The origin of mankind

[Karl]

That sounds really, really strange.

 

The universe wasnt created, so the inherent creativity of the universe means that the conclusion can only be that the soul is a self creation as the universe is. We can trace causality back only so far before we come across the inherent creativity embodied within the universe. Take and fundamental and it is axiomatic. We can experience the effects of gravity, but we can't find gravity itself no matter how we probe into matter. There are fudamentals of the universe that can't be explained, consciousness/life is one of those fundamentals.

 

How did a force like gravity appear in the Earth. Did the planet form and then a big hand sprinkled gravity within it. Is gravity itself unique to the Earth or is only Earth and its particular gravity unique in the universe. (I'm leaving aside all Brian's scientific arguments here and just using the ideas as philosophical metaphors-'cos I just know he will be along soon to correct me on the science ;-)). If our planet is destroyed, then all the little bits of planet will have their own gravity. The hand did not reach back down and distribute that force, yet the small bits don't have the same gravity as the Earth once had-you will say 'but that's obvious' but then fail to apply that observation to life. Each cell has life, yet one cell does not contain the consciousness of the whole until the cells complete the life form. Can we define the life within each cell and discover it's means ? No, we can only determine its causality, but the life force is nowhere. We can see chemicals and interactions, even atomic level stuff, but in the final analysis no life can be found, just as no gravity can be found.

 

This isn't a fully formed theory of course, it's just what I observe and try to make sense of. For all I know there is a big hand which sprinkles form, forces, nature and life on things :-) but I have yet to be convinced of that.

[Karl]

Yes, from no-thing, but not nothing. Just as the universe was born out of no-thing.

 

(Yes, everything is born out of no-thing.)

 

Dao gave birth to One (no-thing gave birth to thing).

The universe was not born. The universe is the universe. It always was and always will be, only its form will change, but it will always be the universe.

 

To say there was no-thing is to say existence doesn't exist. Then you are in the didactic conundrum-from a humans perspective- what came first existence or consciousness. If the universe is nothing then consciousness is the universe, but if consciousness is the universe and there is nothing, then there is no consciousness either. Therefore existence is prior to consciousness in the way a chicken is prior to an egg.

 

 

Aww man, I've just read that back and it's a syllogistic master piece :-)

Edited April 6, 2016 by Karl

[Junko]

But the universe is always expanding.

[Karl]

But the universe is always expanding.

 

Yes. The universe is the universe. It is finite but unbound. It can shrink and expand in relation to those things it contains within its universality. However everything is relative, so no laws are broken.

[Michael Sternbach]

I think the soul came from nothing or everything. Because in dao way nothing is everything, everything is nothing.

 

Yes, very good.

 

The soul is not bound to a particular location. It is a field, spread out over (and unified with) all of Creation.

 

Another metaphor would be a light wave. A light wave (at least as seen from its own perspective) is everywhere at once.

 

The "higher" you go, the more you will find that your soul overlaps with all of Creation. Because you ARE your soul - and you ARE all of Creation.

 

That's why In Hinduism, it is said that Atman (the soul or higher self) is Brahman (God).

[Karl]

Yes, very good.

 

The soul is not bound to a particular location. It is a field, spread out over (and unified with) all of Creation.

 

Another metaphor would be a light wave. A light wave (at least as seen from its own perspective) is everywhere at once.

 

The "higher" you go, the more you will find that your soul overlaps with all of Creation. Because you ARE your soul - and you ARE all of Creation.

 

That's why In Hinduism, it is said that Atman (the soul or higher self) is Brahman (God).

 

Part of that follows and part does not.

 

The soul is bound in a particular location and you identified how and where in your second from last sentence.

 

Thus when we are born we are not our parents soul and if we have children then our souls won't be their souls either. Yet neither our selves, parents or children are possible without a succession of births. They require causality. A living child does not appear in a field, it has to be born. Two parents must mate, they must take part in the process of creation.

[Michael Sternbach]

Part of that follows and part does not.

 

The soul is bound in a particular location and you identified how and where in your second from last sentence.

 

Thus when we are born we are not our parents soul and if we have children then our souls won't be their souls either. Yet neither our selves, parents or children are possible without a succession of births. They require causality. A living child does not appear in a field, it has to be born. Two parents must mate, they must take part in the process of creation.

Once a child is conceived, the soul (as a living field) connects to the newly created body. So yes, a small part of the soul is temporarily binding itself to the body - while most of it remains outside.

[Karl]

Once a child is conceived, the soul (as a living field) connects to the newly created body. So yes, a small part of the soul is temporarily bound to the body, while most of it remains outside.

 

I asked this of Brian and he back heeled it, so I will try again.

 

A field IS something, it isn't nothing. What's also very clear to me is that a field (how so ever that is defined and Brian wouldn't attempt it- even though it seems to me he is in the best position to do so) has to be emitted by something. Within the universe we do have causality, so we can logically infer that something does not come from nothing. It's also evident that a field needs a substrate, in other words something over which it has an effect.

 

Now, putting that aside. If what you say is true. Then, how do you explain its injection into the body. I mean we know cells a living right at the beginning of gestation. Sperm are cells as are human eggs. So do you equally believe these are conscious entities deriving their soul from this field. How is it that, until a baby becomes almost full grown in the womb, it is not yet conscious. If it lacks a vital organ it might be still born so how do you account for that ?

[Junko]

Then think about atom.From this level,we are made from atom.

[Apech]

Then think about atom.From this level,we are made from atom.

 

 

Ok ... what are atoms made from?

[Karl]

Then think about atom.From this level,we are made from atom.

 

Cells are made from atoms. I don't know what atoms are except that they are particles held together with energy. When that energy is released it is huge. They continually discover new particles but we don't know what those particles are comprised of. The same atoms are in living and inanimate things. There is no soul in a boulder.

[Karl]

Ok ... what are atoms made from?

 

Rats and snails and puppy dog tails ?

[Apech]

Rats and snails and puppy dog tails ?

 

 

No, no that's little boys surely.  

[Karl]

No, no that's little boys surely.  

 

Origin of man = boy=Rats, snails and puppy dogs tails.

 

That's it we solved it. Next, the origin of snails. Follow the trail.

[Apech]

Origin of man = boy=Rats, snails and puppy dogs tails. That's it we solved it. Next, the origin of snails. Follow the trail.

 

 

 

Indeed for if your 'origin' is your starting off point and your starting off point is where you live, your home.  Then where is your origin if you carry your home on your back like a snail?  Surely then your origin is everywhere you are - and perhaps nowhere at the same time.  Since not having left home, as a snail then you are unoriginated.  

Edited April 6, 2016 by Apech

[Karl]

Indeed for if your 'origin' is your starting off point and your starting off point is where you live, your home.  Then where is your origin if you carry your home on your back like a snail?  Surely then your origin is everywhere you are - and perhaps nowhere at the same time.  Since not having left home, as a snail then you are unoriginated.  

 

I would have to agree with you. Wherever I lay my trail, that's my home. A snail is a singularity. Could it be the centre of the universe ?

 

Worship the snail. The God like shelled divination with its horns of bliss sat on the cabbages of joy. Praise be the snail who's familiar shape adorns the ancient Celtic arts.

[thelerner]

moving back towards the OP, there is a third forgotten hominid in our branch of the family tree.  The Denisovans.  Like the more famous neanderthals, we share aspects of there dna.  We are there children, a hybridization somewhere early in homo sapien history, just as we mixed with neanderthals.

 

I wonder where else speculations and proofs might go. 

 

from https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/denisovan/

 

Why Am I Denisovan?

When our ancestors first migrated out of Africa around 60,000 years ago, they were not alone. At least two of our hominid cousins had made the same journey—Neanderthals and Denisovans. Neanderthals, the better known of the two species, left Africa about 300,000 years ago and settled in Europe and parts of western Asia. The Denisovans are a much more recent addition to the human family tree.

 

In 2008, paleoanthropologists digging in a cave in southern Siberia unearthed a 40,000-year-old adult tooth and an exquisitely preserved fossilized pinkie bone that had belonged to a young girl who was between five and seven years old when she died.Recently, scientists successfully extracted nuclear DNA from the pinkie bone and conducted comparison studies with the genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals. Studies show the girl was closely related to Neanderthals, yet distinct enough to merit classification as a new species of archaic humans, which scientists named “Denisovan” after the cave where the pinkie bone was found. The Denisovan genome also suggests the young girl had brown hair, eyes, and skin.

 

Surprisingly, the scientists found genetic overlap between the Denisovan genome and that of some present-day east Asians, and, in particular, a group of Pacific Islanders living in Papua New Guinea, known as the Melanesians. It appears the Denisovans contributed between 3 to 5 percent of their genetic material to the genomes of Melanesians. Scientists think that the most likely explanation is that Denisovans living in eastern Eurasia interbred with the modern human ancestors of Melanesians. When those humans crossed the ocean to reach Papua New Guinea around 45,000 years ago, they brought their Denisovan DNA over with them.

 

If this genetic mixing did occur, the fact that Denisovans were discovered in Siberia but contributed to the genomes of modern humans living in Southeast Asia suggests the species ranged widely across Asia, although their low genetic diversity also indicates their numbers were never very high.

 

According to one theory, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans are all descended from the ancient human Homo heidelbergensis. Between 300,000 to 400,000 years ago, an ancestral group of H. heidelbergensis left Africa and then split shortly after. One branch ventured northwestward into West Asia and Europe and became the Neanderthals. The other branch moved east, becoming Denisovans. By 130,000 years ago, H. heidelbergensis in Africa had become Homo sapiens—our ancestors—who did not begin their own exodus from Africa until about 60,000 years ago.

 

addon> from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160328133514.htm

Most non-Africans possess at least a little bit Neanderthal DNA. But a new map of archaic ancestry--published March 28 in Current Biology--suggests that many bloodlines around the world, particularly of South Asian descent, may actually be a bit more Denisovan, a mysterious population of hominids that lived around the same time as the Neanderthals. The analysis also proposes that modern humans interbred with Denisovans about 100 generations after their trysts with Neanderthals.

Edited April 6, 2016 by thelerner

[Apech]

I would have to agree with you. Wherever I lay my trail, that's my home. A snail is a singularity. Could it be the centre of the universe ? Worship the snail. The God like shelled divination with its horns of bliss sat on the cabbages of joy. Praise be the snail who's familiar shape adorns the ancient Celtic arts.

 

In medeaval manuscripts knights fought snails.

 

 

... makes you think doesn't it.

[Karl]

In medeaval manuscripts knights fought snails.

 

 

... makes you think doesn't it.

 

Ooohhhhhhh

[Marblehead]

The universe wasnt created, ...

Okay.  I'm with you here.  And I can understand your attempt at self-creation.

 

Stephen Hawking tried the same thing in his documentary about the universe not needing a god to be created.  But his suggestion was that the universe was created out of nothing.

 

I don't buy that.  The universe was created out of singularity (One).  Everything of the universe was an aspect of singularity prior to the Big Bang.  What caused singularity to bang?  Maybe singularity wasn't happy being so alone and wanted some friends so it gave birth to Two.

 

With singularity we still do not need a creator.  We do need a cause but we will never know that cause because it happened prior to singularity banging.

 

 

This isn't a fully formed theory of course, it's just what I observe and try to make sense of. For all I know there is a big hand which sprinkles form, forces, nature and life on things :-) but I have yet to be convinced of that.

Oh, forget the big hand and the sprinkling.  The entire universe (potential) was within singularity prior to the Big Bang.

[THACS]

Why would you want to know the origin of Humankind? Why would you want to know the Purpose? Since the origin and the purpose are one in the same.  Would you really want to know if you are fulfilling the Purpose, cause if you were not, What do you think that would hold for you?

[Marblehead]

The universe was not born. The universe is the universe. It always was and always will be, only its form will change, but it will always be the universe.

 

To say there was no-thing is to say existence doesn't exist. Then you are in the didactic conundrum-from a humans perspective- what came first existence or consciousness. If the universe is nothing then consciousness is the universe, but if consciousness is the universe and there is nothing, then there is no consciousness either. Therefore existence is prior to consciousness in the way a chicken is prior to an egg.

 

 

Aww man, I've just read that back and it's a syllogistic master piece :-)

I understand what you are saying but I fear you do not understand what I said.  The word "born" is to be understood figuratively, not literally.  Only living things are born.  The rest are created.

 

And yes, everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be but as Dao is dynamic all things undergo constant change.  Here today, gone tomorrow.

 

My usage of "no-thing" is referring to the duality of "wu and yu", Mystery and Manifest.  While in the state of wu there is no-thing until this potential of wu is manifest and then there are things.

 

Yes, the chicken came first.  Then the egg was laid. 

 

One came first, then Two, then Three, then all manifest things.  A functioning brain capable of consciousness came first and then there was consciousness.

 

And I agree, existence came first and then consciousness.

[Marblehead]

But the universe is always expanding.

This is true today as best we understand.  Will it continue?  Unknown.

[Marblehead]

Then think about atom.From this level,we are made from atom.

Yes, the atom came first and then the atomic bomb.

[Marblehead]

Rats and snails and puppy dog tails ?

No.

 

Sugar and spice and everything nice.