Evolution of Reproduction

Tracing our origins to technology—finding our way home

To great extent, humans seek to reproduce, not only biologically, but in other ways as well—plays, skits, actors in the theater and movies perfecting roles solely for some form of emotional connection, pretending by them, for us. It is a core facet of our humanness with a long history.

Reproduction through painting, from ancient cave art to mimesis, or illusionism, to photographic realism. We advanced to photography, the daguerrotype then the poloroid, the picture perfect reproduction still had no personality—it needed more, and necessity is the mother of invention.

Next we developed the moving picture, then the talkies with sound, and eventually brought it into the living room and by a few years later, to color. Next we add 3d, but still only scripted interaction—that would take a super computer, AI, and a hologram, using lasers to bring a 3d image to a stage in your home, where you could touch it, talk with it in a very lifelike way.

Maybe quantum computing will be that step? Lifelike imagery that thinks back, calculates the best response and flawlessly replies, inviting you into the drama. And not only will it move, but you could touch it, for its molecular imagery accelerated to produce mass, which begs the question—is that where we are right now?

And the earth was without form, and void”. Then god added lighting, a stage and said, “let us make man in our image, after our likeness”. Now go, and do thou likewise…

“Out of the silence comes all sound, out of the void arises all imagery in simultaneity”

“physicists recognized that looking at the entire universe as a two-dimensional object that only looks three-dimensional might help solve some deeper problems in theoretical physics. And the math works just as well whether you’re talking about a black hole, a planet, or an entire universe” and much like in a hologram, this data is projected to appear in three dimensions. Like the characters on a TV screen, and according to the theory, we live on a flat surface that happens to look like it has depth.

Enter quantum entanglement

“In a new paper, the physicists calculated how these theories would predict the degree of entanglement — the bizarre quantum phenomenon in which the states of two tiny particles can become correlated so that a change to one particle can affect the other, even if they’re far away. They found that by viewing one particular model of a flat universe as a hologram, they could indeed get the results of both theories to match up”, And what is interesting, an image that appears 3d can actually be a flat surface (for Colorstorm) and what is happening here as a projection may be entangled with what is actually happening elsewhere behind the projector. Article

“Crazy Horse went into the world where there is nothing but the spirits of all things. That is the real world that is behind this one, and everything we see here is something like a shadow from that one”—Black Elk


Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

39 thoughts on “Evolution of Reproduction”

    1. I thought that was funny too. I’ll stick with theory for now, and there are better ones. Likely though, anything can be proven if you try hard enough. It all seems to be true


  1. Where-I-Went had no length, no breadth, no height. Was it One Dimension, or Three? For what it is worth, I experienced Spirit, with Sight, and Sound, joined together as Presence, or Being. Those “images” have been with me since the first journey. I hope they will be with me after my last.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Everything that you are aware of is inside your brain. Everything!
      And as far as you? Whatever droplets of consciousness inhabit your head right now, will be mixed back into the cauldron and dispersed, disseminated as humidity is to water for the collective where there is no “I” to return to.


      1. Yup. But I still need a way to say it in Live-Earth-Talk, if you get my drift.
        Whatever droplets of consciousness inhabit your head right now, will be mixed back into the cauldron and dispersed, disseminated as humidity is to water for the collective where there is no “I” to return to = my “i.” Seems easier to say, and takes much less one-finger typing.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Three things

    The first is pedantic: if a question is begged, it doesn’t need to be stated because it’s already understood. If the question needs to be stated, it raises the question.

    The second refers to this ongoing misunderstanding of entanglement. Entanglement occurs when a pair of particles, such as photons, interact physically. The results of that interaction is what lasts across time and distance. Because QM is a calculation of probabilities, if you measure one entangled particle for a property – say, a photon’s spin – you have ascertained that the unobserved entangled particle – no matter how far away – has 100% probability (P=1) of having the opposite spin not because information travels instantly between them but because that opposite state is what defines entanglement!

    This concept has been widely used to promote woo, that because there is some magical or supernatural or non-physical means for information to zip across universes instantly and ‘communicate’ between such particles, who knows what other magical, supernatural, non-physical stuff is out there? Because quantum physics is weird, you see… That’s the reasoning that keeps being raised whenever woo is suggested, and it often refers to this misunderstanding of what entanglement means when people cherry-pick stuff from classical physics here and mix and match with quantum mechanics there. Keep in mind that QM is all about calculating probabilities of a particular property in a particular state at a particular time. Classical physics is all about bodies and forces and mechanics.

