“I would like to hear more about why you are so dismissive. You understand that all human knowledge so far is focused on the material domain of the universe, which only makes up about 5% of what's "out there." The rest is dark matter and dark energy which we (scientists) don't understand. So given that science can't its mind around 95% of what's apparently out there, how can you be so sure that we don't depend on an Akashic field for our very existence as humans?”
“This idea of a non-material Akashic field where quantum entangled "data" or proto-consciousness resides, to be perceived subconsciously by most and consciously by some, seems and feels much more correct to me than the notion that random conditions here on this planet led to the complex anti-entropic march of our consciousness to higher and higher realms of complexity.
It means that there could be an evolutionary purpose to our existence and our future. Which is the more miraculous and improbable, a governing consciousness driving our evolutionary development through a process of natural selection, or a bunch of random chemicals somehow producing a string of reactions that through pure happenstance lead to human beings and the self awareness we exhibit?”
mommadona on Apr 15, 2010 at 22:38:44
“if you can consider the statement 'all that ever was or will be is here now' as a starting point, and consider the infinity of micro/macro in all states and conditions ~ it gets you there (women seem to see 'the whole' ) ~ too bad most most philosophers/scientists aren't of the feminine gender.”
PlayTOE on Apr 15, 2010 at 11:17:09
“The idea of us interacting with a non-material Akashic field is incompatible with our species.
It would have a whole lot of implications, non of which are true.”
“Specter’s switch should be viewed by PA voters based on its tactical success in moving us toward a more progressive, Obama-supported agenda between now and the primary. If he can point Democrats toward his progressive wins for Obama, perhaps he will deserve to be the Democratic nominee. Otherwise, Democratic primary voters would do well to vote for a more reliably progressive senator.”