While there are some people who believe that rocks are "alive" I am not one who pushes that idea, because it confuses people. I chose to define life as it relates to degrees of consciousness.

I believe the entire universe is alive.

For me, I think the state of conscious awareness is more significant than whether we (humans) consider a thing to be alive or not alive. I think that the more conscious a thing is, the more alive it appears or becomes.

I am saying that all things have a degree of consciousness. That degree can be very small but it provides for vibrations to be sent out, felt and responded to.

Billy,

Perhaps it is the "same old religion" to you, but my take on it is one that makes sense to me from beginning to end and although the bottom line is that this reality and my existence is a spiritual manifestation of an unknown source, ...it is not your typical religion.

It is not so simple as some "God created it." I understand that many atheists are just turned off by that because it does not make sense and it does not explain much, and they have heard that same old song and dance forever.

It is infinitely complex and infinitely connected to us as manifestations of Prime Source.

We are it. We were not created by it. (My belief)

If you have any better answers beyond current human knowledge and current science I would like to know what they are.


Jb

I would be curious to hear you describe the characteristics of each degree of consciousness.

What degree would a rock have, and what are the characteristics of this consciousness.

Each mineral has its own unique frequency. I do not know the degree of consciousness in these things. I don't know much about crystals but they are used in radios I think. It would be an interesting thing to study. There are many people who use rocks and stones and crystals for healing purposes.

Well, I can understand saying that every substance has different properties, but I would not attribute consciousness to them.

Consciousness is a particular thing, that is why I asked the question because I am curious why you attribute the characteristics of consciousness on inanimate objects without central nervous systems, and no processes or information storage and retrieval systems.

_______

I really do like your ideas JB, I am not critical of you, I am critical of everything.

It does not bother me in the least. (I don't define "consciousness" the way most people do.)

I often have a very hard time finding a word in the English language for the thing I am trying to talk about, so I use the word that comes the closest and redefine it to the best of my ability.

I am criticized for this a lot but the only other thing I can do is make up a new word altogether and try to define that.

An inanimate object, I guess, is one that does not move or breath according to a human observer.

But if you look very closely at that object with powerful machines (microscopes?) you will see millions of moving things involved with that inanimate object.

Everything moves. Nothing is inanimate.

Also, how do you know that rocks don't move? Maybe they are just moving so slow we don't see them move.

Have you seen that mystery of those "rocks" in the desert that have a trail behind them as if they had been moving across the sand? I wonder what that is all about.


jb

if all matter is energy...

then energy can vibrate to create the appearance of things.

If I am vibrating energetically at a certain level to be 'human'... why can I not vibrate at a higher level and be a tree?

I am still energy... and if one follows the collective consciousness route... then I am not inanimate as a tree, as I am still a part of the collective consciousness.

Yes, Brownian motion is the movement of atoms.

Rocks in the desert no clue.


Nope. Energy is not matter, matter is not energy.

There are three terms in this equation.

E= Energy
M= Mass
c= speed of light

E=Mc^2

Energy can be changed into Matter but requires c^2, its not an even E = M

It amazes me that whole new religions are sprouting up out of a partial understandings of nature. I guess it shouldn't.

After all I fix computers to pay my way through college, and the biggest thing that breaks computers is people thinking they know what they are doing.

Matter vibrating does not create things. Matter vibrating can cause the emission of light, due to the electrons in the atoms causing a vibration of the electromagnetic field.

This is not what you are talking about.

I will say it again matter vibrating does not create, nor give properties to materials.

Atomic bonds, the shape of molecules, the nature of electrons, the energy associated with the location of the electron all dictates the properties of a substance that an object may be built from.

Vibrate a tree all you want, at most it will catch fire.

The mystery of the moving rocks....HERE ARE SOME LINKS WITH PICTURES

http://www.billandcori.com/deathvalley/dv_moving_rocks.htm


http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/OddPics/Playa.html


http://sophia.smith.edu/~lfletche/deathvalley.html

Am I speaking Engrish in these threads?

must be your accent

Yeah, that's it!!!


I just wondered...or maybe it's the invisible ink...

If string theory is right then indeed the way energy vibrates, and within certain shapes of additional dimensions from our standard three will produce the fundamental particles of nature.

But that does not mean we could take you, and change the vibration and get a tree.

If we took every particle within you and changed the vibration to match that of electrons then you would just turn into a bolt of lightning. (which in string theory would mean changing the shape of the Calabi yau extra dimensional space, and or the energy)

Here is a question. If we could Taylor make fundamental particles (via string theory), and engineer every single atom, and every single molecule and place everything in the right order to make Jess . . . . would it be Jess?

Thats an interesting question. I have read that one day, with nano technology, it could be possible to completely create an exact copy of a person. This would be more exact than any clone that you could engineer.

Wow what a thought. Even the fingerprints would be identical.
What about memories? Are they stored in the actual brain or are they in the "mind" or "soul" or entire body of the individual.

It would make for a fascinating story.

Would the conscious awareness of the person be the same or would it be two different people? Would it be like one mind having two bodies or two bodies each with an identical mind? Would they share the same soul or would a new soul arrive, or would one of them be completely without a soul and turn into an evil counter part with no conscience whatsoever?

Very interesting...

P.S. These copies will be called "artificial people"

Memories are in the mind.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081028103111.htm
Trauma effects memories.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080429122431.htm
How can drugs effect memories if they are not local to the chemical soup that is your body/brian?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081022135801.htm
Memory erased in mice


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081113181430.htm
Parkinson's, we loose our memory and motor function as we loose neurological health.

There is a more conclusive study but I am at work and cant find it DOH!


So yea memories are in the brain, so would a complete recreation of you, be you?

_____________________________________

What if we disintegrated you, and simultaneously recreated you a million miles away with some fan dangled new technology that can do just as posed above take a atomic picture of you at the moment of disintegration and recreate you precisely somewhere else . . . .

My answer to that would be an emphatic "No!"

But I guess that's just because I believe in free-will.

You should do a search for Dr Royal Rife or watch a video on him on google video..using frequencies is how he healed everything and the tech. is just now really being understood when he was using it in the 30's. I wonder if Tesla influenced him any. They knew each other. Abra probally knows

Uh No...morality is judged by their consequences or blessings.

You live a long life provided you aren't killed by someone who didn't know that sticking a knife in someone would kill them. Right?

If you work everyday your wages will provide food & shelter for you. Right? Without work or labor you gain nothing...Right?

There are moral absolutes. For sure...

I believe that morality, if it is defined as a sense of what is right or wrong, is something that is within each individual.

It is not just following rules or the laws of society or the church. It is something we learn as we develop as persons and some of it is instinctual.

Psychopaths are found to be people who were traumatized or neglected between the age of birth to five years old. They have been found to be without compassion or feeling. They eventually learn what society considers to be right or wrong or unlawful, but they have no sense of it themselves and will seek to get away with their behavior and yet feel little or no remorse for it themselves.

So a person can learn what is considered moral, but if they don't have a sense of right and wrong themselves, they can still be totally "evil" or without consideration or compassion for others.

Energy manipulates matter into shape/structure to create the object, be it rock or human body.