Home | Community | Message Board

Reliable Spores
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflineRedHarvest
Stranger
Registered: 10/03/01
Posts: 8
Last seen: 20 years, 6 months
The nature of.. nature.
    #412019 - 10/03/01 09:28 AM (21 years, 5 days ago)

A thought that cracks me up from time to time is that we see our selves as the highest level of creation in our immediate vicinity (our solar system, basically). Yet as easily and as indiscriminately as we destroy insects does nature destroy us. I can't help but think that nature is to humans as humans are to ants. Nature (whatever entity or entities comprise it--a god, an alien, a cow--it doesn't matter) sees us as dispensible and dim and perhaps even delights in our destruction. I'll be the first to admit that I've kicked over an anthill just for shits and giggles. Maybe nature one day decided to send a tornado down to Maryland just to see what kind of reaction we'd give.

We react especially violently towards parasites. Sucking our blood is a death wish for a mosquito. If we keep taking more than is given to us, we're going to get swatted. Badly.

Ants are unaware of our self-realization. That is to say, ants cannot distinguish between us and, say, a rock. If we provoke them, we are attacked. If a rock provoked them, it would be attacked to. They cannot comprehend that we are 'concious.' Just in that way can we not comprehend the conciousness of nature. It is beyond our scope. We are simple, robotic, compared to nature, just as ants are simple and robotic compared to us.

The implications of this theory have no rooting in spirituality. Spirituality is a concept that comes from our creativity, a fabricated idea that we cling to so as to explain what science can not yet explain or may never explain. The existence of forces beyond our comprehension does not mean that God exists and that Jesus walked on water. It merely means that we are not the center of creation. And anybody who thinks we are has another thing coming. We are about THIS big (I'm pinching my fingers together right now real tight-like). We are an atom in the speck of dust on a flea's ass that's attatched to the elephant that is Creation. We're not going to the '4th' dimension. The 4th dimension, spatially, exists in the space between particles (if it even does 'exist'). It's that small. Our brains our not designed to exist on that leve, eitherl. We are incapable of visualizing objects in the 4th dimension. The equivalent of a sphere in the 4th dimension (its name eludes me currently) is impossible to see in your mind. It's like asking a 2-dimensional figure to comprehend a sphere. It can't be done.

Shroomism I've read alot of your ideas and I think that they do make alot of sense, but I don't subscribe to them. I'd like to see somebody who hasn't dosed on high levels of hallucinogens come to the same 'spiritual' conclusions as you. There is no doubt in my mind that psychadelics can FUCK YOU UP big time, myself and yourself included. The difference is that the area of my mind that's still rational hasn't been torn to shreds yet. Sorry if I'm coming off a bit raw but reading your stuff sometimes late at night really fucks with my head.. it's not good. I have no doubt, though, that you're one of the most kind people out there, if you really practice what you preach.

PEACE, J

"My definition of a free society is one in which it's safe to be unpopular." -- Adlai E. Stevenson

Edited by RedHarvest on 10/03/01 01:32 AM.



--------------------
"My definition of a free society is one in which it's safe to be unpopular." -- Adlai E. Stevenson


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTraveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 15 years, 13 days
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: RedHarvest]
    #412071 - 10/03/01 10:57 AM (21 years, 5 days ago)

>>>>Ants are unaware of our self-realization. That is to say, ants cannot distinguish between us and, say, a rock. If we provoke them, we are attacked. If a rock provoked them, it would be attacked to. They cannot comprehend that we are 'concious.' Just in that way can we not comprehend the conciousness of nature. It is beyond our scope. We are simple, robotic, compared to nature, just as ants are simple and robotic compared to us.


thought that needed saying again, that's the good stuff that is. everyone seems to think humans are so damn great, and sure i think we're cool but I look around and i see a bunch of apes wearing clothes and man sometimes it really cracks me up...apes in funny clothes and silly hats looking at food in shops scratching their heads and slyly watching the sexy young female apes...

