• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

2012, the Complete Works

Ok ... Let's clarify a few things. We might have to bring in some other stuff which i posted in my other threads. In various threads, i have done posts about the 8 circuits of consciousness. By no means is it an ultimate truth about human structure. It is simply an attempt at trying to map human awareness. The first 4 circuits, appear on the left lobe. The other 4, on the right lobe. Here's an extract giving a brief summary of the first 4 circuits.



I. THE BIO-SURVIVAL CIRCUIT
This invertebrate brain was the first to evolve (2 to 3 billion years ago) and is the first activated when a human infant is born. It programs perception onto an either-or grid divided into nurturing-helpful Things (which it approaches) and noxious-dangerous Things (which it flees, or attacks). The imprinting of this circuit sets up the basic attitude of trust or suspicion which will ever after trigger approach or avoidance.



II. THE EMOTIONAL CIRCUIT
This second, more advanced bio-computer formed when vertebrates appeared and began to compete for territory (perhaps 500,000,000 B.C.). In the individual, this bigger tunnel-reality is activated when the DNA master-tape triggers the metamorphosis from crawling to walking. As every parent knows, the toddler is no longer a passive (bio-survival) infant but a mammalian politician, full of physical (and psychic) territorial demands, quick to meddle in family business and decision-making. Again the first imprint on this circuit remains constant for life (unless brainwashed) and identifies the stimuli which will automatically trigger dominant, aggressive behavior or submissive, cooperative behavior. When we say that a person is behaving emotionally, egotistically or 'like a two-year-old,' we mean that s/he is blindly following one of the tunnel-realities imprinted on this circuit.



III. THE DEXTERITY-SYMBOLISM CIRCUIT
This third brain was formed when hominid types began to differentiate from other primate stock (circa 4-5 million B.C.) and is activated for the linear left-lobe functions of the brain, determines our normal modes of artifact-manufacture and conceptual thought, i.e., third circuit 'mind.'
It is no accident, then, that our logic (and our computer-design) follows either-or, binary structure of these circuits. Nor is it an accident that our geometry, until the last century, has been Euclidean. Euclid's geometry, Aristotle's logic and Newton's physics are meta-programs synthesizing and generalizing first brain forward-back, second brain up-down and third brain right-left programs.



IV. THE SOCIAL-SEXUAL CIRCUIT
The fourth brain, dealing with the transmission of tribal or ethnic culture across generations, introduces the fourth dimension, time.
Since each of these tunnel-realities consists of biochemical imprints or matrices in the nervous system, each of them is specifically triggered by neuro-transmitters and other drugs.

=====================================================


As you see, you guys keep on asking for rational proof. Scientific proof. Well science operates on the level of rationality. They are the rational mind. "Circuit 3". Something the mind can conceive. But what we're talking about, exists past the first 4 circuits. It is post verbal. It is more concerned with the right lobe, it is experiential. How can we explain post verbal experiences verbally ? We can only give you our attempts at mapping what we're on about. No matter what, it will sound like "hippy bull shit". All we can give you is right brained maps of left brained reality. of course it's going to sound like a croak of shit. To truly understand what we're talking about, you'd have to experience it for yourself. You're saying, Let me experience Neuro-genetic awareness through your words. It's like saying, let me taste this cake, by what you have to say about it. Not going to happen. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
If you're going to quote websites, link to them. Thats the second time in this thread you've copied and pasted with no mention you are doing so. I could pick apart a few miss used terms in there, but given the origin of that, I don't think the author had much science knowledge other than a passing recognition of a few long science words.....

Okay, I see your "tasting cake" explaination. Now perhaps you'd like to answer the questions I ask in my last paragraph here, which you've ignored for the 3rd or 4th time. So far I see zero explaination of any of those things, other than "It will happen because it will happen". As IXinX so rightly says, what you are saying is terribly close to religious, because you offer no proof other than "I say it will" and "I experienced a revelation/experience that makes me beleive.". As you are no doubt aware I don't hold religion in much sted either.

Example of what you are saying (but with different claims) :

I claim that in 2050 the sky will turn purple, frogs will suddenly be able to talk, and that Mount Everest will turn into a giant banana triffle. How do I know this? I experienced a dream which makes me beleive this is so.

You can say "What stupid claims, of course that isn't going to happen!", but they are no more outragious than your own claims, and have exactly the same amount of evidence, zero other than personal belief.
 
AlphaNumeric do you have evidence that all observable phenomenon can be backed up with evidence?

The path of the scientific method is a noble one, but is it truly within the method to just assume that if something isn't backed by evidence then it isn't true? Granted there are plenty of people out there trying to pump other people with what they know is bullshit, but the fact of the matter people have experiences that are seemingly insane yet are on the same level perspective wise with many others. Assuming all these people aren't just trying to fool the world we have to ask why is this?

I agree that many of the claims posted here seem like nonsense even to me. But perhaps we should approach this a little bit more open mindedly and take into consideration that what people are trying to communicate may actually be very tricky to communicate with language.

With this in mind it may be easier to take words that already exist and put a new conceptual meaning to them by reading them in context with other information.

Timothy Leary was actually a very well known "scientist" that was a professor at Harvard University.
 
You can look at it like this. The latest attempt to estimate the rate of information acceleration ( that I know of ) -- the manifestation of coherence -- was made by French economist Georges Anderla for the organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1973. Anderla arbitrarily assumed that all the bits of information possessed by humanity at the beginning of the Christian Era (1 A.D.) could be considered his unit of measurement. He made that information pool one unit in our fund of knowledge.It took until 1500A.D., Anderla discovered, for the accumulation of bits of information to add up to two units in our "fund".
It required only 250 years more (1750) for our bank of knowledge to double again, to four units. The next doubling took only 150 years and by 1900 humanity had 8 in its information capital account.
The next doubling took only 50 years and by 1950 we had 16 units.
The next doubling took only 10 years and by 1960 we had 32 units.
The next doubling took only 7 yeas and by 1967 we had 64 units. In the next 6 year period (1967-1973), our intellectual bank account again doubled, to 128 units. At this point , Anderla completed his study. Dr Alvin silverstein has estimated that, If Anderla's graph is projected 70 years from now (1980 - 2050) human knowledge should increase a millionfold. That is we should have 128,000,000 times more knowledge then we had in the year of Jesus' Birth.

now, if we were to graph that, having units of knowledge going vertically, and the number of years after 1A.D. horizontally, you would have a rather steady plotted line, going horizontally, until around 2000, where it shoot up directly, and pretty much keeps ascending from there. SO it's making a vertical shift, and no longer goes horizontally. From this graph, you can kind of tell that there is going to be some major changes very soon.


Your refering to what futurologists call the Technological Singularity, however there is divided opinion on whether that point will ever come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

In futurism, a technological singularity is a predicted point in the development of a civilization at which technological progress accelerates beyond the ability of present-day humans to fully comprehend or predict. The Singularity can more specifically refer to the advent of smarter-than-human intelligence, and the cascading technological progress assumed to follow. Whether a singularity will actually occur is a matter of debate.


Criticisms

There exist two main types of criticisms of Singularity speculation: those questioning whether the Singularity is likely or even possible, and those questioning whether it is safe or desirable.

The likelihood and possibility of the Singularity

Some do not believe a technological singularity is likely to occur. Some detractors of the idea have referred to it as "the Rapture of the nerds".

Most Singularity speculation assumes the possibility of human-equivalent artificial intelligence. It is controversial that creating such AI is possible. Many believe practical advances in artificial intelligence research have not yet empirically demonstrated this. See the article artificial intelligence for further debate.

Some dispute that the rate of technological progress is increasing. The exponential growth of technological progress may become linear or inflected or may begin to flatten into a limited growth curve. In this model, instead of an overall acceleration of progress, technological advance jumps forward whenever their is a human "buy in" and stalls whenever there isn't a benefit large enough to profit the technologists, and therefore never gets steep enough to be considered a singularity.
 
yougene said:
AlphaNumeric do you have evidence that all observable phenomenon can be backed up with evidence?
Wouldn't the fact something is observable imply that it has evidence. If you can see it, you have evidence of it.
yougene said:
But perhaps we should approach this a little bit more open mindedly and take into consideration that what people are trying to communicate may actually be very tricky to communicate with language.
I understand there are things out there we do not understand yet, and that many philisophical ideas and new trains of thought are interesting and thought provoking, and questions about the universe are things which interest me a lot. I just have a gripe with people who claim things will happen with zero reason to back it up and then try to use crappy pseudo-science to make it valid.

