Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:55 am

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: Is the universe a living organism?
OP "pln2bz"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's certainly going to be one of the most commonly asked questions on the board, so I might as well start off the thread right now ...

In the process of learning about plasma, one can't help but to wonder if plasma is a living organism. You've wondered it. I've wondered it. We all have.

It forms cell walls to protect its contents. It forms a sheath around any foreign invader to contain the intrusion. It creates filamentary channels for funneling energy. There are surely more similarities that I'm forgetting ...

One can argue that there is nothing special about the actions of charged particles in space if they are in fact the fundamental state of matter -- and that what we normally think of as matter is in fact a special case. And one can argue that it's the complex properties of electricity and magnetism that we're noticing when we perceive the actions to be lifelike.

But that assumes that there is no signaling going on with space plasma. Plasma in the laboratory is confined. Plasma in space is connected to all of the rest of plasma in space. We can possibly rule out complex decision-making within the plasma itself, but nobody knows anything about the source of the energy, and we do not know enough about stars yet to preclude the possibility that they are serving some sort of higher purpose. From what I understand, we only observe loads. Is it possible that the source of the charged particles would also be a type of living organism whose primary purpose is to expand? Perhaps it's nothing more than a galactic communications network that we have yet to notice the signaling for.

I'm sure others have felt it. There is this nagging feeling that we are actually unexpected invaders in a larger living host. The thought though is inspired by a feeling -- which occurs because our brains notice a similarity with living organisms. It could be coincidental, and we should all be prepared to overrule our gut if the evidence does not support it. If nothing else, my guess is that we're certainly on the verge of a new popular genre in science fiction.

Comments?
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:56 am

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:20 am Post subject: Let me turn the question around on you...
OP "mgmirkin"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First off, good question. Yes, lots of people have wondered.

I actually tend to wonder slightly in reverse. While I've wondered if the similarities between life and the universe at large means that the larger universe is in some way connected to life processes (or may be a macrocosmic-scale entity of sorts), I might also turn the question around and ask: does life (as we currently know it) look the way it looks BECAUSE the universe is a plasma/electric universe.

I've begun to wonder this lately. When one considers it closely, then look at the world around us, much the same structures that are created through plasma/electricity in the lab also appear structurally in our bodies and in the bodies of other living complex and not-so-complex organisms.

So, I wonder if our evolution wasn't DIRECTLY guided by electrical/plasma processes, assuming that electrical/plasma processes are dominant over other processes in the universe and those same electrical/plasma processes are upwardly scalable as well as they are downwardly scalable.

So, I just wonder if our non-neutral electrical environment directly influenced what life structures would be created? Consider that the "skin effect" generally causes electrons in a conductor to flow around the surface, about like a "tube" of electrons. Likewise, electricity like to form vortices or spirals (Birkeland currents, etc.), as can be seen in high res shots of solar plasma tornadoes (the filaments around/in/over sunspots).

Very similarly, we have a vascular system that is basically composed of veins and other small tubular structures. As Peter Thompson notes on his web site:
http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado
http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/ ... rnado.html

"Turbulence vortices are easy to produce by creating angled air currents and an updraft. Demonstrations of 'tornados' are all turbulence vortices. [...] Air can blow against an object and move and lift dust and light objects, but has very little shear strength and so cannot transmit energy through a column of air.

[... Explanation of charge sheath votexes ...]

Because all the particles are held very firmly in place [in a charge sheath vortex] the sheath can transmit large amounts of energy from one end to the other. The charged sheath vortex is the mechanism capable of transmitting the energy of a tornado from the clouds to the ground."

Now, if I'm reading some of the explanations right, the charge introduced into the turbulence vortex end up compressing the vortex and giving a slightly more (grasping for a sufficient word) rigid {?} structure (better at transmitting energy without flying apart from its own forces).

One might also note that lightning strokes produce tubular fulgurites (fused materials around the surface/"skin" of the bolt in sandy soils, or possibly other alterations in other materials).

Anyway, the vortex structure in plasmas seems to be a relatively stable one. I'm wondering if this played a role in the formation of tubular structures like arteries, veins, capillaries, etc. As the template was reproduced and variations were introduced which lent the structure more structural stability/integrity/rigidity... (Okay, granted, things like cells came about first, most likely, then the larger structures. However, I'm wondering if the structure the cells took in the macro-structures was directly patterned off the "easy" templates given by the electrical environment. IE, don't do things the "hard way.")

