362Blowfish response to Sonfish and Gefeltifish - 1David<3: Mind God Physics
- Feb 2, 2006Both Dan and Jack's vocabulary coincide with a conception or
definition of God by which God is an independent objective
entity with some kind of physical operational dynamics influence
on what we perceive as reality. The 92-year old Israeli atheist
grandmother at the Women in Black Peace Vigil in Bethlehem
just before Christmas told our Jerusalem Peace Walker Eileen
Fleming from Florida that she "admires man because he invented
This is also the Buddhist view that God is like a computer program
whose operations depend upon the conceptualization and etheric
structure of it (software) and whose performance depends on
the hardware (our bodies) but is powered by our electric faith.
If one doubted God existed, could one still apply one's
faith in a way in harmony with nature and humanity?
In reading quotes from Sai Baba in his books and messages since
the late 1960's, in only one place I found a quote that addresses
this issue, where he said that, "without the mind, God would
not exist". Remember he is teaching from Hinduism where
he talks about God all the time.
This supports the view that "God," or however each person
defines and believes in their "God Program," is reacted upon by
mind via "faith and belief," ie, acceptance of something as true,
"defining something as true," for whatever "reason" or non-reason
(eg, intuition): Thusly yielding the results of our interactions with
Does God have a Mind or is God a property of Mind?
Those are the two sides of the coin of consciousness.
"I'll flip and you call it, heads or tails?" (Heisenberg)
1David<3 - 2/2/2006 6:34 PM
From: Dan Smith
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:45 PM
To: 'Jack Sarfatti'
Subject: RE: Susskind vs. Laughlin and Sarfatti vs. Smith
<< Yes. I mean that SBS is a necessary part of any explanation. I said
"necessary" not "sufficient." You garble the distinction.>>
<< That's an example of signal nonlocality in action. It's all emergent
physics beyond reductionism but it does not refute reductionism. They are
complementary.>> and once again we have necessity vs. sufficiency.....
What is happening here is that we are dealing with two sides of the same
You are dealing with the physical necessity of phenomena. I am dealing with
the teleological sufficiency.
Physical necessity does not provide a complete explanation, by definition.
Sufficiency comes when we consider what you refer to as the Great Chain of
Being & Becoming, which is simply a robust example of teleology.
Teleology is the hallmark of virtually every mental and biological
<< Arthur Koestler had his "holons" recall. Obviously at the upper levels of
emergence we find discarnate minds including the Mind of God so to speak.
Master of Hyperspace etc. But I have been saying this for a long time.>>
Would not the 'discarnate mind of God' be able to teleologically influence
biological and psychological processes on all levels and in a completely
direct and robust fashion? Yes, you say:
<< there is both a bottom up and a top down flow of influence in the Great
of Being and Becoming [...] Or is the Mind of God always
about in the quad dabbling here and there in the affairs of humankind?>>
And how could there not be a cosmic intelligence that participates in the
sufficiency of teleological phenomena?
If you and Robert Laughlin choose to call this physics, that is fine and
dandy with me. But there will be a lot of folks who will see it as a moot
From: Jack Sarfatti
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:28 PM
To: Dan Smith
Subject: Re: Susskind vs. Laughlin and Sarfatti vs. Smith
On Feb 2, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
I do see ample signs here of what might be called re-convergent evolution.
That's your warped perception.
We were on the same page way back there in 1975 with your Space, Time &
Yeah when I was Parsifal. I did not know anything back then. Neither did
anyone else. Unlike you, I have learned some new tricks in past 30 years.
You are still stuck in a New Age Kaka Time Warp like the Woman in the Dunes.
Now it does seem that we are slowly getting back on the (new?) same page
here in 2006. We could argue endlessly about who strayed and who stayed, but
I know that both of us are much too mature to engage in such second
guessing. We are after the One Truth and we do not want to waste time
quibbling over historical trivia.
I reach for my delete button when I hear "One Truth". Too religious.
Our only disagreement now seems to be on the semantics of teleology.
No, it's physics not semantics.
We both agree that remote viewing the future is an example of teleology.
That's an example of signal nonlocality in action. It's all emergent physics
beyond reductionism but it does not refute reductionism. They are
One could as well mention prophecy and clairvoyant dreams.
Obviously, but there are MANY FALSE PROPHETS!
The issue at hand is the connection between teleology and the GCB&B.
I already showed you how it works.
Are we not seeing many signs of convergent evolution between all the mind
oriented species of the Megaverse? Does it not seem that we are heading in
the same direction? And why are they all coming here, with all their
interest in hybridization and interspecies mental communication, if they did
not sense that we were part of one organic whole, or cosmic organism? We
all partake of the Cosmic Chain of Becoming. Becoming like God? Whom else
would we become?
If we look to our own skies, we don't see symmetry breaking; rather we see
previously broken symmetries being melded back together.
Not even wrong. You do not understand the concept. Try reading ALL of the
chapters in the books. Not just the final ones.
We have access to data that goes way beyond what Lenny and Robert have.
Should we not be prepared to come to a broader conclusion?