Thought provoking theoretical conversations or about things which have evidence and relate to our existance are interesting, except when someone pulls out pseudo-science bullshit which is nothing more than completely made up. I'm more than happy for someone to say "Relativity is wrong" provided they back it up, after all thats what science is about, bettering itself. I've seen enough people spout "hippy bullshit" (I'm using that phrase again because I know Red Earth loves it ;)) about why Relativity or some other area of science is wrong yet its obvious they don't know what they are trying to argue against. Just ticks me off.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Wouldn't the fact something is observable imply that it has evidence. If you can see it, you have evidence of it.
That is an assumption I would have to agree with, but it is still an assumption. I'm talking more specifically about observations within the inner worlds of ourselves. Granted it may be possible one day in the near future for outside observers to look into other peoples worlds with emerging technologies, but perhaps there is some sort of barrier? At the moment all we can do is explore this world ourselves and compare notes with others.

I understand there are things out there we do not understand yet, and that many philisophical ideas and new trains of thought are interesting and thought provoking, and questions about the universe are things which interest me a lot. I just have a gripe with people who claim things will happen with zero reason to back it up and then try to use crappy pseudo-science to make it valid.
Well it isn't a very productive approach. Alot, maybe most of the pseudoscience/conspiracy theory I've ran across is bullshit. However the purpose of pseudoscience/conspiracy theory isn't validation but communication.

Thought provoking theoretical conversations or about things which have evidence and relate to our existance are interesting, except when someone pulls out pseudo-science bullshit which is nothing more than completely made up. I'm more than happy for someone to say "Relativity is wrong" provided they back it up, after all thats what science is about, bettering itself. I've seen enough people spout "hippy bullshit" (I'm using that phrase again because I know Red Earth loves it ;)) about why Relativity or some other area of science is wrong yet its obvious they don't know what they are trying to argue against. Just ticks me off.
understandable
 
2012

so yea, there's alot of stories and idea's about the infamous year, and i find them fascinating...
what do u have to say??:D
 
This discussion will peak around about december when mel gibson's new film apocalypto is released.
 
egad! l2r! that will be awful! and i am sure it will be, since it made say egad! blech.
 
The second transit of Venus and the presidential elections are the only important things we know will happen. I can't speculate on disasters, let alone those based on a calendar that is nowadays of purely academic interest.

I hope 2012 gets here quick, so doomsayers can pick another year like 2033 or 2525.

No offense intended to the OP, btw.
 
2012 has a *bit* more credibility than ordinary doomsday-theories...

basicly 2012 is another step in the evolution of planet earth and that which is connected with it, for more information check out secrets of the mayan calendar by Ian Xel Lungold here



i don't blindly believe it will happen though, because i don't want to be disapointed.

but i see there's a big possibility it will happen for various reasons....

i guessw e will soon find out %)
 
brayne said:
basicly 2012 is another step in the evolution of planet earth and that which is connected with it, for more information check out secrets of the mayan calendar by Ian Xel Lungold here
Rearrange these words :

shit , bull

Search for previous threads on the Mayans for why.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
Rearrange these words :

shit , bull

Search for previous threads on the Mayans for why.
i did a search and read some stuff, but didn't find exactly what it is what you want me to read. can you point your finger to where i have to look please :|




about my previous post in this thread... i just said "something" about "2012", i never said it's the truth.. or that believe in that particular theory...

i believe theress a good chance something big will happen but i don't know what exactly, and if it doesn't it's ok
 
Well without reading too much into it, there is an astrological event occuring on winter solstice of 2012 (according to the mayan timekeepers, anyway)... precession of the equinoxes. Happens every 26,000 years or so.
 
2012 marks the end of the ratings season for aliens watching the tv show "planet earth"... we'll be back, but not until ratings season is :D
 
Top