Evidence for pattern development; mulling (Introduction)

by BBella , Wednesday, December 10, 2014, 05:02 (3426 days ago) @ David Turell


> > bbella: "Sentient folks" and inorganic material may have always been. Maybe we sentient folks "just arrived" here, in this part of the universe.
> 
> If I follow you, you think there is a multiverse and life originated a long time ago in one of those other universes than ours. This puts the origin of life elsewhere, but still doesn't provide an answer as to how it got started. It does establish us as a young species.-I don't know about multiverses or about the idea of life originating. Maybe life has always been. But we seem like newer life in this area since we are very young and this area seems young "to us" as well - compared to much, much older life within eternity.-> 
> > 
> > bbella: We are young in knowledge as a species. It takes a while for new life to catch up. I am talking along the lines of Rupert Sheldrakes Morphic Field or the Holographic Field. Lets say the answer to any of our questions are all "within us" (cells/DNA/etc) since all of our cells are witness to what is. It may just take time for the info to filter up into our conscious minds. Would we even recognize it if it did? So, we take baby steps.
> 
> I've read Sheldrake and am impressed with his theories that also include human consciousness, with important evidence to prove he is on the right track. I accept your implication of fields of information we have not yet recognized. Does this lead you to a theistic belief?-The morphic and holographic fields fits for me the idea, metaphorically, that within a drop of ocean all the memory and information of all the ocean is contained. So a cell is like that drop of ocean, it contains the memory of all that is. That kind of thing. That's not really theistic.-> 
> > 
> > bbella: I am thankful my mind doesn't work that way. It's like your mind is in two boxes; one inside the other. Science is the inner box and God is the outer box. It doesn't sound that much different than religion - to me. I understand what you are saying but I can't see how what you are saying can ever lead out of the boxes.
> > 
> > [edit: excuse my bluntness. Is why I try not to write on the fly!]
> 
> You're not blunt, but very thoughtful. I know our modicum of knowledge boxes us in, but for some crazy reason I feel compelled to keep on searching, and contributing here. And I think the answers, as far as they will go, will never offer absolute proof. At the final step, God requires faith. Thanks for responding.-I'm also thankful for your searching and contributions here - and on this planet!