Re: Mind's Eye Instinct for survival

I use the shallow method all the time with minor embellishments to
entertain or see if someone catches a joke in there, hopefully my four
y/o doesn't think I'm just making it all up, not yet anyway. ;-)

Now you have me wondering, the processes that generated the particles we
know of in simple terms are due to environmental conditions, density
irregularity in the early universe allowed the development of great
gravitational bodies to form and undergo nuclear transformations
producing the variety of metals, gases and minerals we know today. That
is, as opposed to a uniform and symmetrical universe
Some time ago I had memorized a few stages that produced individual ones
and found iron especially fascinating, but I'll leave that for other
explorers to fill in.

What you are saying, separate from the above pondering, seems the
opposite of the universe that I have come to accept (in a scientific
sense, and it may be due to lack of refined knowledge, please bear
with). In that much of the processes of transformation and regulation of
properties operate in an elastic manner. Where vigorous transformations
can occur but have a tendency to harmonize in phases, more of less
gradually moving through punctuated bands in a spectrum of phase states.
Condensation happens to be one of my favorite mental aids in that sense
as it reflects impermanence of configuration that we can easily
manipulate moving up or down the spectrum (in the case of water, on
Earth, today, that is.

Would you mind explaining how the filled space concepts relate to this,
my understanding is not clear. It sounds kinda neat, and challenging.

On 12/2/2012 4:45 AM, Allan H wrote:
> Andrew,, your statement is remarkably shallow and not true at all.
> Mainly for this simple reason it is well know and of accepted
> knowledge in astronomy that the universe is expanding..
>
> Now the simple question is if the space is all ready filled with
> matter and energy it can not be expand because it is all ready
> filled.. That simple.. for the universe has to contain empty space or
> it could not expand.. Some people subscribe to the string theory,,
> and what is between the universes or strings?
>
> Maybe just maybe it is filled with knowledge greater that the totality
> of the universe and is simply part of the eternal mandala the realm in
> which souls exist with out time or space ,, maybe that it the true
> reality. could that all be part of a power greater than you are
> commonly known as God.
> Allan
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:33 AM, andrew vecsey<andrewvecsey@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All matter is made up of atoms. All atoms have internal motion and internal
>> forces keeping them together. It is these internal forces and motions that
>> give an energy component to all matter. You can look on matter as condensed
>> energy just like water droplets are condensed water vapor. I have never
>> heard of negative space. Stars are filled with energy...shown by the light
>> and heat they emit and radiate.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 1, 2012 2:40:25 PM UTC+1, rigsy03 wrote:
>>>
>>> Not all matter is energy, is it? What about "inert", negative space,
>>> the pause etc. Aren't stars dead? I really should study the universe
>>> as I don't know very much about space and the cosmos so forgive my
>>> ignorance.
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 10:53 am, Lee Douglas<leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Heh except of course that when it comes right down to it.energy is
>>>> matter
>>>> and matter is energy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew vecsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be
>>>>> circumnavigated
>>>>> by the possibility that the original creator was not matter, but
>>>>> energy.
>>>>> Just like thinking of anything is much faster and much easier than
>>>>> building
>>>>> it, it becomes conceivable that energy patterns could have evolved in
>>>>> a
>>>>> random chance way and finely tuned by selective processes to reach
>>>>> intelligence similar to how most scientists believe that patterns of
>>>>> atoms
>>>>> and molecules evolved to form intelligent life.
>>>>
>>>>> Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they manipulated
>>>>> atoms
>>>>> to desired patterns and forms to code the information required for
>>>>> life and
>>>>> to allow them to evolve on their own to complex intelligent beings
>>>>> able to
>>>>> wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle of where they came from,
>>>>> where
>>>>> they are going and why they are alive. Meaning and purpose could then
>>>>> be
>>>>> given to our fleeting moment of existence.
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1, archytas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> ....... All we have in respect of this is to posit
>>>>>> creation, begging the question of what created that in an infinite
>>>>>> regress. .....We might get to an intelligent state in which creation
>>>>>> myths are replaced by something more plausible and Truth comes
>>>>>> closer.
>>>>
>>>>>> On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh<123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Neil , even after re-transposition how long could the brain live
>>>>>>> --1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the universe ,but
>>>>>>> ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end - time of the
>>>>>>> universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and nothing else.
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas<nwte...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> What survives is the gene - subject to mutations etc. We are
>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>> 'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation. One's mind could be
>>>>>>>> transposed to another substrate (nearish future) - our bodies are
>>>>>>>> currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the new substrate
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive Lee's 'hope'.
>>>>>>>> Such
>>>>>>>> substrated minds might link in super-intelligence and be able to
>>>>>>>> re-
>>>>>>>> transfer into more human-like bodies they learned to make. This
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> be a time beyond singularity. We don't know what such
>>>>>>>> intelligence
>>>>>>>> might invent or even discover - perhaps such intelligence would
>>>>>>>> discover we are not as alone as we think. Being human or human
>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>> might be as irrelevant as a mitochondria wanting to live free
>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>> We might be free of the tiny machines (genes) so much part of our
>>>>>>>> behaviour now.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28 Nov, 14:40, Allan H<allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> T9 grrrrrrr
>>>>>>>>> Allan
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matrix ** th3 beginning light
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott"<gabbyd...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly maybe' then (my
>>>>>> grammar and
>>>>>>>>>> spelling checker suggests 10 instead of 'then' though)! :)
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2012/11/28 James<ashkas...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am an aspect of what was, is, and will be, coextensively.
>>>>>> Maybe.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2012 2:28 AM, RP Singh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Attachment to life is the cause of the desire for
>>>>>>>>>>>> immortality
>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> readiness to believe in an after-life or re-birth. It is an
>>>>>> off-shoot of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the instinct for survival.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

--