Karen Chaffee

However we now know that matter itself – even the vacuum – has vast quantum computational capacity.  What “software applications” are running on this computational substrate?  Is it all really just random noise as most quantum physicists would assert? Hi Ed, thanks for the reply–this is very interesting! Or could some portion of our conscious…[Read more]

 I just re-read what Ed wrote about entropy, and it really was very helpful.    Entropy is confusing, but that was a great explanation.  Thanks, Ed.  His entire post was in fact very helpful.

Last semester, some of my students wanted to read my salon three post, but I decided it was too hard to read.  So I re-wrote it.  I see I can’t edit the above post, but, what the heck, I’ll just post the edited post.  THIS IS SALON THREE JUST LIKE ABOVE, made more understandable, hopefully, for my students  (and you!!)  SALON THREEThe Salo…[Read more]

Ed, there is a lot to read here, and thank you for this wonderful list.  I am planning to tackle some of it in the next few weeks. (I plan to start with the New Yorker article, because that magazine is usually right on my level.)   I read slowly.   It would probably work out better for me to do a lot of reading before I make some reply to your pos…[Read more]

<p>Hi, Duane, our inquiries have opened many lines of thought.  Thank you for being the founder and instigator.</p><p> </p><p>I think Guy Murchie is saying that even in a mundane process, the number of energy transitions is enormous.  Entropy is involved, and I need to read to refresh my learning.     </p><p> </p><p>I didn’t respond to your quest…[Read more]

<p>Hi, Duane, our inquiries have opened many lines of thought.  Thank you for being the founder and instigator.</p><p> </p><p>I think Guy Murchie is saying that even in a mundane process, the number of energy transitions is enormous.  Entropy is involved, and I need to read to refresh my learning.  Edit:  I just re-read what Ed wrote, and it real…[Read more]

<p>Hi, Duane, our inquiries have opened many lines of thought.  Thank you for being the founder and instigator.</p><p> </p><p>I think Guy Murchie is saying that even in a mundane process, the number of energy transitions is enormous.  Entropy is involved, and I need to read to refresh my learning.</p><p> </p><p>I didn’t respond to your question a…[Read more]

Duane, referring to your latest post, I was going to wait until I have access to the ‘definitions doc’ , but my casual reading of the last two pages has me thinking people are using the words ‘consciousness’  , ‘conscious’  , ‘living’ and ‘intelligent’ synonymously.     This kind of bugged me, because in my (standard, western) education, ‘liv…[Read more]

I’m really behind, but I am just mulling over some ideas on page 11 (let alone page ten) that I think I _can_ mull over even before my questions are answered!  So just randomly:    From Ed: What is the difference between a “biological system” and a “living system?”     There is, I think, a big difference.  I think if the universe is a living syste…[Read more]

There is a lot to read here, and I am a little behind!  I do have a couple of questions, and if these have been addressed and I missed them, please forgive me. Elisabet Sahtouris, hi, I am very much trying to wrap my mind around your science.  I see you got as far as tenet  5.  Can you list a few more?  (or, all??)  Or is there a place elsewh…[Read more]

James, I see you are passionate about bacteria.  I’m not convinced about your conclusions, but it’s too nice out to argue.  I am happy our world has bacteria!

 James, I hate to get into an argument on this beautiful day, but you did bring  it up again (above) and I had thought of a rebuttal to your idea that bacteria are more worthy because they can survive in more difficult places and are more robust then we are (I thought of this at the time we were arguing before, but didn’t post it). Think of a p…[Read more]

I am sorry, James, I used the words paradigm and theory casually.  But I don’t think the piece I wrote above is scientific!   It’s psychology, on which I am not versed.   I don’t actually know the scientific meaning of the word paradigm, but I do know the scientific meaning of the word theory, and my paragraphs are not theories, just idea…[Read more]

Elisabet Sahtouris wrote:  ‘In fact, many western scientists, influenced by also studying eastern sciences and philosophies, as mentioned above, have come to the startling conclusion that life does not come from non-life, that intelligence is already inherent in “dumb mud” and that planets, as well as people and their brains, evolve within a limi…[Read more]

Elisabet Sahtouris wrote:  ‘In fact, many western scientists, influenced by also studying eastern sciences and philosophies, as mentioned above, have come to the startling conclusion that life does not come from non-life, that intelligence is already inherent in “dumb mud” and that planets, as well as people and their brains, evolve within a limi…[Read more]

Elisabet Sahtouris wrote:  ‘In fact, many western scientists, influenced by also studying eastern sciences and philosophies, as mentioned above, have come to the startling conclusion that life does not come from non-life, that intelligence is already inherent in “dumb mud” and that planets, as well as people and their brains, evolve within a limi…[Read more]

Elisabet Sahtouris wrote:  ‘In fact, many western scientists, influenced by also studying eastern sciences and philosophies, as mentioned above, have come to the startling conclusion that life does not come from non-life, that intelligence is already inherent in “dumb mud” and that planets, as well as people and their brains, evolve within a limi…[Read more]

Elisabet Sahtouris wrote:  ‘In fact, many western scientists, influenced by also studying eastern sciences and philosophies, as mentioned above, have come to the startling conclusion that life does not come from non-life, that intelligence is already inherent in “dumb mud” and that planets, as well as people and their brains, evolve within a limi…[Read more]

Ed wrote:  Sure, some scientists are great storytellers including Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson and a few on this list!Okay, I see–the percentage of scientists who are good story tellers is the same as the percentage of people in general then–it’s not some characteristic of scientists that makes them bad story tellers?