The origin of mankind

[Nungali]

A field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time.

 

 

You just de-preoccupied the interest in the dual nature of ligjt and quantum theory !   

[Karl]

A field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time.

 

Right, but that's a description and not a definition. Can you define exactly what a field is ? That's rhetorical because no one ever has. It can be described and used but it defies definition and I believe that to be something we should do with some urgency.

 

 

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"Squash the continents together and Earth is the same size as Mars ?"

-----

 

In fact, the total surface area of the Mars is just about the same size as all of the land on the Earth.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Michael Sternbach]

My concept of 'soul' is seen as a development brought about by the circulation of those two forces I mentioned ... circulated in cycles ( think alchemical 'circulation' ) over hundreds of thousands of years. 

 

 

 

We can , as a term, but what is understood by that term ?  We may differ there. 

 

 

 

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with the term

 

 

 

Yep. 

 

 

 

Good question   . 

 

Well, the World Soul (anima mundi) as I understand it is not the result of any physical processes but pre-existent.

 

It translates the Platonic "blueprints" or "ideas" (Urideen) into manifest reality. The human being is the manifestation of such an idea.

 

This doesn't exclude the possibility of a gradual evolution eventually leading to humanity. However, it does imply that the evolutionary process was purposefully directed toward the formation of Man right from the start - like any individual being is bound to develop in a certain manner from its conception onwards, in fact passing through earlier evolutionary stages while developing as an embryo.

[Brian]

Right, but that's a description and not a definition. Can you define exactly what a field is ? That's rhetorical because no one ever has. It can be described and used but it defies definition and I believe that to be something we should do with some urgency.

You are mistaken, Karl. The definition is well understood, even if the underlying substructures are not.

 

That one was from Wikipedia.

 

A standard mathematics definition goes like: "A field is a function that returns a value for a point in space."

 

This is from Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Field, In physics, a region in which each point is affected by a force."

 

The OED offers this:

"The region in which a particular condition prevails, especially one in which a force or influence is effective regardless of the presence or absence of a material medium."

 

Fields can be scalar (in which case, the value at a point in space-time is just a magnitude, as with temperature) or they can be scalar (in which case the value is a vector, such as with wind). A scalar can actually be considered a one-dimensional vector, though, so you could say that fields have values with one or more dimensions.

 

The problem, I think, is that you seem to expect "a field" to be "a thing" and that simply isn't the case. Isn't "a concept" either.

 

That you don't understand what a field is doesn't mean it is undefined, only that you don't understand it.

 

 

EDIT: Now, before you say something like "but if it were defined then there would only be one standard definition so the fact that these sources don't yield identical results means the term isn't properly defined", let me point out that you will find very few words (I dare say none) with identical definitions in both the Oxford dictionary and the Encyclopedia Britannica...

Edited March 15, 2016 by Brian

[Michael Sternbach]

Re:

-----

"It is possible, of course, that higher-dimensional beings (angels and/or extraterrestrials that have evolved to high levels) played a role in the evolution of our ape-like ancestors toward the universal form of the human being."

-----

 

It may be that life as advanced or more than us was on Venus.

 

And like we are planning to do now with Mars, maybe they went to the Earth.

 

This would be about a billion years ago.

 

Do you not think that current or near-future humans will bioengineer the existing life on Mars when they go there?

 

Life will happen on Mars when it gets close enough to the Sun like Earth is now.

 

The core will heat up.

 

Water will flow out to the surface.

 

Plate techtonics will begin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

Even though I don't accept your ideas on this as factually correct, I find them interesting and thought-provoking.

[dust]

Right, but that's a description and not a definition. Can you define exactly what a field is ? That's rhetorical because no one ever has. It can be described and used but it defies definition and I believe that to be something we should do with some urgency.

 

The usual definition includes open land, grass or crops, and a boundary.

 

I too say fields are beyond definition. One knows when one is in one, but one might not always be able to say why it is not, rather, a meadow, pasture, paddock, park, garden, yard, or green.

[Michael Sternbach]

That is not true. Life happens on Earth because Earth has a molten iron core that rotates producing eddy currents. These eddy currents produce the magnetic field which is different than the gravitational field. All planets have gravitational field but not many have magnetic field. The magnetic field acts like a shield for the Sun radiation and the water on Earth stays on the surface of the planet. If there would not be the magnetic shield the water would evaporate and be lost into space, which is what happened with the water on Mars.

 

More precisely, the magnetic field deflects the constant particle flux from the Sun (solar wind) which, if it would hit our planet's surface, would be detrimental to life here.

 

Mars because was smaller than Earth cooled down faster than Earth and the core of Mars now is solid.  I personally believe that water from Mars was hanging out in orbit as ice particles that ultimately were captured by Earth gravitational field.

 

Hmm... How did the ice particles leave their orbit around Mars and come to Earth?

 

Again, life on Earth is possible just because the core of Earth is still hot at very high temperature and it didn't cooled down yet. But what is even more amazing is that the molten core of the Earth did not belong to Earth at the beginning, it belonged to another planet that had a collision with Earth many ages ago. That planet had an iron core and due to the friction of the collision the iron melt and became the core of the new formed planets, Earth and Moon. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwl_JBQtH9o

 

That's a theory, at best.

 

In conclusion, Mars probably had life in the past when had liquid water on the surface but since the planet dried up the life disappeared and it will not be possible again because water will just evaporate from the surface of the planet. Humans may live there artificially by mining ice or producing water from hydrogen and oxygen but it won't be a closed system so amazingly tuned as the Earth.

 

Yes, we now know for a fact that Mars once carried plenty of water. Did he also carry life? I think this is quite possible.

 

Actually, just yesterday I heard about a new Mars mission being initiated, intended to determine whether the red planet harbours some simple life forms today.

[Michael Sternbach]

Hey that's my line not yours.;-) I'm not having you turn into an objectivist without my permission.

 

Actually, I consider myself pretty much an objectivist in my own right. But I don't expect you to accept this.

 

I was pointing out that you said planets 'contained' concepts - which is to suggest a kind of intrincissm.

 

Rather, they are the expression of transcendent concepts that, on another level, manifest as human beings. That's what astrology is based on.

 

Existence is existence, a thing is a thing and entities are what they are, but human conception is-so far as we know-a uniquely human trait. So, yes, planets absolutely have an objective existence despite human perception and consciousness of them.

 

They actually also have their own perception and consciousness.

[Karl]

You are mistaken, Karl. The definition is well understood, even if the underlying substructures are not.That one was from Wikipedia.A standard mathematics definition goes like: "A field is a function that returns a value for a point in space."This is from Encyclopedia Britannica:"Field, In physics, a region in which each point is affected by a force."The OED offers this:"The region in which a particular condition prevails, especially one in which a force or influence is effective regardless of the presence or absence of a material medium."Fields can be scalar (in which case, the value at a point in space-time is just a magnitude, as with temperature) or they can be scalar (in which case the value is a vector, such as with wind). A scalar can actually be considered a one-dimensional vector, though, so you could say that fields have values with one or more dimensions.The problem, I think, is that you seem to expect "a field" to be "a thing" and that simply isn't the case. Isn't "a concept" either.That you don't understand what a field is doesn't mean it is undefined, only that you don't understand it. ;)EDIT: Now, before you say something like "but if it were defined then there would only be one standard definition so the fact that these sources don't yield identical results means the term isn't properly defined", let me point out that you will find very few words (I dare say none) with identical definitions in both the Oxford dictionary and the Encyclopedia Britannica...

 

You are describing and not defining. I'm not arguing about the descriptions but if I pick apart the concepts by which they are described they are devoid of anything close to a true definition. This isn't an easy task. A field must be something. It isn't a nothing. We can describe its properties and apply mathematical constants, but the definition is elusive.

 

You are dismissing my query without assessing it sufficiently. Probably because you can't grasp why a definition might be of use.

[Brian]

You are describing and not defining. I'm not arguing about the descriptions but if I pick apart the concepts by which they are described they are devoid of anything close to a true definition. This isn't an easy task. A field must be something. It isn't a nothing. We can describe its properties and apply mathematical constants, but the definition is elusive. You are dismissing my query without assessing it sufficiently. Probably because you can't grasp why a definition might be of use.

Satisfy me that you, personally, can adequately define anything and I'll play your Aristotelian game for a while, OK? Of course, I don't promise to stick with just first-order logical systems any more than I would stick to arithmetic in a discussion of mathematics...

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Life has certainly evolved. Is, certainly, evolving -- right now.

 

Evolution is evident. That we, the human species, evolved from 'simpler' lifeforms is evident. I like to argue with people and contradict theories, but I don't see any need for discussion on evolution. I do not say it is proven, but it is evident. It makes such absolute sense, I do not see how anyone can seriously believe that it is "not true".

 

The question then becomes: where/how did life, and evolution, begin?

 

Well, I'd argue that it began right here. One can say that it came from "outer space", but in relation to anywhere else in the universe, we are in outer space right now. Whether it began right here or on another planet seems irrelevant, and impossible to know for sure. But it seems to me that this planet, having the perfect constitution for nourishing life, is as perfect as any other place in the universe for the conception of it. Why assume that it came from elsewhere?

 

I too believe that life originated on Earth. But its evolution raises certain questions nevertheless. The Darwinian theory of accidental evolution and survival of the fittest is in jeopardy once we consider that i.e. wings could not have developed gradually, because they are only of advantage if fully functional; something between a leg and a wing - but in fact neither one n8r the other - is not giving its carrier any kind of edge, on the contrary, it is a hindrance.

 

Also, where are the fossiles that show such semi-developed properties? We don't have them; what we "have" are lots of missing links.

 

But if evolution happens in in discrete steps, then the question arises what agent causes these in such a purposeful and meaningful manner.

[Karl]

Satisfy me that you, personally, can adequately define anything and I'll play your Aristotelian game for a while, OK? Of course, I don't promise to stick with just first-order logical systems any more than I would stick to arithmetic in a discussion of mathematics...

 

Man is a rational animal.

 

I don't want you to play an Aristotlian 'game', neither am I trying to game you in any way, I'm serious. This isn't one of those things that I can adequately define. I can see parts of a possible definition, but I'm a billion light years from getting that particularly jigsaw into any kind of order.

 

A field must be some thing. It must be possible to define it. For instance, take a magnet, what are these 'lines' of force ? They don't suddenly appear because we throw iron filings on some paper. So what are they ? They pass through a medium. They must be a force and a force means a material element. I'm thinking out loud, but if you think about billiard balls colliding, we measure vectors and forces as the balls move off in directions, but, the force is delivered to the balls and the balls have a certain material nature that makes them act in a definite manner, it isn't just force lines on paper. All basic stuff I know, but then, so was the Apple and Newtons head.

[Karl]

Actually, I consider myself pretty much an objectivist in my own right. But I don't expect you to accept this.

 

 

 

Rather, they are the expression of transcendent concepts that, on another level, manifest as human beings. That's what astrology is based on.

 

 

 

They actually also have their own perception and consciousness.

 

I don't accept that because of the rest of the things you have written. Yours is a new age spiritual mysticism mixing older pagan, with later philosophies as espoused by Kant/Hegel/Marx/Descartes.

 

It would be interesting to see how you fit it all together, but not here.

 

 

[Andrei]

[Stosh]

Few of the facts presented in the vid can be said to be actual fact, it may be easy but its strewn with false assumptions.

[Stosh]

...for instance,,that the genetic lineage can be traced to a common ancestor, does not mean that the traits we exhibit, were not sourced even earlier. Because mitochondria and chromosomes are not all passed on as a set. Crossovers can have introduced lines other than an ancestral eve had.

Species are not actual divisions , so one cant say humans evolved at any particular time, or in one place ,or that sapiens is even the grouping which describes all modern humans.

What does exist are individuals , the rest is fancy arbitrary classification which is used to lump or split nonspecific masses of people.

[Gerard]

Brahma. This universe we live in was originally created by him. Other gods create other universes.

 

Lower ranked Devas (working under the command of this god) created the first humans out of

trees:

 

 

 

 

My personal observation and insight as a result of practicing in the natural environment and living as a hermit.

 

I have seen Brahma once while meditating on top of a mountain. His emanation during tha particular experience was a divine being wearing a long gown and having also a long white beard, radiating an enormous amount of Qi. He was sitting on some sort of 'cloud' and numerous devas/angels were coming back and forth from his position, presumibly executing his commands, which for this particular god is the power of creation. He surely has accumulated an incredibly amount of good karma in order to be reborn as a god. The devas that were under his command descended to this physical plane and delivered the creating Qi to elementals who have the task of maintaining the natural balance of this planet. How funny is that humans have the ability to destroy all of it for the sake of greed, lust and delusion. If they could see with their own eyes how much has their Science and Technology deviated from the truth they wouldn't behave the way they do: destroying the natural harmony of this wonderful blue planet.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Gerard

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"But it seems to me that this planet, having the perfect constitution for nourishing life, is as perfect as any other place in the universe for the conception of it. Why assume that it came from elsewhere?"

-----

 

Life is everywhere.

 

Life will probably be found in some form throughout space.

 

There are microbes that can survive in a dormant dessicate state for hundreds of millions of years.

 

These are floating freely through space.

 

Moving on comets and meteorites.

 

And growing on planets that are in "habitable zones" of their systems.

 

Pond scum is "Life".

 

In the early Earth, the only star visible was the Sun.

 

Air was full of water vapor.

 

Only life then was single cell organism.

 

As air cleared, more stars became visible.

 

Then organisms collecting into systems.

 

Now we have many stars visible.

 

And correspondingly complex assemblages of those single cells.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[thelerner]

Hmnn, evolution.. connection.. 

bottle of bourbon by my side

and 10 thousand light years thataway

is a cloud of alcohol

1,000 times the size of our solar system.

holding 400 trillion trillion pints.

We could turn Jupiter and Saturn

into Juniper berries to make it Gin.

 

Or life.. alcohol being an organic compound

a possible building block for life. 

 

My bottle releases scents of burnt caramel and vanilla

The alcohol cloud is theorized to smell of strawberries

One day we'll look and it will be gone.

Just as I know one day this bottle will be.

 

 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/51271/there-are-giant-clouds-alcohol-floating-space

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5911365/how-alcohol-is-formed-naturally-in-space

[Cheshire Cat]

Genesis describes a process of genetic engineering.

The sumerian tables describe the same process adding details on the experiments that went wrong.

 

Scientists say that human evolution is too fast.

 

I think that -at least- we may suspect that the "Gods" of ancient time were... aliens.

 

[dust]

I too believe that life originated on Earth. But its evolution raises certain questions nevertheless. The Darwinian theory of accidental evolution and survival of the fittest is in jeopardy once we consider that i.e. wings could not have developed gradually, because they are only of advantage if fully functional; something between a leg and a wing - but in fact neither one n8r the other - is not giving its carrier any kind of edge, on the contrary, it is a hindrance.

 

There is fossil evidence, but there's even evidence alive right now. Flying fish, flying squirrels, flying lemurs....bats.. What the mammals have in common is a flap of skin, like webbed feet, between arm and leg; an easy mutation, one imagines, considering we know that humans can be born with similar mutations. The fish? Just bigger fins.

 

Bats are an example of more developed flight-capable wings. Just like the pterosaurs, which probably evolved 150-200 million years ago, they basically have long arms with long digits with flaps of skin between them.

 

 

 

It is easy to imagine that, 200 million years ago, a creature mutated webbed hands, or a flap of skin between elbow and torso, which enabled it to jump slightly higher, or glide down from a tree, and gave it an edge in catching prey or running from predators.

 

 

Also, where are the fossiles that show such semi-developed properties? We don't have them; what we "have" are lots of missing links. But if evolution happens in in discrete steps, then the question arises what agent causes these in such a purposeful and meaningful manner.

 

No need for an agent, no need to infer 'meaning' or 'purpose.

Edited March 16, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Michael Sternbach]

No need for an agent, no need to infer 'meaning' or 'purpose.

 

So you don't think that evolution has something to do with the Dao unfolding?

[dust]

Yeah... I might say something like that. That evolution is likely, even a certainty, in the unfolding of things, as an aspect of Dao.

 

But I don't think that there's any purpose or meaning behind it. It just is; or, it just does.

 

To me, that's wonderful in itself.

 

 

By the way, going back to the wings etc: I'm sure there is a lot of missing fossil evidence, and I do agree that we must make some small assumptions about how certain incredible phenomena have evolved, but I also think that it can all be explained very well using the kind of observations we can make with bats.

[Michael Sternbach]

Well, purpose might actually be a misnomer. The action of the Dao is not more purposeful than the wu wei of the Daoist sage. Purpose rather as an inner consequence of things then; purposeless purpose, perhaps. LOL.