metatron Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Present evolutionary theory has failed scientifically and socially. We need a new model of life, one that integrates biological and cognitive systems as an integral part of the universe. We must give life a larger purposes, one that not only includes the universe at large, but also the common mans future. One that sustains and renews life for everyone. The danger of working from a poor scientific model of life has become evident in the last century. Economic imbalances, ecological destruction, and even war world two was fought on the bases of the survival of the fittest. What if it turns out life takes leaps in organization based on the emergence of cooperative networks? What if it turns out life is based on a wave function firstly, and biochemical systems secondly? What if there is a new model waiting to be discovered right under our nose, that will change the way we look at life forever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 What do you mean by "give life larger purposes" ? If you mean it the way I'm reading it, it sounds too philosphical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metatron Posted April 7, 2005 Author Share Posted April 7, 2005 What do you mean by "give life larger purposes" ? If you mean it the way I'm reading it, it sounds too philosphical To philosophical for what? Evolution to me means the ability to let go of out outdated paradigms in a new world. we are entering a new world! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Which evolutionary theory are we discussing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Present evolutionary theory has failed scientifically and socially. In what way has evolutionary theory failed scientifically? As a scientific theory how can it be judged socially? Either it is scientifically useful or it is not. Social implications can't alter scientific facts. We need a new model of life, one that integrates biological and cognitive systems as an integral part of the universe. We must give life a larger purposes, one that not only includes the universe at large, but also the common mans future. One that sustains and renews life for everyone. It sounds like you are looking for a religion or philosophy rather than a scientific theory to explain the development of life. The danger of working from a poor scientific model of life has become evident in the last century. Economic imbalances, ecological destruction, and even war world two was fought on the bases of the survival of the fittest. In what way is the theory of evolution a poor scientific model and how can it be blamed for World War Two? What if it turns out life takes leaps in organization based on the emergence of cooperative networks? What if it turns out life is based on a wave function firstly, and biochemical systems secondly? What if? If wishes were horses then beggars would ride. Scientific investigation is based on uncovering objective reality, not on wishful thinking. What if there is a new model waiting to be discovered right under our nose, that will change the way we look at life forever? Then it would presumably change the way we look at life forever. Any suggestions as to what this model would consist of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metatron Posted April 7, 2005 Author Share Posted April 7, 2005 http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-26-t-000007.html The Second Ring of Life; The Vesica Attractor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metatron Posted April 7, 2005 Author Share Posted April 7, 2005 In what way has evolutionary theory failed scientifically? As a scientific theory how can it be judged socially? Either it is scientifically useful or it is not. Social implications can't alter scientific facts. It sounds like you are looking for a religion or philosophy rather than a scientific theory to explain the development of life. In what way is the theory of evolution a poor scientific model and how can it be blamed for World War Two? What if? If wishes were horses then beggars would ride. Scientific investigation is based on uncovering objective reality' date=' not on wishful thinking. Then it would presumably change the way we look at life forever. Any suggestions as to what this model would consist of?[/quote'] Who dose science serve if not man, There is no such thing as objective reality, there is only a cooperation and concusses between man and nature Do I understand you, that you are saying that there is no place for philosophy in science And no what if’s ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metatron Posted April 7, 2005 Author Share Posted April 7, 2005 A lot of big breakthroughs are made by accident or happenstance. A good example is this discovery. At the time my only intent was to walk the river beds and read the information contained in the strata. It was my way to become aware of another aspect of nature, one of deep time, not just from a book or computer but to experience it first hand though the rocks. I found once you crossed a threshold of understanding the language of the rocks, they came to life, and contained a dynamic all their own. One way I found to enhance this dynamic is to connect it to a system view. My goal was just to see what I could see. When I found this artifact I was a Darwinist and had no knowledge of any major flaw in this theory. When it became apparent that this was an embryonic form that was in the process of self assembling from a totality of environmental components, my first reaction was that this was something completely out of sync with the natural order, a parallel evolution of sorts. It forced me to take another look at the fossil record of the early Cambrian. What I found in the text was that this represented a missing piece in organizational phases of the evolution of complex body plans, such as how shelled animals could have survived before developing shells. How eukaryotes cells could come together to form a dynamic self sustaining system cooperatively without starving each other first, just by competing for energy in a contained space. The answers where provided before I had ask them. The elemental components formed around a logarithm. This geometry is expressed as the wave curls in on itself redirecting the linear flow into a circular one. Once the mico-environment had reached an energetic threshold, the archetypal components of the environment ( oolitic spheres, cyanobacterial filaments, eukaryote cells ) assemble into these spiraling patterns. The oolitic spheres and cyanobacterial filaments are rolled into a recursive, concentric contained form. This layered circular mass begins to act not only as an Architectural framework, but also as a bridge, connecting fluid dynamics and a life support system for a self-organizing eukaryote system. Macro-dynamics construct and assemble the Micro-components, that intern capture and contain the Macro-dynamics. The wave pulse was the breath of life that the components formed around. I was cognitive of the answer but blissfully unaware of the question. Life, it turns out is based firstly on a flow of energy and secondly on the physical components contained in this flow, and this flow pattern is based on a logarithmic curve, or more well known as, The geometry of phi. Interestingly this dynamic appears almost identical to the formation of a galaxy. The grain size oolites formed by accreted aragonite rolling within the waves. These spheres are then rolled together to form the "vesica attractor" which would have resembled a pin-wheel rolling back and forth in a recursive pattern of wave cycles. after it came to rest and reformed it would have been originally about the size and shape of a large ostrich egg with a flat underside. The right and left central apertures open, {which resemble a paisley }and begin to spiral as it redirects the wave pulses into the vortex like orifices. The internal motion is made possible by the recursive constructed layering. The formation of life appears to