Re: Mind's Eye Instinct for survival

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.

--