Forestluv

I mean mutations are "random" in the sense that rolling dice is random. Twenty years ago, mutations were thought to be "completely random". Yet Genomics have revealed mutational "hotspots" on chromosomes - so we now know the locations are not completely random. If pressed, I'd imagine most biologists would be open to considering a natural determinism, yet would be closed to considering an underlying intention or purpose.

So. . . you previously gave me pause about my own intelligence. "I" am not the author of my thoughts and creativity. They arise from some mysterious place. Perhaps from a no-thing, every-thing, absolute infinity thing. Yet know when you speak of the "intelligence" of mutations, I'm lost. Is this the same intelligence that gives rise to thoughts and creativity?

Hmmm. That struck me.

This sounds a lot like Lisa Cairn’s description. She desribes an unstable transition period of about a week, followed by a sudden and dramatic vanishing of the story and self. This seems similiar to the story of Santa Claus. A child may have questions and poke holes in the story. Yet at some point there is full realization it’s just a story and Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Never again does the person entertain the story.

@WildeChilde I strive to be kind and show unconditional love. Yet it can be challenging as I often feel I am being taking for granted and treated poorly. I'm averse to setting boundaries, rules and expectations - yet it can be uncomfortable living without them.

I regularly experience emtions that are prolly rooted in evolution. I’m aware of it, yet can’t think my way out of it. Programming can be uncomfortable and annoying at times.

Some people go in with an "intention", such as gaining insight into a relationship, becoming aware of deep-seeded blocks and fears etc. I've done that on occasion. Yet, I usually don't go in with any goals, hopes or intentions. I set a quiet environment and have a notebook handy. Then I try to let go and surrender. If you want personal growth, like an enhanced meditation session, I wouldn't take a high dose. For me, strong trips are like taking the Blue Pill in The Matrix. Once I saw that Truth, I can't unsee it. I took a high dose my first trip and the illusionary self dissolved. That kinda stuff was fun to think and chat about, until it happened. Now, I can't jump back into The Game of Life. It's not what I hoped for or wanted - it just IS. It seems most people can snap back into their selves after high doses. I couldn't. Those strong trips made The Matrix look like a walk in the park. I went in feeling a bit cocky one time and got my ass kicked. Now, I go in with humility and dread. . . Anyone that assumes they can take a high dose, breakthrough ego death, dust themselves off and go on their merry way could be in for a rude awakening. In 1936, Max Eastman, wrote, by way of introduction to his book on laughter, “I must warn you, reader, that it is not the purpose of this book to make you laugh. As you know, nothing kills the laugh quicker than to explain a joke. I intend to explain all jokes, and the proper and logical outcome will be, not only that you will not laugh now, but that you will never laugh again.” A similar case could be made for personal growth. One way to kill innocence is to engage in deep states of consciousness. Tripping with the intention of personal growth may not only fail to produce personal growth, but may make it forever after unattainable. With that said, the lower to mid doses are an entirely different experience. They can be insightful and fascinating. And I think the lessons are much easier to integrate into everyday life.

@SOUL Hmmm. We’ve become much better predictors of weather. Is our inability to perfectly predict weather due to our ignorance of a vast, yet finite, number of variables? Or is it impossible to attain perfection due to an infinite number of variables? I don’t know. If DNA in a given system had 100 trillion combinations of mutation patterns, yet we could predit with 60% accuracy, would we still consider it random mutations? What if an algorithm could reduce the number of possibilities to 100 thousand? And then there is the question whether the is intention underlying mutations.

@SOUL Why assume there is an infinite number of variables?

@Outer @Leo Gura I teach, conduct, write and evaluate science. From my perspective, there is the scientific method of observation, formulating a question, developing a testable hypothesis, conducting experiments with controls, gathering/analyzing data, and interpreting data. There is also the scientific paradigm of concepts. Within that scientific paradigm there is dogma and always has been. In the scientific community we love to tell stories about past dogma and how the great scientists had the insight, independence and courage to see through the dogma and discover truth. For example, biologists love the story of Barbara McClintock - an eccentric woman in a male-dominated field. She saw past the dogma that DNA is rigid and static and proposed the concept of "jumping genes". She was discredited and literally laughed off stage one time. But Barbara got the last laugh many years later as she accepted the Nobel Prize. Ahhh, it warms a scientist's heart to tell that story. Yet, current dogma is different, it can be major hurdle toward progress. It can reduce/block the potential of the scientific method by limiting the scope of questions and data interpretation. Scientists applaud open-minded free thinking, yet most of the pressures are to stay within the mainstream - if a scientist was radically open-minded, how would you be perceived by your colleagues? how would it affect your funding potential? how would it affect career advancement? Ironically, one way to become a famous scientist is to challenge and refute dogma. Leo's dogma example that "mutations are random" is a good example. I'm a geneticist and from my view the notion that mutations are random is generally assumed and has been ingrained in science for decades. I didn't realize how closed my mind was until reading Leo's ideas a couple months ago. I started asking "What is *random*"? I tried to start up a conversation with biology colleagues and was met with odd looks and statements like "Well, you know. . . random like rolling dice" or "an equal probability of outcomes". After discussions with colleagues in math, physics, chemistry and philosophy I realize it's not that simple. For example, image that as a person rolled dice, we knew everything about the quadrillon of factors that determine the future outcome: the size and texture of the dice and hands, every atom in the air and in the roller's nervous and muscular systems, the resistance of the table. With complete knowledge of every factor, would we be able to predict the outcome of the dice roll? If so, is it still *random*? Is the lack of awareness/knowledge of underlying factors the *randomness*?. . . What if we knew the quadrillions and quadrillions of underlying factors that influenced the generation of a mutation? We could trace the path of that mutation from the environment into the body into the cell into the nucleus to the DNA sequence. If we knew every detail of quantuum physics, energy etc. would we realize only ONE outcome was possible and it happened exactly as it should? And if we had all knowledge and looked for the original source of that mutation, where would it be? Is this just silly metaphysical BS? Yes, until it's not. Over the next hundreds of years we will learn more and more about the underlying factors of mutations. For example, we now know that chromosomes have mutation "hotspots" and that the location of mutations are not random. Progress would be much faster if scientists would be open to ideas from within differing scientific disciplines as well as metaphysics, rather than boxing themselves within their specialty and dogma. IMO, the greatest scientist in history was Leonardo Da Vinci. He had a holistic consciousness and was able to observe, process, inter-relate and integrate fine details of what others separated: engineering, geology, anatomy, philosophy, writing, art, paleontology. . . I'm not impressed by his greatness in seven different areas, I'm impressed by his greatness in ONE holistic area.

@Thanatos13 The space of nothingness has no self, no fear, no suffering, no frustration, no despair, no power, no control. From it surfaces alive-ness, which then disappears back into the emptiness. No-thing and every-thing. Fresh snow suddenly appeared here. Off to go cross country skiing with a dear friend. . .

Rather than eating the candy bar, you could give it away.

@Sahil Pandit I think it’s better to err in the low side. There have been trips in which I felt underwhelmed and regret for not taking more. Yet, a subtle shift in perspective can tranform into a nondual wonder zone. For me, higher shroom doses can feel possessive. The lower to medium doses can enhance and open a door. Self-centered and habitual thinking is reduced, but not destroyed like with higher doses. I still need to let go, just in another way. What I like about low-medium doses is that generally I can still pull my shit together and appear normal if I needed to or I can go into a different state of consciousness. The insights I’ve had on light to moderate trips are much easier to integrate into regular life.

Hmmmm, what qualifies as “normal functioning” and “foreign substances”? I’ve experienced altered states of consciousness and hallucinations during the end of ultra marathons without ingesting a “foreign substance”. Would this be considered “normal functioning”? A drug? Some foods can alter the gut microbiota composition, which in turn can significantly alter brain chemistry, sensations and emotions. Would this be considered “normal functioning”? Would food be considered a foreign substance? A drug?

I'm glad I read this point. . . I haven't seen my gf for a week. She is visiting me tonight and I thought it would be nice to discuss things like how we inter-relate, how we are mirrors of each other, how we are each a teacher and student to each other, how our energies integrate to form emergent patterns - some of which cannot be explained through language. . . Of course, I would be willing to elaborate on ideas unfamiliar to her. Your message shifted my perspective and I just texted that I'm looking forward to just kicking back and watching a movie together. . .

This has been my personal experience when touching upon higher levels of consciousness. I'm usually in orange / green levels. Yet, when I touch upper green or lower yellow I'm not taken seriously or it goes through a lower level filter and is misunderstood. I often feel a disconnect. Usually, the person has more interest in eating, watching a movie or going out to a club. Yet, when I do get someone's attention and consideration it's often taken as a threat. For example: the Nassar sexual abuse case at MSU. Here in Michigan there are strong opinions and emotions - people are willing to put down their video games and TV shows for a bit to discuss the case. When I speak of extrinsic inputs of Nassar's life history that shaped his reality, most people start getting upset. When I speak of the systemic complexity of factors that contributed to creating an enabling environment, people resist. When I question whether a self has free will and choice, people get defensive. When I raise the idea that both victims and perpetrators could be suffering, people become outraged. Most people want to limit their perspective to the proximal cause, Nasser. They want retribution. They want him to suffer. They want him to be treated as he treated others. I've noticed if I venture outside of this box, I am most often accused of making excuses for his behavior, absolving him of personal responsibility and taking the side of a pedophile. I quickly learned not to discuss the case at higher levels. Imagine a highly conscious politician bringing up these concepts. I'd imagine there would be some openness to systemic causes if the perpetrator suffered consequences. Yet, I'd imagine a politician inquiring about free will, choice, personal responsibility and the suffering of all participants would receive enormous public backlash. I can imagine backlash so strong it pressures for a resignation.

IME as a cellular biologist/geneticist, I wouldn't say "most" is number crunching. While that type of data analysis takes up a lot of space, there is also space for conceptualizing, integrating relationships and creating new models. Yet, I would still say there is a scientific box with sturdy walls. Psychedelics were the only tool that poked holes in my walls of science. Once those holes were large enough, I could peer through and recognize inter-relatedness. A new role model for a higher self emerged: Leonardo Da Vinci. I consider Da Vinci to be of extraordinary intelligence. I find it difficult to understand and describe how integrated and holistic his mind/consciousness was. He wasn't just a biologist, geologist, engineer, inventor, philosopher or artist. He was none of those, yet all of those. He didn't compartmentalize, he was holistic. This morning in my neuroscience class, I spoke about Da Vinci's life and mind. I asked my students "What might Da Vinci be doing in today's world"? My favorite answer was artificial intelligence. Here is an opportunity to integrate engineering, machine, biology, philosophy, metaphysics, creation and art. An opportunity for inquiry and exploration into the inter-relatedness and integration of material circuitry and emergent properties. To be open-minded and allow the surfacing of novel ideas about intelligence, emotions and states of consciousness we currently don't know exist. It seems scientists remain in their own camps of engineering, computer science or neuroscience - restricted to their own scientific journals and conferences. Although there is some collaboration between camps and willingness to step outside their box, I don't see anyone without a box - like Da Vinci.

@Dan Arnautu I've tried to force myself into happiness with structure and routine of healthy activities. It didn't work. I spent years trying to learn Spanish in structured classrooms. I was like a job. I worked for grades. After three years of coursework I traveled to Honduras and could barely speak a word of Spanish. I couldn't communicate with locals. I was so discouraged I almost gave up. I'm just not a language learner. Then I started to get intrigued with Honduran culture. I lived with a local family and became fascinated with how they interact, with their customs, their food. I wanted to participate and learn about their perspectives. The sounds of their speech became like music - the rhythm, the flow, the notes. I wasn't satisfied with learning concrete words and phrases like "where is the train station"? I wanted to talk to them about what gives them meaning in life, about their fears dreams. About how they interact with their neighbors and neighboring countries. I was amazed how quickly I learned to communicate basic concepts. I went to stores, cafes and parks - asking people to tell me about their lives. It was a totally unstructured environment and I learned more in three weeks living there than three years of classes. Over the next two years I traveled to Guatemala, Peru and Colombia. And now I speak Spanish. Yet, I've found when I leave the environment I need some structure. In the U.S. it's so easy to get caught up in other stuff and not practice my Spanish. The key for me is to find a type of flexible structure based mostly on intrinsic motivations and rewards. Perhaps I practice 4-7 hours per week and it could include reading, writing, skype conversations, videos etc. Whatever my desire leads to. I've found that if it feels like work I won't do it. If it's something "I have to do" - it just won't last. It's the same with my fitness. My goal is to maintain a level of physical fitness - that could include yoga, weight lifting, running etc. I can force myself into a habit, yet without a threshold of fun, enjoyment and passion it becomes more of an obligation and won't last.

I've noticed humans often make comparisons - especially "me" compared to others. I've found comparing myself to others generally leads to a sense of separation and often inner turmoil. I could give many examples. . . such as comparing my intelligence to my coworkers or comparing myself to my girlfriend's previous lovers. If the focus is on "me" and "them" there is a sense of separation. Yet, I love learning about myself, for example through Myer Briggs or Spiral Dynamics. One of my questions is how do I introspect without the separation and turmoil? One mindset is to be aware of myself in relation to my environment and others. I'm also a deep thinker. My mind engages in a lot of abstract thinking - my mind is frequently forming concepts, looking to integrate relations, asking "why"? and "how"? There are certain work environments that are more natural fits. I don't like being on structured committees with lots of rules doing mechanical thinking and tasks. I don't like being given a job description I must follow. I thrive in diversity, creation, fluid change. I naturally prefer working independently, researching, learning, brainstorming, creating. For many years, I pursued what I thought I "should be" - what was projected onto me as having value and success. I started off college as a business major in the footsteps of my father, I became pre-med so that I could satisfy a need "help people", a need projected upon me by society. I pursued careers as a leader in biotechnology and scientific research, in part to satisfy a need to reach the top of my profession and gain recognition and acceptance from my peers. None of it was being true to my inner nature. I've finally found a natural fit. I get to spend about four hours a day solo, conceptualizing and creating. And about another four hours a day communicating these concepts with others. I excel in my natural zone and I do the bare minimum outside my natural zone.

@Ibn Sina Interesting. I have the flip perspective. It seems to me the forum is heavility weighted toward spiritual and metaphysical perspectives. I’m a scientist and spend all day working with people bounded by the scientific paradigm. I often visit this forum to get exposure to non-scientific perspectives. I find the notion of placing science and enlightenment in seperate camps interesting. Similar to placing sadness and enlightenment in separate camps.

@Will Bigger “Why” assumes an intention or purpose. I would back up and first ask if there needs to be an intention/purpose.

whenever I mention creating artificially intelligent beings with higher conscious levels than themself, people find it very threatening. Even if they were guarenteed humans would not be harmed. Everyone wants to feel at the top of the food chain. I’d imagine a minority would admire an enlightened being and the majority would be repulsed. Do you think an enlightened being could be elected as president? I seriously doubt it in the US.

@StrangerWatch “I understand the value of enlightenment” There is no value of enlightenment. That notion is part of The Game we are conditioned to play. And noone wants to acknowledge they don’t exist. It’s a hatd sell.

As a novice I did light trips solo in nature and loved it. I’ve also entered the forest in the afterglow of a heavy trip. Nature is one of the best settings to go nondual. For higher doses with peaks into insanity/ego death, I’d say my house is the easiest setting, then nature, then social settings. Paradixically, the hardest thing I’ve had to get through solo in nature is panic of being trapped.

My personal development has been a distraction to awakening. It’s still playing the game.