follow the same universal pattern of wheels within wheels. As for intelligent design it seems apparent nature is more intelligent than we are and always was. The best test for a new scientific model dealing with the natural world is that it be much smarter than the one presenting it. In this case I would say that it is, and secondly can it connect information in such a way that it produces "Information for free" if it can it not only references evolution, it is evolution. This leads me to another way to test this new model. I have intentionally left many lines of logic open ended in such a way as to see if anyone would fill in some of these the same way I have, and also there are always some that I never considered. What I would like to attempt is to highlight one particular component as a thread. Here is the question for anyone out there with a good sense of imagination and deductive reasoning. Assuming this model is basically correct. What would lie at the "core" of these original creatures and how would this core component potentially enable it to act as a sustainable central organizing point of the phyla? What I believe we are all searching for is a central governing principal of life, that can help us to understand how biological systems self-organized in the past, so that we may better adapt our own self-organizing potential as humans for the future. To recognize developing currents between existing components, that can relate to a larger view. One that links us to inherent aspects of nature. To redirect our energies spent on outdated models, by acknowledging governing dynamics beyond our illusionary ideas of control. Allowing these creative elements to manifest by simply providing a environment conducive to these archetypal currents. I believe what I have discovered written in the record of the earth can help us. This Second ring of life. A pre-emergent synergy that sparked the Cambrian explosion. This dynamic represented by a fossilized embryonic form containing a confluence of environmental elements, that represent not only the birth of life in the distant past, but reflects our present stage of development as a civilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Who dose science serve if not man, Science is the process of understanding the objective reality of the world around us. It is technology which is the instrument of serving humans. There is no such thing as objective reality, there is only a cooperation and concusses between man and nature I completely disagree with you. Cooperation and consensus do not ensure reliable electric current. Cooperation and consensus do not propel aircraft thousands of feet in the air over many miles. Cooperation and consensus do not produce vaccines and anti biotics. These are created by the rigourous application of objective knowledge. Do I understand you, that you are saying that there is no place for philosophy in science And no what if’s ? 'What ifs?' are only of us if they are then subjected to careful examination to see how correct the 'what if' is. The forming of a hypothesis is then followed by the rigourous testing to see if it stands up to reality. Wishful thinking doesn't have a place in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 . My goal was just to see what I could see.. How Baconian of you. When I found this artifact I was a Darwinist and had no knowledge of any major flaw in this theory. When it became apparent that this was an embryonic form that was in the process of self assembling from a totality of environmental components, my first reaction was that this was something completely out of sync with the natural order, a parallel evolution of sorts. It forced me to take another look at the fossil record of the early Cambrian. What I found in the text was that this represented a missing piece in organizational phases of the evolution of complex body plans Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to what this artifact you supposedly found is? Do you have any pictures? Has anyone else examined it? Does it actually exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metatron Posted April 7, 2005 Author Share Posted April 7, 2005 I will, but right now I am taking my nephew to see robots.I do not have the imagination to make up this sort of thing. If you look at the data that I am gathering from this artifact it will become apparent that this information is coming from nature. be back In a bit Thanks for the feed back. Christopher Humphrey aka Metatron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 I would like to see a picture of this artifact,i know you have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzurePhoenix Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Was my initial question wrong? Or is he talkin' philosophy here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 I think this post is destined for Psuedoscience, like ever post metatron makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metatron Posted April 8, 2005 Author Share Posted April 8, 2005 How Baconian of you. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to what this artifact you supposedly found is? Do you have any pictures? Has anyone else examined it? Does it actually exist? It has been examined by two geologist their views were conflicting and not much help except confirming what I knew about the components of oolites and cyanobacteria It needs to be examined in a laboratory to confirm the eukaryote colonization' date=' I will try to get a good picture up as soon as I can. Keep in mind what I am saying the data is showing . Let me be clear and unphilosophical as possible. It appears the phyla formed from original archetypal life forms that crystallized out of the environment. These original creatures than gave birth to the phyla and remained as a central organizing point for the phyla. This model not only fit’s the fossil record, as for as the sudden emergence of a top down hierarchal appearance of body plans, but also follows the same pattern of organization of the every archetypal component of the universe. All these basic components [Electron to neutron'] [black hole to stars ][planets to stars ] have a central stabilizing point that is surrounded by orbiting components in a more dynamic temporal state. The phyla…… it appears also emerged around a central point of organization. An attractor. This model answers to many question to be dismissed out of hand. It also appears that biological systems formed around a wave function I believe this wave function can be harnessed in such a way that communication technology can be integrated to our biological cognitive system ,benefiting both, Initiating a second spontaneous evolutionary integration,…. The third ring of life. The holy grail of communication, cyberspace that can be experienced as reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluenoise Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 A whole lot of retoric and poetry. It's very nice to read and entertaining. giving some nice mental images and thoughts. but realistically ... void of any logic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metatron Posted April 8, 2005 Author Share Posted April 8, 2005 A whole lot of retoric and poetry.It's very nice to read and entertaining. giving some nice mental images and thoughts. but realistically ... void of any logic What logistical point our you dismissing? It took ten years to see this model as a cohesive whole, if you are any one would address any point I will be more than happy to discuss it on a logical basis, step by step. But first you need to look over the data and be prepared to evauate it on a informational bases, point by point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluenoise Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 What logistical point are you dismissing? None. You didn't make any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Present evolutionary theory has failed scientifically I disagree. That was fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts