It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

challenging math and science!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake


If you take one individual cell seperately away from the human body, does the rest of the human body become less aware of itself? No.


no?

good response

but if a person was to say, loose an arm or both legs, will the body become less self aware?

is there now less inflow to the brain concerning the input the arms or legs provided?

phantom pain. perceived pain and discomfort, burning, itching.

the brain still incorporates input from those cells that are no longer there.

less self aware.

you may be very right indeed.

thanks for your input.




posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank


You live because your cells live. When they die, you die.


good point.

if a young person is told enough times by enough people they are ugly, do they not start to believe it?

if a young person is told enough times by enough people they are stupid, do they not start to believe it?

if we have the capability to affect the thought processes of the macro-organism.....

does the macro-organism have the capability to affect the thought processes of the cells that make it up?

if we ignore the cells of our bodies, or train them to believe they are mortal and always will be ....... if we refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that they are self aware, conscious, intelligent, then will they start to believe it as well?



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Maybe this will help:

Allow each cell to have a spiritual nature (x) and a physical nature(y) and the sum of these natures is a nature with 0 awareness.

If we postilate that the spiritual nature is always aware, this gives x = 1.

if y + x = 0 where x = 1 then y = -1

1 + -1 = 0

With me so far?

(Math refresher)

So, in a finite set we would have:

1 + -1 + 1 + -1 + 1 + -1 + 1 + -1 = 0

Adding or moving the parenthesis in an addition problem does not change the answer.

(1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) = 0

1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + -1 = 0


Now back to find the problem at hand:

Find the sum of the infinite series:

1, -1, 1, -1, 1, -1 ....

Now suppose we position parenthesis like this:
(1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) ....
or 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 ....
Obviously the sum will be 0.

But now supposed we change the position of the parenthesis like so:
1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) ....
or 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 ....
Obviously the sum will be 1.

Enjoy!



[edit on 7-6-2005 by Raphael_UO]


fences.

seperating the truth from the truth. is it a necessity?

if the first one could be defined as the "truth" plus an endless abundance of calculations that equal zero, then we the zeros will never find the source by looking outward.

we must find the source of consciousness inward.

"Adding or moving the parenthesis in an addition problem does not change the answer.

(1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) + (1 + -1) = 0

1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + -1 = 0"

and if that singularity (your first 1) is the source of all that is self aware, all that is observed, all that is consciousness, all that is experienced, all that is known, and all that is true ........

thanks for the enjoyment.



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackholebrain
"0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + (zero for each cell) = 1?"

Just like music: individually, 'notes' are just single-frequency vibrations... but collectively, they transcend the laws of physics and become music.


blackholebrain:

you sucked me in, and i liked it. simple. nice.

good point of view!



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinking1
I once read that cells communicate through the use of certain proteins. I don't believe that would make them self-aware, however. I think that to evolve on a cellular level it would have to be accomplished within the sex cells of the organism; otherwise the immune system might consider this new mutated cell or cells a cancer. ......


i believe you are right. the proteins you speek of are created by the hypo-thalmus in the brain and then dissiminated throughout the body, or to the appropriate organs and parts of the body.

but once a neuro-peptide (chemical protein created by the hypothalmus) docks with the receptors on the outer wall of a cell, then it actually changes the nucleus of the cell, and sometimes the genetic code of that cell if more of one neuro-peptide floods more input than the other neuro-peptides.

neuro-peptides are the microscopic small strands of complex proteins that deliver emotional data to the individual cells.

so even if a cell were to say only be capable of comprehending 4 biths of information then what if it nailed down only the 4 most powerful biths of information and tried to work the equation out for itself?

love, fear, hate, and truth.

how do they fit together properly, for all other emotions stem from these.

going back to how a nucleus of a cell is known to change (witnessed under microscopes when neuro-peptides are presented), let us consider the lifespan of a blood cell, which is roughly a month.

if the majority of all neuro-peptides presented to the cell are associatives of victimization, and fear, and hate, and the information that represents a need for "self preservation" is bombarded upon the cells over long periods of time .......

then when that cell spits it will know to create a sister cell or daughter cell that has more specific receptors on it's outer walls for that specific neuro-peptide, and it will have less receptors that receive other chemical neuro-peptides and less receptors as well for the nutrients it needs to live a full life.

now if all the aging that happens in the body is a direct result of the cells lack of capability to properly integrate the nutrients and proteins the individual cells require, for instance: elastine is the protien that keeps the skin elastic, and keeps skin from getting wrinkled and old, it seems pretty self evident that the reason the cells no longer have the capability to properly receive and integrate the required nutrients which prevents prolonged life, is very simply a person perspective on life.

therefore it must be our conscioussness, not subconsciousness, that is creating a state of mind that knows fear and knows hate which is the only reason we are not immortal from the cellular level up.

in other words, all science in regards to quantum physics, all science in regards to microbiology, all science in regards to neurobiology, and all sciences in regards to phsycology, anatomy and physiology, seem to be leading us to the same conclusion.

our state of mind and our consciousness itself determines life, or death.

interestingly enough, i'd like to add that this posted thread, or the basis of the same thought process was moved from "science and technology" to a different forum, by those who know more than me or .......

nobel winning co-discoverer of quantum theory planck.

which may just demonstrate how perhaps the human race collectively knows sub-consciously that they are not ready for immortality.

someone stated in a post i sound like a broken record. they are 100% right.

but my broken record may be more appealing than an entire documented history of a world's top race not going 1 week without war or killing or destruction or hatred in some fashion.

this world is a broken record.

sometimes i get my warning and they take my points away from me. but, i'm not discouraged, nor should you be if you are stating what you beleive is the truth.

the best defense is not a good offense.
the best defense is not having anything to defend.

and if i am the sum of a bunch of nothings to begin with, then nothing i am and with that truth, i have nothing to defend and no fear of loosing nothing.

because i had nothing to loose in the first place. but, this is only possible without fear or hate. because they would make me less than the sum of my parts. less than nothing is where most this world's state of mind is, obviously.

don't believe me? actions speak louder than words, and the human race has recorded a lot of those actions.

i know some have the authority here to take my words from me and others, but after i'm gone, the words will still be there regardless.

what are your thoughts?

how could they be wrong?

what are your thoughts?


[edit on 8/6/05 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   

fences.

seperating the truth from the truth. is it a necessity?


Can a man understand the reality of light without darkness?


if the first one could be defined as the "truth" plus an endless abundance of calculations that equal zero, then we the zeros will never find the source by looking outward.

we must find the source of consciousness inward.


If I count from 0 to 1 in some infinite series, I will never say 1.

Example one: count from 0 to 1 using the smallest decimal possible.
Example two: "Count by halving" from 0 to 1. (1/2 , 3/4 , 7/8 , 15/16 ...)


If one looks only at an empty cup, one will see only an empty cup.





[edit on 9-6-2005 by Raphael_UO]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

if the first one could be defined as the "truth" plus an endless abundance of calculations that equal zero, then we the zeros will never find the source by looking outward.

we must find the source of consciousness inward.


If I count from 0 to 1 in some infinite series, I will never say 1.

Example one: count from 0 to 1 using the smallest decimal possible.
Example two: "Count by halving" from 0 to 1. (1/2 , 3/4 , 7/8 , 15/16 ...)



Couldnt have said it better


How do you propose going "inward" Esoteric Teacher?



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by I_s_i_s
How do you propose going "inward" Esoteric Teacher?


by accepting all truths, for who am i to judge anyone? And, am i not judging when i am objective to their point of view/opinion/state of mind?

once i accept them for who they are ....... "finish sentence here"

by accepting all truths, by accepting all truths from everyone in a state of mind that utililizes " lovingfully thruthing lovingfully truthing, truthingfully lovingfully truthingfully, truthingfully lovingfully lovingfully, lovingfully lovingfully lovingfully, lovingfully fear, fear not fearing, fear not fearingfully, fear being loved, fear lovingfully lovingfully, fear lovingfully truthingfully, truthingfully lovingfully fear, fear lovingfully truthingfully ....."

never fully comprehending true thing fully, but learining to be better serving for all nonetheless.

and we choose, serving ourselves, or others more?

in other words:

l + < = K

by knowing there is nothing less than:

there is nothing less than: "loving nothing less than loving loving nothing greater than loving loving nothing less than loving loving nothing more than loving ......... " focussed on any one thing and the truth of it cannot be denied.

it is simply a state of mind that unlocks the best possible answers, which when you are truthingfully listening to everyone else, you realize it has been their answers all along as well.

[edit on 12/6/05 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
excuse me.

1) i need you to look at the backdrop on jon stewart's daily show on comedy central.

2) i need you to look at the pacific coast on the entire western side of both north and south america from alaska to the southern tip of south america.

3) i need you to look at a picture of the profile of an ape or of a chimp, or of most primates, the "dominant species on the planet".

4) i need you to see that there is a very real resemblance between the profile of a primates head, and north america's and south america's pacific coastline.

5) i need you to ask yourself what is the statistical probability of thousands of miles of shoreline so closely resembling the dominant species on the planet being a natural phenomenon without intelligent intervention?


thank you esoteric teacher

glenn beck's standards this week ......

1) question with boldness
2) hold to the truth
3) speak without fear

i need you to ask yourself what is the statistical probability of thousands of miles of shoreline so closely resembling the dominant species on the planet being a natural phenomenon without intelligent intervention?


thank you esoteric teacher
thank you som



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
integrity is best described as "compliance with the facts", not merely being honest with others, which means nothing if your not honest with yourself. if one is not honest with themselves, then logically how can one trust that one?

glenn beck's standards this week ......

1) question with boldness
2) hold to the truth
3) speak without fear

i need you to ask yourself what is the statistical probability of thousands of miles of shoreline so closely resembling the dominant species on the planet being a natural phenomenon without intelligent intervention?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join