Posts Tagged ‘Philosophy’

MeWe: post para nova tentativa da Matrix/DNA

sábado, outubro 27th, 2018


Post inserido no chat em 10/27/18 as 5:20 am, do grupo philosophy1

Luis Morello – 10/18

Hy, philosophers. I am not a certified philosopher but 7 years living alone in Amazon jungle watching that weird world and asking questions to myself about the first cause of anything lead me to discovery a new world view, never imagined before. I am desperate looking for philosophers what they think about, I think it is all about naturalist philosophy, you will be facing questions and explanations nobody thought about. Humans have two meaning versions about life and Universe origins – the creationist and materialist – and mine is different, a third version. I am now American citizen but English is not my native language, so it will be difficult to talk here. I found a common formula at all natural systems – atoms, galaxies, light waves, cells, DNA, human body, human brain and now, consciousness. Evolution is an illusion, we are inside a universal genetic process of reproduction, the Matrix/DNA formula exists in non-living and living systems, connecting everything. It is now 50 years of hard and solitaire work accumulating facts as evidences and testing the whole theory, and each day I am more convinced this world view is more rational than any other. What do you think? We can talking here or I must stop now? Any contribution will be welcome. Thanks…


Waldemar M. Reis 10/27/18 as 5:15 pm

Really interesting! What’s your native language? How did you end-up in Amazon forest?


Luis Morello – 10/27/2018 as 10:41 pm

Waldemar M. Reis – ” Really interesting! What’s your native language? How did you end-up in Amazon forest?” – Hi, Reyes… native language is portuguese and I end-up in the jungle due an existential crisis – not finding my place in civilization. Also, it was due a existential question that arose at high school when the science teacher told about abiogenesis, evolution and Big Bang Theory and the school principal, which was a catholic priest came quick teaching the Bible theories. I thought that two world view were wrong and the best answer should be find in virgin Nature beginning the investigation with different methods. At that time I build a restaurant at a gold mine in the jungle, got a manager for taking care of it and sending my money to a village next my location for buying supplements. After two malarias and lots of suffering I was brain-washed from all scientific philosophers’ books had read before and the jungle furnished the content for to fit the brain with something again. It was a weird experience, I know, but the results are philosophically interesting, I think, and I need to face it with yours understanding, because I am still searching the truth.


Waldemar M. Reis 10/28/18

Great, @Luis Morello, I see we have a lot to talk about and an additional channel to do it. Do you have any online published material on your findings?


Luis Morello – 10/28/18

Waldemar M. Reis – Great, I hope you keep interested because I need know what other mind think about this world view and I think that will be good for you because it suggests lots of new food for thought. I have difficult with computers because in the jungle there was no such thing so my website is technically poor, but in the home page there is a resumed introduction with drawings and formulas and I am posting everyday the evidences I am finding facing new scientific discoveries ( the posts are in portuguese, Artigos). I don’t know if I can give the address here. What do you think about this suggestion?: Humans has broken Universal History into two separated blocks (Cosmological and Biological Evolution) with no evolutionary link between them. Since there is no such separation, humans got a black hole between the two blocks, a big abism, in the way that biological systems (aka, life) can not be explained, and without a biological approach at cosmological evolution we are getting a very wrong interpretation of universe origins also. Since humans need answers, the hole is fitted with mysticism, so arises the creationist and the materialist mythos. Both beliefs are appeals to metaphysics. When you discover the evolutionary link in shape of the building block of astronomic systems, and you perceives that this link is exactly the fundamental building block of biological DNA, you have connected all natural systems in a unique evolutionary lineage, from the Big Bang to humans. It makes sense for you? I think no, right?


Waldemar M. Reis

@Luis Morello, the idea that the Cosmos (Organized Whole) has a single principle is as persistent or close to this) in human existence as our consciousness, I believe.  The difficulty we have in this field is that we van’t agree upon this universal starting point. Let’s see, after being in contact with more from your material,  whether or not we finally ended this quest.


Luis Morello 10/28/18 as 9:50 am

Waldemar M. Reis – I hope that our focus will be must about facts here and now, than talking about universe origins which is a far away issue, and we easily falls into metaphysical debate. I think the best practical utility for our life just now suggested by this world view is the new systemic thought to be added to the usual reductionist thought. There are lots of millenar diseases waiting for to be eliminated – like cancer, bad cholesterol, Alzheimer’s, et. – because the reductionist approach is not working, since they are produced by the body as a system. A big novelty from this world view is the universal natural formula of all systems – from atoms to humans bodies – a common pattern of a flow of energy/information running as a systemic circuity connecting all parts. The knowledge about natural system is stopped since  70 years ago when Mathematicians like Wienner and Rosenthal’s changed the investigation to artificial systems and cybernetics. The last big work about natural systems was done by Bertalanfy with his book “General System Theory” libe Sir Bacon did when compiled all known data at his time beginning the reductionist method. The problem that natural systems stopped at Bertalanffy was that he did not know what a natural system is, since that he did not know the formula for systems. The building block of DNA – two lateral base-pair of nucleotides – is a working system in itself modeled by the formula. So, while biologists does not know this, they can not understand genetics in full, so, the big genetic puzzles, like the causes of diseases will not be solved by this reductionist method. Ok, I am going away from the topic, sorry, but this is an argument for what can be more useful just now than astronomy and the Cosmos. Am I right?



Matthew rapaport 10/27/18

@Luis Morello sounds like a version of a computer simulation. You might want to put this up in the group as a post and not in chat where subjects get all mixed up. Think about how best to express your theory and what evidence makes you think it works better than more conventional ideas.


Aviso: postei um post aqui ( dia 10/27/18, mais ou menos as 4:00 pm) iniciando algo como ” No, it is not a computer simulation…” o qual provocou a resposta abaixo do Matthew, mas o post sumiu… será que foi deletado por alguém ou por mim?


Matthew rapaport 10/27/18

@Luis Morello this is a common claim, that aliens would see the world very differently than we. I’m not convinced that has to be true. Sure their physiology would be different, but that doesn’t mean their over all recognition of the “joints in reality” would be much different from ours.. Of course until we meet some aliens the jury will be out


Luis Morello – 10/27/18 as 9:40 pm

Matthew rapaport – Good point. We know that non-rational animals experiences the same “joints in reality” that rational humans are experiencing, I think that non-rational animals interpretations or “all recognition” are very different. It is enough to remember the difference when a species knows about DNA and other does not. So, my interpretation of the world and the way I am experiencing joint reality is based on the knowledge that the atoms composing everything here, and the astronomic system which created everything here and in which everything here is inside it – has another shape of biological DNA, which I called Matrix/DNA. The results is that I see the world (my body,the social systems, this planet, why we eat, etc.) very different than you see. It could not have very different world view from ours if our world view is almost the true, or the final true. But, if we are away off the beam ( and my world view is suggesting this is the case), it offers chances to thousands of other different world views. Am I wrong?

Interessante debate existencial: O tratamento aos animais e o tratamento de humanos a outros humanos

sexta-feira, julho 6th, 2018


From Google+:

The Philosophical Need for Animal Rights

“Immanuel Kant’s argument that no human being should be used as a mere means to the ends of others has become a part of our moral culture. Speaking informally, you are using a person as a mere means when you are using that person in a way that is contrary to his/her own good and to which he/she could not possibly consent. But every human being, as a rational being, is an “end-in-itself,” as Kant put it, and so has an inherent value that forbids such treatment.”

“But we human beings have not been willing to exercise this kind of restraint or grant this kind of value to the other animals who share the planet with us. Instead, we have eaten them, experimented on them, tested medications on them, kept ourselves warm with their fur and skin and feathers, used them for transport and for heavy work like pulling plows, enlisted them in our wars, employed them to sniff out bombs and drugs and to track the missing, made them fight and race for our amusement, and found joy and comfort in their companionship.”

“What could justify this difference in the way we treat other human beings, or anyway in the way we think we ought to treat them, and the way we treat the other animals?”

