I believe physical energy to be primitive. Extents of this energy appear as space. We may express this energy as the spectrum of fluid-like electromagnetic radiation that gradually becomes thicker as the frequency increases. Convergence of high frequency electromagnetic radiation produces the electronic shells of the atom. The electronic shell condenses to produce the nucleus of atom.
Similarly, I see mathematical abstraction of dimensions to be primitive. Extents of this abstraction appear as geometrical space. This abstraction seems to converge to form a neighborhood that condenses as a “dimensionless” point. In my view, the dimensions of space represent a continuum in which locations are precipitated. A location is, therefore, somewhere between space and “dimensionless” point. The location cannot be defined in terms of a dimensionless point. It can only be defined in terms of a “point-with-dimension”.
When one thinks in terms of point-with-dimension, or a “location-with-dimension”, then the idea of “at two places at once” goes away. Anything within a “location-dimension” has the same location. This explains the confusing phenomenon of entanglement.
Similarly, I see spiritual awareness to be primitive. Extents of this awareness appear as spiritual space. We may expect to have a whole spectrum of awareness. This awareness converges to form the consciousness, which then condenses as a soul.
This is how I see the framework of these relationships.
Comments
I thought recently that the LHC had confirmed the existence of the Higgs Boson as evidence of the Higgs field which permeates all space-time. The fields takes a non-zero constant everywhere. This tentative confirmation explains how sub-atomic particles acquire mass and therefore quantifiable existence.
I am still trying to understand what these fundamental particles are in reality. Are they anything other than mathematical entities?.Are they real?
If you were an alive but motionless fish in a tank of water you might wonder if there was anything around you but emptiness. If the water was motionless you’d have a similar construct to the Higgs field: you’d not notice the stuff until you tried to accelerate, at which time you’d feel resistance and experience the phenomena of mass.
The fish, motionless and sitting in unperturbed water, does not experience the water. In a very similar way, we do not experience the Higgs field.
The Higgs field may be the equivalent of ordinary 3-space plus time i.e. Minkowski space.
If the tank was large and some local area was perturbed, say by creating a vortex, then a fish distant from the vortex may not notice the vortex and may think it is in undisturbed space, all the while being gradually drawn to the vortex.
This is the phenomena of gravity: gravity causes a motion of space towards the center of gravity (this is the phenomena described by General Relativity).
The “attractive” aspect of gravity comes from a motion of space towards an apparent point in space that is well described by the geometry of a vortex.
The Higgs field can condense into the Higgs boson, which has a huge energy, a spin of 0, and an intrinsic instability that makes it seek a lower energy level – an action that will induce some amount of spin. It appears that the Higgs boson
Join points together and you can get a line.
Curl the line back onto itself and you can get a circle.
Gravity has a spin of 2; a circle is defined by 2 pi radians.
A point could be defined as a circle with 0 radians (with the only point of such an exercise being to show a relationship between a point and a circle). Similarly, gravity (gravitons) could be described as an excitation of a basic structure, like the Higgs field, by a basic geometric construct, like the vortex spiral.
To me the disturbance in space is expressed as the electromagnetic phenomenon. With your logic gravity must relate to rapidly varying electromagnetic phenomenon.
A disturbance in space will certainly result in an electromagnetic phenomenon, but that shows that the electromagnetic phenomenon is a result, not a cause. The causal element of the observed electromagnetic phenomena is the motion (disturbance) of space. Thus, that which can create or manipulate space is the prime cause. That which can create or manipulate space in a periodic manner can create periodic electromagnetic phenomena.
2ndxmr, I hope you have seen the following model:
https://vinaire.me/2015/07/02/the-logical-structure-of-the-universe-part-1/
2ND: “If you were an alive but motionless fish in a tank of water you might wonder if there was anything around you but emptiness. If the water was motionless you’d have a similar construct to the Higgs field: you’d not notice the stuff until you tried to accelerate, at which time you’d feel resistance and experience the phenomena of mass.”
