That’s great
Yes, that is what I meant. Useful is a better word than valid, as in strategically useful.
1 Like
Can you please describe your PCE so I know what we’re working with?
omw out and want to remember to describe later. though i’m not sure why lack of description would preclude elaboration.
in short the flavor of it was, “perfect.”
I think you hit the nail on the head here, no matter how good something is at maximizing or upgrading the system, in the end it is the entire system of self that is fundamentally broken and silly and standing in the way of already-perfection that must be done away with.
1 Like
Hi Adam C!
I was entertaining myself by reading some older posts and the last line of your post stuck out to me;
Is this how you really felt/ acted towards spirituality?
Because if so, would it be accurate to say you blame spirituality for the “ills of mankind”?
I ask because the AFT, whilst generally sounding similar to “proven science” on some things, isn’t necessarily aligned with science.
There is a whole heap of faith invested in “science” and it may surprise you to find that faith in yourself, if “aggressive rejection of it [spirituality]” is a thing.
Aggressive rejection would point to something one is seeking to defend. In this case a belief in science. Which is just as effective in motivating and justifying aggression as any of the spiritual beliefs.
Richard is clear the the cause of the "ills of mankind " is the blind nature instinctual package and the ‘self’ formed therein.
Obviously, I am not up to date with your progress and where you are at right now, but I thought perhaps it would be useful to mention.
I remember a very interesting moment talking to Richard about science. We talked quite a while about the topic. He was clear that it’s just as likely that the machines being designed to detect various theoretical forces etc, are detecting them precisely because the machine is designed to give that result. The electron tunneling microscopes were the specific machine in this case.
I was taken aback! I probably should have discussed my objections then, but internally I was; “hold on! That’s a billion dollar machine! Surely it can’t be wrong!”
Well, the point wasn’t him saying the science was wrong, but rather blindly believing that a group of feeling beings wouldn’t be capable of such deceit.
People lie all the time. Governments, organisations, etc. Science is heavily funded by vested interests in the status quo, indeed every single person in the scientific community (assuming none are actually free) have a vested interest in the status quo; to wit, the continued reign of the human condition over the minds and bodies of human beings.
Belief is one of the main support structures for the reign.
1 Like
Not all of the ills of mankind, I saw that atheistic societies (like Soviet Russia, China) had the same cruelty and problems, hence I was aware of the human condition and the problem of group identities before exposure to AF. My dad too had realised blind nature was the problem and had taught me this. I thought that western atheism something different and more progressive, much of my early internet chat rooms clashes in the late 90s and early 2000s was clashing with Americans who saw atheism as linked to communism, which isn’t a mindset among westerm european atheists I have met.
I too had realised experientally what my dad said that it was our blind nature that was the problem, though I saw a solution through the love of creativity, increased learning and awareness.
Also, I felt spirituality and belief akin to imagination, people were just imagining an idea like a God and then feeling good about it. To me, they didn’t realise the imaginative capability that was making them feel good. To me faith was unconscious imagination.
I had already realised this too. Me and my friend who introduced me to AF had this idea that is seemed some people would get so invested in a hypothesis they would ignore any evidence that contradicted it. Also, that people wanted to say what the universe was rather than learn from the universe. I always seemed really good at discerning belief from fact, model from reality. I didn’t need the universe to be a particular way. If I learned new information, I could drop a theory, idea or knowledge I thought was true or a fact with the more up to date info. There was nothing invested for me. I noticed people around me family, friends and others struggled to do this. My group of friends from high school which included the friend who introduced me to AF had a similar mindset to me, the first people I met like that and we formed a very strong and open friendship. Many ex friends or girlfriends would think me a hypocrite but couldn’t understand an idea being changed or rejected, for belief based/religious based people couldn’t drop ideas so freely it seems, their beliefs were more concrete and harder to change.
I did a Physics degree so I got to see for myself the faith based mentality in science, but scientists are humans most brought up in religions or belief based societies so I was never surprised to find them still having a belief type thought mentality in science too. I haven’t met so many people raised with the same level of freedom I was given.
No, science is a process to discern facts based on models and hypotheses. There is no need to defend a fact, I saw that scientists would want to defend their hypotheses or models though but I saw through that too. If something was valid the evidence would show and be repeatable so there is no need to defend. Where things can’t be tested like Big Bang theory, I always had a problem with it. As I could see untestable model/hypothesis being pushed as fact.
For me, spirituality rejected those facts we had ascertained about this world and people. That animate matter arose from inanimate matter. That energy and matter are interchangeable and in constant flux, there is no special permanent, eternal and infinite type of energy or matter to be a soul.
But even before I fully rejected my soul belief, I had rejected normal spirituality and religion because I saw it as unconscious imagination and couldn’t see how that could save or help humanity other than wrap them in a deluded security blanket, God loves me, God protects me, I am infinite, I am eternal…etc etc. To me it was self delusion and rejection of this universe, which annoyed me. Whereas my imagination was aware and a celebration of what was possible in this universe, not seeking to contradict it or delude myself.
Of course there were still blind spots, beliefs and delusions within me which I discovered since being onboard with AF. Which was fascinating to realise, despite thinking I was so aware and had such good insight in to myself.
I have seen such data, results, papers and now some of the people I went to uni work on such things. Even for them, there are discoveries they weren’t quite expecting or new questions opening up from certain experiments which seems to show that there is some honesty in the process, learning from the universe rather than telling the universe what it should be. These projects have a lot of scientists from different countries and data is peer reviewed further from scientists from other countries too like India, China etc. It would be a lot for all the different belief sets to come to agreement on data all in a false belief method. Where there are questions or challenges then somebody will bring it up, as it gives them a chance to make a name for themselves too. But even without deception, honest mistakes are still possible too. Scientists and the scientific method is not free from error, error is a natural part of physics. Hence, the whole 5 sigma paradigm in having sufficiently low error as to be valid. See link,
Yes, scientists can be wrong. Hence the need for something to be demonstrable and repeatable. A problem for science as it gets more niche or expensive is having people with sufficient knowledge and funds to also repeat and test. I know people who have worked on particle accelerators, some of my uni colleague’s went on to CERN. But the data and processes are shared with universities and other instutions across the world. There is transparency.
Yes, there has been a lot of evidence of corruption in science in the last 20 years, from false unicorn companies (Theranos again lol) to scientists lying for big corporations and governments. Again, the problem of big corporations to stifle or control science through their legal processes deters people from challenging these companies, all of which hurts the validity of the scientific process for lay people.
Exactly, and science and scientists are full of beliefs, it is difficult for the uninitiated to make heads or tails of science, hence I am not surprised by the growth of anti-science and misinformation.
But power and money can control and hinder the flow of knowledge and understanding, is also troublesome. For if AF ever became more than an obscurity it too would face attacks and challenges from those seeking to maintain the status quo of their power and influence.
3 Likes
I learnt a lot reading that @son_of_bob
Also a lot more about your journey so far, which is great for rounding out my imaginary Adam!
It was cool to read as it sparked even more thought into my own relationship with science and beliefs.
I honestly don’t think Actualism will ever be main stream. It’s far to iconoclastic no matter how it is packaged.
Although I do think as more people become free in the scientific fields, there will be an organic influence. If anything can radically change whether actualism has an exponential growth curve, it would be a breakthrough in the science. Something completely indisputable, repeatable.
@claudiu Let’s run ads some targeting scientists!!
Heck, a pill would be nice. Like the movie Limitless.
Yes, it seems people have such varying interactions with science and beliefs.
Yes, I too wondered this. But as mentioned in one of the other posts I too had wondered what happens when some influencer or famous person finds out about it and pushes it. I can see more misinterpretations and issues like the Affers happening again. I mean look at all the different denominations of Christianity, from the early days like Gnosticism to all the offshoot churches around the world (esp the States lol). I would say increased footfall will see increased offshoots and misunderstandings.
I love that movie, I was obsessed with that idea. Funnily enough I had started to write a similar short story but in mine it was a type of electrical brain stimulation rather than a drug but it was that some concept, the ability for us to be changed chemically/electrically as well. It is crazy how different a pill can make you feel/perceive.
I was thinking recently about why despite being an atheist I still wanted to believe in a soul. My dad used to say, “You squash an ant their dead, gone, there is no ant heaven. It will be the same for me when I die and you too.” I never really took it in, that my dad had rejected the idea of a soul. Maybe because he never explicitly articulated that he didn’t believe in a soul just hinted or eluded to that.
I found what he said funny and hilarious even as a kid, but I still wanted to believe I would live on. So much of my old writing and little notes or diary entries were like that, I shall live on with my buddies and my love free of my fleshy prison. I think hating me body so much made me want to be a soul too, or an idea, rather than this actual thing that I am.
I think properly understanding that animate matter arose from inanimate matter posed the first major…major dent in that belief.
2 Likes
How “inanimate” is it really?
And besides that, isn’t it simpler to suppose that life is also eternal?
Another property of the universe.
I mean biological life is as “old” as everything else. Eternal.
Panspermia as proposed by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe in the book “Our Place in the Cosmos” puts forth a convincing argument and evidence for this.
Which has the implication that the ‘self’ has been around forever, and will be around forever. Just not in the way ‘selves’ imagine it.
I was thinking this a few days ago, that the feeling of being eternal isn’t bullshit at all. It’s just not what we think it is. The ‘I’ am ‘humanity’, is equally ‘I’ am every ‘self’ ever.
The problem then isn’t that there is no eternal ‘self’, but rather why the heck we would choose to suffer eternally?
Richard had the view when talking about something related that “why can’t humans be the only ones?”
Again, I took it that he meant why speculate about life elsewhere, when one’s own life needs improvement.
Besides, the how life exists is not as relevant as what am I going to do with mine?
Based on the definition of inanimate meaning not to be alive, and that complex definition of what counts for life, I know that can be a tricky definition too.
Vitality, the essential condition of being alive; the state of existence characterized by such functions as metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptation, and response to stimuli .
One then would not say oxygen or Carbon is alive neither an amino acid like leucine or DNA is not alive.
No, the matter and energy of the universe is eternal, but the universe could exist without any other alive organisms. Even if there was nobody to observe it lol, did the tree fall down in the woods if nobody saw it lol.
The elements that make it up are as old as anything else, but the combinations of matter that exist on this planet aren’t as old as everything else.
Yes, I am aware of the theory. However, these are the building blocks of life and not life itself. Hence, it is more accurate to say that the building blocks of life are as old as everything else but biological life on Earth is not.
The building blocks for allowing selves to come to potential exist, rather than selves are around for ever. Of course, I am sure there are selves in other corners of the universe in evolved life forms, considering the sheer magnitude of possible planets lol. But it took a long time for such selves to come into existence on Earth. Whatever combinations of matter and energy are possible in this universe thus come to fruition.
Doomed to be reconfigured.
Suffering…seems so hard to see that it is a choice when in its vice like grip. So easy to believe we are doomed in an eternal loop of misery.
Yes, I seemed happier pondering big unanswerable abstract questions rather than simple down to earth questions about how best to live my life. It has taken me a long time to think about this in a more optimal way.
This is a bold claim. How can we test this?
Which could be said of any planet, star, galaxy. Up to a point, as we don’t know how old galaxies can get before they too blow up.
My point was that life is everywhere, and doesn’t get created by abiogenesis anymore than the universe was created ex nihil in a big bang.
Indeed, it’s all consuming. As you say though, the amount of time there has been ‘selves’ on this planet is very short. At least it seems that way.
My point is that one can easily “Occam’s Razor” one’s way to panspermia faster than abiogenesis.
It’s one of those unfalsifiable questions. Until someone can demonstrate abiogenesis, it remains a theory.
A theory that is rather striking in its similarity to the biblical story of god making us out of the clay. Strikes me as strange that the two biggest theories taught to the masses are so similar to the biblical account.
Creating something out of nothing.
The upside of trying to answer those big unanswerable questions is, it’s gotten you here. You still have to figure out the down to earth stuff, but now you get to have it all 
The first part I mean as a consequence of conservation of matter and energy. If neither can be created or destroyed only transformed, including from one to the other then it must imply they are eternal then right? Always wondered how Big Bang theory reconciles those laws.
The second part, I mean that hypothetically the molecules and elements that are the building blocks of the universe would still exist even if all organic life in the universe died out. I.e. there is an objective universe not dependent on organic matter. But also the potential for life to occur again would also always exists because the same precursors exist to allow organic matter to arise and selves to eventuality form too lol.
Yes, exactly. Crazy to think of galaxies dying and colliding and their age and lifespan.
It took me a moment to get what you mean, if time is eternal and the universe infinite then life is always possible, because the allowed conditions of matter and energy in this universe always allow it. I wouldn’t rule out abiogenesis though, whether on Earth or elsewhere like a meteor. I wouldn’t be surprised if there end up being multiple means of deriving organic matter from inorganic. We know amino acids can form from inorganic precursors now.
The molecules delievered via panspermia have to still formed from inorganic molecules becoming organic. Just as more complex elements formed from nuclear fusion in stars so Hydrogen is the precursor of all other elements and therefore all other molecules. With heavy elements formed from an array of other processes such as supernovae, neutron star collisions etc.
The molecules of panspermia still had to come together from something more simple to something complex. There will probably be multiple means im which inorganic elements form to be organic and self replicating. The problem is knowing the exact precursor conditions to make inorganic matter give rise to organic.
No, I disagree, I don’t think the theory is saying that something came from nothing it is something transformed to something and not something out of nothing. Those molecules just taking a new arrangement and configuration. As we see around us with the constant flux and change in both organic and inorganic matter.
Eventually matter gave rise to stable organic molecules, those organic molecules could then develop an ability to replicate.
This is an interesting one in an eternal universe
If this universe has always been here, has it still gone through the claimed phase where everything was lighter particles, which became hydrogen, which became stars, heavier molecules etc.? Or has there always been a mix of stages of matter?
Let me eat cake. Yes, true. Even just thinking or asking questions used to be full of so many feeling tones and fears. Afraid to offend, make a mistake, be misunderstood. Is enjoyable just to get it out, whatever nonsense pops in and we can always hash it out. If something seems dumb or incorrect or if I am ignorant or have misunderstood something we can find an understanding without any need to feel any which way about it.
1 Like
Complicated by the fact said matter can arise from energy too, they are interchangeable.
So, everything forever in constant flux. Matter and energy and anti matter and the unknown (dark matter/dark energy).
But still mechanisms for how those elements form in a given local space are what is possible. So, the facts of what is possible in any region of space will become apparent and the evolution of that matter in a given region is valid. It doesn’t imply that nothing ever happened or changed or can be implied or understood in that localised region.
Maybe we live in a ‘bubble’ similar to a bubble arising in boiling water
Ah, that’s the “watered down” version of panspermia.
The original version is that life, in the form of viruses, bacteria and some insects can actually survive in deep space.
Hoyles book gives examples bacteria on earth with not only incredible tolerance to radiation, but actively seek it out. Apparently one form is found in nuclear power plants, but not over in the corners of the cooling chambers, but clinging to the radioactive rods!
He points out there has never been an environment on earth that such a ability would evolve. It’s a nuclear power plant!
The only place that has that level of radiation is space.
So, at the very least, in that theory there is bacteria and viruses everywhere.
Which, coupled with traditional evolution, produces subsequent versions of life to suit the conditions.
Comets, meteors, asteroids, rogue interstellar planets & lost moons are the “chariots” of life through the cosmos.
One planet blows up, seeds others with life.
The cryogenic inside of an asteroid, coupled with the shielding of iron and other metals, could preserve a virus indefinitely.
We do it in labs all the time with entire ovum and sperm. Which are many orders of magnitude more complex and delicate than a virus.
Yes, I have heard of this too but again Occams razor would point to a higher probability of simpler building blocks (pseudo panspermia I believe is more what I have referred to) rather than more developed organisms but like I said if something is possible then it will be possible.
Discoveries of so many different extremophiles have made us realise life has wider parameters than we initially thought. So we know now some of them can exist in space for several years so we adjust our knowledge of the facts that are possible (I missed news on this, probably because I have cancelled my new scientist and scentific american subscriptions.)
But even so, these organisms still evolved and developed to reach this stage in space or other bodies in space. There is a chemical and biological evolution from simpler to more complex molecules occurring, just in space and other bodies on space rather than starting on Earth. Before starting a new phase of development and evolution on Earth.
Additionally, to add complexity both panspermia and abiogenesis may be possible to happen at the same time. Adding multiple potential origins of life, rather than just 1.
I think you are referring to Deinococcus radiodurans. First of all it has evolved to exist in multiple extreme environments. From what I had read about it, it was found in the coolant water tanks used for nuclear rods. So, it is already in water but usually found in other weird places like hydrothermal vents, however not exclusively in water also dry places, mud, faeces etc.
What they have found so far is that it had already evolved a different approach to repairing DNA and RNA which has evolved from UV exposure and dessication (extremely dry environments) and some other extreme environments.
The extreme conditions it has evolved in has enabled it to evolve unique capabilities to repair and withstand higher levels of radiation. Sometimes something can evolve in one area and have multiple uses like how serotonin and oxytocin in the brain also have other chemical occurences in other body systems. So, a protein or chemical can have potential more uses but also future evolutionary use in an environment the protein hasn’t been exposed to yet. In a sense, every expressed protein in any living organism may have more potential uses, benefits in environments and conditions it hasn’t been exposed to (or detriments lol). It doesn’t mean each protein and function must explicitly evolve for each capability.
For example, the evidence is starting to point to the resistance developed from dessication is more linked to also providing the protection from radiation. This is because mutant strains which have less protection from dessication also seem to have less protection from radiation. So it is a fortunate side effect rather than driven evolutionary property.
Yes, this is fascinating to contemplate too. Multiple points and places of molecules and organisms evolving and spreading across the universe.
Yes, going back to that definition of life. Many argue that viruses don’t quite fit into that neat category of life. Needing a host, predominantly RNA, no metabolic processes, its only life-like property is reproduction but still requires a host for this.
1 Like