Does looking into conspiracies bring you closer to god?

a reply to: Noinden

The genome is not that "plastic". Like I said, go play with some magic methyl, it will methylate your DNA but good. Try turing it back? It is why methylating agents are considered bad. Or are you going to say "well thats a chemical, not natural" ?

There's a difference between mice and Humans. but in the case of mice, a great deal of plasticity is shown, for instance, in the experiments of Michael Meaney at Mcgill University.

Simply transferring "licked" mice to mothers who don't lick, and vice versa, immediately changes the epigenetic markings on the DNA. And this is mice.

Something tells me consciousness - and care and awe - are more coherently powerful organizing vectors within the genome.

As I mentioned earlier, if you think evolution can happen super-quickly, ala punctuated equilibrium, than the above diagram and the ideas being advanced in the above diagram aren't whimsical of wishful, but just reflective of what spiritual awareness can do in terms of organizing the electomagnetic dynamics of our integrated organism.

I am not deriding your ideas. I am questioning them. If you can't handle that, that is not my problem.

Well you're not making much of an effort to avoid belittling me.

I could ignore it, of course i.e. I could dial down my responsivity, but that doesn't mean you aren't doing what you're in fact doing.

One of the highest functions of man is to know the unknown.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Epigenetics is however not the genome now is it? Some epigenetic changes do not last pass cell division (let alone passing on to another generation) while others do. Epigenetics has become a nice hand wavy term like "toxin" to use, when someone is not sure what is going on. But he perhaps it is "a kinda magic"

As for your response to how I am responding? that is down to you. I assure you if I were on the attack, it would not be in question. Are you normally a reactive sort of individual? More group one than group 18?

a reply to: Noinden

I'm actually following Shapiros view that over enough generations (in creatures like mice) regulatory genes in charge of protein-coding genes will trigger changes in protein coding genes.

So, in the case of humans, the hierarchy goes

1. interpersonal affect correlation -> 2. Affects produced in brain-body -> 3. epigenetic modification of genes - > 4. threshold is cracked, and genes change to support the new external context.

Are you normally a reactive sort of individual? More group one than group 18?

Yup; that's what happens following a 72 hour birth (cortisol up, oxytocin, down), with a c-section (no vaginal bacteria = bad for developing organism) and a mother who was sexually abused her whole life, who couldn't breast-feed me (no oxytocin for milk production) and who, as we would say today, struggles with a 'borderline personality disorder'.

You tend to become 'high reactive' because of that. Like any organism, I became "conscious of myself" i.e. how I experienced myself, to "make myself good for the Other" i.e. the traumatizing other i.e. my mother, who was herself a victim of interpersonal trauma from her father/mother.

You see the web of relations that define and determine the life we live?

But the brain is amazing, and again, just because I notice something in others doesn't mean my ofc can't inhibit the bodily sensations I feel to "protect" my conscious mind from introjecting toxic feelings.

If my friendly advice doesn't want to be known, I can accept that. But yeah, I'm not the sort of person who simply lets himself become self-organized around the excitement of being positively known by others - regardless of how that positive knowledge emerges. I see social-processes as powerfully enlivening, but also profoundly retarding of reason and perception if the mind isn't sufficiently developed to recognize what is happening to it.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Ok so what evidences are there for this? While there appears to be some evidence for this. It is still very open to interpretation. It involves a lot of hand waving, and very little science at the moment.

Now for the rest.

I see the web of life, though I think differently to what you are implying.

Every one of us has dluth, the warp or weave of who we are. This gives rise to our dan, which is our dluth expressed in this lifetime, and there are many sli (paths) set before us. You live your life by the coire (virtues) and you get the rewards of enech (face in your community) and clu(reputation outside your community).

Beyond that the links? Energy I guess Bri and Bua.

Positivity is subjective, not objective.

a reply to: Noinden

Now in the language of science, positivity is not merely subjective, but objective, as it is positive feelings which stimulate neurogenesis.

As ancient as your belief system may be, it is not science, and so shouldn't take precedence to objective reason.

Objectively speaking, it is positive-experiences i.e. correlation between similarly structured biodynamical systems (Humans), which generate the brain.

Since you mocked my reference of thermodynamics earlier, I might as well mention the significance of that reference: correlation between parts is being hypothesized by more and more theorists (Stuart Kauffman, Terrence Deacon, Harold Morowitz, Ervin Lazslo, Mae-Wan-Ho, Brian Goodwin, to name just a few prominent names) as what allows organisms to cohere, i.e. to maintain a temporal-spatial organization upon its functioning, and so, to live, and reproduce itself.

The Human is made out of roughly 10 octillion atoms (1 with 28 zeros), around 100 trillion cells, which receive teleodynamical organization by around 86 billion neurons within the central nervous system - by 69 billion in the cerebellum and 16 billion in the cortex (and around 800 million in the mid-brain systems see Herculano-Houzel, 2016 for the latest figures).

The "neuronal network" literally organizes the non-electrical cells of the body, and there appears to be a similar dynamic - correlation and coherency - happening up above, in mind, in relations with other people, which allows the emergence of consciousness.

Consciouness in humans, then, was an emergent function of actual mental-work done by our ancestors on way to reaching the roughly 1350 cc brain we possess today. It should also be noted that today's average seems slightly less than skulls found from 150,000 years ago, in East Africa, which are on average 1,500 cc.

So devolution can occur just as easily as evolution. But consciousness seems fundamentally "stimulated" by positive feelings, as more and more neuroscientists, traumatologists, developmental psychologists, and philosophers are believing.

See what science does? It can't help but force us to digest facts of reality that interfere with our more egotistical needs.

I understand those needs, but it is still nevertheless true that we are fundamentally dependent on the contexts which generate us.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I think you are a bit confused. Positivity means different things in different sciences neighbour. They are in essense different languages from the same tree. Just as English and Tocharian are related, they are not mutually understandable by someone who speaks just one of them.


In the chemical sciences, it refers to an absence of electrons. Negativity is an over abundance of them. That is a measurable, quantifiable property.

Now what you just described is a qualitative experiment rather than a quantitative one, and qualitative experiments are prone to confirmation bias, a subjectivity.

Again you are throwing "facts" (factoids) out, with no citations. If you don't cite it did not happen, and Hitchen's Razor applies. The onus is on you to cite as well, not "go look it up".

It is commendable that you "read a lot", but I'm not convinced you delve too deeply into the work. Do you read the supplementary references in these popular books? OR do you assume all you need is in the books?

originally posted by: Astrocyte
a reply to: riley

Well, the biological evidence says otherwise. We live in a system of interpersonal relations i.e. the "spiritual world" is between us.

So if we can get control of how our society is organized, the social "energies" will act upon our integrated biodynamical system, which in turns acts upon the genome through epigenetic mechanisms.

The situation is fully resolvable.

I don't think we know enough about dna to know for sure. They haven't mapped our survival instincts as a collective species so it's not really knowledge to be confirmed.

a reply to: Astrocyte

The Human is made out of roughly 10 octillion atoms (1 with 28 zeros), around 100 trillion cells, which receive teleodynamical organization by around 86 billion neurons within the central nervous system - by 69 billion in the cerebellum and 16 billion in the cortex (and around 800 million in the mid-brain systems see Herculano-Houzel, 2016 for the latest figures).

The "neuronal network" literally organizes the non-electrical cells of the body, and there appears to be a similar dynamic - correlation and coherency - happening up above, in mind, in relations with other people, which allows the emergence of consciousness.

The best theory I have heard yet about how consciousness seem to emerge is Orch OR.
www.quantumconsciousness.org...

They take consciousness to a lower level so that the cell itself is an awareness explaining how one cell organisms can make decisions based on it's environment thru biological/chemical computation within the cell.

Stuart Hamerhoff also play around with TUS - Transcranial Ultrasound where he have been creating Out of body experiences.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: Astrocyte

They take consciousness to a lower level so that the cell itself is an awareness explaining how one cell organisms can make decisions based on it's environment thru biological/chemical computation within the cell.

The midichlorians star wars scene made the cringe..

There are conspiracy theories and then there are the bread crumbs.

ATS has definately been a great discovery tool for a lot of my interests, like metaphysics, philosophy, ancient civilizations and general conspiracies.
In a way I do feel like I'm somehow closer, or at least more 'in the know', although I think that is a trap, just the ego talking "look, I'm smarter than you".
I'm sure that what we think we know as the truth is either another illusion, or a microscopic part of what really is happening in the universe and in 'God'.

originally posted by: Darkmadness
Does looking into conspiracies bring you closer to god?

No, but it does bring you closer to idiots.

The biggest and worst conspiracies are exactly against God, so in that way, researching them you have to make proximity with him, if you want to understand them fully. Thus, I feel positive about the OPs questioning.

I don't know. But it surely brought me a whole different way of looking at things. At everything. Brought me the habit of questioning and analysing everything, which in turn brought me a s#*tload of confusion.
Honestly, I wouldn't want it any other way.

The force of evil is no force at all, the only Force which exists, is that of Love.

The seeming battle of Good and Evil can only happen in Duality and time, where Evil and War appear to exist, but which aren't True for God.

The look on conspiracies may help you to gain insights which are different from the Worldly PoV,to raise the Doubt in the World of sight, but your aim should be to learn that neither Evil nor Time exist.
(Here are some points:
He came here to free us from Sin or in other words: See no sin, because there is none.)

Once you have learned this, you can evoke God and His justice.

a reply to: Darkmadness

It broke me free of religion. The void made me search for my own light.

Im in it deep now. Everything else is a dark shadow....an extension of the void.

My light has led me to others I never thought possible.

I feel like a lone astronaut floating in space before a huge monolith.

"My god, its full of stars" is kind of the type of awe I find myself in....

"Does looking into conspiracies bring you closer to god?"

No. Just the opposite.

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

― Friedrich Nietzsche

If you want to be closer to God, log off and go give of yourself in the service of others.

JMHO.

a reply to: kosmicjack

Very true.

That is why you must change. What you see, you become. The witness only percieves the universe. I advocate becoming it.

You are no more scared of your reflection than the universe is of its own.

Now, if what you see is not what you expect to be, then fear is guiding you back away from the source of that vissage.

A surrender is needed, as all we are is not, unless we try to make it a maxim of existence.

That would be a lie on our part, as we are knowing place holders for a soul we never go in search of....but rather we wait for such to be revealed to us after a death whose arrival we constantly fear and run from.

We know this is temporary, yet we cling to it all the while telling ourselves that mr so and so will exist into the next life and be a fond memory of existance....a valid one that the universe will not deny but rather will preserve into our next form.

Mr so and so is you here and now, but he is nothing. He is a cup bearer to the true you that is nameless and timeless.

Our reality is known to be a lie, but only because we are liars unto ourselves about it.

It is real, if we are.

a reply to: Darkmadness

There does seem to be something weird going on in regard to the biblical prophecies and things happening today. But from what I have read it seems a little silly.

I don't know if I would say God.. Maybe supernatural beings with a really long agenda that spans millennia.. tinkering on Earth. I may believe that.

I also don't buy the whole Good Vs. Evil thing, seeing for myself what nature is all about. It all seems construed.

So yeah I agree someone/something may be using this Good Vs. Evil religion/morality thing to some desired end.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Astrocyte
One of my degrees includes bioinformatics (specifically genomics) in it.

We know. You post this on mostly every forum you participate in.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Astrocyte

Epigenetics is however not the genome now is it? Some epigenetic changes do not last pass cell division (let alone passing on to another generation) while others do. Epigenetics has become a nice hand wavy term like "toxin" to use, when someone is not sure what is going on. But he perhaps it is "a kinda magic"

Increased or decreased expression of genes is not magic. The exact epigenetic mechanisms are still being discovered but we have discerned many, such as methylation as said by Astrocyte.

As for your response to how I am responding? that is down to you.

Mostly all your responses are condescending.. Do not get offended by this, just lighten up a little and don't think yourself to be higher than others.

ok so what evidence do you have for (DNA Methylation as an epigenetic mechanism)

From what I understand this was one of the first mechanisms discovered regarding a malleable "plastic" genome
DNA Methylation

As discussed in this paper, it's not about if methylation plays a role in gene plasticity, it's a matter of how much of a role it plays.