Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's early and I've only had one coffee... Just to clarify: The dead aren't dead... Do you mean that everything that has existed; people, ideas, materials, remains part of the world in different forms as decomposed matter, cultural memory, preserved knowledge, and no more than that? Or, that our consciousness continues on in a physical dimension that exists alongside or within our current reality which is currently unobservable to us? " Have another two coffees Nell  .
All of it.
And more x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nicky. This should be a weekend thread. I have to get out of bed in 2 minutes. If it's still around at 7pm then I may have time to think about it. " Weekend? Pfffttt...the time is always out of joint J...weekends are a fascist construct  💖. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's early and I've only had one coffee... Just to clarify: The dead aren't dead... Do you mean that everything that has existed; people, ideas, materials, remains part of the world in different forms as decomposed matter, cultural memory, preserved knowledge, and no more than that? Or, that our consciousness continues on in a physical dimension that exists alongside or within our current reality which is currently unobservable to us? Have another two coffees Nell .
All of it.
And more x"I'll give it some thought and get back to you in another 6 months | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's early and I've only had one coffee... Just to clarify: The dead aren't dead... Do you mean that everything that has existed; people, ideas, materials, remains part of the world in different forms as decomposed matter, cultural memory, preserved knowledge, and no more than that? Or, that our consciousness continues on in a physical dimension that exists alongside or within our current reality which is currently unobservable to us? Have another two coffees Nell .
All of it.
And more x
I'll give it some thought and get back to you in another 6 months "If you do, give it a political and economic twist if you can please? Take it out of theory, and into lived meaning (and how powerful a social transformation that would be) xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There’s a great book called imaginable with meditations on the future. Only 500? Not much will have changed. I think in 500 years from now mattress technology all of advanced quite a bit so that we only need two or three hours sleep and the distinction between children, pets and artificial life forms will blurred somewhat, so I’ll be waking up cuddling a ‘boo-boo’’ Whilst the differences between the two sexes remain unchanged, gender will no longer exist. We will have fully transitioned fully to a peer to peer economy without money or private enterprises, most people will consume only what they can produce and the technology of production will be maintained by self generating AI. " Thanks HotNotts. I think you took more of a mechanistic STEM approach, both through innovation and some politico-economic predictions, via the Cartesian Dualist split in the 1600s (ie that which paved the way for mechanisation via the separation of mind and matter). And it was clearly a good, speculative foray into a STEM future, using predicates developed more fully over the last 4/500 years. But those predicates are looking increasingly flawed themselves (as the predicates of medieval Christendom were also flawed in their day, allowing Cartesian/Newtonian mechanics and a proto-STEM worldview (modernity) to develop). Can you break it up further into a post-dualist, post-Cartesian view (the work of David Bohm or Wolfgang Pauli would be scientific touchstones if you feel safer starting out from classic STEM...but the materialism of STEM is a heavily compromised materialism and no longer resonant with the new evidences from quantum, holography, fractals, and a range of other things). Matter is looking a lot more complex than the last 500 years of science and philosophy want to embrace. Science and philosophy are increasingly uncomfortable with these views of matter. So imagine everything you thought you knew about matter, time, information, causality, and politico-economics is due to be blown apart this century. What would YOUR take be, should matter, consciousness, time, be part of an underlying order themselves (which I still call matter, because it's important to move forward with descriptions, rather than the language traps of calling these things spirit - they go nowhere of added value and tie language to the previous 12,000 years of narratives). Bohm's Implicate and Explicate Order would point you in that direction, or Pauli and Jung's work on Synchronicity. I take your point about 500 years, and this may be why you've given a slightly conservative view of how an entirely new paradigm concerning matter would change society, so please use a time-frame you're happier with. I'm not so much looking for a "what will the future look like" post. Much more a "how will everything we DO change if everything we thought we KNEW to be real or true changes, and changes DRASTICALLY, in the directions I've alluded to?" But matter, matter, matter - not woo or spirit of course. It's just that matter is increasingly looking a lot less mechanistic and time-forward biased than prior discoveries implicate. And I see the dead, the start of the post, as a reservoir of information existing outside of standard time references, but a reservoir available for downloading further information about the real, the ethical, the political, economic, cultural, and evolutionarily desirable. Which is, of course, barking mad .
But a fiver says I'm close enough to it being something (payable in 2099 ). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There’s a great book called imaginable with meditations on the future. Only 500? Not much will have changed. I think in 500 years from now mattress technology all of advanced quite a bit so that we only need two or three hours sleep and the distinction between children, pets and artificial life forms will blurred somewhat, so I’ll be waking up cuddling a ‘boo-boo’’ Whilst the differences between the two sexes remain unchanged, gender will no longer exist. We will have fully transitioned fully to a peer to peer economy without money or private enterprises, most people will consume only what they can produce and the technology of production will be maintained by self generating AI. Thanks HotNotts. I think you took more of a mechanistic STEM approach, both through innovation and some politico-economic predictions, via the Cartesian Dualist split in the 1600s (ie that which paved the way for mechanisation via the separation of mind and matter). And it was clearly a good, speculative foray into a STEM future, using predicates developed more fully over the last 4/500 years. But those predicates are looking increasingly flawed themselves (as the predicates of medieval Christendom were also flawed in their day, allowing Cartesian/Newtonian mechanics and a proto-STEM worldview (modernity) to develop). Can you break it up further into a post-dualist, post-Cartesian view (the work of David Bohm or Wolfgang Pauli would be scientific touchstones if you feel safer starting out from classic STEM...but the materialism of STEM is a heavily compromised materialism and no longer resonant with the new evidences from quantum, holography, fractals, and a range of other things). Matter is looking a lot more complex than the last 500 years of science and philosophy want to embrace. Science and philosophy are increasingly uncomfortable with these views of matter. So imagine everything you thought you knew about matter, time, information, causality, and politico-economics is due to be blown apart this century. What would YOUR take be, should matter, consciousness, time, be part of an underlying order themselves (which I still call matter, because it's important to move forward with descriptions, rather than the language traps of calling these things spirit - they go nowhere of added value and tie language to the previous 12,000 years of narratives). Bohm's Implicate and Explicate Order would point you in that direction, or Pauli and Jung's work on Synchronicity. I take your point about 500 years, and this may be why you've given a slightly conservative view of how an entirely new paradigm concerning matter would change society, so please use a time-frame you're happier with. I'm not so much looking for a "what will the future look like" post. Much more a "how will everything we DO change if everything we thought we KNEW to be real or true changes, and changes DRASTICALLY, in the directions I've alluded to?" But matter, matter, matter - not woo or spirit of course. It's just that matter is increasingly looking a lot less mechanistic and time-forward biased than prior discoveries implicate. And I see the dead, the start of the post, as a reservoir of information existing outside of standard time references, but a reservoir available for downloading further information about the real, the ethical, the political, economic, cultural, and evolutionarily desirable. Which is, of course, barking mad .
But a fiver says I'm close enough to it being something (payable in 2099 )."Fair critique, fair pints. As you correctly point out science as we know it is only around 500 years old, but innovation is far older. Innovation predates everything else , which we know all started around 10,000 years ago, and not because of what Americans believe about the Bible! So unless the dead are aged between 10,000 and 1.5 million years, and can answer questions like why do we continue to fiddle around and innovate beyond what we need, then I think we’re just gonna carry on doing it. My updated predictions, Microsoft windows will be really shit, building on the loss of the start button, there will be no buttons or icons to press for anything, nothing at all will work | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So unless the dead are aged between 10,000 and 1.5 million years, and can answer questions like why do we continue to fiddle around and innovate beyond what we need, then I think we’re just gonna carry on doing it. My updated predictions, Microsoft windows will be really shit, building on the loss of the start button, there will be no buttons or icons to press for anything, nothing at all will work"
And again, big, genuine thanks for engaging and adding more.
The theory wot I plan spending the rest of my (standard definition) life on would suggest they do. As do the future humans and the 👽👽 of course (but I'll leave that madness out for now).
I'm fairly certain you know that the notion of splitting the atom was held to have no applicable energetic use (one atom splitting doesn't feel like much on your finger), and it was only after Leo Szilard's fog-bound reverie in London that he realised a chain reaction would create (on regular human scales) an energetic release of quite scary proportion. Hence his communication with Einstein, and Einstein's much later letter to Roosevelt when the fear of Nazi Germany having the bomb first became too great to bear. Ergo Manhattan Project etc (which Bohm, a Marxist, and Einstein's preferred successor before Bohm got accused of passing secrets to the Soviets, worked on. But Bohm's theories update materialism in a way significantly beyond Marx, and he was too cuddly to be a real-life spy too ).
So - point being. The dead aren't dead. They're information. You and I aren't exactly you and I. We're information. That information touches all time and all place (in fact, time and place aren't quite real things as we imagine them, but they appear as such and it's very useful they do - ain't no farming or cars without the belief in their reality).
But...this is the scary part...if, as I think, there are other levels of matter, tying together everything (every THING is infinite, every THING is eternal)...then there's a whole load of energy (planet-destroying, at least) bound up in the physics.
Ontologically, it probably becomes a mistake to talk about THINGS as separate entities...they just appear as such to the consciousness we have currently.
And I hope that those fundamentals "add up" in a way that also generates, in our linguistic naivety, that thing we have come to call "ethics".
Because I'm fairly certain this physics can destroy planets, galaxies, and it's going to be very useful if the physics also states "but you cannot separate the energy from the ethics. Responsibility and humility are encoded in reality, as material realities themselves".
So, give us a few thousand years, and we can explore all the remaining secrets of the multiverse (which may never be known - what a great poem!!!) whilst we travel around as information-encoded sub-neutrino entities causing as little harm but creating as much evolution everywhere as our ontology/epistemology can garner.
We'll still need to convert some energy, but eating neutrinos is probably a bit nicer than looking a cute lamb in the face and clubbing the fuck out of it for dinner. Even though it tastes great.
So...the dead aren't the dead, the alive aren't the alive, it's all information and every bit of it touches and communicates with infinity and eternity (which aren't quite the things we imagine), and the energy at this level makes a nuke look like a fart in a bath.
And we need to upgrade our ethics, politics, and economics if we are to live in the paradigms this would suggest, over the coming hundreds, thousands of years.
I bloody hope we discover "ethics" as key to the existence of it all though - without that, we would just destroy on greater scales.
Even with what we call "ethics" as part of the basic code of matter, outlying species/entities who choose needless destruction are easily possible, perhaps inevitable.
What I don't see though is any way of NOT finding this updated information, except a major global step backwards of probably a few thousand years delaying its discovery.
Or I'm totally wrong about it all...and irretrievably bonkers . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"and irretrievably bonkers ."Definitely bonkers  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever you have OP i need a glass of that to wake up this morning 🤭" I think your life will be easier if you leave it alone Boo. Be careful what you wish for 😘. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can confirm the dead are dead- mo magical thinking involved! If I'm wrong then provide evidence or come back and haunt my ass! "Why would I want to haunt you? There's an awful lot more fun than that to be had. But you are very right - even though physics is pointing in directions that make the concepts I've outlined viable, there is inference, not evidence. So that's my project until clogs are popped (and if it's a thing, and the thing contains the physics to destroy the solar system, I'll be as quiet as a mouse about it. Maybe ). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"and irretrievably bonkers .
Definitely bonkers "I struggle to disagree. It does give the freedom to look into the whole thing though...which is rewarding  . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No" I agree. And disagree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever you have OP i need a glass of that to wake up this morning 🤭 I think your life will be easier if you leave it alone Boo. Be careful what you wish for 😘." What am I leaving alone? Dead people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our task to bring into life. Discuss 😉. Predicates: 1) The dead aren't dead. It's a different form of life. 2) What we usually call life is only a limited case of such. 3) The argument is entirely materialistic. There are no spirits, no gods. No hierarchy above the human, no lesser life below us. The "pyramid" then becomes a warning about hierarchies, not something just to marvel and wonder at. Pyramids are, therefore, warnings about power and abuse. Helpful frameworks: Historical materialism, but so far beyond Marxian historical materialism as to be almost unrecognisable. Quantum theory, holographic theory, information theory, ethics as a teleological necessity to satisfy universal conditions for existence to arise, religions as helpful "stories", but an evolutionary stage rather than a truth, science as a more advanced stage, but also due for upgrade/renewal/replacement. Consider William Blake's phrases "an infinity in every THING"; "To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour". Consider Hamlet's "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than exist in your philosophy". Then move beyond heaven and earth - a new language of materialism, that takes us out of the last 12,000 years of history and into our next stage. Conclusion Describe what a world could look like politically and economically 500 years from now if "life" is viewed as multi-dimensional and infinitely entangled. What does an ethical relationship to a rock look like? That is hard - rocks yield metals etc. But ethics need not be seen as absolutely settled, rather an ongoing process (consider Whitehead's "process philosophy" perhaps?). And/or add your own thoughts. Anyone who is tempted/intrigued by this, let us know how hard you found engaging with it outside of spiritual/religious frameworks. Because seeing it as entirely materialistic - hard work, isn't it? But it's where the bigger poems lie, and where I'm fairly certain the hope of no longer resting within competing nations, death-cult religions, and gender or race warfares lie. Have fun. If this goes beyond 10 comments I'll be pleasantly surprised, Nick ❤️💙💖 xxx PS - Is neurodiversity a part of this new language of materialism, breaking binary notions of yes/no, male/female, black/white, truth/lie, valuable/worthless, dead/alive? That's a bonus topic if you want it 😁😁. I'm off for a coffee and a fag. L8rs 😘." What a load of fcuking waffle 🤷🏽♂️🤦🏽😴😴 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever you have OP i need a glass of that to wake up this morning 🤭 I think your life will be easier if you leave it alone Boo. Be careful what you wish for 😘. What am I leaving alone? Dead people" Well, this sequence of posts is only a tiny part of the mind of Nick. The easier to understand part .
So whatever I'm metaphorically drinking, if you drink it too....are you sure you'd want it?
Coffee is safer 😘😘😘 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our task to bring into life. Discuss 😉. Predicates: 1) The dead aren't dead. It's a different form of life. 2) What we usually call life is only a limited case of such. 3) The argument is entirely materialistic. There are no spirits, no gods. No hierarchy above the human, no lesser life below us. The "pyramid" then becomes a warning about hierarchies, not something just to marvel and wonder at. Pyramids are, therefore, warnings about power and abuse. Helpful frameworks: Historical materialism, but so far beyond Marxian historical materialism as to be almost unrecognisable. Quantum theory, holographic theory, information theory, ethics as a teleological necessity to satisfy universal conditions for existence to arise, religions as helpful "stories", but an evolutionary stage rather than a truth, science as a more advanced stage, but also due for upgrade/renewal/replacement. Consider William Blake's phrases "an infinity in every THING"; "To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour". Consider Hamlet's "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than exist in your philosophy". Then move beyond heaven and earth - a new language of materialism, that takes us out of the last 12,000 years of history and into our next stage. Conclusion Describe what a world could look like politically and economically 500 years from now if "life" is viewed as multi-dimensional and infinitely entangled. What does an ethical relationship to a rock look like? That is hard - rocks yield metals etc. But ethics need not be seen as absolutely settled, rather an ongoing process (consider Whitehead's "process philosophy" perhaps?). And/or add your own thoughts. Anyone who is tempted/intrigued by this, let us know how hard you found engaging with it outside of spiritual/religious frameworks. Because seeing it as entirely materialistic - hard work, isn't it? But it's where the bigger poems lie, and where I'm fairly certain the hope of no longer resting within competing nations, death-cult religions, and gender or race warfares lie. Have fun. If this goes beyond 10 comments I'll be pleasantly surprised, Nick ❤️💙💖 xxx PS - Is neurodiversity a part of this new language of materialism, breaking binary notions of yes/no, male/female, black/white, truth/lie, valuable/worthless, dead/alive? That's a bonus topic if you want it 😁😁. I'm off for a coffee and a fag. L8rs 😘. What a load of fcuking waffle 🤷🏽♂️🤦🏽😴😴" I often think the same. But....it's irresistible too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Economically it'll be very different. Amazon will figure a way to turn a massive profit selling shit to deal people. Beyond that, the predicates you offer make the questions nonsensical. Words like politics and economy etc apply to a physical human world. We either find that this world isn't actually what we live in but continue to act as though we do, in which case your predicates are irrelevant, or even process of discovering the "world" of your predicates fundamentally changes what it means to be "human" in which case all the human structures you ask about are non-sensical. I believe the former option is the most likely. We will find that the descriptions we have of the world are only accurate in a certain domain, behind that, reality is nothing like what we imagine it to be but being human only allows us to act as though it is. In which case the only changes will be the STEM ones you dismissed earlier and (over a far far longer timescale) evolutionary ones. For the short term, how we think, how we act, how we feel will remain unchanged as it has throughout history, Plato and Newton not withstanding. P" I agree the predicates change. Looking even at that sentence - it postulates a stable entity "I", the concept of "agreeing", the time-axis of "change" (from one thing to another). So the predicates have to change because the language we explore reality in changes. Taking it very anthropologically Marxian, language is a mode of production situated within its historical period. If comprehension changes, language has to change to reflect the new data. So you're right, but it goes a lot further too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This post has hurt my brain! "It hurts a lot of brains (mine too sometimes), and it tends to create a lot of strong opinions in response. But ya had to read it, right? xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can confirm the dead are dead- mo magical thinking involved! If I'm wrong then provide evidence or come back and haunt my ass!
Why would I want to haunt you?
There's an awful lot more fun than that to be had.
But you are very right - even though physics is pointing in directions that make the concepts I've outlined viable, there is inference, not evidence.
So that's my project until clogs are popped (and if it's a thing, and the thing contains the physics to destroy the solar system, I'll be as quiet as a mouse about it. Maybe )."what an utter load of dog shit - physics does not point in any direction, never mind towards "concepts"- clickbait laughable clap trap does not make you look intelligent! Anyway, it's tits out Thursday!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw a program the other day- saying that: 1) Everything we know and is around us is nothing but a sequence of random events. Everything. 2) Again, everything that is around us, including ourselves is nothing but a number of chemical reactions. 3) in approx 100 trillion years the last star will go out and there will be nothing but darkness and void. Nothing that ever existed will have counted anymore. Bringing it closer to home, in 100 years none of us will be here and more than likely no one will remember us. I saw a Grey’s Anatomy episode yesterday where De Luca died. I am sad. And my head hurts. And I have no coffee. 😭😭😭😭" I get it. I really do. And coffee is always good. However: 1) Random appears a lot more ordered than we like (chaos theory, fractals etc) 2) You don't get chemistry without physics, so the statement has to go further. 3) Nothing? That's a tough idea, because you (in standard logic and maths) have to deal with the something from nothing/nothing from something problem. A main reason religions are so popular - they shift the blame onto a big (usually) guy, and everyone breathes a sigh of relief. Although, probe how the big (usually) guy came about, and they go all whibble on you. Or torture you. I think there's a problem with the binary of something/nothing, and religion ain't no help at all. Science might be able to cope with it, but it won't be science we currently recognise. Your last bits - there's the whole life/death/information part of this post. But mostly - absolutely. When someone dies, who means something to us, it's sad and horrible, and we miss them. They are very much dead and our emotions know that. None of my stuff above is about the comfort of "they still live". It hurts like fuck and they're gone. And we get on with "living". Eventually. My stuff above is about other aspects of it. We still have everyday life - pleasure, pain, sadness, friends etc. They're as real as all the rest of it. There are no pyramids with higher value on different levels xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"🤯" All Is True Catnip, as you very recently directed me towards xx
(this bit of that statement
https://youtu.be/1I5cKmiONDI?si=5807mFlzZtu1XlaL) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Someone woke up and tripped into a book of Celtic beliefs or is indeed one himself "Well I'm flattered with the association - thank you - but I'm taking it further into the material if I can, and not back towards the historic (but who doesn't love a bit of Celtic mythology? I'm still a 20th/21st Century human male with a Western upbringing and tastes, in spite of and as well as (all of us) touching infinity and eternity without really knowing it or what that means...yet ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There's many themes in that Nicky I find interesting, reminiscent and resonate. I would begin by saying that materialistic reductionism is at present the revered vehicle towards the objective of a transcendental signifier/signified, or Omega point where original meaning will be rapturously unveiled and considered synonymous with rational thought. None perhaps moreso accelerated by AI, fundamentally governed by a dialectical binary language of 1/0, yes/no. Ignoring that this in itself does not attend to the myth of meaning, the question of the question, representing nodes in a chain of computational analysis. A chain of metaphor both objectively true and yet, materialistically void, hurtling towards an omega point of ultimate knowledge of the material universe; at an exponential pace. Whilst ironically away from the discomforting proposition that meaning itself is a myth we created, and has been abstractly integrated into the process. I would contend that neither nihilistic abandonment nor leap of faith represent enlightenment. Only the interplay of these seemingly dichotomous opposed concepts, whose difference and separateness are a reflection of the observer's temporal state of - I am separate to the universe, not a part of it. And perhaps embrace one's aporia with the acceptance of absurdity. Such language perhaps entails a vibrational quality, interspersed with harmonic resonances. Reflecting the universe at play with itself. Musically and poetically dancing with itself, in dynamic stasis, it's meaning intrinsically woven with it's purpose. It's revelation evolving towards its origin. Then perhaps the universe can manifest a momentary realisation of itself in a grain of sand. " Hans - if that's ChatGPT or similar, I'm impressed. If it's you, I'm even more impressed, but not surprised, because you have an elegant and beautiful mind. And if it's tongue in cheek, it's brilliant. These last two are not mutually exclusive xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Someone woke up and tripped into a book of Celtic beliefs or is indeed one himself
Well I'm flattered with the association - thank you - but I'm taking it further into the material if I can, and not back towards the historic (but who doesn't love a bit of Celtic mythology? I'm still a 20th/21st Century human male with a Western upbringing and tastes, in spite of and as well as (all of us) touching infinity and eternity without really knowing it or what that means...yet )"Whoo whoo whooooo chief, some of us the RCC never got their grubby little hands on, some clans still follow the old ways, nothing old school about it ,we just moved with the times, one can jump between the both good sir once one keeps ones beliefs to oneself as to not frighten the Sheep,,, cough Christians sorry I ment Christians😂🤣😉 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Hans - if that's ChatGPT or similar, I'm impressed. If it's you, I'm even more impressed, but not surprised, because you have an elegant and beautiful mind. And if it's tongue in cheek, it's brilliant. These last two are not mutually exclusive xx"I'd like to think the origins of my thought are encapsulated by a moment a young boy, with a love of science and a young (but slightly older - denim dungaree clad) girl, with a love of nature, were brought together, following a night out at some rave they were far too young to be at. By a mutual fascination in an empty crisp packet (skips I believe), sat in the centre, almost purposefully, of a mandala patterned rug. In a candlelit, incensed room, with Ozric tentacles dancing on the atmosphere. As they discussed and explored this fascinating item and its combination of human ingenuity and nature, it's fakeness and realness and thier intersubjective verification of its existence, by virtue of it's capacity to warp light or have a texture that felt unnatural etc - in manner reflecting their own knowledge. A peculiar warm fuzzy feeling came over them, a realisation that their mutual fascination was not this peculiar receptacle for corn-based, prawn flavoured snacks, enjoyed by a curious character called Colin, but in fact each other. But then I am a romantic at heart, the truth can be any colour you like. I ceased to care the moment we kissed. The rest is really a bunch of philosophical brains far bigger than my own. I am drawn to, when I forget that it is really less complex than I consider it to be and therefore more complex than the human mind can possibly fathom. But thank you, I appreciate the elegance of your mind also. Along with your capacity for the tongue in cheek. When dreaming of the heavens it's quite easy for one's feet to get stuck in the mud. Actually, that happened to me, at the pyramid stage in Glastonbury, but that's another story. Even my self-indulgence has its limits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am so glad that you lot are merely a figment of my warped imagination. " 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever you have OP i need a glass of that to wake up this morning 🤭 I think your life will be easier if you leave it alone Boo. Be careful what you wish for 😘. What am I leaving alone? Dead people Well, this sequence of posts is only a tiny part of the mind of Nick. The easier to understand part .
So whatever I'm metaphorically drinking, if you drink it too....are you sure you'd want it?
Coffee is safer 😘😘😘"I'm not a coffee drinker either, but i really do think you could become a useful person, to advertise why people really shouldn't drink too many cups of coffee a day! Keep being you but I'm happy to stay on my planet for now. 🤣🤪 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Death. Easy one. There’s no afterlife. Nothing. Neurodiversity? It’s taken medical fraternity a long time to realise that some people’s brains work differently. Not caused by pollution, vaccines or wokeness, just taken last 40 years for them to realise that off or different people are due to that. " I'm not reducing it to the simple narratives of the afterlife industry Rag - it's specifically arguing against the religious/spiritual narratives. It's also arguing, as Hans has extremely perceptively noted, against the cul-de-sacs of the materialist reductionist argument. Philosophy of Mind and a lot of the work in current physics are grappling with information theories, entropy, and time. Reductionism, the arc of the last 400 years of materialist science, is wanting. There's enough within science and philosophy, and enough within parapsychology (Edinburgh Uni, near you, offers a doctorate in parapsychology, as long as you can prove you're using falsifiable techniques and data) and lived experience to provide data that needs investigating. Ignoring the data amounts to superstitious rejection of phenomena (Southampton Uni did a huge NDE project a few years ago on these lived experiences, Virginia Uni investigates metempsychosis/reincarnation, Stanford has experiments over the last 40 years with random number generators and "willed interference"). Discounting it is poor thinking. Believing Auntie Mabel loves you still because the psychic (of which I am one, but a different type to the norm) told you so is also poor thinking, and takes no one anywhere other than pleasant thoughts about Auntie Mabel (which you can have without a medium telling you anything anyway). Or you could use Arthur Eddington - his experiment proved relativity - and he, like Alfred North Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's doctoral advisor) was perturbed that reductive mechanistic approaches could not enquire of consciousness in the things they measured. Quantum entanglement suggests something akin to that consciousness, and it disturbs physicists. And this smartphone requires quantum physics to work. Then you can take Galen Strawson's work on panpsychism, which uses Eddington to argue against Descartes, or take David Chalmers, and, much as they hate to admit it, Daniel Dennett and Dawkins have no good argument against the strong arguments towards panpsychism from physics. You've jumped from "reductionism says no" (which it does) and "religion is wrong" (which it is) to "therefore this is all twaddle". My enquiry is that reductionism is twaddle, albeit slightly better twaddle than the dead-end (and potentially WW3 inducing) nonsense of religions. Then my enquiry asks "Imagine matter does do the things I've suggested. How does that change our world, our politics, our economics, our culture?" You've cut your own enquiry off at a very early stage, even though the evidence should make any thinking person feel a sense of disquiet about current science's methodologies and assumptions. Reject religion by all means - please. It needs rejecting. It was (is) an evolutionary stage. But don't reject thinking - you're better than that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sex is fun" Am eternal truth .
Apart from when it isn't 😘. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We are the universe looking up at itself. "
What did you see, and how wet was it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am so glad that you lot are merely a figment of my warped imagination. " It's someone else's imagination making you believe it's your imagination we are a figment of 😉. But...oh no....there's an absurdum and infinitum on their way with that too.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reincarnation it's the milk of life " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Someone woke up and tripped into a book of Celtic beliefs or is indeed one himself
Well I'm flattered with the association - thank you - but I'm taking it further into the material if I can, and not back towards the historic (but who doesn't love a bit of Celtic mythology? I'm still a 20th/21st Century human male with a Western upbringing and tastes, in spite of and as well as (all of us) touching infinity and eternity without really knowing it or what that means...yet ) Whoo whoo whooooo chief, some of us the RCC never got their grubby little hands on, some clans still follow the old ways, nothing old school about it ,we just moved with the times, one can jump between the both good sir once one keeps ones beliefs to oneself as to not frighten the Sheep,,, cough Christians sorry I ment Christians😂🤣😉"Old ways, schmold ways. I'll grant you the beauty of the poems, and the keeping of the mysteries alive in the face of both reductive religions and reductive materialism, but, much as I love Will Blake and most mythologies, we can do better. I suspect we have to, or game over. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Hans - if that's ChatGPT or similar, I'm impressed. If it's you, I'm even more impressed, but not surprised, because you have an elegant and beautiful mind. And if it's tongue in cheek, it's brilliant. These last two are not mutually exclusive xx
I'd like to think the origins of my thought are encapsulated by a moment a young boy, with a love of science and a young (but slightly older - denim dungaree clad) girl, with a love of nature, were brought together, following a night out at some rave they were far too young to be at. By a mutual fascination in an empty crisp packet (skips I believe), sat in the centre, almost purposefully, of a mandala patterned rug. In a candlelit, incensed room, with Ozric tentacles dancing on the atmosphere.
As they discussed and explored this fascinating item and its combination of human ingenuity and nature, it's fakeness and realness and thier intersubjective verification of its existence, by virtue of it's capacity to warp light or have a texture that felt unnatural etc - in manner reflecting their own knowledge. A peculiar warm fuzzy feeling came over them, a realisation that their mutual fascination was not this peculiar receptacle for corn-based, prawn flavoured snacks, enjoyed by a curious character called Colin, but in fact each other.
But then I am a romantic at heart, the truth can be any colour you like. I ceased to care the moment we kissed.
The rest is really a bunch of philosophical brains far bigger than my own. I am drawn to, when I forget that it is really less complex than I consider it to be and therefore more complex than the human mind can possibly fathom.
But thank you, I appreciate the elegance of your mind also. Along with your capacity for the tongue in cheek. When dreaming of the heavens it's quite easy for one's feet to get stuck in the mud. Actually, that happened to me, at the pyramid stage in Glastonbury, but that's another story. Even my self-indulgence has its limits." - You just had to goad me with that bloody pyramid, dintja Hans!
Eh?
🤗👽💙. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Death. Easy one. There’s no afterlife. Nothing. Neurodiversity? It’s taken medical fraternity a long time to realise that some people’s brains work differently. Not caused by pollution, vaccines or wokeness, just taken last 40 years for them to realise that off or different people are due to that. I'm not reducing it to the simple narratives of the afterlife industry Rag - it's specifically arguing against the religious/spiritual narratives. It's also arguing, as Hans has extremely perceptively noted, against the cul-de-sacs of the materialist reductionist argument. Philosophy of Mind and a lot of the work in current physics are grappling with information theories, entropy, and time. Reductionism, the arc of the last 400 years of materialist science, is wanting. There's enough within science and philosophy, and enough within parapsychology (Edinburgh Uni, near you, offers a doctorate in parapsychology, as long as you can prove you're using falsifiable techniques and data) and lived experience to provide data that needs investigating. Ignoring the data amounts to superstitious rejection of phenomena (Southampton Uni did a huge NDE project a few years ago on these lived experiences, Virginia Uni investigates metempsychosis/reincarnation, Stanford has experiments over the last 40 years with random number generators and "willed interference"). Discounting it is poor thinking. Believing Auntie Mabel loves you still because the psychic (of which I am one, but a different type to the norm) told you so is also poor thinking, and takes no one anywhere other than pleasant thoughts about Auntie Mabel (which you can have without a medium telling you anything anyway). Or you could use Arthur Eddington - his experiment proved relativity - and he, like Alfred North Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's doctoral advisor) was perturbed that reductive mechanistic approaches could not enquire of consciousness in the things they measured. Quantum entanglement suggests something akin to that consciousness, and it disturbs physicists. And this smartphone requires quantum physics to work. Then you can take Galen Strawson's work on panpsychism, which uses Eddington to argue against Descartes, or take David Chalmers, and, much as they hate to admit it, Daniel Dennett and Dawkins have no good argument against the strong arguments towards panpsychism from physics. You've jumped from "reductionism says no" (which it does) and "religion is wrong" (which it is) to "therefore this is all twaddle". My enquiry is that reductionism is twaddle, albeit slightly better twaddle than the dead-end (and potentially WW3 inducing) nonsense of religions. Then my enquiry asks "Imagine matter does do the things I've suggested. How does that change our world, our politics, our economics, our culture?" You've cut your own enquiry off at a very early stage, even though the evidence should make any thinking person feel a sense of disquiet about current science's methodologies and assumptions. Reject religion by all means - please. It needs rejecting. It was (is) an evolutionary stage. But don't reject thinking - you're better than that. " Thanks Nicky. I did read through that but dead is dead mate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am so glad that you lot are merely a figment of my warped imagination. It's someone else's imagination making you believe it's your imagination we are a figment of 😉. But...oh no....there's an absurdum and infinitum on their way with that too...." I do wish the universe would stop projecting onto itself. It really interferes with my digestion. I'm trying to enjoy my bacon here, can't it see that I am busy! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1) The dead aren't dead. It's a different form of life. Zombies?" Haven’t met any. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1) The dead aren't dead. It's a different form of life. Zombies? Haven’t met any. " Yet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really do think everything is just information, everything is binary... its the dots and dashes that shape this universe as we know it. Energy transfers this information. We are all one and at the same time are not. " I think information yes (or that will be the thrust of the next stage of thinking and evidence gathering. The thing I like most about David Bohm is that even though he proposes the thing beyond Relativity and Quantum, that effectively unites them, he's at great pains to point out that that too will generate further questions, and therefore ever-ongoing worldviews and truth claims. Not that I also think Bohm's approach is the right, or next, stage. There are other candidates, such as some work by Tim Palmer that may explain quantum effects within Relativity, but shifting the emphasis into fractals/Chaos Theory). Binary...probably not. I think that's a 20th Century thing that has been useful, but is left wanting now. Even standard number theory (the reliability of numbers in effect) is up for grabs...but that's a real headfuck. All one? Maybe one is zero, and infinite, all at the same time. See - I said it was a headfuck xx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whatever you have OP i need a glass of that to wake up this morning 🤭 I think your life will be easier if you leave it alone Boo. Be careful what you wish for 😘. What am I leaving alone? Dead people Well, this sequence of posts is only a tiny part of the mind of Nick. The easier to understand part .
So whatever I'm metaphorically drinking, if you drink it too....are you sure you'd want it?
Coffee is safer 😘😘😘
I'm not a coffee drinker either, but i really do think you could become a useful person, to advertise why people really shouldn't drink too many cups of coffee a day!
Keep being you but I'm happy to stay on my planet for now. 🤣🤪
"Your planet is, by far, safer for you Boo xxx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1) The dead aren't dead. It's a different form of life. Zombies? Haven’t met any. Yet." Been to Glasgow’s football grounds in the past, it’s close but they’re human. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Death. Easy one. There’s no afterlife. Nothing. Neurodiversity? It’s taken medical fraternity a long time to realise that some people’s brains work differently. Not caused by pollution, vaccines or wokeness, just taken last 40 years for them to realise that off or different people are due to that. I'm not reducing it to the simple narratives of the afterlife industry Rag - it's specifically arguing against the religious/spiritual narratives. It's also arguing, as Hans has extremely perceptively noted, against the cul-de-sacs of the materialist reductionist argument. Philosophy of Mind and a lot of the work in current physics are grappling with information theories, entropy, and time. Reductionism, the arc of the last 400 years of materialist science, is wanting. There's enough within science and philosophy, and enough within parapsychology (Edinburgh Uni, near you, offers a doctorate in parapsychology, as long as you can prove you're using falsifiable techniques and data) and lived experience to provide data that needs investigating. Ignoring the data amounts to superstitious rejection of phenomena (Southampton Uni did a huge NDE project a few years ago on these lived experiences, Virginia Uni investigates metempsychosis/reincarnation, Stanford has experiments over the last 40 years with random number generators and "willed interference"). Discounting it is poor thinking. Believing Auntie Mabel loves you still because the psychic (of which I am one, but a different type to the norm) told you so is also poor thinking, and takes no one anywhere other than pleasant thoughts about Auntie Mabel (which you can have without a medium telling you anything anyway). Or you could use Arthur Eddington - his experiment proved relativity - and he, like Alfred North Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's doctoral advisor) was perturbed that reductive mechanistic approaches could not enquire of consciousness in the things they measured. Quantum entanglement suggests something akin to that consciousness, and it disturbs physicists. And this smartphone requires quantum physics to work. Then you can take Galen Strawson's work on panpsychism, which uses Eddington to argue against Descartes, or take David Chalmers, and, much as they hate to admit it, Daniel Dennett and Dawkins have no good argument against the strong arguments towards panpsychism from physics. You've jumped from "reductionism says no" (which it does) and "religion is wrong" (which it is) to "therefore this is all twaddle". My enquiry is that reductionism is twaddle, albeit slightly better twaddle than the dead-end (and potentially WW3 inducing) nonsense of religions. Then my enquiry asks "Imagine matter does do the things I've suggested. How does that change our world, our politics, our economics, our culture?" You've cut your own enquiry off at a very early stage, even though the evidence should make any thinking person feel a sense of disquiet about current science's methodologies and assumptions. Reject religion by all means - please. It needs rejecting. It was (is) an evolutionary stage. But don't reject thinking - you're better than that. Thanks Nicky. I did read through that but dead is dead mate." Probably not Rag. Probably not. But dead Auntie Mabel has no interest in telling anyone she loves them. Death being another form of life is not there as a comfort to our hurt sensibilities, but something to be learned and used wisely. Because the levels of energy are not something we can currently be trusted with. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am so glad that you lot are merely a figment of my warped imagination. It's someone else's imagination making you believe it's your imagination we are a figment of 😉. But...oh no....there's an absurdum and infinitum on their way with that too.... I do wish the universe would stop projecting onto itself. It really interferes with my digestion. I'm trying to enjoy my bacon here, can't it see that I am busy!" Bacon? I hope you don't mean the Elizabethan Francis variety? Unless you really are a glutton for punishment . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Death. Easy one. There’s no afterlife. Nothing. Neurodiversity? It’s taken medical fraternity a long time to realise that some people’s brains work differently. Not caused by pollution, vaccines or wokeness, just taken last 40 years for them to realise that off or different people are due to that. I'm not reducing it to the simple narratives of the afterlife industry Rag - it's specifically arguing against the religious/spiritual narratives. It's also arguing, as Hans has extremely perceptively noted, against the cul-de-sacs of the materialist reductionist argument. Philosophy of Mind and a lot of the work in current physics are grappling with information theories, entropy, and time. Reductionism, the arc of the last 400 years of materialist science, is wanting. There's enough within science and philosophy, and enough within parapsychology (Edinburgh Uni, near you, offers a doctorate in parapsychology, as long as you can prove you're using falsifiable techniques and data) and lived experience to provide data that needs investigating. Ignoring the data amounts to superstitious rejection of phenomena (Southampton Uni did a huge NDE project a few years ago on these lived experiences, Virginia Uni investigates metempsychosis/reincarnation, Stanford has experiments over the last 40 years with random number generators and "willed interference"). Discounting it is poor thinking. Believing Auntie Mabel loves you still because the psychic (of which I am one, but a different type to the norm) told you so is also poor thinking, and takes no one anywhere other than pleasant thoughts about Auntie Mabel (which you can have without a medium telling you anything anyway). Or you could use Arthur Eddington - his experiment proved relativity - and he, like Alfred North Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's doctoral advisor) was perturbed that reductive mechanistic approaches could not enquire of consciousness in the things they measured. Quantum entanglement suggests something akin to that consciousness, and it disturbs physicists. And this smartphone requires quantum physics to work. Then you can take Galen Strawson's work on panpsychism, which uses Eddington to argue against Descartes, or take David Chalmers, and, much as they hate to admit it, Daniel Dennett and Dawkins have no good argument against the strong arguments towards panpsychism from physics. You've jumped from "reductionism says no" (which it does) and "religion is wrong" (which it is) to "therefore this is all twaddle". My enquiry is that reductionism is twaddle, albeit slightly better twaddle than the dead-end (and potentially WW3 inducing) nonsense of religions. Then my enquiry asks "Imagine matter does do the things I've suggested. How does that change our world, our politics, our economics, our culture?" You've cut your own enquiry off at a very early stage, even though the evidence should make any thinking person feel a sense of disquiet about current science's methodologies and assumptions. Reject religion by all means - please. It needs rejecting. It was (is) an evolutionary stage. But don't reject thinking - you're better than that. Thanks Nicky. I did read through that but dead is dead mate. Probably not Rag. Probably not. But dead Auntie Mabel has no interest in telling anyone she loves them. Death being another form of life is not there as a comfort to our hurt sensibilities, but something to be learned and used wisely. Because the levels of energy are not something we can currently be trusted with." Nah. Dead deid pan breid. I get the comfort that some want to take about an afterlife, but it’s a creation of man and it shows a capacity for imagination and a hope for an ethereal life beyond what exists. It’s great conceptual thinking and I’m sure lots of people have the comfort of thinking that their beloved relative is looking down from another place but no, it’s all a pile of shite. 🌈 over the rainbow bridge for dogs cats and other animals, absolutely yes. They’ve fucking earned it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1) The dead aren't dead. It's a different form of life. Zombies? Haven’t met any. Yet."
No - just the 48,472 dead who are in your room at night Daizy.
Never blinking.
Seeing into your mind.
Zapping a few evolutionary codes in.
Without blinking.
Ever.
Did I say they don't blink? As they watch?
xxxx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Death. Easy one. There’s no afterlife. Nothing. Neurodiversity? It’s taken medical fraternity a long time to realise that some people’s brains work differently. Not caused by pollution, vaccines or wokeness, just taken last 40 years for them to realise that off or different people are due to that. I'm not reducing it to the simple narratives of the afterlife industry Rag - it's specifically arguing against the religious/spiritual narratives. It's also arguing, as Hans has extremely perceptively noted, against the cul-de-sacs of the materialist reductionist argument. Philosophy of Mind and a lot of the work in current physics are grappling with information theories, entropy, and time. Reductionism, the arc of the last 400 years of materialist science, is wanting. There's enough within science and philosophy, and enough within parapsychology (Edinburgh Uni, near you, offers a doctorate in parapsychology, as long as you can prove you're using falsifiable techniques and data) and lived experience to provide data that needs investigating. Ignoring the data amounts to superstitious rejection of phenomena (Southampton Uni did a huge NDE project a few years ago on these lived experiences, Virginia Uni investigates metempsychosis/reincarnation, Stanford has experiments over the last 40 years with random number generators and "willed interference"). Discounting it is poor thinking. Believing Auntie Mabel loves you still because the psychic (of which I am one, but a different type to the norm) told you so is also poor thinking, and takes no one anywhere other than pleasant thoughts about Auntie Mabel (which you can have without a medium telling you anything anyway). Or you could use Arthur Eddington - his experiment proved relativity - and he, like Alfred North Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's doctoral advisor) was perturbed that reductive mechanistic approaches could not enquire of consciousness in the things they measured. Quantum entanglement suggests something akin to that consciousness, and it disturbs physicists. And this smartphone requires quantum physics to work. Then you can take Galen Strawson's work on panpsychism, which uses Eddington to argue against Descartes, or take David Chalmers, and, much as they hate to admit it, Daniel Dennett and Dawkins have no good argument against the strong arguments towards panpsychism from physics. You've jumped from "reductionism says no" (which it does) and "religion is wrong" (which it is) to "therefore this is all twaddle". My enquiry is that reductionism is twaddle, albeit slightly better twaddle than the dead-end (and potentially WW3 inducing) nonsense of religions. Then my enquiry asks "Imagine matter does do the things I've suggested. How does that change our world, our politics, our economics, our culture?" You've cut your own enquiry off at a very early stage, even though the evidence should make any thinking person feel a sense of disquiet about current science's methodologies and assumptions. Reject religion by all means - please. It needs rejecting. It was (is) an evolutionary stage. But don't reject thinking - you're better than that. Thanks Nicky. I did read through that but dead is dead mate. Probably not Rag. Probably not. But dead Auntie Mabel has no interest in telling anyone she loves them. Death being another form of life is not there as a comfort to our hurt sensibilities, but something to be learned and used wisely. Because the levels of energy are not something we can currently be trusted with. Nah. Dead deid pan breid. I get the comfort that some want to take about an afterlife, but it’s a creation of man and it shows a capacity for imagination and a hope for an ethereal life beyond what exists. It’s great conceptual thinking and I’m sure lots of people have the comfort of thinking that their beloved relative is looking down from another place but no, it’s all a pile of shite. 🌈 over the rainbow bridge for dogs cats and other animals, absolutely yes. They’ve fucking earned it " 🤦♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Death. Easy one. There’s no afterlife. Nothing. Neurodiversity? It’s taken medical fraternity a long time to realise that some people’s brains work differently. Not caused by pollution, vaccines or wokeness, just taken last 40 years for them to realise that off or different people are due to that. I'm not reducing it to the simple narratives of the afterlife industry Rag - it's specifically arguing against the religious/spiritual narratives. It's also arguing, as Hans has extremely perceptively noted, against the cul-de-sacs of the materialist reductionist argument. Philosophy of Mind and a lot of the work in current physics are grappling with information theories, entropy, and time. Reductionism, the arc of the last 400 years of materialist science, is wanting. There's enough within science and philosophy, and enough within parapsychology (Edinburgh Uni, near you, offers a doctorate in parapsychology, as long as you can prove you're using falsifiable techniques and data) and lived experience to provide data that needs investigating. Ignoring the data amounts to superstitious rejection of phenomena (Southampton Uni did a huge NDE project a few years ago on these lived experiences, Virginia Uni investigates metempsychosis/reincarnation, Stanford has experiments over the last 40 years with random number generators and "willed interference"). Discounting it is poor thinking. Believing Auntie Mabel loves you still because the psychic (of which I am one, but a different type to the norm) told you so is also poor thinking, and takes no one anywhere other than pleasant thoughts about Auntie Mabel (which you can have without a medium telling you anything anyway). Or you could use Arthur Eddington - his experiment proved relativity - and he, like Alfred North Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's doctoral advisor) was perturbed that reductive mechanistic approaches could not enquire of consciousness in the things they measured. Quantum entanglement suggests something akin to that consciousness, and it disturbs physicists. And this smartphone requires quantum physics to work. Then you can take Galen Strawson's work on panpsychism, which uses Eddington to argue against Descartes, or take David Chalmers, and, much as they hate to admit it, Daniel Dennett and Dawkins have no good argument against the strong arguments towards panpsychism from physics. You've jumped from "reductionism says no" (which it does) and "religion is wrong" (which it is) to "therefore this is all twaddle". My enquiry is that reductionism is twaddle, albeit slightly better twaddle than the dead-end (and potentially WW3 inducing) nonsense of religions. Then my enquiry asks "Imagine matter does do the things I've suggested. How does that change our world, our politics, our economics, our culture?" You've cut your own enquiry off at a very early stage, even though the evidence should make any thinking person feel a sense of disquiet about current science's methodologies and assumptions. Reject religion by all means - please. It needs rejecting. It was (is) an evolutionary stage. But don't reject thinking - you're better than that. Thanks Nicky. I did read through that but dead is dead mate. Probably not Rag. Probably not. But dead Auntie Mabel has no interest in telling anyone she loves them. Death being another form of life is not there as a comfort to our hurt sensibilities, but something to be learned and used wisely. Because the levels of energy are not something we can currently be trusted with. Nah. Dead deid pan breid. I get the comfort that some want to take about an afterlife, but it’s a creation of man and it shows a capacity for imagination and a hope for an ethereal life beyond what exists. It’s great conceptual thinking and I’m sure lots of people have the comfort of thinking that their beloved relative is looking down from another place but no, it’s all a pile of shite. 🌈 over the rainbow bridge for dogs cats and other animals, absolutely yes. They’ve fucking earned it 🤦♂️" I’m not for believing my dog isn’t gonna run happy with the other puppers when he dies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Death. Easy one. There’s no afterlife. Nothing. Neurodiversity? It’s taken medical fraternity a long time to realise that some people’s brains work differently. Not caused by pollution, vaccines or wokeness, just taken last 40 years for them to realise that off or different people are due to that. I'm not reducing it to the simple narratives of the afterlife industry Rag - it's specifically arguing against the religious/spiritual narratives. It's also arguing, as Hans has extremely perceptively noted, against the cul-de-sacs of the materialist reductionist argument. Philosophy of Mind and a lot of the work in current physics are grappling with information theories, entropy, and time. Reductionism, the arc of the last 400 years of materialist science, is wanting. There's enough within science and philosophy, and enough within parapsychology (Edinburgh Uni, near you, offers a doctorate in parapsychology, as long as you can prove you're using falsifiable techniques and data) and lived experience to provide data that needs investigating. Ignoring the data amounts to superstitious rejection of phenomena (Southampton Uni did a huge NDE project a few years ago on these lived experiences, Virginia Uni investigates metempsychosis/reincarnation, Stanford has experiments over the last 40 years with random number generators and "willed interference"). Discounting it is poor thinking. Believing Auntie Mabel loves you still because the psychic (of which I am one, but a different type to the norm) told you so is also poor thinking, and takes no one anywhere other than pleasant thoughts about Auntie Mabel (which you can have without a medium telling you anything anyway). Or you could use Arthur Eddington - his experiment proved relativity - and he, like Alfred North Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's doctoral advisor) was perturbed that reductive mechanistic approaches could not enquire of consciousness in the things they measured. Quantum entanglement suggests something akin to that consciousness, and it disturbs physicists. And this smartphone requires quantum physics to work. Then you can take Galen Strawson's work on panpsychism, which uses Eddington to argue against Descartes, or take David Chalmers, and, much as they hate to admit it, Daniel Dennett and Dawkins have no good argument against the strong arguments towards panpsychism from physics. You've jumped from "reductionism says no" (which it does) and "religion is wrong" (which it is) to "therefore this is all twaddle". My enquiry is that reductionism is twaddle, albeit slightly better twaddle than the dead-end (and potentially WW3 inducing) nonsense of religions. Then my enquiry asks "Imagine matter does do the things I've suggested. How does that change our world, our politics, our economics, our culture?" You've cut your own enquiry off at a very early stage, even though the evidence should make any thinking person feel a sense of disquiet about current science's methodologies and assumptions. Reject religion by all means - please. It needs rejecting. It was (is) an evolutionary stage. But don't reject thinking - you're better than that. Thanks Nicky. I did read through that but dead is dead mate. Probably not Rag. Probably not. But dead Auntie Mabel has no interest in telling anyone she loves them. Death being another form of life is not there as a comfort to our hurt sensibilities, but something to be learned and used wisely. Because the levels of energy are not something we can currently be trusted with. Nah. Dead deid pan breid. I get the comfort that some want to take about an afterlife, but it’s a creation of man and it shows a capacity for imagination and a hope for an ethereal life beyond what exists. It’s great conceptual thinking and I’m sure lots of people have the comfort of thinking that their beloved relative is looking down from another place but no, it’s all a pile of shite. 🌈 over the rainbow bridge for dogs cats and other animals, absolutely yes. They’ve fucking earned it 🤦♂️ I’m not for believing my dog isn’t gonna run happy with the other puppers when he dies." You're quite cute for a wind-up merchant 💙. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Death. Easy one. There’s no afterlife. Nothing. Neurodiversity? It’s taken medical fraternity a long time to realise that some people’s brains work differently. Not caused by pollution, vaccines or wokeness, just taken last 40 years for them to realise that off or different people are due to that. I'm not reducing it to the simple narratives of the afterlife industry Rag - it's specifically arguing against the religious/spiritual narratives. It's also arguing, as Hans has extremely perceptively noted, against the cul-de-sacs of the materialist reductionist argument. Philosophy of Mind and a lot of the work in current physics are grappling with information theories, entropy, and time. Reductionism, the arc of the last 400 years of materialist science, is wanting. There's enough within science and philosophy, and enough within parapsychology (Edinburgh Uni, near you, offers a doctorate in parapsychology, as long as you can prove you're using falsifiable techniques and data) and lived experience to provide data that needs investigating. Ignoring the data amounts to superstitious rejection of phenomena (Southampton Uni did a huge NDE project a few years ago on these lived experiences, Virginia Uni investigates metempsychosis/reincarnation, Stanford has experiments over the last 40 years with random number generators and "willed interference"). Discounting it is poor thinking. Believing Auntie Mabel loves you still because the psychic (of which I am one, but a different type to the norm) told you so is also poor thinking, and takes no one anywhere other than pleasant thoughts about Auntie Mabel (which you can have without a medium telling you anything anyway). Or you could use Arthur Eddington - his experiment proved relativity - and he, like Alfred North Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's doctoral advisor) was perturbed that reductive mechanistic approaches could not enquire of consciousness in the things they measured. Quantum entanglement suggests something akin to that consciousness, and it disturbs physicists. And this smartphone requires quantum physics to work. Then you can take Galen Strawson's work on panpsychism, which uses Eddington to argue against Descartes, or take David Chalmers, and, much as they hate to admit it, Daniel Dennett and Dawkins have no good argument against the strong arguments towards panpsychism from physics. You've jumped from "reductionism says no" (which it does) and "religion is wrong" (which it is) to "therefore this is all twaddle". My enquiry is that reductionism is twaddle, albeit slightly better twaddle than the dead-end (and potentially WW3 inducing) nonsense of religions. Then my enquiry asks "Imagine matter does do the things I've suggested. How does that change our world, our politics, our economics, our culture?" You've cut your own enquiry off at a very early stage, even though the evidence should make any thinking person feel a sense of disquiet about current science's methodologies and assumptions. Reject religion by all means - please. It needs rejecting. It was (is) an evolutionary stage. But don't reject thinking - you're better than that. Thanks Nicky. I did read through that but dead is dead mate. Probably not Rag. Probably not. But dead Auntie Mabel has no interest in telling anyone she loves them. Death being another form of life is not there as a comfort to our hurt sensibilities, but something to be learned and used wisely. Because the levels of energy are not something we can currently be trusted with. Nah. Dead deid pan breid. I get the comfort that some want to take about an afterlife, but it’s a creation of man and it shows a capacity for imagination and a hope for an ethereal life beyond what exists. It’s great conceptual thinking and I’m sure lots of people have the comfort of thinking that their beloved relative is looking down from another place but no, it’s all a pile of shite. 🌈 over the rainbow bridge for dogs cats and other animals, absolutely yes. They’ve fucking earned it 🤦♂️ I’m not for believing my dog isn’t gonna run happy with the other puppers when he dies. You're quite cute for a wind-up merchant 💙." That’s kind of you, but doggy over the rainbow 🌈 is a sincerely held belief. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Death. Easy one. There’s no afterlife. Nothing. Neurodiversity? It’s taken medical fraternity a long time to realise that some people’s brains work differently. Not caused by pollution, vaccines or wokeness, just taken last 40 years for them to realise that off or different people are due to that. I'm not reducing it to the simple narratives of the afterlife industry Rag - it's specifically arguing against the religious/spiritual narratives. It's also arguing, as Hans has extremely perceptively noted, against the cul-de-sacs of the materialist reductionist argument. Philosophy of Mind and a lot of the work in current physics are grappling with information theories, entropy, and time. Reductionism, the arc of the last 400 years of materialist science, is wanting. There's enough within science and philosophy, and enough within parapsychology (Edinburgh Uni, near you, offers a doctorate in parapsychology, as long as you can prove you're using falsifiable techniques and data) and lived experience to provide data that needs investigating. Ignoring the data amounts to superstitious rejection of phenomena (Southampton Uni did a huge NDE project a few years ago on these lived experiences, Virginia Uni investigates metempsychosis/reincarnation, Stanford has experiments over the last 40 years with random number generators and "willed interference"). Discounting it is poor thinking. Believing Auntie Mabel loves you still because the psychic (of which I am one, but a different type to the norm) told you so is also poor thinking, and takes no one anywhere other than pleasant thoughts about Auntie Mabel (which you can have without a medium telling you anything anyway). Or you could use Arthur Eddington - his experiment proved relativity - and he, like Alfred North Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's doctoral advisor) was perturbed that reductive mechanistic approaches could not enquire of consciousness in the things they measured. Quantum entanglement suggests something akin to that consciousness, and it disturbs physicists. And this smartphone requires quantum physics to work. Then you can take Galen Strawson's work on panpsychism, which uses Eddington to argue against Descartes, or take David Chalmers, and, much as they hate to admit it, Daniel Dennett and Dawkins have no good argument against the strong arguments towards panpsychism from physics. You've jumped from "reductionism says no" (which it does) and "religion is wrong" (which it is) to "therefore this is all twaddle". My enquiry is that reductionism is twaddle, albeit slightly better twaddle than the dead-end (and potentially WW3 inducing) nonsense of religions. Then my enquiry asks "Imagine matter does do the things I've suggested. How does that change our world, our politics, our economics, our culture?" You've cut your own enquiry off at a very early stage, even though the evidence should make any thinking person feel a sense of disquiet about current science's methodologies and assumptions. Reject religion by all means - please. It needs rejecting. It was (is) an evolutionary stage. But don't reject thinking - you're better than that. Thanks Nicky. I did read through that but dead is dead mate. Probably not Rag. Probably not. But dead Auntie Mabel has no interest in telling anyone she loves them. Death being another form of life is not there as a comfort to our hurt sensibilities, but something to be learned and used wisely. Because the levels of energy are not something we can currently be trusted with. Nah. Dead deid pan breid. I get the comfort that some want to take about an afterlife, but it’s a creation of man and it shows a capacity for imagination and a hope for an ethereal life beyond what exists. It’s great conceptual thinking and I’m sure lots of people have the comfort of thinking that their beloved relative is looking down from another place but no, it’s all a pile of shite. 🌈 over the rainbow bridge for dogs cats and other animals, absolutely yes. They’ve fucking earned it 🤦♂️ I’m not for believing my dog isn’t gonna run happy with the other puppers when he dies. You're quite cute for a wind-up merchant 💙. That’s kind of you, but doggy over the rainbow 🌈 is a sincerely held belief. " Then you, my dear Rag, are a lovely but seriously deluded chap | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Death. Easy one. There’s no afterlife. Nothing. Neurodiversity? It’s taken medical fraternity a long time to realise that some people’s brains work differently. Not caused by pollution, vaccines or wokeness, just taken last 40 years for them to realise that off or different people are due to that. I'm not reducing it to the simple narratives of the afterlife industry Rag - it's specifically arguing against the religious/spiritual narratives. It's also arguing, as Hans has extremely perceptively noted, against the cul-de-sacs of the materialist reductionist argument. Philosophy of Mind and a lot of the work in current physics are grappling with information theories, entropy, and time. Reductionism, the arc of the last 400 years of materialist science, is wanting. There's enough within science and philosophy, and enough within parapsychology (Edinburgh Uni, near you, offers a doctorate in parapsychology, as long as you can prove you're using falsifiable techniques and data) and lived experience to provide data that needs investigating. Ignoring the data amounts to superstitious rejection of phenomena (Southampton Uni did a huge NDE project a few years ago on these lived experiences, Virginia Uni investigates metempsychosis/reincarnation, Stanford has experiments over the last 40 years with random number generators and "willed interference"). Discounting it is poor thinking. Believing Auntie Mabel loves you still because the psychic (of which I am one, but a different type to the norm) told you so is also poor thinking, and takes no one anywhere other than pleasant thoughts about Auntie Mabel (which you can have without a medium telling you anything anyway). Or you could use Arthur Eddington - his experiment proved relativity - and he, like Alfred North Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's doctoral advisor) was perturbed that reductive mechanistic approaches could not enquire of consciousness in the things they measured. Quantum entanglement suggests something akin to that consciousness, and it disturbs physicists. And this smartphone requires quantum physics to work. Then you can take Galen Strawson's work on panpsychism, which uses Eddington to argue against Descartes, or take David Chalmers, and, much as they hate to admit it, Daniel Dennett and Dawkins have no good argument against the strong arguments towards panpsychism from physics. You've jumped from "reductionism says no" (which it does) and "religion is wrong" (which it is) to "therefore this is all twaddle". My enquiry is that reductionism is twaddle, albeit slightly better twaddle than the dead-end (and potentially WW3 inducing) nonsense of religions. Then my enquiry asks "Imagine matter does do the things I've suggested. How does that change our world, our politics, our economics, our culture?" You've cut your own enquiry off at a very early stage, even though the evidence should make any thinking person feel a sense of disquiet about current science's methodologies and assumptions. Reject religion by all means - please. It needs rejecting. It was (is) an evolutionary stage. But don't reject thinking - you're better than that. Thanks Nicky. I did read through that but dead is dead mate. Probably not Rag. Probably not. But dead Auntie Mabel has no interest in telling anyone she loves them. Death being another form of life is not there as a comfort to our hurt sensibilities, but something to be learned and used wisely. Because the levels of energy are not something we can currently be trusted with. Nah. Dead deid pan breid. I get the comfort that some want to take about an afterlife, but it’s a creation of man and it shows a capacity for imagination and a hope for an ethereal life beyond what exists. It’s great conceptual thinking and I’m sure lots of people have the comfort of thinking that their beloved relative is looking down from another place but no, it’s all a pile of shite. 🌈 over the rainbow bridge for dogs cats and other animals, absolutely yes. They’ve fucking earned it 🤦♂️ I’m not for believing my dog isn’t gonna run happy with the other puppers when he dies. You're quite cute for a wind-up merchant 💙. That’s kind of you, but doggy over the rainbow 🌈 is a sincerely held belief. Then you, my dear Rag, are a lovely but seriously deluded chap "My dog’s my bestie and I have to hope for him. As for humans, quite serious that there’s nothing as I said. Sorry I you thought I was on a pisstake but that’s the foibles of humanity, isn’t it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Death. Easy one. There’s no afterlife. Nothing. Neurodiversity? It’s taken medical fraternity a long time to realise that some people’s brains work differently. Not caused by pollution, vaccines or wokeness, just taken last 40 years for them to realise that off or different people are due to that. I'm not reducing it to the simple narratives of the afterlife industry Rag - it's specifically arguing against the religious/spiritual narratives. It's also arguing, as Hans has extremely perceptively noted, against the cul-de-sacs of the materialist reductionist argument. Philosophy of Mind and a lot of the work in current physics are grappling with information theories, entropy, and time. Reductionism, the arc of the last 400 years of materialist science, is wanting. There's enough within science and philosophy, and enough within parapsychology (Edinburgh Uni, near you, offers a doctorate in parapsychology, as long as you can prove you're using falsifiable techniques and data) and lived experience to provide data that needs investigating. Ignoring the data amounts to superstitious rejection of phenomena (Southampton Uni did a huge NDE project a few years ago on these lived experiences, Virginia Uni investigates metempsychosis/reincarnation, Stanford has experiments over the last 40 years with random number generators and "willed interference"). Discounting it is poor thinking. Believing Auntie Mabel loves you still because the psychic (of which I am one, but a different type to the norm) told you so is also poor thinking, and takes no one anywhere other than pleasant thoughts about Auntie Mabel (which you can have without a medium telling you anything anyway). Or you could use Arthur Eddington - his experiment proved relativity - and he, like Alfred North Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's doctoral advisor) was perturbed that reductive mechanistic approaches could not enquire of consciousness in the things they measured. Quantum entanglement suggests something akin to that consciousness, and it disturbs physicists. And this smartphone requires quantum physics to work. Then you can take Galen Strawson's work on panpsychism, which uses Eddington to argue against Descartes, or take David Chalmers, and, much as they hate to admit it, Daniel Dennett and Dawkins have no good argument against the strong arguments towards panpsychism from physics. You've jumped from "reductionism says no" (which it does) and "religion is wrong" (which it is) to "therefore this is all twaddle". My enquiry is that reductionism is twaddle, albeit slightly better twaddle than the dead-end (and potentially WW3 inducing) nonsense of religions. Then my enquiry asks "Imagine matter does do the things I've suggested. How does that change our world, our politics, our economics, our culture?" You've cut your own enquiry off at a very early stage, even though the evidence should make any thinking person feel a sense of disquiet about current science's methodologies and assumptions. Reject religion by all means - please. It needs rejecting. It was (is) an evolutionary stage. But don't reject thinking - you're better than that. Thanks Nicky. I did read through that but dead is dead mate. Probably not Rag. Probably not. But dead Auntie Mabel has no interest in telling anyone she loves them. Death being another form of life is not there as a comfort to our hurt sensibilities, but something to be learned and used wisely. Because the levels of energy are not something we can currently be trusted with. Nah. Dead deid pan breid. I get the comfort that some want to take about an afterlife, but it’s a creation of man and it shows a capacity for imagination and a hope for an ethereal life beyond what exists. It’s great conceptual thinking and I’m sure lots of people have the comfort of thinking that their beloved relative is looking down from another place but no, it’s all a pile of shite. 🌈 over the rainbow bridge for dogs cats and other animals, absolutely yes. They’ve fucking earned it 🤦♂️ I’m not for believing my dog isn’t gonna run happy with the other puppers when he dies. You're quite cute for a wind-up merchant 💙. That’s kind of you, but doggy over the rainbow 🌈 is a sincerely held belief. Then you, my dear Rag, are a lovely but seriously deluded chap
My dog’s my bestie and I have to hope for him.
As for humans, quite serious that there’s nothing as I said. Sorry I you thought I was on a pisstake but that’s the foibles of humanity, isn’t it?"So, this death-life thing isn't just a human thing. As it's information, it applies to dogs, humans, all animals, plants, rocks, neutrinos, carpets, bum-clinker. And there's no reason it doesn't contain happy, but it mostly contains a quite frightening degree of energy. One that I suspect any intergalactic species has to harness and co-exist with in order to become intergalactic, without fucking it up with the whole galaxy-destroyer vibe. Intergalactic psychic love communists. But...matter...not fairytales. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Death. Easy one. There’s no afterlife. Nothing. Neurodiversity? It’s taken medical fraternity a long time to realise that some people’s brains work differently. Not caused by pollution, vaccines or wokeness, just taken last 40 years for them to realise that off or different people are due to that. I'm not reducing it to the simple narratives of the afterlife industry Rag - it's specifically arguing against the religious/spiritual narratives. It's also arguing, as Hans has extremely perceptively noted, against the cul-de-sacs of the materialist reductionist argument. Philosophy of Mind and a lot of the work in current physics are grappling with information theories, entropy, and time. Reductionism, the arc of the last 400 years of materialist science, is wanting. There's enough within science and philosophy, and enough within parapsychology (Edinburgh Uni, near you, offers a doctorate in parapsychology, as long as you can prove you're using falsifiable techniques and data) and lived experience to provide data that needs investigating. Ignoring the data amounts to superstitious rejection of phenomena (Southampton Uni did a huge NDE project a few years ago on these lived experiences, Virginia Uni investigates metempsychosis/reincarnation, Stanford has experiments over the last 40 years with random number generators and "willed interference"). Discounting it is poor thinking. Believing Auntie Mabel loves you still because the psychic (of which I am one, but a different type to the norm) told you so is also poor thinking, and takes no one anywhere other than pleasant thoughts about Auntie Mabel (which you can have without a medium telling you anything anyway). Or you could use Arthur Eddington - his experiment proved relativity - and he, like Alfred North Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's doctoral advisor) was perturbed that reductive mechanistic approaches could not enquire of consciousness in the things they measured. Quantum entanglement suggests something akin to that consciousness, and it disturbs physicists. And this smartphone requires quantum physics to work. Then you can take Galen Strawson's work on panpsychism, which uses Eddington to argue against Descartes, or take David Chalmers, and, much as they hate to admit it, Daniel Dennett and Dawkins have no good argument against the strong arguments towards panpsychism from physics. You've jumped from "reductionism says no" (which it does) and "religion is wrong" (which it is) to "therefore this is all twaddle". My enquiry is that reductionism is twaddle, albeit slightly better twaddle than the dead-end (and potentially WW3 inducing) nonsense of religions. Then my enquiry asks "Imagine matter does do the things I've suggested. How does that change our world, our politics, our economics, our culture?" You've cut your own enquiry off at a very early stage, even though the evidence should make any thinking person feel a sense of disquiet about current science's methodologies and assumptions. Reject religion by all means - please. It needs rejecting. It was (is) an evolutionary stage. But don't reject thinking - you're better than that. Thanks Nicky. I did read through that but dead is dead mate. Probably not Rag. Probably not. But dead Auntie Mabel has no interest in telling anyone she loves them. Death being another form of life is not there as a comfort to our hurt sensibilities, but something to be learned and used wisely. Because the levels of energy are not something we can currently be trusted with. Nah. Dead deid pan breid. I get the comfort that some want to take about an afterlife, but it’s a creation of man and it shows a capacity for imagination and a hope for an ethereal life beyond what exists. It’s great conceptual thinking and I’m sure lots of people have the comfort of thinking that their beloved relative is looking down from another place but no, it’s all a pile of shite. 🌈 over the rainbow bridge for dogs cats and other animals, absolutely yes. They’ve fucking earned it 🤦♂️ I’m not for believing my dog isn’t gonna run happy with the other puppers when he dies. You're quite cute for a wind-up merchant 💙. That’s kind of you, but doggy over the rainbow 🌈 is a sincerely held belief. Then you, my dear Rag, are a lovely but seriously deluded chap
My dog’s my bestie and I have to hope for him.
As for humans, quite serious that there’s nothing as I said. Sorry I you thought I was on a pisstake but that’s the foibles of humanity, isn’t it?
So, this death-life thing isn't just a human thing. As it's information, it applies to dogs, humans, all animals, plants, rocks, neutrinos, carpets, bum-clinker.
And there's no reason it doesn't contain happy, but it mostly contains a quite frightening degree of energy.
One that I suspect any intergalactic species has to harness and co-exist with in order to become intergalactic, without fucking it up with the whole galaxy-destroyer vibe.
Intergalactic psychic love communists.
But...matter...not fairytales.
"We all came from space dust and in the end will eventually go back to it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1) The dead aren't dead. It's a different form of life. Zombies? Haven’t met any. Yet.
No - just the 48,472 dead who are in your room at night Daizy.
Never blinking.
Seeing into your mind.
Zapping a few evolutionary codes in.
Without blinking.
Ever.
Did I say they don't blink? As they watch?
xxxx"48,472?? How big do you think my bedroom is Nicky? Last time I counted there was 108 crammed in, and that was only because eight perched on the book cases. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1) The dead aren't dead. It's a different form of life. Zombies? Haven’t met any. Yet.
No - just the 48,472 dead who are in your room at night Daizy.
Never blinking.
Seeing into your mind.
Zapping a few evolutionary codes in.
Without blinking.
Ever.
Did I say they don't blink? As they watch?
xxxx
48,472?? How big do you think my bedroom is Nicky? Last time I counted there was 108 crammed in, and that was only because eight perched on the book cases."Nicky explained it poorly the 48,472 can basically fit into a sugar cube as they’re ethereal beings that exist outside our ‘known’ world and exist as energy so they’d fit into each other and not be stacked or squashed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1) The dead aren't dead. It's a different form of life. Zombies? Haven’t met any. Yet.
No - just the 48,472 dead who are in your room at night Daizy.
Never blinking.
Seeing into your mind.
Zapping a few evolutionary codes in.
Without blinking.
Ever.
Did I say they don't blink? As they watch?
xxxx
48,472?? How big do you think my bedroom is Nicky? Last time I counted there was 108 crammed in, and that was only because eight perched on the book cases.
Nicky explained it poorly the 48,472 can basically fit into a sugar cube as they’re ethereal beings that exist outside our ‘known’ world and exist as energy so they’d fit into each other and not be stacked or squashed "So who were the 8 sitting on my book cases then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1) The dead aren't dead. It's a different form of life. Zombies? Haven’t met any. Yet.
No - just the 48,472 dead who are in your room at night Daizy.
Never blinking.
Seeing into your mind.
Zapping a few evolutionary codes in.
Without blinking.
Ever.
Did I say they don't blink? As they watch?
xxxx
48,472?? How big do you think my bedroom is Nicky? Last time I counted there was 108 crammed in, and that was only because eight perched on the book cases." They don't quite take up space the way we do.
What's interesting about that as well is, and very much applying this NOT to you coz you rock:
A) Someone thinks "the dead aren't real but now I'm scared". Why? If they're not real, being scared is silly. There's nothing to be scared of.
B) Not real, not scared ✔️
C) Real, scared. Why? If they're real, it's a phenomena to be investigated. Why choose fear? It's daft.
D) Real, not scared, not interested. It's a choice, but what a dull human they would be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1) The dead aren't dead. It's a different form of life. Zombies? Haven’t met any. Yet.
No - just the 48,472 dead who are in your room at night Daizy.
Never blinking.
Seeing into your mind.
Zapping a few evolutionary codes in.
Without blinking.
Ever.
Did I say they don't blink? As they watch?
xxxx
48,472?? How big do you think my bedroom is Nicky? Last time I counted there was 108 crammed in, and that was only because eight perched on the book cases.
Nicky explained it poorly the 48,472 can basically fit into a sugar cube as they’re ethereal beings that exist outside our ‘known’ world and exist as energy so they’d fit into each other and not be stacked or squashed
So who were the 8 sitting on my book cases then?"Scooby Doo Voice - ‘I don’t know. 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies)." I befuddle myself constantly, Nicky, sorry for befuddling your thread 🤗 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the dead aren't dead why do they smell funny?" I think it's the befuddling. It's gone viral and it's a bit stinky | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the dead aren't dead why do they smell funny? I think it's the befuddling. It's gone viral and it's a bit stinky "Should probably clarify - Daizy is NOT stinky. She smells of....daisies. And perfection. Befuddlement is the stinky interloper here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). I befuddle myself constantly, Nicky, sorry for befuddling your thread 🤗" Send me a video love x 😉 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the dead aren't dead why do they smell funny?" Not when they’re burnt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies)." It’s my fault Nicky all mine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). It’s my fault Nicky all mine. " Nah - you've been top mileage Rag. Doggy heaven won't make it into the final thesis, but the more human and less crazy, brutal thinker bit of me thinks doggy heaven is a lovely thing. Shows how much you love your doggie, and I'm not such a cunt I want to take love away. It means too much mate 💙. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). It’s my fault Nicky all mine. Nah - you've been top mileage Rag. Doggy heaven won't make it into the final thesis, but the more human and less crazy, brutal thinker bit of me thinks doggy heaven is a lovely thing. Shows how much you love your doggie, and I'm not such a cunt I want to take love away. It means too much mate 💙. " Rainbow 🌈 Place. Christian theology is that cats and dogs have no souls, so it’s not ‘heaven’ in the conventional sense. I think Odin looks after it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). It’s my fault Nicky all mine. Nah - you've been top mileage Rag. Doggy heaven won't make it into the final thesis, but the more human and less crazy, brutal thinker bit of me thinks doggy heaven is a lovely thing. Shows how much you love your doggie, and I'm not such a cunt I want to take love away. It means too much mate 💙. Rainbow 🌈 Place. Christian theology is that cats and dogs have no souls, so it’s not ‘heaven’ in the conventional sense. I think Odin looks after it "Don't push me Rag - I'll activate my cunt mode | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). It’s my fault Nicky all mine. Nah - you've been top mileage Rag. Doggy heaven won't make it into the final thesis, but the more human and less crazy, brutal thinker bit of me thinks doggy heaven is a lovely thing. Shows how much you love your doggie, and I'm not such a cunt I want to take love away. It means too much mate 💙. Rainbow 🌈 Place. Christian theology is that cats and dogs have no souls, so it’s not ‘heaven’ in the conventional sense. I think Odin looks after it
Don't push me Rag - I'll activate my cunt mode "Being helpful as you can add that in about the religions not including our pals | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). It’s my fault Nicky all mine. Nah - you've been top mileage Rag. Doggy heaven won't make it into the final thesis, but the more human and less crazy, brutal thinker bit of me thinks doggy heaven is a lovely thing. Shows how much you love your doggie, and I'm not such a cunt I want to take love away. It means too much mate 💙. Rainbow 🌈 Place. Christian theology is that cats and dogs have no souls, so it’s not ‘heaven’ in the conventional sense. I think Odin looks after it
Don't push me Rag - I'll activate my cunt mode
Being helpful as you can add that in about the religions not including our pals"Ah...I see. You've confused me with someone who negotiates? x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). It’s my fault Nicky all mine. Nah - you've been top mileage Rag. Doggy heaven won't make it into the final thesis, but the more human and less crazy, brutal thinker bit of me thinks doggy heaven is a lovely thing. Shows how much you love your doggie, and I'm not such a cunt I want to take love away. It means too much mate 💙. Rainbow 🌈 Place. Christian theology is that cats and dogs have no souls, so it’s not ‘heaven’ in the conventional sense. I think Odin looks after it
Don't push me Rag - I'll activate my cunt mode
Being helpful as you can add that in about the religions not including our pals
Ah...I see.
You've confused me with someone who negotiates?
x"Ah okay. They’re fucking dead nicky ! Deceased. Non parrots | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I assume My sex life is dead but are we saying it’s actually not properly dead just different? "Sadly Sam, the aliens, dead people, and future humans have just confirmed to me that the only absolute and known truth thus far, in all of the infinite multiverses' histories, is.... Nah...you're all right. Sex is on its way. Probably . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). It’s my fault Nicky all mine. Nah - you've been top mileage Rag. Doggy heaven won't make it into the final thesis, but the more human and less crazy, brutal thinker bit of me thinks doggy heaven is a lovely thing. Shows how much you love your doggie, and I'm not such a cunt I want to take love away. It means too much mate 💙. Rainbow 🌈 Place. Christian theology is that cats and dogs have no souls, so it’s not ‘heaven’ in the conventional sense. I think Odin looks after it
Don't push me Rag - I'll activate my cunt mode
Being helpful as you can add that in about the religions not including our pals
Ah...I see.
You've confused me with someone who negotiates?
x
Ah okay.
They’re fucking dead nicky ! Deceased. Non parrots "I agree Rag. In the way that means I disagree 😘. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). It’s my fault Nicky all mine. Nah - you've been top mileage Rag. Doggy heaven won't make it into the final thesis, but the more human and less crazy, brutal thinker bit of me thinks doggy heaven is a lovely thing. Shows how much you love your doggie, and I'm not such a cunt I want to take love away. It means too much mate 💙. Rainbow 🌈 Place. Christian theology is that cats and dogs have no souls, so it’s not ‘heaven’ in the conventional sense. I think Odin looks after it
Don't push me Rag - I'll activate my cunt mode
Being helpful as you can add that in about the religions not including our pals
Ah...I see.
You've confused me with someone who negotiates?
x
Ah okay.
They’re fucking dead nicky ! Deceased. Non parrots
I agree Rag. In the way that means I disagree 😘."Cool beans fella. They won’t be talking to you about it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). It’s my fault Nicky all mine. Nah - you've been top mileage Rag. Doggy heaven won't make it into the final thesis, but the more human and less crazy, brutal thinker bit of me thinks doggy heaven is a lovely thing. Shows how much you love your doggie, and I'm not such a cunt I want to take love away. It means too much mate 💙. Rainbow 🌈 Place. Christian theology is that cats and dogs have no souls, so it’s not ‘heaven’ in the conventional sense. I think Odin looks after it
Don't push me Rag - I'll activate my cunt mode
Being helpful as you can add that in about the religions not including our pals
Ah...I see.
You've confused me with someone who negotiates?
x
Ah okay.
They’re fucking dead nicky ! Deceased. Non parrots
I agree Rag. In the way that means I disagree 😘.
Cool beans fella. They won’t be talking to you about it "The dead people? You mean the dead people? I've been chatting with them for the last 15 years (and before the age of 6). It's just got nothing to do with that OLD language of religion/spirit. And everything to do with a language we don't really possess yet, but it lies somewhere in the direction of where physics is probing (and likely goes beyond current definitions of science). Or did you mean something else? Part of me hopes you do mean something else Rag, because I kinda just repeated the original part of the thread bro... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). It’s my fault Nicky all mine. Nah - you've been top mileage Rag. Doggy heaven won't make it into the final thesis, but the more human and less crazy, brutal thinker bit of me thinks doggy heaven is a lovely thing. Shows how much you love your doggie, and I'm not such a cunt I want to take love away. It means too much mate 💙. Rainbow 🌈 Place. Christian theology is that cats and dogs have no souls, so it’s not ‘heaven’ in the conventional sense. I think Odin looks after it
Don't push me Rag - I'll activate my cunt mode
Being helpful as you can add that in about the religions not including our pals
Ah...I see.
You've confused me with someone who negotiates?
x
Ah okay.
They’re fucking dead nicky ! Deceased. Non parrots
I agree Rag. In the way that means I disagree 😘.
Cool beans fella. They won’t be talking to you about it
The dead people? You mean the dead people?
I've been chatting with them for the last 15 years (and before the age of 6).
It's just got nothing to do with that OLD language of religion/spirit.
And everything to do with a language we don't really possess yet, but it lies somewhere in the direction of where physics is probing (and likely goes beyond current definitions of science).
Or did you mean something else?
Part of me hopes you do mean something else Rag, because I kinda just repeated the original part of the thread bro..."Nah was just be factious | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). It’s my fault Nicky all mine. Nah - you've been top mileage Rag. Doggy heaven won't make it into the final thesis, but the more human and less crazy, brutal thinker bit of me thinks doggy heaven is a lovely thing. Shows how much you love your doggie, and I'm not such a cunt I want to take love away. It means too much mate 💙. Rainbow 🌈 Place. Christian theology is that cats and dogs have no souls, so it’s not ‘heaven’ in the conventional sense. I think Odin looks after it
Don't push me Rag - I'll activate my cunt mode
Being helpful as you can add that in about the religions not including our pals
Ah...I see.
You've confused me with someone who negotiates?
x
Ah okay.
They’re fucking dead nicky ! Deceased. Non parrots
I agree Rag. In the way that means I disagree 😘.
Cool beans fella. They won’t be talking to you about it
The dead people? You mean the dead people?
I've been chatting with them for the last 15 years (and before the age of 6).
It's just got nothing to do with that OLD language of religion/spirit.
And everything to do with a language we don't really possess yet, but it lies somewhere in the direction of where physics is probing (and likely goes beyond current definitions of science).
Or did you mean something else?
Part of me hopes you do mean something else Rag, because I kinda just repeated the original part of the thread bro...
Nah was just be factious "And we're over 100 now - you've just set yourself the target of closing it off at 175, haven't you? Nice work . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). It’s my fault Nicky all mine. Nah - you've been top mileage Rag. Doggy heaven won't make it into the final thesis, but the more human and less crazy, brutal thinker bit of me thinks doggy heaven is a lovely thing. Shows how much you love your doggie, and I'm not such a cunt I want to take love away. It means too much mate 💙. Rainbow 🌈 Place. Christian theology is that cats and dogs have no souls, so it’s not ‘heaven’ in the conventional sense. I think Odin looks after it
Don't push me Rag - I'll activate my cunt mode
Being helpful as you can add that in about the religions not including our pals
Ah...I see.
You've confused me with someone who negotiates?
x
Ah okay.
They’re fucking dead nicky ! Deceased. Non parrots
I agree Rag. In the way that means I disagree 😘.
Cool beans fella. They won’t be talking to you about it
The dead people? You mean the dead people?
I've been chatting with them for the last 15 years (and before the age of 6).
It's just got nothing to do with that OLD language of religion/spirit.
And everything to do with a language we don't really possess yet, but it lies somewhere in the direction of where physics is probing (and likely goes beyond current definitions of science).
Or did you mean something else?
Part of me hopes you do mean something else Rag, because I kinda just repeated the original part of the thread bro...
Nah was just be factious
And we're over 100 now - you've just set yourself the target of closing it off at 175, haven't you?
Nice work ."Wanted you to get it to 100 at least. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know how this thread got up to 80...that's more befuddling to me than Daizy's stray dead 'uns (even taking out the 40 or so that are my own replies). It’s my fault Nicky all mine. Nah - you've been top mileage Rag. Doggy heaven won't make it into the final thesis, but the more human and less crazy, brutal thinker bit of me thinks doggy heaven is a lovely thing. Shows how much you love your doggie, and I'm not such a cunt I want to take love away. It means too much mate 💙. Rainbow 🌈 Place. Christian theology is that cats and dogs have no souls, so it’s not ‘heaven’ in the conventional sense. I think Odin looks after it
Don't push me Rag - I'll activate my cunt mode
Being helpful as you can add that in about the religions not including our pals
Ah...I see.
You've confused me with someone who negotiates?
x
Ah okay.
They’re fucking dead nicky ! Deceased. Non parrots
I agree Rag. In the way that means I disagree 😘.
Cool beans fella. They won’t be talking to you about it
The dead people? You mean the dead people?
I've been chatting with them for the last 15 years (and before the age of 6).
It's just got nothing to do with that OLD language of religion/spirit.
And everything to do with a language we don't really possess yet, but it lies somewhere in the direction of where physics is probing (and likely goes beyond current definitions of science).
Or did you mean something else?
Part of me hopes you do mean something else Rag, because I kinda just repeated the original part of the thread bro...
Nah was just be factious
And we're over 100 now - you've just set yourself the target of closing it off at 175, haven't you?
Nice work .
Wanted you to get it to 100 at least."Doggy heaven is back in my good books  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I assume My sex life is dead but are we saying it’s actually not properly dead just different?
Sadly Sam, the aliens, dead people, and future humans have just confirmed to me that the only absolute and known truth thus far, in all of the infinite multiverses' histories, is....
Nah...you're all right. Sex is on its way.
Probably . "At this point in time I’ll take probably lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I assume My sex life is dead but are we saying it’s actually not properly dead just different?
Sadly Sam, the aliens, dead people, and future humans have just confirmed to me that the only absolute and known truth thus far, in all of the infinite multiverses' histories, is....
Nah...you're all right. Sex is on its way.
Probably .
At this point in time I’ll take probably lol "
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the dead have conscious thought as we know it. Do they know we think of them as dead. Do they think of us in the same way. Do the dead have pets " The short answer is yes, the long answer is...well....very long. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the dead have conscious thought as we know it. Do they know we think of them as dead. Do they think of us in the same way. Do the dead have pets The short answer is yes, the long answer is...well....very long." Indulge me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do the dead have conscious thought as we know it. Do they know we think of them as dead. Do they think of us in the same way. Do the dead have pets The short answer is yes, the long answer is...well....very long. Indulge me " My typing fingers are a bit tired, so it's the sort long version. 1) Conscious thoughts as we "know" them. Right, no neuroscientist, philosopher, lexicographer, or anyone else involved in the field has an unshakeable definition of what consciousness is, and, by extension, what "as we know it" can mean. Because you have to have a consciousness of consciousness (you're double-whammied). But, loosely, there's no logical reason that IF the dead are real, this mysterious thing called consciousness would be unavailable to them. If anything, it's a far deeper version of it, existing outside of our more obvious material conditions, and our 4 dimensions. 2) Do they know we think of them as dead? Mostly yes. And they know they are "dead' in our everyday use of the term. They also know they still exist, so they are "alive differently" and know it. There are, however, various "ghost" stories (and I'm not a fan of woo because it's just shit gossip mostly) that imply the "ghost" does not know it is dead, so cannot have any conception of us knowing it's dead, because, in its mind, it isn't dead. It's alive, like us (in its mind). 3) Think of us in the same way. Other than the "confused ghost" example above (which I put under commercial sales of "woo" to am easily titillated and gullible public mostly), the consciousness of the dead/differently alive is more than capable of recognising our version of being alive. 4) Pets. Why not? And the dead can have 48 arms if they feel like it. Or stretching across 600 miles in their version or rainbow colours. It would help to think that geometries are very different in these dimensions/energy zones. Imagine a cat that looks like New York City. Cats don't look like New York City. But shapes are not confined to our everyday experience of them, here. Also, our need for pets is very much part of this world. The dead do not resemble Auntie Mabel, think like Auntie Mabel, dress like Auntie Mabel, or need to exist as they existed here. So pets are not necessarily needed or wanted, nor excluded either. If we talk with the dead, they become "Auntie Mabel-y" because we can't understand them any other way. Psychics are a bridge between Auntie Mabel as "multidimensional unlike anything we know or can understand in our current but changing versions of humanity" and "Auntie Mabel as she is in this zone. Which includes all her former lives, memories, and future incarnations...human or otherwise". Which goes part of the way to explaining why psychic stuff, which we can all do, is harder for particularly Western educated mindsets, because we can only just cope with the dead from a more infantile religious/spiritual description and expect them to be "like us". What we don't know yet, as "everyday humans", is how even we are unlike how we think we are (hence my neurodiversity comment). And that's a process of evolution (including consciousness changes) that can take thousands, millions more years. Everything I've said opens up more, but this might be all I can find for now. This is an intense thread, and even my mad reserves of thought and energy can get a bit low. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’m too stupid to even understand the question "I'm too stupid to have a clue, today, what I was driving at yesterday on this thread .
So you're in good company . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is it contravening the second law of thermodynamics? Where something is seriously at odds with good common sense rules, then it's less likely " Thing with laws is, they get updated/overthrown. And, even if there is something to this (I say yes, but expect most to say no), it's not a final set of laws. I hope we have millions more years ahead in which to be surprised by reality, updating "laws" as we go. Finally, there is enough in even current mainstream physics to have a few problems with existing laws. Doesn't mean my postulates are a good update. But I like the work involved. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