(1) I see Higg’s field as inertialess space. It would be 0 (no frequency) on the electromagnetic spectrum.
(2) I see awareness to be the attribute of this space. There is no separate “fish’ required for awareness.
(3) Instead of the “fish” accelerating, I see disturbance introduced in space (Higg’s field) itself that causes resistance.
(4) This disturbance is represented by electromagnetic wave. The frequency of this disturbance shall carry inertia.
(5) At this stage there is no mass. There is only the inertia of frequency that causes resistance.
.
Time is introduced when the space is disturbed generating the electromagnetic phenomenon.
2nd: “This is the phenomena of gravity: gravity causes a motion of space towards the center of gravity (this is the phenomena described by General Relativity).
“The “attractive” aspect of gravity comes from a motion of space towards an apparent point in space that is well described by the geometry of a vortex.”
It is this disturbance in space that seems to geneate the force of gravity. This gravity seems to depend on the compactness (introversion) of this disturbance.
2nd: “The Higgs field can condense into the Higgs boson, which has a huge energy, a spin of 0, and an intrinsic instability that makes it seek a lower energy level – an action that will induce some amount of spin. It appears that the Higgs boson
Join points together and you can get a line.
Curl the line back onto itself and you can get a circle.
Gravity has a spin of 2; a circle is defined by 2 pi radians.”
.
I neither understand nor speak this language.
V:”I believe Physical Space to be primitive”
You’ve used primitive here as an adjective.
Do you really mean ” …to be a primitive”, i.e as a noun so that it can take the mathematical meaning of a basic element from which other elements can be derived?
Yes, you are right. I see physical space as a primitive.
V:”Similarly, I see Awareness to be primitive.”
It appears that the idea we have of emerging awareness was also speculated upon by the famous Ludwig Boltzmann and such awareness became known as a “Boltzmann brain”(Bb).
I’d first heard the term used and explained – in a very crude manner that did not impart the real meaning – in a Leonard Susskind physics lecture (Stanford). Susskind was an early developer of string theory and is usually pretty definitive on his views but hedged on the Bb idea. Another lecturer, Sean Carroll, from Caltech, is very much a proponent that there could be no Bb or awareness apart from the body.This man is really smart so it is quite interesting to listen to him and see the filters he looks through when coming to conclusions about cosmology and ontology. His conclusion, in short “No worries… When you die it is all over and you won’t be coming back.”
I find it quite amazing that these guys could find it entirely probable that a universe of 26 finely tuned fields could arise or pre-exist – the tuning factor of each one already improbably precise – and yet the idea of the emergence of one awareness is completely improbable.
“A Boltzmann brain is a hypothesized self aware entity which arises due to random fluctuations out of a state of chaos.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
I shall define primitive awareness as “random fluctuations”.
.
Many random fluctuations could occur that would not necessarily have awareness.
For awareness to exist, this “random” fluctuation should be able to reflect (pun) on the fluctuation. The ability to reflect on an event (fluctuation) may, in essence, be the operation of making a copy of the fluctuation of which one is aware.
Perhaps a wave reflecting in a water tank is a model of the reflection action even if it is not a demonstration of awareness.
In this model, for awareness to exist, it must be able to make some degree of a copy of that which it is aware of and it must be able to inspect that copy.
The degree of accuracy of the copy would correlate to the degree of understanding that the awareness had of the fluctuation event it was copying. Therefore copying could be whole, partial or none.
I see reflection as part of consciousness but not of awareness.
Alright. We could call awareness with the ability to reflect a “conscious awareness” of some degree. This conscious awareness would have the capacity to learn.
Then an awareness that did not have the ability to reflect would be unconscious and likely only a stimulus absorption unit. Response would not be an available function. Any apparency of response or reaction would be seen as an alteration of the randomness of the fluctuation, possibly putting it into momentary synchrony with the stimulus.
The key feature of this “awareness” would be a return to a state of random fluctuation. Do you see a mechanism whereby this awareness could learn?
AWARENESS compares to space.
CONSCIOUSNESS compares to the electromagnetic waves in space.
Unconsciousness would be an electromagnetic pattern set into a certain structure and limited in its response.
As electromagnetic waves ineract among each other, new patterns are created. That is how learning takes place.
“AWARENESS compares to space.”
This is not well enough specified. Not all spaces are aware. The idea of a random fluctuation is closer to an awareness primitive, yet not all random fluctuations would necessarily be aware, either. Certainly some could be, and a randomness of fluctuation would be an indicator of a potential awareness.
“Unconsciousness would be an electromagnetic pattern set into a certain structure and limited in its response.”
That still requires a bit of fleshing out but is largely in accord with the view I posited earlier.
“As electromagnetic waves interact among each other, new patterns are created. That is how learning takes place.”
That is only true when talking about an awareness. As stated it could imply that mixing radio waves produces learning amongst the radio waves.
More to the point when dealing with an awareness, mixing EM patterns does not infer learning. Learning requires a memory mechanism.
One should not be limiting the understanding of awareness to a human-centric viewpoint. Awareness is the fabric out of which consciousness is fashioned. Please see
.
2ndxmr: “Any apparency of response or reaction would be seen as an alteration of the randomness of the fluctuation, possibly putting it into momentary synchrony with the stimulus.”
So the aware space bubble becomes one with the stimulus? That might be the original A=A. Basic-basic! 🙂
I think there is one step to go earlier than just the idea of awareness as a fluctuation that responds to a stimulus.
This earlier step would be the emergence of a potentially aware space that has not yet been disturbed. That is, the space emerges from the void as a static space (no fluctuation within the space) and stays that way until some “stimulus” causes it to go from static condition to a fluctuating condition.
As the space emerges it would go through a period of growth from a starting size of zero to any larger size. During this period the envelope (boundary) of the space would be enlarging but the space could still be non-fluctuating.
The most likely stimulus event would be for this space boundary to bump into some other similar space boundary. The result of the boundaries coming into contact would be the same as if two floating soap bubbles came into contact i.e. some sort of fluctuation would pass over the boundaries, or through the space of the bubble. It would be this sort of stimulus that would bring the potentially aware bubble from a condition of unawareness to a condition of partial awareness. Full awareness would come within this potentially aware space as recognition grew of the source of the boundary events i.e. the recognition of other spaces.
2x: “The most likely stimulus event would be for this space boundary to bump into some other similar space boundary…Full awareness would come within this potentially aware space as recognition grew of the source of the boundary events i.e. the recognition of other spaces.”
The more I read of yours and Vinaire’s posts, the more I get the idea that consciousness – meaning “awareness with the ability to reflect” (good definition!) – did not exist before the universe existed but vice versa. It makes more sense to me than anything to consider that consciousness arose in the universe spontaneously, and then evolved gradually to greater and greater “awareness with the ability to reflect.”
And it seems to have accomplished this evolution through physical means. That is, the physical universe itself was (and is) the medium for reflection – in all senses of the word “reflection,” so as to cover all levels of consciousness, e.g. from a plant that moves toward the stimulus of sunlight to the consciousness level of a human being.
That principle would even be the case for a being without a physical body, if we consider that beings are composed of energy (i.e. theta = ARC) and that their thoughts are also composed of energy (which is apparently the case). In other words, the medium – the TOOL, actually – for raising the level of consciousness even on the so-called “non-physical” plane (actually a higher band of physical energy) is the physical universe.
It’s kind of like the comm formula, and study tech theory as well. The student goes from mechanical duplication up to understanding, where he is at the consciousness level of KNOWS.
I can see why many philosophers express the idea that the whole purpose of this worldly existence is to bring about knowingness/enlightenment – or, on a large scale, that the universe itself is the Big Being who was the first to seek enlightenment – knowing itself.
It is an error to think that spiritual and physical phenomena are independent of each other, and to speculate on which came first, or which produced the other.
Looking through the filter of Scientology makes one unaware of the broader context. Scientology is limited by its introversion into the idea of thetan (self).
“Looking through the filter of Scientology makes one unaware of the broader context. Scientology is limited by its introversion into the idea of thetan (self).”
Vinnie, it could just as easily be said that a Buddhist is “looking through the filter” of Buddhism (or of certain Buddhist sects – not all of them) when he asserts there is no soul or thetan. Probably neither view – soul or no-soul – is truly provable, because there are always ways to rationalize and discount the views that differ from one’s one. IMO, the more rational viewpoints aren’t based on belief/faith/dogma, but are based on personal experience and/or the available evidence of others’ experience. To me, experience always outweighs logic or even scientific evidence because science itself states that scientific conclusions are never set in stone.
Buddha simply said that the soul has a structure and it is not permanent.
.
The soul has a “structure”? What is meant by that exactly?
Glad you asked. Here you go.
.
Okay, Vin, I read “The Structure of I,” and it’s very much like what I got from reading parts of the book *What the Buddha Taught*. In that book, if I remember right, the Buddha was never quoted as saying there is no soul – instead, he refused to get into the subject because he thought it leads people astray to do so. If you have a quote that says otherwise, I would be interested.
In any case, the Buddha spoke of his own past lives, including having witnessed many Big Bangs (according to George White, Path of Buddha). So it appears that the “I”, although it may not be permanent, does exist as a coherent entity for a very long time.
Here are my thoughts on it.
.
M.”That is, the physical universe itself was (and is) the medium for reflection – in all senses of the word “reflection,” ”
That could well have been the impetus for creating a PU. I have often thought of the PU as a sandbox for play but the idea of it as a sandbox for reflecting in and learning is a valid idea.
We tend to think that if we were greater than the physical universe then we’d be omnipotent and omniscient. The power may have been there but perhaps knowingness was not at the omni level.
Obviously, in order to engineer a PU there had to be some serious “knowing” so the question would be “What did we seek to know?”
2ndxmr: “Obviously, in order to engineer a PU there had to be some serious ‘knowing’ so the question would be ‘What did we seek to know?’”
You got me thinking! To carry the line of thought about spontaneity – meaning “without plan” – even further than just the first potentially aware space having been a spontaneous happening; how about the whole kit and caboodle being utterly unplanned? In other words – with respect to the entire universe, including the physical universe(s) – there may have been no plan or purpose.
On the other hand, it seems that there had to have been (and still is) some sort of system or set of rules that would perforce result in an evolution towards greater complexity and stability, and that this system would be the basis for what was to survive and what would not survive. This seems self-evident.
Therefore, why couldn’t the “system” itself have been simply an “accident,” a happenstance – a spontaneity or a series of them? Such a system was bound to have come about, no matter how many eons had to pass after the first potentially aware spaces interacted. And, just as obviously, any system that did not meet this qualification of increasing stability would not have survived. (LRH may well have been spot on when he named survival as the dynamic principle of existence!)
BUT, as to your question, it would make sense that purpose(s) eventually came about as a part of the fundamental evolution towards survival. So my answer to “What did we seek to know?” would be – all the best ways to survive. I like it – it makes everybody right in their purposes. 🙂
M.:”Such a system was bound to have come about, no matter how many eons had to pass after the first potentially aware spaces interacted.”
Many physicists would agree.
But they would than go on to say that in such a universe the idea of a Boltzmann brain (theta to us) is impossible and that when you’re dead, that’s it, no more “you”.
For anyone who has had a certainty on past life recall, the idea that it’s “all over once you die” is pretty much laughable. That single problem with the hypothesis means that one must look deeper than the idea of “spontaneous eruption”.
2x: “But they would than go on to say that in such a universe the idea of a Boltzmann brain (theta to us) is impossible and that when you’re dead, that’s it, no more ‘you.’
Then they must not have the notion I do that a being is in a “very, very, small amount of mass” (quote from PDC lecture) or has the “components of ARC” (SOS), in which case just the aspect of Affinity alone tells us there is energy – and to that degree the thetan is included in the physical universe. Other schools of thought say that a person also has a lighter form (words to that effect) than the physical body, which would be the “spiritual being”
Not just to rely on the assertions in quotes, my reasoning is that without there being some sort of energy that a being manifests, I don’t know how we could perceive thetans, and as you know there is a lot of testimony for this on top of your own.
2x: “For anyone who has had a certainty on past life recall, the idea that it’s ‘all over once you die’ is pretty much laughable. That single problem with the hypothesis means that one must look deeper than the idea of ‘spontaneous eruption.’
What you say about certainty on past life is basically what I replied to Vinnie, just before I saw your reply.
“Spontaneous eruption” seems the least anthropomorphic as a theory, wouldn’t you say?
2x: “For anyone who has had a certainty on past life recall, the idea that it’s ‘all over once you die’ is pretty much laughable. That single problem with the hypothesis means that one must look deeper than the idea of ‘spontaneous eruption.’”
It dawned on me that “spontaneous eruption” may be a general term and not just your own phrase. So I did a google search and found on the “google books” site some pages of the book *Soul: God, Self and New Cosmology*. Here’s an excerpt:
“…the God of quantum physics could be the quantum vacuum itself, the unbroken sea of wholeness which strives for self-realization through random undulations and fluctuations of the vacuum. These begin a process in which God wakes to consciousness through the spontaneous eruption of our world. It is a kind of pantheism, a notion of a God who evolves into consciousness in and through everything that exists. Creation, then, is not the bringing into existence of a world that is separate from God, but rather the emanation of our world from the being of God. This emanation from God includes the spontaneous creation of everything that exists, including us. We are embraced by this creative emanation, indissolubly part of God’s being.”
The following sentence from the above paragraph is basically what I was trying to express: “It is a kind of pantheism, a notion of a God who evolves into consciousness in and through everything that exists.”
But I did not at all have in mind this part: “spontaneous creation of everything that exists, including us.” My idea is the same as your theory – that the universe in all its detail has evolved into being.
.
The idea that the universe evolved into being is expressed in the first sentence of the following excerpt:
“The God of chaos could be a God of enormous energy and experiment, finely balancing the universe in its creativity and disorder, permeating nature with the possibility of novelty. Or God could hardly be born. God could be the future Final Observer of whose emergence we ourselves are part and who will resurrect us to eternal life at the end-time.”
The notion in the last sentence has also occurred to me, although I wouldn’t have said the Final Observer “will resurrect us.” Rather, since my idea is that we ourselves are part of what comprises or makes up (along with the PU) the Final Observer , we will be resurrected not “by God” but “as God.”
.
Here’s one that is close to LRH’s view (and maybe yours) – “God” being a word for theta or the 8th dynamic:
“Or, alternatively, God could be seen as one who coexists with the universe and progressively gives shape to matter through time, evoking more and more complex responses from the recalcitrant material of existence. With such a God we could expect to see consciousness emerging in a continuum through nature, beginning with the random behavior of the smallest sub-atomic particle and ending with deity itself.”
.
Here’s another one that appeals to me – it points out the anthropomorphic viewpoint of the typical male in the Western world:
“More recently still there has been the critique of feminist theology. Christian feminists have pointed out that the traditional Christian picture of God as transcendent and wholly external to nature, manipulating the world at a distance, is hopelessly corrupted. Such a God is nothing more than the divinization of the psyche of the Western male which is also manifested in the scientific attitude which regards nature as a machine. Feminists claim that patriarchal religion and science are together the source of damaging dualisms, setting mind against matter, spirit against body, intellect against feeling, male against female.”
Vinaire, being a male from the East, seems to be disinclined towards “setting mind against matter, spirit against body.”
M.:”quoted: Feminists claim that patriarchal religion and science are together the source of damaging dualisms, setting mind against matter, spirit against body, intellect against feeling, male against female.”
The western male should not be declared entirely devoid of feeling, and has responded – in academic circles, at least – with the conclusion that since anthropomorphism is such a dated and mysogynistic view (especially as seen in the biblical treatment and place of woman), that an entirely modern view must be evolved.
This new view embodies the matriarchal and has been called gynomorphism. This growing view feels this is an especially appropriate attribution as it is well known that only a woman can make something out of nothing. (insert emoticon for tongue deeply in cheek)
2ndxmr: “…it is well known that only a woman can make something out of nothing. (insert emoticon for tongue deeply in cheek)”
Hardy har har. 😛 🙂
Ideologies aside, I thought it was pretty interesting that when I extrapolated from your (non-anthropomorphic, non-scientific, and entirely plausible) idea of potential awareness being a spontaneous eruption – it followed unavoidably that the fundamental impetus/system/rule-set for the evolution of the universe also came into being, in essence, spontaneously, i.e. without having been planned. Don’t know if you got that, but as I indicated, it seems self-evident in the context of a self-sustaining universe. And it came as a surprise to me that the rationale I came to was actually a form of pantheism – I had not seen that coming!
Religions and philosophies have always tried to answer the question of the “meaning” or “purpose” of life. It seems to me now that most of them were coming from a viewpoint that was “too late on the chain.” Meaning and purpose are considerations and elements introduced into the universe at a relatively late stage of its evolution – at the human consciousness level (or comparable life forms).
Nonetheless, the introduction of meaning/purpose, fundamental or not, would align and contribute to the most fundamental thrust of the universe – as would O/W and karmic mechanisms, to name a couple others – all of which would boil down to “the dynamic principle of existence = Survive!” It’s notable too that the word “existence” was used and not “life,” which I think would have implied livingness, the human activity of living, and that too would have been anthropomorphic.
M.:”…all of which would boil down to “the dynamic principle of existence = Survive!” ”
I would expect that emerging awareness would have taken a while to get to the impetus to survive, but it eventually did get there. It probably is down the line at a point of having awareness of harmful action.
At emergence I would still expect the primary vibration would be associated with surprise of sensation from contact, but without yet understanding that there even had been a contact. The emerging awareness would have taken a while to sort out the relationships of vibration-producing interactions.
2X: “I would expect that emerging awareness would have taken a while to get to the impetus to survive, but it eventually did get there.”
That was what I meant too when I said that purpose was an element “introduced into the universe at a relatively late stage of its evolution – at the human consciousness level (or [at the level of] comparable life forms).”
However, that was only in reference to the consciousness aspect or element of the universe, rather than the universe in general. By the time consciousness got to the awareness level of being able to derive its basic purpose, the universe as a whole would have long been operating on a successful pattern – successful in terms of survival, since it WAS, in fact, “surviving.”
This pattern, as an underlying, fundamental “purpose,” wouldn’t have been a conscious pattern (at least not early on) but a set of “operating rules” – i.e. the laws of physics and the laws of metaphysics/theta) – which evolved in a way that could be described as “survival of the fittest mode of operation.” This would have had to be true just on the face of it – since otherwise, it wouldn’t have survived!
Btw, Tom Campbell, in his OOB visits to other physical universes, found that most of them have physical laws quite similar to those of our own PU, but others were quite different – yet workable.
I’m also reminded of the YouTube vid of John Hagelin talking about there being a continuous eruption of new “baby universes” where only a very tiny percentage of them survive.
Here is my basic model.
https://vinaire.me/2015/07/02/the-logical-structure-of-the-universe-part-1/
.
Vinnie and 2ndxmr, in relation to awareness and consciousness, you might be interested in an article that came out a couple days ago about artificial intelligence. Here’s an excerpt of the last part of it:
———————————————-
As ever-more complex forms of matter are produced by evolution, ever-greater forms of consciousness and intelligence emerge with each and every step. Which means that your intelligence rests upon and resides within an incredibly long chain of evolutionary components — quarks, atoms, molecules, cells, nervous systems, etc., a magnificent legacy of intelligent emergence that stretches all the way back to the Big Bang.
So organic intelligence is something like “looking through a glass onion” — each layer of the onion possesses it’s own degree of prehensive consciousness, each contributes to the totality we experience as “consciousness” and “intelligence”. You are not just one layer of the onion; you are the entire onion.
Our efforts to create artificial intelligence, meanwhile, are taking a completely different approach. We are essentially trying to reproduce the intelligence of the highest, outer-most layers of the onion, using only the materials from the lowest, most basic layers. We are attempting to replicate human-equivalent consciousness out of atoms and molecules alone, while skipping all the wet squishy stuff of biological evolution.
This attempt to skim the outer-most layer of human intelligence may actually be one of the reasons artificial intelligence can excel in specific human behaviors such as playing chess, giving directions, or driving cars, but fails abysmally when it comes to simple tasks like locating and picking a paper clip up from the floor. As it turns out, what we thought were the “hard” problems have tended to be the easiest to solve, and the “easy” problems have been by far the hardest. Computers can easily defeat the world’s greatest chess champions, but cannot come even close to the basic adaptive problem-solving skills possessed by toddlers.
Even if we were to succeed in creating a new type of intelligence, this intelligence would, by it’s very nature, be completely alien to us. Human beings are capable of an incredible amount of connection and compassion for other forms of intelligence on this planet, particularly since we share so much of our own morphogenetic heritage with every other creature. An artificially intelligent agent, on the other hand, would share no evolutionary heredity with us or anything else in existence, having skipped biological development altogether. What could we possibly hope to have in common with those entities?
So when it comes to the future of artificial intelligence, we seem to have more questions than answers. Are atoms, molecules, and mathematics alone enough to produce machines with genuine human-equivalent intelligence? Can that intelligence ever become truly conscious and possess the “inner light” of interior self-awareness? Will artificial intelligence be capable of determining its own morals, ethics, and values? Will those values transcend and include the continued existence of the human race, or will this intelligence share so little resonance with us that our very survival could be threatened?
And who will ultimately end up winning the future: the cyborgs or the androids?
https://www.integrallife.com/video/future-artificial-intelligence
———————————————————
Yes, energy is converged space, and mass is condensed energy. Parallel to this consciousness is converged awareness, and mental mass (thoughts, ideas, assumptions, faith, etc.) is condensed consciousness.
The seed of programmed consciousness lies in the electronic configuration in the DNA. New and more complex consciousness comes about with the evolution of DNA.
Vin: “New and more complex consciousness comes about with the evolution of DNA.”
True, but according to scientific research it is the environment that has the greatest influence over the DNA – including one’s own or others’ thoughts, emotions, and beliefs.
http://store.noetic.org/Living-Matrix-Film-on-the-New-Science-of-Healing-DVD.html
Here’s another vid that is applicable. It’s short – only 5 minutes.
I think that programming from the environment takes place at several different levels. Deep programming brings about eveolution of the DNA itself, which is then carried forth.
But during the life of an organism, there is programming from the environment that terminates with the death of the organism.
.
Mindfulness brings the solution to the table by disciplining one into resolving logical inconsistencies as one comes acroos them.
The logical inconsistencies arise with the interaction between one’s filters and the environment. As one resolves logical inconsistencies it also resolves the environment as well as one’s filters.
.
Here’s the You Tube link for that first video:
The placebo effect comes from the mind influencing the body in some way. That influence is very subtle, but it can start a domino effect.
I believe that if the mind keeps resolving the logical inconsistencies and disharmonies in life, no matter where they arise, this action will ultimately bring the body and physical senses to their optimum condition.
.