Hello, Cy, hello, OMF II

Well, 'Jake Reason', my long-time interlocutor on the Open Minds forum, still insists that he won't be ready to meet his maker until he has been granted a flying-saucer tour of the Milky Way. I kid you not, just ask him! I must be a spoil-sport.

RtB says demons..... Billy Graham says angels....... You and the Vatican say good ET's.......

I say UT/cosmic messengers/agents.

Tweedle-dee - tweedle-dum, Jake. You are ascribing more power to the dark force than is Hugh&Co.

Don't ya know that God is a drama-Queen? She loves nothing better than to put on a Surprise party

GSB/SSR wrote:A must-read article ... By “existential risks” (E.R.) we mean, roughly, catastrophic risks to our species that are “our fault,” in the sense that they arise from human technologies.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/cambridge-cabs-and-copenhagen-my-route-to-existential-risk/?hp

From: Dan Smith
Date: January 29, 2013 3:28:35 PM CST
To: Paul Chefurka
Cc: 14 members of Steve Salmony's environmental list. 

Subject: Eco-eschatology.......

(Well, we tried to get off the grid, but we didn't quite manage, now, did we.....?!) 

Today we took a four-hour walk with Philip Davison, a naturalist at Bosque del Cabo, who maintains his own blog........  http://felipedelbosque.wordpress.com/category/philips-nature-diary/ .  The focus was on the systemics of leaf-cutter ant colonies...... >>> (wiki) Next to humans, leafcutter ants form the largest and most complex animal societies on Earth. In a few years, the central mound of their underground nests can grow to more than 30 metres (98 ft) across, with smaller, radiating mounds extending out to a radius of 80 metres (260 ft), taking up 30 to 600 square metres (320 to 6,500 sq ft) and containing eight million individuals. <<<

Philip's stands out as the best such tour, in our travels.  And it inspires another modification to the BPWH..... 

Ecologists tend to stress human exceptionalism wrt to the rest of nature.  Allow me, please, to agree and disagree, in the following manner...... 

On the exceptionalist view, we are a cancer upon the planet.  My philosopher friend, Craig Dilworth, has one of the best expositions of this PoV, in his book, 'Too Smart for Our Own Good', where he introduces the 'vicious circle pinciple', whereby successive technological stages bring us closer to the brink of extinction.  Craig posits that, with this final, industrial stage, we are writing our epitaph.  It is hard to dispute his point, but I will, by invoking the cosmic Chrysalis model.  

(cont.) 

From: Dan Smith 
Date: January 29, 2013 4:51:20 PM CST
To: Paul Chefurka 
Cc: + 14 others..... 

Subject: Re: Eco-eschatology.......

(cont.......) 

The chrysalis model is not new to the BPWH.  What is new, with this iteration of it, is the emphasis on the crucial role of humanity wrt the cosmic ecology.  IOW, I am directly countermanding Craig's thesis of our being too smart for our own britches, or, as the Brits would say, too smart (at least!) by half.  

But, note-bene, that, by the same token, I'm partially contradicting John Wheeler's notion of the universe as a home for humankind.  The BPWH introduces a third and much more radical alternative..... 

No, this is not our home.  Our home is in the 'sky', and the Earth is our launch platform, and the  launch window will open in about 200 years, and it won't be funded by your tax-dollars. 

IOW, sapience is a necessary part of the cosmic ecology, and we are getting smarter all the time, although, sometimes that is hard to tell!  

And, yes, a-la Craig, the ecological benefits of all this sapience has been lost on the ecologists..... sapience is going to be a hard act to follow.  Perhaps, the performance of an encore may not have been the cosmic intent, but what is ecology without an endless repetition?  How, otherwise, could sapience possibly have evolved?  Once again, humanity seems to have been left, twisting in the cosmic wind, stranded on our pale blue dot.  

Whence sapience.......?  From what skyhook are we dangling so precariously?  

Clearly, it cannot be a skyhook.... it must be some sort of Bootstrap.  Now, we are already familiar with the Ouroboros and the CTC.  Is there anything special about the BPWH version, thereof?  Well, according to my buddy, Leibniz, ours is the best possible CTC.  Now, there is a leap of faith!  Yes and no........ 

Nature is replete with optimality, or, at least it was, until we the deck.  Now, we threaten to throw the monkey-wrench into the leaf-cutter machine.  


(cont......2) 

From: Dan Smith 
To: Paul Chefurka 
Cc: 14 others on the Steve Salmony environmental list 
Subject: Re: Eco-eschatology.......

(cont......2) 


Cosmic role for sapience..........?  

What it comes down to are the anthropic and participatory principles.  

John Wheeler posited the universe as being Participatory.  Why so?  Well, mind you, this was well before the notion of the Multiverse gained currency, although, it was Wheeler's student, Hugh Everett, who first broached the topic of a multiverse, back in 1957, with his Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. 

If it turns out that there is only this one world or one universe, then the existential fact of sapience would seem to demand an explanation, of some sort, along the lines of an anthropic form of participation.  

Richard Rorty questions our being the Mirror of Nature...... who says that nature needs a mirror, he asks. 



8:15pm----------- 

According to some interpretations of QM, consciousness plays a necessary role in the observation process.  

But where is the OWI, one-world interpretation of qm?  It remains to be invented.  (Well, in a later post, I will posit that Feynman's path-integral formulation of qm, along with Aharonov's theory of weak measurements, goes a long way toward an OWI.) 

More than any physicist, it was Einstein who championed the OWI, against what he perceived to be the disintegration being brought about be the MWI.  He would not stand for God playing dice with the Universe. 


Wednesday, Jan. 30 

3:45am---------- 

Ours is not to reason why...?  Well, tell that that to the philosophers.  Imagine what might happen, if they ever got their story straight..... If they were able to polish their mirror. 

Then there is the chain-of-being, or is it a sky-hook?  Don't you love the transmigration of the souls?  We work our way, all the way up, from being leaf-cutters, up to bodhisatvas, just in order to get off the wheel of life.  What is not clear is how, or why, we got on the wheel in the first place.  Original karma?  Who ordered that?  I did not witness much sinning, with the leaf-cutters.  They were far foo busy.  And from whence came that ol' wheely thing?  

Oh, but I keep forgetting..... ours is not to reason why.... it's all just atoms swerving in the dark! The leaf-cutters don't do much swerving..... straight are their paths, in the (seasonal) rain forest.  


4:30---------

Too smart are we, or has nature been patiently waiting for our maturation, our ripening?  Would nature have been complete without a psychic closure of the Wheel?  Are we quite certain that we do not, somehow, comprise the eye on the pyramid?  If the J-man was the cornerstone, where is the capstone?  Cancer or chrysalis?  

The Truth will set us free?  Free from what..... for what?  

What do the leaf-cutters know of wheels or time-machines?  What is their Evangel?  

For awhile, we had flattened time into a linear history, but, now, time is threatening to curve right back upon itself.  Rather as the Voyager, just on Carl's request, turned its camera back upon our pale blue dot.  Imagine that, leaf-cutters!  

Transcendentalists are we?  Well, look where that has gotten us...... all dressed-up in our space-suites, with nowhere to go..... stuck on our pale blue dot, waiting for the news from nowhere, while hearing rumors of a 'disturbing' message from the stars.  

Do we curse the great Void, or do we light a candle?  Where is the candle?  Which end do we light?  



(cont.......3) 

dan wrote:
Despite everything everyone has told you, we are only doing time-shares on the one cosmic Soul. Yes, maties, you and I are Soul-mates, whether we like it or not!

The poor cosmic Soul gets reincarnated ~10^10 times, and each of us is one of those incarnations. I kid you not! Who could have made this stuff up? Surely not Chicken Little,

From: Dan Smith 
Date: February 3, 2013 11:04:25 AM EST
To: Gary, 
Cc: Mike, Steve and Paul 

Subject: Re: Metaphysics circle.....

Gary, 

I'm now just up to page 33 of the discussion between you and Mike, on the Orion site....... 

I now am moved to second what Paul recently imparted to us, which is the original Buddhist view, that humans think wrongly when we think of ourselves as somehow separate from the rest of the world.  

When we see ourselves as being a cancer on the planet, we are actually anthropomorphizing our situation.  Even if we were a cancer, nature must love cancers, otherwise she would not have invented so many forms of it, in all of the ecosystems.  

Does this mean that we should join the rest of humanity, in the 'developed' world, and eat, drink and be merry?  

No, but it does mean that pulling our hair out, and beating our breasts, may not be the correct answer either.  The correct answer may simply be to be gentle as doves and wise as serpents.  How so........?  


(cont......) 


Can this possibly mean that Sapience is not alien to Nature?  Can this mean that Sapience is an integral and even, possibly, an essential aspect of Nature..... that somehow Nature does need a Mirror, after all, and pace Rorty?  

Whatever caused us to suppose that we might be Aliens?  That we might be Strangers in a strange land, to paraphrase Camus and Heinlein?  

Is such thinking not the epitome of folly and arrogance?  Here we are, disowning our own Mother.  

Might we not then be merely a benign tumor?!  But, then, what is a benign tumor, if not a sort of, or a potential, Chrysalis?  

The one stone that has not been turned over, that has been roundly rejected, with barely a thought, is the cosmic Autopoeisis that might also be described as transcendental pantheism.  And what could pantheism be, if not also transcendental?  Or, is this an oxymoron, as some might at first suppose?  


(cont.....2)

"How could it be any other way? It's never pretty. It's never perfect. But it's us," John Harbaugh said. "It was us today."

From: Dan Smith 
Date: February 4, 2013 12:44:52 PM EST
To: Michael K
Cc: Gary, Paul and Steve 

Subject: Re: Metaphysics circle.....

Mike, 

You are probably right, and I say that with the caveat that I would therefore be wrong.  Nonetheless, I am still scheduled to speak at the Baltimore Green Forum, on the 24th.  And I still attend the weekly Search for Answers seminar at Grace Fellowship Church in Timonium.  

If, perchance, I happen to be right, then we have very little to worry about, but a great deal to think about and act upon, nonetheless.  

Environmentalists have duly won the title of our modern Cassandras/Jeremiahs.  The Best Possible World - Hypothesis (BPWH) would threaten their identity, were it to be taken seriously.  But, if truth be known, very few environmentalists spend much time dwelling upon the apocalyptic scenarios that are touted by some of us.  Nonetheless, under the rubric of the BPWH, they would acquire a distinctly new identity and social function. 

Pantheism, to which you, I, and most environmentalist loosely subscribe, is, despite its deep-ecology undertones, as shallow, ontologically, as are the Quakers, Unitarians and AAers that you point to.  Today, pantheism functions much the way animism and polytheism functioned in ancient times.  It now is the least common denominator of a grab bag of spiritual tendencies..... a spiritual tokenism, if you will.  

Why not just leave well enough, alone......? 


(cont.......) 


On Feb 4, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Michael K wrote:

In thinking of the problem of how to invite environmentalists to appreciate and include the power and dynamism of spiritual ideas and practices in their worthy attempts to save our world from humanity's present level of ignorant, unintelligent, destructiveness -- three existing groups come to mind that are characterized by their openness to a variety of viewpoints; Quakers, Unitarians, and AA. These movements have largely avoided the dogmatic, sectarian theologies that have proved to be so divisive. I don’t think the discussion of ultimate metaphysical realities these posts have chewed on are in any way crucial to gaining admittance to the minds of scientific thinking environmentalists. I don’t think Wilber for all his complex efforts has persuaded many of the materialist point of view to include his profound and rarefied concepts into their minds. For our environmentalist friends, I think a spirituality lite is adequate and appropriate.

From: Dan Smith
Date: February 5, 2013 10:40:08 AM EST
To: Michael K, Gary G, Steve S

Subject: Re: Metaphysics circle.....

(cont.......2) 


If we venture to think of ourselves as the co-Creators of this world, then we can understand our significance within this Autopoietic or bootstrapped reality, of which we all partake. 

Or, by the same token, we can think of ourselves as being the braincells of God, if you will

Just by being the Mirrors of Nature, we have already accomplished very much of that task, and we could not have done so without devoting trillions of dollars to scientific research, over the past several centuries.  Science has been a great and noble accomplishment on our part, and we environmentalists have no need to belittle that accomplishment.  Rather, we need to point to the way beyond Scienctific materialism.  

