are again !
It´s good that now we meet in the evolutionary perspective.
You are stuck on the question: How can we build a theory without explaining the origin of the first living organism...
Rickie, Rickie !
Are You more concerned with theories, with understanding logically, with the origins of the first living organism, or with Your innermost potential for growth and evolution ? Can You take charge of Your own inner resources and bring them forth to full flourishment and fulfillment ?
Deep inside You know that this is the only question that matters.

This is the best question I've ever read being put forth for Rick, the consumate existencialist. Let's hear it Rick, and make it straight from the heart. Talk to us like it's all humanity here listening for your answer.

The "answer" is simple and obvious: One's inner potential for growth drives one to understand, which, properly done, requires science and reason.

The ordinary consciousness is that in which one knows things only or mainly by the intellect, the external mind and the senses and knows forces, etc., only by their outward manifestations and results, and the rest by inferences from these data.
In this state of consciousness there may be some flashes of mental intuition, insight, or deeper psychic seeing, but they are incidental and do not modify this state of consciousness. It is the second state of consciousness -- of Waking Sleep.

Only in the fourth state of consciousness -- turiya -- can one see the truth about everything existing. In this state the higher intellectual center is operating.

How does the artistic mind find a place in your equation? Isn't the artistic (and/or the mystical) another way to express our drive to understand as well? Isn't it as important as science and reason? Or why is it there, in the fabric of our making?

A good question, code buttons...

The true artists live at the Edge of Chaos -- it is the state-space of optimal creativity, intelligence and performance; it is a state between order and chaos, a self-organized criticality. It is a state of infinite possibilities and potentialities -- at this point we do not know what will happen, only that something new and interesting will happen.
It is the state of a heightened self-awareness, in which the higher emotional center is operating. It is a state of perceptive intensity, of acute sensitivity, of intuitive and imaginative breakthroughs. It is a state of transcending oneself, of expanding one´s consciousness and perception, of connecting oneself to other subtler dimensions. The artist functions mainly from the heart and the right brain hemisphere, which allow this supra-sensitivity and vision.

"For all good poets compose their beautiful poems not by art, but because they are inspired and possessed -- they are not in their right mind. For a poet is a light and winged and holy thing, and there is no invention in him until he has been inspired and is out of his senses, and reason is no longer in him: no man, while he retains that faculty, has the oracular gift of poetry." Plato

When Plato talks of being possessed, not in the right mind, out of the reason and senses, he means that the act of creation requires transcending our "right" or normal/average mind and senses, expanding the field of our perception, becoming attuned to other spheres and dimensions.

As to the mind or a state of consciousness of a mystic -- it is the Cosmic mind and consciousness. It is a state of being empty of oneself and full of Infinity.

Science and reason do not preclude art and vice versa. Reason is a tool an artist can use as well as any other tool. When reliability of knowledge is needed by the artist, he utilizes his reason, should an artist become inspired in that direction. It's up to the artist to decide what is good.

Just a note:

It may be worth looking at those who finance studies that say that man is the causative agent behind Global Warming as well. Then, in view of the content of the above post, one should research the political ideologies of those individuals and organizations who finance and donate to such studies.

Just for balance.

That's not to say that we shouldn't take good care of the environment. That's only common sense; but to place man as the causative agent, and then reference right-wing troublemakers as the source of studies refuting mankind's influence as the causative agent behind Global Warming seems a bit irresponsible to me. It's intellectually dishonest, really.

Not all of those studies refuting the present MSM stance on Global Warming are financed or backed by right-wing imperialist oil barons.

More on the other side of the argument is located here:

http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14799

No matter your political ideology, the evidence is interesting.

Global Warming seems to be a solar system wide phenomena. In view of the evidence, if you posit that man has caused Global Warming on earth, then he must be responsible for such changes throughout the solar system...including changing the sun's activity...

I haven't seen any evidence of any of the other planets getting warmer. Are you referring to solar output data?

There was a very nice article in Scientific American earlier this year about a new theory how neolithic activity 10,000 years ago, such as agriculture, contributed to warming to end the ice ages. The theory seems well supported by evidence.

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=P...35B1D2A02A8B6D5

Leonardo da Vinci stated that for one to understand art, he must also understand science, he said it was absurd to do art without studying the scientific aspects of it. Leonardo was an artist and a scientist, he studied science to increase his art skill, they go hand in hand, creativity and logic, the right and left sides of the brain, the ying and the yang.

I have provided a number of opposing points of view and other evidences here: http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14799

A number of scientists and researchers have tied solar "output" to warming trends on earth, as well as to current and ongoing changes in the climates and albedos (among other changes) of other planetary bodies. Additionally, such trends in warming and cooling on earth are quite cyclic in manifestation. 'Ice ages' are merely peaks in the cycle. Several of the Ice Ages (such as Wisconsin) can actually be tied to the locations of the magnetic North and South Poles during the times involved. The poles do wander a bit over the ages. Currently the magnetic North Pole is racing along on a NE heading at about 40 kms per day...

As I said previously, we should take good care of the environment, but my opinion is that currently accepted Global Warming theories (i.e mankind did it) are unsupported by the evidence. Man certainly hasn't helped a damn bit, but we don't seem to be the causative agent. IMO, current presentations in the media and on Kosovo seem to be ideologically/agenda driven and not based upon science.

Kosovo?

My apologies. Freudian slip.

I meant the Kyoto treaty. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

Reason is a tool, that´s all; the same as a computer is a useful tool.
Yet, they are not the source or fountain of creation. Science and art can meet and merge when mind and heart are in harmony and balance.
Leonardo da Vinci was more concerned with and interested in science than art. Do you think that his great ideas and inventions came from the left brain hemisphere ?

Spontaneously appearing self-luminous structures recorded and reported in the anomalous zones in Altai and other parts of Siberia -- the points at which the energy of the earth´s core connects with interdimensional vortices ? The aspects of the earth´s future etheric body entering into the present moment of time ?

The declining magnetic field of the earth, which is causing the Schumann resonance to increase ...

Winter solstice Dec. 21, 2012 -- the end-date of the Mayan 5125-year Great Cycle and the Solar-Galactic alignment, the time of integration of the galactic code of light into the genetic code of life...

The future scenario -- photonic energy ? An evolutionary quantum leap into the vibrational frequencies of the 5th dimension ?

GALACTIC ALIGNMENT
The Alignment Generation and Transformation of Consciousness

http://www.earthportals.com/Portal_Messeng...gnment2012.html

A brief answer: The ground floor for the theory of evolution is everywhere, it's in the fossile record, and in everyone's genes. All it took was a great amount of intelligence and intuitive insight to go from there. The first organisms where simply the first organisms: They existed in whichever form they did, and the knowledge of how that actually happened shouldn't disturb the theory more than enrichen it.

[b][color=#3333FF]
....hmmmm.......
...u build a theory from the root of present consciousness...your central vortex...then one reasons in reverse back in the past....AND foward ahead to the future..........u compare the 2 strains mathematically and they must equal.........U SAID U WANTED BRIEF!!.....meri.herculesway@gmail.com

I would've asked for verifiable facts, sans interpretations, myself. But that's just me. ;O)

The Creationists only have a relevant position because there are flaws in Evolutionary Theory (huge, gaping holes, actually), particularly in the neo-Darwinist interpretations. The facts don't match the interpretations - unless you close your eyes, turn your back, and stop thinking clearly. Except for the "Young Earth Hypothesis" and their assumption of a Creator, many of them make valid points. If you think that we all originated from chemical soup, please keep in mind - that is an unfounded assumption and not a verifiable fact. Results in laboratory tests have never been able to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Intelligent Design is much better, but it, too, has certain obvious flaws - the assumption of a "creator," for one example. (i.e. Panspermia and the interations thereof.) Its flaws become more apparent when interpreted by ideological, agenda-driven Creationist/fundamentalists.

As well, many of the Mayan 2012 and New Age crowds suffer from the same problems. They see a few facts, make certain assumptions about those facts as based upon their preconceptions and ideologies, and then, like many a scientist, base their interpretative theories upon their assumptions, quite forgetting that the facts may well tell another story when interpreted from another's ideology or by another's agenda and preconceptions. The whole "vibration up to another reality" probably isn't going to happen quite the way that they teach. One obvious assumption is that we are vibrating "up" and not "down." Another is that we will all - or at least some of us - (same story as the fundamentalists) - will be "vibrating" into another dimension that's better than this one...when it could be quite the reverse. (That's a bit like scientists claims that science improves our lot in life and that only science can improve our lot in life...when the sciences actually have a rather checkered past in attempting to achieve such results.)

They all are quite guilty of piling 'epicycle upon epicycle' in spite of any factual evidence that their favorite theories and assumptions are wrong. Thus, instead of achieving what we all say that we so desire, we end up promoting division, strife and conflict because we each claim to know what others do not, while constantly claiming that others are ignorant or unqualified, when none of us really has, nor can we have, all of the answers to Life and Living It. (Godel's Law rears its imperious head once again.) The only logical and rational answers will be found in respectful and courteous co-operation. No. I'm not holding my breath.

In view of the many evidences from many and several different fields, what I'm saying, is that we should, perhaps, abandon all of our preconceptions, agendas and ideologies...and spend more time assembling the facts ...and starting over again.

A multi-disiplinary approach is necessary.

Unless we raise our consciousness,assembling the facts won´t add much to the clarity and totality of vision and understanding.

"It is we who are lost and vainly seeking, and we shall go on vainly seeking until we learn to see with other eyes."

"Atomic Vortex Theorem of Energy Motion postulates a transfinite universe composed of evergy, expressing at infinitely varying levels and component frequencies. It also presents material refuting the big bang theorem of the origins of the universe and of fusion reactions in stars.. This theorem postulates
unlimited dimensions outside of the four which comprise time-space ...
Energy functions in accordance with many laws and principles. The universe functions in a very coherent manner in accordance with these principles of energy.
Energy passes from one expression into another, yet no energy is ever lost. Energy is infinite in nature and does not originate or terminate.
Creation is impossible as all energy merely changes form.
Big-bang theory is clearly fallacious when we apply the seven primary principles of energy expression.
To understand the way our universe functions requires for us to understand the way energy functions..."
Atomic Vortex Theorem of Energy Motion -- http://www.usa-int.com/SDAILABS/AVT.html

thanks for the link! It's an intriguing article.

Exactly. We must abandon all prejudice, and each and every ideology, agenda, assumption and preconception in our search for the truth, or we shall most assuredly learn nothing.






Without an understanding and knowledge of factual evidences, having a "raised consciousness" is bit like having a brand new Cadillac...with four bald, flat tires. ;O) It looks pretty and it sounds nice, but it's not going to go very far, very fast. It sure looks and sounds pretty, though! ;O)

Much of what is found in cutting-edge science verifies - often in detail - much that is known about "metaphysics." The reverse is also true. However, never the twain shall meet, for both sides interpret the facts to fit their own ideology and agenda. ...and both sides proclaim with fundamental conviction that only they are possessed of "higher consciousness."

(The old "My Daddy is bigger than your Daddy" argument.)

Interesting comments.

Thanks for the link, too!

Very interesting link - thanks for that. When we abandon the erroneous idea of matter and realize it is just one form of packaging then we can follow a more appropriate path towards enlightenment and elevation of consciousness. [Boxes are useful to hold things, but what is inside is of greater importance. Similarly with the brain; the meta is far more important.]

I think this topic should go to the Physics Board, and I will now direct it there. Please argue a case to remain here if you wish.

Factual evidence or data requires new understanding, new interpretation.., which is not possible without a higher state of consciousness.

To take a fresh look at the facts staring us in the face, to see them with new eyes, to make a deeper sense out of them and broader interconnections, requires transformation of the seer and of the instrument of seeing and understanding.
It requires a new mind and a new way of thinking. And this is what evolution is: an increasing awareness, an ever-expanding consciousness, a clearer vision, a deeper and broader understanding, making unconscious conscious.
Reality is much more than the sum total of factual data.

Silly question here, but. Based on the AVT, how much energy difference is between an object that exists both in my mind and independent of my mind, if any?

How could the image of an object in your mind be energy quantified? Also, a mind image is always polluted by other mind items so a pure image would be impossible (?) to create, to then do energetics with. The realworld object is easy.

ps if anyone says that a pure mind image can be created they will have to prove it. anecdotal evidence is not scientific.

How could the image of an object in your mind be energy quantified? Also, a mind image is always polluted by other mind items so a pure image would be impossible (?) to create, to then do energetics with. The realworld object is easy.

ps if anyone says that a pure mind image can be created they will have to prove it. anecdotal evidence is not scientific.

an interesting question.

how could the image of an object in your mind be energy quantified? also, a mind image is always polluted by other mind items so a pure image would be impossible (?) to create, to then do energetics with. the realworld object is easy (e=mc[e2]).

ps if anyone says that a pure mind image can be created they will have to prove it. anecdotal evidence is not scientific.

question raises some interesting issues.

Back on topic:

There is now evidence that some animals are evolving to cope with global warming:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0609-02.htm

Says a lot about why those pesky little rodents managed to outlive the dinasours. And that in turn says a lot about our lineage, doesn't it? Time to admit that I'm proud of my grandpa the weasel, I guess.

OK. So you can't quantify the energy that composes a thought. But it's still energy, isn't it? It's still the same kind of stuff that the stars and the planets in the universe are made of, isn't it? The real challenge lies in finding out the physical laws that govern energy in all these forms it seems to manifests itself in, doesn't it? The more I read about it the more I like this Atomic Vortex Theorem. My questions is how come I never heard of it before?

code buttons,
You´re a bright guy !
The Causal Plane -- the realm of the Will, the realm of emanation, the realm of Cosmic Fire or Divine Flame ( by the way, wisdom is transmitted by the power of KA = one with the Divine Will or Flame), contains a spark that brings things into manifestation.
The Mental Plane -- the world of creation, the realm of thought, is the next one in the chain of Creation. It is a subtle, very powerful, quantum field of infinite potentialities.
Thought is energy, and a powerful one.

"My question is how come I never heard of AVT before?"
Because You were not on that vibrational frequency or wavelength.
There are higher laws of nature, and one of them is the law of Resonance, or synchronicity.

The more interesting question is actually along the lines of:

What convinced single-celled organisms to co-operate/evolve into
multi-celled organisms to the point the multi-celled organisms were
considered a single entity?

That question hasn't really been answered yet and experiments yield a
variety of responses. In some cases, given finite resources
single-celled organisms will co-operatively manage them to the point
where even the resources are considered part of the multi-celled
organism. In other cases mass extinction occurs.

There is an argument that 'life' is merely a series of mass extinctions
on an ongoing scale, with adaptation being the key to survival -- but in
the end everything dies or changes into something so entirely different
from its origins it's no longer recognisable as the same thing.


One attempt to address the apparent altruism of organisms is detailed in
Richard Dawkins book The Selfish Gene. He attempt to show that what would
appear to be a conscious choice of disparate genes to cooperate for mutual
benefit is merely the result of mindless mutation and resulting suitability
(or otherwise) to the environment.

Another of his themes is an effort to explain why there are complex organisms.
The idea comes from an analysis of the total mass of organisms of all
complexities, from the smallest to the largest. There are ~10^30 bacteria on
the earth and less that 10^10 humans, in fact ~10% of your bodyweight is
bacteria! These humble microbes make up ~70% of the biomass of the planet!

So there's not a lot of space down there, so the next trick is to 'cooperate'
(for want of a better word) with another organism and you can both make a new
niche. Soon that niche gets full so some 'clever' organism goes another step
up in complexity.. and so on..

He's once been quoted as saying that Rhincerous genes are among the most hard
working in nature since in order to replicate themselves they first go through
the entire process of building a Rhinocerous in order to do so!

The other common question is how the cell first evolved, one theory in the
Endosymbiotic Theory which suggests the the first cell was created when an
amoeba like organism and a bacteria decide to set up house together.

I stand to correction on some of the specifics, been a while since I
last read up on it trying to be a keen listener :-)

Guest...

No offense, but in less than three posts you have managed digress completely from the initial question. I am interested to hear what have to say about "how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism"

Culture,
Your question and comments concern the laws and principles of evolution and our understanding of them.
You would like to know/understand the origin of the first living organism and its evolution.
To know/understand the origin of Life is to know/understand the mind of God or Creator.
Albert Einstein said that he wanted to understand the mind of God, to understand everything else.
I see that You have a similar aspiration.
And how will You come to such an understanding ?
Or would You like to limit or confine the discussion and responses on this thread to a single specific question, your question?
By the way, biologists state nowadays that one of the fundamental organizing principles of evolution is cooperation or symbiosis.
There is a very good book by Rupert Sheldrake "Seven experiments that could change the world".
There is another good book by Per Bak "How Nature Works: the science of self-organized criticality".

Why, thank you Guest! I don't know about the bright thing, but I'll take'm compliments anyway they come. Hey Hey requested that this subject be transferred to Physics and I hope the moderator complies. I can paste my posts and transfer them that way. What you're saying is more or less part of what I foresee as the Consciousness Singularity. That’s what this website is all about anyway. But, by the same token, I listen to science. And this why I like this AVT. It sticks to science, doesn’t it? And the implications of what they claim are mind-bending. Somebody should start a thread specifically so everybody will read it and digest it. So we can all comment about. I, for one like the AVT very much. It beautiful in its simplicity. You know, I think in the end, when we enter into this new dimension, it will probably turn out that it didn’t take high
I Qs, but some kind of force which already is within us and is made of energy too: Love. But that’s just my theory. It sure wouldn’t hurt!

About the AVT, how exactly does it explain black holes? I’m not a scientist, so I get lost in the translation sometimes.

As for synchronicity, that was a Jung claim. There’s a famous phrase around here that describes it better: “There are no coincidences, only the illusion of coincidences” That’s not scientific. Funny thing, though: All my life until recently I used to believe that everything happened for a reason. Which is another way of stating synchronicity. I think it was Neural that burst my bubble. That butt munch!

Yes that school of thought crops up time and again. But observationally
you can also observe mutually independent species fulfilling different
co-operative roles with very different evolutionary backgrounds too.
Prime example being the symbiosis between some insect species and plants
(i.e. ant's keeping aphids off one plant which produces some form of
nectar for the ant)

What we observe as mutually exclusive co-operating species may in fact
be part of a much larger specie we can't observe in a single lifetime.
Humans make for an interesting example here, because The Human Being can
be considered a single entity made up of many cellular human beings and
active on a biological and conscious level far beyond what we can
appreciate in terms of both recorded history and our experience of
really large scales.

We can observe many things occurring, but very little that explains why "what" is occurring ... Experiments can also prove what's possible but don't always explain the most probable.

[quote name='Guest' date='Jun 09, 02:01 PM' post='65907']
Culture,
Your question and comments concern the laws and principles of evolution and our understanding of them.
You would like to know/understand the origin of the first living organism and its evolution.
[/quote]

OK, firstly it's unlikely there was an Adam organism on its own. Much
more likely than numerous chemical reactions gave rise (over time) to a
series of exploratory paths of biology where some survived and some
didn't. It's possible it happened over and over again before some
organisms developed the means for coding in adaptation to changing
environment -- quite by accident.

[/quote]
To know/understand the origin of Life is to know/understand the mind of God or Creator.
Albert Einstein said that he wanted to understand the mind of God, To understand everything else.
I see that You have a similar aspiration.
[/quote]

No, to understand the origin of life is to know the starting conditions
for what I understand to be relatively conventional and natural
processes no matter where you are in the universe.

An astronomer called Frank Drake developed an equation to work out the
probability of life on other planets. [1]

Basically you take all stars you can see, and take just a subset of them
which meet the same general requirements of our star and then of those
stars you take a subset of those of the right age (not too young, not
dying) and then of those left you take a subset which have planets in
the observable habitual zone, and so on and so on...

Anyway, the point of the exercise is to show that even if you work on
really small fractions of what we can observe it's still millions and
millions and stars that have the potential to develop life.

Plus we know microbes can travel in space, perhaps knocked off-planet by
an impact of sorts, float around a sun for a few million years and then
end up on another planet in the system by accident. It's a slightly
larger stretch of the imagination to imagine anything actually leaving a
solar system but it's theoretically possible.

A deity/god is a nice concept for explaining stuff we don't understand. But
it's not necessary to the universe's existence at all. An observer
perhaps but not a deity/god

There needn't be a god to explain everything we see. You're looking for
a "First Cause" and there is none. There is no requirement for one. An
event precedes its cause - mere logic and provable too. Stuff happens
because stuff happens. And it keeps on happening because stuff continues
to happen.

[/quote]
Or would we limit or confine the discussion and responses on this
thread to a single specific question?
[/quote]

Are you sure you are real, and not just a simulation? In terms of
probability theory it's more probable that a descendent race with
resources we can't even imagine has built a massively parallel computer
to model the early stages of the universe in order to discover what
model best fits the observations, than it is probable that we're the
only species in existence

Welcome back, Culture! How are things in the far East? You know, I read an interesting article which wised me up about how The U.S. empire is due to falter very soon. Makes you wanna run as far the hell from here as possible. Worst part? We brought this upon ourselves through our disrespect and arrogance towards the needs of others and of the environment. We are going to be humiliated to the ground. Bottom line? I’ll meet you in Hanoi! Also Culture, isn’t Shinto a customization of Buddhism by the Japanese? Lucid says in ain’t. But I thought I heard my ex-wife (Japanese) telling me this. Don’t worry if you don’t know the answer. No big deal. Good to hear from ya! Oh! And here’s the link to that scary article:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020923&s=greider