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

4114Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42

Expand Messages
  • Skywatch
    Mar 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Jahnet,

      I do not agree. The spirit that is YOU is not an Astral body
      tied to a cord. The Astral body may or may not have a cord,
      but a spirit is pure potential and may not even be located in
      space or time.

      Bill
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jahnets" <Jahnets@...>
      To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:14 PM
      Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42


      >
      > Brain and consciousness splitting... The brain is a tool, just like the
      > body. I would think that the cord that holds the soul to the body do not
      > separate or you do die. Now your spirit can and does leave every night.
      > Most
      > just don't realize it... Your spirit is working through your personality
      > to
      > create in this world, or should be. So those personalities that are truely
      > fighting for control with that small voice in their head are allowing
      > their
      > ego to run their lives without the benefit of the full knowledge that
      > their
      > spirit is aware of..The whole point of enlightenment to get in touch with
      > your inner self and evolve... Those that aren't consciously striving for
      > this are like a car being driven by it's computer instead of the
      > driver...Ever drive down the street and almost get into an accident and
      > your
      > hand suddenly of it's own volition move an inch and you miraculously miss
      > each other. That's your spirit...
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Bill Hamilton [mailto:skycom22@...]
      > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:16 AM
      > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
      >
      >
      >
      > I think the key will be found by people like Dr. Fenwick.
      >
      > For some doctors such as Dr. Peter Fenwick, a consultant neuropsychiatrist
      > at London University, the near death experience really does point to a
      > consciousness
      > that can survive with out the support system of the body. He says:
      > "In a coronary, the brain goes down within 16 seconds and it stays offline
      > until you
      > recover slowly. Now either these accounts arise because brain and
      > consciousness
      > become split or because they are a retrospective construction of the
      > experience
      > of unconsciousness. I would probably go for a splitting."
      >
      > Bill
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Jahnets" <Jahnets@...>
      > To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:13 AM
      > Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
      >
      >
      >>
      >> I think Regan it's because in order to do what you say they would have to
      >> take that final step... They would have to admit to creating their own
      >> world, problems and all... It is a big step... off to work...Have a great
      >> day...;-)
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> -----Original Message-----
      >> From: Regan Power [mailto:soulsearcher_22@...]
      >> Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 3:54 AM
      >> To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      >> Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> Why do "intelligent" scientists ("brilliant minds", "best brains
      >> on
      >> the planet", etc) keep deluding themselves with the idea that a universal
      >> Theory of Everything is possible without including consciousness in it?
      >> Isn't consciousness a genuine ingredient of the universal Reality that
      >> they
      >> are calling "Everything"? Yet they close their mental eyes to it and
      >> just
      >> consider the physical aspect of Reality, which they think they perceive
      >> in
      >> consciousness, as if the physical world was a self-sufficient closed
      >> system
      >> that exists in isolation and absolute separation from consciousness. How
      >> mad.
      >>
      >> Regan
      >> _____
      >>
      >>
      >> ----- Original Message -----
      >> From: Light Eye
      >> To: Global_Rumblings@... ; SpeakIt@... ;
      >> SkyOpen@yahoogroups.com ; ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com ;
      >> changingplanetgroup@yahoogroups.com
      >> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 10:01 AM
      >> Subject: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
      >>
      >>
      >> Dear Friends,
      >>
      >> This is a 2 page article so click the link if you can't proceed tot he
      >> next
      >> page.
      >>
      >> http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66751,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
      >>
      >> Love and Light.
      >>
      >> David
      >>
      >>
      >> Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> By Mark Anderson | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 2 next »
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> 02:00 AM Mar. 02, 2005 PT
      >>
      >> In 1998, Stephen Hawking laid 50-50 odds that the holy grail of physics,
      >> the
      >> elusive "theory of everything," was less than 20 years away.
      >>
      >> Around the same time, Hawking's renowned peer, collaborator and
      >> sometime-disputant, Roger Penrose of Oxford University, set out to write
      >> a
      >> book detailing just how distant the odds actually are of unifying all the
      >> laws of physics.
      >> "We are nowhere close to an accurate, purely physical theory of
      >> everything,"
      >> Penrose told Nature earlier this year.
      >>
      >> Indeed, Penrose's newly published 1,099-page treatise -- The Road to
      >> Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe -- expends little
      >> ink
      >> ruminating over what is not known. Rather, The Road to Reality is as
      >> rigorous and exhaustive a map to the "theory of nearly everything" as a
      >> reader could hope to find today.
      >>
      >> Penrose makes a unique tour guide, overhauling components of big-bang
      >> cosmology and quantum mechanics as some tinkerers might take out and
      >> reinstall their car's transmission. And Penrose's tendency to pepper the
      >> discussion with mathematical equations and terminology (he spends nearly
      >> 400
      >> pages on calculus, number theory and advanced geometry before decamping
      >> into
      >> the physical universe) will undoubtedly limit the book's readership to
      >> those
      >> not easily intimidated by section titles such as "frequency splitting on
      >> the
      >> Riemann sphere" or "Hamiltonian dynamics and symplectic geometry."
      >>
      >> Yet, according to professor Seth Lloyd of MIT, those willing to invest
      >> the
      >> energy to work through this mathematical Finnegans Wake will be rewarded
      >> for
      >> their efforts.
      >>
      >> The Road to Reality, Lloyd says, "shows (Penrose's) brilliant and unique
      >> grasp of mathematics as it applies to the physical world. That is
      >> evidenced
      >> in the first part. The second part of the book shows his courageousness
      >> in
      >> going on to propose fundamental physical effects even in the absence of
      >> an
      >> explicit theory, which he thinks intuitively to be true. So he's very
      >> bold
      >> as well as original and insightful."
      >>
      >> Those fundamental physical effects that Penrose proposes in Road, some of
      >> which were first covered in his 1989 best-selling book, The Emperor's New
      >> Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics, are as
      >> controversial as they are bold.
      >>
      >> For instance, despite the stampede of physicists today seeking to unify
      >> all
      >> physical theories under the aegis of string theory, Penrose thinks his
      >> colleagues are on a wild goose chase.
      >>
      >> In 2002, Penrose spoke at Stephen Hawking's 60th birthday celebration.
      >> Penrose argued that the underlying assumption of string theory -- that
      >> space-time consists of anywhere from 10 to 26 dimensions -- is simply
      >> wrongheaded and unmotivated by either intuition or evidence. (Penrose
      >> devotes much of the last four chapters of his book to this same argument
      >> and
      >> to an alternative model he sets up in string theory's absence, using a
      >> mathematical formalism Penrose invented called "twistors.")
      >>
      >> One colleague, Penrose said, responded during the conference's lunch
      >> break
      >> with the observation, "You're completely right, of course ... but totally
      >> misguided."
      >>
      >> Story continued on Page 2 »
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.1 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
      >
      >



      --
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.1 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic