burnt's definition may be adequate for now. The entire universe as a whole is not conscious, it has none of the attributes of a consciousness.

Even if it did it would be impossible for us to know because we are, as you say, an infinitesimally small part of the whole. The only other entity capable of identifying our universe as conscious would be another universe.

This is actually a fun, bizzarre idea that I have never considered. Of course, this idea is entirely beyond the realm of truth because it can never be tested unless a human is verified to have become a universe, experienced the perspective, and returned to being human. Hard to do given the definition of universe.



Evolution explicitly deals with the origin of species. This is like pointing out that the theory of gravity doesn't explain why water is clear.

The origin of life is called abiogenesis. Someday a human will recreate life in the laboratory and settle the pointless arguments over whether it is possible and what are the odds.



I would love to talk about this more. How organism level macroevolution and how mechanisms of embryo formation relate to the speed and direction of evolutionary trajectories is my very favorite thing to think about in the whole world.

Remember there is a huge difference between cannot be explained and has not been explained.

If you want to hear more about this and you are willing to keep your mind open to data I will make a thread. Evolution really has nothing to do with religion so I won't hijack this one more.

It may be an oversimplification, but my understanding is that those perceptions were made on a mathmatical bases, taking the number of amino acids needed to create dna, and then the various combinations of those amino acids into the proper sequencing to allow a self replicating organism to form. The math may not be correct, and there may be things missing from the equation, but it appears to give a good general idea of what random chance is up against. Even if were as "small" as 10 to the 20th power, those are still enormous odds. Not by any means impossible in a universe of our size, just highly unlikely. We're talking about 1 or less civilization per galaxy, and that seems like a whole lot of empty space.



Agreed.



I think we need to spend a little more time on consciousness, and it is specifically relevant to some of the other topics we may lead into. It is certainly possible that we may understand consciousness from a scientific model someday, but from what you have posted, at the moment scientists really have no idea whatsoever.

I think we can agree here that consciousness is in its most basic form, electricity? Apparently random firing of neurons in the brain, that though subjective experience and memory create that which we call "I". So it is located in the brain, but where? Everywhere? Cerebral Cortex? What of other life forms, are they conscious? What of the ones with no cortex, or very little of one? Is the level of consciousness dependant upon the size of the brain, or cortex? The brain is ~90% water and salt, can we put those two together add some electricity and get consciousness? I dunno, just speculating here, and trying to better understand an area I'm not that familiar with scientifically. Trying to flesh out ideas for better understanding.

I think we can also agree that we live in a universe where every single solitary thing it in is recycled? Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, they only change form...

So what happens to conscious energy when we die? Does it just disappate into space, or does it transform into something different? This sort of leads into a discussion of reincarnation...if everything is recycled, why would consciousness be any different?



I'm confused, you just contradicted yourself there. You first indicated that something subjective and irraducible couldn't be studied objectively, then stated that it could be and is in fact being done, with much progress...



Hmm, this sounds just like the universe experiencing itself...What Sagan is saying poetically is what I have been trying to say, in longer, not such eloquent language



To conclude this post, I'd like to propose a thought experiment. I got this from someone else on Youtube, so it is not originally mine...

The premise is to imagine the cells in your body. Would you agree that in many senses, a cell is a microcosm for the body as a whole? They take in nutrients, expose of waste, have organs, communicate with eachother, and can replicate, just to name a few. They make you a greater whole, while at the same time keeping thier individuality. Do they work in harmony with you? Or are they your slaves?

In addition to this, think of fractal geometry. Can we agree that it is ubiquitious thoughout nature?


Let us call this cell..."I" the cell.

So we have I the cell, and I the cell who combine to make I the tissue. They are still individual components with their own processes and needs, but have combined to make something greater...

I the tissue + I the tissue = I the organ
I the organ + I the organ = I the body
I the body + I the body = I the species (collective unconscious?)
I the species + I the species = I the planet
I the planet + I the planet = I the solar system
I the solar system + I the solar system = I the galaxy
I the galaxy + I the galaxy = I the local cluster
I the cluster + I the cluster = I the universe
I the universe + I the universe = I the multiverse

We can go downwards as well...

I the atom + I the atom = I the molecule
I the molecule + I the molecule = I the amino acid
I the amino acid + I the amino acid = I the DNA
I the DNA + I the DNA = I the cell
I the cell + I the cell = I the tissue

Fractal sprirals (proven to exist everywhere in nature) going up and down in complexity and organization, yet each keeping its own individual characteristics and identity, while at the same time being a part of a greater whole, and working in perfect harmony with one another.

Interesting to think about...

Namaste

Funny that you just posted this while I was writing my last response. My thought experiment mirrors this idea exactly. And you are correct, the only being that could observe the universe as a conscious being, would be another universe. We are just part of it, and infinitesimally small part of the whole...but working in harmony with it...or maybe not (cancer) considering what we are doing to our planet.

I personally believe consciousness is the backbone of existence...EVERYTHING is conscious, it is the glue that holds everything together.

I have recently come across the idea of Epigenetics. The ability of gene expression to be manipulated pre-natal, and post birth depending upon envrionmental conditions. There was a PBS program on this lately, where they seem to have proven, that hunger or plenty for your grandfather (in adolescence) or your grandmother (in the womb) caused genetic changes that could then be passed down to their offspring. So if your grandfather lived during the dust bowl in adolescence and had a lack of food, you have genetic traits today because of that environmental experience.

Very interesting indeed...

Probably better for another thread though. I too love discussing this stuff, and to have such a wealth of diverse intelligence and knowledge from the members here on this site. I know very little about genetics or chemistry or biology, I am more of an artist at heart so I can think creatively about weird stuff, but lack the scientific base for many of my ideas. Thats why I love these discussions, as it broadens my understanding of the world, and helps me along my path.

Namaste

Saidin,
I can dig it. It's a way neat idea. Maybe there is a whole world of these universes grooving together, living and dying. These universes live in a super-universe at an even more complex state that is also conscious as a whole and so on to infinity.
This is a neat idea but it is fantasy. It simply cannot be made true.

The cell analogy breaks down. If 1/3 of the universe was wiped out it would not wipe out our local universe. Humans might not even know for billions of years. If 1/3 of the brain cells are removed all the brain cell die. There is a special interdependence to living systems.

I think you are misinterpreting Sagan. He acknowledged that there is no difference between us and the rest of the observable universe at a fundamental level. That is, everything is made of fundamentally the same 'stuff' interacting by the same set of definable rules.

But he put special emphasis on the fact that humanity represents the only consciousness in our tiny part of the universe at our observed slice in time. Human beings appear to be the local agents of consciousness in our galaxy. We are certainly the only consciousness in the solar system. This is why he was passionate about conservationism and spaceflight. Consciousness may be one of the most rare and wonderful things in the cosmos and it has to be preserved and expanded if possible.

This is a terrific thread. I just like ideas. Be they true, false or fantasy. The nexus rules!

Why cannot it be true?

It is not provable (from our prespective), but the example I gave above could logically be true and is backed by observable science.

I disagree, there are other conscious entities on this planet at least, consciousness is not unique to to us alone. Dolphins are most likely conscious, probably some other animals as well. I've had pets that knew what I was thinking and could expresses their needs (different from basic ones) in ways I understood. As far as we know, this planet holds the only consciousness we are aware of, that doesn't mean that there isn't other consciousness in our solar system. I personally believe the sun is conscious, as well as every other thing in existence. It is just a diffrent level of existence but exhibits similar characteristics to everything else in nature.

I like Sagan, my first experiences with ideas beyond the Earth came from his Cosmos series...but he also died 13 years ago, and cosmology has learned more in the last 13 years than it had in his entire lifetime. Our perspective is much larger now, but he had it right. We are the universe experiencing itself, except it is not just us, it is everything.

Also you are incorrect, an organism can live without large numbers of brain cells, it just depends on where those brain cells are destroyed. Look into Network Science. Just as large portiions of the internet/power grids/transportation/biological/social/cognitive networks could go down and not bring the whole down, the network just gets smaller, things get rerouted. Though if you take out a few large Hubs, the whole system would crash. So it all depends on what is destroyed, not necessairly the amount. Here's a documentary on it: http://ivl.slis.indiana....008-talas-connected.mov

Ever played 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon? This is a rudimentary explanation of Network Science. We are all interconnected, some with many connections, others with few, but we are all only a few steps away from one another.

Have you ever seen a picture of a neuron next to a picture of a cluter of galaxies? Hard to tell the difference...

Well the idea is that consciousness is a result of the functions of the brain. We just don't have all aspects of it connected. But for example we know that when certain parts of the brain are damaged that aspects of consciousness are gone. There are many examples of this. Some are visual neglect things like that. So there is evidence that the brain is responsible for conscious experience. I don't think its fair to say scientists have no idea what so ever.



I wouldn't say its located anywhere specifically in the brain. That was one idea but it seems to be falling out of favor. But it does appear to be the SUM of the brains activities. I do think other forms of life our conscious but I like to think of it like a continuum. Organisms with more brain or some similar nervous system activity are more conscious (roughly). We can't just say brain because things like octopus's don't have brains but they are really smart. Its also too simple to just base consciousness on brain size although that does give an indication of how much processing power is there. I do think there are a number of other factors that are important such of how the brain and rest of the nervous system is organized etc.

Well the brain is a lot of water and salt but its far more then just that and adding electricity that makes it function. The brain is an incrediabely complex network of neurons. I mean we could go into the substructures of neurons and various types and neurotransmitters and the receptors but that's getting heavily into brain science and might veer off topic. The electricity is just an electric gradient generated by ion gradients. Its what transmits a signal down one neuron to cause a release of neurotransmitters to then go on to tell the next neuron to do something.




Well concerning the laws of thermodynamics yes but there is a paradox generated from blackholes that Stephen Hawking brought up. Its still somewhat unresolved as far as I know. But that's a side story.

Well if what makes consciousness possible is the brain and its physical structure when that is destroyed and dies your consciousness can no longer exist. All the signals that were going around do cease and decay with the rest of your body. Our brain changes all throughout our life constantly making new networks and connections which does effect and change with our behavior and environment. If that's lost it seems there will be no 'you' or 'me'.



I only indicated that it can't be studied because various philosophers throughout the ages have said so. I do think in a number of ways some of them are wrong which is what I then tried to illustrate.



Yes and we are a very very very long way from any of our possible neighbors. But our apparent rarity is why I think life is special and humanity should try to survive along with other life on this planet. Although we might not be as rare as we think we have no way of knowing until we leave this small planet.



But there is big differences. On an organizational level a spatial level a functional level. I think analogies that go from the really small to the really big and say its all the same are in a sense true but for the most part misleading and flawed. The gaia hypothesis is one popular example that I really think is completely absurd. The reasoning is just all together wrong.

Yes. This is why it cannot be made true, or false. It's fantasy. We're spinning grass, talking fantasy.

This is why it is a religious belief. It is really no more or less advanced then believing in a anthropomorphic creator god with a 10 gallon beard and a fistful of thunder. It is equally fantastic and equally unknowable.

This paradox has been solved. Hawking proved that information is NOT lost in a black hole. It is now called Hawking radiation.



Come on burnt, you are the scientist, you know full well that, "its absurd" or "its wrong" is never an acceptable counter point to a theory.

How can you know this? Organizationally they are similar, almost identical, but we could have no perception (on a larger scale than ourselves) and no possible way of proving if it were true functinally (on a larger scale than ourselves), but we can observe how it is organizationally, functionally, and spatially similar on a smaller scale. Would you agree with my cell-body analogy? Is not a cell almost exactly like a human body, but on a much smaller scale?

You don't believe that the Earth is an completely interdependent organism? I don't see how that is absurd, as all the evidence points to its factual basis...

How is this analogies misleading and flawed? How is the reasoning altogether wrong? The flaw that they cannot be proven? Is it at least plauseable? Possibly even likely as it mimics everything we see around us?

Do we not see fractals EVERYWHERE in nature, going from the very small to the very large? From living organisims such as, trees, leaves, branches, shells, plants, veins, neural...to rivers, mountains, coastlines, lightning, clouds, atoms, solar systems, galaxies, clusters...to networks, social, biological, transportation, power, information? Fractals are everywhere, they are the structure of our reality.



We are talking philosophy, so I guess all philosophy is just fanstay? It passed over to the "definition" of religion because it explains the nature of existence, with observable evidence and scientific understanding. You don't need a creator god, existence just is. You don't need to worship anything...do the cells in your body worship you? No, they don't. There is no good, there is no evil, everything just is. When cells do not work in harmony in your body, do we not get cancer? When humans do not live in harmony with the planet, do we not become like a cancer to the Earth? I belive it is a far more advanced idea than a guy throwing thunderbolts, or even a active god in any form. It just makes sense logically, without the necessary suspension of belief or reason, or needing to rely on faith.

Religion is a dirty word that causes arguments and fights...

Actually Hawking radiation is part of the information paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ole_information_paradox

Check it.



Your right I copped out of that one. I was being lazy

But ok organizationally they are not similar. Galaxies and neurons are made up of completely different "stuff". They are also separated on a completely different scale. The space between galaxies and the stars in galaxies is massive. Information takes millions of years from one star to another. A neuron takes milliseconds. I could go on but I think its going to get redundant.

Ok but I understand what you are saying that if we could see further and further out and we were large enough maybe we would see some kind of over arching pattern that suggests all the galaxies are part of some complex web of interconnected data and information making up a conscious universe. Buuuuuuttt I don't even see the connection between saying the cells in our body are an analogy to the entire human form. I mean yes we have organs and they are made of cells and all that but overall one cell is not analogous to our human form. I think these ideas are again over simplifying basic biology and hence are very misleading. So why would I see this connection on a galactic scale? I don't think I am being close minded about this but I think these analogies get thrown around way too much and people give them way too much credit simply because they are philosophically pleasing but to me they seem biologically baseless.




The earth is not an interdependant organism. Its a big chunk of rock with an iron (or nickel) core. It doesn't reproduce. It just floats around orbiting our star. It doesn't do most of the things that regular organisms do. It just floats around in space while all matter inside it runs around doing stuff. I guess in a sense you can say but so are our cells but our cells are completely different from the earth. All the planets are not analogous to a living organism or an atom.

I take this from wiki but its found in lots of biology texts. Its the general definition of what characterises life.



The earth doesn't really do any of these things. It doesn't respond to stimuli for example. Its not made of cells. It doesn't adapt (although it does change it doesn't adapt). It doesn't metabolize. In a sense it maintains a type of homeostatis but its not the cells of the earth doing this and thats a big difference. In our bodies we have cells and mechanisms specifically for maintaining homeostatis. The earth has such mechanisms for example the atmosphere but its not like that because the earth is trying to keep itself alive. Its like that because the life among other things on earth spewed out a bunch of gases that went into the atmosphere. Its very different.

I don't like the gaia hypothesis as you can clearly see.

I also don't like these scalar arguments. They over simplify. An atom is not analogous to our solar system for example.



I don't know much about fractal geometry to be honest. But I don't really see how the fact that fractals are everywhere implies that everything from the very small to very big is completely analogous. Matter and energy organize themselves into patterns but thats a result of the laws of nature.



Religion needs to be fought. Else it will further damage human society and our planet.

Heh, one says its solved, someone else says its not...(I knew Hawking radiation was involved somehow )



I am talking about completely diffreent scales, I am essentially making a scalar argument. What is a millisecond to a neuron, could be 1 million light years between galaxies. What about electron spin resonance, which is instantaneous no matter what the distance? Information is not relegated to the speed of light any more. Look into torsion waves/fields. Look into a holographic universe theory. Information is instantaneous across the whole universe in certain mediums.

We understand the organization and function pretty well of scalar syetems that make up who we are (atoms, dna, cells organs), but can not possibly have an understanding of the processes that would make up organization of a higher level. Do cells understand what it is like to be a human? No. Could they ever? I'd say no. Therefore it is unlikely that we could understand the organization of which we are only a smaller part (unless we were to ascend(evolve) to higher scalar level).



A cell takes in nutrients, and exposes of waste. A cell has organs. A cell can communicate with other cells. I cell can replicate. A cell can be damaged and die. A cell can be repaired. A cell has an outer membrane that protects the internal organs. A cell has locomotion. It is very very similar to a complete living organism. It is over simplifing in some senses, but the characteristics are there. Of course things won't be exactly the same as we go up or down in scalar terms, but the fundamental structure is there.



Are not all the Earth's ecological systems intertwined, dependent upon one another? Does not all life fit into a niche, and if you disrupt a niche, it can affect other living systems? I just don't see how you can claim it is not. Then what are we worried about climate change for? If we are not all linked in a web of life, all dependent upon one another as a whole, then there is certianly nothing to worry about. We should go ahead and destroy ecosystems, and pollute to our hearts content. Destroy the forrest and you destroy the respiratory system. Destory the water, and you destroy the circulatory system. In my analogy, each separate species of living thing on the earth is a separate cell, tissue, or organ(we could even consider humans the brain). Destroy enough cells, tissue, organs, and the whole system collapses. The brain cannot survive without the heart, or the skin, or the circulatory system, or the respiratory system. Destroy enough and the Earth will "die"



1. Homeostasis: = Atmosphere
2. Organization: = Ecosystems
3. Metabolism: = Atmosphere, sedimentation, plate tectonics (subduction), volcanoes, rivers, oceans.
4. Growth: EVOLUTION, Diversity of ecosystems, more complex organisims, intelligence.
5. Adaptation: EVOLUTION, Plate tectonics, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, extinction, climate change, intelligence.
6. Response to stimuli: EVOLUTION, extinction, pole shifts, change in sea levels, change in ocean currents, ice ages, intelligence.
7. Reproduction: EVOLUTION, volcanoes, change in land masses/seas/oceans, etc

The Earth does all these things. Of course it responds to stimuli...we are seeing that with climate change right now. Coronal Mass Ejections, Comets, Asteroids, Mass extinctions, etc. Of course it adapts, when we reach a tipping point we'll either all be boiled off, or a new ice age will come. The thermo-haline current will stop, air becomes unable to sustain forms of life, ocean temperatures rise and kill off coral reefs, etc.

It is not that different.



Sometimes a simple explanation is the right one.

Our solar system is very much analgous to an atom. You have a central positive force (sun, protons) and orbiting you have a negative force (planets, electrons) and in between its ~90% empty space.



I suggest looking into it, when you understand fractal geometry, it provides compelling evidence that everything from the very small to the very big is perfectly analogous. It is the way our reality is structured, and can be applied to everything we see.

You like to play computer games? Ever seen outdoor environments in games and how lifelike they look. That came about because of fractal geometry. They couldn't get the polygons right until fractals came about, now they can mimic anything in nature, mountians, coastlines, rivers, trees, clouds, by using fractal geometry.

Certainly all philosophy that deals with first causes and purpose is fantasy and falls under the umbrella of religious/spiritual thought. These issues simply cannot be properly backed by any observable evidence and scientific understanding.

There are several reasons for this. Perhaps the most important is that any set of observable phenomena can be 'explained' by an infinite number of possible first causes. You could say that the universe is a conscious agent in some larger super-space and someone else could say that the universe is a quark in an atom of a massive blade of grass. Maybe a hindu thinks the universe is a dream that's dreaming itself (a beautiful idea).

All I know, is that I know nothing. The mind seems to really be geared toward creating some ontological framework for itself so I don't fight it but I have learned to play loose with these belief systems. They wash off quite easily so you can indulge in exploration.




The only thing you analogy shows is that bigger things are made out of littler things ad infinitum. Given this, it follows that the overall structure/activity of the bigger thing will be effected by the structures ineteractions of the littler things. It is clear that the particulars of the structures and interactions at different scales are quite radically different.

This is a pretty cool feature of the universe. You can base an infinite number of metaphysical belief systems on this feature.

Would you say that my analogy uses both observable evidence and scientific understanding to hypothesize a structure of existence? Whether or not it may be correct? Its a fantastic idea, but is there enough circumstantial evidence to lend it the smallest of possibilities that it could logically be true?



There is no first cause, there is an infinity of first causes. A blade of grass is a universe unto itself. A quark is a universe unto itself. Everything that was, is, or will be are all a universe unto itself. We are all creation, we are all a dream that's dreaming itself, that is dreaming itself... All inextricably linked thoughout time and space. It is conscsiousness. There is no beginning, and there is no end. All just is.



Agreed. All I know, is that I know nothing. We are built to try to make meaning out of the unknowable. No matter how many mysteries we may think we have figured out, there is always another layer. That is why when you ask the right questions, and get answers, those answers always lead to more questions. That is how you know you are on the right path.



This is the definition of a fractal. Play with Mandelbrot Sets. Make one tiny change and it is reflected thoughout the whole. The activity and interactions of different scales could be quite radically different, but general structure stays the same. This also describes a hologram. Make a change to one part of a hologram and it is reflected thoughout the whole. All in one, one in all.

Well I still can't accept that the earth is alive and that the solar system is analogous to an atom. From a biologists standpoint I just don't consider those things alive for a number of reasons. Maybe its because I am more used to looking at cells and physiology in detail that when I compare a cell to a human body or a planet I see many many differences. From a compositional, organizational, and mechanistic view. Of course scalar as well.

