Re: Mind's Eye Instinct for survival

I could reference the plot of Enemy Mine but that would only prove two
things: my memory is junk, and I'm too trapped in that trivia world Neil
mentions. In my view morality resides among human faculties, perhaps
next to wisdom. Parallel worlds makes me think of perception trained on
divergent and sometimes conflicting narratives, that's just a notion
that passed me the other day.

Now I'm pondering why I sound like an antimonian but think like Jude. :/

On 12/5/2012 5:49 PM, gabbydott wrote:
> Oh yes, please, explain the mouse matrix to Neil! :)
>
>
> 2012/12/5 Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com <mailto:allanh1946@gmail.com>>
>
> Neil even science today is a best guess, as you put it an M Mouse
> the theory of physics is based off an assumption .. and that
> assumption is so widely accepted as being true that you no longer
> realize it is an best guess..
>
> Without that best guess you are playing with m mouse. I am laughing
> as I am wondering if you even know that basic assumption.
> Allan
>
> Matrix ** th3 beginning light
>
> On Dec 5, 2012 9:58 AM, "archytas" <nwterry@gmail.com
> <mailto:nwterry@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On he unlikeliness of a beginning see Susskind -
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5385v1.pdf
> - it's free. There's a 'sort of' answer to your 'centre'
> question in
> it James - sadly not starring M.Mouse so you and I can grasp it.
> Big Bang was not claimed as fact in science and nor was its
> successor
> that has an air of rigs' negative space about it. Inflation theory
> runs, more or less, like this:
> Inflation starts with a vacuum in an unusually high energy
> state and
> with a negative pressure. Together these give the vacuum repulsive
> gravity that pushes things apart rather than draws them
> together. This
> inflates the vacuum, making it more repulsive, which causes it to
> inflate even faster.
>
> But the inflationary vacuum is quantum in nature, which makes it
> unstable. All over it, and at random, bits decay into a normal,
> everyday vacuum. Imagine the vacuum as a vast ocean of boiling
> water,
> with bubbles forming and expanding across its length and
> breadth. The
> energy of the inflationary vacuum has to go somewhere and it
> goes into
> creating matter and heating it to a ferocious temperature inside
> each
> bubble. It goes into creating big bangs. Our universe is inside one
> such bubble that appeared in a big bang 13.7 billion years ago. One
> of the striking features of inflation is that it is eternal. New
> high-
> energy vacuum is created far faster than it is eaten away by its
> decay
> into ordinary vacuum, which means that once inflation starts, it
> never
> stops and universes bubble off forever in the future. But because
> eternal inflation avoids the dreaded singularity, it opens up the
> possibility that this has always been the case with universes
> bubbling
> off forever in the past too.
>
> Other models include the "cyclic universe" developed within string
> theory by Neil Turok. Here, our universe is a four-dimensional
> island,
> or "brane", in a higher dimensional space. It collides
> repeatedly with
> a second brane. Think of the two branes as two parallel slices of
> bread, coming together along a fifth dimension, passing through each
> other, pulling apart again, then coming together again. Each
> time the
> branes touch, their tremendous energy of motion along the fifth
> dimension creates matter on each brane and heats it to tremendous
> temperature. To observers on the brane, it looks exactly like a big
> bang and would lead to the same patterns in the cosmic microwave
> background and distributions of galaxies. Yet it is a big bang
> without
> a beginning,because the cycles have been repeating for eternity.
> Some
> say matter on the branes expands more with each cycle and this means
> that if you run it backwards like a movie in reverse, the cyclic
> universe encounters either a singularity or some kind of beginning
> like inflation, In the "emergent universe" it all begins as a small
> static universe, which exists in this state for an infinite
> amount of
> time before suddenly being triggered to inflate. Such scenarios do
> arise in string theory. Just as Einstein's static universe (that
> preceded Bigly Bangly) was unstable and needed the extra
> ingredient of
> cosmic repulsion, two weird ingredients: a vacuum with negative
> energy, and fault-lines in space-time known as domain walls that
> are a
> feature of some models of particle physics are needed to make this
> model work. Domain walls should leave an imprint on the
> temperature of
> the cosmic microwave background radiation, which has not been seen,
> but this might be explained if they were diluted away by inflation.
>
> None of these models is true - they are just the best good minds in
> the subject area can muster. We lay people confuse ourselves on the
> certainty and claims made abut these models and are exposed to them
> through idiot media. Right or wrong we don't get any closer to god
> concepts, though the physics may be limited by our early exposure to
> such myths. Science may be a religion that admits it is uncertain
> about its god. Maybe we made our journey to 'now' without past
> information because such information cannot be retained in such
> 'travel' as ours. We might cross a singularity in the future after
> which we can only conceive of what we have done so far as an
> ignorant
> beginning..
>
> On 5 Dec, 04:48, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com
> <mailto:nwte...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Amazing how little the group knows of physics. RP has a
> reasonable
> > definition of creator origin, though it is a 'singularity' in the
> > sense science collapses in and around it. Nothing wrong with
> that but
> > it doesn't help make radios (etc). Matter isn't necessarily
> energy -
> > there is just a conservation law that connects them, itself
> connected
> > with momentum. Big Bang is a construction and losing favour.
> > Multiple universes and mirror worlds are also constructions
> used to
> > explain 'evidence'.
> > I'm not sure how we can explain not being at the centre of a
> universe
> > we can't really define - and our observations of it are known
> to be
> > 'skewed' by living in an area of normal matter and high
> gravity. If
> > you want to make a magnet you probably need relativity - even to
> > explain how a lead-acid battery works as well as it does. This
> > doesn't make the theory complete.
> >
> > Knowing about science doesn't help much with god or why we
> cling to
> > this rock and want to know why, purpose, lack of it and how
> we should
> > live. Negative space is an art concept. Vacuums are thought
> to have
> > energy - the virtual particles, which are known to be
> particle pairs
> > that blink into existence and then annihilate in a timespan
> too short
> > to measure. They do this everywhere, throughout the Universe ( a
> > postulate as no one has been to look).
> >
> > I have never seen any evidence for a spiritual world, but
> think such
> > may be an emergent property of the way we live.
> >
> > On 4 Dec, 15:33, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com
> <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > That is not true the beginning can be pretty much
> pinpointed .. as for
> > > parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing
> to support the
> > > other than it sounds good. There is more evidence
> supporting the spiritual
> > > realm than parallel universes
> > > Allan
> >
> > > Matrix ** th3 beginning light
> > > On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com
> <mailto:123...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > > > In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is
> beginning and
> > > > end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in
> parallel and
> > > > continuously many universes are being born and many are
> dying , but
> > > > Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal
> time , just like
> > > > the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The
> difference is
> > > > that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit
> is non-dual.
> >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee Douglas
> <leerevdoug...@gmail.com <mailto:leerevdoug...@gmail.com>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Hello Andrew,
> >
> > > > > Heh I can envisage many things, but alas many of them
> are not true. I
> > > > > distinguish between two things, matter and spirit.
> Mattter is all that
> > > > is
> > > > > physical, which includes physical 'matter' and also
> energy. To me there
> > > > is
> > > > > no paradox of who created the creator. Before the
> begining there was
> > > > only
> > > > > God, God in spirit, and God created the creation out of
> the spirt of God.
> > > > > That is all matter comes from spirit.
> >
> > > > > On Friday, 30 November 2012 18:32:43 UTC, andrew vecsey
> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy
> component to it
> > > > >> because matter is manifested as atoms which have
> motion in them. But I
> > > > could
> > > > >> also envision pure motion without involving any
> atoms...like a
> > > > vibration in
> > > > >> the fabric of space,
> >
> > > > >> On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee
> Douglas wrote:
> >
> > > > >>> Heh except of course that when it comes right down to
> it.energy is
> > > > matter
> > > > >>> and matter is energy.
> > > > >>> On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew
> vecsey wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>> The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator
> can be
> > > > >>>> circumnavigated by the possibility that the original
> creator was not
> > > > matter,
> > > > >>>> but energy. Just like thinking of anything is much
> faster and much
> > > > easier
> > > > >>>> than building it, it becomes conceivable that energy
> patterns could
> > > > have
> > > > >>>> evolved in a random chance way and finely tuned by
> selective
> > > > processes to
> > > > >>>> reach intelligence similar to how most scientists
> believe that
> > > > patterns of
> > > > >>>> atoms and molecules evolved to form intelligent life.
> >
> > > > >>>> Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that
> they manipulated
> > > > >>>> atoms to desired patterns and forms to code the
> information required
> > > > for
> > > > >>>> life and to allow them to evolve on their own to
> complex intelligent
> > > > beings
> > > > >>>> able to wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle
> of where they
> > > > came
> > > > >>>> from, where they are going and why they are alive.
> Meaning and
> > > > purpose could
> > > > >>>> then be given to our fleeting moment of existence.
> >
> > > > >>>> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1,
> archytas wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>> ....... All we have in respect of this is to posit
> > > > >>>>> creation, begging the question of what created that
> in an infinite
> > > > >>>>> regress. .....We might get to an intelligent state
> in which creation
> > > > >>>>> myths are replaced by something more plausible and
> Truth comes
> > > > closer.
> >
> > > > >>>>> On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com
> <mailto:123...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> > Neil , even after re-transposition how long could
> the brain live
> > > > >>>>> > --1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the
> universe ,but
> > > > >>>>> > ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end
> - time of the
> > > > >>>>> > universe. What survives is the Truth behind life
> and nothing else.
> >
> > > > >>>>> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas
> <nwte...@gmail.com <mailto:nwte...@gmail.com>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>> > > What survives is the gene - subject to
> mutations etc. We are
> > > > >>>>> > > already
> > > > >>>>> > > 'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation.
> One's mind could be
> > > > >>>>> > > transposed to another substrate (nearish
> future) - our bodies are
> > > > >>>>> > > currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the
> new substrate
> > > > could
> > > > >>>>> > > have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive
> Lee's 'hope'.
> > > > Such
> > > > >>>>> > > substrated minds might link in
> super-intelligence and be able to
> > > > >>>>> > > re-
> > > > >>>>> > > transfer into more human-like bodies they
> learned to make. This
> > > > >>>>> > > would
> > > > >>>>> > > be a time beyond singularity. We don't know
> what such
> > > > intelligence
> > > > >>>>> > > might invent or even discover - perhaps such
> intelligence would
> > > > >>>>> > > discover we are not as alone as we think.
> Being human or human
> > > > >>>>> > > being
> > > > >>>>> > > might be as irrelevant as a mitochondria
> wanting to live free
> > > > >>>>> > > again.
> > > > >>>>> > > We might be free of the tiny machines (genes)
> so much part of our
> > > > >>>>> > > behaviour now.
> >
> > > > >>>>> > > On 28 Nov, 14:40, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com
> <mailto:allanh1...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> > >> T9 grrrrrrr
> > > > >>>>> > >> Allan
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light
> > > > >>>>> > >> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott"
> <gabbyd...@gmail.com <mailto:gabbyd...@gmail.com>>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> > Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly
> maybe' then (my
> > > > >>>>> > >> > grammar and
> > > > >>>>> > >> > spelling checker suggests 10 instead of
> 'then' though)! :)
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> > 2012/11/28 James <ashkas...@gmail.com
> <mailto:ashkas...@gmail.com>>
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> >> I am an aspect of what was, is, and will
> be, coextensively.
> > > > >>>>> > >> >> Maybe.
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> >> On 11/27/2012 2:28 AM, RP Singh wrote:
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> Attachment to life is the cause of the
> desire for
> > > > immortality
> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> and the
> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> readiness to believe in an after-life or
> re-birth. It is an
> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> off-shoot of
> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> the instinct for survival.
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> >>> --
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> >> --
> >
> > > > >>>>> > >> > --
> >
> > > > >>>>> > > --
> >
> > > > > --
> >
> > > > --
>
> --
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>

--