1) I'm not sure i can make a distinction between systems that are living and/or non living. I can easily make a distinction between conscious and non conscious systems. (or at least consciousness being what we know it to be). I dont feel there is anything in the universe that isn't living. When we look at the earth, or a mountain, we say its not living cause its just rocks and dirt. But it is alive. it moves, changes, grows, shrinks, etc. it just does it at its own pace. And it is just as much alive as the plants and animals that live on it. The question than become "where do you draw the line between a animal for example and the environment it lives in? does the physical barrier that is skin become the border between something that is living and something that isn't?". The environment that an animal lives in is just as much a part of its living system as the blood that flows through its veins. There really is no boundary.
2) I don't feel that the use of tool is some sort of proof that humans evolved from apes. I just feel it is another example of how a creature uses its consciousness. I find it impressive but not surprising. Everything in the universe is moving in a direction, maybe that's an evolution or maybe its a devolution. Either way it doesn't matter. Its all movement and its all life and it will continue on its cyclical course as it always has.
3) Its a good thing that people are beginning to respect Chinese medicine from a western perspective. It is possibly a way to get people more in touch with universal laws. Its just funny the slow path it is taking to get people back to things that are natural. In the end, we play the western game for and eastern means.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Week 5- The Complexity of life
1) Can diversity save species?
i definitely think diversity can be the best chance at saving species. When anything is just "black and white" it will have a hard time surviving. Weather that's a species, an opinion, or just about anything else you can think of. Options are always good in life. The reason nature creates so many variables is a way of development and/or survival. No two things are alike in the natural world and when man forces his will upon something to narrow its diversification the chance of survival greatly decreases. Maybe it be thought of that diversification in nature is a way of trial and error. Some traits work in a specific environment and others don't. But to know which will be the most successful nature tests them out. But i also feel its important to say that there is also an element of time in the mix. One variable will work great in a specific environment in a specific time, but in another time in the same environment that same trait may not be as successful. So, in order for survival rates to stay up there needs to be as many variables as possible to with stand the change in environment and time.
2) Do you vote for the chicken or the egg?
Hmmm, what if i said i am not a registered voter on this life long debate. Ill let the world duke this one out while i make an omelet. Or maybe I'll make a plate of chicken Marsala. Hmmm, so hard to decide...lol
3)"i always eat my broccoli"
It seems we all know that veggies are great for us. I don't think there is a person in the modern world who doesn't know that fact or who disputes the claims. But some people still don't eat them. So This research is great for those who eat veggies and need a pat on the back, and in the other corner i highly doubt the research will get non-veggie eaters to put the cheese burger and fries down for a tasty plate of fresh vegetables. To each their own....
i definitely think diversity can be the best chance at saving species. When anything is just "black and white" it will have a hard time surviving. Weather that's a species, an opinion, or just about anything else you can think of. Options are always good in life. The reason nature creates so many variables is a way of development and/or survival. No two things are alike in the natural world and when man forces his will upon something to narrow its diversification the chance of survival greatly decreases. Maybe it be thought of that diversification in nature is a way of trial and error. Some traits work in a specific environment and others don't. But to know which will be the most successful nature tests them out. But i also feel its important to say that there is also an element of time in the mix. One variable will work great in a specific environment in a specific time, but in another time in the same environment that same trait may not be as successful. So, in order for survival rates to stay up there needs to be as many variables as possible to with stand the change in environment and time.
2) Do you vote for the chicken or the egg?
Hmmm, what if i said i am not a registered voter on this life long debate. Ill let the world duke this one out while i make an omelet. Or maybe I'll make a plate of chicken Marsala. Hmmm, so hard to decide...lol
3)"i always eat my broccoli"
It seems we all know that veggies are great for us. I don't think there is a person in the modern world who doesn't know that fact or who disputes the claims. But some people still don't eat them. So This research is great for those who eat veggies and need a pat on the back, and in the other corner i highly doubt the research will get non-veggie eaters to put the cheese burger and fries down for a tasty plate of fresh vegetables. To each their own....
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The Patterns of Life-Week 4
Week 4 - The Pattern of Life
1) Is there a drug around for just about everything?
Well yes there is. Our culture and medical paradigm is based on medicinals to treat conditions. The system is set up for this. The moment you group a number of symptoms into a category and call it a disease then soon will come the medication for said disease. They sort of coexist. You cant be high unless there is something caled being low. It seems that in our culture you can have a disease or condition without there being a medicinal to balance it out. This paradigm is quite dysfunctional but it seems to be the mentality of most modern people.
2) Can we raise our levels of dopamine ourselves?
Sure, I’m sure any and all process in the body, whether they are chemical or energetic, can be influenced by ourselves without an outside catalyst. The question isn’t so much as “can we” but more of “how can we”. and to make things more difficult I doubt that if we figured out a method of how to raise dopamine levels, im sure that the method wouldn’t be the same for everybody.
3)How do you think chimps and humans diverge as species?
They probably diverge at the point where humans care to find out the differences between us and them, where as chimps don’t really care to make this comparison. This is not to say we have a more developed consciouness but we sure do have a different consciousness. They would prob spend more energy on living a thriving life than they would on researching what makes us different from others.
1) Is there a drug around for just about everything?
Well yes there is. Our culture and medical paradigm is based on medicinals to treat conditions. The system is set up for this. The moment you group a number of symptoms into a category and call it a disease then soon will come the medication for said disease. They sort of coexist. You cant be high unless there is something caled being low. It seems that in our culture you can have a disease or condition without there being a medicinal to balance it out. This paradigm is quite dysfunctional but it seems to be the mentality of most modern people.
2) Can we raise our levels of dopamine ourselves?
Sure, I’m sure any and all process in the body, whether they are chemical or energetic, can be influenced by ourselves without an outside catalyst. The question isn’t so much as “can we” but more of “how can we”. and to make things more difficult I doubt that if we figured out a method of how to raise dopamine levels, im sure that the method wouldn’t be the same for everybody.
3)How do you think chimps and humans diverge as species?
They probably diverge at the point where humans care to find out the differences between us and them, where as chimps don’t really care to make this comparison. This is not to say we have a more developed consciouness but we sure do have a different consciousness. They would prob spend more energy on living a thriving life than they would on researching what makes us different from others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)