Steve Taylor, On Scientism, Spirituality and Going Softly |500|

#21
Right. I understand you now. Not saying I agree, just that I grok what you tried to say earlier. I'd add that this recension was rather poetic and it's for that I gave your post a like. In my opinion, you should continue to strive for brevity*; it brings out the best in your writing.

*According to one definition of poetry I read, it's the shortest way to say something.
Thank you. I agree that brevity is the soul of wit.

I'll try to be brief but here's another thought:

The Trinity of pattern is the basis for all mathematics. An integer represents a set of similarities, differences, and boundaries. Let's say you have a set of 6 apples. The apples are all similar enough to receive the label of "apple" but have slight differences in shape or color and are all occupying different spaces. To represent this set as "six apples" you have arbitrarily decided that the similarities are great enough see six instantiations of one thing but that the differences are great enough to consider them separate instantiations of that thing. Let's suppose you put 3 apples really close together on one end of the table and 3 apples really close together on the other end of the table. Are the spatial differences and similarities now in such a state that it suits your purposes to define a set of 3 apples or perhaps a set of 2 groups of 3 apples? Or does it suit your purposes to still define the set as 6 apples? What is your purpose in defining the set? Is it to eat apples? What if one apple has a bite, one is half chewed, and one is nibbled down to the core? How many apples in the set then? What if one of the apples is a crab apple? What if one is an Adam's Apple?

You see that how you define the set is entirely dependent on your choice of where to place the boundary and you place it where it is most useful in attaining your goal. If your goal is to eat apples, you can certainly exclude the apple core, and unless you're really hungry, you might also exclude the half-chewed apple. But you see it is not definite and it is up to you and your goal and your choice.

It is this way with everything. The neural network is a tool for perceiving and creating boundaries in useful way. You show the neural network a set of things which have similarities and differences and it places a boundary based on what is most likely to be useful. How it will assign boundaries in any instance is a probability, not a certainty.

When people describe the feeling of "pure awareness" what has happened is they have stopped desiring and so without a goal there is no need to use anything and a neural network assigns boundaries based on probability of what is most useful. So without driving goal, the neural network cannot assign boundaries, so edges and sets fall away and what is left is a sea of color and light.

This feeling of "pure awareness" and boundary dissolution is nice, but if you are being hunted by a lion on the savanna it might not be useful and it might in fact make it less likely you will reproduce. So our neural networks are hardwired to assign boundaries based on what is most useful to us: finding food, not being eaten, mating, etc.. Our brains are constantly making imperceptible choices about where to place boundaries in such a way as to be useful to us, and it is amazing we can override that hardwiring to have such an oceanic experience as "pure awareness" .
 
#22
So on the other side of this boundary in the heavenly realms, is anything there similar to anything here? Is anything here a metaphor for anything there or vice versa? If the two realms are so different that there is no similarity, no correspondence, no communication between the two then that other realm may as well not exist, right? But if there is similarity, correspondence, communication between the two realms it must operate on the function of this Trinity: Similarity, Difference, Boundary/Choice.
If you play old school Mario Bros No.1, would you consider it to be a "boundary" that separates you from the person that is Mario?
 
#23
If you play old school Mario Bros No.1, would you consider it to be a "boundary" that separates you from the person that is Mario?
Yes you may or may not consider it a boundary. Often when playing games we refer to our avatar as "I" "me" and so we temporarily dissolve the boundary and consider the in-game avatar to be an extension of ourselves, but for the purposes of this metaphor we could place the boundary at the contact between our thumbs and the buttons. And within the game there are simulacra to things outside of the game and the Holy Trinity governs the operation of both.
 
#24
Thank you. I agree that brevity is the soul of wit.

I'll try to be brief but here's another thought:

The Trinity of pattern is the basis for all mathematics. An integer represents a set of similarities, differences, and boundaries. Let's say you have a set of 6 apples. The apples are all similar enough to receive the label of "apple" but have slight differences in shape or color and are all occupying different spaces. To represent this set as "six apples" you have arbitrarily decided that the similarities are great enough see six instantiations of one thing but that the differences are great enough to consider them separate instantiations of that thing. Let's suppose you put 3 apples really close together on one end of the table and 3 apples really close together on the other end of the table. Are the spatial differences and similarities now in such a state that it suits your purposes to define a set of 3 apples or perhaps a set of 2 groups of 3 apples? Or does it suit your purposes to still define the set as 6 apples? What is your purpose in defining the set? Is it to eat apples? What if one apple has a bite, one is half chewed, and one is nibbled down to the core? How many apples in the set then? What if one of the apples is a crab apple? What if one is an Adam's Apple?

You see that how you define the set is entirely dependent on your choice of where to place the boundary and you place it where it is most useful in attaining your goal. If your goal is to eat apples, you can certainly exclude the apple core, and unless you're really hungry, you might also exclude the half-chewed apple. But you see it is not definite and it is up to you and your goal and your choice.

It is this way with everything. The neural network is a tool for perceiving and creating boundaries in useful way. You show the neural network a set of things which have similarities and differences and it places a boundary based on what is most likely to be useful. How it will assign boundaries in any instance is a probability, not a certainty.

When people describe the feeling of "pure awareness" what has happened is they have stopped desiring and so without a goal there is no need to use anything and a neural network assigns boundaries based on probability of what is most useful. So without driving goal, the neural network cannot assign boundaries, so edges and sets fall away and what is left is a sea of color and light.

This feeling of "pure awareness" and boundary dissolution is nice, but if you are being hunted by a lion on the savanna it might not be useful and it might in fact make it less likely you will reproduce. So our neural networks are hardwired to assign boundaries based on what is most useful to us: finding food, not being eaten, mating, etc.. Our brains are constantly making imperceptible choices about where to place boundaries in such a way as to be useful to us, and it is amazing we can override that hardwiring to have such an oceanic experience as "pure awareness" .
Shades of Donald Hoffman, methinks. Also, I watched an interesting video on the Essentia site -- it's about the Kabbala, panpsychsim and science. You might like to watch it, because it stresses the fractal nature of the universe and how the first three (trinity) of the sephiroth pass through all levels of the fractal hierarchy. Like for what you said, not sure I agree with it, but it bears a passing similarity in my view:


The thing that irks me a bit about the video is that as Prof. Schipper explains things, there's no such thing as free will. It only appears so from our perspective. Reminds me a lttle of what many Sufis say. When one becomes enlightened, one realises and accepts that there is only the will of God, and one's perception that one has a free will is an illusion. Could be so, I suppose, but it still irks!
 
#25
Thanks for the Skeptiko podcast Alex and show 500. You should be proud. I hope you have found some of the answers you have been seeking.

I really liked the poem I thought you were a bit tough with Steve but I don't know the materials you sent him and he was rather softly going. I understand why you questioned even having him on if there was little to gain in the pursuit of knowledge. It felt as if you were trying to change his mind to the concept that mainstream science is a corrupted social control movement. That's quite hardcore conspiracy theory for any non-tinfoil hat wearers (I'm one so I'm kind of with you!). His mind wasn't going to be changed as I think he's a little less cynical/real than you and obviously hasn't fallen down the rabbit hole.

Jim Morrison a CIA plant is a new one to me though I'm going to have to look into that one. Frank Zappa too it seems. Maybe they're not dead just their covers blown. I thought Morrison went a bit Crowley but confess to not knowing anything about him other than his songs.
 
#27
Shades of Donald Hoffman, methinks. Also, I watched an interesting video on the Essentia site -- it's about the Kabbala, panpsychsim and science. You might like to watch it, because it stresses the fractal nature of the universe and how the first three (trinity) of the sephiroth pass through all levels of the fractal hierarchy. Like for what you said, not sure I agree with it, but it bears a passing similarity in my view:


The thing that irks me a bit about the video is that as Prof. Schipper explains things, there's no such thing as free will. It only appears so from our perspective. Reminds me a lttle of what many Sufis say. When one becomes enlightened, one realises and accepts that there is only the will of God, and one's perception that one has a free will is an illusion. Could be so, I suppose, but it still irks!
Thanks for sharing. I listened to the video and it basically echoes what I'm saying. And I agree with both you and the Prof that we do have free will but that this free will is an expression of God's will or as I called it earlier "Primary Cause" and that every collapse of the wave function is pre-ordained - or put another way: a choice is made about where to place the boundary. When this choice is arbitrary and not obviously tied to achieving a goal it appears to us to be random, but it might just be that we aren't able to perceive on the scale at which the goal is manifest so in fact it is not arbitrary.

Spirit is what lives on the boundary and it is the same Spirit, breath, pneuma in all, the same primary cause in all. What we call degrees of consciousness can partly be described by a ratio of surface area to volume. Imagine a smooth plastic ball floating on the water. It floats on the boundary between water and sky (Abyss and Logs) and it has a small ratio of surface area to volume so there is very little boundary area for spirit to act upon it. Now imagine a porous sponge floating upon the surface. I is exposed to the sky yet saturated by the water. It has a high ratio of surface area to volume so great interaction potential with Spirit. A pair of gears is like the plastic ball and a brain is like the sponge. A gear is a mechanism. It has a small contact surface (boundary) between it and the next gear and a small probability that a tooth will break and disrupt the normal functioning of the mechanism. A computer with trillions of transistors has greater surface area because there are many opportunities for a bit to flip. Your brain not only has billions of neurons but also the microtubules with their dipole bonds so possibly many orders of magnitude greater "surface area to volume" and your brain is highly networked rather than linear so all this together yields a higher coupling to the Spirit and Prime Cause.
 
#28
So, here's where I'm going to push Alex a little.
"Somebody has to run the world"... Do they though?
Here's my concern, Alex. The fact is most people have their own agenda, and a confluence of similar people with the same ideas doesn't mean there's a top-down cabal or organized mass.
In fact, I would argue that the world is too difficult to manage to run. The more you push at trying to constrain society with some kind of order, the less chance it will work.
Even the Q-Anon nonsense only got a small segment of society to follow.
I think as a computer guy, and an order guy, you want to believe that there's some kind of earthly hierarchy running things here.
But people aren't that effective or smart.
At least in my experience.
Hanlon's Razor is always far more effective than Occam's.
J
 
#29
To Alex's point; how does one control other - through fear.
We see this politically, " X people are threating us , we are in danger etc..."
So how does materalism relate? The person is led to believe he has no control over exterior conditions (the world) and that they are in danger... hence..accepts the authorities redition. AUTHORITY offers itself as the savior.
So to speak - the person clings to the safety raft. Authority solidifies it position of control.
The indiviual has no authority since there is nothing there inside anyways.

Here's the thing, the conspiracy is dependent on that Authority is intentional in it's manipulation. That it actually knows what its doing on a surface conscious level..
Other wise it is as blind as it followers, and in which case can not be considered a conspiracy.
The question then is how could Main stream science not know, when thier deas are so obviously flawed, outdated? They must know then.
I'm not so sure about that. And would say that's a assumtion.

Side note; i believe the Church did know.

I welcome any disagreement..this is not a finished product.
 
Last edited:
#30
Hi Alex,

As a huge Skeptiko fan, —Congrats on the 500 show milestone!

Per your question at the end of Show 500 — What are your three favorite Skeptiko shows? — in descending order:
Classic Skeptiko Moment #1: The burp that appears to originate at her end of the line at 13:42, which she then tries to cover with, “Oh, I’m sorry! My dog just came in. ‘No, no! Don’t do that! You can’t! No, no! No, no! — Oh, dear me! I’m sorry…”

—this one has to rank at the very top of the “Priceless Skeptiko Moments” list.

Less than two minutes later, at 15:17, without any comment or warning (though there is that dog barking in the background), she just hangs up to end the interview . . .
Q: Given the distinct inflection of her delivery, together with her last name — Could Dr. Churchland (drop the ‘n’ and add a ‘y’ and you’ve got it!) be the inspirational source for Dana Carvey’s Church Lady?
The Set-Up: 31:42 Ed May: So why don’t we talk about something else [i.e., other than NDEs], which would be more interesting…
Alex: OK. Well…, I don’t know. This is pretty interesting. I think it’s pretty—
Ed May; But it’s not an area of my expertise …
Enter the topic of (cue the high dudgeon music) Joe McMoneagle, aka, Psychic Spy #1 … which Alex presents as background evidence that appears to support the National Security State’s intimate awareness of the validity of a “new physics paradigm,” i.e., a la Jim Marrs’ Psi Spies ...
Classic Skeptiko Moment #2: just moments later, Ed—rivaling Vesuvius—triggered by Alex’s insistence on presenting the opposing view, erupts:
36:25 Ed May: “Just wait a minute! Dammit! You're really starting to piss me off!”

—another at the very top of the “Priceless Skeptiko Moments” list.
We all could use Jim’s wisdom — especially now, as the cabal he so thoroughly warned us about in his Rule By Secrecy enters what they obviously consider their endgame...
Alex: 0:05 Donald Rumsfeld was quoted on the radio just last week [Alex, doing his best impression of Rumsfeld, which, judging by Jim’s spontaneous laughter is not too shabby]: “Wh—what is building 7? I have no idea! I’ve never heard about that!” Have we reached a new level in this Culture of Deception where they don’t even care the extent to which you know they’re lying?
Jim Marrs: That’s exactly right. And I’m sorry. You can say a lot of things about Donald Rumsfeld. But being a stupid person and an ignorant person does not even enter into the question. So you cannot tell me that Donald Rumsfeld does not know about the collapse of the Solomon Brothers building, better known as World Trade Center Building 7, which collapsed at 5:20 in the afternoon of September 11th, 2001. One of the three buildings that dropped into their own foundations after being hit by only two airplanes. But then again, this is the same Donald Rumsfeld who back during the Reagan administration was the head of Searle Pharmaceutical, who told his associates that he was gonna push through and get the government to approve the use of aspartame, which is a carcinogenic, a really harmful substance that the government—up till then— had refused to certify through the FDA. So this guy is a consummate—well I’ll just say it—he’s a liar.

—Gee, Why does this story sound so familiar? Where have we heard it lately? i.e., pushing through FDA “approval” of potentially poisonous substances?
Gee, I wonder if there can be anything to this Neuro-Linguistic Programming thing?
Nah ... That would be a conspiracy theory

~Wishing you all the best for at least 500 more!
 
Last edited:
#31
Incredible episode, amazing discussion! Steve Taylor is for real! Alex told him that his "book was wrong" at one point, and he didn't flinch! Total bad ass! loved this through and through!
 
#32
Just a comment on the Qanon theory of music that started to break out on this show. Most great musicians cannot read or write music. This would also apply to almost all jazz, blues, and rap music. I listed a number of them in my book on musical inspiration called Tuned-In: The Paranormal World of Music. I also have two appendix section that list dream song and song that came in under 10 minutes. Paul McCartney would be the most famous in the class. Jackie Gleason had his own orchestra and 20 record albums. He could not read or write. Here is Chris Martin from Coldplay (who has sold a few albums in his day) describing the process.


Here is Conner Stevens who has just released his first album at 18. You will see I quickly ask him if he can read music and where does the music come from? Where does the music come from? Where does the thought of a sunset come from? Where do the words come from that we speak?

https://anchor.fm/grant-cameron5/ep...th-18-year-old-musician-Conner-Stevens-evl15r
Cool video!
 
#33
Alex:
Thanks for introducing Dr. Steve Taylor. Your gracious accommodation via the Skeptiko podcast, and the inspiration of his spiritual mentor, Russell Williams, made it possible for Dr. Steve to share his impassioned poetic imperative —Be Soft!

Be soft!
So that your mind doesn’t clash with reality
And you can absorb your experience with ease.

Be soft!
So that disappointments and insults don’t bruise you
But bounce harmlessly away
After your softness has absorbed their force.

Be soft!
So that thoughts don’t turn to fixed ideas
And emotions flow through you without attaching themselves
And animosity doesn’t linger long enough to form a grudge
And pain passes away before turning to trauma.

Be soft!
So that you can bend with the wind without breaking
And become moist with the rain without flooding.

Be soft!
So that you pass through the world without leaving damage
Only the lightest of trails that will dissolve like a cloud
And become part of the air that everyone breathes.​

In the light of the episode’s discussions—to which you brought a strong focus on the emerging phenomenon of socio-spiritual engineering in the wake of a concurrent push for a new Aquarian Age Religion of Scientism (with its emerging anointed technocratic hierophants):

0:51 Alex: My point is: You got your book wrong! It’s not that science needs spirituality. —Science is doing everything it can to keep spirituality infiltrated where they’re trying to go. . .
Dr. Steve Taylor: So what I’m saying is, is that you can also trace materialism to it historical factors, cultural factors, which are not necessarily linked to the social engineering process.

—Dr. Taylor is quick to assure that he has no such social engineering strings attached:

1:03:45 Dr. Steve Taylor: So I feel like I’ve kind of infiltrated the institution, and I’m trying to bring about some change internally—a bit like Gloria Steinem, in the women’s movement. Although, I’m not employed by the CIA.

He chuckles—at least not directly employed, that is.

After all, the MI5 handlers, who, beyond a half-century ago through its Tavistock Institute and its US adjunct, Stanford Research Institute (SRI), recycled the Age of Aries wisdom of Ecclesiastes through Laurel Canyon’s David Crosby’s The Bryds:

For everything its season, and for every activity under heaven its time:

a time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to uproot;
a time to kill and a time to heal;
a time to break down and a time to build up;
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time for mourning and a time for dancing;
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them;
a time to embrace and a time to abstain from embracing;
a time to seek and a time to lose;
a time to keep and a time to discard;
a time to tear and a time to mend;
a time for silence and a time for speech;
a time to love and a time to hate;
a time for war and a time for peace.
—surely, these same handlers must be getting a jolly-good chuckle over Dr. Taylor’s impassioned poetic plea—
—For if every one of our fathers had religiously paid heed to its advice—Be Soft!—how could any now have the spirit—let alone the physical capacity—to experience?
 
Last edited:
#34
Alex:
Thanks for introducing Dr. Steve Taylor. Your gracious accommodation via the Skeptiko podcast, and the inspiration of his spiritual mentor, Russell Williams, made it possible for Dr. Steve to share his impassioned poetic imperative —Be Soft!

Be soft!
So that your mind doesn’t clash with reality
And you can absorb your experience with ease.

Be soft!
So that disappointments and insults don’t bruise you
But bounce harmlessly away
After your softness has absorbed their force.

Be soft!
So that thoughts don’t turn to fixed ideas
And emotions flow through you without attaching themselves
And animosity doesn’t linger long enough to form a grudge
And pain passes away before turning to trauma.

Be soft!
So that you can bend with the wind without breaking
And become moist with the rain without flooding.

Be soft!
So that you pass through the world without leaving damage
Only the lightest of trails that will dissolve like a cloud
And become part of the air that everyone breathes.​

In the light of the episode’s discussions—to which you brought a strong focus on the emerging phenomenon of socio-spiritual engineering in the wake of a concurrent push for a new Aquarian Age Religion of Scientism (with its emerging anointed technocratic hierophants):

0:51 Alex: My point is: You got your book wrong! It’s not that science needs spirituality. —Science is doing everything it can to keep spirituality infiltrated where they’re trying to go. . .
Dr. Steve Taylor: So what I’m saying is, is that you can also trace materialism to it historical factors, cultural factors, which are not necessarily linked to the social engineering process.

—Dr. Taylor is quick to assure that he has no such social engineering strings attached:

1:03:45 Dr. Steve Taylor: So I feel like I’ve kind of infiltrated the institution, and I’m trying to bring about some change internally—a bit like Gloria Steinem, in the women’s movement. Although, I’m not employed by the CIA.

He chuckles—at least not directly employed, that is.

After all, the MI5 handlers, who, beyond a half-century ago through its Tavistock Institute and its US adjunct, Stanford Research Institute (SRI), recycled the Age of Aries wisdom of Ecclesiastes through Laurel Canyon’s David Crosby’s The Bryds:

For everything its season, and for every activity under heaven its time:

a time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to uproot;
a time to kill and a time to heal;
a time to break down and a time to build up;
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time for mourning and a time for dancing;
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them;
a time to embrace and a time to abstain from embracing;
a time to seek and a time to lose;
a time to keep and a time to discard;
a time to tear and a time to mend;
a time for silence and a time for speech;
a time to love and a time to hate;
a time for war and a time for peace.
—surely, these same handlers must be getting a jolly-good chuckle over Dr. Taylor’s impassioned poetic plea—
—For if every one of our fathers had religiously paid heed to its advice—Be Soft!—how could any now have the spirit—let alone the physical capacity—to experience?
This is a beautiful work of juxtaposition!
 
#35
I'm starting to feel like materialism vs. consciousness as base reality is a "stuck on stupid" false dichotomy.

Almost all spirituality, profundity, ontology etc IS JUST (and yes I said "IS JUST") a re-drawing of boundaries in a way that is pleasing or more suitable to your purposes. Anytime you hear "IS JUST" or "what that really means", that is what is happening.

We can get out of this "stuck on stupid" issue if we realize that all boundaries are just a choice. A boundary IS a choice. If you have no goal, the boundary is arbitrary. If you have a goal, the boundary is set in such a way as to fulfill the goal. This is how purpose and meaning enters the system.

We have found the process of reduction to be useful so we continue the process of dissolving boundaries until we arrive at ONE thing and say: "all reality has a base reality, a fundamental reality, a singular source of substance." But you can't talk about One Thing because words have definitions which are boundaries. If you start saying the One Thing is material or the One Thing is consciousness you start twisting the pretzel. When you get the idea that everything is One Thing and you are this One Thing, then you can decide whether to draw your boundary infinitely large and say the One thing is Love and Light or infinitely small and say the One Thing is nothing and silence. And since even this boundary is seen to be arbitrary you often see the One Thing as a dazzling darkness, a shimmering stillness. Resolution and contradiction are therefore at the heart of the One Thing.

Since we can't talk about the One Thing it is more useful to split it up. Cartesian duality is of limited use and contains the many pitfalls discussed exhaustively elsewhere.

If we have to say the ground reality is One Thing, then let's say that the One Thing is "Pattern" because pattern contains the Trinity and the Trinity is the smallest useful pattern: Thing 1, Thing 2, and Boundary (which is Thing 3 and is also choice).

So to sum up my statement of faith: All is pattern. Pattern is a Trinity. One member of the fundamental Trinity is the boundary between the Two. Boundary is Choice. Choice is the result of will. Will is the result of a goal. A goal only exists if it is not yet attained therefore frustration is inherent in the system. To make a choice excludes others thereby creating limitations which create frustrations which propel towards the attainment of a goal which forces us to make a choice and round and round goes the wheel of Karma. You can choose to get off at any time by dissolving all boundaries which is eliminating all desire and all choice which lands you back on Square One (literally) which is the empty fullness, the contradictory resolution, the infinite smallness, the dazzling darkness, the shimmering stillness, the pregnant silence, the presence of God, etc. But since this is the One Thing it is both ecstatic and boring to be there so we go on making choices and creating boundaries that limit choices which drive more choices and more boundaries in this flow of emotion and spirit.

Since the ultimate reality is pattern we find the same pattern repeating at various scales. Just as we create an AI agent and train it with obstacles in a simulated environment running millions of iterations, your individual life is but one iteration of an "agent" (a.k.a. a soul) which is a network that is being trained in an environment in order to become better at attaining some set of goals. Your soul has goals and your soul is part of a group that has goals and everybody is taking a stab at achieving their goals to get better at them and those that fail are destroyed (addition by subtraction). You get a life review to juxtapose goals with outcomes and figure out where you could have done better. This feedback loop is essential for improvement towards goal attainment.

"Jesus" represents a particular soul group striving towards a certain set of goals and those that succeed are saved and those that fail are deleted. That makes Jesus sound rather small and arbitrary, but not exactly because Jesus vs Satan represents a fundamental issue arising from the Trinity which is: how do you deal with the frustration that motivates and arises from choice? You can choose to give up power to help another or you can choose to expand your power at the expense of others.

This issue of the power struggle is embedded in the fundamental Trinity but it really came to a head with mammals and especially humans. The young need so much care and attention that empathy and cooperation are necessities and these qualities are antithetical to the predatory practices that propelled the mammals to the top of the food chain. And now we don't know how to balance and resolve these two opposing natures so the world is full of Vegans and Epsteins and everything in between. The goal is to resolve these two opposing natures and so we will run this simulation until we get better at managing it but part of the process is to have two competing agents which are totally devoted to each of the opposing goals, thus: Jesus vs Satan... good vs. evil... the Generative Adversarial Network.

Sheldrake's morphogenetic field studies show that the soul's "neural network" is constantly being improved by the experiences of its instances.

Physical reality is the product of something like a GAN (Generative Adversarial Neural network). That is why there is a semantic component (Plato's realm of perfect forms) and results are probabilistic. A synchronicity is a confluence of symbols. Type in "cat" and a network can generate a cat. You can't predict exactly what will be generated but it will be something cat-like. Similarly, you can't predict where the photon will go, but it will behave photon-like. There is someone running the simulation and they can put some Easter eggs in there and they can say "insert meaningful symbol here" and a confluence of improbable coincidences produce the manifested symbol.

Alright, if you read this, thank you for your time and please join my religion of Patternism. :)
I like all of this, as it is a deep dive for sure! Patternism is an interesting religion. Perhaps its Book of Revelations is Sacred Geometry. I kind of like what Mike Tyson said, something on the lines of: greatness is doing what you hate like you love it. I think different extremes are worth experiencing if one wants to sail in a sea of perspectives. See what it is like to set and achieve extremely difficult goals, but don't let the process consume you. Also, feel what it is like to be a careless bum who doesn't think about shit. Certainly, I don't believe that life is "evolving" to some kind of pinnacle of greatness. The patterns are always changing, but this is all for the joy of both, many and one.
 
#36
This is a beautiful work of juxtaposition!
Thanks for your comment. —Though “play” (rather than “work”) is the feeling on posting yesterday.

BTW — If you haven’t yet had a chance to check out the links provided, one I do recommend is the David Crosby / Byrds Turn! Turn! Turn! tune. I never expected that it would end up accompanying me to the extent and depth that it has since I posted yesterday. —a seemingly simple tune, and yet … I’m still riding the wave of nostalgia it's set in motion…
 

Alex

Administrator
#38
To Alex's point; how does one control other - through fear.
We see this politically, " X people are threating us , we are in danger etc..."
So how does materalism relate? The person is led to believe he has no control over exterior conditions (the world) and that they are in danger... hence..accepts the authorities
nice! I never saw this connection quite so clearly.

I think you're totally right... materialism promises a greater sense of control over the natural world, but on a deeper level it pushes all the fear buttons.
 

Alex

Administrator
#39
Hi Alex,

As a huge Skeptiko fan, —Congrats on the 500 show milestone!

Per your question at the end of Show 500 — What are your three favorite Skeptiko shows? — in descending order:

Classic Skeptiko Moment #1: The burp that appears to originate at her end of the line at 13:42, which she then tries to cover with, “Oh, I’m sorry! My dog just came in. ‘No, no! Don’t do that! You can’t! No, no! No, no! — Oh, dear me! I’m sorry…”

—this one has to rank at the very top of the “Priceless Skeptiko Moments” list.

Less than two minutes later, at 15:17, without any comment or warning (though there is that dog barking in the background), she just hangs up to end the interview . . .
Q: Given the distinct inflection of her delivery, together with her last name — Could Dr. Churchland (drop the ‘n’ and add a ‘y’ and you’ve got it!) be the inspirational source for Dana Carvey’s Church Lady?
haha... well, JP, you go right for the jugular don't you :)

I still have this very clear memory of walking out into the kitchen after this was over and telling my wife, "you won't believe what just happened."

The Set-Up: 31:42 Ed May: So why don’t we talk about something else [i.e., other than NDEs], which would be more interesting…
Alex: OK. Well…, I don’t know. This is pretty interesting. I think it’s pretty—
Ed May; But it’s not an area of my expertise …
Enter the topic of (cue the high dudgeon music) Joe McMoneagle, aka, Psychic Spy #1 … which Alex presents as background evidence that appears to support the National Security State’s intimate awareness of the validity of a “new physics paradigm,” i.e., a la Jim Marrs’ Psi Spies ...
Classic Skeptiko Moment #2: just moments later, Ed—rivaling Vesuvius—triggered by Alex’s insistence on presenting the opposing view, erupts:
36:25 Ed May: “Just wait a minute! Dammit! You're really starting to piss me off!”

—another at the very top of the “Priceless Skeptiko Moments” list.
great one! and I actually think it adds something to our understanding of MKUltra / Stargate in that it's a very up close view of how these guys try to bullshit their way past the truth.

We all could use Jim’s wisdom — especially now, as the cabal he so thoroughly warned us about in his Rule By Secrecy enters what they obviously consider their endgame...
Alex: 0:05 Donald Rumsfeld was quoted on the radio just last week [Alex, doing his best impression of Rumsfeld, which, judging by Jim’s spontaneous laughter is not too shabby]: “Wh—what is building 7? I have no idea! I’ve never heard about that!” Have we reached a new level in this Culture of Deception where they don’t even care the extent to which you know they’re lying?
Jim Marrs: That’s exactly right. And I’m sorry. You can say a lot of things about Donald Rumsfeld. But being a stupid person and an ignorant person does not even enter into the question. So you cannot tell me that Donald Rumsfeld does not know about the collapse of the Solomon Brothers building, better known as World Trade Center Building 7, which collapsed at 5:20 in the afternoon of September 11th, 2001. One of the three buildings that dropped into their own foundations after being hit by only two airplanes. But then again, this is the same Donald Rumsfeld who back during the Reagan administration was the head of Searle Pharmaceutical, who told his associates that he was gonna push through and get the government to approve the use of aspartame, which is a carcinogenic, a really harmful substance that the government—up till then— had refused to certify through the FDA. So this guy is a consummate—well I’ll just say it—he’s a liar.

—Gee, Why does this story sound so familiar? Where have we heard it lately? i.e., pushing through FDA “approval” of potentially poisonous substances?
Gee, I wonder if there can be anything to this Neuro-Linguistic Programming thing?
Nah ... That would be a conspiracy theory

~Wishing you all the best for at least 500 more!
another good one... almost forgot.

and yr so right about familiarity... Rumsfeld could slip right back into the cabal without missing a beat.
 

Alex

Administrator
#40
—surely, these same handlers must be getting a jolly-good chuckle over Dr. Taylor’s impassioned poetic plea—
I know you totally get the respect I have for dr steve taylor, but yeah, I can hear the laughter all the way here in southern california.
 
Top