    Thirdly, this Vox article refers to a hypothetical model where the math continues to work. Perhaps the mathematical link to quantum gravity can be found using this. That’s interesting physics… as a thought experiment. This is why the key sentence in the whole thing is, “Of course, all of this is still quite different from saying that our actual universe — not this weird hypothetical one — is a hologram. (Sorry ColorStorm, the earth still ain’t flat because… well, reality.)

    Just because the math works in a hypothetical model doesn’t make something real. For example, one can say the math works that an arrow fired at a target will always get half way there, and then half way again, and again… forever. The person who argues that an arrow fired at them will never reach the target because, hey, the math works donchaknow, hasn’t quite reached this understanding (and probably never will) about allowing reality to arbitrate the math used to describe it and not the other way around. That enlightenment will be temporary once the arrow strikes home and perhaps kills the person wondering where they went wrong in their math…

    Liked by 2 people

  3. So then, the term “begs the question” should have never been invented. It is a bit of fantasy tildeb. Not everything has to be treated with the utmost seriousness. You know the universities pay people to play around like this until the ideas develop an often startling revelation. Essentially letting the creative unconscious do the work. These ideas often just come out nowhere. Where is that anyway?
    Misunderstanding entanglement isn’t woo all. It is all natural processes. Understanding that fact puts everything in its proper place.


  4. the idea that our universe is created from within us is very old in Sanskrit metaphysics. Samkhya (the oldest system) says that the universe is made up of consciousness and energy organizing, woven together into the solidification of mater. each of us is generating our individual hologram moment by moment by own our thoughts and by the mechanism of sense-organs.

    just as a spider produces webs from its own body -the spinnerets on its abdomen- do we project the ephemeral hologram, of our own desires, anger, and fear.
    our ignorance of our true nature keeps us bound to this hologram, and keeps us wrapped in layers of delusion.

    “When you are treading he way of totality, you must see the totality in a piece of the totality. Take one part of the universe and see the whole universe existing there”.

    we created this temporal illusion, so it is completely up to us to release our consciousness from our clever self-imposed snare and wake up.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Can we, Monica, see totality in a piece of that totality? Only if totalty is homogeneous can a part represent the whole, at least in my mind. To use a simple example (I hope), a baked cake is homogeneous between its crusts, if there are no solids with the defined area. My mother, rest her spirit, used to put coins in our birthday cakes when we were kids (and when coins still had value.) Is her cake, once even one coin is inserted into it, homogeneous? No. Therefore one part of it cannot represent the whole. Totality, in this case meaning the universe, is not homogeneous, no part can represent the whole.As long as there is one helium atom in a universe made up of uranium atoms, that universe is not homogeneous. Our science tells us our universe is made up of however many elements our scientists have discovered up to and including the moment you are reading this. We have still not reached homogeneity. So we break up atoms into smaller parts, and even smaller parts, until we are measuring the spaces between the bits that define the spaces we are measuring. Can we ever get to a microscopicly miniature place where even the spaces can be measured to be all the same measurement. I say no, because the arrow does hit the target! Further, even if we were to somehow reach a point where the spaces would all be exactly the same measurement, that does not mean measuring the distances between the boundaries of said spaces will give those “units” equal measurements.
      Meanwhile in the time since the first human made a measurement of whatever it was he or she first measured (probably an erect penis, from what I know of humans), has the appearance of the universe as seen by the naked eye changed one iota? No, we still see today what we saw that day, matter. For as much time as we have had the ability to measure our universe (that penis measurer we looked at before obviously lied) nothing has changed! Except for our ability to measure…

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hi rawgod, you are taking this very literally. it’s more like this

        Imagine a multidimensional spider’s web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum. That is the Buddhist conception of the universe in an image.”~Alan Watts

        so it’s not about homogeneity as much as the part reflecting the whole (much like the fundamental idea behind reflexology, where the whole body is reflected in the ear, foot, hands, etc)

        also, remember Blake’s “To see a World…”

        To see a World in a Grain of Sand
        And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
        Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
        And Eternity in an hour.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. I am not dealing with a sleep disorder as much as I am from probļe symtoms of C difficile. I am doing a lot of dry heaving, and suffering from diarrhea on top of chronic diarrhea. Every time I fall asleep I lose control of my bowels, waking me right back up. Life is no fun right now.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. That’s a huge jump for what I hope is a temporary situation, defining temporary as something that will come to an end before I do.
              Having said that, my entire colon was removed in 1994. I have not heard the term “fecal transplant” before. If it means successfully transplanting a colon, I would be all over it (providing it is covered by our public healthcare system in Canada.) Hell, I would let them experiment on me UNTIL they were able to learn how to do one successfully. Last time I asked my doctor, he said no one was even talking about bowel transplants as far as he knew. I don’t know, maybe no one wants someone’s else’s fecal tract inside them, but I have no such qualms. I will sign a non-liability form every day of the week if it means I could have a colon again. Life without one could drive a different person to suicide, and has.


