Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Intelligence vs. Fanaticism;
Education vs. Indoctrination

Video: Expelled: Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Super Trailer)   
Source: YouTube: http://youtu.be/xGCxbhGaVfE
“All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
- Arthur Schopenhauer

The evidence haunting the materialistic Darwinian scientific establishment is mounting; and so, as in all other such cases in times passed, the establishment is making a concerted effort to snuff out the possibility of even considering alternative paradigms—particularly those related to the origin of life.

No one described it better than Arthur Schopenhauer, the tragicomedy of the human condition that we tend to vehemently oppose that which threatens our established belief systems.

Today, GenesisEcoFund is doing just that, and intends to support all scientists in their endeavor to evolve our understanding of biology and the origin of species beyond the established, dogmatically held theory known as Neo-Darwinism.

To start with, like Ben Stein, we are appalled and disgusted at the hypocrites who call themselves “champions of evidenced-based objective truth”—materialist scientists and their backers with very particular economic interests and agendas—who systematically suppress the debate; not just on intelligent design, but also on the nature of consciousness.

Clearly, both intelligent design and consciousness are interpreted as being “euphemisms for religion” by mainstream scientists—hear that? Interpreted…subjective, selective analysis—though truly, nothing could be further from the truth; and there is evidence to back that assertion up.

Any debate, if it is backed by experiential evidence, is worth having; particularly if the new evidence—or past evidence re-examined in light of new knowledge—lead to a more accurate conclusion and understanding of our nature and the nature of reality.

This evidence is not only physical. The word “experiment” shares the same root as “experience” and are usually conducted in a “laboratory” which has as its root word, “labour” (“work”—a word that is intimately connected to experience). In other words, pure science is meant to be experiential.

The conscious experience of the laws of nature are the basis for evidence—the word means “to have experienced.” To limit accepted evidence to empirical evidence is to limit the debate, and any hope of understanding. For starters, we experience less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum:

Image: The electromagnetic spectrum, showing range of visible light spectrum

This is what we experience. As for the rest, we experience effects of the remainder of the spectrum only. Our so-called evidence is limited to how certain types of unseen energies on the spectrum affect material reality—that part of the spectrum we can directly experience.

For example, we have instruments which detect and measure types of radiation. We have machines which generate types of radiation, etc. Yet, our understanding of such energies is completely limited to their material effects; and, of course, the mathematics and physics equations which describe them.

As for our theories—like the theory of evolution as it relates to the origin of species (which has never been proven)—they exist only as belief systems. Interpretations of the empirical evidence at hand.

But there is another kind of knowledge which relates to pure experience; conscious experience. It is what science originally began as, with greats like Sir Isaac Newton consciously observing motion, gravity, etc. and comprehending the underlying forces at work responsible for their behavior. He then described said forces mathematically and thus were born our comprehension of the Laws of Motion: Mechanics.

But Newton didn’t then extrapolate his experience to say that Mechanics were the cause of movement, or the origin of mechanical objects. That would be absurd. There is no evidence to support the theory that mechanics account for the origin of matter.

Yet that’s exactly what Darwin did. He rightly observed the phenomenon of evolution: the gradual change of a species over time through the process of natural selection. The Law of Evolution and Devolution is a real Law. Mind you, Darwin only observed half of it: evolution; to this day scientists have not bothered to look for devolution, and thus it remains a mystery to them.

Then, having observed and explained evolution by natural selection, he chose, quite arbitrarily, to subject all of life and the question of the origin of life itself to the same law. This was, is, and shall forever remain a subjective act of intellectualism—a belief. It is no more pure science than any religious fable about the origin of life. That is why the origin of species by evolution remains only a theory. It has never, ever been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and can and never will be proven. It is incorrect.

What is our basis for such a bold—if not downright arrogant—assertion? Evidence. Experiential evidence. Our knowledge of ecosystems comes not from theory, nor from the authority of “peer-review” (pure science is not a democracy; experience is not a consensus question or statement of majority condition).

Anomalies can very well be real. A million people failing to see/hear something because of the condition (and conditioning) of their consciousness tells us nothing about reality.  One who sees/hears something they cannot is not automatically “wrong” because of the state of the million. The anomaly is not “imagined” because the million assumes the one’s condition must be the same as their own (and then the statisticians come to talk probabilities, the psychologists come to talk about motive, etc). Meanwhile, it’s precisely the individual’s different condition which allows him/her to experience what a million cannot.

Of course, the reverse is possible. Not everyone speaks the truth; and not everything that we experience (particularly under the influence of mind-altering substances) is reality—far from it. But if that is the case, what about the reality we experience through the framework of material existence and 5 senses?

Our mental condition is conditioned by existence within an experiential framework of electromagnetic energy equal to less than 1% of what’s currently detectable; what we “know” exists…here and now.

But what if, by some miracle, we could expand our consciousness to begin to experience reality beyond the 1% of visible light? What if we could experience, consciously—or perhaps better put, “access”—other laws at work, here and now, which do, in fact, have a direct impact on physical reality, but are more subtle; that is, their effects are not detectable empirically as such.

Consider the Fibonacci sequence and its impacts on physical reality…

 
Image Collage by GenesisEcoFund Fibonacci Foundations

This somewhat simple mathematical phenomenon (known as a recursive sequence, following the simple rule that to calculate the next term you sum the preceding two)… 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, etc…produces much of the phenomena we observe in nature. Not just beautiful geometric patterns like the ones we see above, but also growth patterns for everything from plants to rabbit populations. (Source: Light Grid: The Fibonacci Sequence, the Golden Mean and the nautilus shell).

It’s simple, subtle, yet to the Greeks and many other ancient cultures—foundational.  Mathematicians are fascinated by it and other such equations which begin to describe phenomena in nature which have huge implications on the reality we know.

Another example? How about E=MC2? An equation which allowed us to—on a very primitive level—work with the energies within the atom…

Image: Atomic Bomb; Fukushima Disaster

We’re inching closer to the question at hand. But first, let’s bring it back to biology for a moment and a look at the CELL…the smallest unit of life (as defined by empirical biology).

The film Expelled briefly touches on this, but we feel it’s important to highlight it for the obvious questions it raises.

Video: Inner Life Of A Cell - Full Version Credit: Harvard

Now, if watching that you are not questioning the likelihood/possibility that such an intricate and complex world could arise spontaneously or by accident, then consider watching the narrated version of the same video. 

Again, Neo-Darwinism would have us believe that the super-complex mechanisms taking place inside the first living cell spontaneously and naturally self-organized via random interactions of molecules.

The simple fact is there are forces, subtle yet utterly foundational forces, responsible for the operation and management of a living cell…a living organism…a living ecosystem. These forces are not yet detectable by empirical science, and thus it ignores their possibility of existence

This, despite the fact that all living things possess an electro magnetic field existing beyond the physical light spectrum…a field scientists choose to assume is generated by the matter existing on the physical spectrum, as opposed to even considering the reverse: that the invisible spectrum of energy present actually precedes and is foundational to the material, physical, visible matter constituting the body of the living thing.

This, despite the fact that physicists know that all matter is energy, and that at the heart of every atom of matter, there is no matter as such. But why don’t we let someone more qualified speak through the ages on the matter…
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

From evolutionary biologists to neurologists, most will admit in private that they can’t begin to understand how life emerged from insentient molecules, or how consciousness emerges from something as unconscious as matter. These are some of the “hard problems” known very well to science.

But they are problems which are quietly and expeditiously swept under the carpet, along with anyone trying to do any sort of rigorous scientific exploration—pure science—to get at the answers. Like a mother yelling at a child to stop picking at a scab, for fear of uncovering a lot of pus.

Maybe it’s because the establishment is infected. But what’s really scary is that the establishment has control over education. That means whatever it is infected with, it is almost certain to infect the next generation with (this, by the way, is an example of the law of devolution in action).

There’s really only one way out of this quandary; and that is to expand the scope of the current paradigms…but not just the paradigms, but the metaparadigm in which all other paradigms exist and condition established ways thinking—and permit/disallow alternative approaches.

Watch Peter Russell’s excellent talk, The Primacy of Consciousness to get a much better handle of where we’ve been in terms of established world views science, and where it’s all headed, despite the current effort by the establishment at “epi-cycling” its way out of the anomalies which it cannot ignore and it cannot deny. Here’s a taste of said talk:

Video: Peter Russell - The Primacy of Consciousness (Excerpted)


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Relationship with Nature = Path to a “Growth Mindset”
Living with Ecosystems = Antidote to a “Fixed Mindset”

Image (Infographic): Two Mindsets 
Credit: Carol S. Dweck Ph.D. Graphic by Nigel Holmes

“I have always been deeply moved by outstanding achievement and saddened by wasted potential.”
~ Carol Dweck, Ph.D., Author, “Mindset”
The above infographic and quote come from Carol S. Dweck, Lewis and Virginia Eaton Professor of Psychology at Stanford University and one of the world’s foremost researchers in the field of motivation: why people succeed and what fosters success.

In her book, “Mindset,” Dr. Dweck explores a relatively simple idea, which flies in the face of some fairly well-established notions of success—what it takes to succeed and how to encourage success—namely, that brains and talent alone do not guarantee success, and that praising these factors (and rewarding them) may in fact jeopardize success.
“In a fixed mindset, people believe their basic qualities, like their intelligence or talent, are simply fixed traits. They spend their time documenting their intelligence or talent instead of developing them. They also believe that talent alone creates success—without effort. They’re wrong.

 “In a growth mindset, people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point. This view creates a love of learning and a resilience that is essential for great accomplishment. Virtually all great people have had these qualities.”

Source: http://mindsetonline.com/whatisit/about/index.html
Disclaimer: we haven’t read Dr. Dweck’s book; we can neither critique her work nor offer any commentary about her methods of analysis.

We can, however, agree with her conclusions—her basic theory—especially as summarized in the above infographic; and moreover, offer a path to circumventing the fixed mindset trap and adopting a growth mindset instead.

You guessed it: once again ecosystems; nature show us the way.

We can say many things about nature—many theories, opinions, judgments, and beliefs—but one cannot deny the fluidity of the natural world. IN NATURE NOTHING IS FIXED.

Even the hardest substances known to man, diamonds, are in constant motion—vibration. Moreover, in their natural state, diamonds—being crystals—do actually “grow.” 

Video: Timelaps of Crystals Growing  by EsotericWorlds
Growing crystals on a microscope slide in cross-polarised light.

Now, if the hardest, most stable substances in nature known to humankind are also the most valuable (diamonds, gold) what does that tell you about the state of our psychology? Well, just look around at the world created by human beings.

Our psychology, like the world around us, is mechanical. It is not organic, fluid, adaptive, receptive, dynamic. Generally speaking our thought patterns are rigid, restrictive, repetitive, stubborn, etc. Our world is one of concrete buildings, machines, assembly lines, digital technology…we like it that way, because our generally fixed mindsets like it that way…mechanical, predictable, solid, controlled.

Now let us look at nature. Sure, there are rules and mechanical laws which nature abides by—gravity and the other mechanical laws of physics come to mind—but within the framework of a broad set of theses parameters, the observable universe is anything but rigid.

Yes, nature definitely has a mechanical level—that’s the one that we observe simplistically with our mechanical psychology and declare ourselves worthy of “lording over”—nuclear weapons, GMO’s, and all other manner of humans playing gods with the “Lego pieces of life” are the result. 

But nature has another, more subtle level. That level is anything but mechanical. That is the level that one can actually form a real relationship with…like the indigenous peoples of the world did so effectively. It is an intelligentsia of loving and nurturing compassion. It is explorative, experimental, but natural and gradual in its experimentation…evolution and devolution.

The intelligentsia of ecosystems is trans-organismic. It is the only way to achieve collective harmony and symbiosis. Those who study chaos theory and fractals understand there is a level of organizational technology at work in nature which goes beyond mechanistic nature

Living with an ecosystem opens one’s awareness to these subtle goings on…not intellectually, necessarily…consciously.

One does not intellectualize one’s relationship with nature. One feels oneness, kinship, wholeness with nature. It is a complete, holistic, conscious knowing. It is an expansive knowledge which may inform the intellect, certainly, but is not the product of deductive reasoning or any rational cognitive function whatsoever. Quite the contrary, love of nature is for all intents and purposes quite irrational at times (as so many examples of love, selflessness, altruism, self-sacrifice, etc. are).

This, then, is the realm of growth. A microbiologist can assert quite rationally that the process of growth is 100% mechanical—for instance, in the case of a bacterium)—and that cell division and reproduction happen like clockwork, causing the growth of a bacterial culture.

And what of the medium? What of the environment? The ecosystem? They observe how bacterial colonies change and adapt their growth according to changes in their environment; but do they comprehend that the same phenomenon is taking place on more subtle, energetic levels? No, their mindset is fixed on a materialistic mechanical understanding and so they remain fixated on theories which support and perpetuate said mindset.

At Genesis, we—like Dr. Dweck—are saddened by “wasted potential.” That is why we promote the integration of ecosystems into the education and support of humanity. If we know nothing else, we know this: nature has been around for a lot longer than our materialistic science and technology; and, that it will continue long after we are gone.

Whereas our mechanical monstrosities and fixations with what “lasts forever” in our minds will be long gone, nature’s intelligent cycles of constant change will continue—evolving into new and wonderful and surprising versions of themselves—giving rise to new and incredible creations.

We can choose to be a part of such a fantastic future…we can choose to truly grow. Or, we can choose to cling to our fixations—fixed mindsets—and go obsolete along with all our precious gadgets.

=========================

A quick shout out to Nature Daily.

Thanks for picking up PeapodLife’s blog post from last Thursday, 21st of August, Mission Blue: CODE RED - New Relationship with Nature Required!

Image (Screenshot ): PeapodLife: Mission Blue: CODE RED New Relationship with Nature Required!
Shared by Genesis Eco Fund from The Nature Daily
Source: The Nature Daily Science Top Stories Thursday, Aug. 21, 2014


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, August 14, 2014

A Garden to Create Peace? Reverse Climate Change?

Video: ABC News 
“A weed is but an unloved flower.”
Can a garden create peace? Reverse climate change? Are botanists the answer to world peace? And is science the “objective language” of peace and harmony?

Genesis Eco Fund can’t help but question the validity of some of the opinions / conclusions expressed by Dr. Peter Raven in the above video. As a matter of fact, his oversimplification of matters is typical of the kind of “scientific thinking” which causes so many of the problems we live with today.

For starters, we must make the distinction between a garden and an ecosystem. Dr. Raven seems to completely overlook the fact that nature’s basis for collective harmony and symbiosis is the ecosystem.

“Well-kept gardens” are entirely manmade phenomenon which, for the most part, offer humanity “tidied-up versions of nature,” or expressions of nature free of our subjective aesthetics of “ugliness” and “wildness.”

We so-called human beings like to think of ourselves as above all that “wildness” so we craft gardens in the image we have of ourselves: clean, ordered, flawless, perfect…like the legendary Garden of Eden itself.

So right away we see a problem. Gardens are not real. They are a projection. Gardens immediately provide a stripped down, sanitized, façade of nature—and heaven forbid any unwanted “pests” (members of nature) decide to come take up residence in our garden. Woe is them.

The second aspect of gardens and gardening is this misplaced idea that we are here to “lord over nature.” That somehow, without our direct intervention, nature won’t be able to evolve. At best we see ourselves as custodians of the natural world, at worst nature’s lord and master.

But it’s really all the same thing: our collective unconscious avoidance of self-control. The nature we are meant to be lord and master over is our own wild nature—anger, lust, pride, greed, etc. By assigning ourselves the role of taming the nature around us, we happily avoid looking at ourselves.

Which brings us to this question of can a garden create world peace? Ridiculous! You cannot go anywhere in the world and not encounter beautiful gardens! The trouble is, they are aesthetic; and aesthetics are the best anesthetic.

Some of the most beautiful and opulent gardens in the world happen to be owned by the wealthiest, most heartless bankers and industrialists—if not despots and tyrants!

Image: The Hanging Gardens of Babylon 

At the end of the day, then, this notion of creating world peace (or solving global warming) via gardens is a naïve utopian concept: simultaneous ego-projection and avoidance of the true source of our problems and suffering: ourselves; our own psyche. The answers lie within.

So what about an ecosystem? How does an ecosystem differ from a garden? For starters, an ecosystem is not an esthetic exercise. It’s beauty is there, but its beauty is primal, elemental…objective. The ecosystem is whole and complete—and messy. It is not carefully groomed, sanitized, etc.

More importantly, an ecosystem is collective harmony and symbiosis. Its functioning and energetic field reflects the fact that it is in a constant state of balancing. Unlike a garden which can only fall into “chaos” and must be “kept,” an ecosystem can self-organize, evolve, adapt, and surprise.

When a “pest” enters a garden, it must be “eradicated.” When a new organism enters an ecosystem, it is accommodated.  Sometimes, a foreign invader is introduced which the ecosystem cannot fully handle (English hares and cane toads in Australia), but still the self-organizing, self-correcting, ever-balancing activities of the ecosystem go on.

No garden can compete with nature’s level of determination and sophistication. A pest can wipe out a garden in no time at all.  It takes decades for an ecosystem to collapse. Gardens have no resilience compared to ecosystems.  They are too rigid in design and lack adaptability. Of course! Gardens are reflections of our minds…our so-called “objective science.”

Here we come to the real problem of this video: the erroneous belief that the scientific method is objective, and that somehow science holds the keys to solving our collective situation—which is, let’s face it, dire. 

We hold in our minds “scientific concepts” about the nature of reality which are, like the gardens we create:
  1. projections of our own psyche

  2. sanitized, oversimplified, stripped down versions of reality

  3. rigidly designed, lacking in resilience and adaptability

  4. must be “kept” in order that they do not fall into “chaos”

  5. are aesthetic, and thus act as a powerful anesthetic to the consciousness.

Image: “Mind Projection” 


Our attachment to materialist science and our wonder in our own scientific splendor (i.e. technology) is like any other drug. The fact that science is so wrapped up in personal, professional and economic gain simply adds fuel to the fire.

For anyone to believe that science is objective is just that: a belief; the new religion of our world. Strange, we see science advancing in leaps and bounds, and our societal and global problems lock-step with it, in much the same way that the ascension of organized religion created more problems than it solved.

That’s because both science and organized religion still only play with concepts. They are games in the mind. Science worships aesthetics and like any exercise of pure aesthetics, it is completely void of conscience.  Aesthetics is the best anesthetic. Science as we know it puts the conscience to sleep.

So botanists, studying “the science of plants” fail to recognize that plants simply do not function in the way they think they do. A plant in nature behaves differently than a plant in the laboratory. Plants are not little “bio-chemical machines.” They are individual members on an ecosystem.

So there is a science of expanded conscience. The first step is to expand one’s awareness to ecosystems. To study and comprehend how nature achieves collective harmony and symbiosis in naturally self-organizing, self-sustaining, and self-balancing systems seems like the logical place to start looking for answers on matters of peace and harmony for humanity.

Likewise, in terms of sustainability, climate change reversal, etc., why not look to ecosystems which were around long before this humanity arrived and will be here long after we have gone? 

Gardens? Ecosystems!


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Mine Spill in B.C. Threatens MORE than Just Salmon

Screenshot: cbcnews Video: Mine spill threatens salmon run
“Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill.”

In our recent article, What Role can Ecosystems Play in Changing Education Paradigms?, we proposed the phrase “survival of the most fitting” as a more enlightened revision of the classical Darwinian axiom, “survival of the fittest.”

If Genesis is correct, and the natural world operates from the viewpoint of collective harmony and symbiosis—ecosystems—and not a collection of individuals struggling for survival, then THIS HUMANITY IS IN BIG TROUBLE.

The latest in our seemingly inexhaustible capacity to wreak havoc on the natural world comes in the form of a toxic spill of a mining operations’ tailings pond in British Columbia.

This waste water is filled with unnaturally concentrated levels of highly toxic / carcinogenic heavy metals and environmentally harmful elements which are a by-product of fracking: the process by which water is pumped into the ground under high pressure in order to release the desired resources from said rock.

Image: How hydraulic fracking works. 
Credit: Reuters. 

Well that’s all well and good, except that the waste water is collected in tailings ponds and used over and over, with heavy metals and other elements accumulating in dangerous concentrations in what amounts to toxic sludge at the bottom of the ponds.

These ponds are often located near natural lakes and streams—sometimes crucial waterways, was the case in Mount Polley Mine. The close proximity of the tailings pond to both Polley Lake and Boot Jack Lake can be seen below.

Image: Mount Polley Mine: Pits and Infrastructure

Well that’s all well and good, until a breach in the tailings facility infrastructure caused a massive spill of the toxic tailings sludge into Polley Lake, a crucial spawning ground for Pacific Salmon, and which drains down along a tributary into the Fraser River—British Columbia’s premiere waterway.

Image: Aerial footage taken on Aug. 4, 2014, shows a breach of the dam of the Mount Polley Mine tailings pond, which spilled toxic waste water into neighbouring Hazeltine Creek and Polley Lake (top). (Cariboo Regional District) 

The impact on the salmon aside, what we really need to do as a species is ask a critical question:

HOW MUCH MORE WILL MOTHER NATURE TAKE BEFORE SHE PUTS THE NEEDS OF THE PLANET’S ECOSYSTEM BEFORE THIS HUMANITY’S “RIGHT” TO BE A PART OF IT.

To come back to our phraseology, how long before the law of survival of the most fitting rules against this humanity, and decides that we simply do not fit anymore, and it’s time for us to go!?

Or perhaps this process is already underway.

In terms of the lifespan of a planet, measured in billions of years, it doesn’t exactly function on a timescale we can comprehend. Therefore, if an ecosystem is a superorganism then a planet can be considered a megaorgansim. As such, the time it takes a megaorganism to sneeze may be measured in decades if not centuries. 

So, do we just carry on carrying on? Or do we at least make an effort to try to comprehend what it means to cohabit and coexist with other life on this planet in collective harmony and symbiosis? Do we at least make an effort to comprehend where we went wrong, and what it means to be a part of the ecosystem, not “above it.”

We are not above it. It is above us. And unless we make conscious efforts now to demonstrate our respect for the megaorganism of the Earth, it’s interconnected systems of superorganisms (ecosystems), built on harmonic symbiosis of communities of organisms, we are going to be deemed foreign invaders…a carconigenic species which must be eliminated sooner rather than later.

This is not conjecture. This is a scientific fact.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Thursday, July 31, 2014

“We Are from the Future” has some Interesting Ideas about Plant Photosynthesis

Video: “We are from the Future” by Upriser
“plants harvest light with near perfect efficiency, but this is impossible under classical physics”
The message on WeAreFromTheFuture.com looms ominously, complete with a countdown timer:

“TIME LEFT UNTIL OUR NEXT MESSAGE: 6 DAYS | 10 HOURS | 19 MINUTES | 13 SECONDS”

But far from a kind of doomsday clock, this website (and subsequent video “message,” above) is more like a “threat of positivity” (if there is such a thing).

As Al Qaeda and others release videotaped messages periodically, laying down their plans, manifestos, etc., the group behind Upriser.com appears to be doing something similar. Similarly subversive, albeit with far less blatant violence, hatred, and calls for bloodshed against any identifiable “enemy.”

But it works. We prefer the first half of the video, with the soundtrack provided by Hans Zimmer; but, we recognize how the second half speaks to a different—possibly younger and/or more “hip”—audience. (Gosh, are we that old!?)

Image: Screenshot, We Are From the Future Countdown 

But the purpose of sharing this video today is to discuss what appears to be one of the main thrusts of its message: light; specifically, how plants convert it to energy via photosynthesis with near perfect efficiency.

We all studied photosynthesis in high school (don’t roll your eyes: you did too, even if you were half asleep or scribbling love notes to your high school crush at the time). But the video makes an interesting argument: how is it that plants are able to use light so efficiently, when the laws of physics more or less prohibit it? The answer, as it turns out, comes from some actual quantum theory:
"Energy transfer in light-harvesting macromolecules is assisted by specific vibrational motions of the chromophores," said Alexandra Olaya-Castro (UCL Physics & Astronomy), supervisor and co-author of the research. "We found that the properties of some of the chromophore vibrations that assist energy transfer during photosynthesis can never be described with classical laws, and moreover, this non-classical behaviour enhances the efficiency of the energy transfer." "The negative values in these probability distributions are a manifestation of a truly quantum feature, that is, the coherent exchange of a single quantum of energy," explained Edward O'Reilly (UCL Physics & Astronomy), first author of the study. "When this happens electronic and vibrational degrees of freedom are jointly and transiently in a superposition of quantum states, a feature that can never be predicted with classical physics."
Credit: ucl.ac.uk: UCL News: Quantum mechanics explains efficiency of photosynthesis Source: http://upriser.com/posts/we-are-from-the-future
Now, at Genesis Eco Fund, we’re all about the cutting edge quantum mechanics, especially as it attempts to explain the incredible power of plants. We wonder, however, if this isn’t a good time to bring up consciousness.

Many of the proponents of consciousness often bring up quantum mechanics and the so-called observer effect (that the very act of observation of a particular quantum particle changes its state or behavior versus non-observation of it).

Any connection in the “consciousness field” overrides classical physics. Of course, because consciousness is not a product of material reality. Consciousness is primary (as we have discussed and shared before). Here’s an abridged reminder:

Video: The Primacy of Consciousness (Excerpted) 

So what does this all mean?

Consciousness, as we know (or rather, should know) has qualities. Conscience is one of them. Imagination, superior intelligence (the superior intelligence of knowing without thinking; without reason—but not necessarily without observation or imagination) are others.

Plants have consciousness. And so does light. And because both light and consciousness are not a part of the physical universe (the three dimensional plane) but of more subtle levels of reality (the superior dimensions), they do not abide by the laws of physical nature. In this way, physical materialist science (classical physics) breaks down and we get the observations of quantum mechanics.

But that’s all they are: observations. The quantum theory is where it all breaks down because consciousness isn’t mechanical. Consciousness is, well, conscious! And because it is, trying to figure it out with something so primitive as the human intellect will not work.

It is through profound introspection and meditation—cultivation of consciousness itself—that increases our ability to comprehend on levels past the sensory and rational materialistic physical intellect.

It is on these superior levels of conscious interaction that ecosystems operate. They are not mechanical entities, but rather self-regulating super-organisms whose harmony and symbiosis are organized in consciousness—not the level of material reality which we observe.

“By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.”
~ Hebrews 11:3 

If we understand the symbol of “the word of God” as sound—vibration (frequency)—now things begin to make sense again, including from a quantum perspective. And, we can understand how the light can reach the “core”…as far as light is concerned, there is no “mindless matter” to run into.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Do Trees Communicate?
Ecosystems & the Communication of Plants

YouTube Video: Do trees communicate; published by A Future of OUR Choosing 
Source: YouTube: http://youtu.be/iSGPNm3bFmQ

"Nature is not mute, it is a man who is deaf."
– Terence McKenna

In our last blog post about education, we stated that Darwin’s axiom of “survival of the fittest” was a gross oversimplification, and a flawed view of nature as a collection of individuals. We know it is not.

Image: New Scientist Cover: Darwin was Wrong

The above video is further evidence that not only are ecosystems infinitely complex, they are also highly advanced and sophisticated, complete with intercommunications using various species as means to send important information across vast distances.
“In this real-life model of forest resilience and regeneration, Professor Suzanne Simard shows that all trees in a forest ecosystem are interconnected, with the largest, oldest, "mother trees" serving as hubs. The underground exchange of nutrients increases the survival of younger trees linked into the network of old trees. Amazingly, we find that in a forest, 1+1 equals more than 2.”

We know planets react to light, smell, sound, movement, many kinds of aesthetic stimuli. But although these reactions have not resulted in the conclusion “plants are conscious” in mainstream science, the observation that plants communicate across the forest using species other than themselves to send signals and messages—however rudimentary in nature—shows a specific quality: altruism.

Altruism is a quality of consciousness. Altruism is not a self-preservation instinct, even if it is triggered by an immediate threat to oneself. From this video, we see that trees look out for one another, a trait normally only associated with animals. 

But if trees and fungi work together as described, what may be happening elsewhere in the ecosystem? In much the same way that our bodies communicate in complex and intricate ways, it can be said that ecosystems are “superorganisms.”

Nature is a highly sophisticated and infinitely complex series of ecosystems, all working in tandem and mutual symbiosis. We may one day discover that whole planet is an ecosystem (if we survive that long).

If so, we will discover that the planet is not a “superorganism” but a “megaorganism.”

Image: Planet as “Megaorganism” 


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

What Role can Ecosystems Play in Changing Education Paradigms?

Video: RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms; 
Credit: RSA Events; Sir Ken Robinson www.theRSA.org in Accordance with RSA Policy Statement 

“If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our own institutions, great is our sin.”

We at Genesis Eco Fund are very much concerned with the issue of education, but not in the trite, cliché treatment it normally receives: by parents, teachers, employers and—worst of all—politicians and bureaucrats.

Genesis Eco Fund concerns itself with the machinery of education (that is, what it has become). Not just “the education system” as it were, and certainly not “the institution of education.” Rather, the unquestioned assumptions regarding the institutionalization of education as a matter of natural course.

With that in mind, we share the above video by RSA Animate featuring a talk by Sir Ken Robinson (about the need to reimagine the paradigm of institutionalized education as we know it (as some kind of “natural” phenomenon). Not least in the light of the quote by Charles Darwin.

Image: Charles Darwin Quote on Slavery, “If the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature…” (1836)  
Source: todayinsci.com: TODAY IN SCIENCE HISTORY: Charles Darwin Quote on Slavery (1836)

The fact is, the “emerging problems” of education are, in-fact, inherent in the underlying myth that the institutionalization of the current system is natural. It is not at all natural; it is, as Ken Robinson points out, a myth!

What else unnatural, Mr. Robinson goes on to say, is the current paradigms’ lack of recognition that “most great learning happens in groups,” that is to say “collaboration is the stuff of growth; and, that the current educational model of atomizing and judging people separately, we “form a kind of disjunction between them and their natural learning environment.”

This statement could easily describe ecosystems. What is collaboration after all? Collective harmony and mutual symbiosis…the modus operendi of ecosystems. So what about the apparent competition of said ecosystem? What of our friend Darwin’s famous axiom “survival of the fittest”?

Ironically Social Darwinism (very prominent when the current educational paradigm was established) is to blame for the insistence on standardized testing and pitting individuals against one another. But this is inherently counter-productive to the collaboration just mention; and, as it turns out, is ultimately a bit-player in the functioning of ecosystems!

In other words, survival of the fittest may be a natural phenomenon, but human beings have placed far too much emphasis on it and not the more fundamental law of nature: harmony and symbiosis. Survival of the fittest as “understood” by Darwin and everyone since is an ego-projection. Darwin found a phenomenon in nature which provided him with a reasonable theory to explain “the origins” of our linear, intellectual, reactionary experience of conflict (personal, tribal, social, national, etc).

The problem is, Darwin didn’t see the bigger picture. He saw organisms only in isolation according to classical definitions of human conflict (man vs. man, man vs. nature): individual vs. individual, pack vs. pack, individual and/or pack vs. nature. Darwin didn’t see ecosystems; he certainly never stopped to recognize that ecosystems are “super organisms” (that evolve, have interests, etc).

Competition (testing of individuals against each other, the environment, etc.) is part of the constant balancing inherent in symbiosis and harmony, just as any collaborative group encounters conflicts and conflict resolution as the inevitable differences and competing interests of individual are integrated into the whole collaborative effort. And yes, struggle and death are a part of life, but not according to some linear equation, or massive “us versus them” oversimplification as experienced by human ego-intellect!

In other words, individuals have clearly defined personal goals, but in a successful collaborative effort (sports team, business, etc.), individual goals are aligned into the collective goal, such that cooperation trumps competition by far! This is how nature really works…ECOSYSTEMS!

Example: many “favourites” for this year’s world cup had “superstar” players whose individual interests included “showing their nation and the world they are deserving of such praise and adoration.” Germany had a solid team of players whose individual interests were aligned with the collective interests. How often we saw German players in position to “go for glory” instead pass the ball to a teammate in a much better position to get a goal—and pass and score Germany did. And the results speak for themselves.

Image: “There is no “I” in “team” Germany 2014 

And then at 11:00 minutes into the talk, Sir Ken drops this bombshell:

“It’s about the habits of our institutions and the HABITATS THEY OCCUPY.”

The very presence of ecosystems in an institution changes the habitat of that institution. One CANNOT occupy an ecosystem and not be a part of it. One cannot be a part of an ecosystem and not experience an alignment of one’s individual goals with those of the collective.

This alignment is bi-directional. In other words, just as your habits change to align with the habitat, the ecosystem adjusts to accommodate your goals.

Example: Germany had solid players: Klosse, who became the winningest player in world-cup history, for instance. But the culture of collaboration meant he didn’t “go for glory.” He was just another equal member of the team.  He wanted to win. His team wanted to win. He probably did want to break the record, but his personal success was secondary to his team’s success. In the end, that formula for success allowed him to indeed accumulate the goal count he was looking for…but not at the expense of his ecosystem.

Example: let’s say you want to be healthy, happy, peaceful, etc. The ecosystem also seeks harmony and healthy—optimal levels of performance for all its members. There is a clear and obvious alignment.

But what if you are a smoker? Sure, you want to be healthy, but you just can’t break this habit which relaxes you? In the short run, the ecosystem will synthesize bacteria to break-down tar and nicotine in the air. Over time, your presence in the habitat of clean air, positive energy, and natural calming power of nature will reduce your need to turn to cigarettes. Our habitat affects our habits. Plain and simple.

Image: Stillframe from Video: RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms; 
“The habits of our institutions and the habitats they occupy…” 
Credit: RSA Events; Sir Ken Robinson www.theRSA.org in Accordance with RSA Policy Statement

So, too then, with the institution of learning. And let’s face it, one look at an ecosystem and one realizes that lateral, divergent thinking, inspiration, imagination, and all the wonderful preconditions for real creativity are all there…naturally. Truly.

And that’s all just the tip of the iceberg of how ecosystems can change any institution, especially education (which is, let’s face it, supposed to be all about GROWTH). If education is all about growth, then the ONLY model, the ONLY paradigm that will ever work is THE TRULY natural, effective and proven model for growth: ecosystems. Here we coin the phrase: “Survival of the most fitting?”

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)