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

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

Expand Messages
  • Skywatch
    OK, I agree that the AB is a thought construct. Strange how it glitters. Bill ... From: Jahnets To:
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 6, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      OK, I agree that the AB is a thought construct.
      Strange how it glitters.

      Bill
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jahnets" <Jahnets@...>
      To: <ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 8:38 AM
      Subject: RE: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42


      >
      > I said the soul is attached to the body not the spirit...I think the
      > astral
      > body is just your own projection of what you think you look like. It is
      > something to help you give form to your light so you aren't confused. A
      > thought construct of your own making. The astral body is not your
      > spirit...
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Skywatch [mailto:skycom22@...]
      > Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 3:28 PM
      > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Penrose: The Answer's Not 42
      >
      >
      >
      > 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
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
      >
      >



      --
      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
      Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 3/4/2005
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.