Universe looks like brain cells

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Universe looks like brain cells

Postby monster » Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:49 am

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/neuron-galaxy.jpg">Link</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=goplidlink2338690locationhttp3a2f2fsprottphysicswiscetq9.jpg"><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1630/goplidlink2338690locationhttp3a2f2fsprottphysicswiscetq9.th.jpg"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--></a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>The original FARK link came with this comment, which was pretty clever:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Stunning comparison of macro and micro images link the formation of the brain and the universe. Feel free to read too much into this<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>(The FARK comment thread is located <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2338690">here</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->)<br><br>The comment thread is way too cynical/sarcastic for my taste. Maybe we can have a better discussion here. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
monster
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:55 pm
Location: Everywhere
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Universe looks like brain cells

Postby 4911 » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:15 am

Stunning truth is that scientists watch the simpsons for data<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0RMvOpXVsw">www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0RMvOpXVsw</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
4911
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Excellent find Monster.

Postby slimmouse » Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:42 pm

<br> Nice find monster. <br><br> Im trying to assimilate all this into my reasoning, and think about the possible implications.<br><br> It sure does fit in for me somehow. I just havent quite fathomed out how to best express it yet.<br><br> For about the past ten years ( since I began to give this whole "Whats it all about question" more attention )Ive been intrigued by the idea that the universe is akin to "Gods" mind, and that their are an infinite number of paralell and interconnected universes ( neurons) out their if you will.<br><br> Quantum physics might obviously support this, and along with these pictures provide at this point a "wisping gun" by way of evidence.<br><br> Fascinating .<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Excellent find Monster.

Postby dugoboy » Mon Oct 09, 2006 8:33 pm

hm, my thinking as well.. <p>___________________________________________<br>"BushCo aren't incompetent...they are Complicit!" -Me<br>"Fascism finds root best in unreality." - Me<br>"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell<br><br>"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always." -Mahatma Gandhi</p><i></i>
dugoboy
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Excellent find Monster.

Postby 1 tal » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:55 am

<br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>".. When we are in the life between death and a new birth we are in the very same world that is outside of us here on earth. All that you can see clearly, or only dimly sense, as an external world, becomes then your inner world. To all that you then say "my I." Just as you now regard your lung as belonging to your I, so do you regard - in the life between death and a new birth - the sun and moon as your organs, as being </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->in <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>you. And the only outer world that you have, is you yourself, as you are on earth, that is, your earthly organs.<br><br> While on the earth we say: In us is a lung, in us is a heart; outside us is a sun, outside us is a moon, outside us is a zodiac. But during the life between death and a new birth we say: In us is a zodiac, in us is the sun, in us is the moon, outside us is a lung, outside us is a heart. Between death and a new birth everything we now carry within our skin becomes more and more our outer world, our universe, our cosmos. Our view of the relationship between world and man is exactly the opposite when we are living between death and a new birth.<br><br> So it is that when we live through death, that is, when we go through the gate of death, we have, to begin with, a distinct picture of what was before, of how we were on earth. But it is only a picture. Yet you must think of this picture as having an effect like the outer world. At first you have this picture like a kind of appearance within you. In the first period after death, you still have a consciousness of what you were on earth as a human being - consciousness in the form of earthly memories and earthly pictures. These do not last long; in your view of the human being you advance more and more to the following: I is the world; the universe is the human being. This is more and more the case. But you must not imagine that the human lung, for instance, looks the same as it does now; that would not be a sight to compensate for the beauty of the sun and moon. What the lung and heart will be then is something much greater, something much more <br>wonderful than what the sun and moon are now to the human eye.<br><br> Only in this way do you really get an impression of what maya is. People speak of maya, that this present earthly world is a great illusion, but they do not really believe it. Deep down people still believe that everything is just as it appears to earthly eyes. But that is not the case. The human lung as we see it now is mere semblance; so is the heart. The truth is that our lung is only a magnificent part of our cosmos, our heart even more so. For in its true essence our heart is something much more majestic, something vastly greater than any sun...<br><br> ...All this we can then sum up in these words: The closer we approach to a new life on earth, the more this universe that is the human being contracts for us. We become increasingly aware of how this majestic universe - it is most especially majestic in the middle period between death and a new birth - how this majestic universe, so to speak is shrinking and contracting, how, out of the weaving of the planets that we bear within us, something is created that then pulsates and surges through the human etheric body, how out of the fixed stars of the zodiac something is formed that builds our life of nerves and senses. This all shrinks together, it shapes itself to become first a spiritual and then an etheric body. And not until it has grown very, very small is it taken up into the mother's womb and clothed there with earthly matter..."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br>from <!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">The Cosmic Origin of the Human Form</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--><br>R. Steiner 1922<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=1tal>1 tal</A> at: 10/13/06 1:03 pm<br></i>
1 tal
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Excellent find, Monster.

Postby Ouish » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:29 am

My thought isn't that the universe is a mind but that the mind is a copy of the universe. A mind recreates the universe inside itself, and the structure of any mind that successfully does this might do so as a result of duplicating the structure of its universe. Or, as Zed says in <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Zardoz</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, "A receiver must resemble its transmitter." <p></p><i></i>
Ouish
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:09 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Universe looks like brain cells

Postby Seamus OBlimey » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:50 pm

If only there was more life in it. <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Seamus OBlimey
 
Posts: 3154
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:14 pm
Location: Gods own country
Blog: View Blog (0)

1 Tal

Postby Seventhsonjr » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:44 pm

Thanks for the steiner quote. It brought tears to my eyes as my late pop was an anthropop but I did not ralize this was a steiner quote until the end and was very moved by it even before seeing the author's name-<br><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>For in its true essence our heart is something much more majestic, something vastly greater than any sun...</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>My initial feeling was that the pictures remind me of Talbot's "Holographic Universe" which Jeff mentioned several blogposts back and which for me says it all.<br><br>Our minds are part of the universe and the universe is part of our mind (IS our mind ultimately). Steiner puts it so well and it brought me back to the teachings of my Dad (my mom was pretty standard Christian) - but it still brought tears as I have been contemplating death a lot lately and its meaning and the idea of reincarnation. This post really touched me and I am grateful. It gave me tears of sadness and joy<br><br><br>BTW are you (what we affectionatley call in my family)an anthropop ?<br><br>and is there a link or site for this quote?<br><br>Love to hear more along this line. This was a beautiful quote and very moving for me especially right now when I miss my dad a lot (he died almost twenty years ago)<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Seventhsonjr
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Universe looks like brain cells

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:22 pm

Microcosm = macrocosm = mycrocosm.<br><br>See <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>'fractals.'</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> Great vocabulary - <br><br>Strange Attractors<br>Julia Sets<br>Quadratic Map Basins<br>Iterated Function Systems<br>Chaos Demonstrations<br><br>"The basic concept of fractals is that they contain a large degree of self similarity. This means that they usually contain little copies of themselves buried deep within the original. And the also have infinite detail."<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/fractals/fract000.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/fractals.htm<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/fractals/fract009.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>These images are real-world fractals photographed by J. C. Sprott using a Sony Mavica MVC-FD7 Digital Camera. More images of this type can be found in the index of natural fractals.<br><br> * Catalog#9 (44,617 bytes) - catalog of the following<br> * Ashes (103,736 bytes)<br> * Bark (114,511 bytes)<br> * Branches (92,423 bytes)<br> * Brick (148,456 bytes)<br> * Broccoli (48,229 bytes)<br> * Bubbles (95,751 bytes)<br> * Carpet (86,844 bytes)<br> * Fabric (149,813 bytes)<br> * Ice (80,564 bytes)<br> * Ice Crystals (74,388 bytes)<br> * Moss (110,881 bytes)<br> * Pavement (103,656 bytes)<br> * Rocks (84,558 bytes)<br> * Shrub (89,055 bytes)<br> * Snow Tree (98,996 bytes)<br> * Trees (149,156 bytes)<br><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

DNA-shaped nebula

Postby monster » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:03 am

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://imageshack.us"><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6056/nebuladoublehelixbe9.jpg"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--></a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>A nebula shaped like DNA <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
monster
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:55 pm
Location: Everywhere
Blog: View Blog (0)

and is there a link or site for this quote?

Postby 1 tal » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:19 pm

<br><br> Funny you should ask. I always try to find a link that I can cut & paste rather than laboriously type (not one of my better skills). I didn't find this one online either by date or title until yesterday when I went looking for Steiner's piece on Adam Kadmon (alas, not online, nor do I own it) and turned up <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/MansLife/19220822a01.html">Man's Life on Earth and in the Spiritual Worlds (lecture II) </a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> which seems to be the same lecture, different translation, different lecture cycle but same date and city (Oxford, 22nd August 1922).<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
1 tal
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: DNA-shaped nebula

Postby 1 tal » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:08 pm

<br> <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"..On the one hand we have Astronomy, tending more and more to be clothed in mathematical forms of thought. It has become so great in its present form just because it is a purely mathematical and mechanical science. But there is another branch of science which stands, as it were, at the opposite pole to Astronomy, and which cannot be studied in its real nature without Astronomy. It is however, impossible, as science is today, to build a bridge between Astronomy and this other pole of science, namely, Embryology. He alone is studying reality, who on the one hand studies the starry skies and on the other hand the development of the human embryo. How is the human embryo generally studied today? Well, it is stated: The human embryo arises from the interaction of two cells, the sex-cells or gametes, male and female. These cells develop in the parent organism in such a way as to attain a certain state of independence before they are able to interact. They then present a certain contract, the one cell, the male, calling forth new and different possibilities of development in the other, the female. The question is put: What is a cell? As you know, since about the middle of the 19th century, Biology has largely been built upon the cell theory. The cell is described as a larger or smaller, spherule, consisting of albuminous or protein-like substances. It has a nucleus within it of a somewhat different structure and around the whole is an enclosing membrane. As such, it is the building-stone for all that arising by way of living organisms. The sex-cells are of a similar nature but are formed differently according to whether they are male or female, and from such cells every more complicated organism is built up.<br><br> But now, what is actually meant when it is said that an organism builds itself up from these cells? The idea is that substances which are otherwise in Nature are taken up into these cells and then no longer work in quite the same way as before. If oxygen, nitrogen or carbon are contained in the cells, the carbon, for instance, does not have the effect upon some other substance outside, that it would have had before; such power of direct influence s lost to it. It is taken up into the organism of the cell and can only work there as conditions in the cell allow. That is to say, the influence is exerted not so much by the carbon, but by the cell, which makes use of the particular characteristics of carbon, having incorporated a certain amount of it into itself. For example, what man has within him in the form of metal -- iron for instance -- only works in a circuitous way, via the cell. The cell is the building-stone. So in studying the organism, everything is traced to the cell. Considering at first only the main bulk of the cell, without the nucleus and membrane, we distinguish two parts: a transparent part composed of this fluid, and another part forming sort of framework. Describing it schematically, we may say that there is the framework of the cell, and this is embedded, as it were, in the other substance which, unlike the framework, is quite unformed. (Fig. 6.)<br><br> Thus we must think of the cell as consisting of a mass which remains fluid and unformed and a skeleton or framework which takes on a great variety of forms. This then is studied. The method of studying cells in this way has been pretty well perfected; certain parts in the cell can be stained with color, others do not take the stain. Thus with carmine or saffron, or whatever coloring matter is used, we are able to distinguish the form of the cell and can thus acquire certain ideas about its inner structure. We note, for instance, how the inner structure changes when the female germ-cell is fructified. We follow the different stages in which the cell's inner structure alters; how it divides; and how the parts become attached to one another, cell upon cell, so that the whole becomes a complicated structure. All this is studied. But it occurs to no-one to ask: With what is this whole life in the cell connected? What is really happening? It does not occur to anyone to ask this.<br><br> What happens in the cell is to be conceived, my dear friends, in the following way, -- though to be sure, it is still a rather abstract way. There is the cell. For the moment let us consider it in its most usual form, namely the spherical form. This spherical form is partially determined by the thin fluid substance, and enclosed within it is the delicate framework. But what is the spherical form? The thin fluid mass is as yet left entirely to itself and therefore behave according to the impulses it receives from its surroundings. What does it do? Well, my dear friends, it mirrors the universe around it! It takes on the form of the sphere because it mirrors in miniature the whole cosmos, which we indeed also picture to ourselves ideally as a sphere. Every cell in its spherical form is no less than an image of the form of the whole universe. And the framework inside, every line of the form, is conditioned by its relationship to the structure of the whole cosmos. To express myself abstractly to begin with, think of the sphere of the universe with its imaginary boundary (Fig 7). In it, you have here a planet, and there a planet (a,a'). They work in such a way as to exert an influence upon one another in the direction of the line which joins them. Here (m) let us say -- diagrammatically, of course, -- a cell is formed; its outline mirrors the sphere.of the whole universe. And the framework inside, every line of the form, is conditioned by its relationship to the structure of the whole cosmos. To express myself abstractly to begin with, think of the sphere of the universe with its imaginary boundary (Fig 7).<br><br> In it, you have here a planet, and there a planet (a,a'). They work in such a way as to exert an influence upon one another in the direction of the line which joins them. Here (m) let us say -- diagrammatically, of course, -- a cell is formed; its outline mirrors the sphere. Here, within the framework it has a solid part which is due to the working of the one planet on the other. And suppose that here there were another constellation of planets, working upon each other along the line joining them (b,b'). And here again there might be yet another planet (c), this one having no counterpart; -- it throws the whole construction, which might otherwise have been rectangular, out of shape, and the structure takes on a somewhat different form. And so you have in the whole formation of the framework of the cell a reflection of the relationships existing in the planetary system, -- altogether in the whole starry system. You can enter quite concretely into the formation of the cell and you will reach an understanding of this concrete form only if you see in the cell an image of the entire cosmos.<br><br> And now take the female ovum, and picture to yourselves that this ovum has brought the cosmic forces to a certain inner balance. They have taken on form in the framework of the cell, and are in a certain way at rest within it, supported by the female organism as a whole. Then comes the influence of the male sex-cell. This has not brought the macrocosmic forces to rest, but works in the sense of a very specialized force. It is as though the male sex-cell works precisely along this line of force (indicated by Dr. Steiner on the blackboard) upon the female ovum which has come to a condition of rest. The cell, which is an image of the whole cosmos, is thereby caused to relinquish its microcosmic form once more to a changing play of forces. At first, in the female ovum, the macrocosm comes to rest in a peaceful image. Then through the male sex-cell the female is torn out of this state of rest, and is drawn again into a region of specialized activity and brought into movement. Previously it had drawn itself together in the resting form of the image of the cosmos, but the form is drawn into movement again by the male forces which are, so to speak, images of movement. Through them the female forces, which are images of the form of the cosmos and have come to rest, are brought out of this state of rest and balance.<br><br> Here we may have some idea, from the aspect of Astronomy, of the forming and shaping of something which is minute and cellular. Embryology cannot be studied at all without Astronomy, for what Embryology has to show is only the other pole of what is seen in Astronomy. We must, in a way, follow the starry heavens on the one hand, seeing how they reveal successive stages, and we must then follow the process of development of a fructified cell. The to belong together, for the one is only the image of the other. if you understand nothing of Astronomy, you will never understand the forces which are at work in Embryology, and if you understand nothing of Embryology, you will never understand the meaning of the activities which Astronomy has to deal. For these activities appear in miniature in the processes of Embryology.<br><br> It is conceivable that a science should be formed, in which, on the one hand, astronomical events are calculated and described, and on the other hand all that belongs to them in Embryology, which is only the other aspect of the same thing.<br><br> Now look at the position as it is today: you find that Embryology is studied on its own. It would be regarded as madness if you were to demand of a modern embryologist that he should study Astronomy in order to understand the phenomena in his own sphere of work. And yet it should be so. This is why a complete regrouping of the sciences is necessary. It will be impossible to become a real embryologist without studying Astronomy. It will no longer be possible to educate specialists who merely turn their eyes and their telescopes to the stars, for to study the stars in that way has no further meaning unless one knows that it is out of the great universe that the minute and microscopical is fashioned.<br><br> All this, -- which is quite real and concrete, -- has in scientific circles been changed into the utmost abstraction. It is reality to say: We must strive for astronomical knowledge in cellular theory, especially in Embryology. If DuBois-Raymond has said that the detailed astronomical facts should be applied to the cell-theory, he would have spoken out of the sphere of reality. But what he wanted corresponds to no reality, namely that something thought-out and devised - the atoms and molecules - should be examined with astronomical precision. He wanted the astronomical type of mathematical thoughts, which have been added to the world of the stars, to be sought for again in the molecule.<br><br> Thus you see, upon the one hand lies reality: movement, the active forces of the stars and the embryonic development in which there lives, in all reality, what lives in the starry heavens. That is where the reality lies and that is where we must look for it. On the other hand lies abstraction. The mathematician, the mechanist, calculates the movements and forces of the heavenly bodies and then invents the molecular structure to which to apply this kind of astronomical knowledge. Here he is withdrawn from life, living in pure abstractions..."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.awakenings.com/astronomy/l1.html">Astronomy Course Lecture I</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> R. Steiner<br><br><br> sorry, I can't make the gif links work....<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=1tal>1 tal</A> at: 10/13/06 4:30 pm<br></i>
1 tal
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:14 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

1 tal

Postby Seventhsonjr » Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 am

1 tal:<br><br>You still didn't say whether you are an anthroposophist or just a fan of the works of Steiner (obviously you are seemingly well-verased or quite familiar)<br><br>If you prefer not to say -- say that...<br><br>It just isn't too common to meet anthropops online in these political parts so I wanted to know as I have some questions and some more to share...<br><br>Thx <p></p><i></i>
Seventhsonjr
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Tucy » Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:10 am

Image

It'd be cool if this rock I found came from Africa.
I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long.
~Mitch Hedberg
Tucy
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:02 pm
Location: Michigan/Arizona
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Spirituality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest