9 hours ago, lonewolff said:

Gravity is created by a body's mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of the body.

 

Mystery solved

If you look into it you will find that science has no idea where gravity comes from.  All things with mass have gravity, but science has no idea what the source of gravity is.  You might assume that mass is the source of the gravity, but science does not know that this is the case.  The actual source of gravity, and what it actually is, is a complete mystery to science.

You have gravity.  A rock has gravity.  A bottle of wine has gravity.  All things with mass have gravity, but that does not necessarily mean that mass is the source of gravity and science can think of no mechanism that would cause mass to "magically create" gravity.

"A quantum leap forward in time and space, the universe learned to expand.  The mess and the magic, triumphant and tragic, a mechanized world out of hand.  Computerized clinic for superior cynics, who dance to a synthetic band.  In their own image their world is fashioned, no wonder they don't understand." - Professor Pratt

No, there aren't.  Gravity is probably the greatest mystery of what little we know of how the universe functions.  What gravity is, and what the source of gravity is, is a complete mystery to science.  About all that is known of gravity is that it exists, its strength, and that it is always associated with mass.  What gravity is, and specifically what the source of gravity is, are not known.  Gravity appears to be "magic", we can conceive of no mechanism by which mass would create gravity and there is no reason that it should.

And this is a part of the discussion, I didn't introduce it out of nowhere.  I was replying to someone who was dismissing the idea of a "soul" because they believed that it was related to religion, when it really isn't.  If the universe is a living entity, and we are just components of it, than it would make scientific sense that there is a shared conscientiousness between all life.  Gravity could be related too this.

We really know very little about how the universe functions.  So little, that almost anything is possible.

15 hours ago, Eric LeClair said:

No. An unconscious human being is an unconscious human being.

Also it's not my opinion. It's just is. 

Synthetic life? Wavelength? Sorry I just don't know how it applies here . . .

You don't 'imagine' when you meditate. Mediation stops thoughts. That's the entire point . . .

"Feeling real is not the same thing as being real? "

Actually feeling is a pre-cursor to 'being'. 

DaVinci "felt" something so he painted the Mona Lisa

The Wright Brothers "felt" that they could fly so the plane came into being. 

You "FELT" that there is something here that clashes with your current perception of life,
hence this post came into 'being'. 

Everything is 'FELT' before it comes into existence.

I "FELT" your struggle for clarity, so I provided an answer.

In "I FELT", that "FELT" was my "consciousness". We're all part of the same material, that's why I felt it.

The "I" is just a placeholder. There is no "I".

I get what you're trying to say, but I FEEL that you are wrong. By your line of reasoning, if all feelings are real, then it's most likely the case that your feeling and my feeling contradict each other. Since contradictions cannot exist, at least one of us is wrong (which doesn't mean the other is right, we could both be wrong).

I also feel that you place too much value on meditation and use it as a replacement for intellectual rigor, and you end up with wishy washy spiritual mumbo jumbo like "Feeling is a pre-cursor to 'being'". You then look for confirming evidence to support your hypothesis instead of looking for counter examples (which are extremely easy to find). Here's a few:
-If feeling is a precursor to being, does something not exist if it doesn't feel?
-If all it took for the wright brothers to fly was to "feel" a calling for it, how do you explain the hundreds of other inventors and their failed attempts at flight? How do you account for people feeling something strongly, and despite that, being failures?
-I feel a strong calling for a billion dollars in my bank account. Why doesn't that come into being?
-How do you explain hallucinations brought on by drugs such as LSD? What's the connection between the mind and feeling and the outside world?

Really though, this line of thinking reeks of the spiritualistic nonsense in the book "The Secret".  I encourage you to dig into "Meditations" by Rene Descartes. This was an infamous philosophical piece from the 17th century and effectively established the foundations for meta-physical philosophy. It's a wonderful work on skepticism and doubting sensory input. Here's a link to a free version:
http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/DescartesMeditations.pdf

I think this would interest you and work as a good counter-balance to your existing belief set, or at least, give you additional breadth to complement your existing belief set.

I didn't say that the universe was a living entity, either.  I said that it could be.  And now I'll add that is every bit as likely to be the case as the conventional way of interpreting the universe.  Of course, I also have a functioning model of an artificial universe and it looks a lot more like a living entity than a frozen sea of rock.  Rube says that if the universe is a living entity then time is the cardio-vascular system of the universe.  But Rube doesn't prove that the universe is alive, either, it just actually functions which makes what Rube has to say interesting too me.

The point is that we know so little of what the universe is and how it functions that either point of view is equally likely.  And the fact that gravity appears to be "magic" too us is a strong indication that we don't understand a lot of very "simple" and basic aspects of what the universe is and how it functions.  The "sci-fi" I am actually getting this from is my own PDU lore where this is the basis of both the science and religion of my universe. 

Your cell phone began as Star Trek's communicator.  My uncle worked on lasers and particle beams for the US military.  Or how about Alcubierre's Warp Drive...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive  Just because an idea originates in sci-fi does not mean it isn't correct, or potentially possible within the real world.  I'm not saying that Rube is correct and the universe is a living entity, only that it could be.

"And the stars look down..." ;-)

Right now, a "human like" AI... I agree.  But 1 million years is a very, very long time.  A million years from now our technology will appear too be "magic" to us "primitive apes" of the 21st century.