IPFS Larken Rose

More About: Science, Medicine and Technology

For the Record...

This article will be a "hit and run," in that I will, on the record, state various conclusions I've come to, without proving any of them here, and without entertainment arguments about them (at the moment). Also, this won't really relate to my usual anti-political theme. So for many people, it will be irrelevant, unsubstantiated assertions. In fact, knowing the article will annoy a lot of people who consider themselves to be scientific, I post it for the sole purpose of being able to later point back to it and say, "Told ya so." So I can add "obnoxious" and "self-serving" to "unsupported" and "inflammatory," as terms describing this article. Too bad. Deal with it.

1) The scientific process is great. But most people who consider themselves "scientific" betray the scientific process constantly, whenever evidence or reason conflicts with things they were taught to dogmatically assume--which is a lot.

2) Materialists (those who thing the universe consists of nothing more than lots of dead, unconscious bits of matter, and that we're just complicated mechanical machines) love to portray anything outside of their limited, inaccurate view of reality to be "mystical," "supernatural," or "magical." In short, they seem to take the attitude, "We already understand everything and have explained everything--except maybe some little details--and so any evidence or suggestion that doesn't fit our current assumptions is unscientific and superstitious."

3) Richard Dawkins has butchered the scientific process more than anyone I know. His attempt to explain the mechanism of biological evolution (i.e., random mutation + natural selection = all life on earth), though devoutly worshipped by many--including many people I respect--is utter crap. It flies in the face of tons of evidence, as well as basic logic, and shows an obvious "outcome-based" agenda, trying to rationalize the purely materialist view of reality. (And no, I'm not a creationist, if anyone was thinking that.) This particular topic is one I will eventually be making an animated video about, if I ever have the time to finish it. Almost everyone will hate that video, because I don't offer an alternative explanation for the evidence; I just demolish one provably FALSE explanation that millions of people are now quite comfortable with and attached to.

4) Trying to explain consciousness, and free will--or trying to dispute the existence of both--based on a dogmatic faith in materialism, is neither scientific nor rational. Assuming that others are conscious, as I know I am, a hell of a lot of people unscientifically ignore first-hand experience every day of their lives, in order to pretend that consciousness and choice are illusions, and that the human mind is merely chemicals bumping into each other, causing little reactions and electrical impulses.

5) This item will probably cause the most tantrums among materials. I think it's pretty damn easy to prove that we are not only what we think of as "physical substance," that the physical brain is not us (and therefore the death of the brain doesn't necessarily imply the death of us), and that free will quite literally requires psychokinesis. Yes, psychokinesis. Some day I hope to do a video of my "pool table" proof of this, but I don't know when that will happen.

6) Years ago I coined the phrase "universal intention," to describe the ways in which it looks like the universe, or nature, or whatever, are "trying" to accomplish things. Of course, terms like "purpose," "intention," and "design," seem really weird, except when we're talking about PEOPLE trying to do things. What does it even mean to say that a universe was "trying" to create life? I don't know. (And no, I don't believe in anything like what most people call "God.") But given the limited understanding and comprehension of we mere mortals, the best way I can describe the evidence I see in the natural world is that there was "intention" and "purpose" to a hell of a lot of it. Attempts to explain it by blind luck always end up being logically pathetic.

7) Other than the thing about universal "constants" maybe not being constant, and the "laws" of nature maybe not being fixed, most of the points this guy raises (see link below) are things I've been saying for years, though often in different terms.


Again, I'm not claiming to prove any of them here. I'm just putting my unsupported conclusions on the record, to be proven at a later date--if ever. The reason I rarely talk about such things is because: a) it tends to offend almost everyone and causes never-ending arguments; b) I don't really care what people think about such things, as long as they're willing to leave other people alone.

8) As a final thought, I believe the recent, dramatic spread of voluntaryism is a prime example of a nonlocal understanding, of a species-wide "consciousness" (for lack of a better term), of humanity as a whole being "ready" to comprehend a new idea--a sort of "hundredth monkey" thing. And I've been saying that for a couple years now, too. Yes, it sounds weird, and I don't pretend to understand how it works, but I see a hell of a lot of evidence for it.

All you materialists, feel free to have tantrums about this. Maybe my main point here for materialists is this: "I don't pretend to understand how the whole universe works. But I'm damn sure YOUR explanation of it is bogus." If I ever get around to giving thorough explanations and proofs of the points above, I will. (I especially want to do the video showing that the widely accepted view of evolution is utter bunk.) Until then, call me names, and we'll continue it later. Over and out.

Larken Rose

3 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

One other little thought... and this might scare some, but it is not intended to do so.

If there is "intent" in the design of a universe as complicated as this one, might there be (and there probably is) "observation?"

Consider, if we make a highly complicated electronic device - by intent - even though we may not constantly watch every operation that the device does - like all the operations that a computer might go through to carry out its programing - yet we leave the door open to do so. In other words, we are able to look at the electronic circuitry under a microscope. And we are able to examine the programs (the Operating Systems) that make the electronic device work.

Is it possible that the THING that intended that the universe be designed the way it has been, might be able to look into every nook and cranny of the universe in every way? Might IT be able to examine every aspect of the space-time continuum the same way we examine a circuit board under a microscope? Might IT be able to examine the operations of the universe in a way similar to the way we examine software programming?

Are we being watched by SOMETHING far bigger than the Government could ever hope to be?

Comment by Powell Gammill
Entered on:

I hope you are right Larken. You clearly have given this some thought.

As a start I look forward to your disproving the theory of evolution.  I suspect you will fail.  But the theory can never be proven and it certainly has uncomfortable explanations offered for discrepancies.  But it holds up well to a testable hypothesis when it comes along. 

And to your future projects....

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Love it!

My only real comment would be, considering the size and complexity of nature and the universe...

and, considering how little we really know...

and how little we understand about the things we DO know...

how much closer do we need to come to something that describes God than whatever it is that is behind the "intent" of the universe?

Religions might talk "God." They might use the word "God" with authority. But the only religious folks that CLAIM that they understand God, are the IDIOTS who think that man is God Incarnate.