I'm damn proud to be an ape.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMeltingPenguin
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2,138
Loc: new england
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Traveller]
    #412075 - 10/03/01 11:06 AM (21 years, 5 days ago)

How the fuck do you know what ants are thinking. FOr all you know they could be way smarter than us, and prefer to live the way they do, as opposed to the way we do!

You think your sooo smart, all talking about ants, like your a damn ant psycologist.

Satan is Irish


--------------------
Growing anything is good for the soul


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTraveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 15 years, 13 days
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: MeltingPenguin]
    #412081 - 10/03/01 11:14 AM (21 years, 5 days ago)

quiet you!



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMeltingPenguin
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2,138
Loc: new england
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Traveller]
    #412083 - 10/03/01 11:18 AM (21 years, 5 days ago)

lol,
oh sorry...its just that I,...um i really like ants, that's all.

Shrooms are not addictive. The shroomery, however......


--------------------
Growing anything is good for the soul


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePynchon
Slow Learner

Registered: 04/28/01
Posts: 578
Loc: New Zealand
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: RedHarvest]
    #412084 - 10/03/01 11:20 AM (21 years, 5 days ago)

I don't think nature is an entity, or conscious -- I always figured we were natures' conscience -- so I have a hard time accepting the malevolence with which you attribute it...a tornado in Maryland is a random thing, an unfortunate out-cropping of the same processes that make life possible for us in the first place...

As for the 4th dimension...that would be "time", so I suppose we visualise things four-dimensionally whenever we think of our pasts or futures...I'd comment on whatever it is that Shroomism has been saying on the subject, but I stopped reading his posts looong ago ;) ...



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTraveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 15 years, 13 days
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Pynchon]
    #412194 - 10/03/01 04:05 PM (21 years, 5 days ago)

I remember some poem by WB Yeats where the narrator asks a tiger what is god and of course the tiger says "god is a mighty tiger, so big that this entire world is simply the tip of one of his many hairs" and then further into the forest meets an eagle who says "god is the mightiest of birds, soaring through infinity creating and destroying worlds with every flap of his great wings"....etc...actually i just made up all of those words but that was the general feel of the poem anyway. you say we are the consciousness of nature, well we are conscious and so are the birds and the cats and the trees so sure we ALL are the consciousness of nature, but who's to say the earth isn't conscious? or the sun? or the black holes?

my friend asked me a while back if I believed in aliens. i thought for a sec and said yes, but that i have no idea what kind...that i didn't think they necessarily had bodies...so maybe the sun has awareness, maybe the earth has awareness, but awareness or not the sun has LOTS of energy...and isn't energy the juice, isn't energy what it's all about? whether or not there are little men with brains I don't know but I know there are plenty of gigantic entities out there with loads of energy that live and give life for looooooooooong periods of time....

I worship the earth, the sun and the moon, the sky, fire and water, the ocean, the wind.....are any of these things aware I do not know but the first two are certainly worthy of being called "gods" in my opinion.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegribochek
enthusiast
Registered: 04/19/99
Posts: 286
Last seen: 18 years, 6 months
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: RedHarvest]
    #412231 - 10/03/01 05:13 PM (21 years, 5 days ago)

> The implications of this theory have no rooting in spirituality.

On the contrary, my friend. True spirituality comes EXACTLY from this kind of realization. True spirituality is not about humans being the top of creation. It is about ALL of creation, us being part of it, ants being part of it, computer being part of it, blah, blah, blah.

And, yes, I have seen people come up with wild stuff without psychedelics. And I have seen people find true meaning of things through psychedelics. What fucks you up and what fixes you up has nothing to with chemistry, I'm afraid.


----
You punish God, not the other way around.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/12/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Traveller]
    #412448 - 10/03/01 09:11 PM (21 years, 5 days ago)

Ants are more like us than pigeons. The theory sucks. It offers no evidence of a conscious nature.

the complexity of DNA could definately be used as evidence. How could something so complex in nature exist as a mere accident?

Why is man so capable of overcoming so much of natural law? Why do we get to build houses and utilize energy to suit our comfort, while the chipmunk is at the mercy of nature? To what end, goddamnit????

I think that while Christianity is a mutated and corrupt structure of belief, it does offer some explanation as to our existance.

Look at God as a force, and not as an old man in the sky trying to justify his dispiciple creation.

We cannot question the will of what we do not understand. Maybe the force that we call Nature did indeed take on a human form to better understand what it is to exist in the physical world and then on the cross discovered that no man can escape the will.

I don't know. My brain is butter.



--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedimethoxy
Stranger
Registered: 10/02/01
Posts: 10
Loc: uk
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #412470 - 10/03/01 09:33 PM (21 years, 5 days ago)

Anyone read the psilocybin solution (look on erowid), it suggests that the universe is like a computer and we are self-modifying computer programs, and the goal of this cosmic computation is unknowable to us.

I do not belive that awareness is a good description of life. Babies are alive but they are only aware to the fact that "I need food" and "woops, I have done a shit" Surly an entity like the Sun or indeed the Earth has no material needs to tend to and so would not be aware, but this does not instantly imply that they are not alive.

It's better to be hated for who you are than to be loved for someone you are not.


--------------------
It's better to be hated for who you are than to be loved for someone you are not.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIshmael
enthusiast

Registered: 10/29/99
Posts: 224
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #412495 - 10/03/01 10:05 PM (21 years, 5 days ago)

The Chipmunk, the Squirrel, The Ant...they are all at the mercy of nature, but they are also her dependants. She provides for them as much as she doesn't. Civilized people have this idea that the world is this really desolate place where every living thing has to scrounge and fight tooth and nail for every kernal of food, every crumb. But it isn't. The world is neither manevolent or benevolent. Both ring of control, of dominance... and the world isn't about control or dominance. Most species have a quite easy time of surviving (a much easier time than our civilization does) within the natural 24 hour buffet of nature.

What we're doing is projecting our own cultural mythology /onto/ what we percieve as the body and essence of that venerable thing we call Nature and Life. It's as bad as saying God is some man resting on a nimbus of clouds with a long white beard dangling to his knees.

Attributing a consciousness to the earth is known as the Gaia Hypothesis. It states that when considered as a total whole rather than a loose grouping of individuated parts, the earth acts like a living thing. It self-regulates, it reacts to outside conditions and changes to compensate for them. It is a dynamic energetic system far from equilibrium. All of evolution is the process of life blossoming outwards to promote /this state/. This point where the world becomes capable of self-regulation, because in /this state/ the earth system (which was originally stated as being far from equilibrium) can move towards higher levels of it equilibrium (and thus promote new orders of refined complexity). Life is a strange attractor in the sense of Chaos theroy, and the processes of life's evolution on earth are a series of bifurcation points (points of evolutionary change within an energetic system where spontaneous order arises).

We can't say that the earth is like us to Ants because while the earth may be conscious, consciousness does not denote intelligence NOR does it denote an ego to impose will. You crush an anthill for a laugh, but you can't attribute that same specialized dementia onto a Tornado, Hurricane or Earth Quake. Houses get destroyed by Tornados because Humans are stupid enough to put houses where Tornados are likely to occur. People die in floods because people are arrogant enough to believe that we can 'tame' nature or that Nature can be destroyed and subdued into passivity. All we do by destroying nature is destroy the stasis of the equilibrium promoted by evolution and existance in general. By placing the entire system of which we are an integrated part into a state beyond equilibrium, we cause it to become more chaotic. More floods, more hurricanes, more earthquakes...ect ect. Nature won't destroy people because it's /tired of us fucking with it/. People will destroy /themselves/ (and set back evolution and the process of equilibrium on the planet a few million years) by destroying life in excess and /ignorance/. If nature has the capacity to think, it wouldn't be angry with us, it would feel sorry for itself (and us included). You can't claim that it is ludicrous for an animal to concieve of god in its own image and then anthropomorphize the 'mind of nature'. If nature can think, she doesn't think of us as a disease or contagion the way we think of disease, viruses and bacteria. She would probably just concieve of herself as ill. It will be us who wipes ourselves out by distorting equilibrium so far that it can no longer sustain /us/. Again, out of ignorance. You can take the perspective that the 'disasters' that will likely befall man are all the work of God or Nature seeking retribution. God or nature hasn't forsaken us, we've just been living in a manner which goes against the processes of evolution (the processes of developing equilibrium). If anyone has forsaken us, it is ourselves. We are intelligent enough (I believe) to recognize the problems with our way of life and the ramifications that it has upon ALL LIFE and not just our own.

Just remember, Hiding your head in the sand (or the clouds for that matter) is no defense against the threat which looms on the horizon.

If it were reduced to a simple ultimatum such as 'Change or Perish' would it become any clearer? Probably not. We're too far atrophied - we think it easier just to keep walking single-file towards the edge fo the cliff that the road we're on leads us. "I've been following this path my whole life, I don't know how to walk somewhere else."

Ish




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePynchon
Slow Learner

Registered: 04/28/01
Posts: 578
Loc: New Zealand
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Ishmael]
    #412564 - 10/03/01 11:04 PM (21 years, 5 days ago)

That was some good shit, Ishmael.

Does the Gaia Hypothesis attribute consciousness to the earth? It certainly credits it with a "directional" ability -- self organization? -- but I don't think Lovelock and co. ever came out and said "earth is conscious"...

(stands back and watches people fight over definition of "consciousness"...)

Ever read Paul Davies "The Cosmic Blueprint"?



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedHarvest
Stranger
Registered: 10/03/01
Posts: 8
Last seen: 20 years, 6 months
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Pynchon]
    #412695 - 10/04/01 01:46 AM (21 years, 5 days ago)

The gaia hypothesis (which I'm very familiar with, btw) has nothing to do with what I was saying. I just want to clear that up. The hypothesis merely explains the behavior of the earth (or, in the case of my argument, nature); we would be daft to assume that we can't simplify the behavior of humans to a similar hypothesis, as every action of ours is merely part of an almost impossibly-complex chain reaction that we are unable to comprehend yet. What we believe is 'free will' is merely our logic minds assessing different choices; however, the choice we do finally make is the choice that we HAD to make.

I read an interesting book a long time ago when I wasn't yet able to grasp all the concepts, but it was on super string theory I believe and it said that at every junction in time or space, an infinite number of universes are spawned to deal with every infinite possibility. How does this relate? Well, if this is true, then free will does not exist in the universe that we are currently in, nor does it exist in any of those universes. Everything we do to stay in the universe that we are currently in MUST be done in order to stay in this universe, or else we wouldn't be US, but merely an alter-ego in a different universe. I'm probably butchering this theory but that's the best I can do right now.

Back to my original point: the gaia hypothesis does not preclude in any way the existence of a higher level of conciousness. That's like saying humans aren't concious because we can predict their behavior (not individually of course, but the ability to predict the behavior of humans on a large scale is the reason why insurance companies make so much money). I wish I could respond to all the criticism of this post but I'm one against many.. my brain just can't do it. I'm not trying to feed this to you as the truth, just as a possibility or a feeling that I get sometimes. Peace

J

"My definition of a free society is one in which it's safe to be unpopular." -- Adlai E. Stevenson


--------------------
"My definition of a free society is one in which it's safe to be unpopular." -- Adlai E. Stevenson


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTraveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 15 years, 13 days
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #412842 - 10/04/01 04:19 AM (21 years, 5 days ago)

man is not capable of overcoming ANY natural law.

we build houses, so do birds, ants (who build cities), beavers - i bet you couldn't build yourself as good a house as a beaver can...

I don't think the "how could all this amazing stuff just be an accident?" question leads anywhere...it's like asking "why am I here?"

but ok, when you say "look at God as a force" i think i can happily deal with that idea...but i'd rather just think about forces and energy than use that big G word with all the crap that goes with it.

I think that you and I, like the chipmunk, are completely at the mercy of nature, we just like hiding in our little houses pretending it ain't so....in a recent typhoon here in tokyo only 6 people were killed: one fool got up on his roof to try to fix his TV reception in the middle of a fucking typhoon, guess cause he thought he wasn't at the mercy of nature, being a higher being and all....I think a chipmunk would probably have the sense to HIDE.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTraveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 15 years, 13 days
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: dimethoxy]
    #412844 - 10/04/01 04:21 AM (21 years, 5 days ago)

<Babies are alive but they are only aware to the fact that "I need food" and "woops, I have done a shit">

are you kidding???? babies must be in the most heightened state of awareness possible for an ordinary human being (ie without serious training)!!!!! babies are taking in and processing so much information while us adults are too busy talking to ourselves inside our heads to notice what's going on....



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejonniedumbass
Stranger
Registered: 04/30/01
Posts: 19
Last seen: 20 years, 10 months
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Pynchon]
    #412999 - 10/04/01 06:14 AM (21 years, 5 days ago)

I think there is order in nature- the universal (earth is a part of this) shift towards a "common good". The common good is kinda subjective- but if the ideal of good of one species or aspect is shared with the ideal of good of another, a way of mutual sustainance usually arises (eg some plants are attractive to other beneficial organisms with the aid of scents or foodstuffs/ ants that defend a tree that is their life giving habitat).
Just like your liver can detoxify something that is bad for your heart or something. The body works in a myriad of ways using things like hormones and enzymes and even bacteria etc. You don't even have to be "aware" in the egotistical sense for these processes to continue- it is just "the way".
The (constantly evolving) connections in "nature" are simularly infinite and basically function to maintain or assist the (eventually the greater) good and to change/ avoid or destroy the bad. The outcome is often mind blowingly, brilliantly "perfect" as to suggest a pre determined order to some people.
However, I think if we managed to survive our own pollution for much longer while also surviving the gentle wake up calls that I think we are getting, then parts of nature may evolve more new and direct ways to destroy us (if plagues don't get us then hordes of angry koala assassins might).
IMO the overall "personality" of our earth is gentle, nurturing and forgiving. If you step over the flexible line though.....



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAdom
Totally Nude
 User Gallery
Registered: 10/01/01
Posts: 10,877
Loc: Way Up North
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Traveller]
    #413224 - 10/04/01 10:23 AM (21 years, 4 days ago)

Thank you, saved me the trouble.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Traveller]
    #413268 - 10/04/01 11:25 AM (21 years, 4 days ago)

>><Babies are alive but they are only aware to the fact that "I need food" and "woops, I have done a shit">

>are you kidding???? babies must be in the most heightened state of awareness possible for an ordinary human being (ie without serious training)!!!!! babies are taking in and processing so much information while us adults are too busy talking to ourselves inside our heads to notice what's going on....

If you're lost are you aware of where you are? Babies are absolutely lost, I mean it's not until they're 2nd or 3rd week(I think... might be longer) out that they even develop the ability to see with any detail. While I won't say that food and dirty diapers are the only two things they're aware of, I certainly wouldn't consider them more aware than adults(perhaps children are, but not babies). I mean what do you remember from your birth or the first couple years of your life to prove this vast awareness that you claim? Admitedly the vast majority of your memory is thought to be related to language and since babies don't comprehend language this might be why you don't remember, but if they can't see properly what other things are they not fully functioning that give awareness?

Edited by MokshaMan on 10/04/01 03:27 AM.



--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTraveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 15 years, 13 days
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: MokshaMan]
    #413273 - 10/04/01 11:38 AM (21 years, 4 days ago)

did anyone else see that documentary series a while back called "the human body"? anyway on one of the episodes they showed experiments with babies (dadadadum!!), one where they submerged maybe a month old (tiny) baby in water (ideal, presumably body temperature) and filmed it as it swam around with perfectly coordinated movements, frog style, eyes wide open...drop a little ball in the water and the baby goes swimming after it...completely relaxed.

babies are lost because they get forced out of nine months of comfort and familiarity into a completely new world where they can't see or move about: imagine if it happened to you?

and yes I think if i'm lost i'm completely aware of where I am, just not where that fits in relation to everything else. so a baby is aware of everything but has no experiences to relate to, and this is why i think they are sort of super-aware, since now that i've seen a million pens i don't really LOOK at the pens, or i've seen a million trees so when i walk past one my mind says "tree" so i don't feel the need to examine it and therefore don't notice the details...

we're not disagreeing here though I don't think, we're just going by different definitions of "awareness".



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMokshaMan
enthusiast
Registered: 03/13/01
Posts: 280
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Traveller]
    #413279 - 10/04/01 11:56 AM (21 years, 4 days ago)

Just another question to throw up there, if you're not aware that you're alive is that awareness? Not specific to you Traveller, just something I figured I'd throw up there. And I did admit that it was only for a short time that babies had no sense of detail or definition in their sight.

BTW how deep was the water that the babies were submerged in? More of my personal curiousity.



--------------------
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.
-- George Owell


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTraveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 15 years, 13 days
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: MokshaMan]
    #413360 - 10/04/01 03:01 PM (21 years, 4 days ago)

not real deep, some kind of fishtank. amazing to watch though man, this baby (others too but they didn't show the film) was so comfortable in the water, moved really naturally when on dry land it couldn't even roll over yet.

as to the first question i don't know, but i think it was quite a breakthrough for me to realise that plants are AWARE. plants have senses just as we do, they have senses of light and dark, heat and cold, chemical sensors for finding nutrients in the ground....who knows what other senses they have?

like a cat has a sense organ that is completely foreign to us: whiskers!! we have theories of what whiskers do but really we can't begin to comprehend the cat's world because the cats are picking up information we have no idea about....maybe they use their whiskers to communicate directly with GOD, who after all is probably a giant cat, to the cats.

sorry i talk a lot of crap. actually i'm not really sorry, but the fact remains.

goodnight.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCACA
veteran
Registered: 07/13/01
Posts: 1,122
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: RedHarvest]
    #413372 - 10/04/01 03:15 PM (21 years, 4 days ago)

i think one day a moron decided to take mushrooms and now we have your dainty little theory. humans are capable of ANYTHING and the older they get, the more dangerous they are. if a human does NOT know something and wants to know it, that knowledge WILL be had-regardless.

:frown: .. what was i saying..? Time for a cigarette.


--------------------
"I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." John 15:5


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedimethoxy
Stranger
Registered: 10/02/01
Posts: 10
Loc: uk
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: Traveller]
    #413612 - 10/04/01 08:32 PM (21 years, 4 days ago)

Plants being aware? that would then imply that Earth is aware, not perhaps in the total Gaian style sense, but all the roots and mycellium are joined together on asingle landmass, all interacting with eachother via chemical messages, sounds like a neural network to me.

My definition of awareness I used earlier is in the material sense, I belive that all 'things' are concious as the force resides in all matter, including ourselves, ants and beavers etc.

The baby thing sounds real interesting, could it be that the babies are aware of their amphibian roots, perhaps this is so because of the womb environment?

It's better to be hated for who you are than to be loved for someone you are not.


--------------------
It's better to be hated for who you are than to be loved for someone you are not.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedHarvest
Stranger
Registered: 10/03/01
Posts: 8
Last seen: 20 years, 6 months
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: dimethoxy]
    #413664 - 10/04/01 09:47 PM (21 years, 4 days ago)

It's believed that trees communicate to each other via extremely high pitched noises. This warns the other trees down the line of an impending complication, like a fire or perhaps a pathogenic fungus.. something like that. But the idea that trees communicate kind of blows my mind.

"My definition of a free society is one in which it's safe to be unpopular." -- Adlai E. Stevenson


--------------------
"My definition of a free society is one in which it's safe to be unpopular." -- Adlai E. Stevenson


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegribochek
enthusiast
Registered: 04/19/99
Posts: 286
Last seen: 18 years, 6 months
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: RedHarvest]
    #413672 - 10/04/01 09:54 PM (21 years, 4 days ago)

Rocks communicate via the third Newton's law. When one rock hits another one, the latter hits the former back with the force equal to the force of the original strike. Sometimes rocks even flock together and start rolling downhill in large groups destroying human villages and killing much cattle. Scientists are researching the possible causes of such destructive behavior of rocks...

----
You punish God, not the other way around.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegnrm23
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/30/99
Posts: 6,488
Loc: n. e. OH, USSA
Last seen: 11 months, 20 days
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: dimethoxy]
    #413688 - 10/04/01 10:09 PM (21 years, 4 days ago)

"amphibian roots".....
well, maybe on a deep level... but...
there are mammals who in sea do dwell... and newborns have a special fat peculiar to aquatic mammals... and a so-called "diving reflex" that marine mammals of several different genera have all developed (re-discovered?)... and it it certainly not impossible that our hominid ancestors sometime during the last several million years underwent an estuarial existence for several thousand generations --- certainly time enough for a few interesting mutations to prove themselves favorable... & then the african "dry spell" ended as the rains returned, the rivers again flowed, and our ancestors returned again to the savannah -- but forever changed... (our nearest (surviving) primate relative, the chimpanzees, are ~99.4 % identical in DNA sequences (diverged from common ancestral stock perhaps 3+ million years ago)... but they have no great love for water, lack our ability to squint, have noses not designed to keep out water, do not have our generous layer of subcutaneous fat, lack the webbing that we have between digits, have hair that does not lay flat when damp & float widely when shoulder-deep in the shallows, and do not have face-to-face sex... all of which speak to a recent stint spent wading while the continental interior suffered an ecological epoch that made the dust bowl of the 1930's look like a lush lake resort... well, not everybody will agree with that scenario...)
~~~
oh, and the largest biomass on the planet is composed of the cells of prokaryotes... all the whales, trees, bugs, fish, yeasts, fungi, & diatoms added together do not mass as much as the bacteria and their allies... and all the essential biochemical machinery was developed before eukaryotic (nucleated-cellular organisms like amoebas, ferns, mushrooms, sequoia trees, hummingirds, humans...)
even showed up on the scene... and the 2 most important organelles, the chloroplast and the mitochondria, apparently started out as prokaryotes & eventually formed a working collaboration with host organisms, (endosymbiosis), which organisms became the ancestors of modern plants, animals, and fungi & protists...
lynn margulis might have some input on this, whaddya think?

old enough to know better
not old enough to care

Edited by gnrm23 on 10/04/01 02:14 PM.



--------------------
old enough to know better
not old enough to care


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMrKurtz
enthusiast
Registered: 08/05/01
Posts: 303
Last seen: 20 years, 6 months
Re: The nature of.. nature. [Re: CACA]
    #414030 - 10/05/01 04:00 AM (21 years, 4 days ago)

"if a human does NOT know something and wants to know it, that knowledge WILL be had-regardless."

Ok, then how come no one has been able to prove where we come from and why we are here? Sure, lots of people say they think they know, but none of them have any proof.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* How do you view nature so blissfully?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
bandaid 7,140 89 08/19/04 03:22 PM
by Zoso_UK
* The Value of Nature
( 1 2 all )
jono 2,402 21 06/05/02 10:15 AM
by deepr
* Natural vs. Unnatural
( 1 2 all )
newuser1492 2,983 31 05/31/05 11:45 AM
by eMotionALLmotion
* The Gaia Hypothesis...
( 1 2 all )
AbstractHarmonix 5,265 32 08/31/09 10:19 PM
by Cubers
* The Null Hypothesis
( 1 2 all )
Swami 2,810 35 12/21/03 01:25 AM
by Anonymous
* Evolution and natural selection (philosophy) SeussA 756 4 03/08/05 06:33 PM
by redgreenvines
* Equilibrium and bliss GnuBobo 418 1 12/29/04 09:53 AM
by Mixomatosis
* The Gaia Hypothesis
( 1 2 3 all )
exclusive58 4,058 53 02/01/06 06:59 PM
by exclusive58

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,498 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2022 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.