TED Conversations

Arthanari Chandrasekaran

This conversation is closed.

Strange questions that humans have not yet found an answer for!

We all have a unique course of action through out our day. Many of the conversation along with our friends or some that we hear from others talking at times surprise us and gets our brain thinking, but only to later ignore saying this might be beyond human reach. Have you come across any such question through your brain or from others which you think humans have not yet explored or researched or any unanswerable question?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jul 27 2012: Can mankind create something more complex than man? I'm thinking a more sophisticated being. Could this being in turn create an even more sophisticated being? Where would it end up? God?

    Is this the final point with our ever accelerating development? Are we so confused by our own existence that we need to create God to make sense of it all?
    • Jul 27 2012: Human evolution has hardly begun. Our potential to be much more is beyond our imagination. We have spent a lot of time stuck in denial of all of who we are because of our fear of feeling deeper than the very surface of our being. Mind has developed with a bias against feeling. Science, our primary belief system denies the value and validity of feeling. Religion denies the value of feeling as a moral or spiritual asset. Intellectuals deny feeling for fear of being called unintellectual.

      Feeling is the basis of life. The denial of feeling causes one to become progressively more numb until one is called a corps, like in dead. Feelings are the only way for consciousness to ground itself in the form we call human body. When the mind ignores feelings in order to "get the job done", what ever that may be, one looses a chance to become a little bit more alive and to become more like a machine.

      We have identified so completely with machines that we now think of our selves as machines and can not imagine that we could become much more than what we are, hence your above question.A machine can be made to be a better machine through science and possibly made to self develop into a more effective machine, but it can not consciously self reflect upon itself and through that evolve into a more sensitive life form. It is a machine no mater how sophisticated its structure.

      Connecting into the metaphysical domain of divinity is every human's potential and this is the path to our evolution. This is not religion or dogma but the utilization of the human ability to feel and understand those feelings. Consciousness (Spirit, masculine, expansive, electro [in manifestation]) must balance with Feeling ( Will, feminine, contractive, magnetic [in manifestation]) in order to generate the understanding necessary for one to connect the metaphysical with the physical. It is called integrating heaven and earth.

      Both Consciousness and Feeling are metaphysical forces which precede form.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: Human evolution has hardly begun – YES
        Both Consciousness and Feeling are metaphysical forces which precede form – YES

        Physics is blindly following a path of materialism. An unwritten rule which is savagely followed due, in part, to the requirement for testing to be objective and separated from subjectivity. Subjectivity of course is where sensation and feeling reside.

        Physicists therefore blindly look to temporal and physical explanations (i.e. the big bang) for our origins, to the exclusion of all other explanations.

        Physicists also believe in magic! It is accepted that gravity and the handful of other 'fundamental' forces are invisible, i.e. there is no mechanism underlying their mode of operation, they just appear and work. I believe we will discover that (scientific) mechanism. And when mankind does, it will realise how primitive it was to think that forces were invisible.

        Physicists were at one time exploring the reality we find ourselves in and attempting to discover the means of transmission of these forces. One force which attracted their attention was that of electromagnetism which it seemed had a wave-like form and transmitted itself from A to B (e.g. sunlight from stars). If a wave travelled from A to B they thought, then it must have a medium (aether). Michelson and Morley experimentally showed that there was no aether. Einstein proved theoretically that an absolute aether could not exist. Physicists gave up looking, yet these waves still appear, so what is happening?

        It is sad that we gave up looking for an aether. Instead of giving up we should have tried to imagine what a relativistic aether might look like.

        A relativistic aether is not impossible, it is in fact the only route for resolution of the problem of how these waves transmit themselves across distances.

        Resolution of this problem is the subject of my work. I believe it will bring forth untold richness of knowledge and will begin to unite the subjects of consciousness and the materia
        • Jul 29 2012: Physics is blindly following a path of materialism. Yes you are right. But that is also the whole point of physics - to describe the physical world with a set of models using mathematics. If you must, physics is a belief system like any other. The difference from religion/metaphysics is that physics is well founded in things that we can observe in the physical world. Take away the requirement that a theory should make predictions that could be tested by experiment and you loose the whole foundation (scientific approach) of physics, i.e. you end up in religion.

          This is not saying that physics should not consider new theories. It's saying that there is a hard line between what is proven scientifically and what is not.

          When it comes to the fundamental forces, they are indeed explained within the frameworks of general relativity and the Standard Model. Gravity, for example, is an effect of a curved space-time continuum in relativity. Forces in the Standard Model are carried by particles called gauge bosons, gluons and photons. This is most def not the final "model of everything" but it is something that seem to work quite well. I would be hesitant to call it magic.
        • Jul 30 2012: Play with me here Carl,

          My project is integrating the physical with the metaphysical. By metaphysical I mean that from which the physical manifests.

          The physical is well accept as a duality. A reality composed of dual opposing and complimentary energies. Male/Female, on/of, positive/negative and so on.

          Let us assume:

          That physical duality emerges from a metaphysical duality while continuing to remain imbedded in it.

          Metaphysical reality is composed of two forces being the purely expansive force and the purely contractive forces.

          The expansive force is witnessed by science as expanding space. The contractive force is witnessed by science gravity or contracting space.

          The tension between the two creates a metaphysical medium or aether.

          Stellar bodies are where the two forces integrate at a point. A point that then becomes a point of interface between the metaphysical and physical.

          The integration of these metaphysical force fuse, becoming a photon. Two standing wavess on a vertical axis osolating like a guitar string, each at ninety degree angles to each other while sharing the same nodel points at both ends and in the middle. Such is a metaphysical photon and it rides a aether composed of the metaphycal tension existing between the two opposing forces. Gravity (contraction) and Expanding Space (expansion).

          As a metaphysical photon approaches and enters a gravitational field the metaphysical contractive force compresses the metaphysical photon into a physical energy packet and It becomes the physical photon we are familiar with on earth. The expansive metaphysical force becomes the electro and the contractive metaphysical force becomes the magnetic. The central node becomes an electro/magnet particle.
      • Jul 29 2012: Thanks for the reply! I believe this is an important point. Feeling is an integrated part pf the human being which should not be forgotten. By "complex" I was not only referring to the intellect, but all aspects of the human being and their interconnections. I'm not all for the subdivision of the human being into different aspects, e.g. emotion, intellect and so on - imho the human being as a whole is more than the sum of her parts. Although it is much trickier to imagine a species with improved feeling capabilities than a species that outsmarts us intellectually. it is not hard to imagine that a more intellectually informed species with larger capabilities of understanding would also outsmart us on the emotional side. As much as we have intellectual flaws, we have emotional flaws. Dozens of examples come to mind - slow ongoing catastrophes like poverty, species extinction, pollution etc. We should have lots of feelings about these things, but aren't we sometimes incapable of feeling when something is too big for us or too far away time- or distance-wise?

        My original thought was that our strive for technological development is founded in an inherent will to make sense of the World. If we cannot make sense of it ourselves, would we then create ever-more complex species, which in turn would face the same problem. Is it even possible to do that? For example, could we create a species that could think in more than three dimensions? Or is that inherently impossible? Increasing complexity is obviously driven by evolution, but can we take control of the process and design a more complex being?
        • Jul 30 2012: "Although it is much trickier to imagine a species with improved feeling capabilities than a species that outsmarts us intellectually"

          Women are constantly out thinking men with feelings. They have the power of the Will's feelings which men rarely can comprehend because they are so easily seduced by their own minds imagination of who they think they are,is actually who they are. Women watch this develop in boys and men as they grow up and know exactly how to manage the man's self image through feelings, with ease.

          A few years ago I did a break away talk at a Health Fair at a local High School. I had twenty eight people in the room. There were possibly eight men and twenty women. Looking at my audience from the front of the class room the door was in the middle of the
          left wall. The men occupied the left row of desks along the left wall from front to back. The women were spread out and distribute fairly evenly through out the rest of the room.

          I began talking on the subject of healing and the importance of understanding the self image one is holding. To realize that the self image is nearly always unconscious to the owner and is created out of the persons imagination, and that the person holds that image to be who they actually are.

          A woman raised her hand and asked what I meant by self image. I realized that I was not getting across or she was playing with me. So I responded by saying "you know, it is what you manipulate in your man to get him to do what you want him to do.

          The response caught me completely by surprise. The entire group of women in the room cracked up laughing to the point that two of them almost reached hysteria. I looked over at the men and they all had slid down in their chairs like big kids trying to hide behind their little desks.
          The men looked as though they did not have a clue.

          Since then II have studied this and can assure you, from what you have said, you know little about women's power to manipulate a man through his feeling
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: Thank you for your reply Erik.
        “I would be hesitant to call it magic” - Perhaps more closely following the thoughts of Einstein I would be less hesitant than you, in-spite of inventing the notion of curved space he still called gravity “spooky action at a distance”.

        “The difference from religion...” - Yes, but what when the two cross? The two subjects cross when the best physics mathematical model which most accurately and successfully describes the observable world happens to include an outside-of-time aspect. In other words if physics model B describes more successfully the results of repeatable, objective measurements, but it says “sorry guys, you can only have this model if you admit there is necessarily an outside of time and that 'time is an illusion' (as Einstein put it)”. Then in this case, the two subjects cross. Physics doesn't like outside-of-time, it avoids it like the plague. A foundational assumption of physics is that all came from within the materialistic model of reality (i.e. big-bang, random branes etc). The big-bang is when time was created they want to believe. Any theory which comes close to touching this basic assumption is not likely to be considered. No matter how successful it is at making scientific predictions. No matter how much it agrees with and supports the Einsteinian view of reality.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: (reply part 2):
        Description of the physical world using mathematical models:-

        We have the various science disciplines (e.g. chemistry, biology...), of these physics is probably foundational. Science is from the Greek word meaning knowledge. As you correctly point out physics (and science in general) is based on the objective observation of the results of repeatable controlled experimentation. The methods of science I do not pick issue with.
        Somewhere within the richness of this heritage of scientific disciplines we should expect however to find the attempt at reaching the final goal of “The Theory of Everything”. Or, there should at the very least be no obstacle in the path of the pursuit of this goal which may be caused by the compartmentalisation of disciplines (what I would call a structural limitation).

        I believe there is. I believe that we may still retain the sound and good and productive method of scientific testing, but remove from it some of its inherited materialistic restrictions. I believe that having done so, we may free ourselves to find the answers that are there anyway, but cannot be found with these limitations in place.

        Let me start with the electromagnetic force, it is good because it is partially detectable (as a wave function) to us, compared to gravity which is only understandable through the notion of curved space (separate topic not for here). Electromagnetism is understood as a wave, it propagates through space, but its means of propagation through space are not understood. When Maxwell discovered the equations which ruled its motion we started looking for an aether, but Michelson and Morely discovered there wasn't one. Then Einstein showed us how theoretically there couldn't actually be an absolute aether since everything was relative.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: (reply part 3):
        The trail went cold, an absolute medium for the transmission of electromagnetic waves had been ruled out. Physics no longer considers the subject valid, but it is wrong because all Einstein was trying to tell us was that an ABSOLUTE aether doesn't exist. But a relativistic aether MUST exist. There MUST BE a way of describing an aether in a relativistic way such that electromagnetic waves have a means of propagation.

        I believe I have found that relativistic aether. It is a means of describing the electron mathematically and relativistically such that propagation of electromagnetic waves through empty aetherless space becomes a physical possibility. It describes an electron in a relativistic way coming with its own space-time and providing inherently its own relativistic equivalent of an absolute aether. But there is a psychological/structural/cultural problem to announcing it to the scientific community, it comes with a bitter pill to swallow for those requiring a purely materialistic answer. It says there must be an outside of time in order for there to be time at all.
        • Jul 30 2012: Your claim about a relativistic aether seems plausible. It is interesting. We have gone off topic now, but I do understand what you mean by "materialistic". You are referring to us being limited by our senses, particularly our perception our time, when modeling the World which is perhaps (or, rather, most def) much richer. I agree with this view, although I'm sure sure that a relativistic aether is the ultimate answer. I'm sure that if you present a coherent theory, it will be considered. At least, I really hope so.

          But what exactly do you mean by "out of time"? How would you, for example, deal with causality out of time?

          The "spooky action-at-a-distance" is resolved within the framework of general relativity where mass deforms space-time. This is a old controversy from the first part of the last century. There is no force-carrying particle which exceeds the speed of light in general relativity. I withhold that there is nothing magical about it.
      • Jul 29 2012: I believe the reason we have so much augment on this is as a race we are afraid of change . We cling the past and will not even acknowledge what we see or has been proven. Our fear is deep rooted.
        Every day I see it in politics, in the news we watch and lost people the hurt and sad the sick and homeless just walking around day to day. Instead of reaching out we hide in old ideas.
        The sad part is we are better than that much better.
        • Jul 30 2012: jim,

          What in your opinion are we afraid of which makes us cling to the past and not acknowledge what has been proven? I am interested.
        • Aug 4 2012: There is a second fear. The fear of error. Throughout history mankind has accepted answers and explanations that turned out to be false or useless .When we discover that something we 'know' is not true, it upsets our entire world view, puts ALL we know into question, reminds us of our fundamental vulnerability due to our fundamental fallibility. And its embarrassing. In addition to all that, it can destroy careers. This is why the scientific method was so sought after, why it is so valued. In many minds, it has the same status that religion once had. Nobody wants to get fooled by a new idea.
    • Jul 30 2012: A thought for your very first question at the beginning of this thread:

      Could it be that our Metaphysical Source was so confounded by the big band event that It created us so that It could have the reflection It needs to understand Itself and figure out what happened when It shattered into the duality of two equal and opposite metaphysical forces creating the frame work for the manifestation of physical duality
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2012: Was Glen Miller there? Sorry I couldn't resist. I love a funny typo!
        • Jul 30 2012: Thank you so much Peter, It cracked me up. Humor emerging out of the aethers. A good laugh is such a relief. I will leave it so as to screen out those that lack humor,..............John
      • Aug 12 2012: That is an interesting thought. The need for understanding would then supersede the human race and be some kind of fundamental property of the Universe itself. In some sense, I do believe that there is an equilibrium that we are upholding by being. That being said, imho, there is important difference between the view that there is a "reason" that we are here (i.e. "something" put us here with intent for us to fulfill some peculiar plan), on the one hand, and the view that the fundamental properties of the Universe fulfilled the conditions for the possibility for us to evolve, which we happened to do, on the other hand. As you may have guessed, I'm leaning towards the latter.

        But where will this drive to understand take us? Is it merely an effect of evolution (the ultimate adaptation?) or is there something more to it? Will we even be able to create something more complex than the human body/brain and circumvent "natural evolution"? Perhaps we are only a tool in this natural process of ever-increasing sophistication. It is a staggering thought.
        • Aug 12 2012: My understanding is that the homogeneous and static pre-metaphysical One in its frustration (very human) shattered (big bang) into the metaphysical duality of Spirit (expanding consciousness) and Will (contracting feelings). These two opposing Metaphysical forces of expansion and contraction manifested the physical universe out of the tension held between them.

          The manifested physical plane of existence is the form They take, interact through and gain understanding of the One Self in the process. Every individuated aspect of form is and individual aspect of this process of understanding the physical experience and becoming more of what that individual aspect is.

          In the beginning of duality (just after the big bang) Consciousness became conscious of being conscious because its opposing force of Feeling gave it experience which it could reflect upon and realize that it existed. Feeling became conscious of existing by taking in Consciousness. That was the first step in the development understanding.
    • Aug 1 2012: Man has always created "God" .. but can "Man" create a better "God?"


      If so, I hope that this new "God" will in turn, create a better "Man."

      ( Or at least a more attractive one. I vote for Anderson Cooper ... at leat as a template.)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.