We can agree to disagree on that however no need to beat around it forever.



I think we have done a good job at laying out basically the furthest understanding of what humans know about the universe consciousness and all that. We understand the areas where we differ and of course we will differ on some of these areas because of our backrounds and because some of these areas are still largely unknown.

So I would like to alter the direction and instead of discussing the nature of reality which we have many detailed threads about I'd like to go back to why religion sucks.

But I think we all know why mainstream organized religion sucks.

I guess I will bring up some specifics and some info for people who are interested.

From a pro science standpoint I'd have to say I am extremely disturbed by the trend against teaching evolution in the U.S. and against teaching science sensibly in general. Math and science education is already in free fall because the federal department of education is a joke and doesn't do anything useful (like most federal government programs).

Intelligent design and creationism are are not science. Neither has presented any testable hypothesis and confirmed them. Nor have they confirmed anything that even hits to their possibility. The mere fact that intelligent design is being talked about so much in the media makes people who already don't know much about science even dumber. I hear more and more people thinking evolution is not real or there is something majorly wrong with it. It also creates a distrust of science within the general public. Its something like 50% of Americans who don't believe in evolution!

Here is a great article:

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/28449/version/1

The second disturbing trend inspired for the most part on older spiritual beliefs is the trend towards...I don't know the word to call it. Ok well we are living in an information bombardment society. People are bombarded with information about all kinds of issues from health to the environment politics etc. Because people already distrust science and don't know how to think critically they are easily swayed into believing stupid things.

People nowadays are so blind to how to tell the difference between information that isn't very reliable and information that is valuable. This is directly damaging to society at large.

I like Richard Dawkin's points on matters like these and think his documentary entitled the "Enemies of Reason" was really good. Only so much can be said in a documentary and it forces those making them to get to the point and illustrate it well so of course there is much more to be said on these types of issues.

We are living in dangerous times. Nuclear weapons, perpetual war, economic instability, and environmental geopolitical problems abound. If the general public keeps going down the path of stupidity, which is largely inspired by religious and spiritually unreasonable attitudes its going to make the future a lot shittier for a lot of people. I am fed up with it.

http://www.dmt-nexus.me/...;m=60461&#post60461

The lecture here is very relevant to this discussion.

In some ways it can be looked at that religion is beneficial because it psychologically pleases people. It makes them happy and comfortable. But at what expense? At the expense of dishonesty, at the expense of a denial of individual freedom, at the expense of progress in solving real issues.

For example when the pope visits Africa it makes a lot of people who believe in his message happy it helps build their faith etc. But then he comes along and said "Don't use condoms" to a bunch of people who are dieing of AIDS and over population problems.


I also am not leaving eastern religions out of this. Why do a bunch of monks get to sit in a monestary their whole lives while the rest of the community has to feed them. Some monks make their own food but in some sects they are totally wrapped up in their rituals they don't produce their own food. These people are a drain on society. What use is their insights for the rest of us?

Oops. Just wanted to say that the definition I gave of 'spiritual' earlier on seems to be different from Wikipedias, which paints it in a new-agey light, so to stop any misunderstandings I hereby renounce calling myself 'spiritual'! Maybe 'philosophical' will have to do instead, to mean people who are interested in the big questions and retain the scientific method.

http://www.richarddawkin...Dennett-Richard-Dawkins

This is also a nice interview. Talking about the power of evolution and how grateful we should be to exist at all. God and religion trivializes this gratefulness.

We can certainly agree to disagree. What you cannot see as alive, is obviously alive to me, and that is perfectly fine.

My point in posting what I did, is that there are other notions of "religion" or "spirituality" which do not reduce one to stupidity or sheeple.

Those are my beliefs as to the nature of existence, intuitively and logically they make sense to me (both sober, in a meditative state, and in ayahuasca land). They don't affect or change my life in any way. I am here to learn, and learn I shall continue to do, always keeping an open mind, and willing to change my beliefs if I am presented with new and better information.

All I hoped to do was present some different information which I have gleaned from much research into a variety of topics. I don't want to change anyones mind. I claim no Truth. There are a myriad of ideas out there, just thought id throw my 2 cents in. They may resonate with someone, maybe not, but either way it doesn't matter.

If you have time, and as a biologist who knows much more than I on this subject, could you please explain some of the compositional, organizational and mechanistic differences between a cell and a body, so that I can have a better understanding of the science?