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.

 

What is your problem with "matter" ?

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by openlocks
 





I'm still researching this idea, it is a fairly large and expansive idea. It seems like a necessary piece to the puzzle though. It could be a bridge between consciousness and physical manifestation ...


Why is it a necessary piece of the puzzle? We once thought that the aether exists, luckily no scientist is arguing this anymore ...


Biologists have found it hard, using only physics and chemistry, to explain the way that living things grow into their normal forms. Most biologists have assumed that these difficulties just reflected the current limits of the science, and that in time an appropriately detailed application of the rules of physics could explain all biology. A minority, however, have held that something beyond physics was needed, some kind of non-physical "blueprint" that they called a morphogenetic field (meaning "giving birth to form").

Morphogenetic fields are a necessary aspect of biology because they explain how two (or 1 million) cells that are identical in every aspect (same DNA code, physical and chemical structure) can express themselves in unique ways to formulate tissue for different parts of the body. The cells that make up the tissue of your heart are identical (genetically, chemically and structurally) to the cells that make up the tissue of your lungs. Further, cells can redirect their means of expression to do other things, like heal wounds, repair cellular imbalancements... So the question is how does a cell know how and/or what to do?

On a larger scale, Morphic field theory seeks to explain how organisms connect almost intuitively to formulate groups and societies that move in unison. For instance, neuroscience has proposed that birds flying in flocks that change direction rapidly, in unison, have highly developed sensory abilities which allows them to react almost instantaneously. The study of a birds neural coordination says other wise though, that there is no way a birds brain is built to sense movement and then react in such rapid speed with such accurate precision where 100 birds can fly within an inch of each other and not knock each other out of the sky every time they turn. The same phenomena is found with some species of fish. Well morphic field theory supposes that these decision are not made through mere sensory reactions, but rather that the flock has its own morphic field with all the information that each bird is in tune with and interacting with. So they all make the decision to turn at the same time because they are locked into the same source of information.

I still have a lot more to learn on it though, so I may have misrepresented some aspects of the theory.




posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 





It's our responsibility to discern and experience truth.


Would it be possible to just vaguely verbalize what you mean by that? Are we talking about a dopamine rush, or a spiritual concept? I also have no clue what "spiritual" really means ...?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 


What you wrote about cells is scientifically not true. Please look up cellular differentiation. The process is fairly well understood. Maybe you're mixing up with stem cells?




These changes are largely due to highly controlled modifications in gene expression. With a few exceptions, cellular differentiation almost never involves a change in the DNA sequence itself. Thus, different cells can have very different physical characteristics despite having the same genome.


Source: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by openlocks
 


What you wrote about cells is scientifically not true. Please look up cellular differentiation. The process is fairly well understood. Maybe you're mixing up with stem cells?




These changes are largely due to highly controlled modifications in gene expression. With a few exceptions, cellular differentiation almost never involves a change in the DNA sequence itself. Thus, different cells can have very different physical characteristics despite having the same genome.


Source: en.wikipedia.org...


What you posted verifies what I said. Morphogenesis influences cellular differentiation.



Morphogens are soluble molecules that can diffuse and carry signals that control cell differentiation decisions in a concentration-dependent fashion.
en.wikipedia.org...

Morphogenesis is the process through which Morphogens direct cellular differentiation. The Morphogenetic field is the proposed field that holds the information that drives the Morphogenesis process.
edit on 24-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by rwfresh
 





It's our responsibility to discern and experience truth.


Would it be possible to just vaguely verbalize what you mean by that? Are we talking about a dopamine rush, or a spiritual concept? I also have no clue what "spiritual" really means ...?


Maybe it's better stated:

It's AN INDIVIDUAL'S responsibility to discern and experience truth.

Do you have a dopamine rush when you discern the truth? I really don't know how you personally acknowledge the experience of knowing something as true. If it's relegated to any external authority you might be missing out on something. There is nothing spiritual about the statement. Not in the sense that you are likely inferring.

As for not knowing what "spiritual" means check out the dictionary definition. Not sure if i have any other clues for you. Hope that helps!



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by openlocks

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by openlocks
 


What you wrote about cells is scientifically not true. Please look up cellular differentiation. The process is fairly well understood. Maybe you're mixing up with stem cells?




These changes are largely due to highly controlled modifications in gene expression. With a few exceptions, cellular differentiation almost never involves a change in the DNA sequence itself. Thus, different cells can have very different physical characteristics despite having the same genome.


Source: en.wikipedia.org...


What you posted verifies what I said. Morphogenesis influences cellular differentiation.



Morphogens are soluble molecules that can diffuse and carry signals that control cell differentiation decisions in a concentration-dependent fashion.
en.wikipedia.org...

Morphogenesis is the process through which Morphogens direct cellular differentiation. The Morphogenetic field is the proposed field that holds the information that drives the Morphogenesis process.
edit on 24-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)


Where do you see a reference to the non-genetic morphogenetic field in your wiki link? That is what you were talking about previously! Your wiki link explains the purely bio-genetic, causal theory. No need for a "spooky" field.

Sheldrake's idea is interesting, but to my knowledge there is zero proof to back it up.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 




Where do you see a reference to the non-genetic morphogenetic field in your wiki link? That is what you were talking about previously! Your wiki link explains the purely bio-genetic, causal theory. No need for a "spooky" field. Sheldrake's idea is interesting, but to my knowledge there is zero proof to back it up.


What are you talking about? You first said that what I said about cells was not true, because you said it was all explained through Cellular Differentiation. I then replied to you showing you how Cellular Differentiation is influenced by Morphogenesis, which is the process through which Morphogens carry vital information about cellular grouping and formation. The Morphogenetic field is partially used to further (or complete) the understanding of the Epigenetic process (which is still, after 70 years, in its infant stages). It helps fill in the missing gap between hard-coded DNA and environmental adaptation/alteration of that DNA. The morphogenetic field is a hypothetical biological (and potentially social) field that contains the information necessary to shape the exact form of a living thing, as part of its epigenetics, and may also shape its behaviour and coordination with other beings

Scientists have been studying for decades how DNA adapts to environmental pressures/influences, which pushes forth evolution, and they are still not entirely sure how it all works. They have their theories, which are incomplete. They are still waiting for further research to fill in the gaps. The Morphogenetic Field Theory presumes to fill that gap, but it also is quite a paradigm shift for mainlined Newtonian scientists. I don't know if it is correct, as I am still looking into it, but I will not dismiss it just because a few antagonists like yourself want to label it as "spooky" and ridicule people who push the boundaries of science. People have done that to every great scientist, including Albert Einstein. Plus, it would be a sound scientific footing for what ancient wisdom teachings have been saying for thousands of years (as another poster pointed out).

It is funny to go from being labeled the hardcore materialist who spouts scientific dogma, to now the one who is spouting "spooky" ideas. All in the same thread mind you.


Staying open minded, that's all.
edit on 25-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by rwfresh
 





It's our responsibility to discern and experience truth.


Would it be possible to just vaguely verbalize what you mean by that? Are we talking about a dopamine rush, or a spiritual concept? I also have no clue what "spiritual" really means ...?


Maybe it's better stated:

It's AN INDIVIDUAL'S responsibility to discern and experience truth.

Do you have a dopamine rush when you discern the truth? I really don't know how you personally acknowledge the experience of knowing something as true. If it's relegated to any external authority you might be missing out on something. There is nothing spiritual about the statement. Not in the sense that you are likely inferring.

As for not knowing what "spiritual" means check out the dictionary definition. Not sure if i have any other clues for you. Hope that helps!


It is usually good form to define terms before one starts a debate. "Truth", "the truth", "a truth" are all very ambiguous terms. For me there is no absolute truth. It's all in the eye of the beholder, or as you stated before: one's OWN nervous system. A very subjective, individual little thingy.

Some "truths" that were clear to me have shifted in the span of my lifetime, and have become less true. Did they shift, or did my perception change? Therefore I cannot say that I know the truth. Believing in a truth is a better term for me, knowing is not possible for a human at this point in time ... Maybe our brains and sensory inputs will catch up with the complexity of reality, but for now I believe that the truth will evade us, if it exists at all.

I took your advice and looked up the noun Spirituality:


Spirituality is belief in an ultimate or an alleged immaterial reality ...


I'm not interested in "beliefs". Belief is a tricky companion that often shifts like an Escher sketch. I prefer knowing, which is not possible.

Having said all of this I'm really curious how you can state that you have experienced the truth in such absolute terms. It is an honest question on my part.

Peace



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by openlocks

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by openlocks
 





I'm still researching this idea, it is a fairly large and expansive idea. It seems like a necessary piece to the puzzle though. It could be a bridge between consciousness and physical manifestation ...


Why is it a necessary piece of the puzzle? We once thought that the aether exists, luckily no scientist is arguing this anymore ...


Biologists have found it hard, using only physics and chemistry, to explain the way that living things grow into their normal forms. Most biologists have assumed that these difficulties just reflected the current limits of the science, and that in time an appropriately detailed application of the rules of physics could explain all biology. A minority, however, have held that something beyond physics was needed, some kind of non-physical "blueprint" that they called a morphogenetic field (meaning "giving birth to form").



reply to post by openlocks
 


openlocks,

If you really think your paragraph above and your wiki links agree, then I have nothing more to write to you on that subject. The links you provided deal with real bio-chemistry and not "some kind of non-physical blueprint".




In developmental biology, a morphogenetic field is a group of cells able to respond to discrete, localized biochemical signals leading to the development of specific morphological structures or organs


Maybe your confusion stems from Sheldrake's hi-jacking of the term "morphogenesis". He postulates it's non-genetic. Spooky ...



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Just for reference, the Electromagnetic Field Theory was also once considered "spooky" by antagonists like you. Think if that theory had no been developed? Our world would look radically different. You also would not be using a computer to troll people on the internet!


Oh, and you must be absolutely horrified by the Quantum field theory!


Run for the hills billy! Those innovators of science are comin for our Newtonian dogmas!
edit on 25-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by openlocks
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Just for reference, the Electromagnetic Field Theory was also once considered "spooky" by antagonists like you. Think if that theory had no been developed? Our world would look radically different. You also would not be using a computer to troll people on the internet!


Oh, and you must be absolutely horrified by the Quantum field theory!


Run for the hills billy! Those innovators of science are comin for our Newtonian dogmas!
edit on 25-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)


I will refrain from any ad hominem and will be patiently waiting for you to justify what you wrote in that paragraph. I only would like to point out how your choice of words and style of debating have drastically changed.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 




Maybe your confusion stems from Sheldrake's hi-jacking of the term "morphogenesis". He postulates it's non-genetic. Spooky ...


Have you ever heard of Epigenetics? Wow... how could a non-genetic factor have an effect on genetics? Are you serious? No, you're just trolling right?

Great...



I only would like to point out how your choice of words and style of debating have drastically changed.


Yes, I quite wasting my time trying to actually write long thought out responses to have a real conversation with you, just about the time you started incoherently challenging the most ridiculous of things, and then started with the "spooky" goof-ball stuff. You clearly showed you don't have even basic knowledge of cellular or biological development about five posts ago. Yes, I wasted my time on a troll...

edit on 25-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by gosseyn
 


OP, my problem with matter is that it doesn't answer the big question about "free will". Matter is bound by the law of Cause and Effect. The observable physical universe operates under that eternal dance. One atom gets moved by another that was previously moved. This beautiful ballet has been going on since the big bang. The French mathematician Simon Laplace articulated the causal "demon" so brilliantly:



In the history of science, Laplace's demon was the first published articulation of causal or scientific determinism by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814.[1] According to determinism, if someone knows the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, their past and future values for any given time are entailed; they can be calculated from the laws of classical mechanics.[2]


Source: en.wikipedia.org...'s_demon

Now, when you think about this to the bitter end Laplace's demon can by applied to the brain as well since we are "only" dealing with knowable states of neurons and synapses. (I'm extremely simplifying the problem here, but I believe the concept does apply.) So a brain that is based on grey matter should not be able to think freely and defy causality, but "free will" seems to exist.

Mary Poppins, Amstel, C-major scale, ventriloquist ... What in the world caused me to write down those words? It seems to me that we humans have an "agent" that operates beyond the constraints of causality.

Don't get me wrong. I think "matter" is beautiful! I'm in absolute awe when I think of what it took the universe to form planet earth, organic life, and consequently self-awareness. But I also think there is more behind the veil ...


My first answer would be: it is not because we don't see or understand the causes that it means that there are no causes. And I am not sure about 'free-will", is it really "free" ? Or is it dependent on so many factors that it seems to be ? If for example we look at dead leaves falling on the ground, we could think it is completely random, but in reality it is not. There are factors that we could compute and we could recreate that exact "chaos" through a simulation.

I know it is not an easy or pleasant idea to imagine there is no real free-will, but it is a possibility that we shouldn't avoid just because we feel uncomfortable with it. And also as a side note, I think it is a wrong idea to separate humans from other sentient beings, like cats or horses. In our discussion, what we think applies to humans, should also be applicable to them, and vice versa.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 


I'm still patiently waiting ...



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I think the problem with it is that people are brainwashed into believing thats' all there is is the phycial world. But if they'd study science which is telling them it's all physical matter then they'd also learn that inside an atom is mostly nothing. And all energy and not solid matter at all. So in those shire terms another way of putting it is everything is spiritual just doesn't have that appearance. And it's a good vr simulation



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
I think the problem with it is that people are brainwashed into believing thats' all there is is the phycial world. But if they'd study science which is telling them it's all physical matter then they'd also learn that inside an atom is mostly nothing. And all energy and not solid matter at all. So in those shire terms another way of putting it is everything is spiritual just doesn't have that appearance. And it's a good vr simulation


The paradox is that a great % or earth's population is religious and believes that there are angels around us and other non-physical beings. But I agree that for a lot of them, god and other beings are just part of another physical realm separated from our own. They even believe that in this other "divine non-physical but in a sense physical realm" they could physically feel pain or physically be delighted..



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
I think the problem with it is that people are brainwashed into believing thats' all there is is the phycial world. But if they'd study science which is telling them it's all physical matter then they'd also learn that inside an atom is mostly nothing. And all energy and not solid matter at all. So in those shire terms another way of putting it is everything is spiritual just doesn't have that appearance. And it's a good vr simulation


You got a few things right and a lot wrong. Just to let you know...Matter is comprised of Particles that have Mass as well as Particle/Waveforms of Energy like the Electrons that Orbit an Atoms Nucleus and those Electrons are equal in number to the Number of Protons.

Thing is that Protons and Neutrons which are the Particles that comprise an Atoms Nucleus and have Mass...are themselves comprised of Smaller Quantum Particles such as Quarks, Gluons, Leptons...etc. These Quantum Particles are in a State of Divergent Universal Reality Flux and Blink in and Out of Reality and most likely are exchanging existence and numerical number between absolute Minimum and Maximum quantities within othe Protons and Neutrons that exist in Alternate Divergent Universal Realities via Probability, choice and Cause and Effect.

As far as an Atom is comprised of a lot of nothing...this is correct and the ratio of a Atoms Nucleus to it's orbiting Electron Fields is vast. But your statement that Matter is all Energy should be that matter and Energy are interchangeable and that all Particles of Mass are comprised of Quantum Particles. Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 




My first answer would be: it is not because we don't see or understand the causes that it means that there are no causes. And I am not sure about 'free-will", is it really "free" ? Or is it dependent on so many factors that it seems to be ? If for example we look at dead leaves falling on the ground, we could think it is completely random, but in reality it is not. There are factors that we could compute and we could recreate that exact "chaos" through a simulation.


It always baffled me that a deterministic system, with no random elements involved, can produce chaotic outcomes. Deterministic chaos may also be the key to human creativity.



I know it is not an easy or pleasant idea to imagine there is no real free-will, but it is a possibility that we shouldn't avoid just because we feel uncomfortable with it. And also as a side note, I think it is a wrong idea to separate humans from other sentient beings, like cats or horses. In our discussion, what we think applies to humans, should also be applicable to them, and vice versa.


It might indeed be that the stochastic nature of our neural network (brain) is posing as free will. Bummer ...

I love animals, but their brain structure is different from homo sapiens. We laugh, they don't ...



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





... and most likely are exchanging existence and numerical number between absolute Minimum and Maximum quantities within othe Protons and Neutrons that exist in Alternate Divergent Universal Realities via Probability, choice and Cause and Effect.


I'm not sure I understand that part? Do you mind explaining this to me?



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 

I would have to disagree in that I KNOW certain species of animals have a sense of Humor. Horses, Dogs, Cats, Dolphins, Ferrets and especially certain Birds...never mind various Great Apes and Monkeys.

People are not all that different than people think. Split Infinity



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join