Notiuni de biologie

indestr,
Acuma le bag. Ia vezi ce ai de comentat la ele inainte sa le dezvoltam.

1. Nu stim cum a aparut Universul. Unii sustin ca a fost creatia unei fiinte superioare numite Dumnezeu, altii sustin teoria Big Bang. Nici una dintre ele nu explica nimic si nu poate fi sustinuta de argumente.

2. Ne putem mari aria de intelegere doar prin metoda "Sherlock Holmes", adica analizand pana in cele mai mici detalii urmele creatiei (aici includem si viata, pe langa materie). Dar evident ca aceasta analiza este subiectiva.

3. Pentru a elimina subiectivismul o sa acceptam ca ipoteze valabile doar acele lucruri apartinand realitatii obiective intr-un sistem de referinta.
Exemplu:
Sistem de referinta: planeta Pamant.
Lege: O piatra aruncata in sus cu o viteza mai mica decat viteza necesara invingerii gravitatiei va cadea odata si odata. (nu intram in amanunte si anume definirea gravitatiei).

Sistem de referinta: atmosfera extraterestra.
Lege: Viata asa cum o cunoastem pe baza de carbon nu este posibila in acest mediu.

Sistem de referinta: planeta Pamant si atmosfera extraterestra.
Lege: Definim notiunile de "sus","jos", "inainte" , "inapoi" in functie de un punct de reper stabilit de experimentator.

4. Dorim sa vedem daca este posibil ca Universul sa fie creat de o fiinta superioara, si care ar fi natura acestei fiinte. Nu vom accepta pentru dezbateri decat ceea ce cunoastem obiectiv pana in prezent.

PS: Ipotezele de mai sus au o inlantuire logica incepand cu prima si terminand cu ultima.

Edited by landscape10, 12 March 2006 - 13:36.

landscape10, on Mar 12 2006, 13:35, said:

Pot fi sustinute cu unele argumente dar nu sunt suficiente pentru a obtine o certitudine. Nu putem decide care e varianta adevarata, una dintre cele doua sau oricare alta.

Quote

Corect.

Quote

Daca elimini subiectivismul nu mai ramai cu nimic pe anumite subiecte, cum ar fi existenta divinitatii spre exemplu, dar fie... :D Nu vad unde vrei s-ajungi...

Quote

Daca vei accepta doar ceea ce cunosti in mod obiectiv, vei pica exact in...indecidabil.... :D Si da, va rezulta exact ce am spus de la inceput ca divinitatea e posibila...tocmai pentru ca ce cunoastem obiectiv nu o face imposibila. Ce anume din stiinta neaga existenta divinitatii? Sa auzim!

Ayame, on Mar 12 2006, 13:24, said:

Ayame sper ca nu mi-ai luat in serios glumele.  :D Atmosfera pe topicul asta a degenerat , am dat-o in fun. :D

Edited by indestr, 12 March 2006 - 13:55.

Nu picam deloc in indecidabil. Eu sustin ca existenta divinitatii nu poate fi demonstrata, plecand de la premisa ca mai degraba acceptam ceva mai apropiat realitatii obiective decat ceva mai indepartat.
Probabilistic, avand in vedere ca sunt multe necunoscute, credinciosii mai au un bastion de refugiu pe care nu il putem atinge, deoarece argumentele lor se bazeaza pe necunoastere.

Intrebare: Ce iti este mai usor sa accepti conform realitatii obiective? Faptul ca la inceput a fost Dumnezeu, care este o fiinta complexa, sau faptul ca la inceput a fost materia primara, care nu atinge gradul de complexitate al lui Dumnezeu (si anume constiinta)?
Conform cu ce cunoastem mult mai logica este a doua varianta.
Ai un pistol cu 3 gloante si unul cu un glont. Cu care preferi sa joci ruleta ruseasca? Nu cu al doilea? (Stiu, cu niciunul, dar sa presupunem ca ai fi nevoit sa alegi).

Edited by landscape10, 12 March 2006 - 13:56.

landscape10, on Mar 12 2006, 13:35, said:

Măi, în cazul ăsta discuțiile n-au rostul. Deloc. Serios. N-o să te convină nimeni.
Tu nu înțelegi că știința, prin tipul de abordare folosit nu va ajunge niciodată să cunoască lucrurile astea?

landscape10, on Mar 12 2006, 13:56, said:

Off! O luam de la inceput.... N-am spus de n-spe mii de ori pana acum ca nu poti demonstra nici existenta , nici nonexistenta divinitatii. Daca accepti ceva apropiat nu inseamna ca acea acceptare infirma ceva mai indepartat. Asta e eroarea de logica facuta de voi. Credeti ca legea gravitatiei, spre exemplu infirma existenta divinitatii. Nici vorba, e alta mancare de peste. E ca si cum ai spune ca nu exista martieni pentru ca deja cunosti care e punctul de fierbere al apei.  :D
Divinitatea nu poate face obiectul unei experiente stiintifice ! Nu poti afla printr-o astfel de experienta daca exista sau nu exista.

Quote

Nici argumentele necredinciosilor nu sunt valide. Spun cel mult ca nu exista branza pentru ca exista mamaliga.  :D Cum demonstrezi ca e mai probabil sa  nu existe decat sa existe? Nici un calcul al probabilitatii macar nu poti face.

Quote

Accept cu mai multa usurinta prima varianta.   :D Ce-i aia `materie primara`?  :confuzzled:

Quote

De ce ar fi mai logic ca materia primara sa fie vesnica in loc de a  fi la randu-i creata de dumnezeu? ( cu toate legile ei )

Quote

Analogia nu e buna. In cazul nostru nu stim cate gloante are unul si cate celalalt, nici un calcul probabilistic nu se poate face.

Edited by indestr, 12 March 2006 - 14:13.

landscape10, on Mar 12 2006, 11:56, said:

landscape, intai trebuie clarificate notiunile de realitate obiectiva, materie primara, constiinta :)

of, forget it, hai c-o sun pe verisoara-mea :D

indestr m-ai întrebat dacă poate fi experimentată acea Conștiență Pură într-unul din posturi.. ți-am dat atunci un răspuns.. și acum mai dau unul..
efortul fizic intens duce la o oboseală accentuată iar gândurile la un moment nu mai au puterea să apară, ele se diluează atât de mult încât dispar.. Sinele poate fi contemplat în astel de momente.. dar e nevoie de un efort fizic foarte intens..

The concept of witnessing causes a lot of confusion, which is inevitable as long as the mind tries to understand it. The ego-mind wants to be able to witness itself, while it is functioning, which is impossible. How can the mind step outside of itself? The mind is a closed system, and within its scope is everything that can be objectified. Witnessing, however, is pure subjectivity. It cannot be objectified, and so it is outside of the scope of the mind. Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj said that witnessing happens to the absolute. The absolute, or Parabrahman, is that which is beyond knowledge, beyond the manifest, or objectifiable, world that we can see or conceive. Witnessing happens when there is something to witness. Being alive means that there is something to witness for the absolute. You might say that it has taken a form for that purpose. Where there is life, there is always awareness, witnessing, of what is happening. For example, you just read the previous line of this letter. The fact that you know, you agree, that yes, you did read that line, shows that witnessing was occuring at that time. So witnessing is the awareness that is always present. This awareness even witnessed your deep sleep state.
There is no question of anyone "doing" any witnessing. Witnessing is simply the natural action of knowledge. It is already going on, all the time. The only thing is that until Self-knowledge happens, one does not know that one is the witness; one assumes that one is an individual person. There is no witness apart from the witnessing. Of course, what is witnessed is not true, it is only an appearance, or the reflection of the absolute. The witnessing is consciousness, and in the play of consciousness all things appear and disappear. The trick of the absolute is that everything is contained within this witnessing knowledge. Because of the appearance of knowledge, witnessing happens to the absolute, but the absolute is not affected by it.

indestr, on Mar 12 2006, 12:33, said:

Termina cu prostiile. Realitatea nu este asa cum vrei tu. :D Uita-te macar pe wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger_equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_particle

Rezumate gasesti garla pe net (mult mai competente decat ale mele), nu trebuie sa ti le fac eu. Important este sa vorbesti (si sa contrazici) in cunostinta de cauza. ;)

indestr, on Mar 12 2006, 12:33, said:

Argumentatia ta este stupida: postulezi tot felul de imposibilitati bazandu-te pe propria ignoranta (asa cum ai facut si cu intelesul cuvintelor si intelesul frazelor). Esti la fel ca o baba care spune ca pamantul nu poate fi rotund pentru ca am cadea de pe el. :lol:

indestr, on Mar 12 2006, 12:33, said:

Nu te mai fuduli atat cu cateva idei fixe. Uite, am rugat-o pe verisoara lui landscape sa-ti explice exact la nivelul tau:
http://www.whatthebleep.com/trailer/doubleslit.wm.low.html
Ai grija cum te porti cu ea; sa nu-i zici aceleasi prostii ca se enerveaza cam repede... :D

indestr, on Mar 12 2006, 12:33, said:

:cursing:

Edited by bonobo, 12 March 2006 - 16:04.

1) Final reality is reflected in each individual being as knowledge. Pure awareness becomes self-awareness and the individual gets the knowledge “I am, I exist.” This reflection of the oneness of reality as knowledge creates duality, because when there is the sense of “I,” there is also the sense of “not-I.” This false sense of separation is the fundamental illusion, in which the whole world of separate names and forms appears. This is why it is said that knowledge is the greatest ignorance.

2) Although knowledge is a reflection of final reality, it is time-bound. It depends on the food consumed by the gross physical body for its continuation, just as a fire depends on its fuel. The objects of the world appear as movement in knowledge just as flames appear in fire or waves appear on the ocean. Objects exist as the perceiving of them and the perceiving of them is what the objects are. So-called birth and death are only the beginning and end of this movement of knowledge in a particular form. However, human beings fear death because they believe that they are the individualized forms of knowledge that have appeared. This is impossible. How can the ocean be the wave?

3) There are no individual “persons” anywhere, no “you” and no “me.” This illusion is created in knowledge, by knowledge, through a process of objectifying. “I” take myself to be an object and so "I" see other objects everywhere. Individuals exist only as one anothers’ concepts. The “I” or “ego” that makes the individual feel real is just a thought. In reality, “I" don’t exist.

4) Whenever there is the thought of “me” as a separate personality, there is what is called “bondage.” “Liberation” is the disappearance of this false concept of individual “I.” When there is no objectifying, as in deep sleep, there is no knowledge, no “I,” and no world. However, we remain as pure awareness. When we realize this, we never worry about anything.

5) There can never be any knowledge or experience of the pure awareness that we are, because all experience is objectifying and there is never any objectifying in the final reality, which is pure subjectivity. The world is nothing but experiencing and so we say that the world is not true.

6) In sleep, when there is the smallest movement of knowledge, that is, when a thought arises, a dream begins and the dream includes an “I” to experience the dream events. In the morning, when the waking state comes, the dream state disappears. Another “I,” or series of "I's," appears to experience the events of the waking state. This state appears to be real, in comparison to the dream state, but it is essentially no different from it, being also just a state that appears and disappears. For this reason, we say that life is a long dream.

7) The "problem" of spiritual seeking is that as long as there is the false concept of “I,” then that which is seeking is an object and an object cannot know reality, any more than a shadow can know its substance. The seeker and the search are therefore both illusory. The seeker is already what is being sought. The only problem is the belief in the illusory “I.” Ultimately, the seeker and the search have to be given up so that He, the reality, can realize Himself. In this teaching, it is said that "when you are not, He is there."

8) The world appears but has no reality of its own. However, it is a mirroring of reality and so is not separate from it. The underlying substance, the “being,” of the world is reality itself. The limited known appears in the unlimited unknown. Reality is unmanifest, unknown, and the objectifying of the world (which means the perceiving or experiencing of it), is the manifest, known, aspect of that reality. Therefore everything we see or perceive is in fact He, the reality.

Glosar:
knowledge= the power, the consciousness that pervades everywhere. Knowledge is misinterpreted in the body and mind as the illusion of individual existence as a person, who then becomes an object. This false knowledge arises from ignorance and is the mula Maya, or original illusion. When this knowledge arises, in early childhood, and also every morning when the body and mind "wake up," the whole world appears. There is no knowledge in deep sleep or in the final reality.
universal consciousness= the impersonal, pure knowledge that inhabits all forms.
Context: "When you understand that you are not the body, your consiousness becomes universal."
thought= a concept, image, or belief that arises. There is no separate thinker. The thought itself creates the thinker.
Context: "Bad and good thoughts come and go on you. They don't remain. Thoughts are like the wind."
Parabrahman= the final reality that is the attributeless aspect of Brahman or pure knowledge. Para means beyond, so Parabrahman indicates non-relative Brahman, or Brahman considered as the absolute. Compare with Brahman.
Context: "Parabrahman is He, and He is everywhere."
He= the manifest aspect of reality, the pure knowledge or universal consciousness that is the substance in all forms.
Context: "Understand the power. You are the power. You are He."
I= the Self or final reality. However, "I" is appropriated by the ego to refer to the imaginary entity that it takes itself to be.
Context: "You never forget yourself. You're always there. But you misrepresent the "I."
Brahman= the all-pervading aspect of knowledge or consciousness. Reality considered in the relative sense. Compare with Parabrahman.
consciousness= a synonym for knowledge.
creator= the power that allows the names and forms to be projected by the mind on the screen of the Self.
Context: "From knowledge everything happens. Knowledge is the creator."
causal body= the realm of complete absence of thought from which thought arises and into which it disappears. The causal body is pure ignorance or forgetfulness. It is called the causal body because, without it, thoughts and objects could not appear, that is, there has to be "nothing" in order for there to be "something." It is a peaceful state, due to the absence of disturbance. It is perceived as emptiness or void by the ego.
Context: "In the causal body, any thought may come at any time."
God= the manifest, or creative aspect of reality that pervades and gives life to everything.
Context: "God and his creation are not true when knowledge goes off."
final reality= the unmanifest oneness that in itself is not aware of itself. It becomes aware of itself through knowledge. In the final reality, knowledge is in the unmanifest state and exists only as potential.
Context: "On one side, the whole world is there. On the other, final reality."
ego= the concept or assumption that "I" exist as a separate individual. The ego is the embodiment of ignorance. Ego actually has no existence. It is merely imagined. However, where there is a belief it exists, it does exist. The cause and the effect are the same.
Context: "The ego is like the barren woman's son. It doesn't exist but still you say "I've done it."
not true= a superimposition or appearance only, without existence apart from the underlying reality. Everything that happens is appearance only, like a reflection in a mirror. The reflection is not the reality, and so reality remains untouched by anything that appears.
Context: "The world you see is nothing but a reflection of reality. Reflection cannot be true."
oneness= the condition of non-duality, in which there is no sense of separation between "I" and "the rest of the world." Compare with duality.
Context: "There is only oneness, so whatever you see and perceive is He."
witnessing= a quality of knowledge in the mahakarana body that sees the objects that appear but does not identify itself with them or say "mine." In the final reality, witnessing is not true, because in oneness there is no seer and no seen.
Context: "If you forget the witnessing, then you don't remain, otherwise you are still there. The one who witnesses always remains."
mind= the subtle level in which thoughts appear. Thoughts can be of the illusory "I" or they can be the correct thoughts given by the Master.
Context: "The mind is your greatest enemy and your greatest friend."

Edited by shapeshifter, 12 March 2006 - 16:17.

Blitzkrieg, on Mar 12 2006, 05:08, said:

Intelligent design este o teorie care si-a trait clipele de glorie (si nici alea nu au fost cine stie ce). Dupa ce stiinta a fost impotriva ei, acum s-a trezit si biserica. :)

Neuron, on Mar 12 2006, 06:10, said:

:naughty:  :coolspeak:

bonobo, on Mar 12 2006, 15:48, said:

Te-ai luat  de gluma aia cu asa vreau eu.. singurul contraargument serios. :lol: In rest nu mi-ai raspuns nimic, te-ai rezumat la link-uri care-mi confirma parerile.  :P

Quote

Daca era stupida ai fi raspuns punctual. Imi spui: ` ba esti prost`...dar nu-mi arati de ce.  :D

Quote

Aia era verisoara landscape?  :huh:

P.S. : Nici un link si nici filmuletul ala cu o gramada de dungi p-acolo nu ma contrazic.  Trag doar concluzia ca astia n-au vazut in viata lor la fata vreo particula elementara si cu atat mai putin un foton, ci abereaza despre ele pe baza unor analogii cu comportamentul la nivel macro, care-ti spune ca daca apar naptispe dungi la trecerea prin niste fante tre` sa fie unda etc... :P

P.S. : OK ! Fara gluma, lasa-ma un timp sa ma informez mai exact ce si cum cu fotonul asta si discutam mai incolo.   :D

Edited by indestr, 12 March 2006 - 16:46.

bonobo, on Mar 12 2006, 07:48, said:

Am vrut si eu mai demult sa vad filmul  What the bleep do we know!?, dar m-am uitat pe imdb (asa cum fac pentru orice film) si mi-a trecut aceasta dorinta:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/
Vad ca partea a doua de unde dai tu linkul de mai sus e mai bine cotata un pic dar e de abia la inceput:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499596/
Dupa ce am citit comentariile de pe micul forum de pe imdb legate de acest al doilea episod nu o sa ma uit nici la asta. :)

Edited by Neuron, 12 March 2006 - 17:41.

Documentare misto in domeniul meu mi se par cele de la PBS. Daca aveti de unde sa le luati merita:
The secret life of the brain:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/brain/
DNA:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dna/index.html

De asemenea tot de la PBS mi-au mai placut:
The elegant universe:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
Magnetic storm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/

Gasiti in linkurile date de mine animatii, comentarii si multe altele.
Enjoy :)

PS: Si daca aveti o conexiune buna la net puteti urmari si documentare online:
http://www.pbs.org/w...a/programs.html

Edited by Neuron, 12 March 2006 - 18:17.

Neuron, on Mar 12 2006, 17:31, said:

Ai dreptate, dar sunt doua aspecte aici:

1. Filmuletul pe care i l-am dat lui indestr are un merit: prezinta faptele experimentale corect si la nivelul lui de informare :D. Aceste fapte releva faptul ca dincolo de precizia determinarii pozitiei particulei, pentru a crea franje de interferenta, ea trebuie sa treaca simultan prin ambele fante (ca o unda) chiar daca in final se ciocneste cu panoul ca o particula (punctual).

2. Finalul si concluzia trase sunt gresite si tendentioase: ei spun ca observatorul, atunci cand incearca sa determine fanta prin care a trecut de fapt particula, colapseaza functia de unda, sugerand faptul ca constiinta/observatorul afecteaza legile fizicii. Dar ei evita sa spuna ca observatorul nu poate fi pasiv :naughty:. Pentru a determina pozitia particulei (deci pentru a determina fanta prin care a trecut sau va trece ea), observatorul trebuie sa interactioneze cu particula: trebuie sa trimita un foton care sa se ciocneasca cu particula si sa se intoarca pentru a fi receptionat de observator. In fapt, aceasta interactiune (ciocnire) colapseaza functia de unda.

Exista si experimente de interferenta facute pe atomi excitati in loc de electroni. In acest caz, atomii emit regulat fotoni, putandu-se determina traseul lor fara a fi nevoie sa fie perturbati de un 'bombardament' cu fotoni din partea observatorului. Si in acest caz, daca fotonii emisi de atomi sunt captati, franjele dispar, iar explicatia nu mai poate fi aceea a perturbarii trasei lor de interactiunea cu fotonii trimisi de observator.

Se pare ca explicatia corecta a colapsului functiei de unda este fenomenul de quantum entanglement: fotonii emisi de atomi sau cei reflectati de electroni se afla intr-o stare cuantica cuplata cu cea a atomului/particulei care i-a emis/reflectat (atomul/particula si fotonul formeaza un sistem cuantic inseparabil). Atunci cand fotonii interactioneaza cu aparatul de masura, starea lor cuantica se schimba (functia lor de unda colapseaza) dar, instantaneu colapseaza si functia de unda a atomului/particulei, aceasta ducand la disparitia franjelor de interferenta.

Oricum, astea sunt subtilitati prea mari si neintuitive si exista riscul ca indestr sa le postuleze ca fiind imposibile sau supranaturale. :lol:

indestr, on Mar 12 2006, 16:43, said:

Da' tu ce credeai? Stai sa vezi ce reactie o sa ai cand o sa-ti pariezi toti banii pe predictiile programului ala de bursa. :coolspeak:

Edited by bonobo, 12 March 2006 - 18:41.

bonobo, on Mar 12 2006, 18:26, said:

Nu e modelul bun, aia nu stiu ce e lumina iti spun yo...Si atunci creeaza modele macro tip unda, particula care s-ar putea sa nu se mai potriveasca la nivelul ala , de unde si contradictiile puse sub forma unor aberatii gen: colapseaza functia de unda.

Quote

Constiinta da, poate afecta legile fizicii. Intotdeauna am spus asta.  :D
Cat despre interpretarea ta cu colapsarea functiei de unda prin interactiunea cu fotonul `trimis` de observator mai mult decat haioasa nu e... :D Adica tu cand privesti ceva, trimiti niste fotoni care se ciocnesc de obiectul vazut si se intorc la tine.  :lol: Bonobo doar receptionezi fotonii aparatul tau vizual nu produce nici un foton, nu trimite nimic...