2 of 3
2
Do we carry the genetic code from the beginning of life?
Posted: 07 April 2017 10:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25

BioPhilo - I think I understand what you’re getting at. The problem is that you’re talking prosaically, not scientifically, which is ok. And the folks in the thread are talking more or less scientifically and being pretty unpoetic. It’s like when Carl Sagan said (paraphrasing) that we are the way the universe contemplates itself. And then Darron proceeds to say ‘well atoms aren’t capable of thought processes’. It sounds like you’re saying in some sense living DNA (human and otherwise I hope you’re talking about) retains some aspect of the structures that occurred long ago. And in that sense retain the “memory” of the universe.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 April 2017 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2017-04-03

Yes. Thank You for putting into better choice of words. This is my first ever forum posted.
I plan on reading other posts to better understand best practices. After which I may find I am have not prepared my thoughts well enough for posting.
Which is a good learning curve to experience. Thanks again.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 April 2017 06:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1307
Joined  2005-01-14
BioPhilo - 07 April 2017 09:37 AM

Forgive me, I did not realize this to be an academic forum.

No, for the most part we’re just ordinary folks like yourself.  Although most of us are skeptics, which means we may be more scientifically grounded than most.  Speculation is fine, but there comes a time when you have to sit down and say to yourself, “yes, but it is likely?”

I started this conversation with a supposition: “I have long thought that everything which precipitated the earliest beginnings of the “known Universe” is evident in each of us; in fact, we could not have thrived without.” Made no claim that there is a record of empirical evidence to support it.  I believe that human kind owes it to ourselves to look not just backwards for our understanding of where we came from, but to also glance to each side of ourselves. What this means to me is that our complex human biology is a synergy of occurrences none of which we can live without; which includes, imagination, intuition and instinct.
I am very interested to learn if such things COULD have had antecedents that preexisted “Human Cognition”... If there are certain things which are known to us all inherently, do we have to be in a physical form for that knowledge to exist?

Okay… like how?  How could knowledge exist prior to the existence of human brains?  By what medium could it propagate?  Any ideas?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 April 2017 03:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  380
Joined  2015-11-28

“Okay… like how?  How could knowledge exist prior to the existence of human brains?  By what medium could it propagate?  Any ideas?”

Sounds like a primitive question. What knowledge is depends on the referenced time period.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2017 06:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
AMH - 08 April 2017 03:00 PM

“Okay… like how?  How could knowledge exist prior to the existence of human brains?  By what medium could it propagate?  Any ideas?”

Sounds like a primitive question. What knowledge is depends on the referenced time period.

It is a perfectly legitimate question. How could knowledge exist when the universe was too hot for matter to coalesce?

The original post in this thread is thinly disguised New Age nonsense. You cannot trace DNA to the Big Bang. It doesn’t matter how you sugar coat it, the OP’s post shows a fundamental ignorance of basic science. Saying DNA contains the memory of the universe makes as little sense as homeopathy.

[ Edited: 09 April 2017 08:13 PM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2017 06:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1307
Joined  2005-01-14

I’m just saying we’re being asked to speculate about a “thing” when we’re not allowed to ask questions about its nature, and we’re not even sure there’s any reason to think it exists.  But I’m game.

We know it’s not made of matter or energy.  Let’s call it a “spirit” just to give it a label.  What next?  Was it the actual Cause of the Big Bang, or is it more like a Shadow of the Big Bang, recording what happened and passing it along somehow, waiting until DNA appeared to give it more durable form?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2017 10:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2017-04-03

Matter and energy are at the heart of this discussion. Einstein said nothing ever dies, it just changes form. Following his hypothesis energy (in the form of thought perhaps) could have preceeded matter. What may have caused thus hypothetical occur ancestors is an enigma.
Quantum theory similarly offers a divergent explanation (see Sir James Jean’s (“The Mental Universe”) and the works of R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at John Hopkins University

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2017 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2017-04-03

For clarification of what my discussion is related to…
Biocentrism: The theory that life and consciousness are fundamental to understanding the nature of our reality, and that consciousness comes prior to the creation of the material universe.
And,
QUANTUM THEORY, where Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe could be a mental construction, or at the very least, that consciousness plays a fundamental role in the creation of matter.

This is as much a conversation about the Universe, it’s creation and our own, as it is “if a tree falls in the forest and there is not one there to hear it does it make a sound?”
If man’s cognitive mind can not think of a way that life preexisted our own beginning does that inherently rule out that consciousness was here before us?
We only have the wits (forgive the expression) God gave us to figure it out with - Spoken here light heartly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2017 10:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2017-04-03

Srinivasa Iyengar Ramanujan FRS (pronunciation: Listeni/ˈʃriːniˌvɑːsə ˈrɑːmɑːˌnʊdʒən/; 22 December 1887 – 26 April 1920) was an Indian mathematician and autodidact who lived during the British Raj. Though he had almost no formal training in pure mathematics, he made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions. Ramanujan initially developed his own mathematical research in isolation; Deeply religious,[5] Ramanujan credited his substantial mathematical capacities to divinity: ‘“An equation for me has no meaning,” he once said, “unless it expresses a thought of God.”

Sensitivity to self acceptance, preceded by the acknowledgement of a power greater than one’s self is a moving and powerful acknowledgement. It stands in stark contrast to hard science’s need for proof.
The irreversible effect of one’s personal profession of a connection to that higher power, the witnessing of such a personal belief engenders on us is to believe it could be true; even if we have not had that same experience.
Is this a sharing of knowledge? Is a personal experience one person uses to bring something in the world, something which most would not believe possible yet can offer no rational reason for acceptance of, evidence that knowledge is therefor available and can be assimilated without instruction? If so, then for how long has knowledge preexisted its arrival at the time in history when occurred?

Again, this is a discussion about an enigma. One which I find highly intriguing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2017 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2017-04-03

To say “The original post in this thread is thinly disguised New Age nonsense.” is to pontificate.

That your indignation is so easily brought about, by nothing more that words you so easily choose to invalidate, is discrediting to your self as much as your intended receiver.

Consider kindness as more than a noun; when practiced it becomes verb. This is Old Age common sense.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2017 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05

The kindest thing I can say is you have no understanding of physics. Nothing in quantum theory says consciousness plays any role in creating matter. Einstein never said anything about life not being destroyed. E=mc2 simply means matter and energy are interchangeable. As I stated above, energy predates matter. This is purely a physical process. Nothing mystical about it.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 06:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1307
Joined  2005-01-14
BioPhilo - 11 April 2017 10:07 AM

Matter and energy are at the heart of this discussion. Einstein said nothing ever dies, it just changes form. Following his hypothesis energy (in the form of thought perhaps) could have preceeded matter.

Except that as far as we know, energy doesn’t come in forms complex enough to give rise to consciousness.  Which rules out that hypothesis.

What may have caused thus hypothetical occur ancestors is an enigma.

An enigma means that it is simply not understood yet.  It’s possible that we will never completely know what “caused” the Big Bang, or even if it NEEDED something to cause it.  So, unless we have advanced degrees in quantum physics (which I don’t), I don’t see any pressing need to speculate much about it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 06:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2017-04-03

Just human nature to speculate. What I believe makes the difference is our individual personalities. Free will offers equal opportunity to share our perceptions in the light of our minds eye view of the world. Hard science, to me, is motivated by that same human curiosity.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 07:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1307
Joined  2005-01-14
BioPhilo - 12 April 2017 06:48 AM

Just human nature to speculate. What I believe makes the difference is our individual personalities. Free will offers equal opportunity to share our perceptions in the light of our minds eye view of the world. Hard science, to me, is motivated by that same human curiosity.

So what do you believe?  And more important to me, why do you believe it?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2017 10:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25
DarronS - 11 April 2017 12:55 PM

The kindest thing I can say is you have no understanding of physics. Nothing in quantum theory says consciousness plays any role in creating matter. Einstein never said anything about life not being destroyed. E=mc2 simply means matter and energy are interchangeable. As I stated above, energy predates matter. This is purely a physical process. Nothing mystical about it.

I think he was refering to the idea in QT that the act of observation (by a conscious person) actually determines the outcome of various measurements, something like that. I never liked that idea myself, because how did anything happen before there were observers? But that’s a different discussion. My point earlier was, ease up, this guy seems to be speculating on ideas that are tied to real science. Speculating and using prosaic words doesn’t instantly mean we’ve got a fundie or a new age kook here.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
‹‹ trouble posting      An introduction ››