The earth is alive?

[•Ik•]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
Who's to say there's a distinction behind the Being that is projecting Earth and the Being(s) projecting its "Life"? Food for thought!!

As deduced from theory, there is no distinction. Being Life, I am Earth; being Earth, I am Life.

I'd be happy to elaborate.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by •Ik• (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
There are some people who think the earth is more important than the population living on it.

Who's to say there's a distinction behind the Being that is projecting Earth and the Being(s) projecting its "Life"? Food for thought!!

As deduced from theory, there is no distinction. Being Life, I am Earth; being Earth, I am Life.

I'd be happy to elaborate.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

Please do.

[•Ik•]

Ok, it will take some time; please permit me the opportunity to equilibrate to you and this forum. I will need several days to do this, especially with Thanksgiving holiday approaching.

Also, please forgive me for being slow and methodical.

I have found that the best thing to do in this situation is to walk through the problems, identify them, discuss the current approaches to address them and their limitations, and then outline the approach that is required to achieve synthesis—i.e., complete and consistent knowledge of reality, the universe, life, and evolution.

The first thing to point out is that no current mainstream theory of reality contains the first-person perspective.

However, in order for the theory to be complete, it must include me, the one doing the thinking, the observation, and the theorizing.

Since I call my "self" by so many different words and symbols — I, me, self, myself (and this is in English alone) — I require a model of that "thing," the self.

And that's where things get funky.

For, in the end of modeling, I come to understand that I am modeling my self; that is, I am the model itself.

Although the proof is not in the published theoretical framework, it intimates My Unity and Identity.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Marin]

Posted by •Ik• (here)
So, after examining the central dogma and found all of the flaws (more about this for those interested), I began making models. So, instead of DNA goes to RNA goes to protein, I was able to uncover the appropriate order and positioning of these important components within all living cells. That is, ribogyre <--> aminogyre <--> genogyre. Ik

Ik - I'm very interested in understanding some of the material you've presented.

I just downloaded the PDF of your article, Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life. It's 66 pages. This might take a few days to digest.

For those of you that might be interested, here's a quick link to the PDF (that's in the middle of the abstract) the OP provided:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...5j1sp_SAUQhBww

[bram]

Just imagine the cells in your body all getting together, and one of them saying:

''You know, I think this 'body' that we all live in is a sentient being''

Then being dismissed as a looney.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by bram (here)
Just imagine the cells in your body all getting together, and one of them saying:

''You know, I think this 'body' that we all live in is a sentient being''

Then being dismissed as a looney.

Hahaa! ... that was really good! Indeed the "Universe" is very holographic in nature.

[•Ik•]

Posted by Marin (here)
It might take a few days to digest.

That is the most difficult thing, I am afraid.

The current intellectual zeitgeist works in very small packets (quanta) of information, energy, and matter. One need look no farther than twitter, facebook posts, or a general post in any forum thread to see this validated.

Since small is relative, that quantized portion of information applies to distinct fields of thought as well. For example, physics has its own theories, as does geology, chemistry, biology, sociology, and so on.

Being discrete packets of organized data, these theories capture one small picture of the full grandeur of life and reality.

Alas, life and reality is bigger than any one field, and thus an understanding of those things—life, reality, universe—requires a cross-disciplinary and unifying theory.

A big problem with that is that there is a great deal of protectionism, isolationism, and favoritism towards particular modes of thought and theories. Any challenge to those ways of thinking (e.g. challenging mathematical models with a non-mathematical one) is summarily rejected, and violently so.

So, yea, it takes a few days to conceptually switch from reductionistic worldview to a reality that is Irreducible. A lot to consider.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Mark]

Posted by •Ik• (here)
So, after examining the central dogma and found all of the flaws (more about this for those interested), I began making models. So, instead of DNA goes to RNA goes to protein, I was able to uncover the appropriate order and positioning of these important components within all living cells. That is, ribogyre <--> aminogyre <--> genogyre.

Thank you so much for taking the time to come here and engage in this discussion about your research. I think it would serve the world to have this information generally available here at PA, directly from your fingers, to help us to understand your theory. So far, it sounds very intriguing and logical. I've dl'd the document (ty Marin!) and will probably begin it this weekend. As I progress I will probably be able to ask more pointed questions, but, until then, perhaps it would be useful for those members and guests visiting this thread if I showed interest and asked you to discuss the flaws in the central dogma that you found in the context of your work.

[•Ik•]

Posted by Rahkyt (here)
Thank you so much for taking the time to come here and engage in this discussion about your research. I think it would serve the world to have this information generally available here at PA, directly from your fingers, to help us to understand your theory. So far, it sounds very intriguing and logical. I've dl'd the document (ty Marin!) and will probably begin it this weekend. As I progress I will probably be able to ask more pointed questions, but, until then, perhaps it would be useful for those members and guests visiting this thread if I showed interest and asked you to discuss the flaws in the central dogma that you found in the context of your work.

My pleasure. I came here after a buddy of mine mentioned that this was a open and warm community of like-minded individuals. I cotton to that.

While it's hard to discuss and explain such a dense piece of work, I will give it my best shot. I'll pepper my posts with little asides but try to stay on topic and address any specific questions.

One of the things that I like about the open access publication system is that anyone, anywhere, anywhen can download and review a document for free. This freedom is at the core of My being. All of the knowledge that I have learned I have had to pay for in one way or another.

Yet, true knowledge should, in principle be free, as the Truth is Invaluable—beyond, without, before value.

I think one of the contradictory facts of the academic realm is that there is a great deal of desire for innovation yet there is a great deal of suppression of innovation when it challenges the status quo. It could be no other way.

One or the ideas that has dogged science, especially molecular biologists, for a while now is the central dogma. Time and again, scientist have come forward calling for a new paradigm, but not one has emerged that has been accepted by the mainstream.

For those interested, here's the wiki on central dogma.

And here is .

Basically, Crick's premise was that:

DNA "goes to" RNA, and RNA "goes to" protein,

i.e.,

DNA --> RNA --> protein

but that information could not flow from protein into DNA. There are also other points of the original proposal, but that's the gist.

So, then, what are the flaws of the central dogma? There are many, but I will highlight several of its major limitations.

1. The central dogma does not address the origin of genetic information. Where do new genes, proteins, transcripts come from? Unanswered.

2. The central dogma does not explain or resolve the C-value enigma, genetic inheritance, mutations, and many other biological phenomena. While some theorists might assert that the central dogma does not mean to or try to solve these matters, it would be expected that the correct and, notably, complete theory of the flow of genetic information would solve them.

3. The central dogma is evolutionarily inconsistent. Evolutionary biologists have found bioinformatic evidence supporting RNA being the first genetic information (hence the RNA world hypothesis). Consistent with this, biochemists have known form some time that the only way for the cell to create DNA involves (forgive me for the following word salad) ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) abstracting a 2' OH from the ribonucleotide (rNTP) to create a deoxynucleotide (dNTP). Reiterating, RNR is the only protein enzyme that does this.

Or, alternatively, rNTP ---(RNR)---> dNTP

So, RNA would have to come before protein (consistent with the necessity of RNA-based translation apparatus to make polypeptides), and protein before DNA. This arrangement does not jibe with the central dogma.

4. The central dogma does not unify ontogeny and phylogeny. A fatal flaw, following from the last point. Unification is the ultimate goal of a theory of life, and those who have studied and modeled life would not claim otherwise.

There are several other points, and I'd be happy to mention them should anyone be interested, but all the warts and bruises of the central dogma have been known for some time.

What has also been known for a while is that there is no mainstream alternative to the central dogma. That's why I compiled the theory.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Flash]

Posted by pie'n'eal (here)
This is part of The Green agenda...Gaia's Gurus, from a web site called The Green agenda.

Maurice Strong, founder and Secretary General of the United Nations Environment Programme and Senior Advisor to Kofi Annan. Founder of the Earth Council and the Earth Charter Initiative, and former President of the United Nations University of Peace. You will find many references to Maurice Strong on this site. He, more than anyone else, has been the architect of the Global Green Agenda. Strong is a devout Baha'i and from his lofty positions within the UN has permeated the organisation with Gaian theology.

He is the author of most of the key UN environmental policies and plans including Agenda 21, the Earth Charter, the Kyoto Protocol and the UN report on Global Governance. While he chaired the Rio Earth Summit, outside his wife Hanne and 300 followers called the Wisdom-Keepers, continuously beat drums, chanted prayers to Gaia, and trended scared flames in order to "establish and hold the energy field" for the duration of the summit. You can view actual footage of these ceremonies on YouTube. He founded the Manitou Institue where various Hindu, Bhuddist, and New Age groups perform rituals to heal Gaia. The Institutes Mission is "to perpetuate the ancient tradition of peoples of many tribes journeying here for a sacred connection to the Earth." Very Gaian!!

The Strongs have located their spiritual centre in the Colorado mountains because "The Strongs learned that since antiquity indigenous peoples had revered this pristine wilderness as a place for conducting their vision quests and receiving shamanic trainings. It is prophesied that the world's religious traditions would gather here and help move the world toward globally conscious co-existence and co-creation."

"It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of DIVINE NATURE." - Maurice Strong

In 1991 Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this: "This interlocking is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life."




http://www.google.co.uk/search?clien...w=1210&bih=657











.

pointing out the origin of this thinking is extrermely important. It does tint the whole talk about earth being alive. That the earth is alive, fine, no doubt, that human are less important than the earth, this is trilateral commission thinking and has to be pointed out.

Earth produced and supported human development. There is a reason for this, a reason that has to do with the evolutionary path of consciousness for sure. Earth and the Universe would not have supported a very complex evolutionary process if there were no reasons for it. And we, human are a full part of it. Earths babies are as important as their mother, one goes with the other.

Trilateral commission is for culling the human beings if i am not mistaken.

Earth being alive does not mean humans are to be culled. We have to be careful with such false equation that is being pushed on us. Earth being alive may mean human have to take care of it in an awaken conscious level. Whatmore can be a better success than having earth sentient beings becoming conscious being serving the universe.

Thanks Tony for pointing this out.

[Pam]

Rahkyt,I am so delighted that you are open to seeing this..the more you are aware the more you will see...As applied to therapeutic touch technique it is really a skill to fortify the understanding of this wonderful energy-potential that is literally swimming and dancing all around us..With the power of intent and clear energy channels they are just waiting to manifest...I kind of liken seeing them as the same kind of skill that some people can see energy auras...I wonder how much there is to see that we unconsciously block out because it doesn't fit the current paradigm????

[Flash]

. ik . please go on with this. Some similar stuff was explained to me from a fringe biochemist who was helping my daughter with her dysphasia problem from a genetic point of view. Although I will have to rearead you a few times to understand, and maybe look at my old biology books (or at new ones), please go on, this is very interesting.

Anyone here that can help in vulagarising the genetic information making it teaching for babies (us), or genetics for dummies, please, help so that everyone here can have access to the information, including me.

Thanks

[Chester]

Posted by Flash (here)

pointing out the origin of this thinking is extrermely important. It does tint the whole talk about earth being alive. That the earth is alive, fine, no doubt, that human are less important than the earth, this is trilateral commission thinking and has to be pointed out.

Earth produced and supported human development. There is a reason for this, a reason that has to do with the evolutionary path of consciousness for sure. Earth and the Universe would not have supported a very complex evolutionary process if there were no reasons for it. And we, human are a full part of it. Earths babies are as important as their mother, one goes with the other.

Trilateral commission is for culling the human beings if i am not mistaken.

Earth being alive does not mean humans are to be culled. We have to be careful with such false equation that is being pushed on us. Earth being alive may mean human have to take care of it in an awaken conscious level. Whatmore can be a better success than having earth sentient beings becoming conscious being serving the universe.

Thanks Tony for pointing this out.

Its ALLLLLL important, because it is all "us" ... no one segment of us any more or less important.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Flash (here)
. ik . please go on with this. Some similar stuff was explained to me from a fringe biochemist who was helping my daughter with her dysphasia problem from a genetic point of view. Although I will have to rearead you a few times to understand, and maybe look at my old biology books (or at new ones), please go on, this is very interesting.

Anyone here that can help in vulagarising the genetic information making it teaching for babies (us), or genetics for dummies, please, help so that everyone here can have access to the information, including me.

Thanks

Ik - what an awesome new member... someone that is able to connect the dots at that level. Man this forum is the BEST!

[Marin]

Posted by •Ik• (here)
There are several other points, and I'd be happy to mention them should anyone be interested, but all the warts and bruises of the central dogma have been known for some time.

What has also been known for a while is that there is no mainstream alternative to the central dogma. That's why I compiled the theory.

Ik

Yes. Very interested.

As an aside - there are several threads here on Avalon that highlight some "alternatives" to understanding DNA - that is, "junk DNA" the other 97% of DNA that isn't read or transcribed. I've always found this particular piece intriguing.

Something I started some time ago.....and never finished: "Junk" DNA or a primer for universal consciousness.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...highlight=junk

And:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post565776

Just curious what your thoughts were regarding the role of the 97% of DNA that isn't transcribed.


And... MANY thanks for your time here. It's much appreciated.

p.s. still digesting your paper.

[•Ik•]

Posted by Flash (here)
. ik . please go on with this. Some similar stuff was explained to me from a fringe biochemist who was helping my daughter with her dysphasia problem from a genetic point of view. Although I will have to rearead you a few times to understand, and maybe look at my old biology books (or at new ones), please go on, this is very interesting.

Anyone here that can help in vulagarising the genetic information making it teaching for babies (us), or genetics for dummies, please, help so that everyone here can have access to the information, including me.

Thanks

Thanks as well. *tips hat*

Alas, without the complete and consistent theory of reality, any discussion of the relationship between genetics, organ systems (read: brain), and language generation/comprehension would be scholarly speculation.

While speculation is not bad in principle—especially for one who seeks to understand (and for one who seeks to help, as in your "fringe" friend helping your daughter)—in the long run it tends to obfuscate or interfere with progression towards the correct explanation for a phenomenon.

A difficulty in discussing/explaining the flow of genetic information and the relationship of that flow to corporeal acts and experiences is that the Mind becomes inculcated in a particular way of thinking, and this, in turn, leads to stultification and hubris.

I do not forget that I, too, am a dummy. That is, I am the full spectrum of intellect and intuition. I am no smarter or better than any person in this forum, of this continent, of this world. In fact, I am every person.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[gripreaper]

Looks like I found a thread that I am very interested in. As a layman, with limited knowledge of how the cellular structure works, I have more questions than answers.

The first obvious question would be: If RNA controls the cells, how do we influence the RNA and reverse the program, which the cells have been conditioned to accept, which is their own deterioration over time?

I am familiar with Bruce Lipton's work, a cellular biologist who has shown that our own thoughts influence the cellular structure, and subsequently the manifestations which we experience in our lives. It has been a while since I read his book, "The Biology of Belief", yet is resonated with me quite profoundly.

You may also be aware, that there is a gentleman who calls himself Ion, who sells RNA drops, and many of the testimonials in regards to the positive effects of these drops are and have been discussed on other threads.

Nassim Haramein has been extensively discussed here as well.

Welcome to the forum IK. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance, and this is definitely the best forum on the net bar none. Like any other forum, it has it's moments, yet after frequenting many forums in the last 20 years, I have not found another like it. I have challenged anyone to point me to one which is, and so far no one has taken me up on that.

Looking forward to further discussions on the very important and sentient subject. I will see if I can read the pdf. this coming Thanksgiving weekend so as to be ready and in context.

[•Ik•]

Posted by Marin (here)
Yes. Very interested.

As an aside - there are several threads here on Avalon that highlight some "alternatives" to understanding DNA - that is, "junk DNA" the other 97% of DNA that isn't read or transcribed. I've always found this particular piece intriguing.

Something I started some time ago.....and never finished: "Junk" DNA or a primer for universal consciousness.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...highlight=junk

And:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post565776

Just curious what your thoughts were regarding the role of the 97% of DNA that isn't transcribed.

And... MANY thanks for your time here. It's much appreciated.

p.s. still digesting your paper.

I appreciate being here, so I am unified in Appreciation.

I read your pieces, thanks for sharing them. I bolded your statement above for a reason. That reason is this: While the old school way of thinking was that most of the genome was not transcribed, new microarray and RNA deep sequencing approaches and experiments have revealed that to be completely wrong.

In fact, some studies have shown that the so-called "junk" DNA is not "junk" at all.

Gingeras' group at CSH originally showed that one chromosome (a long stretch of DNA, in essence) was 80% or more transcribed - that is, had cognate RNAs:

www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5725/1149

One review he wrote spelled this out (and discussed its implications) for a more general audience:

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8...rg2083.html#B3

In that, he alludes to an ENCODE study, here:

Depending on which empirical data sets are included in the estimate, as much as 93% of the genomic sequences in the surveyed ENCODE regions seem capable of being transcribed5. This estimate is derived from the union of all intronic and exonic sequences detected by several empirical RNA-mapping technologies in multiple biological samples.

And his web site gives a review on his and other peeps's studies, where he suggests redefining the gene:

In massive genome analysis ENCODE data suggests 'gene' redefinition

Finally, the capstone of all of this is a recent book and article by James Shapiro University of Chicago professor that drives a high profile stake into the "junk" DNA concept.


Bob Dylan, ENCODE and Evolutionary Theory: The Times They Are A-Changin'

All in all, the old saying goes:

"One person's junk is another person's treasure."

In other words, the naïve scientists of the early 20th century, not knowing why all of that extra DNA was there, PROCLAIMED that is was junk. And so it was. Until it was not.

_____

The real bugbear of a question is: Why does the majority of the genome have cognate RNA?

That question can only be answered by theory, only be answered through a prism that includes learning, memory, and the origin and evolution of the cell, and only be answered by including the reader in the question and answer itself.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

P.S. As for modeling consciousness, that is a whole 'nother ball of wax, and that precedes DNA in the evolution of the Universe to present day. I could discuss how I modeled that, but I think it is best to stay close to things that sound logical and rational. In other words, the ultimate nature of reality and the true explanation of My Consciousness is so outlandish, so unreasonable, so irrational that My Mind flees upon hearing or considering it.

[Alien Ramone]

Posted by Fred Steeves (here)
Yes, our planet is a live, sentient being, I've experienced her consciousness first hand myself. One of the most powerful and amazing experiences of my life. Imagine what a different world we would live in, if children were taught basic things just like this, as a matter of due course?

In general how does that work? Can the planet make decisions, and if so, what kind of decisions can it make? Is the consciousness of the planet completely in the astral plane or is it also tied into some structure similar to a brain? Did the consciousness of the planet reincarnate from the consciousness of another planet and maybe an asteroid before that and have memories of its history in the 3d plane of existence? What sensory organs does the planet use to take in information about what is happening around it? I'll point out that I'm not trying to be flippant, since it could be taken that way, but am just trying to get a better understanding of what people are meaning when they say that things like the planets and stars and have consciousness.

[donk]

I could discuss how I modeled that, but I think it is best to stay close to things that sound logical and rational. In other words, the ultimate nature of reality and the true explanation of My Consciousness is so outlandish, so unreasonable, so irrational that My Mind flees upon hearing or considering it.

C'mon, brah, that's why I pointed you over here! This is the spot where you don't have to flee from the outlandish--we (I, you) embrace it!

[•Ik•]

Posted by donk (here)
C'mon, brah, that's why I pointed you over here! This is the spot where you don't have to flee from the outlandish--we (I, you) embrace it!

My Brother, thanks for the words of encouragement. I don't want to wear out my welcome, seeing as this is one of the forum guidelines:

Everyone joined this forum to discuss our material, not to hear others showcase theirs. Members who insist on promoting / showcasing themselves, their own websites, philosophies, products, services or other unrelated teachings will be unsubscribed.

I am sure a moderator will let me know if and whether a discussion of the theory is unacceptable or just show me the door.

Still, I have one goal: World Peace. So I know My limitations and respect them.

Now about explaining My Consciousness....

See, this is where things get weird, because basically the theory proves that there is Only One Self—that is, One Me, One I.

In other words, the I that the Writer of this line uses and the I that the Reader of this line uses is the same I.

Written another way, I am One.

Being One, I have One Conscious Mind— this is the Mind that I, the Writer, call "Mine" and I, the Reader call "Mine."

As modeled, My Conscious Mind in ~96% of the Universe, i.e. dark energy and dark matter.

Hence, the repulsive force that I exert of information, energy, and matter comes from Me—outside, beyond, without spacetime—into spacetime through dark energy (Consciousness, Conscience, Emotions) and through dark matter (Mind).

That Repulsive Force (Me, and exerted by the Singularity that is Me; aka anti-gravity) is manifest in the phenomena modeled as Creation, Expansion, Thought. The Attractive Force (Me, exerted by Me; aka gravity) is Destruction, Contraction, Perception. Balancing of these forces models Sustenance (Creation/Destruction), Immutablity (Expansion/Contraction), Intuition (Thought/Perception). Each of these forces and phenomena are modeled onto the gyromodel; all axioms apply.

While these statements may be difficult to follow or perhaps accept, these are the conclusions from the complete and consistent theory (within which the theory of life is a subset).

Basically, that theory proves the following equation:

I = God

----

There's much more to being Me, of course, but that equation succinctly sums Me up.

So, like I wrote in the P.S. above: outlandish, unreasonable, irrational. And yet, Truth.

____

And how I got from molecular biology and quantum gravity to That is a whole 'nother story.

Peace on Earth,

Ik