johnbrandy

Evolution is a useful and interesting concept. Still, there is no adequate explanation why any species harbored the tendency to evolve, change and adapt. This appears to be the greatest mystery of evolution. Certainly, some as of yet, unknown force, intelligences, or principle must be interacting with biological life to bring this about. Sure, my opinion is not, in any strict sense, science. Much of science resulted from the asking of questions which, at the time, lacked scientific foundation. The tendency to evolve, change, and adapt must be subject to scientific scrutiny, if we hope to achieve a more complete understanding of evolution. I do not pretend to know where scientist might begin this quest. Moreover, the "answer" may lie outside of scientific inquiry, as, I suspect, much of our current scientific exploration.

Immortality is a concept, an idea, nothing more, and nothing less. All else is speculation, and wishful thinking. It is exactly the same as the question, what is death, or the after life, and as impossible to answer. Applying immortality to memory is a categorical error. Immortality does not mean some particular body of facts or information will remain forever in human memory. Immortality denotes an everlasting quality of existence, in some consciousness form. Such questions fall well outside of human cognition, whether true or not. Is this fact not obvious? Yet, this type of questions forces the mind to confront its purpose and place, in the broadest sense, and can lead to a way of reflecting and introspection that is capable of deeper insight.

I am curious as to whether the rate of combustion would be effected, with respect to which end of either rope was ignited first. Depending on the characteristics of the rope, this possibility might render less exact the predicted results of the above, otherwise excellent and plausible explanation.

The universe is not a mathematical construct. No doubt, mathematical principle and concepts can and have been derived from astronomical observation, and electronic monitoring of certain objects, and elements in the universe. Therefore mathematical "explanations" of the universe are inherently flawed. I did not say that there are not mathematical interpretation of certain phenomenon. I did not suggest it is not possible to predict certain events in the universe. What I am indication is the impossibility of adequately characterizing the exact properties of space, and most of the 'known' universe based upon the mere faction we presume to know; and often subject to radical revision. Specifically, I question the rational for the belief that space must, of necessity harbor any thing in particular; particles, atoms, or whatever. Besides, space is not the same as nothing; in your sense. Einstein suggested, as a result of gravitational influence, that space has a geometry. Therefore space is not a distinct fact, but an interaction; a function dependent upon certain influences. Perhaps this explanation does not explain space itself. Space, in the ordinary sense, is merely that with objects occupy. Wheres lies the question? It lies with the domain of syntax, grammar, and word sense. This casual definition does not exclude planetary bodies, or the universe at large. I believe we a "sawing the air," and posing question without foundation, and probable worthy of philosophy, not science.

As with alcohol, quitting tobacco may require acknowledging, and addressing people, places , and things that one associates with smoking, in order to avoid certain well established triggers directly related to the perceived need to smoke. No doubt, there is a genuine physical, as well as psychological justification to continue the habit. Yet, the desire to smoke is never the result of a bodily need. The mind directs the body to smoke and is therefore the source of the decision to smoke. Quitting is also a decision, the physical need to continue is not. Often, one must develop the ability to monitor their mental content in order to understand and control the desire for unnecessary satisfaction or false rewards. A constitution, conditioned with a disciplined life style, coupled with a strong, and informed desire to desist, will harbor a better chance of permanently eliminating any undesirable habit; whether physically and/or psychologically grounded. The lack of such greatly increased the probability of failure, and largely characteristics the challenge.

Firstly, believing is not the same as knowing. As well, knowing can can be grounded upon a belief system. These are complex and philosophical issues, subject to endless debate. Further, any definition of God is categorically distinct from that which constitutes human understanding. Otherwise, we would not be engaged in this discussion. Why is God unknowable? Why is God an unthinkable thought? To think anything, one must have a frame of reference. A point of reference, grounded in reality. Otherwise thought are speculative and philosophical. Perhaps God does exist, yet God cannot exist as a belief, only a fact of self-evident knowledge. As with belief, one must question the nature and condition of knowledge. There is an inherent difficult in accessing ultimate knowledge and understanding. It seem clear in order to approach and understanding such questions, one must acknowledge the degree that conditioning has influenced, if not determined the results. If God does exist and is subject human understanding, this necessitates, not "ordinary" knowledge, but direct knowledge. Direct knowledge is transcendental; not subject to conditional understanding or reflection. Why would we assume that establishing a connection with the ultimate fact lies within out thought processes? Clearly, it is our thought processes that create only speculative and debatable concepts of God. Direct perception is a paradigm shift, and requires freedom from conditional thinking. Opinion and tradition are a block to direct perception. God is not God, in term of our present ideation. One cannot hope to experience God in terms of thoughts and definitions. Again, we are attempting to access the unknown with the know. Is that not a categorical error. A different approach is necessary. I cannot offer a well defined method, short of transcending conditioned thoughts and habits. This requires absolute sincerity, and a compelling need to change. Unfortunately, conditioned thinking is well established, and the most difficult process to transcend. Acknowledging that one is conditioned, and therefore limited is the beginning of genuine understanding. In a real sense, we must institute a self-conscious discipline in order to monitor and understand the nature and origin of our thought processes, and arrest reflective thinking and responses. There is an understandable resistances to this method. One will think and act differently to most of their friends, neighbors, and family. Yet, eventually what is achieved is a quality of mindfulness that will lead to true self-knowledge, and the very conditions that allow for a direct perception of God. Not the God, as defined in any particular religion. But the God that accords with your innate understanding; a truly personal God. Not an entity, but a principle that connects you with the world and the universe. God consciousness is the acquire ability to experience your place in the universe, and the undefinable oneness of all things. In a real way it is like coming home, but in an ultimate sense. Of course, words cannot necessary persuade or inform this truth.