So, I suppose my point is that, if electrical/plasma interactions can create these basic structures stably, perhaps the electrical environment of our planet in its formative stages played a formative role in our own evolution.

I've wondered a bit at the resemblance between the overall structure of many plants like trees and the structure of a lightning bolt. In some ways I wonder if these similarities are pure chance or if there's something more to it. Perhaps that form was the most conducive to making use of or surviving electrical interactions? Or perhaps life simply initially grew along stable electrical pathways, and encoded the most efficient ways of recreating the same structure into its genes?

I don't know if that's a viable explanation or not. But life imitating or adapting to "nature" wouldn't really surprise me.

I also seem to recall that a while back there were article published relating to experiments to try to ascertain the origins of the most basic building blocks of life, like amino acids, DNA, etc. I'm pretty sure I recall the result indicating that the only way they could get the amino acids to form in the lab was through bombarding them with electric currents. Of course I can't find the article, now that I'm looking for it. But it must have been a good 10-15 years ago I read a brief summary of it. So, I may be way off base. But it was one of those things that kind of "stick with you," 'cause it seemed like an interesting result, and they were surprised that perhaps electricity in the early history of Earth may have played a role in the beginning of life. In reflection, I'm not entirely surprised (though, like them, I probably wouldn't have predicted it, per se).

We already know that many of life's processes are regulated through the nervous system through electrical impulses. So, it wouldn't be entirely surprising to find out that electricity may be required to form/perpetuate life. Perhaps that's why we have to keep a good balance of electrolytes in the body? To maintain our weak bodily electric field that keeps us up and running...

Likewise, since we know that plasmas form double-layers to separate one region from another, perhaps that's how some of the first life forms came about? Just the right atoms/molecules were involved in creating double layers in some way that was self-perpetuating or even self-replicating, with more and more minor variations and sub-structures added over time? Consider that many cellular structures take on "outer walls" (the nucleus, the mitochondria, etc.) Is it entirely unexpected, in hindsight, considering that braided filaments are one of the more common structures in electricity/plasma interactions, that DNA takes on a braided double-helix shape? Or was that somewhat inevitable considering our plasma/electrical environment? The universe generally doesn't do things the "hard way." So, why would structures take on morphologies different from the blueprints provided by electricity in plasma? The structures would likely have to be extremely structurally sound to survive the electrical environment if the structure didn't conform to electrically-derived structures. But so many structures we see in life (from the branching of trees to veins, to cell walls) mimic the exact same forms taken on stably by electricity in plasma.

Coincidence? Maybe. But something to consider nonetheless... I hope that didn't come off as a ramble. Though, I guess I did a bit. More thoughts later. Maybe. :)
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:58 am

Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:29 pm Post subject:
OP "dahlenaz"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would be hard pressed to remember ever thinking 'seriously' of the universe as a living organism but that isn't saying alot since I only recently began to comprehend the solar system orbits.
Speculation about the universe being a living organism is not much different than Einstein's thought experiments yet there are some details that emerge from this discussion which should stimulate a glimpse of reality in those who remain open to all possibilities and are willing to accept simple truths.

Michael pointed out one of several important discoveries,

"I'm pretty sure I recall the result indicating that the only way they could get the amino acids to form in the lab was through bombarding them with electric currents."

which 'should' cause people to rethink a major speculation coming out of the, so-called, scientific community for more than a century.

The efforts to get spontaneous life to form have failed and according to probabilistic calculations the chance that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangement of amino acid sequences is far less than 1x10^450. To bring this into perspective the known universe was only 10^28 inches in diameter, as of 2001, the time of the printing of the reference.
In the early 1900 a single cell was regarded as no more complex than a ping-pong ball but now it is regarded as almost a complex universe in itself and so, to allow for that complexity to develop, the time required has been multiplied by a 100 times since then.
If the universe is a living organism we are all faced with an awesome reality of how it came into existence considering that the chances of a living cell occurring by chance is greater than the size of the known universe itself.
Thought experiments may be a fun exercise of the mind but we should never loose sight of reality and the experiences of others that are available to guide us along the path of reality science can help in some ways but only as far as humanly possible.
Because of the door that this subject opens, it might be continued under a different primary topic, The Human Question.
I personally think we should refrain from speculations outside of what is scientifically answerable in the Electric Universe discussion topic. However, considering that empiricism allows for conclusions based on experience, some areas of discussion are not too far removed from possibilities within an electric universe. dz
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:59 am

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:10 am Post subject: Relevant Quote from The Body Electric
"pln2bz"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life by Robert Becker, Gary Selden, pages 257 - 258:

We must conceive of the first living things as something unexpected, not just simpler versions of what we see around us. They couldn't have been cells; they couldn't have had a DNA-RNA-protein system, a living membrane, or a nerve impulse network.

We can try to define the bare minimum, the processes that must be available before an entity can be called living. There must be a way to receive information about external conditions, process it, and store it so that the data change the being's response to the same stimulus in the future. In other words, a sort of crude consciousness and memory must be present from the first. A life-form must also be able to sense damage and repair itself. Third, we can expect that it would show some sort of cyclic activity, perhaps tuned primarily to the circadian rhythm of the lunar day. Self-replication, one of the main requirements in the DNA based theory, can be dispensed with. An organism that can fully heal its injuries is theoretically immortal. The criteria for life can be summarized as organization, information processing, regeneration, and rhythm.

The funny thing is that all of these criteria are met by the activities of semiconducting crystals. Semiconductivity occurs naturally in several inorganic crystals, including silicon, one of the most common elements, and the rare earth germanium. Moreover, extremely small amounts of contaminants will change the crystal's electrical properties dramatically in doping. The earth's volcanic mixing would have produced minerals with a wide variety of current-handling abilities to start from. Most important, the piezoelectric, pyroelectric, photoelectric, and other responses of semiconducting crystals could have served as an analog method of processing and storing information about pressure, heat, and light. Moreover, repeated passage of current through some semiconductors permanently changes the materials' characteristics so as to make the same electrical responses easier in the future. Movement of electrons along the crystal lattices inevitably would have been shaped by geocelestial cycles in the earth's electromagnetic field, as well as by the fields around other such crystalline organisms nearby—providing a sense of time and information about the neighbors. The currents also would have instantly reflected any loss of material and guided the deposition of replacement atoms to restore the original structure.

The idea of certain rocks, in the course of a billion years or so, gradually becoming responsive to their surroundings, growing, learning to "hurt" when a lava flow or sulfuric rain ate away part of a vertex, slowly” rebuilding, pulsing with, well, life, even developing to a liquid crystal stage and climbing free of their stony nests like Cadmus' dragon's teeth or the lizards in an M. C. Escher print—all this may seen a bit bizarre. Yet it's really no more strange than imagining the same transformation from droplets of broth. The change happened somehow.

The biggest hurdle for this theory is accepting the idea that life could develop in the dry state, either out of the oceans or in the rocks underneath them. Since the mid-1960s it has seemed more plausible, for it was then that H. E. Hinton, of the University of Bristol, England, learned that at least one organism spends part of its life completely without liquid water. Certain flies of the Sahara desert lay their eggs in the brief pools formed by the rare rains. The larvae go through several metamorphoses in the water, but they're almost always interrupted by the evaporation of the pool. Though completely desiccated, in a state Hinton named cryptobiosis, they survive months or years until the next rainstorm, whereupon they take up where they left off. The larvae can be quick-dried and stored in a vacuum bottle for many years. Placed in water, they
resurrect in a few minutes. If a larva is cut in two when active, it takes six minutes to die. If it's flash-dried in the first minute, the two pieces can be kept on a shelf for years, but when returned to water they'll live out their remaining five minutes. Contrary to common sense, it appears that in this case life doesn't need water, but death can't occur without it.



I don't know if it's still possible to purchase this book, but if you can get your hands on it, I highly recommend reading it. The preceding quote is not actually the subject of the book. The book pertains specifically to the electrical nature of regeneration in animals and humans.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:02 am

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:32 am Post subject:
OP "dahlenaz"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the reply. No time to read such material. dz
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:02 am

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 2:28 am Post subject: The Body Electric
OP "Discipline"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just purchased this book from Amazon about two months ago.

http://www.amazon.com/Body-Electric-Ele ... 710&sr=1-1

I have only read bits and pieces of it so far but I must say it is extremely intriguing. However, I don’t see the connection of Becker’s research and his hypothesis with that of a living universe. I do see the connection between living matter and electricity. His conclusion leads one to the idea that there are far more electrical effects in our surrounding environment than most are lead to believe.
_________________
"Prove black is white and white is black and go out and get yourself killed on a pedestrian crossing." ~Douglas Adams
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:03 am

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 3:41 am Post subject:
OP "Rduke"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I asked Wal this question a while ago... and his answer was satisfying to me in that he said.. at that level, anything is possible...


Oh ... and I am so happy there is now a message board for this.. :D
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:05 am

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 7:52 am Post subject: Re: The Body Electric
OP "arc-us"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discipline wrote:<snip>
I have only read bits and pieces of it so far but I must say it is extremely intriguing. However, I don’t see the connection of Becker’s research and his hypothesis with that of a living universe. I do see the connection between living matter and electricity. His conclusion leads one to the idea that there are far more electrical effects in our surrounding environment than most are lead to believe.



Perhaps the connection could be grasped in terms of scalability, extension, and extrapolation? After all, his work deals with living organisms at the microcosmic level. So, by scalability and extension, why wouldn't the same principles be at work at the macrocosmic level?
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:06 am

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 8:25 am Post subject: Re: The Body Electric
OP "Discipline"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Perhaps the connection could be grasped in terms of scalability, extension, and extrapolation? After all, his work deals with living organisms at the microcosmic level. So, by scalability and extension, why wouldn't the same principles be at work at the macrocosmic level?

If by that you mean that we are a part of a larger living organism and are unaware of it, then perhaps. But considering how we have no given evidence nor even observable data to back up that theory then by condoning that idea would not be using science to its full potential.

I do feel that there is a larger universal system that inner connects all stellar bodies. This is reason enough to consider where the electrical input might stem from. But I rather just assume it is a natural system that abides by certain "rules" than to make the claim that the universe is alive.

Now if you mean alive as in electrically or in essence it is a fluid system of change and reaction, then I could agree.

I also think that by attaching a hypothetical assumption that the universe is a living life force to a non-mainstream scientific theory would only hurt it instead of aid it.
_________________
"Prove black is white and white is black and go out and get yourself killed on a pedestrian crossing." ~Douglas Adams
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:08 am

Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 12:29 am Post subject: Re: The Body Electric
OP "arc-us"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discipline wrote:
If by that you mean that we are a part of a larger living organism and are unaware of it, then perhaps. But considering how we have no given evidence nor even observable data to back up that theory then by condoning that idea would not be using science to its full potential.

I do feel that there is a larger universal system that inner connects all stellar bodies. This is reason enough to consider where the electrical input might stem from. But I rather just assume it is a natural system that abides by certain "rules" than to make the claim that the universe is alive.

Now if you mean alive as in electrically or in essence it is a fluid system of change and reaction, then I could agree.

I also think that by attaching a hypothetical assumption that the universe is a living life force to a non-mainstream scientific theory would only hurt it instead of aid it.



I guess I'm just not understanding what I perceive as an objection or resistance to the use of the words life or living to the dynamics and relationships of a universe of motion and change. Like it somehow becomes more acceptable, or of valid scientific status, only if the universe is apprehended and perceived as the dead, mechanical inter-play of lifeless energies. Guess it boils down to our individual, personal choices of how we prefer to perceive life and our relationship to "it." Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what your definition of a "living life force" is?
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:09 am

Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 1:18 am Post subject:
OP "Discipline"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>I guess I'm just not understanding what I perceive as an objection or resistance to the use of the words life or living to the dynamics and relationships of a universe of motion and change. Like it somehow becomes more acceptable, or of valid scientific status, only if the universe is apprehended and perceived as the dead, mechanical inter-play of lifeless energies. Guess it boils down to our individual, personal choices of how we prefer to perceive life and our relationship to "it." Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what your definition of a "living life force" is?

I can agree with that assessment. Plasma was named after the blood plasma that forms platelets because of its life like characteristics.

I understand your connection between the universe being alive in the sense that it is a dynamic system and I would agree. But I would be skeptical and even stubborn to give the universe the concept of intelligence or consciousness.

My use of living life force was more on the lines of a complex cellular animal that has intent and desire. But as a living and flowing system I can agree upon.
_________________
"Prove black is white and white is black and go out and get yourself killed on a pedestrian crossing." ~Douglas Adams

Last edited by Discipline on Sun May 06, 2007 5:21 am; edited 3 times in total
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:10 am

Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 2:04 am Post subject:
OP "arc-us"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discipline wrote:
<snip>
I understand your connection between the universe being life in the sense that is a dynamic system and I would agree. But I would be skeptical and even stubborn to give the universe the concept of intelligence or of consciousness.

My use of living life force was more on the lines of a complex cellular animal that has intent and desire. But as a living and flowing system I can agree upon.


Okay, I get it. Seems to come down to those pesky notions of an intelligent and/or conscious universe. :) Thanks for clarifying.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:11 am

Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: Defining "Life"
OP "Steve Smith"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also seem to recall that a while back there were article published relating to experiments to try to ascertain the origins of the most basic building blocks of life, like amino acids, DNA, etc. I'm pretty sure I recall the result indicating that the only way they could get the amino acids to form in the lab was through bombarding them with electric currents.



A container was filled with the presupposed atmospheric constituents of the "early Earth". A corona discharge -- meant to simulate lightning on the "early Earth" -- was vented through the gases. After a few days, a brown sludge formed on the inner surface of the vessel. The sludge was composed of simple amino acids and other compounds.

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/mill ... iment.html

It's important to consider that glycine has been found in space, though it is a somewhat tentative "discovery".

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2558

The problem is that the experimenters are in the grip of a logical fallacy known as "affirmation of the consequent", which can be formulated thusly:

"When Earth was formed, it had a reducing atmosphere which provided the building blocks of life. Since we find the building blocks of life in our larboratory experiments, the Earth must have had a reducing atmosphere."

Part of the process includes circular reasoning, as well.

Steve
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:13 am

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 1:14 am Post subject: Living in an Inanimate Cosmos
OP "Steve Smith"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Life" has many meanings.

"The 'life' of the universe may be expressed in megayears" is one way of using the term. It is sometimes used of inanimate objects or states. A car has a lifespan.

A living universe is called, "pantheism" and has been expounded as a religious principle for millennia. From the Greek for, "all is god" it insists that reality is the only god and all things are part of that divine manifestation. It is anti-empirical in that the principle can never be tested.

Living beings are simply pieces of the overall energy field that permeates the cosmos. We are condensed plasma; fractions of the standing wave of charge that emenates from nowhere and goes nowhere. We are photonic beings, since we consume plants that develop their material structure through the combination of photons from the sun and absorption of charged molecules, like water. Add carbon dioxide and voila, living cytoplasm.

As ATP degrades to ADP in the mitochondria, photons are released and electric charge travels through the ionic interface in the cell membane. In other words, sub-atomic particles move back and forth between the cell and its environment. In fact, our cells blithely practice atomic fission and fusion at temperatures of 98.6 degrees F.

Living beings are probably the same as any other phenomenon -- when conditions are right, they appear. Just as current flows through dusty plasma in formations that span thousands of megaparsecs, the same fractal current flows within us. We are connected to the cosmos in a real way -- those stars out there are not "far away", they are right here, right now and we are part of the matrix.

I submit that there is no "reason" or "rule" or "design" -- there is simply existence. Not existential existence, since there can be no "absurdity" in the empirical universe. Not "nihilistic" existence, since that implies a concept of nothingness and nothingness cannot exist.

There is an objective reality that all subjective beings witness and about which they develop ideas. It is the objective that we ought to seek, but that search will fail, since we can never divorce ourselves from ourselves and find thoughts that we are not thinking. In that sense, no amount of exploration will ever lead us to a "true" understanding of the universe.

It's like Windows running on top of machine language. The octal code in the microprocessor is the objective reality, but we cannot manipulate it. In order to use the processor we have to create a meta-language that allows us to manipulate the electron flow. That is the software that enables us to make use of the power in the objective processor.

In that same way, we use hands, eyes and brains to manipulate the objective reality of the universe; the electrons and force fields and potential energy in which we are immersed. We could say that we (and other beings) are the software that enables us to communicate with objective reality. But, it is not the objective reality that is cogitating the interpretation, it is the "experiences" of the one who perceives.

All human beings are coded with the same software -- slightly variable, but overall the same -- so we all experience the universe in the same way. When I look at an apple, I expect that you are also seeing a small, seeded, rose-hued, spherical fruit and not a green rhomboid.

So, it isn't the universe that's alive, it is us. There may be places in the universe where beings with unbelievable cognitive abilities are perceiving things we can't even dream, but they will continue to be subjective entities within an objective field of influence that "passes understanding".

Steve
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: Is the universe a living organism?

Unread postby bboyer » Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:14 am

Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:12 am Post subject:
OP "Discipline"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Smith,

I really enjoyed that post and I think your thoughts are very interesting and make a solid point.

Thank you.
_________________
"Prove black is white and white is black and go out and get yourself killed on a pedestrian crossing." ~Douglas Adams
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Next

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest