Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Blowfish response to Sonfish and Gefeltifish - 1David<3: Mind God Physics

Expand Messages
  • David Crockett Williams
    Both 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
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 2, 2006
      Both 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
      physical reality.

      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?

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.