Re: Mind's Eye Instinct for survival

Since this is somewhat on topic has anyone ran across a modern rendition
of the universe speculating our position and the layout? Every time I
look there are irritating answers around such as "there is no center"
and such, never seen a satisfactory attempt at an answer for our
position within the universe (say, as one find it within galactic
clusters, solar systems, etc). A graphic would be really nice, please
share if you've seen one!

On 11/30/2012 1:32 PM, andrew vecsey wrote:
> Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy component to it
> because matter is manifested as atoms which have motion in them. But I
> could also envision pure motion without involving any atoms...like a
> vibration in the fabric of space,
>
> On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee Douglas wrote:
>
> Heh except of course that when it comes right down to it.energy is
> matter and matter is energy.
> On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew vecsey wrote:
>
> The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be
> circumnavigated by the possibility that the original creator was
> not matter, but energy. Just like thinking of anything is much
> faster and much easier than building it, it becomes conceivable
> that energy patterns could have evolved in a random chance way
> and finely tuned by selective processes to reach intelligence
> similar to how most scientists believe that patterns of atoms
> and molecules evolved to form intelligent life.
>
> Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they
> manipulated atoms to desired patterns and forms to code the
> information required for life and to allow them to evolve on
> their own to complex intelligent beings able to wonder at and
> eventually to solve the riddle of where they came from, where
> they are going and why they are alive. Meaning and purpose could
> then be given to our fleeting moment of existence.
>
>
> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1, archytas wrote:
>
> ....... All we have in respect of this is to posit
> creation, begging the question of what created that in an
> infinite
> regress. .....We might get to an intelligent state in which
> creation
> myths are replaced by something more plausible and Truth
> comes closer.
>
> On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Neil , even after re-transposition how long could the
> brain live
> > --1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the
> universe ,but
> > ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end - time
> of the
> > universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and
> nothing else.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas
> <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What survives is the gene - subject to mutations etc.
> We are already
> > > 'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation. One's mind
> could be
> > > transposed to another substrate (nearish future) - our
> bodies are
> > > currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the new
> substrate could
> > > have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive Lee's
> 'hope'. Such
> > > substrated minds might link in super-intelligence and
> be able to re-
> > > transfer into more human-like bodies they learned to
> make. This would
> > > be a time beyond singularity. We don't know what such
> intelligence
> > > might invent or even discover - perhaps such
> intelligence would
> > > discover we are not as alone as we think. Being human
> or human being
> > > might be as irrelevant as a mitochondria wanting to
> live free again.
> > > We might be free of the tiny machines (genes) so much
> part of our
> > > behaviour now.
> >
> > > On 28 Nov, 14:40, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> T9 grrrrrrr
> > >> Allan
> >
> > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light
> > >> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott"
> <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly maybe'
> then (my grammar and
> > >> > spelling checker suggests 10 instead of 'then'
> though)! :)
> >
> > >> > 2012/11/28 James <ashkas...@gmail.com>
> >
> > >> >> I am an aspect of what was, is, and will be,
> coextensively. Maybe.
> >
> > >> >> On 11/27/2012 2:28 AM, RP Singh wrote:
> >
> > >> >>> Attachment to life is the cause of the desire for
> immortality and the
> > >> >>> readiness to believe in an after-life or re-birth.
> It is an off-shoot of
> > >> >>> the instinct for survival.
> >
> > >> >>> --
> >
> > >> >> --
> >
> > >> > --
> >
> > > --
>
> --
>
>
>

--