I don't do gurus!

[tyder001]

I have my worldview and I don't look for the "truth" these days from outside sources. I'm sure we are not simply meatbots or the by product of matter. Still, I don't need to prove it to anybody because I'm not looking to "become" a guru either. I don't see the things just like the doctor linked below but he says somethings that I honestly have thought to myself so I thought I would link it for your perusal.

The following caught my eye because I often find myself thinking about the "eternal now" these days. :

"The most important thing I learned," said Billy Pilgrim in Kurt Vonnegut's novel "Slaughterhouse Five," "was that when a person dies, he only appears to die. He is still very much alive in the past, so it is very silly for people to cry at his funeral. All moments, past, present and future, always have existed, always will exist."


Anyway, here is the link to the articles originally posted at The Huffington Post.:
Robert Lanza, M.D.: Why You Will Always Exist: Time Is 'On Demand'

From MSNBC Science:

‘Biocentrism’: How life creates the universe - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

And, what’s worse, nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter. Our understanding of this most basic phenomenon is virtually nil. Interestingly, most models of physics do not even recognize this as a problem.


Robert Lanza, M.D.: Five Reasons You Won't Die

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

Let me hasten to add I don't agree with the author on his worldview or all his points. I find them interesting and I enjoy "learning" about some of the points of view of people who are doing science as opposed to talking about dogmas from both the believers and the skeptics. We live in a very large and incredible universe and I find the answer to one question seems to lead to another. The main thing that recommends these articles to me are the comments after the articles. It seems to really irritate the atheist and the religious dogmatist equally. It even irritates me cause I have my own idea of where this points to.

 

[Kandinsky]

That's a lot to chew on in one OP and brings us right down to the nitty gritty of the origins of life.

The linked articles are thought-provoking. I enjoy reading these kind of ideas to see how others are trying to make sense of it all.

Lanza makes a lot out of the unknown origins of the Universe and particularly the lack of scientific explanations. He seems to interpret this as a failing of science in the first half of the article, in the second half I'm not too sure. The 'Goldilocks' section is around the point where I take a different perspective. It isn't (imho) that the universe is 'just right' for us and seemingly 'just so.' The almost incomprehensible number of mutations and developments that have taken place to put us here, right now, are random.

This is why there are no beings on Mercury or Titan posting on forums about the origins of life. It's why the Kepler Mission has found hundreds of planets that are unsuited for life as we know it. On those worlds, the myriad complications and environmental factors haven't generated the potential for sentient life to even pose the questions we do.

It's hard to express these points and I'm probably failing miserably. Deep down in the heart of the matter, we have two possibilities that defy our concepts of logic and even science. One is that all of this spontaneously appeared from nothing (abiogenesis of both life and universe). The other is that 'all of this' has always existed and has no beginnings. This is all beyond our current knowledge and it's enough to just walk away from in the acceptance that it's possibly 'unknowable.'

Science isn't ignoring or 'walking away' from abiogenesis; there have been many attempts to create life from scratch. At the same time, I think the crazy paradoxes are acknowledged even though they make us uncomfortable.

I need to lie down and listen to something very shallow right now...

 

[tyder001]

I felt similar myself. I actually think one question always leads to another. My worldview is certainly different from the authors worldview. But, it really give you food for thought. I think most of us are so used to the knee jerk fundi materialist or religious zealot debate that we forget how interesting reality really is. Or at least what we call reality.

 

[mike]

I dont think in terms of linear time anymore, so i get what the article is saying 100%
Listening to Mr Streibers guest this week she quotes the Andreasson case, where the entitys told her we dont think in terms of time and place like you do.
The thing about time travel or rather the ability to phase out of linear time as we experience it, is it only has to happen once and its reality now.
The method for doing it could be invented a million years ago, or a million years from now. and the moment of now you are experiencing is connected to every other moment of now.
For me the deeper implication is that what we do, becomes written indelibly on the fabric of reality, Most people as a result of experiencing and observing linear time run on the premise that if you do something and no one sees it and that moment passes , the deed is safely hidden, but if that moment of now can be accessed again, then its not safely hidden at all.
Its perhaps what is meant by the term akashic records, Outside linear time, every moment of now is simply a coordinate. From this place ,next week is as "close" to you as last century.