Where To From Here?

Great distraction!
I love the heavens (or universe).  It brings me peace in that they are so constant, so large, so magnificent and so unknowable even today.  I have been keeping close track of Jupiter for 4 years; I can point to her (his?) position in the sky day or night (as long as she is up there).  Right now (Sept 4 2014) she is just 'west' of the sun by about 2 hours… meaning Jupiter rises in the east about 2 hours before the sun and sets about two hours before the sun.  At noon Jupiter is in the position the sun will be at 2 pm. Here's a great application for following the night sky if your into such things http://neave.com/planetarium/ , I highly recommenced it (this 'toy' can eat hours of my time).  Knowing Jupiter's position in the sky often gives me great peace.  Jupiter will be in a predictable place in the sky today, 20 years from now and thousands of years from now.  There is so much I don't know on earth, but I can count on Jupiter.  I (and we humans) have no power over her.  I like that, especially given all the messiness here on earth.  Knowing just about Jupiter's position in the sky all the time also helps me understand our ancestors and their fascination with the heavens; which I believe is for much of the same reason; we can't touch them (no sin? incorruptible?) with our problems.

This is just one tidbit in my thinking.   

Also, on the discussion on neurons vs galaxy super cluster structure similarities reminds me of this quote: 'Things love to conceal their true nature' – Heraclitus

We are trying so hard with our limited little money brains!

Sterling

 

Scientifically apparently, we should not be here. But we are. "The stars incline, but they do not compel."  Possibilities often lie closer to home.  I'm going with the neurons
and the human brain ( not that you can really seperate it from the body ), and it being reputively the most complex thing in the known universe.  Again, it depends on who uses it.  And evidence has been around for millennia, but not too much:  mystics, thinkers, meditators, great religious leaders, martial arts adepts with transcendental abilities.  Evidence, of course, is what you want it to be, and want it for.
Anyhow, counter-intuitively, because of a lot of our reductive recent scientific culture, the current occupants of this planet may well be the greatest tribe of head- shrinkers yet to exist. And boy , are we shrinking the planet? And it must hurt.  I know my brain does!  And there sure are a lot of people with shrunken brains around.
Didn't  Goethe's Faust have something to say about a sorcer's apprentice who misunderstood and misused his powers?  Goethe himself discovered a new bone in the body.                                                                                                                                                       …I'm thinking, no matter what the future brings, there'll be work for a clergyman…I'm beginning to like the power of the pulpit and the rant…
 

How deeply baked into the cake is the way we do business, how many different kind of strings do you have to pull to change something?  Is the money printing ethos built into they way we use pronouns in our culture, where the verb typically occurs in our sentences?  How deeply do we need to dig in to get beyond the symptoms of a problem down to the cause?
It is always the unexamined assumptions that get you in the end.  It is the thing that you worried about the least that becomes the biggest problem.  The whole concept of the three "E's" is a doorway into a much bigger and more interesting world. It will finally allow us to deal with the problem of unintended consequences, it is the bridge from individualistic, mechanistic, self destructive thought patterns to ecological or holistic thinking that will take us down a path towards healing.

Supper weeds are showing up in our industrial farm fields that are immune to our usual batches of herbicides.  Super bugs are showing up in our bodies that are immune to our usual batch of biocides (antibiotics).  What is the "mainstream" response, or what I would call pseudo scientific response to these problems?  Money printing, more toxicity. Someone with a lab coat and safety glasses shows up and throws a few Latin words around and we bow in worship.  The Latin mass is back in play at our new alter. The true scientific thought process has atrophied.  It is the pseudo science of death, materialism and its object of worship is personal power.  Yet when we see these things expressed (death) in the art and fashion of our culture we seem baffled.  The principal of the three E's is everywhere and in everything.  Call it fractals if you like.

True science, that follows the scientific process wherever it leads, is taking us in another direction.  It is telling us that the world is not a machine, but a conscious living being. Newtonian physics has been dead for half a century yet we still believe and act as if life as a machine. It is scientifically proven that our simple act of observation changes the world we observe, yet we are still dead to the world.  But it is not the world that is dead, it is us.  Bacteria "learn" form one another, those that live through antibiotic exposure pass that ability on to those that they meet. Antibiotic resistant genes reside in transmissible plasmids, facilitating their transfer. The rigidity of DNA and RNA that was supposed to make GMO 's safe for release into the world turned out to be false. The world is awake and evolving in response to our insanity.

C diff, the latest creation of our culture of death is a distortion of our internal ecosystems. What is the cure? Fecal transplants.  Yes our sh#t is going to save us.  Reintegrating livestock into agriculture, energy into economics, people into the environment, our hearts into our minds.  Our minds can only break things into smaller and smaller pieces (as useful as that may be), we need our hearts to put things back together again.  There is no unified field theory in the sense that we are pursuing it.  There is no one and done. There is no one size fits all.  The more the rational mind tries grasp and control the world, the more things slip through our fingers.  Mechanization freezes yesterdays understanding ad infinitum into solving tomorrows problems. It physically manifests the idea of the moment and holds it there for ever.  The idea of the machine that learns is the ugliest lie of all.  Cold evil, which is the process of limited awareness trying to do good but creates evil in its place.  It is the problem of the part trying to become the whole.

Financial charts are fine, but is seems they are always self referential within the already abstracted system.  They lack the intimacy that would allow them to speak the truth.  How about charts that related economic growth to the percent of copper in the ores mined, the biological health of our hay meadows, ecological diversity and health of our fisheries, energy per capita consumed per household, or parameters related to the health of people within what ever segment is being analyzed. 

Human beings are the only things that can evolve with the world around us.  It is that intimate awareness of those things around us the allow positive change to happen.  Consciousness heals.  Why else do we call love intimacy?  When we use our minds and our machines to keep things at arms length, everything falls apart.  In our culture we have the SVO (subject verb object) structure to our language.  We ourselves are primary, what we are doing is a close second, the thing  we are acting upon is a distant third.  In other cultures sentences are structured SOV, and the S (subject) is often omitted. The object stands at the front of the sentence. The other is embraced as the primary interest. Intimacy is built into the language. In that same culture children call their friends parents mom and dad, and a woman speaking to a friend about her husband will use the pronoun "our".  As the center of the world shifts from the Atlantic to Pacific, from a physically smaller body of water to a larger one will we move in the opposite direction emotionally? As things appear to be falling apart are we starting to heal at a deeper level?  Something is definitely afoot.

 

 

 

Wow, such a great way this thread went. Treebeard, I could not have put it better myself. I come from a strong scientific background and as a result I was a pretty hard core atheist in my younger years since I equated the two. This was also out of revulsion towards so much of the blind dogmatism and evil that organized religions can exhibit. But as I grew up and explored the world more from my scientific perspective my world view changed. 
The main turning point was when I stumbled upon, and could not rationalize away, the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that genetic evolution can occur given the types of random mutations we see, which would then be acted upon by natural selection in the traditional Darwinian fashion. I am not going to go into any detail, but if you have an understanding of genetics and populations you can try some math to see what the chances are of this happening… you're going to need a calculator with a lot of exponential capabilities, because you're looking at numbers like 10 raised to the 80 or something. Clearly there is more (or less?) going on than what mainstream likes to tell itself. Some people invoke religion to explain what cannot be understood, which is fine. I chose scientific doubt.
 
The second turning point came for me shortly afterwards when I figured out how the scientific method works, and I actually flipped science around. I finally figured science out – it was not about discovering the truth (even though that is what many people believe it is used for). I think this is the main thought I'd like to leave the world with – that science is very important, but it is being misinterpreted, or received the wrong way; totally opposite to what it should be used for. Many people, most I would say, understand science to be restrictive, to reduce the world down to simple truths, to mathematical formulas. But that is not how true science works. That is just how it is being used today. This approach is limiting, reductionist, boring, I would say even dangerous, and turns a lot of people away from science. It takes a whole rainbow of possibilities and kills it.
 
But rather than discovering the truth, science is actually about revealing what the truth ISN'T. This may sound like semantics but the difference is very profound. And it could be no other way, since we are not objective observers; we are part of the observed and therefore we do not have a reference frame from which to construct the "truth". Rather, we make the truth in our own brains and to varying degrees use our observations to shape that truth. But the truth exists only in our minds. This can be the only way that science can work – it is fundamental to the scientific method of hypothesis generation, the null hypothesis, and theory creation. This latter approach to science, the one which interprets it to be actually revealing what the truth isn't, rather than being restrictive, is actually freeing and liberating. And it opens up a world of possibilities. All it does is guide you through the maze of possibilities that are not consistent with observable phenomena. By revealing what isn't the truth, science actually liberates you from inconsistent thoughts and understandings of the world. And far from being reductionist, I think any scientist would point out that with every questions science answers, it reveals more. In this sense I have seen a lot of similarity between science and the eastern religions like Buddhism.
 
As mentioned above, Newtonian physics has been dead for a century. Well it's not dead. Back in the day science would have said that "everything that does not conform to these mathematical Newtonian laws is not the truth, given our reference frame and the set of observable phenomena available to us at this time". Many people incorrectly interpreted it to say, "these mathematical Newtonian laws are the truth", which actually is not a scientific statement at all. But then along came our ability to gaze wider (relativity) and smaller (quantum physics) and we saw that actually there's a lot more going on than what Newton revealed. But he wasn't wrong, because given his reference frame as a non-objective observer in his time, what Newton postulated was completely consistent with the observable phenomena of that time. And a correct scientific statement of that time that, "everything that does not conform to these mathematical Newtonian laws is not the truth, given our reference frame and the set of observable phenomena available to us at this time" would have left the door wide open for the amazing mysteries of relativity and quantum physics yet to come.
 
But unfortunately, what's worse than the reductionist applications science is being contorted for these days in the western world is that economists try to emulate science with their charts and theories which they then force upon us. But they don't follow anything resembling the scientific method of hypothesis testing and rejection. Economics is about as far from science as you can get. It is simply codified politics. Yet it is being passed off as science. It is a very dangerous situation that I don't think will be possible to change before it's far too late, for reasons we are all familiar with here.

Brilliant points Treebeard and Mark-BC.  Mark-BC, I'm salivating happily after your information that there isn't  evidence  traditional Darwinian evolution has occurred via random genetic mutations and natural selection, as commonly thought.  Can you suggest reading material, authorities? This is oxygen to my oxygen, and if true, astonishing!Ahem, since we're ranging far and wide , can I also drop into the economic mix, the nugget of info that, Freud, I think, said  that the psychoanalytical equivalent for money was excrement, ie shit, which appropriately is what remains after our economic activities run their course. Did Freud also know, that the most trustworthy kind of shit, the healthiest kind, according to Chinese medicine, is golden coloured???
Maybe I'll stop here.

And was struggling with the dilemma of free will and so forth, and was trying to figure out a way to convince the recalcitrant Human that they really did have many more abilities than they thought they did to heal the sick, transcend the few 'natural laws' they had figured out, harness energy for productive uses,  communicate with each other and with Me, then I would invent Science as a way to increase Humans' faith. I would be very frustrated at the uses to which they continue to put the gift of Science, however. And also frustrated that they kept worshipping Science itself instead of the Creator.
This was fun to watch.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

I can't help but also note also that in western cultures, the center of consciousness has moved from the heart, to the head. From the center of the body to one of it's extremes.  We are bifurcated, with sexuality at another extreme. In most cultures I am aware of, the center of consciousness was the heart, the center of the body, which kept us more balanced , sane, whole. Telling, people generally still gesticulate to their hearts when making emphatic points in conversation. Hardly ever to the head.
My bladder now wants into consciousness and is crying for release!  Gotta go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knqx4dtUXt8

Hi Cornelius, to be clear there is no doubt that evolution occurs and describes the progression of life on Earth, and that even natural selection occurs. I would metaphor this process to "Newtonian physics" – very logical, obvious, and consistent with the available easily observable data. However, just as quantum physics reveals that Newtonian physics is simply a statistical average of bizarre things happening at the microscopic scale that are anything but logical and obvious, an analysis of genetics at the molecular level reveals something similar – that beneficial changes could not possibly happen randomly and logically.But just like Newtonian physics isn't "wrong" (it still describes most of the movements you see in your daily life with 100% precision), both approaches to evolution are correct, depending on the scale from which one observes them. The fallacy that atheists make is that they try to extend their logical view of the world into realms that are not logical and make grand proclamations about how the world works that are very narrow-minded and require a lot of sand to bury one's head in.
The book I read that exposed this to me was "Darwin's Black Box". He invokes Intelligent Design to explain how new genes appear. I don't since I am a monist, not a dualist, and to me there does not need to be "something else" required for anything to happen – if we are all one and the same. The requirement for "something else" is simply how our brains are wired to function, to make sense of the world – basically how we create narratives with objects that do things – "cause and effect". But we create these objects in our own minds. I don't believe in the existence of some higher being; I believe in the non-existence of the "truth" which would have been created by a higher being; thus the need for a higher being disappears. We are God and God is Us.
This opens up a world of possibilities, like how you can think of someone instantly and then the phone rings and it's them, or how one friend traveling in Thailand can suddenly feel really down and depressed at the same time that his good friend is killed somewhere else, or any other spiritual occurrence. Science cannot refute any of that, although traditional science would scoff at it, but why? Because it can't be explained by any of the reductionist natural laws? But I have yet to see any reductionist natural law that attempts to explain how consciousness works! (and I predict none ever will since thoughts originate at the microscopic world where reductionist laws do not apply). This presents some limitations to what science will be able to understand. But at the same time, we are still completely at the mercy of the existing macroscopic reductionist natural laws – Newtonian physics, relativity, thermodynamics, magnetism, etc etc. because those have never been observed to be violable. I can say with virtual 100% probability that we are never going to be able to violate the laws of thermodynamics (and thus we will soon be facing a Malthusian Collapse as fossil fuels run out unless something amazing happens and we can pull off a monumental transition to some renewable energy source). But there's a lot more to consciousness than those reductionist laws!

Thanks Mark_BC.  I used to have Darwin's Black Box but had to jettison it during moving house.  Like you, I worried about him recruiting intelligent Design.  Thanks to some other helpful contributor I've got Dave Stove's " Darwinian Fairytales".  Stove accepts much of Darwin and has great fun with the other bits !