Astronomy, Astrology, Chemistry and Alchemy - I

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

-- Arthur C. Clarke

A progression is the evolution of an idea or set of ideas. The first progression we list is the evolution of an idea or concept from myth to philosophical idea to science or technology. We express this as: Myth :: Philosophy :: Science & Technology, read as Myth to Philosophy to Science and Technology.

Another major model for a progression, into which many instances fit, is Hypothesis :: Theory :: Law or Reality. The hypothesis is the idea. One might state a hypothesis as, "It appears that A. is the way it is because of B." A hypothesis is simply an idea or concept based on observation or, as Albert Einstein liked practice, thought experiments. A theory, on the other hand, is an internally testable and consistent set of rules that describe the behavior. Reality, on the other hand, is the way things are. It may or may not prove to be consistent with the theory. At some point, current convention in science is to call a theory, proven correct over time, a law -- such as the law of gravity.

Some interesting Progressions:

• Myth :: Philosophy to Science :: Technology
• Hypothesis :: Theory :: Law or Reality
• Alchemy :: Chemistry :: Quantum Mechanics (Physics of subatomic particles)
• Astrology :: Astronomy :: Cosmology (Physics of space & the universe)

It is interesting that physics tells us that the universe progresses from order to disorder through a process known as entropy. Why is it that we, as humans, view a progression of reality that is counter to entropy? We see the progression from myth to science. We see the progression from viruses to single celled plants and animals to very large, complex beings such as humans. We see the progression from rocks containing iron to steel to millions of components to a finished automobile. How is it that our perception of the universe, our perception of reality stands in such stark contrast to entropy and physics?

Specific Programs.

Now that we understand the concept of a progression, there are two particular progressions that are fascinating. The first is the progression Alchemy :: Chemistry :: Quantum Mechanics(Physics of subatomic particles) and the second is the progression Astrology :: Astronomy :: Cosmology (Physics of stars, planets and galaxies).

Believe it or not, the evolution from alchemy or astrology to physics has not relegated either alchemy or astrology to extinction. In fact, even in the 21st century, both alchemy and astrology continued to be practiced. Alchemy is largely underground, hidden from public view. Astrology, on the other hand, has its popular conception such as those daily newspapers snippets with which we are all familiar, which largely obscure the practice of astrology as a serious, semi-scientific practice.

Both alchemy and astrology are alive and well. However, the general public has very little understanding of these ancient studies. Many organizations today still exist which study alchemy. However, what we have discovered is that at one time alchemy was described as the science of turning lead into gold.

What we have learned in the years since is that alchemy evolved from a science, with its own language, to a language unto itself, a code, a cipher to express concepts and ideas that were persecuted by the population at large. The same can be said for astrology.

For many years I studied the modern implications of alchemy. It is only recently that I've learned that astrology has a similar, parallel history. Studying these histories and the evolution of these quasi-sciences, or perhaps better described as philosophies, gives us some interesting glimpses into reality. For when we look at reality through the lens of the branches of physics called cosmology and quantum mechanics, the science of physics becomes as strange, as weird and as unbelievable as the general concepts of astrology and alchemy.

The world, reality, science is stranger than we could ever possibly believe!

Astronomy, Astrology, Chemistry and Alchemy - II

(referred to Robert Heinlein’s book Job: A Comedy of Justice here)

There seems to be a natural progression in the sciences, from supposition and myth to hard, sustainable truth.

For example, there is a branch of physics dealing with very small, subatomic particles, which is known as quantum mechanics. This particular branch of physics was ultimately an evolution in thinking from chemistry. We knew there was complex stuff in the world around us, compounds that could be broken down. For example, we knew that water could be broken down into two gases -- hydrogen and oxygen (hence, the familiar chemical symbol for water, H2O). We also knew that hydrogen (the H) and oxygen (the O) were as simple as it could get in terms of observable, physical stuff.

