Re: Mind's Eye Instinct for survival

Well actually Gabby I have this stainless steel soap bar used for
getting rid of ordure off your hands things like onion, Garlic ,,
any strong ordure ,, just tried it on the epoxy smell left over from
fixing my maxi egg coddler.

now one of the greatest mysteries of the universe,, how does it work?
Allan


On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:38 PM, gabbydott <gabbydott@gmail.com> wrote:
> The pointlessness of the points' business. Like Lee, I find the God concept
> much more to the point. :)
>
> I don't follow Lee's sequencing model - first spirit, then matter - though.
> This sounds very man-made to me. ;)
>
> As for the storytelling aspect, yes, the Chronos story is much more vivid
> than the "God created (x) and saw it was good" story. That's true. But the
> children are less likely to have bad dreams at night. Which is really good.
>
> Sorry, Allan, I got carried away. What were you talking about?
>
>
> 2012/12/4 Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com>
>>
>> a series of creation is at best a wild guess with no supporting evidence..
>> Allan
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM, RP Singh <1234rp@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > You can pinpoint the beginning of this universe but not that of
>> > Creation with its series of universes.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Allan H <allanh1946@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" <1234rp@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 <leerevdouglas@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> 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>
>> >>> >>>>> > 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> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>> > >> T9 grrrrrrr
>> >>> >>>>> > >> Allan
>> >>> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>> > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light
>> >>> >>>>> > >> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott" <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>
>> >>> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>> > >> >> 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.
>> >>> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>> > >> >>> --
>> >>> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>> > >> >> --
>> >>> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>> > >> > --
>> >>> >>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>> > > --
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> (
>> )
>> |_D Allan
>>
>> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
>>
>>
>> I am a Natural Airgunner -
>>
>> Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
>
>



--
(
)
|_D Allan

Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.


I am a Natural Airgunner -

Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly.

--