        1. Hi Monica,
          I do apologize for my “weird” reply last night, I did not mean to insult either you or reflexology. I thought I was making a serious statement, but when I read it as a whole it came out quite facetious. This was totally accidental and unintended on my part. (Jim, if you would remove that comment from this discussion, I would greatly appreciate it, it adds nothing to the coversation, and possibly even detracts from it.)

          Again, please forgive me, Monica. I truly did start to study reflexology at one point, but my instructor was such that he and I butted heads on numerous issues. (Me, butt heads with someone? No! I never hutt heads with anyone–I just steamroller over them. Now, THAT! is me doing sarcasm.)

          And that brings me to this. This is me quoting you quoting someone else: “When you are treading [t]he way of totality, you must see the totality in a piece of the totality. Take one part of the universe and see the whole universe existing there…” from your original comment on this post. (On my WP comment area, I have no punctuation or editorial tools, so please read as if I put the word “must” is in bold. This I will come to later, possible even in another comment.)

          “[“]Imagine a multidimensional spider’s web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum. That is the Buddhist conception of the universe in an image.”~Alan Watts” This is me either quoting you qoting or paraprasing Alan Watts, I think.

          (I will deal with the grammar problem in your second paragraph first. I find it quite confusing because you have an “end quote,” therefore I presume there should have been an ” open quote.” But because there is not, I have no idea where your quote begins. Then, to make matters more confusing, you place a “tilde” between the end quote and name of the person you are quoting. I tried googling “~ just to make sure I was not behind in my English grammar, it having been many many years since I last studied grammar. I found nothing at all on a “~ combination so I am left guessing that either this was a typo, or you meant you were quoting from memory, so that your usage on it might not be precise.)

          Okay, this is where I stand right now. In quote 1 you tell me I “MUST” be able to see totality in a piece of that totality. This I cannot do, which I tried to show in my “cake” example. Then, in the second quote, you tell me I should be seeing the whole in(bits of the whole, but that I should be using reflect. I hate to say it, but I am at a loss. Are reflections reflecting bits of totality? Do you have something that might lHELLLLPPPP!

          Liked by 1 person

          1. i suppose “must” implies a sort of duty for us to see the totality into the fragment, if we want to understand the whole.
            i don’t know how else to explain it- just like the human body has a birth, maturity and death, so the universe follows same pattern. being aware of such similarities, we have a better understanding of our place in the whole. i think…heheh.

            the human body, especially, has often been compared to a micro-universe, as its function parallels the micro-universe- the heart in center, the sun in center.

            in your example, if i cut a piece of your mother’s cake, would that piece not include same ingredients, same texture, and same purpose as the whole cake? i think it fits.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. re: the cake, you cannot ignore the coins once she have slipped them in. Until she does, the cake, between the crusts, is a total universe, and a piece would definitely represent the whole. But my mother wanted to give us treats, so she added the coins, and that changed the cake universe. How would a sample of cake with a dime in it relate to a coinless sample, or a piece of cake with a nickel in it. Not even looking at the chemical or metal make-up of the coin, the value of the coin itself changed the value of the particular piece of cake. (Of course, in the time era we are talking about, you could still buy 3 jujubes for a penny, a chocolate bar for a nickel, and a 10 ounce pop for a dime. If you were lucky enough to get the quarter, that meant Saturday afternoon at the movies, with small drink and popcorn. Yeah, 25 cents!) There was no way all pieces of cake were the same.

              I’ve known that the human body IS, not just “compared” to

              Liked by 1 person

            2. I’ve known that the human body IS, not just “is compared to,” a full universe inside of me since I was about twelve years old. The second short story I ever wrote was about a human rocket pilot whose physiology was changed so he lived one second for every thousand Earth years. He pointed his rocket away from what appeared to be the center of the universe, and just kept on going, keeping his eyes looking forward. After some 50 years or more of space travel (his time) he dared to look behind from where he came, and was shocked by seeing the vision of a human body sitting more or less lotus-style, watching him flying into the blackness of ultimate outer space.
              Needless to say, none of the Science Fiction magazines of the time were interested in publishing it, it had no action in it, and no space-faring alien armies for fabulous human, specifically American humans, to defeat. But, yeah, that was my way of saying molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic particles–which was as far as “public understanding” went in those days–were populated with life. And it told me we are universes for other microscopically-sized beings who went about their own lives inside of us. That idea has not changed in the last 58 years of my life. If anything, my belief in concentric stages of life, keep on growing stronger and stronger.. To me, it makes perfect logic.


            3. Imagree, the cake is stll cake but the universe of the cake is not just cake. You’ll never convince me otherwise. Whether the cake wants those foreign or even alien objects within it is of no consequence. By the time the coins are removed, the cake no longer exists, and therefore can no longer have an opinion. I hope we can agree on that much.


  5. It’s like those Saturday morning cartoons where a character gets mowed down by a steamroller, right? Calvin and Hobbes has a great series where Calvin imagines he is that sort of two-dimensional character, able to slide under doors and through mail slots, which is ironic, because of course, Calvin IS two-deminsional, drawn on paper by Bill Watterson.

    Math, physics, metaphysics, spirituality – none of these has the answer to the number of dimensions in the universe(s). Take your pick, Pilgrim.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Let’s see, in my spiritual cosmos, sight and sound both existed, so to me they are dimensions. Smell, taste, and touch did not, so while they may be dimensions in the physical world, they are limited. Do they exist in the dimension of mind? I’ll reserve judgment on the basis that I do not know.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. All the senses are essentially touch—even the eyes. The most delicate of them all is also the most unreliable, for it takes still shots of a moving world, while the ears capture the sound out of silence and acknowledge the reverberation for the duration of the tone.


        1. In the physical dimention, I will grant you that all senses are essentially touch. Thank you. However, in the spirital dimension, I had no ears, yet I heard colour. I had no eyes, yet I saw music. This is how I have always described my experiences. The memories have never changed, yet the understanding is forever changing, or progressing.


  6. If you think about it, Monica, it is not just human bodies that are born, live, and die, but that is the way of all life. No matter if it is through cell-division, or sperm/ova combustion so-to-speak, photosynthesis, or intake of nutrition, or something we do not know or understand yet,these things are common to every form of life, known or unknown, in the universe. It is how we, in our genocentric lifeforms, separate ourselves from non-living matter such as rocks, metals, etc. And even then maybe rocks and metals are alive too, just that we do not know how to recognize how it is they live. If, were all life in the universe to end, what would still survive? In my mind, anything that is made of pure elements, or combined pure elements, is dead matter, and would therefore still remain, as would things like hair and bones and teeth and wood. Anything that contained actual life would eventually disintegrate.
    A stone is solid, and while it might get eroded, it’s molecules would remain, so I think we can safely say stones and rocks are “probably” not alive and never have lived. Water would either freeze, or evaporate into the atmosphere. Again, water has probably never lived, though it has flowed through living matter, and has had living matter flow through it. Yet it is vital to life, even as oxygen is, but these things have never been alive. Are planets alive, and are suns? For me they are presently “in-betweens, they may or may not be alive.” Comets, asteroids, and other space-faring materials have probably never lived either.
    Life, and non-Life, are forces, powers, things, that have always interested me since I found out I am a living being. My body and ego have had one birth, so far, while my mind has had three; it is my spirit I cannot tell if it was ever born, but I certainly know it at worst contains life, while probably at best it is the “embodiment” of life, even if it has never had a body of its own.
    But the universe as a whole, is it alive? Like water, or oxygen, life has passed through the universe, but has the universe passed through life, that is pretty much unknown and unknowable from our position in it.
    Life, the most fascinating and beautiful “???????” in existence, and yet so many many living beings have absolutely no sense that they are alive–including human beings.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. How do we know the universe had a birth? Science says, big bang. Religion says creation. I say I don’t know, and I know I am right. Religion or science, I don’t trust either of them.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Interesting thought. The universe is forever coming into being. But if that is true, the universe must also forever be passing from existence. Once I push the send button, this comment will come into being on your blog. Yet unless you delete the comment, or WP screws up in the delivery, my comment will always exist on your blog, as long as your blog is in existence, and despite the fact I never push the print button on this comment ever again. Hope it makes you wonder? It does me!

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Or maybe there is just no time. That has always been my choice, for time is a figment of our imaginations. I DEFY anyone to show me time, or even a sign of its passage. I know I was not born with an “a priori” concept of time, were you?
    However, having said that, not that we can see the past, because we saw what happened, and will never see it again, still it is no longer in the NOW. So where did it go? Even a video is just showing us copies of one thing, never “the thing itself.” For this, we invented the word “the past,” It is a necessary concept if you concede that things change. At least it becomes necessary IF you do things like you did for me, YOU CHANGED THE PAST FOR ME.
    And scientists say there is no such thing as time travel. You and me, we got it figured out.


  10. Very interesting. I wrote this article that may be pertinent.

    Did you know some animals are transexual, whilst others practice sex cannibalism. Some species have multiple genitals whilst others lack them? Or that some species undergo male pregnancy? In my new article, understand the reasons for some of the perplexing reproductive strategies used by animals.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: