5 ms·

I know it's going to sound like a bunch of hooey, but information really is the most intrinsic element of all aspects of this universe, especially when it comes

I know it's going to sound like a bunch of hooey, but information really is the most intrinsic element of all aspects of this universe, especially when it comes to life. The life force is a thing that is interrelated with our physical bodies, but is not the physical body. It's just like the zen concept of "Not 2, not 1". Our minds have the same relationship with our brains. They're not separate, they're not the same; they're interrelated. That we can't "see" the other side of the connection with our science is due to our science being built with our physical world's constituents (matter & energy), thus those other dimensions are immeasurable with our science's tools. Rupert Sheldrake speaks of this when he says that the genetic code's protein construction genes do not and can not account for the resulting organism's shape. That coordinated construction requires a separate guiding force. That interrelationship is similar to the "memory" that creatures such as salmon have, which is intrinsic to their entire being, not just their physical body, which is only half of our being's totality.

abid786 2y ago
This is a bunch of pseudoscience that isn't proven by anything at all and isn't peer reviewed either
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  And your proof that it's wrong is ... ? That would make your counterargument a pseudo-counterargument, no? It's just reaching into one's feelings/nether-regions and blabbering out some words. You don't even have a sensible counter-theory, right?
  - calfuris 2y ago
    The vast majority of possible explanations for anything are wrong, so "correct unless disproven" is not a sensible default. Your evidence that it's right is ... ?
    - MrMcCall 2y ago
      I can't provide what is, by definition, subjective proof. You must seek and find it yourself, in accordance with our shared universe, which has the same interface with you as it does with me. You could not look at me and comprehend the truth of what my life's choices have wrought upon my being, the happiness my family experiences, even within our poverty. No, you surely can easily deny that as well, and it is your free will's ability to do just that. But it is also within your potential to treat me better than Eugene Parker's or Boltzman's contemporaries treated them, and instead keep an open mind and open heart and follow the path laid in front of us all that allows us to cure ourselves of our destructive selfishness and begin a new path forward. If you look through my other comments you can find a more detailed description of the key that unlocks the necessary doors, and with them our latent abilities, which include knowing instead of just thinking.
Aurornis 2y ago
> Rupert Sheldrake speaks of this when he says that the genetic code's protein construction genes do not and can not account for the resulting organism's shape. > That interrelationship is similar to the "memory" that creatures such as salmon have, which is intrinsic to their entire being, not just their physical body, which is only half of our being's totality. This is all pseudoscience and borderline religious thinking. Rupert Sheldrake and others pushing this line of thinking are not grounded in reality or science. I’m surprised this is the most upvoted sub comment at the time I’m responding. Is pseudoscience like this really becoming so pervasive that comments like this pass as good information?
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  Well, when your science explains where the 5/6ths of the missing matter in the universe is, or where the "dark energy" is, I'm all ears. Also, you can try to explain how individual proteins arrange themselves into bilaterally symmetrical, organ-infused organisms of astounding complexity, using only protein recipes. I know you can't explain it, but that doesn't mean you won't try. There is the known, the unknown, and the unknowable. For many, entire branches of the unknown are unknowable because they refuse to expand their criteria for how they evaluate the facts. Sherlock Holmes' father had a quote to the effect about once you have eliminated the possible, all that's left is the impossible (bad paraphrase, I know).
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    That’s beyond bad paraphrasing - that's the polar opposite of the original. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
    - MrMcCall 2y ago
      Thanks for that. I stand corrected. But my comment was geared towards those who believe that what I am suggesting is impossible, so to them, the only possibilities left are what they consider impossible. My favorite quote from Holmes is the slightly modified one in Jeremy Brett's version of "The Naval Treaty": "What a lovely thing a rose is. There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion. It can be buit up as an exact science by the reason. The highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. It is only goodness which gives excellence, and so I say again, we have much to hope from the flowers." [The entire high-def Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes tv show series can be found on YouTube.]
snowwrestler 2y ago
Whether or not this is “true,” it’s not explanatory. Someone asked how a thing works, and the answer above is essentially just restating that it does in fact work, for some ineffable, immeasurable reason. So while interesting to think about, it’s not a useful response to the question.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  We understood that Mercury's orbit was wrong per Newton's laws long before Einstein came along to explain to us why. Whether or not something is true is always the beginning of a scientific exploration.
  - snowwrestler 2y ago
    Of course, but if we don’t know how something works, it’s ok to just say “we don’t know yet.” There may in fact be physical, measurable mechanisms that govern these types of animal behavior. Just like there was a physical, measurable explanation for Mercury’s orbit.
    - MrMcCall 2y ago
      Yes, but it was Einstein's imagination that provided the theoretical framework that allowed the longstanding physical measurement to line up. If his imagination was limited by Newton's laws, he would have never come up with GR. If he had said that mass causes time to vary, he would have been laughed out of the room, with much ad hominem shouting. What I'm saying here is that we need to push beyond our current scientific paradigms to find out how these inexplicable corner cases actually work. As well, I do realize that the depth of exploration required will be further than most people are willing to plumb, which is demonstrated by the in-their-feelings reactions to my ideas.
  - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
    And now dark matter is throwing a wrench in Einstein’s stuff. Like Newton’s laws, Einstein’s stuff gets is mostly right (impressively so, even!) but breaks inside black holes and doesn’t seem to exactly line up with what we observe about what keeps galaxies in tact. And I’m sure whatever we discover that “solves” for dark matter will eventually start showing cracks as well, prompting another deep inquiry into the nature of our universe. Good times.
EasyMark 2y ago
what you're saying is basically untestable and that's why most scientific minded people only talk about such things over beers or dismiss it entirely. It's not unlike religion or crystals. I mean we can't necessarily disprove them as they are based mostly on faith in an untestable conclusion.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  I suggest that our universal resistence to such ideas is the result of a concerted effort upon our minds and hearts to convince us to embrace selfishly ignorant foolishness rather than selflessly wise service. There is talk here on HN about mathematical reasoning but no one talks about how our systems would affect the Earth differently if we used compassion as our modus operandi instead of for-profit plundering of the Earth for selfish profit. That is because selfishness is our default state -- an animalistic state -- and we must choose to transcend it by self-evolving ourselves beyond our selfishness, and into humanitarian systems that cooperate instead of compete. If you wish to find out how to know the truth in your own subjectively objective reality, browse my other comments. You have your own internal connection that allows the unlocking of your full human potential. Becoming consumed with compassion is a necessary part of that transformation, but we are each free to choose selfishness, and, indeed, most have and are choosing the selfish path. That selfishness is behind every single atrocity ever perpetrated, as well as the spoiling of the Earth for our future generations. For people that choose to become better, the changes come slowly and with drawbacks, but with all art, perseverance and steady effort to improve is the key to success. We each have the power to rise above that animal selfishness and instead choose to design societies of compassionate service to one and all. That path of love is our only hopeful path forward.
  - Tijdreiziger 2y ago
    If selfishness were our default state (as you state) no baby would ever be nursed. No wounded person would be treated. No missing person would be searched for.
    - MrMcCall 2y ago
roughly 2y ago
> Rupert Sheldrake speaks of this when he says that the genetic code's protein construction genes do not and can not account for the resulting organism's shape. That coordinated construction requires a separate guiding force. Of course there's a separate guiding force. It's the biochemical environment around the cell. Cells operate on chemical signals they receive from their environment and generate the same; these cause cells to differentiate themselves based on their genetic code, which where the resulting organism's shape comes from. This isn't some kind of mystery, we know how this works, and matter & energy are indeed sufficient to explain it.

abid786 2y ago

This is a bunch of pseudoscience that isn't proven by anything at all and isn't peer reviewed either

MrMcCall 2y ago
And your proof that it's wrong is ... ? That would make your counterargument a pseudo-counterargument, no? It's just reaching into one's feelings/nether-regions and blabbering out some words. You don't even have a sensible counter-theory, right?
- calfuris 2y ago
  The vast majority of possible explanations for anything are wrong, so "correct unless disproven" is not a sensible default. Your evidence that it's right is ... ?
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    I can't provide what is, by definition, subjective proof. You must seek and find it yourself, in accordance with our shared universe, which has the same interface with you as it does with me. You could not look at me and comprehend the truth of what my life's choices have wrought upon my being, the happiness my family experiences, even within our poverty. No, you surely can easily deny that as well, and it is your free will's ability to do just that. But it is also within your potential to treat me better than Eugene Parker's or Boltzman's contemporaries treated them, and instead keep an open mind and open heart and follow the path laid in front of us all that allows us to cure ourselves of our destructive selfishness and begin a new path forward. If you look through my other comments you can find a more detailed description of the key that unlocks the necessary doors, and with them our latent abilities, which include knowing instead of just thinking.

Aurornis 2y ago

> Rupert Sheldrake speaks of this when he says that the genetic code's protein construction genes do not and can not account for the resulting organism's shape. > That interrelationship is similar to the "memory" that creatures such as salmon have, which is intrinsic to their entire being, not just their physical body, which is only half of our being's totality. This is all pseudoscience and borderline religious thinking. Rupert Sheldrake and others pushing this line of thinking are not grounded in reality or science. I’m surprised this is the most upvoted sub comment at the time I’m responding. Is pseudoscience like this really becoming so pervasive that comments like this pass as good information?

MrMcCall 2y ago
Well, when your science explains where the 5/6ths of the missing matter in the universe is, or where the "dark energy" is, I'm all ears. Also, you can try to explain how individual proteins arrange themselves into bilaterally symmetrical, organ-infused organisms of astounding complexity, using only protein recipes. I know you can't explain it, but that doesn't mean you won't try. There is the known, the unknown, and the unknowable. For many, entire branches of the unknown are unknowable because they refuse to expand their criteria for how they evaluate the facts. Sherlock Holmes' father had a quote to the effect about once you have eliminated the possible, all that's left is the impossible (bad paraphrase, I know).
- Aloisius 2y ago
  That’s beyond bad paraphrasing - that's the polar opposite of the original. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    Thanks for that. I stand corrected. But my comment was geared towards those who believe that what I am suggesting is impossible, so to them, the only possibilities left are what they consider impossible. My favorite quote from Holmes is the slightly modified one in Jeremy Brett's version of "The Naval Treaty": "What a lovely thing a rose is. There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion. It can be buit up as an exact science by the reason. The highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. It is only goodness which gives excellence, and so I say again, we have much to hope from the flowers." [The entire high-def Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes tv show series can be found on YouTube.]

snowwrestler 2y ago

Whether or not this is “true,” it’s not explanatory. Someone asked how a thing works, and the answer above is essentially just restating that it does in fact work, for some ineffable, immeasurable reason. So while interesting to think about, it’s not a useful response to the question.

MrMcCall 2y ago
We understood that Mercury's orbit was wrong per Newton's laws long before Einstein came along to explain to us why. Whether or not something is true is always the beginning of a scientific exploration.
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  Of course, but if we don’t know how something works, it’s ok to just say “we don’t know yet.” There may in fact be physical, measurable mechanisms that govern these types of animal behavior. Just like there was a physical, measurable explanation for Mercury’s orbit.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    Yes, but it was Einstein's imagination that provided the theoretical framework that allowed the longstanding physical measurement to line up. If his imagination was limited by Newton's laws, he would have never come up with GR. If he had said that mass causes time to vary, he would have been laughed out of the room, with much ad hominem shouting. What I'm saying here is that we need to push beyond our current scientific paradigms to find out how these inexplicable corner cases actually work. As well, I do realize that the depth of exploration required will be further than most people are willing to plumb, which is demonstrated by the in-their-feelings reactions to my ideas.
- cruffle_duffle 2y ago
  And now dark matter is throwing a wrench in Einstein’s stuff. Like Newton’s laws, Einstein’s stuff gets is mostly right (impressively so, even!) but breaks inside black holes and doesn’t seem to exactly line up with what we observe about what keeps galaxies in tact. And I’m sure whatever we discover that “solves” for dark matter will eventually start showing cracks as well, prompting another deep inquiry into the nature of our universe. Good times.

EasyMark 2y ago

what you're saying is basically untestable and that's why most scientific minded people only talk about such things over beers or dismiss it entirely. It's not unlike religion or crystals. I mean we can't necessarily disprove them as they are based mostly on faith in an untestable conclusion.

MrMcCall 2y ago
I suggest that our universal resistence to such ideas is the result of a concerted effort upon our minds and hearts to convince us to embrace selfishly ignorant foolishness rather than selflessly wise service. There is talk here on HN about mathematical reasoning but no one talks about how our systems would affect the Earth differently if we used compassion as our modus operandi instead of for-profit plundering of the Earth for selfish profit. That is because selfishness is our default state -- an animalistic state -- and we must choose to transcend it by self-evolving ourselves beyond our selfishness, and into humanitarian systems that cooperate instead of compete. If you wish to find out how to know the truth in your own subjectively objective reality, browse my other comments. You have your own internal connection that allows the unlocking of your full human potential. Becoming consumed with compassion is a necessary part of that transformation, but we are each free to choose selfishness, and, indeed, most have and are choosing the selfish path. That selfishness is behind every single atrocity ever perpetrated, as well as the spoiling of the Earth for our future generations. For people that choose to become better, the changes come slowly and with drawbacks, but with all art, perseverance and steady effort to improve is the key to success. We each have the power to rise above that animal selfishness and instead choose to design societies of compassionate service to one and all. That path of love is our only hopeful path forward.
- Tijdreiziger 2y ago
  If selfishness were our default state (as you state) no baby would ever be nursed. No wounded person would be treated. No missing person would be searched for.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago

roughly 2y ago

> Rupert Sheldrake speaks of this when he says that the genetic code's protein construction genes do not and can not account for the resulting organism's shape. That coordinated construction requires a separate guiding force. Of course there's a separate guiding force. It's the biochemical environment around the cell. Cells operate on chemical signals they receive from their environment and generate the same; these cause cells to differentiate themselves based on their genetic code, which where the resulting organism's shape comes from. This isn't some kind of mystery, we know how this works, and matter & energy are indeed sufficient to explain it.