Chemistry was the science of mixing together and breaking apart elements and compounds. It was the science of examining the reactions that occurred between these elements and compounds. It wasn't until much later that scientists figured out that atoms of an element could themselves be broken down. Atoms could be broken into electrons, protons and neutrons. That's about as far as we can get in conventional chemistry. Chemistry understands that compounds like water (H2O) are combinations of elements that are held together, glued together, by sharing electrons. From its chemical formula, we understand that water is composed of two atoms of hydrogen as noted by the H2 and one atom of oxygen denoted by the O, glued together by their electrons forming a single water molecule. that molecule of three atoms is the smallest component to water you can possibly get before it breaks down. It's from there that chemistry evolves into physics.

How did these atomic components stick together? What mysterious properties bound atoms together? And, if we discovered that an atom could be broken in parts, could those parts be further subdivided? That was the birth of the area of physics known as quantum mechanics.

The world becomes a very strange place as we entered the world of quantum mechanics. It is a little bit like being Alice and traveling to Wonderland through the looking glass. As we enter the world of quantum mechanics, the rules of reality as we know them twist and turn in strange ways.

We have long known about atoms, protons, neutrons and electrons. What, until recently, we had a very dim understanding of was the nature of those objects, once thought to be elementary and indivisible. We now know that those components of an atom are made up of even smaller components called quarks.

We have now conclusively proven that there are six types of quarks called, somewhat whimsically, by their scientist discoverers as: up, down, strange, charmed, top, and bottom. These six types of quarks also have anti-quarks, which have the same properties but the opposite electrical charge.

Shining a Light on Stuff.

Before we move on, and talk more about matter, let's take a look at light. Now be prepared to have the world get even stranger. Scientists have long known that under certain conditions photons, the smallest units of light, behave as a particle. You can smash a photon into and object, breaking that object. On the other hand, if you look at a photon through a different lens, it appears to be a wave, not a particle. there is even an experiment you can do at home with nothing more than scissors, cardboard and a light bulb, which we will describe later, which allows you to view a photons of light as particles and as waves! This dual existence was certainly very strange, and thought to be a property of only light. Scientists believed light was unique.

Fooled again!

Very recently, scientists have discovered that quarks also seem to exhibit the same duality. Quarks, in fact, are very much like photons. Generally, they look like particles -- little tiny specks of matter. However, when viewed another way quarks, like photons, exhibit behaviors that only could be the behavioral of a wave.

Further through the looking glass!

Now, try to wrap your brain around this. It gets really strange when you think of your coffee cup, your pen, your automobile, even you, is made up of a series of waves instead of a series of particles! We see each other, and the world around us, as particles. However, this weird duality also means that we are made up of waves and extend in all directions. Seeing me as me just happens to be the way the human mind works. What I see with my eyes bears only a passing, partial and incomplete relationship to reality! What we see is apparently an illusion. This is enough to make your head hurt.

Thought Experiment: The Christian Trinity. Lesson 10T

One concept which has persisted for more than 2000 years is that the deity, God if you will, is one person with three manifestations: God the father, God the son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit. The Christian religions tell us that the Trinity is a mystery that cannot be explained in human terms.

We agree that human language and human ideas were limited enough 2000 years ago or more, such that there were not human words to describe how something could be a Trinity as described. However, let us revisit some of our earlier examples and see if it is indeed possible to explain this phenomenon, if it is true, in terms of 21st century ideas and knowledge. Perhaps, for those who believe, it no longer has to be a matter of faith rather than logic.

First, we make the assumption that space has N dimensions where N is more than the traditional four, height, width, length, and time. Let us say, in fact, that there are at least seven, and possibly many more, as we are told by Stephen Hawking, physicist.

Second, let us for a moment hypothesize that spirit, mind (as opposed to brain), or soul exist independently from the body, but manifest themselves through the physical body. Let us say that the sole is the seat of self. At the time of death, the physical body no longer is inhabited or animated by the sole. However, the soul, as defined, may survive the body, and indeed, may be nearly immortal.

Third, let us say that the soul communicates with its physical manifestation, the body, through some energetic means. The side effect of these means of communication may in fact be the EEGs we witnessed during a medical examination, or the auras some people can see, and which can be photographed using a tool called Kirilan photography, which can photographed the auras of living things.

Fourth, let us assume for a moment, that some people, whether they could explain it or not, were cognizant of this dual nature of the human. Some people may, in fact, be able to exercise some form of control over the energetic part of there being -- that which we previously called the soul. There have, perhaps, been people who have had some sort of control over their energetic being all throughout history.

Fifth, for the sake of argument, and for this thought experiment to be successful, let us assume that there are not many souls, but rather one mega-souls, one super being if you will, and adverse can only inject a small portion of itself, a spark of life simply large enough to animate a being capable of learning, and, passing that knowledge on to the mega-souls.

Sixth, this implies that there is a hierarchy of life had which we are not at the top, but in the middle! Just as our big toe cell is unaware of the toe, or even the body to which it is attached, may be mere humans are like the big toe cell!

Now let us go back to Jesus Christ. He was clearly a man. In our model of reality above, he clearly had a dual existence of body and soul. Through means not yet familiar to us, perhaps he understood that the mega-soul, that being which provides the spark of life to other beings, was in fact determined by Him, God the father. If Jesus knew that he contain a spark of God the father, He then would have clearly realized that He was God the son. That leaves us with God the Holy Spirit. Envisioned as tongues of fire by the Christians. Perhaps rather than fire, this was a large spark! Maybe it was a particularly bright aura around the head. In any event, it would have been a manifestation of the mega-souls (God the father) who exists in N dimensional space, and projected, or perhaps still projects occasionally, into four dimensional space time.

It is interesting to note that in the Bible to Jesus Christ never claims that he is God! He claims his father is God the father. He performs feats, that at that day and time were considered to be miracles. He even praised. In fact, he even tells Pontius Pilate, "It is you, not I, who claim that I am God." or words to that effect, after dozens of translations and hundreds of tellings.

Now we have explained this mystery in terms of the simplest explanation, which is a single mega-souls. This mega-soul is at least a component of that which we call God. The above explanations is simple, and has a certain logical symmetry, which is appealing. However, to appease those who don't think that we as beings can be energized by a single thing which we call a mega-soul, lettuce and assume that the being we call God does have a non-corporeal, energetic soul. It is quite possible that that life force inhabited a person, Jesus Christ. Just as it is possible that such a soul could have animated bodies before and after.

The second explanations lacks a certain symmetry that we see in the first explanation. It is much easier to believe that there is a universal energy, a universal life force, then maybe one force, or one soul, which projects itself into living beings and grows therein. As knowledge grows, the being who wrote!

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZ1nweotz-8MZGNiNHB6YzhfNTZmYnRwZ2s5bQ&hl=en

What Is Life? Lesson 30

Introduction

As far as we know, as far as we are taught, there are three forms of stuff in the world: animals, vegetables, and minerals. Using this broad categorization rocks and soil are certainly mineral. In the broader categorization as one of the three types of things, all of the elements on the periodic table, and all compounds made from them would be considered mineral. Thus, even the bodies of animals and vegetables are composed of is minerals, albeit with something extra. On a macro level, we think it is relatively easy to distinguish among them. However, when we look more closely, it becomes difficult. A sponge is an animal, so is coral. However, sponges, coral, and even sea anemonies sit in one place, a mobile, and catch and eat food that passes by. And what about the Venus fly trap? It has chlorophyll, it turns toward the sun, and it converts minerals it receives through its roots into energy for its growth. That’s all very plantlike. However, the Venus fly trap also catches and eats insects! The fine distinctions between plant and animal can be very deceptive. In fact, one could say that the distinction was purely artificial. As far as we know, everything is composed of some form of mineral, by the above definition.

Modern taxonomy.

A taxonomy is a method of organizing objects or ideas. For example if we have a bag of cubes and balls, we could organize the stuff in the bag by putting the bags content on the table and segregating it into two groups by shape, a taxonomy of shapes. We could also have a bag of cubes and balls in several different materials such as Styrofoam, leather, wood and plastic. Both the cubes and the balls could come in all of those materials. We can organize them by material of manufacture, a materials taxonomy. It is much the same with living in nonliving things. Scientists over the years have attempted to categorize living in nonliving things.

Historically, we learned in school that there were plants animals and minerals, a taxonomy with three categories. Scientists today have decided that the original three categories were insufficient. The new categories are:

• Minerals -- nonliving things which compose all matter, including living matter. One distinguishing feature between living things and minerals is that all living things that we know of are made up of a structure containing minerals. Living things are characterized by cellular structures. Minerals do not form cellular structures. Also, one mineral does not take into fuel in the form of light and organic compounds in order to produce exact replicas of itself.

• Viruses and prions -- things that reproduce by taking over or forcing the other living things to construct copies of themselves, often at the distructions of the original host. These objects are literally bundles of DNA with few structures. Since they do not conduct any of their own metabolic processes, scientists are reluctant to classify them as living things. However, unlike a chemical process, they do reproduce through other organisms and use the energy and other byproducts of the host organism's metabolic processes.

• Prokaryots -- primitive, living things that do not have a cell nucleus, and exist as simple, one celled creatures, or as an organization of several cells that are not differentiated. This is a very primitive form of life, possibly from which modern life sprang. Their physiology necessarily limits their size.

• Eukaryots -- living things that have a cell nucleus and may exist as single celled or multicelled organisms.

o Protists -- simple organisms that may have only one celled, or may exist as multicellular creatures that have no cellular differentiation.

o Fungi -- a class of living things such as mushrooms which does not photosynthesize. Like plants, fungi cell have a cell wall, however, the cell wall is composed of chitin, a substance used by animals to produce shells, rather than cellulose, which is unique to plants. According to modern taxonomists, structurally, fungi are closer to animals than plants!

o Plans -- multi-celled organisms with both the cellular membrane and a cell wall.

o Animals -- multicellular organisms without a cell wall.

As we have previously observed, it can be very difficult to tell a floral still filled animals such as a sponge from a carnivorous plant such as the Venus fly trap.

Again, we reiterate, originally, things could be divided between living in nonliving. Then they were divided into living plants versus animals, and nonliving. Now, as we can see, living things consist of more than plants and animals, realizing that some previously known entities such as viruses, prions, protests and fungi are clearly members of neither class.

How to tell living from nonliving.

This may seem like a silly question, however it is not so simple. One might say living things grow and nonliving things do not grow. But don't crystals grow? Can I not grow as salt crystals in water? Do we natural world is in other minerals as the crystals used in lasers? Do not stalagtites and stalagmites grow in caves, getting larger as the centuries pass? So growth, as in going from smaller to larger, is obviously not the determining factor.

We could say that all living things are composed of cells. However, what would that do to viruses and prions? They use the functions of living cells to reproduce copies of themselves. Of course, we have the question, are viruses and prions a stage between living in nonliving.

It would appear that all living things make use of the cellular structure. All in nonliving things, in the sense that they would never living, do not. So it could be said that all living things contained in, or make use of, a cellular structure, we produce things that have the same lifecycle, and multiply.

Living things.

How do we tell if something is a plant or an animal? We could say all plants have chlorophyll and conduct photosynthesis. But there's a problem. Sponges are animals. Some sponges have chlorophyll, or structures known as chloroplasts, in their makeup. If we classify sponges as animals, that means that all things containing chlorophyll cannot be plants. I could say plants are immobile, and draw nutrients through their roots and usually also perform photosynthesize. But what about the Western Tumbleweed? It just blows around with the wind! It's not fixed anywhere.

The most reliable definition is one that tells us that both plants and animals have a cell membrane, that which holds in their fluids and other structures that make up the cell. However, only plans have a cell wall, made of cellulose, outside of the cell membrane, and only fungi have a cell wall made of chitin, which allows them to have a rigid form without a skeleton.

So we can have plants that eat meat and animals that use sunlight to create energy. But we can always tell a plant from an animal by its cellular structure.

Continued ...

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZ1nweotz-8MZGNiNHB6YzhfMjdjZDV6d2JkYw&hl=en

What Is Life?Lesson 31

...Continued


So why does life exist?

The earth is teeming with life. Every millimeter of its surface, even under and in the oceans, and atmosphere is saturated with life. It would be statistically unlikely that of all the planets and their moons surrounding the sun, all the sons in our galaxy, and all the galaxies in the universe, as we know it, only earth contains life!

The notion that we are alone in the universe is not statistically probable. So why does life exist? There are several possibilities:

1. Cosmic accident theory. Life on earth is a cosmic accident; something that a confluence of events, unique to our planet, caused to happen. Life exists nowhere else in the universe.
2. Occasional happenstance theory. Like number 1, above, life is accidental, however it has occurred accidentally in some small number of worlds in the universe. Here we must recognize that small, in terms of the universe, is large in human terms. If 100, or 1000, or 10,000 planets harbor life, that would be very small indeed, in terms of the universe, however large as humans measure. However, if life is accidental, and the number of bodies harboring life is small, we may be the only life that exists in our galaxy. That would be unfortunate indeed, because it could take as many years as there has been life on earth to contact life in another galaxy. We may not be alone, but we may be isolated.
3. Common process theory. Life is common and ordinary in situations where the environment is suitable. It may be that celestial habitats capable of evolving life may be the minority of celestial bodies. But, out of the billions of stars that make up a galaxy, and billions of galaxies that we know of, even if life exists on only 1%, that's a lot by human standards! The odds of bumping into life in this galaxy rise dramatically.
4. The inverted theory. Our understanding is inverted, backwards. Intelligence, minds, predated this universe as we know it. Our universe is in fact existent solely for the purpose of creating a physical, corporeal existence for the mind. In essence, minds existed first and the physical universe came later. In essence, the universe as we know it was created by minds which preceded it. It really doesn't matter, in terms of this theory, whether there is one mind which manifests itself in many bodies and many units of consciousness, or whether each mind is unique.
5. The emergent mind theory. This theory states that mind is a byproduct, also known as an emergent property, of bodies. With this theory, body existed first, brains second and mind cotempers were brave, or third. In this theory, we have to separate the concept of mind and memory. Much is a computer stores memory on a flash drive or a disk, and coded in ones and zeros, and the storage medium can be transported from computer to computer, memory is an artifact resulting from thinking thoughts in the brain. As animals, humans included, may have a rudimentary capability to reach peace thoughts. There is some evidence that, if this is true, humans radiate thoughts at a particular frequency, like a radio station, and may have the ability, under the right circumstances, to retrieve other, typically previous thoughts, on that same frequency.
6. The dualistic theory. Mind and matter, mind and body, existed independently prior to the creation of the universe, or matter, as we know it. Mind, whether singuler with lots of tentacled, or whether independent, may have adapted to the presence of matter. It is even possible that mind uses matter much as humans and chimps use tools. In this sense, the tool, the body, may have come into existence long after the dawn of the mind.
7. The multiverse theory. This theory states that our universe popped into existence with the Big Bang, which at its beginning, was a tiny, hot, dense spot of plasma/energy that exploded, expanding into the known universe. The multiverse theory states that the Big Bang actually happened millions or billions of times. Our universe is but one of these. In each of these universes, the physical laws and mathematical constants may vary. A universe in which we live happens to have the right configuration of natural laws acend mathematical constants to permit life, therefore it evolved here on Earth, and perhaps other planets, where as other universes did not. Perhaps still other universes develop the modes of life or intelligence totally foreign to hours.

Analysis of the six theories.
Here, we take for a moment, a leap of faith. Occam's Razer told us that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Life emerging on earth as an accident, given that so many things in the universe follow predictable laws, even laws we don't yet understand, the sudden appearance of life as an accident on earth is highly unlikely. Not impossible, just improbable. This, of course, makes option number two even more unlikely. If it's unlikely that life was a mistake and one planet, the probability that the same mistake was made on many planets is very remote.

Option three which states that, in the right environment, life is likely to appear, and that in the billions and billions of stars, the relatively ordinary sun means that, undoubtedly, life is rather common in the universe. Even in our own solar system, life may exist on other worlds. Jupiter, various moons, and other unexplored territories are possible candidates for life. We also must remember that life here on earth is carbon-based. That may or may not be true on other worlds. Silicon is another element with properties very close to those of carbon.

Options four through six take a different approach to looking at mind versus body. Advanced cellular structures, what we call eukariotic cells, for example, which make up our human body are actually believe to be cells that, millions of years ago, captured other organelles, found them useful, and made them permanent residence or parts of the cell structure. This same process could have happened between mind and body. The two developed independently, possibly even indifferent conventional space. The line found that substance we call matter, and began experimenting with it, injecting pieces of itself into the physical existence.

Take a look at life on earth. It began as very simple one celled creatures, e-mail is the multicellular creatures in the seas, crawled out of the sea is to explore the land, and once for some very specific cycles. So these experiments were unsuccessful, and died off -- became extinct. Some of them were successful as life, but insufficient for the needs of the mind. They stayed. We experimented with very small lifeforms, very large lifeforms like a dinosaur, and ended up with humans, somewhere in the middle. Humanity is the mind's results in experimentation with the vessels capable of being illuminated by the spark of mind.

If you read six, the dualistic theory, is very similar. However, it assumes the mind and matter URL found two separate paths. Presumably, even mind is older, or capable of evolution much more quickly. Matter was observed by mind, and basically put use. Mind you discovered that it can accomplish more and experience more by using matter is a tool. That is, our bodies are essentially tools of that thing we call mine, which is still in the process of experimenting with matter.

Finally, we have the emergent property concept. Matter formed into cells, cells and life, and life became increasingly more complex. The mind is something that emerges from life, as a result of life. Much like if we throw a bunch of parts that ultimately formidable bicycle, into a box, without proper assembly, they just remain a bunch of parts in a box. The mind is a centrally the bicycle in a box. When life becomes complex enough, the body organizes the parts of the box into a bicycle -- into a mind.

There's only one problem with this. If we look at physics, there is a concept called entropy. Entropy says that everything moves from order and structure to disorder. I start with a tree, the tree dies, the tree decays into its component parts. Two people beget a third, the two original people essentially returned to dust, and over time, the third does also. Entropy exists. The concept of putting a bunch of parts in a box, and magically assembling those parts into a bicycle is contrary to the law of entropy. Mind is an emergent property of the body is contrary to the laws of entropy.

So what happened?

Entropy is the natural tendency for things to go from a state of organization to a state of disorganization over time. Entropy is a law of physics, and a law of nature. According to the law of entropy, everything decays. Rocks become sand. Living things die. Organic things decompose. Things that are hot become cold. Things that are bright become dim and eventually, dark. According to the laws of entropy, the universe is moving from that enormous expenditure of energy called the Big Bang to, if nothing else intervenes, a state of coal darkness. This may happen over many billions and billions of years, but, physics, the physics of our four dimensions, tells us, it will happen.

Now, if the law of entropy, which governs matter, also governs the behavior of non-material things, then there are two possibilities.

First, there is the possibility that life, as we know it, is actually a more disorganized state then the explosion which occurred at the Big Bang. That is possible, but does not, following contemporary human logic, seem likely.

Second, entropy is a condition of matter. Entropy is a law governing things from rocks, to our bodies, to planet Earth itself. However, while the world of subatomic particles, atoms, and more complex matter may be subject to the laws of entropy, there may be other laws that work. The N dimensions that exists (where N is greater than four) may follow totally different laws.

Since matter spontaneously generating a more complex form of life is counter to the law of entropy, it is logical, then, to assume that some force, some energy, was expended for the purpose of organizing matter. Given the laws of entropy, that force had to be outside the frame of reference, outside the frame of existence of matter. Otherwise, we would violate a basic law of physics, the physics that we understand as the physics of matter and energy.

End state.
This logic inevitably leads us to the conclusion that what we know is mind, in its broader definition meaning both the ability to think, and the ability to animate otherwise inanimate matter must be a force not subject to the laws of entropy, or, at least not subject to the laws of physical entropy as it exists in the material world. Mind, soul, or spirit, or whatever you want to call it, must exist separate from physical matter that exists in our four dimensions.

This raises another interesting question! If time, as we measure it, always progressing in a forward direction, as we perceive it, how it is time a fact other dimensions? Are they eternal? Do they exist independently of time? Can something that exists in those other dimensions moved back and forth through time, since nothing in our known physics tells us that the arrow of time must always point from now to future with existing consciousness being stuck in the present.

Note. So far, through these lessons, we have agreed that there are four dimensions: height, width, length, and time. We have also stated, that according to physicists, there must be some more dimensions beyond those that we can perceive. We have been describing, counting, these dimensions as "N, where N is greater than or equal to three." In the rest of this document, we shall refer to the four dimensions we can perceive, and we shall refer to the rest of the dimensions as the Q dimensions.

Focusing Intention. Lesson 40

"Anything you believe, you can achieve."
          -- Anthony (Tony) Robbins




Definition.

Mind.

Mind is the characteristic of higher developed, multicellular, biological organisms -- such as people -- which manifests itself as thought, memory, and other attributes which are not limited to the products of cellular functions. Some of the names, in this context, for mind are: Spirit, soul, living essence, etc.

Intention.

Intention is the power of the mind, within each person, to achieve, through a variety of means, virtually anything that can be conceived.


Two terms that we shall bandy about in our studies are intention and mind. As you see, from the above written definitions, they contain the essence of what these words mean in plain English. However, we will use them in a very specific context.



Introduction to mind



Mind is a thing. It is a known, quantifiable property of a human. We measured IQ of the mind, and can identify a genius from their IQ. We say that a smart person has a power for mind. Clearly in our every day speaking, we subconsciously differentiate the mind from the brain. The brain is an organ of our bodies. It is a collection of cells. It sits in our heads. It is connected by a cable like mass of cells called spinal cord. The brain is a cellular mechanism that one, theoretically, can touch. The mind, on the other hand, is much more etherial.

We may casually save the brain thinks. However, when we ask someone what they used to think, the answer will be the mind. If I go into surgery, and I asked the doctor to show me the mind, he may show me the brain. Of course I would respond, that is the brain, a human organ -- not the mind, the collection of thoughts, memories, worlds, hates and such. Or, they may say the mind set in the brain. If I ask the same question over coroner, he may say, "Sir, I do autopsies on dead people. I can show you their brain, but I don't think there's any mind present."

In that respect, doesn't the mind more closely resembles the fact is e call spirits or soul?



Introduction to Intention.



People often say that it is their "intention to ..." Substitute any word you like. In common parlance, and intention, or intending to do something, is used synonymously with plan or planning to do something. To intend to do something is seen as a stronger assertion than to plan to do something. Generally it is used as, I intend or they intend, it is my plan to do something or your plan to do something.

We use intention in much the same way. However, is something we plan to do with our mind, as opposed to our brain or our body.

Intention, for our purposes, is a focused, mental exercise meant to achieve a particular purpose or action. One could view intention as one would view the magical powers of a genie let out of the bottle. The genie in the bottle grants you three wishes, and makes them come true. Generally, the drama arises because the genie takes the utterings, of the person who released him from captivity, quite literally -- often with comic or tragic results.

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZ1nweotz-8MZGNiNHB6YzhfNDJnbXF2cGhkcg&hl=en

Plants, Animals and Immortality. Lesson 90

Let's begin at the beginning. As recently as 2000, children were taught that everything in the universe was animal, vegetable, mineral or energy. There are only four kinds of stuff in the universe. Everything other than energy was born in stars.  We also learned from Albert Einstein that matter (animals vegetables and minerals) can be converted to energy, and theoretically, the reverse is true. Animals, vegetables and minerals, according to Einstein, can be constructed from energy.

Certain living things seem to be immortal. It also seems as though the simpler  the life form, the longer it can live. Think about the single celled amoeba or its cousin, the euglena (another one celled creature). They multiply through cell division -- mitosis. A cell reaches a certain point in size or age, and then splits into two cells. Those two cells reach a certain point in age or time, and split into two more cells each. This process continues indefinitely. When you see an amoeba under a microscope in a drop of pond water, that amoeba is the product of countless cell divisions over the course of millennia.

When you see a sponge on the seafloor, it is the product of budding, asexual reproduction. It is an extension of some animal which has lived for centuries, even millennia. It is as though a human could cut off an arm and growing a new person from it! Is the second person who grew from a cut off arm a new person, or an extension of the same person?

In the state of Oregon, in the United States, there is a giant mushroom. This mushroom covers nearly 800 acres of land! As it expands it kills off trees in the surrounding vicinity. Testing has shown this giant mushroom to be over 2500 years old! It may, in fact, be old.

Here is a question. What constitutes a plant or animal? What is the difference between a one celled animal and a multi-cell animal? Consider human. We die. But do we? When I die my heart, lung, eyes, skin and more can be medically transplanted to other people. Those pieces and parts are alive! How can that be, if I am no longer alive?

This brings up a very interesting question: who am I? Am I a collection of cells, or something else? Do my cell just constitute a vehicle, like an automobile, that carries around this thing called me? In that case, who is the real me? Where do I go when the vehicle, my body, which operate? Does some part of me survive to be reincarnated into a new body?

Animal, vegetable, mineral.

It used to be thought that everything on Earth fell into one of three categories. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the ground we walk on and the rocks in our flower garden fall into the category of mineral. Things that have roots, grow out of the ground and perform photosynthesis, using sunlight to convert minerals to energy make up the plant world. Animals move about in search of food, and generally exhibit characteristics that are neither plantlike nor mineral like. Well, this was the view of the world for the last century or so. Now we have figured out that it isn't true.

Consider the Venus fly trap. It has roots, it can conduct photosynthesis, but it also can trap and digest insects! The sea sponge is considered to be an animal but it is anchored to the sea floor and doesn't move. It traps its food l and digests it. It reproduces by budding.


We have now realized the amazing complexity of living things. We now realize that there are considerably more living things than animals and plants.

Currently, textbooks from the United States use a system of six kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, and Eubacteria), while British and Australian textbooks describe five kingdoms (Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Prokaryota or Monera).  Fungi, Protista, Archaea, and Eubacteria are now considered living things that are neither plans nor animals.

On top of these categories let's also consider viruses and prions,  those nasty little things that cause mad cow disease and spongiform encephalopathy in humans. Are they alive? They reproduce. They grow. They changed their host cells. What are they?

See also: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080514060929AALIJiA



https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZ1nweotz-8MZGNiNHB6YzhfNjFjenoyd2ZkYw&hl=en

Carlos Castaneda, don Juan Matus and the latest discoveries in physics (Lesson 110)

.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

-- William Shakespeare, Hamlet

Light has always been described as made up of photons that sometimes behave as particles and sometimes behave as waves. Recently, scientists have discovered that quarks, subatomic particles, the smallest granules that make up the protons and neutrons of an atom, the elemental building blocks of matter, exhibit the same behavior as photons. They exist as both particles and waves. This finding is very new to science.

Now let's flashback to the 1960s and a series of books written by Carlos Castaneda. These books describe his relationship with a Yaqui Native American who called himself don Juan Matus [1].

The actual existence of don Juan has long been disputed; his practices and beliefs are inconsistent with his alleged identification as a Yaqui shaman. The old man, in fact, never professes that to be his original name. He merely says that for Castaneda, at least, he is Juan Matus.

--Wikipedia reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Castenada)

The books were very popular and are still in print. What is remarkable about these books is they were written as autobiographical pieces. However, as there was a great deal of criticism of the book's contents. The stories seemed too fantastic, too surreal to have been true accounts. Many who read these accounts insisted they were psychotropic drug induced hallucinations, as the use and ingestion of psilocybin containing mushrooms was a common practice of both native North and Central American populations.

The amazing fact is that the account is experience the same as the experience of Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, Harvard University train neuroanatomist and professor at the University of Indiana school of medicine, is her account of her cerebral vascula accident, or stroke.

[1]. Carlos Castaneda's Chronicles begin in the 60s and then in the 70s. They are published in New York City by Simon &Schuster.






See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subatomic_particle
http://www.heretical.com/science/quantum1.html
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec01.html

The 7 Wonders of the Buddhist World