Key to ANN

The key

to life


“The human mind is elegant in it’s simplicity, incomprehensible in it’s scale and glorious in it’s implementation” – el Loco Gringo

In our hubris we think that we can understand the human mind by comparing it to that of a chimp, but we are as far evolved above the chimp as the chimp is above the earthworm. An evolutionary miracle has occurred, the greatest leap since the first few neurons gathered into a clump to form the proto-brain. However, as the chimp evolved from the earthworm, we evolved from our simian ancestors with the same behavior patterns. The taboo against pride has been retained in our psyche. This has left a hole in our soul, an aching painful overwhelming need, that we seek to fill with religion, ideology, spirituality, greed, career and other false gods. I wish to give mankind a gift, a key to unlock themselves from the chains of this vestige of the past and to marvel at the wonder that man is.

We are that god.

This simple and beautiful truth unfolds to reveal man’s place in the universe. All is laid bare. Ethics, philosophy, sociology, psychology, spirituality, politics, economy, justice become revealed with all their virtues and faults.

“You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars, you have a right to be here”

ChildOfTheUniverse SolarWave

2 Responses to “Key to ANN”

  1. walt,

    your notion of an evolutionary hierarchy is certainly ‘mainstream’ and in that sense it ‘stands apart’ from many of your comments.

    nature understood as a web-of-life would not allow us to confuse visible ‘forms’ in the one tapestry as ‘separate entities’ that we could compare in any ‘greater-than/less-than’ sense. it would be nonsense to say that the massive hurricane has evolved to something far more than the prairie ‘dust devil’. what we have here, and always, are multiple features within an unfolding spacetime continuum. the hurricane couldn’t be ‘the hurricane’ without the dust-devil, and the dust-devil couldn’t be the dust-devil without the hurricane. the flow is the medium within which the various features form. we would have to know ‘the whole flow’, including the ‘butterfly effects’ in order to understand any particular feature that ‘attracts our attention’. would a human be a human without bacteria in his digestive tract? would he be a human without flow through his digestive tract, a flow of things that he can use, that were apparently ordered up for him prior to his arrival, or did he perfect his capacity to be able to sustain himself, after his arrival?

    if so, how many of these allegedly ‘separate’ ‘lifeforms’ arrived without membership in a ‘food-web’? and how about those males that arrived before the females of the species and the females that arrived before the males of the species? is it not more reasonable to understand that the world is one thing and that it is us who break it into separate parts in the manner that we break apart and classify tropical storms and hurricanes? ‘let’s see now, where shall we put the boundary between these two hurricanes? how about in the clear patch in the flow between the spiralling cloudy parts? if we can.the separate islands in an archipelago, we can give them each a name and make up a genus for them so that they can become individuals in a countable plurality (unless the water-level drops and the connections we were ignoring become so blatant that we can no longer deny them).
    the glorious thing called a HUMAN mind, how much of its glory comes from what it is able to contemplate. what if it were born into an empty space with nothing to contemplate but its own navel?

    if we say that consciousness is something that evolves within a separate organism, as part of its equipment, this would imply that there was no consciousness prior to conscious organisms. is it reasonable to claim that the world existed for millions of years without anything to contemplate it? the creationists don’t have that problem. sure, the evidence supports millions and billions of years of evolutionary history of the world, but who says we had to atomize it and explain it in terms of a bunch of disconnected objects whose ‘local separateness’ derived firstly from our subjective attention, and having separated them, then finding ourselves obliged to infuse them with local internally originating behaviour; i.e. Aristotle’s intrinsic final cause?

    as schroedinger says; “The show that is going on obviously acquires a meaning only with regard to the mind that contemplates it. But what science tells us about this relationship is patently absurd: as if mind had only been produced by that very display that it is now watching and would pass away with it when the sun finally cools down and the earth has been turned into a desert of ice and snow.” … “The world is given but once. Nothing is reflected [in the consciousness of our mind]. The original and the mirror-image are identical. The world extended in space and time is but our representation (Vorstellung). Experience does not give us the slightest clue of its being anything besides that—as Berkeley was well aware.”

    if we celebrate the human mind, then surely we must celebrate the entire world which gives it meaning as it gives the world meaning. the entire world including the chimps, without whom, humans would not be humans in the same way that the hurricane would not be the hurricane without the butterfly.


  2. Hi Mr Ted,
    Yeah, I’m still trying to think of a cross platform word for evolved. Organized maybe? Complexed? Dunno, yet. The word evolved has become polluted with Darwinism, having purpose driven overtones. Like subconscious which has overtones of being included within the conscious, or centered which has overtones of spirituality. These “overtones” are the “kludges” that make the equation balance in a sub set world. Damn, this is squishy. All the good words have been preempted by religion and science, but polluted with overtones.

    You keep catching me on stubs. (that’s OK). “it is a peculiarity of the right mind that a concept be communicated to become relevant”. So instead of thinking “out loud” I think “on line”. It helps in organizing my thoughts.

    I am interested in the relationship of the hurricane and the butterfly. These would seem to be the end points of the tunnel we are looking through that we call “atmosphere”. I’m going to start blithering here.

    Schrodinger’s probably right. Through the “mind” tunnel he sees one mind. But what is the quantum mind? Through the brain tunnel I see the neuron and the mind. Through the physics tunnel I see the electron and the universe. So it kinda depends on which tunnel you’re looking through.

    Consider this excerpt from JBT’s talk on her left mind stroke. She’s a neuro-scientist which gives it weight. She speaks to the experience.

    “So who are we? We are the life-force power of the universe, with manual dexterity and two cognitive minds. And we have to choose, moment by moment, how we want to be in the world. Right here, right now, I can step into the consciousness of my right hemisphere. Where we are, I am, the life-force power of the universe I am the life-force power of the 50 trillion beautiful molecular geniuses (Triple hit on this, need to check it out) that make up my form with all that is, or I can choose to step into the consciousness of my left hemisphere where I become a single individual, a solid separate from the flow, separate from you, I am Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, intellectual, n euro-anatomist. “

    This “wall” we have set up between ourselves and the world seems to “leak” IE I know things I shouldn’t. For instance there is a guy named Wallace who is writing papers on the relationship of epigenetics and culture. He mentions Dr Ort (not spelled right, I don’t have the umlaut on this keyboard) in his references. My assumption is that the right mind (eLG) does the dreaming. Consider this sequence. I am standing at a bus stop with a woman. I say “I hear your going to Dart” she answers “yes” and points to the bus pulling up. The marquee says “Dr Ort” (DrOrt would be pronounced Dart.(with umlaut). Researching it I found a Bulgarian who has been writing papers on the subject, I can’t find a translation so I’m depending on second hand info. The question is “where did eLG get the data to plug into this dream?”

    another involves “Asbesto Sopra” doing research I found “Asperta Supra” is bulgarian (At first I thought it was Italian) for “over (above) inheritance”. (epigenetics) Hello, another ref to Dart.

    Hmm!! OPL walt

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: