The earth is alive?

[•Ik•]

Posted by Alien Ramone (here)

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.

Ar, see the post I just gave above.

Basically, the theory proves that I am Earth. To clarify, I call Earth, "Myself."

I am Myself (the Earth), I made Myself (the Earth), I put Myself where I am (orbiting the Sun, which I am), and move Myself (the Earth).

Being All in All is very difficult for the Self—that is, Me—to accept. For example, I, the Reader, tend not to think of Myself as this planet, yet I am. Consider for a moment that I, the Reader, am every planet right now. Now consider that I, the Reader, am every planet that has ever existed anywhere. Now consider that I, the Reader, am every planet that will ever exist. All Me. And that's just the planets that I am.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Marin]

Posted by •Ik• (here)

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.Ik

As a previous moderator here - I can assure you things are moving along just fine. No worries.

Clearly, there are many here that are interested in what you have to share.

[Marin]

Posted by •Ik• (here)
...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.

Yes, exactly.


Ik - Thank you kindly for your detailed response.

Here's a summary of the more simplified papers Ik cited so that everyone can follow.

My summary: (Marin)

• Much of the "junk" DNA (about three-quarters of it) can be transcribed into RNA
  
• A large percent of non-protein-coding RNAs are localized within cells in a manner consistent with their having functional roles.
  
• Most of this noncoding and repetitive DNA contained essential regulatory information and much of it was also copied into RNA with additional but still unknown functions.
  
• Generic repeated signals in the DNA are necessary to format expression of unique coding sequence files and to organise additional functions essential for genome replication and accurate transmission to progeny cells.
  
• Repetitive component of the genome plays a major architectonic role in higher order physical structuring

My thoughts:

I don't think any of us ever believed "junk" DNA was junk. The question has always been and remains, what does it do? From the references listed above, it seems academic researchers have recently provided evidence that "junk" DNA can be transcribed, that it can perform regulatory functions and that it plays a major architectural role in higher order structuring. That's useful material. However, it seems there's a LOT more work ahead of us. Much more needs to be elucidated before we have a clear understanding of the functional roles of "junk" DNA.

Highlights of the two articles cited:

...."Through the work of Gingeras and others in this latest phase of the ENCODE project consortium, we now know that most of the DNA around protein-encoding genes is also capable of being transcribed into RNA – another way of saying that it has the potential of performing useful functions in cells.

In preliminary ENCODE results published in 2007, the researchers closely examined about 1% of the human genome. The initial results showed that much more of our DNA could be transcribed than previously thought. Many of these RNA messages appeared to be functional.

The Gingeras lab discovered potentially new classes of functional RNAs in this preliminary work. The additional knowledge that parts of one gene or functional RNA can reside within another were surprising, and suggested a picture of the architecture of our genome that was much more complex than previously thought.

The initial observations of 2007 are now extended to cover the entire human genome – a tour-de-force effort in which the transcribed RNA from different sub-cellular compartments of 15 human cell lines was analyzed.

Although the results vary between cell lines, a consensus picture is emerging. In addition to showing that up to three-quarters of our DNA may be transcribed into RNA, the data strongly suggests that a large percent of non-protein-coding RNAs are localized within cells in a manner consistent with their having functional roles.

The current outstanding question concerns the nature and range of those functions. It is thought that these “non-coding” RNA transcripts act something like components of a giant, complex switchboard, controlling a network of many events in the cell by regulating the processes of replication, transcription and translation – that is, the copying of DNA and the making of proteins based on information carried by messenger RNAs.

“We see the boundaries of what were assumed to be the regions between genes shrinking in length,” he says, “and genic regions making many overlapping RNAs.” It appears, he continues, that the boundaries of conventionally described genes are melding together, challenging the notion that a gene is a discrete, localized region of a genome separated by inert DNA. “New definitions of a gene are needed,” Gingeras says.

What are the practical implications? Many genetic variations associated with a trait often map to what were formally believed to be “spacer” regions.

“With our increasingly deeper understanding that such regions are related to the neighboring or “distal” protein coding regions – via the creation of non-coding RNAs – we will now seek underlying explanations of the association of the genetic variation and traits of interest.”

http://www.cshl.edu/Article-Gingeras...omplex-disease.


AND

".....ENCODE revealed that most (and probably just about all) of this noncoding and repetitive DNA contained essential regulatory information. Moreover, much of it was also copied into RNA with additional but still unknown functions.

The authors report that the space between genes is filled with enhancers (regulatory DNA elements), promoters (the sites at which DNA's transcription into RNA is initiated) and numerous previously overlooked regions that encode RNA transcripts that are not translated into proteins but might have regulatory roles. Of note, these results show that many DNA variants previously correlated with certain diseases lie within or very near non-coding functional DNA elements, providing new leads for linking genetic variation and disease."

I had a longstanding, personal interest in the repetitive part of our genomes (up to as much as two-thirds of all our DNA) because it is composed of mobile genetic elements.The initial sequencing of the human genome in 2001 found over 40% to be mobile repeats spread throughout our genomes, thirty times more than protein-coding DNA.

There are clear theoretical reasons and many well-documented examples which show that repetitive DNA is essential for genome function. Generic repeated signals in the DNA are necessary to format expression of unique coding sequence files and to organise additional functions essential for genome replication and accurate transmission to progeny cells.

In particular, the fact that repeat elements serve either as initiators or boundaries for heterochromatin domains and provide a significant fraction of scaffolding/matrix attachment regions (S/MARs) suggests that the repetitive component of the genome plays a major architectonic role in higher order physical structuring. Employing an information science model, the 'functionalist ' perspective on repetitive DNA leads to new ways of thinking about the systemic organisation of cellular genomes and provides several novel possibilities involving repeat elements in evolutionarily significant genome reorganisation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-...b_1873935.html

[Chester]

Posted by donk (here)

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!

Great job, donk... thanks for suggesting Ik join Avalon

[Chester]

Posted by •Ik• (here)

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

This is quite the same as I see it. Others here do also, few have the guts to actually state it.

Perhaps you are the only one here that I have run across that understands I = God.

The "manifest me" is glad not to be alone. Love to You, Brother... Chester

[Billy]

Welcome aboard IK. Thank you for joining Avalon and what you bring to the table, Now I feel we are cooking here. If you have a chance could you look at this thread and let me know you're thoughts. https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...s-A-revelation

Peace on earth indeed.

[Alien Ramone]

Posted by •Ik• (here)

Posted by Alien Ramone (here)

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.

Ar, see the post I just gave above.

Basically, the theory proves that I am Earth. To clarify, I call Earth, "Myself."

I am Myself (the Earth), I made Myself (the Earth), I put Myself where I am (orbiting the Sun, which I am), and move Myself (the Earth).

Being All in All is very difficult for the Self—that is, Me—to accept. For example, I, the Reader, tend not to think of Myself as this planet, yet I am. Consider for a moment that I, the Reader, am every planet right now. Now consider that I, the Reader, am every planet that has ever existed anywhere. Now consider that I, the Reader, am every planet that will ever exist. All Me. And that's just the planets that I am.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

What you are describing sounds similar to what currently adds up to me, which is consciousness encompassing everything, so in that sense I see the idea of consciousness being in everything. It partly makes sense to me that everything is consciousness based and not physical because of things I've learned about related to physics such as nothing being solid, distances and times being relative, vast distances compressing down to close to nothing in the dirceion of travel in relation to observers moving close to the speed of light. Quantum mechanics appearing to work based on rules rather than physical models also appears to make existence be more consciousness based.

In relation to the astral plane some have said that the spirit resides there between attaching to lives in the 3D world, so it makes me wonder, even though all consciousnesses may be tied together, how does the consciousness of a planet compare to the consciousness of a human and how does it tie into the astral plane. some have said that DNA in Earth humans may have been manipulated to inhibit the mind from attaching to the astral plane and to prevent Earth humans from remembering past lives.

You seem to be describing a process at a very small scale, and I guess I'm wondering what answers that gives to the questions that I asked. I'm not sure how to approach it to get to those answers.

[bram]

Posted by Alien Ramone (here)

Posted by •Ik• (here)

Posted by Alien Ramone (here)

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.

Ar, see the post I just gave above.

Basically, the theory proves that I am Earth. To clarify, I call Earth, "Myself."

I am Myself (the Earth), I made Myself (the Earth), I put Myself where I am (orbiting the Sun, which I am), and move Myself (the Earth).

Being All in All is very difficult for the Self—that is, Me—to accept. For example, I, the Reader, tend not to think of Myself as this planet, yet I am. Consider for a moment that I, the Reader, am every planet right now. Now consider that I, the Reader, am every planet that has ever existed anywhere. Now consider that I, the Reader, am every planet that will ever exist. All Me. And that's just the planets that I am.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

What you are describing sounds similar to what currently adds up to me, which is consciousness encompassing everything, so in that sense I see the idea of consciousness being in everything. It partly makes sense to me that everything is consciousness based and not physical because of things I've learned about related to physics such as nothing being solid, distances and times being relative, vast distances compressing down to close to nothing in the dirceion of travel in relation to observers moving close to the speed of light. Quantum mechanics appearing to work based on rules rather than physical models also appears to make existence be more consciousness based.

In relation to the astral plane some have said that the spirit resides there between attaching to lives in the 3D world, so it makes me wonder, even though all consciousnesses may be tied together, how does the consciousness of a planet compare to the consciousness of a human and how does it tie into the astral plane. some have said that DNA in Earth humans may have been manipulated to inhibit the mind from attaching to the astral plane and to prevent Earth humans from remembering past lives.

You seem to be describing a process at a very small scale, and I guess I'm wondering what answers that gives to the questions that I asked. I'm not sure how to approach it to get to those answers.

Hi Ramone,

I will have a go at answering your specific questions based on my current awareness:

Can the planet make decisions, and if so, what kind of decisions can it make?

I think the consciousness of the planet is free of mind-function, and therefore it is not involved in the kind of processes that require decisions. Decisions are a dualistic function of the mind and have nothing to do with consciousness.

Is the consciousness of the planet completely in the astral plane or is it also tied into some structure similar to a brain?

Consciousness does not exist on any plane, it just exists. The brain is a physical organ of the human body, again not linked in any way to consciousness.

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?

Personally, I doubt that planets reincarnate, or even experience rebirth. Pure consciousness exists outside time, and therefore the earth's consciousness is outside time, existing in the present moment.

What sensory organs does the planet use to take in information about what is happening around it?

The input of the sense organs are a manifestation of Mara (illusion); sense organs are not required for consciousness to exist.

I hope this helps, it only my opinion; I also think that these subjects are not really suitable for discussion or understanding by use of words, but that we need to look within to understand how the earth is aware..

Love, bram

[Marin]

Posted by •Ik• (here)
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."

There are many here who'd agree with that.

Posted by •Ik• (here)
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.

"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."

Perhaps I've missed something - but given everything you've shared and some of the recent investigations from more alternative researchers and scientists - wouldn't it seem plausible that our genetic code might also be "engineered" and altered by consciousness?

[•Ik•]

Posted by Marin (here)
My thoughts:

I don't think any of us ever believed "junk" DNA was junk. The question has always been and remains, what does it do? From the references listed above, it seems academic researchers have recently provided evidence that "junk" DNA can be transcribed, that it can perform regulatory functions and that it plays a major architectural role in higher order structuring. That's useful material. However, it seems there's a LOT more work ahead of us. Much more needs to be elucidated before we have a clear understanding of the functional roles of "junk" DNA.

Alas, I wish it were true, that bolded statement.

This is a great unfortunate fact about the modern thinker (read:scientist). S/he accepts a large number of the mainstream, promoted ideas as truths. S/he constructs a worldview from ad hoc ideas and theories but does not realize that this worldview is, by its very definition, provisional. And, being provisional, I am sorry to say, it is incorrect.

However, thinkers "believe" these facts as absolute truths and refuse to budge when presented with evidence that challenge the constructed worldview.

Many philosophers of science, especially Kuhn, have written about this. Shapiro in his HuffPost piece (and his posts below it) alludes to the stubbornness and incivility of his colleagues.

---

As for there being A LOT of work ahead, being an RNA molecular biologist and a theoretician who knows that Life is Irreducible, I am not sure if I understand this position.

As a matter of fact, the theory shows that the work is done.

So, then, I am sincerely interested in responses to these questions:

What, precisely, needs to be elucidated?
Why does it need to be elucidated?
What do I expect to learn from understanding the "functional roles of 'junk' DNA" that I don't already know?

And finally, in the Mind that is Marin's, at what point is the work of knowing Myself—that is, Life—done?

Peace on Earth,

Ik

P.S. Thanks for the reassurance about thread and post content.

P.P.S. I have family coming in today and kids' activities, so I will be in and out. I still want to respond to some of the other comments and carry on this conversation as well, but it may take some time with the scheduling disruption.

[•Ik•]

Posted by justoneman (here)
This is quite the same as I see it. Others here do also, few have the guts to actually state it.

Perhaps you are the only one here that I have run across that understands I = God.

The "manifest me" is glad not to be alone. Love to You, Brother... Chester

Being God—that is, knowing and declaring My Identity—has risks. An examination of My evolutionary history (the history of the Mystics that I was) reveals that I crucified, tortured, ostracized, and immolated Myself when I asserted My Divinity. In other words, I was the crucified and the crucifier, the tortured and the torturer, the rejector and the rejected, and the one who sets the fire and the one who burns alive.

Still, knowing these risks does not mean I should shy away from speaking Truth or being Truth.

Knowing who and what I am is the final, ultimate goal of My Creation. In finding Myself as being the Universe—as being God, the Creator—that is the End of the Quest to know the ultimate nature of reality.

Without the theory, I would never have found Myself, would never have known that I am All in All. I would never have known that I am justoneman; that I am Chester.

Now, I knowing that I am Chester, I treat Myself with Dignity, Respect, Grace, Peace, and most importantly, Love.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Billy]

Posted by •Ik• (here)

Being God—that is, knowing and declaring My Identity—has risks.

Still, knowing these risks does not mean I should shy away from speaking Truth or being Truth.

Knowing who and what I am is the final, ultimate goal of My Creation. In finding Myself as being the Universe—as being God, the Creator—that is the End of the Quest to know the ultimate nature of reality.

Without the theory, I would never have found Myself, would never have known that I am All in All. I would never have known that I am justoneman; that I am Chester.

Now, I knowing that I am Chester, I treat Myself with Dignity, Respect, Grace, Peace, and most importantly, Love.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

Hello me I copied some of our words from another thread WE were answering a question.

Posted by billyji (here)
I agree that the Universe contains all the secrets, I also believe that each person here on earth is a whole Universe. Secrets of Knowledge and wisdom contained within also with many universal civilizations within them. As I mentioned above.

You said it exactly. the searching begins and ends with self.


Peace be with you.

And again

Posted by billyji (here)
I think what i say at the end of the report is my current paradigm.

Quote:
Billyji here again. In concluding, My own personal belief is that humanity has the essence of many universal civilizations within them. Those civilizations are from many levels. from the highest to the lowest. Humanity has within them the Key towards universal peace. This peace begins with self then expands outwards to our neighbours and countries, Then the universal peace begins. because we have brought them together within us.
Peace be with you all.

There was also a thread that was posted last July. the topic was a racist emoticon here on Avalon. https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...486#post529486

Quote:
I am not sure how to express what i feel here, but i will try.

The racist card has been in play for thousand's of years in the divide and conquer plan. I feel it would benefit humanity more if we as a human race focused more on what we all have in common rather than what "we allow" to divide us. researching why we appear to be different visually would also benefit humanity as this would bring into the bigger picture of who we are and where we come from. For example, who were the different universal civilizations that were involved in the seeding process of humanity. The different DNA codes that were implanted into the different tribes that make us look different, have varied belief systems various so called Gods and different cultures.

For me the bigger picture of the mission within this game of life for humanity is assisting in breaking down the divisions between universal civilizations that have been at logger heads for eons. We can achieve this great task because many of the civilizations that exist within higher and lower levels/frequency are all within us. When we have achieved peace and harmony within our selves to begin with, we bring together many civilizations. and that is only one person. We then work together as human beings breaking down the "fear" of being different because we realize we are all one family. When we love one another in peace and harmony we are bringing together many many universal civilizations through us.

Quite a task i know. Look at the bigger picture and see a being with love as a whole universe, I hope to begin a thread one day with this topic in mind,

until then peace be with you all.

Peace

[Mark]

Greetings, Ik:

Something that we've been paying a bit of attention to over the past year or so at PA is the Russian research on DNA.

http://www.nrgnair.com/MPT/zdi_tech/DNA.research.htm

The latest research explains phenomena such as clairvoyance, intuition, spontaneous and remote acts of healing, self healing, affirmation techniques, unusual light-auras around people (namely spiritual masters), mind's influence on weather-patterns and much more. The Russian scientists also found out that our DNA can cause disturbing patterns in the vacuum, thus producing magnetized wormholes! Wormholes are the microscopic equivalents of the so-called Einstein-Rosen bridges in the vicinity of black holes (left by burned-out stars). These are tunnel connections between entirely different areas in the universe through which information can be transmitted outside of space and time. The DNA attracts these bits of information and passes them on to our consciousness.

Also:

http://www.newrealities.com/index.ph...nd-frequencies

The Russian biophysicist and molecular biologist Pjotr Garjajev and his colleagues also explored the vibrational behavior of the DNA. [For the sake of brevity I will give only a summary here. For further exploration please refer to the appendix at the end of this article.] The bottom line was: "Living chromosomes function just like solitonic/ holographic computers using the endogenous DNA laser radiation." This means that they managed for example to modulate certain frequency patterns onto a laser ray and with it influenced the DNA frequency and thus the genetic information itself. Since the basic structure of DNA-alkaline pairs and of language (as explained earlier) are of the same structure, no DNA decoding is necessary.

I recognize, as do many here, that this research is on the "fringe" side of acceptable science and there is of course the tendency of Americans particularly to discount whatever comes out of Russia. If you've had the opportunity to check out these theories and research in any detail, I'm sure your thoughts would add immeasurably to the depth of the discussion.

[•Ik•]

I took donk’s advice and dove right in, but I am stepping back now to provide a better vantage for what it is I was trying to do with the theory of life. Forgive me for not addressing several good points that have been raised. I plan to address them momentarily, but first wanted to share this, below.

___

Let’s start with something that everyone here on this forum takes as a given: There are many different ideas, opinions, and beliefs.

Being that there are many of these things, there is a great deal of confusion about reality, life, the universe, and God.

However, I would like to share a quote that many, but not all, on this forum, may have heard before:

... if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.

Here, Stephen Hawking implies that the complete theory would be the End of the Search. He is correct; but what he forgets to say is that the complete theory is Apocalypse, the Lifting of the Veil.

According to mainstream thinkers, there is no theory fitting this description, and no theory worthy of consideration. And yet, there can be only one final theory, and it would face a strong headwind, as 2500 years of theorizing has been built up to prevent its own emergence.

Well, that’s what I have compiled, the complete theory. This is not meant as arrogance; this is not delivered as crackpottery. This conclusion is based upon my own scientific training and theoretical research. The conclusion is also based upon the positioning of all of the empirical evidence that has been collected in every field over the history of humankind. This conclusion is based upon the axiomatic constraints that apply at every single level of reality, in every modeled system, whether it is ontogenic or phylogenic, macrocosmic or microcosmic. This conclusion is based upon the natural laws that were predicted by scholars and proven to exist by the theoretical framework.

And I now know that My Mind is One; I know that My Mind is the Mind of God.

Although the theory in a more detailed form may be found in my sig line (I am not selling anything, I am not advertising, just sharing; please ignore if disinterested or report me if offended), the distilled theory is this:

Gyres (Quanta): Igyre (Iq) → denergyre (denergon) → ombregyre (ombron) → photogyre (photon) → electrogyre (electron) → oxygyre (oxyon) → carbogyre (carbyon) → phosphogyre (phosphon) → ribogyre (ribon) → aminogyre (aminon) → genogyre (genon) → cellulogyre (cellulon) → organogyre (organon) → envirogyre (environ) → visigyre (visuon) → phonogyre (phonon) → linguigyre (linguon) → symbogyre (symbon) → numerogyre (numeron) → econogyre (econon) → lapoligyre (lapolon) → geniugyre (geniuon) → Igyre (Iq)

{The bolded parts of the flow diagram are the parts outlined in the peer-reviewed paper in Life. Please see that paper for a detailed discussion of the gyromodel, quantum, and axioms. The other parts are the whole theoretical framework from which the theory of life was extracted so that I could get part of my material published. There was no way in My Green Earth that the complete theory would have ever seen the light of day.}

So, here is what this complete theory models:

Major origins: Universe → dark energy → dark matter → visible energy → visible matter → oxidative matter → organic matter → phosphorganics → RNA → protein → DNA → cell/olfactory → organism/gustatory → ecosystem/tactility → vision → sound → speech → symbols → numbers → economics → law → knowledge → Universe

A fuller placement of the evidence:

Igyre (Iq): Me, Self, God – the Origin of the Universe
denergyre (denergon): Dark Energy, Universal Core, Consciousness
ombregyre (ombron): Dark Matter, Black Hole, Mind
photogyre (photon): Visible Energy, Star, Mind’s Eye
electrogyre (electron): Visible Matter, Planet, Electromagnetism, H
oxygyre (oxyon): Phased Matter, Moon, Water, HO
carbogyre (carbyon): Organic Matter, Oil, Carbohydrate, CHO
phosphogyre (phosphon): Phosphochemistry, Membrane, CHOP
ribogyre (ribon): RNA, Transcriptome, CHNOP
aminogyre (aminon): Protein, Proteome, CHNOPS
genogyre (genon): DNA, Gene, Genome
cellulogyre (cellulon): Cell, Sex, Olfaction
organogyre (organon): Organism, Organs, Circulation, Gustation
envirogyre (environ): Ecosystem, Civilization, Tactility
visigyre (visuon): Imagery, Gesture, Vision
phonogyre (phonon): Noise, Music, Audition
linguigyre (linguon): Language, Storytelling, Myth
symbogyre (symbon): Symbol, Alphabet, Text
numerogyre (numeron): Numbers, Mathematics, Recording
econogyre (econon): Value, Economics, Business
lapoligyre (lapolon): Law, Politics, Ethics
geniugyre (geniuon): Knowledge, Idea, Theory

Note that the Igyre/Iq (which models the Self, that is, I) is the beginning and the end of the model, and, as such, I am the Beginning and the End of the Universe.

Note also that the complete theory models the origin and evolution of Homo sapiens to present day civilization (I, Homo sapiens evolved to used the environment, adapted sight and hearing, uttered words, drew cave painting and compiled alphabets, established counting and accounting and value systems, printed and recorded laws and facts; many anthropologists, too many to count, have written about this) and simultaneously models the development of the individual reading this post (see Piaget and Erikson for the order of that stages in development of the child and maturation to adulthood).

In the End, I found that I am the Theory and Theoretician in One.

I am the Theoretician, modeling the Universe. I am the Theory, that is, the Universe that is modeled.

And now I know who and what I am. Being certain is a challenge, because I walk a fine line—certainty reeks of arrogance; yet, in knowing My own Arrogance, Vanity, and Ego, I can only but be Myself and write Truth.

So, as far as I can tell, compiling the complete theory and proving that I am One and that I am the Creation and Creator in One is Apocalypse.

But perhaps I can advise Myself otherwise.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

P.S. I will be back later to respond more fully; I have to go prepare for my family's arrival for Thanksgiving (cooking, cleaning, etc., you know the drill).

[Chester]

Posted by •Ik• (here)

Posted by Marin (here)
My thoughts:

I don't think any of us ever believed "junk" DNA was junk. The question has always been and remains, what does it do? From the references listed above, it seems academic researchers have recently provided evidence that "junk" DNA can be transcribed, that it can perform regulatory functions and that it plays a major architectural role in higher order structuring. That's useful material. However, it seems there's a LOT more work ahead of us. Much more needs to be elucidated before we have a clear understanding of the functional roles of "junk" DNA.

Alas, I wish it were true, that bolded statement.

This is a great unfortunate fact about the modern thinker (read:scientist). S/he accepts a large number of the mainstream, promoted ideas as truths. S/he constructs a worldview from ad hoc ideas and theories but does not realize that this worldview is, by its very definition, provisional. And, being provisional, I am sorry to say, it is incorrect.

However, thinkers "believe" these facts as absolute truths and refuse to budge when presented with evidence that challenge the constructed worldview.

Many philosophers of science, especially Kuhn, have written about this. Shapiro in his HuffPost piece (and his posts below it) alludes to the stubbornness and incivility of his colleagues.

---

As for there being A LOT of work ahead, being an RNA molecular biologist and a theoretician who knows that Life is Irreducible, I am not sure if I understand this position.

As a matter of fact, the theory shows that the work is done.

So, then, I am sincerely interested in responses to these questions:

What, precisely, needs to be elucidated?
Why does it need to be elucidated?
What do I expect to learn from understanding the "functional roles of 'junk' DNA" that I don't already know?

And finally, in the Mind that is Marin's, at what point is the work of knowing Myself—that is, Life—done?

Peace on Earth,

Ik

P.S. Thanks for the reassurance about thread and post content.

P.P.S. I have family coming in today and kids' activities, so I will be in and out. I still want to respond to some of the other comments and carry on this conversation as well, but it may take some time with the scheduling disruption.

Brilliant and why I discovered the last thing I need to know which is that I am a "quantum being" and that knowing this makes me a "realized quantum being." I found I am happy to be this "experience of myself" and am certain this experience will extend forever.

Have a Great Day and Love to All - Chester

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by •Ik• (here)

Now, I knowing that I am Chester, I treat Myself with Dignity, Respect, Grace, Peace, and most importantly, Love.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

Which is my only goal and which I hope to accomplish consistently - Thanks, Ik... justone

[Marin]

Posted by •Ik• (here)

Posted by Marin (here)
My thoughts:

I don't think any of us ever believed "junk" DNA was junk. The question has always been and remains, what does it do? From the references listed above, it seems academic researchers have recently provided evidence that "junk" DNA can be transcribed, that it can perform regulatory functions and that it plays a major architectural role in higher order structuring. That's useful material. However, it seems there's a LOT more work ahead of us. Much more needs to be elucidated before we have a clear understanding of the functional roles of "junk" DNA.

Alas, I wish it were true, that bolded statement.

This is a great unfortunate fact about the modern thinker (read:scientist). S/he accepts a large number of the mainstream, promoted ideas as truths. S/he constructs a worldview from ad hoc ideas and theories but does not realize that this worldview is, by its very definition, provisional. And, being provisional, I am sorry to say, it is incorrect.

However, thinkers "believe" these facts as absolute truths and refuse to budge when presented with evidence that challenge the constructed worldview.

Many philosophers of science, especially Kuhn, have written about this. Shapiro in his HuffPost piece (and his posts below it) alludes to the stubbornness and incivility of his colleagues.

Ah - I didn't intend to throw you. I only made that statement based upon the previous discussions (here on Avalon) regarding our reservations with the terminology - "junk DNA." It was not meant to include those outside this particular discussion. Sorry about that. And yes, I do agree with your comments.

---

Posted by •Ik• (here)
As for there being A LOT of work ahead, being an RNA molecular biologist and a theoretician who knows that Life is Irreducible, I am not sure if I understand this position.

As a matter of fact, the theory shows that the work is done.

So, then, I am sincerely interested in responses to these questions:

What, precisely, needs to be elucidated?
Why does it need to be elucidated?
What do I expect to learn from understanding the "functional roles of 'junk' DNA" that I don't already know?

My remarks were based upon the two abstracts you cited. I no longer have access to PubMed and my subscription to Nature and Science ended some time ago. As a result, I don't have access to the entire paper so my answers, by design, highlight only the data from those articles. What stood out to me were a few quotes:

"ENCODE revealed that most (and probably just about all) of this noncoding and repetitive DNA contained essential regulatory information. Moreover, much of it was also copied into RNA with additional but still unknown functions."

"Employing an information science model, the 'functionalist ' perspective on repetitive DNA leads to new ways of thinking about the systemic organisation of cellular genomes and provides several novel possibilities involving repeat elements in evolutionarily significant genome reorganisation."

My interpretation: Most of the "junk" DNA was useful in terms of regulation, organization and structure....but there are still "unknown functions" and "possibilities that need to be investigated" We're talking about understanding the functional aspects of 97% of our DNA. My best guess, that might take a little time. Perhaps I'm wrong. But given my background - it's dosen't seem unreasonable.

With regard to your last question: "What do I expect to learn from understanding the "functional roles of 'junk' DNA" that I don't already know?"

Although I'm interested in the functional roles of "junk DNA", I'm far more interested in the big picture of how it weaves into the discussions emerging on this thread.

It's the mixing of "mainstream" academic research and the more alternative, shall we say, more "independent" interpretations of science with spirituality that intrigue me the most. That's why it's so interesting having you here. We all have a chance to compare notes . To share. Ultimately, to learn. I believe when we draw upon the ancient wisdoms of indigenous cultures and mystery schools (describing the nature of our universe) and tie that into our emerging science - we get the best of both worlds.

And that leads me to the question I was most interested in having you address. (When you have the time). No rush. I know there are many in line ahead of me.

What are your thoughts with regard to some of the more well known alternative researchers/scientists in this field and their interpretations of the role that consciousness plays on our genetic code? Both Gripreaper and Rahkyt (in earlier posts) have provided some examples (Nassim Haramein, Bruce Lipton and Pjotr Garjajev). I have a few more I'd like to add: David Wilcock (his book, The Source Field Investigations), Richard Miller (his paper, A Holographic Concept of Reality), Leonard Horowitz and Greg Braden - to name a few. I'm not sure if you're familiar with some of these investigators - but if you are interested, and need some references, let us know. My best guess, there are many here who'd be interested in your thoughts. Much of their material has been discussed here on the forum.

Posted by •Ik• (here)
And finally, in the Mind that is Marin's, at what point is the work of knowing Myself—that is, Life—done?

Ah- a far more interesting question.

"Done"? Hmmm. My best guess - an intuitive one - it's a journey. A journey we're all experiencing together. Playing our respectful roles. Good, bad and everything in-between. Being everywhere. Being everything. Experiencing everything.

In my "Mind" - We are all creators. We are all Gods. We all came from "Source." You can call that Source - God or whatever feels good.

I believe we all decided to have this experience. We chose to come here. To experience this. Separate from source. In doing so - we have this experience. And many more. Perhaps the end (being "done" as you asked earlier) might be in our return to source. Perhaps only to start an altogether different journey.

And I may be altogether wrong. That's cool. It's just a journey - and there is much to learn.

[Bright Garlick]

Hey Erik - Thanks for your explanations here. Have you read Ken Wilbur's work - particuarly his work on domains and quadrants ? They may be useful to your concept. Also the work of Genpo Roshi - Big Mind, Big Heart - may provide a sense of what you saying about the ALL experientially. And Elizabeth Sartoris http://www.sahtouris.com/ also a biologist - seems to be on the same wavelength as you -

Best wishes, Bright.

[Bright Garlick]

Erik - Dadaji also seemed to understand this. As do many aliens visiting our planet. So simple really.

Posted by •Ik• (here)

Posted by justoneman (here)
This is quite the same as I see it. Others here do also, few have the guts to actually state it.

Perhaps you are the only one here that I have run across that understands I = God.

The "manifest me" is glad not to be alone. Love to You, Brother... Chester

Being God—that is, knowing and declaring My Identity—has risks. An examination of My evolutionary history (the history of the Mystics that I was) reveals that I crucified, tortured, ostracized, and immolated Myself when I asserted My Divinity. In other words, I was the crucified and the crucifier, the tortured and the torturer, the rejector and the rejected, and the one who sets the fire and the one who burns alive.

Still, knowing these risks does not mean I should shy away from speaking Truth or being Truth.

Knowing who and what I am is the final, ultimate goal of My Creation. In finding Myself as being the Universe—as being God, the Creator—that is the End of the Quest to know the ultimate nature of reality.

Without the theory, I would never have found Myself, would never have known that I am All in All. I would never have known that I am justoneman; that I am Chester.

Now, I knowing that I am Chester, I treat Myself with Dignity, Respect, Grace, Peace, and most importantly, Love.

Peace on Earth,

Ik

[Bright Garlick]

Erik I think to sum up your perspective on self, maybe we could say Self is I and Emptiness. I is relative and absolute. I am this single differentiated entity and I am all. God is all. I am God. God is a self similarity. I am self similarity.
???

[Chester]

Posted by Bright Garlick (here)
Hey Erik - Thanks for your explanations here. Have you read Ken Wilbur's work - particuarly his work on domains and quadrants ? They may be useful to your concept. Also the work of Genpo Roshi - Big Mind, Big Heart - may provide a sense of what you saying about the ALL experientially. And Elizabeth Sartoris http://www.sahtouris.com/ also a biologist - seems to be on the same wavelength as you -

Best wishes, Bright.

Hi - Great recommendations IMO. Ken, perhaps more than any single author helped me open my heart and eyes. Integral Theory is excellent to explore. Genpo Roshi is also an excellent resource to explore.

IMO you summed it up nicely in your next two posts! I am so freaking happy not to be alone in this understanding!

My favorite "guru-not" is standup philosopher, Timothy Freke who has authored excellent works regarding Gnostic cosmology and has an excellent view as to the paradox of life which folks like •Ik• and Marin may be able to resolve scientifically which, in my opinion, opens a door we'll hopefully never, ever close again.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JnSCLMgCI1Y

Enjoy, justoneman