Meus comentarios na discussao:
Louis Charles Morelli em Julho (07),06/18
” This biosphere was created by the state of chaos, but its creator, this astronomic system, is in state of order, mechanicist order. Animals are son of chaos, so a predator killing a prey is the enforcement of chaos. I think we must be the flow of order that lift up from every ciclic chaos, so we must wish to install here the state of order, a kind of garden paradise for all living beings. So we need to combat the forces of chaos and when a prey has its life threatened by a predator we must to arrest or kill the predator, be it a lion or a human being. For getting the state of order we need to exorcise from humans the inherited instincts of prey ( common at workers) and predators ( common to businessmen/women).”

Louis Charles Morelli em Julho (07),07/18
” But every human being, as a rational being, is an “end-in-itself,” as Kant put it,..”
Here is the problem of non-rational animals and humans: the tendency to be a closed system, which is an evolution/stopper. The evident investment of natural evolution here and now is clearly, on the human brain, targeting the formation of a new shape of natural system: consciousness. We are 8 billion half-conscious genes building the fetus of what pretend to be born as universal consciousness ( suggests the new world view called Matrix/DNA). So, it is against natural evolution to use human beings for our own good at short time, we will pay it at long time. Because each human being as a gene is a unique and non transferred information, a mission to be accomplished, a letter, a message to be delivered, if only one human does not do his/her work, we will be one handicapped, or the Universe can discard human species here investing in another place/species.
We need to be an opened system but our genetic inheritance is coming from an ancestral closed system ( these astronomical systems that created our biological bodies). That’s why intuitive ancient mysticals elaborated the tales of the fall from the paradise, which was a closed system. We need to combat animals predators, humans predators of humans, we need to combat the inertial dependency of humans with prey’s behaviors, we need to freedom every human being that is being prejudiced in its time and resources for him/her to accomplishes the unconscious reason they are here. kant is wrong saying that the current moral value ” has become a part of our moral culture”. Not in relation to the 1% and the high medium class.


Ockham’s Razor and The Matrix/DNA Theory

domingo, outubro 11th, 2009


 The priest says:

“My brothers, listen to Saint Ockham: why we need the complexity of scientific knowledge if knowing God answers everything?”

Someone said that we don’t need Matrix/DNA Theory and invoked Ockham’s Razor. If History was applied Ockham’s Razor to the Copernican theory of heliocentrism, or to Eistein’s Theory of Relativity, or still, to the theory of gazes, Humanity should have in big prejudice today.

Matrix/DNA Theory suggests changing almost everything but, lets’ take only the astronomical model. My model does not change the number of entities (there are seven different kinds of celestial bodies) but changes the processes of origins of those bodies, changes the dymanics of astronomical systems, changes the function and even the composition, and gives a totally new means to the astronomic building block, included suggesting it as the ancestor of nucleotides, living cells and life. But, the facts that we know today are the same supporting both theories: the official Nebular Theory and the yet individual theory of Matrix/DNA. So, if we follow that “Razor”, we should forget my models? I suggest to the reader to see at:  the article by – By Paul Newall (2005) under the title ” Ockham’s Razor”.

Below I mention some texts and comments:  

Ockham’s Razor, otherwise called the principle of the economy of thought, is invoked often in debate, usually to discount one or more theories on the basis that another exists which is simpler or more parsimonious.

The principle of parsimony is typically stated as:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (“Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity”).

Although referred to as Ockham’s Razor after William of Ockham, a Franciscan living at the turn of the fourteenth century, this version has not be found in any of his extant works. The closest match (Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora or “It is pointless to do with more what can be done with fewer”) may have been written in quoting others, and indeed the general principle was common among Aristotelians. In brief, the advice is that we should not invoke entities in explaining a phenomenon or developing a theory that are not necessary to do so.

If we wish to hold to economy of thought, we should pick the simpler explanation.

Ockham’s Razor is a principle; that is, it does not tell us that the simplest explanation is true (or what there is); but instead that we ought to prefer it on methodological grounds. We are counselled to adopt theories which are minimally efficient, insofar as they can do the same with less. Note that there is apparently no reason why we should do so: a direct route to a destination is neither better nor worse than a diversion unless we include the criterion that we wish to get there by the most direct route (and even then it may not be, so we will return to this analogy later.) Nevertheless, it seems plain enough that we are inclined to favour the simpler explanation, other things being equal.