Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

dan wrote:Cy,

I'm not in favor of guns, but I understand that some folks need that extra sense of security.  

Yesterday we were at the national Cathedral doing the flower market for Kashmir-Rose.  Today we are headed to a WCUAVC flight day at a school down here.  


Was looking at the connection between India and Greece back in the day.  In fact there was a Greco-Indian empire, created by Alexander the Great.  The mutual influence



(cont.)

Well guns have their place, but that wasn't the point...the point was that Hillary equates gun possession with violent individuals or groups and I think I quite clearly illustrated the problem with that kind of thinking by saying I've never been responsible for hurting someone.

I'm not a violent person and my record attests to that. Hillary however is responsible for the deaths of two exemplary military members and one Ambassador, all by design. She also responsible for the arrests and loss of career of one General and one Admiral who attempted to send in a rescue party. They would have been successful in the rescue and then the creation of ISIS and the gun running that contributed to it would have been exposed. Nothing like wiping the proof of criminal wrong doing off the map to protect your own arse Hildebeast? Like any of us would forget and forgive her? Hillary apparently doesn't own guns and yet she's been responsible for the ending of at least three lives and two careers. She's five ahead of this gun owner. And that's just what we happen to know about. There's rumors her and her prior hubby were involved in the drug trade of Arkansas and S. America...then there's China and Walmart. I could go on but what's the point. Truth is too old fashioned and justice is also out-dated.

I'm a celt so truth and justice is not a cultural trait in the eyes of the modern umbrella society which refuses to acknowledge those traits as part of the nation's psyche, but rather as a personal neurosis that they'd probably insist a straightjacket and heavy medication be applied to if I were within reach in DC. Truth and justice equals neurosis? What kind of thinking is that?!! But that's the spew emerging from orgs like DHS since its inception. So when it comes to commentary, turn-about-is-fair-play. They and their flunkies make snide comments about us and we return the favor.

>>>on India and Greece...look at the Sanskrit language and old greek. Then compare it to Old Irish. Fascinating? Now look at some of the ideas each culture valued...same again. All three have same root system. Ah but why would anyone care about the legacy of the elder gods? 'er ET and the seeding of civilizations? Virmana are inconveniences...ah! and there once was one in the vicinity of Fermoy Eire of all places! That is if you can take the Christian overlay off the history.

>>> on the subject of the Glyphs:

432 Mystery

432 Mystery: the first lesson - the Abducted Preceptor

Gary,

You are assuming the existence of unobserved objects.  You assume this existence, because there seem to be so many unobservables in this world.  It's a bit like Berkeley trying to have God watching the tree on the quad when everyone was asleep.  

But what about the planets beyond the solar system and the trees there?  I have to say that there are no trees out there.  If you can prove otherwise then you will have proven me wrong.  

What about the physics on the Solar planets?  There is some fancy physics going on there, seemingly without observers until now.  

There is simply continuity of nature at work.  It's like the Sunspots or the moons of Jupiter.  It would have been even stranger if they were not there.  It's just like nature abhoring a vacuum.  But there is likely to be a cut-off when it comes to life.  Life requires observers, and we are the only observers.  Animals do not count as observers, because they don't know where they are.  There may be Jurassic Park somewhere, but it could be by itself in another dimension.  

Evolution is teleologiclally conrolled by us, in retrospect, that is.


I know CTC's, but what are CTCotS's? Stick with the nomenclature that we already have, please!

I don't think Jack will spring for any infinity of universes. That's why he tries to be a Bohmian, but Paul is showing that he cannot be a consistent Bohmian.



(cont.)

Quote: Thus the universe consists of about four percent bright (ordinary) matter, 23% dark matter, and 73% dark energy. An alternate theory attempting to explain such anomalous undetected matter requires the introduction of 'extra' dimensions beyond our perceived three-dimensional world....(snip - Hyperdimensional Physics Model by Richard Ce Hoagland and Erol Torun and the Meta Model by Dr. Tom Van Flandern)....Other researchers investigating such theoretical hyperdimensional realms include Drs. Bruce DePalma, Thomas Bearden, Michio Kaku, Brian Green, and Stan Tentent. The concept of such a puzzling multidimensional universe will be further explored within a later chapter of this writing....(snip)...Self-centered humanity would point to humans as the ultimate reason for the preeminent purpose underlying this marvelous creation event (genesis process). Yet humankind appears to be merely a minor afterthought, only emerging very recently by cosmick reckoning, roughly 13 billion years AFTER the Big Bang initiation. Source: Legacy of the Elder Gods, Ch1, by M Don Schorn..

See also The Book of Dyzan. Enclosed in it, the Seven Stanzas of Cosmic Evolution written in Senzar supposedly the language of of the Gods.

"Life requires observers, and we are the only observers."

I disagree with this. If it were true then paleontologists would never have made 'discoveries' of plants and animals entombed in petrified mud...and trail cams would never catch and record behavior of living things...but wait! is Vector Intention entirely inaccurate?...each idiomaterial complex including living things contributes to a vast network of observership.

wespenre.com/pdf/Introduction_to_Idiomaterial_Life_Physics.pdf

From: Dan
Date: June 22, 2015 at 2:58:02 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: Jack, Ruth, Deborah, Gary, Cy, Colton, Chris

Subject: Does God play dice?

Paul et al.,

I think that this is what you all have been discussing on the other list.  Ruth and Jack are trying to defend two different realist versions of QM to avoid the Copenhagen crapshoot.

Paul is showing that neither version is consistent, but thank you for trying.

You are trying to say that God does not play dice.  I agree.  But the only way too defeat the 'smokey dragon' is with teleology, which the TI and PTI partly acknowledge.  

IOW, the observer is necessary.  You realists think you can get rid of the observer.  But that is what makes this world real.  I.e. there are no unobservable worlds at any Tegmark level.  Yes, you are reluctant to go this far, because it seems like there are nearly an infinite number of unobservable worlds in this universe.  To be consistent we would have to go anthropocentric.  That would seem to militate against much of science, including especially Darwin.  That seems like too high a price to pay for a little reality!  

I'm just saying that we can have our scientific cake, saving the appearances, that is, and eat it, too, if we just add a dash of teleology.  But I can't fool you, you know that even a little teleology would make for the MoAPS, mother of all paradigm shifts.  Too bad.  I will cry all the way to 'heaven'.


(cont.....)

cc: OMF  

From: Dan
Date: June 22, 2015 at 4:06:02 PM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: Jack, Ruth, Deborah, Gary, Cy, Colton, Chris, Princess

Subject: Re: Does God play dice?

(cont........)

And, I wouldn't say this, if I didn't think we were sitting on positive proof.

This proof is mostly known to Ron, but he is either very coy with it, or very naive, and I don't think he is as stooopid as he looks! I trust that Ron needs no introduction, here.

My point is that Ron knows that we have been visited, and, over the years, I've been able to deduce that our visitors have more likely been UT's than ET's. If that is true, then it is very likely that the world is smaller than it looks. I will be glad to explain this deduction, if you care.

In fact, Ron is telling me and the Princess that he has craft for us too fly. I took a (conventional) flying lesson with her the week before my 'incident'. Ron does not like to fly any kind of craft. Since the Princess is a mom, I may get to test it first.

Ron is being coy, as usual, with the means of propulsion, but I am allowed to believe that, if it even exists, it is more than a little exotic!


(cont........2)

Delayed choice is not a problem for MWI, since the observer splits as the universe branches. Tegmark argues that the problem isn't multiple worlds, but our lack of knowledge concerning which one of the many worlds we inhabit.

Meanwhile, Google's computers are 'dreaming' up alternative worlds ...

http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural.html

Any commentary/analysis anticipated on the latest science/religion arena event?
https://stream.org/scientific-pantheist-who-advises-pope-francis/

Subject: Does God play dice?

Cyrellys 3:25 PM (8 hours ago)
to Paul, JACK, Kit, Dan, Deborah, Deepak, David, Chris, Colton, Gary, Uri, George, Princess, Robert, Ronald, Henry, Caryn, Bill, Larry

432 hz. Cy

Paul Z wrote:On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:


So where were we....

Oh yes -- you were explaining to the assembled professors how my proposal to use sound to synchronize clocks
is a "pathetic delusion"? That we cannot synchronize clocks using sound?

*********

Cyrellys 3:48 PM (8 hours ago)
to Dan, Paul, Jack, Deborah, Deepak, David, Chris, Colton, Gary, Uri, George, Kit, Princess, Robert, Ron, Henry, caryn, Bill, Larry

Quote Dan: I'm just saying that our destiny is to become One with God, we being like the braincells of God. Another way to look at this is to see ourselves as either a cancer, on the planet, or a chrysalis and then a butterfly.


Cy: What dan has always referred to is what the ancients Irish called, Tuirigin. It is the process for the human metamorphic journey that collects into the person the properties of All Being. It's not new, but his proposal for trying to fast track it relatively is. Science has been proving a great many things the ancients somehow already knew as real.

Celtic Triad: Three purposes for the return of souls to this world: To collect into the soul the properties of All Being, to acquire knowledge of all things, and to acquire the power to overcome chaos.

From the wiki on Theosophy: Access to Supreme Worlds: The awakening within, inherently possessing the faculty to directly connect to the Divine world(s). The existence of a special human ability to create this connection. The ability to connect and explore all levels of reality; co-penetrate the human with the divine; to bond to all reality and experience a unique inner awakening. More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

Tuirigin: (TOOR' ghun) is a very precise word for which there is no English equivalent; the nearest translation is "a circuit of births" correlating to different types of transformational journeys. One such journey being the movement of the soul between the otherworld and this world in a series of journeys resulting in metempsychosis - the migration of soul from one body or state of being to another. Tuirigin is nothing less than the birth of the true nature, for it is not until the soul has been fused with everything else that it assumes its true nature; the soul's many turnings bring about its potential; wisdom. The Celtic tuirigin is about fusion - not refining the soul til it reaches nirvana, but a profound communion with everything that brings authenticity to the soul. Source: Caitlin Matthews, book "The Celtic Spirit".

**
~ Chock another round up in the same vein as The Book of Dyzan?

Cy

END QUOTE FROM EMAIL


meanwhile:

From Cy's Email wrote:Re: Humor me.......! Who put Stapp in this nonsense?
Inbox
x
JACK SARFATTI

3:49 PM (8 hours ago)

to Paul, Kit, Dan, Deborah, me, Chris, Colton, Gary, George, Princess, Robert, Ronald, Caryn, Bill, Larry
Not so. I am impatient with your lunacy.

Kit should write a paper.

When did you escape from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZFdW7dk5H0 ?


> On Jun 23, 2015, at 2:18 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
>
> You're not actually addressing anything here Jack.
>
> You are patient posing as a doctor!
>
> On 6/23/2015 1:40 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
>> Kit please have the men in the white coats pick up Zielinski.
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 23, 2015, at 1:13 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
>>>
>>> From the dicussions we've been having re: alternate interpretations of QM, it seems to me that classical materialism
>>> is in serious trouble from an intellectual standpoint.
>>>
>>> As for anthropocentrism, the strongest argument I've seen so far is the reductio ad absurdum of the infinite multiverse.
>>> William of Ockham must be rolling in his grave.
>>>
>>> On 6/23/2015 12:38 PM, Green, Christopher wrote:
>>>> lso we must admit that we don't want creation to be redundant. Who says it has to be? There is the Rare Earth Hypothesis, but this leaves a lot of unused planets. Why not just go to strong idealism, to anthropocentrism, etc.?
Attachments area
Preview YouTube video Sanatorium Official Trailer (2014) - Horror Movie HD
Paul Zielinski

*******************

5:33 PM (6 hours ago)

to JACK, Kit, Dan, Deborah, me, Chris, Colton, Gary, George, Princess, Robert, Ronald, Caryn, Bill, Larry
No Jack. The reality here is that you don't have any cogent answers to my Socratic challenges
to your lamestream thinking re: special relativity.

It's called "affirming the weaker argument". However, my experience with you has taught me
that the supposedly "weaker" argument often turns out to be the stronger.

Anyway, let's humor Dan for a change. Do you also see an approaching apocalypse? If so, do
you think there is anything to be done, aside from fiddling while Rome burns?

Click here to Reply, Reply to all, or Forward
41% full
Using 6.27 GB of your 15 GB
Program Policies
Powered by
Google
Last account activity: 19 minutes ago
Details

Jack's rebuttal to the following image at Kit's reply:



My comment for once didn't get any honorable mention, Lol. I usually warrant at least a few four letter word expletives....so much for being constructive.

So ends another day on the third rock from the sun.

But hey I have finally topped the first 10,000 words on the new book. A sneak peak:

CHAPTER 2

I am in the place
between sun and moon,
where the lightning-flash strikes.
-- Ross Nichols

(snip)

The path approached an opening that revealed a stone paved courtyard amid the greenery.

At the center of the courtyard, an elegant black-haired woman in a pale topaz gown that pooled in folds about her feet, stood in contemplation covered in butterflies. Zari came to a halt at the edge of the paved circle working to catch her breath. The woman stood silently facing away from her.

The silence grew around the courtyard until the communing butterflies began to hum. Their melody and harmonies interwove with the cooling air of evening. Still Zari waited.

She knew better than to intrude. You did not enter the charmed circle unless invited.

Finally, a soft voice responded. "Sithchain ni caran."

A pause.

Then, it was Zari's turn, "Open the portal!"

"I will not open it."

"Wherefore not?"

"None may enter Sephiroth's Circle but the child of a sovereign of a privileged country, or a truth-craftsman bringing his craft."

The precept's of the Adepts described no one may gain admittance to the charmed circle when some one challenged the Grace of the Portal for entry. What did that mean? It was a test. A test obviously involving the philosophical science of the Adepts who's ultimate focus was the pursuit of All Being.

Zari considered it for a moment. It said 'no one, may gain admittance'. A one or oneness was a metrical state of being...a consciousness of physical form with a low vibrational wavelength. All Being was a study in the vast, complex communion with all things. All Being was a work of Greater Art. Art required creative ingredients. The Triads of Knowledge stated, four things are needed by every work of art: a place, a time, an author, and a cause.

That was the answer to the riddle! The connection between the current state of being and the components of art as transformation!

Zari went to one knee and spoke reverently, "it is not some One who requests admittance, Lady. It is a humble author; pure inspiration; pure creative consciousness, shaken like stardust over everything both aware and unaware; I am a facet of the mythic truth, written in the greenbook of the Grass -- the primal scripture of all worlds."

Zari waited without moving so much as a muscle. A shiver ran down her spine. It was not the first time she had approached this test, but she stubbornly refused to fail. She bowed her head awaiting the verdict.

Long moments passed, marked only by the rustling of the breeze in the flowered greenery behind her, and in the occasional patter of butterfly wings as they shifted positions around the woman. Over head the Griglean; the Sailor Stars, gleamed.

The verdict never came.

Zari puzzled over the silence. Then at long last the woman turned toward her and the butterflies took to the air in a small cloud around her.

"Enter."

The woman extended a delicate hand to indicate a position before her. Her eyes, with striking butterfly wing patterns on the lids, studied her as if they could see past her skin into her soul. Zari knew the woman was reading her aura. She rose and moved to the spot indicated.

"I pledge my Oath without boasting, Lady."

The Butterfly Queen smiled a gentle smile.

"Enigma of two worlds pursues you, child. A truth of Being holds primacy in all the universe. It is on the tongue of the mind-matrices and their matrons. And it is a thing that fast will bind."

Zari startled looked up at the woman. "This is unexpected," Zari stammered, "you have departed from what I was taught to expect."

"You would present your Oath to begin a course of study," she affirmed, "I understand. But there is a ripple in the fabric of the Unum, and that ripple is wound tight about your soul. Something has laid claim to you already, child."

END QUOTE.

niters.

Dan I think we need to equip Jack and Paul with a pair of boxing gloves...they're hard at it again today.  At least if they had a pair of gloves, or better yet just to make it more interesting, a pair of sheep sticks, then they could beat each other over the head in style.

So here's my observership question of the day, is Jack not feeling well, usually he cusses to such a degree a whaler would be blushing. I know, been on the receiving end of that foul mouth more than once. Cy

From: Dan
Date: June 24, 2015 at 1:41:44 PM EDT
To: JACK
Cc: 24 others
Subject: Re: Which came first..... mind or physics?

Jack,

There is nothing for you to explain.  I just want to know what happens when you turn the knob on your equation, up or down.  Does consciousness not increase and decrease?

Philosophers have long puzzled about the problem of fading qualia in similar contexts.  It doesn't make sense.  Consciousness is what it is.  It may become confused, but it's not something adjustable.

This is too big an issue for a technical answer.  How much do I have to pay you to shut up and listen, for a change?  It is about the mind that came first.  You have to put yourself in that place.  I know you can do it, Jack.  But you have to be patient, a bit, first.

Meanwhile, Ron is looking at the 32 apocalypse vectors that are pointing to Sept of 2016.  These to phenomena are probably related.  

From: Dan
Date: June 26, 2015 at 11:09:43 AM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: 32 others.......
Subject: Cosmology is too important........

Cosmology is too important to leave to the calculators.

I'm sorry, but mind came before math, and you calculators have been outwitted by VALIS. There are some things that just don't compute, like aesthetics and morality, and even things like logic and higher math. Look at Penrose's triangle...... mind >> math >> matter.

Take your cue from Thomas Nagle's 'Mind and Cosmos', which, even for all its breadth, barely covers the waterfront.

The anthropic principle tells us that some high level selection is in effect. Where does this selection effect come from? The mind-body problem tells us that mind goes far beyond the brain. Many of you think that you can reinvent cosmology from the bottom up. But maybe that's not the way it came about.

Maybe it came about from the top down. If it did so, all bets are off. Mathematics is used a design tool.

This is where the question of quantity comes in. Is the cosmos personal or impersonal?

Is intelligence personal or impersonal? This is a big question, and you calculators are going to loose it. Get over it........


(cont.........)

cc: OMF

more than 75 emails fired back and forth four days later...

Hmmmmm, qualia.

Courtesy of the Geospatial Intelligence Network
Jade II
http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/7/727/show_7727623.mp3

How do you control 7 Billion people
You command and control their environment

"This technology has found a way to circumvent humanity's resistance to RFID microchiping individuals"

A total command and control of the 'human terrain'.

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/7/727/show_7727623.mp3

People will be reduced to the sum total of the data information that has been collected about you...how do you remove who you are? -- neural net construction...supported and distributed by multi-national intelligence collaboration, both domestic AND international..by the proponents of global government...the NWO.

See 2010 GEO ENT SYMPOSIUM - mastering the human domain

human dynamics
human terrain
human geography

fusion centers - not just in USA but global integral part - human dynamics of regional population areas thru the use of ABI activity based intelligence - all aspects of human activities, culture, relationships, vulnerabilities, capabilities....snip.

tied to a node (geo-referencing) on the network.

cc. Manticore Group

From: Dan
Date: June 28, 2015 at 7:41:30 AM EDT
To: Paul
Cc: 32 others.......
Subject: Once we were lost.........

Now we are found...........

It will take nothings less than this MoAPS, mother of all paradigm shifts, to save the world.

The MoAPS is that we are not some cosmic experiment. We are not a cancer upon a planet. We are a chrysalis, about to turn into a butterfly. We are about to experience our Apocatastasis.

We are not lost in space and time. We are the masters of space and time. We inhabit an anthropocentric, geocentric, theocentric cosmos. It looks natural, but it isn't. It is as natural as the cosmic mind can make it appear, in retrospect. We are its co-Creators.

And we have been visited, but not by ET astronauts from Planet X. Rather, we have been visited by inter-dimensional beings from dimension X. It was a bit like Pharo's dream. I just happened to be in the right place, at the right time, to interpret the dream. I have not yet received public confirmation. This may change in few weeks.

The truth of this cosmology lies mainly within. We just have to wakeup to the realization that we are not an accident in a meaningless universe.


(cont........)

cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: June 30, 2015 at 1:23:16 PM EDT
To: Deepak, Jack
Cc: 30 others.......
Subject: Souls, anyone.......?

Deepak,

A few years ago, I asked Jack about the possibility that humans had souls......

He averred that, at the present time, we did not, but that souls could be invented in the future.

This, I thought, was a rather peculiar answer. I wonder, Jack, what your thinking is today? How much might we have to pay for these souls?

And, by the way, where do you suppose our memories are stored? Or are they anticipations of the past, occurring retro-causally and teleologically?

From: Dan Smith
Date: July 1, 2015 at 12:01:09 PM EDT
To: Eric Garza
Subject: Re: Messiah

Eric,

Thank you for the talk we had yesterday. You have had some wonderful experiences. I hope that you continue having the good ones.

You seem to have figured out the basics of life, and, at least on those basics, we do correspond.

I am simply adding an historical dimension. We appear to have set ourselves up for the mother of all paradigm shifts (MoAPS), as we come to understand that we are not just lost in space and time. We should have learned this from the Anthropic principle, but we have not, yet. Whoever can bring about this MoAPS may be seen as the anticipated Spirit of Truth, or, more generally, as the 4M/K/SoT/X2 (Mahdi, Maitreya, Messiah,......) to unite the faiths into a single prophetic vision of the world.

The BPWH/SWH/CTC is, at the least, a step in the right direction.........

Please call or write, if you have any more questions.

Dan

The last I heard from Ron was that there would be a 'flight' test of the craft next week, with the Princess standing at the 'controls'.  I suggested that I at least be a witness, but have heard nothing back.

I was unable to get through to anyone with the above emails.  Eric Garza briefly showed up, but he is much too involved in his present experiences to take on board any new information from me.  Eric is also very suspicious of anything smacking of a global vision for the future.  He considers himself strictly a jesus/love freak.

I believe that the SWH (small world hypothesis) is too much for a modern-minded person to take on-board.  Don't I have to question my own understanding?  I do so most of the time, but have never come up with anything else that makes a lick of sense.  I see all the evidence for Darwinism, but it does not add up to our own existence.  You cannot just add a little teleology to Darwin.  It would be like being a little bit pregnant.  

The various faiths have made their compromises with the scientific cosmology.  They accept that we are lost in space and time.  If they belong to the prophetic tradition, they support the rare Earth hypothesis and suppose that any eschatology is carried out in a separate dimension, at the whim of the Creator.  

I am keeping my own counsel wrt the aforementioned 'craft'.  I have seen an external model of a 'saucer' shaped vehicle.  It is based loosely on the Gordon/Price/vimana model.  It has enough room for a short person, the Princess, to stand at the controls at the center.  It does use hydrogen in some fashion, but it is not specified if that is a power source.  

If this is supposed to function as an ET-type vehicle, then that would serve as a disproof of my notion that we are being visited only by UT's in exotic/metaphysical craft.

From: Dan
Date: July 2, 2015 at 1:07:14 PM EDT
To: Gary
Cc: ten others
Subject: Re: New ... Novikov: The wormholes and the Multiverse March 6, 2015

Gary,

You do not understand that God is personal.  I have told you this until I am blue in the face.  Where does your personhood come from, if not from a Source?  It does not come from non-linear quantum mechanics, pace Jack.  He refuses to answer my simple question as to the strength of the non-linear coupling.

When will you get it through your thick skull that we are the children of God, not the spawn of God.  Get over your ET/flying-saucer dreams.  

We are not an experiment.  We are not redundant or expendable.  A little teleology goes a long way.

You and Jack&Co sit around and try to ascertain how we are going to blow ourselves up.  We are not going to.  Get over it.  Get a life!  

BTW, you have taken the words of Jesus completely out of context.  You come close to blaspheming the Spirit of Truth.  

Dan

From: Dan
Date: July 2, 2015 at 1:34:46 PM EDT
To: "Kafatos, Menas"
Cc: 20 others

Subject: Re: Imagination

Menas,

When will the good physicists on this on this list understand that mind and personhood are not an afterthought?  They are not the result of glitch in the quantum, rather the quantum is just a projection of the cosmic mind.

I have asked Jack, and whomever, to stand up and defend their theories, but Jack always takes an ad-hominem tack.  Don't let Jack be the scientific Katechon.  Look it up.

There is more under the Sun, than is dreamt of in your theories.

Dan


On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Kafatos, Menas <> wrote:

And Einstein also said that "theories are free inventions of the mind". That clearly says that mind is primary and not theories about the universe (that after all the mind creates).

From: Dan
Date: July 2, 2015 at 2:57:43 PM EDT
To: "Kafatos, Menas"
Cc: 21 others
Subject: Waiting for Godot........

Menas,

Of course many aspects of mathematic and logic point back to the human dimension, and we should continue pursuing them.

In the meantime, the world stands on the brink of destruction, and scientists and technologists have played no small part in bringing us to that brink. Religionists, many of them, want to push us over brink.

At least these religious fanatics may understand that we are at a crucial point in human history.

If mind is an essential part of the cosmos, this would make all the difference in our understanding of ourselves and the world. When are we going to get serious about exploring that difference?

Is this not a question that urgently demands an answer?

What is holding us up? Are we waiting for Godot? Maybe Godot is waiting for us.



On Jul 2, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Kafatos, Menas wrote:

Yes, trying to capture consciousness in some formula is a chimera. However, there are deeper levels of mathematics like algebraic geometry, t-topos math, category theory, etc. which allow for the QUALITATIVE descriptions that conscious process require (not just the analytical dynamical algebraic or even geometric approaches).

Having said that, even logic formalism as in primary relationships between an observer and an object will not get us "to the top". But it will be much closer than present attempts to put in consciousness as an afterthought in an existing formalism, no matter how beautiful that formalism may be.

(cont.)

From: Dan
Date: July 3, 2015 at 12:41:28 PM EDT
To: Menas
Cc: 35 others
Subject: Eschatology

Menas,

You are the naif one......  There are a few others on the list who are so naif, and several who are not.

When I spoke to Ron Pandolfi for the first time, 23 years ago, I had gotten his number from a fellow crop-circle researcher, he told me that he was going to Los Alamos to speak with the Visitors.  I called Los Alamos to verify the information and was connected immediately with John Alexander, who verified most of the info.

I had had a 'born again' experience in 1977 that revolved around John 16:12ff.  So, I then, in 9/91, introduced myself to Ron as the Spirit of Truth, saying that the Visitors would only tell him to ask me about the Eschaton.

We never have had a serious discussion about my cosmology, BPWH/SWH/CTC (4M/K/SoT/X2),  but several months ago he said that he was among a small group of people who were following 32 vectors to the the 'apocalypse'.  They had recently aligned to 18 months or to 9/'16.  

And now there is talk of me or the Princess flying an off-planet saucer next week.  

I don't know if any of this is true, but I cannot just discount it.  

Naturally there is politics involved.  Ron has been the odd man out of the Aviary, since he joined it in the late '80's.  

(cont......)

cc: OMF

From: Dan
Date: July 3, 2015 at 1:49:16 PM EDT
To: Menas
Cc: 35 others
Subject: Re: Eschatology

(cont......)

Aviary politics..........

Ron was brought into the Aviary to investigate the Eisenhower Briefing Document.  He determined that it was forged copy of something.  

He then proceeded to shut-down/defund most of the Aviary operations, including, especially Stargate.  He himself operates mostly in rogue mode.  My association with him has also put me at odds with most of the rest of the Aviary, unfortunately.

Anyway, my participation here is not just academic, as you see.  My reading of Jack's book, Space-Time and Beyond, was influential, leading up to my 'born-again' experience.  I took-off for the 'beyond' part, but Jack retrenched, back to the straight mathematics that you see him doing today.  There was a passing of the 'exotic' torch, you might say.  

The person on this list who is most acquainted with the BPWH/SWH/CTC is Paul Z.  That is partly because I was paying him a stipend, for awhile.  He does not subscribe to the small world, SWH/eschaton part of it, I don't think.  

I can go on at great length about this impending MoAPS.  I have written ~5k pages about it, so far.  Suffice it to say that I may not be as stupid as I look, especially now, after my stroke.  

No, do not confuse me with an academic.  It seems that these waters run very deep(ak).  There may be bigger fish to fry.  There may be a great deal of urgency, here-abouts.  It is also about our ultimate concerns.  If it is not, I'm barking up the wrong tree.

If this be religion, religion it is.  I go for coherence.  There is nothing half-way as coherent as the BPWH.  No one can argue that with me.  It's just that none of you can imagine that we are prepared to meet or become our Maker, in one thousand years, or less.

Get used to it.  Get over it.  

From: Dan
Date: July 3, 2015 at 2:28:44 PM EDT
To: menas
Cc: 30 0thers
Subject: Re: Eschatology

Menas,

That was not retort. I regret that you took it that way.

I am somewhat defensive about my connection with Ron. Those who do not know about it are many, and they are naif about the fact that there may be national/international concerns about these matters. I am astounded, again and again, that, even the people who should know better, refuse to take any of it seriously. That is partly because Ron has often called me crazy. What if he said I wasn't? It would have to immediately be taken to the president.

It is a narrow line that we navigate here, between my being a jokester, and this being a global emergency.

What do you think?


On Jul 3, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Kafatos, Menas

I was asking an honest question and you retorted with "naïf". OK I follow Socrates dictum, one thing I know is that I don't know anything.

Best,

MCK

The Princess was supposed to get back to me.  She did not.  

I am suspicious of Ron's claims about having a craft.  He is claiming that it is a trans-terrestrial craft.  There would have to be exotic technology, at the least.  I suppose that the Visitors come to us on the equivalent of 'flying-carpets' that light up, that is mostly by metaphysical means.

He may have a craft, but I doubt that he has anything metaphysical.  He might not even know the difference.  He claims not to know or recognize a difference.  He mentioned that there was hydrogen involved.  He did not say if it had to do with propulsion.  The craft itself is small enough to be tansported back here by truck.  Only big enough for the Princess to stand up in, 5'.

I've heard that you cannot fly a craft without a critter.  He does often say that Aliyah is from off-world.  I see no indication.  I was supposed to fly it, first.  I'm not off-world, despite rumors about the '3rd drawer'.

But I'm not in a position where I can just walk away from this. It will not help my cause, it will not help the cause, if Ron is just blowing smoke-rings, bless his heart.

From: Dan
Date: July 5, 2015 at 11:23:46 AM EDT
To: Jack
Cc: 32 others
Subject: Seeing the backs of their own heads.......

It's like a dog chasing its own tail.......

The further you look into space, the deeper you look into the atom and into the fossil record, the more you are just seeing the back of your own head.  This is part of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, of Penrose's triangle and of Wheeler's circuit.

You become mesmerized by your own equations, by the sound of your own wheels.  

The anthropic principle should be telling you that there is a deeper something behind those phenomena.  You are saving the phenomena, with wheels within wheels.

What is it all about, Alfie?  

Well, it keeps a lot of people off the street, a lot of people employed.  Now, they don't know what else to do.  They are mainly just waiting for Godot, waiting for the Apocalypse.  It's all part of the setup in the best possible world.  

You are stuck with weak idealism.  You just need to step up to strong idealism and personalism.

From: Dan
Date: July 5, 2015 at 8:04:41 PM EDT
To: C Langan
Cc: 28 others
Subject: 'Easy' problem.......

One thing that neither side has noted is that Chalmers has had second thoughts about the so-called 'easy' problem. Turns out it's not so easy, after all. At the very least, it involves linguistic holism of the Quinean sort.

Yes, with brute force, you can always approach, asymptotically, some sort of intelligence. This hardly explains the leap between chimpanzees and humans. There is a tremendous difference between simulation and emulation. This is just the difference between weak and strong AI.

A while back, Paul invited me to elaborate on Personalism. Personalism is another name for the holism. Saying or implying that persons do not exist is a very big uphill battle. I recommend against it. The angels will not be on your side.

Both Jack and Chris, and too many of the 'eastern mystics', argue against it. I am a monist, myself. But this is a 'monadism' of the cosmic Self, which is a person, and is the Source of our own selves. This is what Apocatastasis is about.

No, Jack and Chris arguing that persons emerge accidentally from a quirk in the physics or the logic is a very big stretch. Much easier to argue that physics and logic emerge inter-subjectively.

This is an unusually lucid analogy for Dan:

The further you look into space, the deeper you look into the atom and into the fossil record, the more you are just seeing the back of your own head. This is part of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, of Penrose's triangle and of Wheeler's circuit.

You become mesmerized by your own equations, by the sound of your own wheels.

The anthropic principle should be telling you that there is a deeper something behind those phenomena. You are saving the phenomena, with wheels within wheels.

Also, this is analogous to Google's "inceptionism" ...

http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural.html

Instead of exactly prescribing which feature we want the network to amplify, we can also let the network make that decision. In this case we simply feed the network an arbitrary image or photo and let the network analyze the picture. We then pick a layer and ask the network to enhance whatever it detected. Each layer of the network deals with features at a different level of abstraction, so the complexity of features we generate depends on which layer we choose to enhance. For example, lower layers tend to produce strokes or simple ornament-like patterns, because those layers are sensitive to basic features such as edges and their orientations.

If we choose higher-level layers, which identify more sophisticated features in images, complex features or even whole objects tend to emerge. Again, we just start with an existing image and give it to our neural net. We ask the network: “Whatever you see there, I want more of it!” This creates a feedback loop: if a cloud looks a little bit like a bird, the network will make it look more like a bird. This in turn will make the network recognize the bird even more strongly on the next pass and so forth, until a highly detailed bird appears, seemingly out of nowhere.

From: Dan
Date: July 6, 2015 at 11:08:19 AM EDT
To: Ruth Kastner
Cc: 28 others........
Subject: Cogito ergo sum

Jack and others seem to be saying that persons incidentally emerge out of other, more basic, phenomena.  However, modern philosophy could be said to have started with the Cartesian 'Cogito'.  

I am simply pointing out that everything else is necessarily an abstraction from that Cogito.  

20th century philosophy witnessed an extended battle to deconstruct the Cogito.  This battle was underwritten by the very well financed and motivated AI industry.  Much of the modern mindset hung in the balance.  

I agree that that the Cogito, the YHWH, if you will, is a social construct, but what do I mean by that?  It means that we all hang together, or we hang separately.  I am not a Monadist, but a Relativist or Relationalist.  To be is to relate.  The most related thing is the most real thing.  What is that?  What could it be, other than love?  Perhaps you have heard that God is love.  I know how sappy this must sound to the ears of the professional physicist.  How do you measure love?  Well, we measure it every day, in the form of trust.  'In God we trust', it says on all of our currency.  What is the most likely forerunner to a global apocalypse, but a global collapse of the credit market.  

What does it profit you to deconstruct the self?  Is it only because you wish to demonstrate your mathematical prowess?  Explain, then, how to deconstruct mathematics.  With logic?  What does logic reduce to?  Perhaps mathematics displays an organic unity.  Perhaps E8xE8, Srinivasa and the Mandelbrot, etc., are an extension of the Anthropic principle, as applied to the unity of Mathematics.  

Perhaps your deconstructionism is a nervous professional tick.  You just have to get over it.  It is a dead end.  The high water mark of materialism/physicalism has long since passed.  That was  ~1950.  You don't know where to turn.  It appears that we have to reinvent physics from the top, down.  That's all.........  

From: Dan
Date: July 6, 2015 at 2:23:30 PM EDT
To: C Langan
Cc: 28 others
Subject: Re: 'Easy' problem.......

Chris,

You have a reductive holism?! That is quite a trick. You must use a double dose of your 'secret sauce'.

You say that you are an Xian. Are you saying that you have a formula for the Trinity? I would bet against that.

Are you saying that it should be possible to mass-produce souls? Jack used to say that, but now he is denying it. Tricky fellow, that one.

As an immaterialist, you believe that consciousness does not have to be associated with material bodies, or with physical processes of any kind. Yes? Poor Gary, he is quite sure that there is an algorithm for consciousness (Cs), but it is one that can only be implemented in hardware.

As I recall, logic usually has constants or signifiers to denote true and false. Where does your truth value come from, if not from Cs? It would seem that logic has to have Cs built into it from the start, if it is to make any sense at all. But that is an integral part of the CTMU, as I recall.

From: Dan
Date: July 7, 2015 at 10:57:18 AM EDT
To: C Langan
Cc: 29 others.....
Subject: Priorities.........

Yes, I am seriously annoyed with your innuendo, and your playing peek-a-boo with your theories.

You probably have some important insights wrt the Logos/CTMU, so I am relatively patient with you. Also, I am reluctant to be out front, as long as I don't have to be.

Paul and I are patient with Jack, because of his seniority, his connections and, most of all, maybe, because of his entertainment value. But I am on my second stroke now, mostly recovering, but I am on short time, and I don't think I can afford to be even as un-nice as I've been in the past.

I am working on the assumption that we are dealing with matters of biblical proportions/global survival. All of this is relative to a MoAPS, that will take us from materialism to immaterialism, from a big world to a small, pre-Copernican, world. This MoAPS is equivalent to the Spirit of Truth guiding us into all the Truth (John 16:12ff).

I am not going to allow you to play games with the following question, Chris......

You speak of 'unbounded telesis' and of a 'self-contained' world. These seem to me to be contrary phrases. Will you play games with this ambiguity, or will you clarify it?

I am propounding the small world, on the basis of personalism, coherence and strong idealism. This is 'my' BPWH/SWH. I do not play games with it, Chris and Jack. If you play with it, I will seriously play with you.

According to this hypothesis much of history, as well as the future, is inevitable, especially at this alleged level, but this is the BPW, and especially at this alleged level we do not wait on Godot. We assume that we can incarnate whatever is in front of us.

I was on the verge of finding out tomorrow whether the Visitors are ET's or UT's. The off-worlding craft was shipped back here on a truck, and checked out. The Princess had dinner with the project director, the 'Koth man', last night. She was told that the postponement was partly due to my recovery. I was going to be her test pilot.


(cont......)
cc: OMF

Go, Dan !!!

From: Dan
Date: July 7, 2015 at 1:36:37 PM EDT
To: Gary
Cc: 20+ others.....
Subject: Re: Priorities.........


Gary,

Thank you, finally, for this admission. There are some other people on this list who might follow-suit, I am thinking particularly of Deepak, Ruth, Chris, Jack and some others who have not been heard from.

This small group could easily call the bluff of the big-world people. I am not asking you to subscribe to anything, merely to admit that strong immaterialism is not implausible, on the face of it.

Science and technology have played a major role in getting us into our dead-end scenario. Maybe a breakthrough of nearly magical proportions will pull us out, at the last minute. But can we afford not to keep this other option open?

Chris, in particular, should realize that, at this level, he is well beyond the realm of plagiarism. He is, rather, at risk of being left behind by the march of history.

I see that he has responded to my earlier message.........



On Jul 7, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Gary S Bekkum > wrote:

I imagine it is possible to move from the 'big world' of mostly endless mostly 'dead' matter to a smaller self-contained 'virtual' world of living awareness.

Apocalypse now? Saucer? Life pod? Or drone in drag? ;-)

Gary S Bekkum

From: Dan
Date: July 7, 2015 at 2:02:59 PM EDT
To: C Langan
Cc: 30 others......
Subject: Re: Priorities.........

Chris,

Thank you for responding........

But you did not respond to the substance of my question.

We are your witnesses, if you have something useful to say. I am still hopeful that you do. It may be..... Speak now, or forever hold your peace.

No, Chris, I'm not sure of anything. We are each qualified to know what we know.

I have, for over twenty years, reported what Ron says to me, or is reported to say to others. It may well be BS or not.

He is also telling me that certain prognostication vectors have recently come into alignment on Sept., 2016, as being apocalyptic in nature. This is all he will say.

I do not appreciate your calling me names for reporting what I hear. Maybe you should be the one to settle down. If this is disinformation, it is of a rather serious nature. I am not seeking your psychological counseling, thank you very much.