But, I'm suggesting that we may be much more than merely the passive spectators of the cosmic Spectacle........ seemingly situated on a totally insignificant pale-blue dot. 

Yes, as you have just stated, all the great mystics have pointed to the Oneness of the world.  I surely second that notion.... and this is just where the prophetic, monotheist tradition has departed furthest from the cosmic truth.  Is it not likely that our crucial task will be to correct this misperception, within that tradition?  Impossible, you say!  Well, maybe so, but not if we have a little help from above.  


(cont......3) 


On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Dan Smith wrote:

(cont.) 


And, please, Mike, I appeal to you to call me at your earliest convenience, so that the three of us may further expedite this exchange of ideas...... 443-xxx-xxxx.  My conversation with Gary, yesterday, was very helpful, at least for me.  

In a nutshell, we can surely agree that it would be better for us to be working with the cosmic intelligence, than against it.  Yes?  Any problems with this somewhat novel, environmental notion?  

By the same token, it would be silly for us to attempt to solve a manifestly human problem by continually belittling, and otherwise casting aspersions, at our target audience.  We don't go about saving folks by telling them that they are worthless evil-doers.  Even the evangelicals know better than this, and, yes, unless we wish to ignore the cosmic spirit, we need to make every effort to rededicate our brothers and sisters to that Spirit.  No?  

What I am here to suggest is that our human mission has almost been accomplished, and that it is simply the realization of our cosmic accomplishment that is, now, the primary obstacle between us and our Rapproachment with that Spirit.  Does this sound too weird?  



(cont.....2) 


On Feb 5, 2013, at 9:34 AM, Dan Smith wrote:

Mike and Gary, 

I have temporarily dropped Paul from our very short list, per his request. Steve can, hopefully, act as a stand-in for his larger list.  

I think we are, gradually getting down to the nitty-gritty of the human dilemma, and the existential crisis that we face.  

May we please attempt to agree upon a focus for this continuing conversation, at least the one that I wish to be part of.

Mike puts his finger right on it, in this last post of his.......  Theodicy.  

The vast majority of humans do not subscribe to scientific materialism. And virtually all of these do subscribe to some form of higher or cosmic intelligence, with which they are in occasional contact or communion.  

If we are going to address a global human crisis, then we must take this global belief system into account.  To simply ignore this elephant in the room, is to start from a very unrealistic position. 

I, however, have, quite arguably, been more engaged with this elephant than has anyone else, as I have been attempting to explain, for the last several weeks, and still leading up to my talk, at the end of this month.  I am asking the two of you to, please, hear out the solution that I will be proposing, on the 24th, by way of you helping me to better shape the presentation of.  Already, even with your minimal focus, you have helped me to develop several new insights.  Can we, please, just take this a bit further......? 


(cont......) 

From: Dan Smith 
Date: February 6, 2013 12:01:16 PM EST
To: Michael K
Cc: Gary, Paul, Steve, Sam, Gus, Peter 

Subject: Re: Metaphysics circle.....

(cont......2) 


Ok, it's time for just a recap....... 

1.)  I offer only a shred of hope...... or is it the only shred....?  

2.)  ......as a practical aside, let us not be too hasty to awaken sleeping dogs.  So sweet is the slumber of materialism..... 

3.)  The folks who's profession it is to peer into the guts of the world, find, instead, layers and layers of mathematics and logic.  Golly, they wonder, is God a mathematician?  

4.)  Philosophers peer into the minds of mathematicians, and the like, and find more than mere logic.  In fact, they can find all kinds of stuff in there, except for numbers.  Hmmm...... 

5.)  Along comes Chicken Little, that's me, folks, scratching the bump on his little noggin...... What, then, if we are just the figments of a mathematician's imagination?  And/or, by the same token, she is a figment of ours?  What would this be?  Well, not to mince/mint words, or anything, but some might think of this as an autopoietic-bootstrap.  I would call it the best possible ouroboros, or closed timelike circuit (CTC), residing in eternity, beyond space and time, in the big 'computer' in the sky, or encoded on the 'future' holographic event horizon.  Don't ever accuse physicists of lacking imagination! 

What is the upshot?  

The hopes and fears of all the years...... hang by a rather slender bootstrap, which is probably just twisting in the cosmic breeze.  Oh, and, yes, in a couple hundred years or so, the circuit will be completed, as our descendants become our ancestors...... lucky, them!  Childhood's beginning?  

Dan 


On Feb 6, 2013, at 11:17 AM, Dan Smith wrote:

(cont.......) 


One step further.......

Well, how about one and a half steps.....?!  

To say that the world is composed of logic, is to say that it is more akin to a virtual reality or a holograph, and both of these possibilities are taken with no small degree of seriousness within the physics community.  Wonderful!  Who, then, is to become upset, if we are then disposed to think of the world more as a great thought, than as a great machine...... simply substituting Spinoza for Newton, say?  And who takes Newton seriously, anymore?  

Was that a half-step.....?  Help me keep count!  

Here, then is the whole step...... 

Are we, folks, thinking machine or just thinkers.  Yes, this is a somewhat loaded question..... 

Hey, some of my best friends are computer nerds, and there was a time when I could have easily been mistaken for one.  Right, Sam?  

Well, that was then....  Now we've put aside such tinkering toys, mostly!  

What I am more aware of today, as a simple perusal of the mind-body problem will easily demonstrate, is that the mind is not so easily stuffed into a can, or even into a skull, for that matter, pace Darwin&Co.  

Hey, look, I have a great admiration for the unceasing, strenuous efforts of the neuro-scientists and artificial intelligencers, and they may well win the day.  But that day does tend to recede, apace, or so it sometimes seems.  Furthermore, I don't wish to sell you a pig in the poke, whatever that used to be.... 

I simply suggest that we, who enter into the realm of environmental seriousness, need not surrender all hope.  And, hey, again, if you feel bound to so surrender, it is still a free world.  Take my word for it!  



(cont.....2) 



On Feb 6, 2013, at 10:30 AM, Dan Smith  wrote:

Mike et al., 

Thank you for the phone call, last evening.  It was on the brief side, since I was at dinner with Sam H, of this list, and three others.  Nonetheless, I do have a better understanding of your thinking.  As a followup, Gus and I continued the conversation, over dinner, along with Sam and Peter.  

I'm thinking that I may need to consider an alternative 'sales point', when, this afternoon, Sam and I review the flyer for the upcoming BGF talk.  

Folks have every right to be most pessimistic about the fate of humanity, and, certainly, we should all be alarmed at our prospects.   

But, then, here I come, tripping through the tulips, doing my best rendition of the original Pollyanna. Something is not computing.  Yes?  

Do I want or expect folks to now become optimistic, as we wait expectantly for Godot to pull our fat out of the fire?  No.  

I guess what I'm offering is the possibility of a cosmic loophole, in the karma machine.  And, yes, I am aware that such an offer was made, at least once before.  If one takes that other offer seriously, then this one is, hopefully, just a timely reminder.  No big deal? 

And what is this loophole....?  

It is that the world may not be quite as 'solid' as we usually suppose it to be, knock on wood!  

What I share with many of my former physics colleagues is just a somewhat nuanced view of the solidity of the world.  They say that the world is composed of (occasionally 'broken') mathematical symmetries.  Or, say, that the world is, somehow, composed of logic, rather than just atoms swerving in the dark.  Yes?  I confess that I'm wont to take this 'logic' just one step further......... 


(cont....) 


On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:13 PM, Michael wrote:

The Life Force, however one conceives that, is not able to deal with the higher levels of knowledge and power to directly prevent them doing great harm. Abstract forces like that are very general in their impacts, they cannot sit down so to speak and come up with a plan to deal with the runaway power of humans. Of course one could say that the life force can withdraw before the onslaught becoming in that way was a death force against its destroyers, taking them down with it. But their is a lot of anthropomorphizing of what is a limited force. The life force itself is a very vague and questionable concept.akin to Bergson's elan vitale. To imbue it with a mind capable of planning and executing a retaliatory strike against its tormentors is a bit much. If there is such a thing as a life force, it would be more like gravity that does not punish its defiers, but just operates as an impersonal law, like karma. Karma bears no ill will to anyone. It just does its thing impartially.

From: Dan Smith 
Date: February 6, 2013 12:23:03 PM EST
To: Michael 
Cc: 

Subject: Why is God such a Prick?!

Mike, 

I love it......!  

Allow me, please, to 'slightly' rephrase that...... Why is God not a Party-Pooper?  

As in, when the Cat's away, we, mice, do play.  Sometimes we play rough, in our little pale-blue sandbox, and we throw sand, a lot of it, in each other's eyes.  

All ye, all ye, in-free?  When is the best time for the dinner-bell?  When should Dinah blow her horn?  When should the fat-lady sing?  

Hey, Mike, that's why I'm here.  I'm waiting for you to tell me!  



On Feb 6, 2013, at 11:41 AM, Michael wrote:

Dan et al  --  There are several considerations re: help from "beyond". Of course we would like knowledge/power to deal with our escalating problems, but on the other hand abuse of power/knowledge has been a major factor in creating our difficulties. Is more power safe in our hands? If we admit to being incompetent to wield even greater power than we have achieved so far, maybe that shadowy 'Beyond' could just take things out of our hands and handle everything for us deus ex machina style, without putting the controls in our hands? Pretty please? Be a nice Parent Figure and get us kids out of this mess? Make like the Wizard in the Sorcerer's Apprentice and use your superior magic to make everything nice?
 
In that scenario one could ask, "What's been keeping you, we needed this kind of help a long time ago!" (We keep coming back to theodicy, or why is God such a Prick!?)  Maybe we are not doing our part? Why are we here anyway? To learn some lessons? Why do the tests need to be so agonizing? Maybe these lessons can only be learned in this way. How did God become God? Through conquering ordeals like we are facing? Why must we recapitulate that process? Because God needs to be constantly recreated, and we are the instruments for Divine Rebirth. When Purusha (pure Spirit) emerged from the domination of Prakriti (pure Matter) it was not a once and for all victory. That process needs to be constantly renewed, lest the darkness of Prakriti swallow everything into the black hole of its maw.    Maybe?

From: Dan Smith 
Date: February 6, 2013 5:07:33 PM EST
To: Sam 
Subject: Announcement for Feb 24 

Are we toast?  

There is an emerging view amongst environmentalists that we have passed our point of no return, with respect to a general collapse of civilization, along with much of the Earth's remaining ecosystem.  

Dan Smith, however, would like to hold out a slender reed of hope....... a Pollyanna amidst the Cassandras.  

Amongst the Cassandras is the view that, yes, we have, temporarily outsmarted Nature, but that Nature will bat last.  A Pollyanna might suggest that Nature is neither stupid nor malicious.  On this view, we are not a cancer, but, rather a chrysalis.  Humanity is a kind of seed pod.  Not that we are star seeds, but, rather, something slightly less materialistic, if you will.  

From: Dan Smith 
Date: February 7, 2013 10:01:07 AM EST
To: Sam B Hopkins 
Subject: Re: Jim Gray's redraft of part of text for flyer for Feb. 24

Sam, 

Ok, then, how is this........?  
----------

Nature Bats Last

Or so it is said.  But who batted first?  And is this a game?  

Dan Smith will attempt to address the fundamental issues of Environmentalism. 

Environmentalists have every reason to be Cassandras..... that, somehow, we temporarily outsmarted Nature, and now, finally, we are about to receive our comeuppance.  

Dan will suggest, however, that Nature is neither stupid nor malicious.  Rather than our being a cancer upon the Earth, we and the Earth are looking more like a chrysalis.  A cosmic plan is unfolding, before our eyes, but we must open our eyes, if we wish to see what is unfolding. 

dan wrote:Thanks for the heads-up, Jake. Do see this as something useful? There seems to be some question as to the actuality of the 'missing' data. Has anyone done an actual inventory.

And what about overseas servers? Would that slow it down for us, back here?

Admin wrote:Hi Dan,

I've another interview with TJ tonight. Details here: https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t99-2nd-interview-with-cyrellys-geibhendach-on-tjmorrisetradio#1905

dan wrote:Jake,

Thank you for this update, on both fronts.......

1.) Gary's new article seems to be covering new ground. I had read parts of his new book, but had not seen this condensed version. It does seem that we are not too far from an imminent ground-zero. Do we not have boots on the ground?