To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/09/28 02:20
Subject: Re: [K-list] Nature
From: Ville Vainio
On 1999/09/28 02:20, Ville Vainio posted thus to the K-list:
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Martin Thompson wrote:
> >I wouldn't call us nature's knowledge engines - we are just nature, plain
> >and simple.
>
> The way I see it is that as we are part of the Universe, and we "know"
> things (however we choose to define that for the sake of argument), then
> we, the Universe, "knows" things. We are the Universe discovering
> itself.
I would say we are we, discovering the universe.
> > Our "knowledge" is just pulses of electricity through neural
> >cells.
> Yeah. I trained as a physicist, but I don't buy the pulses of
> electricity and neurones bit. Yes, they are there, and yes, they
> correlate with reported thoughts and experiences, and yes, you can mess
> people's experiences up by zapping their brains, but no, discharges in
> the brain are not the same *type* of thing as a thought or an
> experience. Consciousness is a big philosophical problem which we've
It can't really be proved that thought or experience would be something
different from neuronal activity.
> touched on before, but I just don't see how any configuration of matter
> and energy can result in an "experience." A bunch of particles bumping
1) DNA was born.
2) DNA that was functioning to preserve itself best remained, while
non-functíonal DNA disintegrated.
3) DNA that exhibits a property that appears as "consciousness" proves to
be a good survivor as well as being able to adapt itself to changes and
create more variety => consciousness thrives.
4) It's natural for the DNA-vessels (us) to believe consciousness is
something "special" - the belief is hard-coded into DNA, again for the
sake of survival I would say. However, it is possible to transcend this
illusion (not just scientifically, but intuitively) by plunging into the
uncharted DNA-waters (mysticism). DNA holds loads of undocumented/not
normally experienced features as we kundalites know very well.
> >As Man is a part of nature, he can not act "out of balance". Everything is
> >in balance, always. If Man ends up destroying earth, it is the Will of the
> >universe, and it's perfect (how could anything be imperfect?). The
> >destruction is just a process, and has no significance.
> >
> I agree, except that it does have a significance: the significance that
> we choose to give it. Similarly, whether acts are in balance or out of
And a banana is a starship, if we choose to call it that.
> >In the end, the universe will be expanding at about the speed of light,
> >with single particles several light years from each other, anyway (a
> >friend told me this, had read it from a science journal... seems like the
> >universe is not going to collapse afetr all).
> They keep changing their minds about that one...
My friend thought the expanding scenario was a rather depressing one...
after all, it would seem to be more comforting if we knew universe
collapsed and time ended. I didn't react too strongly to this assumption.
Ville Vainio - vvainioATnospamtp.spt.fi http://www.tp.spt.fi/~vvainio
We're all puppets
The first step on the path to understanding is seeing the strings
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.