Vitalism

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


6:45pm
Stephen Smith
Remember the dogs on state street?
Hi Holmer, I found the following quote: As physiology came to
be understood more and more in terms of physical mechanisms,
vitalistic explanations for the functioning of the body were
refuted one by one. The last holdout for vitalism was the
kidney, but it fell into total disrepute after the elegant
experiments of Homer Smith in the 1930s demonstrated clearly
the filtration and secretory mechanisms of that organ.
It came from this
website: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Vitalism
But I am thinking that these attacks on vitalism are
misplaced, and brought to us by "meat heads." Did your father
(quoted above) understand this conflict as well as yourself?
The fallacy of excluded middle must be in place here, is my
quess. My view is that the vital is supported by the physical,
rather than being defined by the physical. The vital gave
birth the volition, emotion, and spirit, all of which are
self-evident and all have transcended the kidney function that
they depend on. A trinitarian logic gets beyond the fallacy of
excluded middle, where vitalism is discovered again.

Vitalism: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article
www.absoluteastronomy.com
Today

11:13pm
Homer Wilson Smith
Read the very last chapter of "Man and His Gods", it may be on
line.
My father's idea of God had been poisoned by Christianity and
the other inanities of Earth to a point where he had little
patience for it rightly so. God is not a God of BEHAVIOR, God
is a God of CREATION.
Occam's Razor says take the simplest theory to your bean
counters, as the simplest theory that explains all the facts
is the one you should spend money on. But who has all the
facts? That vitalism, or God or Spirit, or consciousness is
not necessary to explain the extant observable facts of the
time, hardly proves they do not exist, and my father knew it,
he merely found little reason to complicate things by bringing
God or Spirit into it. Does a watch need a spirit to run it?
Does a brain? To him they were both machines, and machines are
mathematical mass and force in motion contraptions that have
no need for PAIN SHAME PLEASURE LOVE etc. Notice that a car is
a mechanical contraption also, but its DRIVER is a spirit. Now
we know that love and pain can not of force and mass be made.
So they missed that one. Recent results about the nature of
consciousness rather conclusively puts to rest the idea that
consciousness is a process in machinery, space time gizmos, of
any complexity. This is athttp://www.lightlink.com/theproof. A
machine can not be certain of itself, space or time because a
machine learns by being an effect of distant causes, no matter
how close, and the relationship between effect and cause is
one of THEORY, not PERFECT CERTAINTY. No part of any machine
can be perfectly certain of any other part! But consciousness
is self aware, worse it is self aware of how it is NOW, not
how it WAS a nano second ago, which is the best a machine can
do about learning about its own self. And its still a theory
about a nano ago! This is easy to prove, if there is time
between the cause and the effect, then the cause is GONE by
the time the effect is created, and thus the effect can never
bea direct perception of the cause as it IS NOW, but only a
symbolic messenger of how the cause might have been when the
effect was generated. Thus the effect can never see the cause
period. Time between causes blindness and only conjecture to
remain. Consciousness however can SEE itself SEEING, and thus
this must be an instantaneous process in the now, where the
being is not learning about itself by looking at a later
effect but by looking directly at the cause itself in the NOW.
Space time gizmo physics can not wrap its wits around that one
at all, as all physics understands is space time processes,
but consciousness is a spaceless timeless 'process' where
learning about cause is gleaned by directly looking at cause
and not at some alleged effect a while in time later. The time
between cause and effect in the PU demands that the learning
about the cause via the effect is dated learning out of the
gate. Anyhow one out of the body experience that is verifiable
and all of physics gets thrown out. THERE IS NO WAY THEY WILL
EVERY EXPLAIN AWAY CONSCIOUSNESS WITH THE 4 FUNDAMENTAL FORCES
OF NATURE, no matter how unified they get it. That's because
perfect certainy and love and shame can not of force and mass
be made. They may explain the physical projection and thus
reduce everyone to a space time gizmo, but never the
consciousness experiencing itself with perfect certainty. The
unified science of the all that is then is saved in this way:
The physical universe does not exist at all, its a rendition
in the dreaming mind of consciousness. Consciousness is co
eternal with all other consciousness units and lives above
space and time as the static co-dreaming the kinetic. The
static is a MULTI BEING, and each being incarnates as it
wishes in a dreamtime body called an avatar. It can be a quark
or a star or a molecule or a human body. Thus the PU is a
hallucination pure and simple, correct down to the last quark,
but none the less a co shared virtual reality. Consciousness
is not virtual, it is actual, as is the I-AM being that has
that consciousness, and consciousness is not a process in a
virtual reality! So no, my father did not have that
understanding, that would have been like expecting a dreamer
to know he was dreaming. He like Newton and the rest of the
meatballs thought that space and time are actual, just as most
dreamers don't know they are dreaming, but he mentions 'what
is this thing we call consciousness?' in that last chapter of
Man and His Gods, leaving it I suppose to another life which
he didn't know for sure he would have, and frankly probably
thought he didn't have and after 10 years with my mother,
probably didn't want. Most meatballs have a sense that
conscioussness is 'different' or special, but as far as I know
they have NEVER put their finger on just what it is that makes
consciousness special. What can consciousness do that a
machine can't? PERFECT CERTAINTY OF ITSELF AND ITS EXPERIENCES
IN THE NOW. Since I am the only one saying that in present
time and have no footnotes or references to support it, I
shall be considered a crack pot until such time a that
changes. :)

The Proof
www.lightlink.com
Learning Certainty and Causality in Consciousness

11:14pm
Homer Wilson Smith
And with all that said, the angels and the aliens have been
tinkering with the genetic strains and the kidney for a long
time to make it evolve properly

- ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01CE7AA0.B105DAB0--

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Jul 8 13:06:46 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/vitalism
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFR2vGmURT1lqxE3HERArFHAJ0YGo1wYmcIYNXLqcOmWwCG2MFUpwCfd/N6
3tzUd5FYu2uaf4d/cIPRF7k=
=PqXC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----