That same forum has a Doctoral engineer in artificial intelligence (AI) that works at an aerospace company in LA. Here is my response to him.

Dear Rick

You say:

‘So that leaves the giant question: assuming that artificial computers are unconscious how is it that we can imagine computer-driven robots that behave intelligently?’

Quite a lot of assumptions there - both explicit and implied. The word 'artificial' implies something that may not be fully factual. For example - it is a mystical premise that each chakra in the human body is a nexus of lesser consciousnesses all of which are not on the radar screen of what our original poster here seems to think are conscious. In fact there is evidence of a lesser brain in the solar plexus or stomach area chakra that physiologists have described briefly operates with headless people such as I have posted here.

The issue of consciousness being collective goes to what is called Intelligent Design - I hope I do not have to explain.

The collective is operating according to the same laws of reality (science - such as in the Law of the Magi - As Above, SO Below) that show us the microcosm and macrocosm have similar design constructs (and adepts use these archetypes or constructs to affect Matrices through Myths and more subtle means).

The last part of your question I presume relates to Gary Hillis and the sentient robots he is working on that we have discussed before; including dumping the contents of a human brain into them which was done in 1999 at Stanford.

In that discussion we must again ask what is consciousness and the soul - as Bill Joy and others have properly done. You perhaps used the phrase 'behave intelligently' to mean that - although it would have been better to word it differently. If you did not mean that and work in the area you do - I would be amazed. I say that because the matter of behaving intelligently is implicit in the whole idea of AI.

At Berkeley and Arizona universities (going from memory) there are people who posit that consciousness is a purely synaptic issue and this can be created and the robots will soon replicate themselves to the same end. Some of these people clearly do not believe in a soul which I think is collective despite some interesting regressions I have witnessed and can explain within the hierarchies of layers of organizationally attuned lattices and wells of energy. Then a few months after I had written this book came the University of Florida’s scientist named DeMarse who built a brain computer that could fly an airplane. It was made from rat brain cells and is alive. That report in October 2004 is the harbinger of more ethical quagmires which mankind must address. (5)

Notes:

1) Everyday Immortality, by Deepak Chopra, Harmony Books, NY, 1999, pgs. 76-7.

2) http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

3) http://www.twm.co.nz/Bohm.html

4) The Rev. Lindsay G. King, also posts to several Brain-Meta.com topics. He was ordained in 1953, as a minister of the United Church of Canada, which respects freedom of thought. He served the church and had a successful ministry, until 1994--just over 40 years. Now, he likes to think of himself as re-directed, not retired. Not your typical theist--though he respects all sincerely held beliefs which contribute morally and eth

The idea of thought coming from Spirit is a little general and not something I agree with unless he means REAL thought rather than regurgitated thought. Deepak Chopra is a great and wonderful human being who escaped the material competitive focused world and the 'expertise' that was his, as a doctor. We have shown that science is getting dangerously close to finding templates and forms that mirror this kind of philosophy. The church felt science was philosophy and that all things came from this kind of godhead in the 'Dark Ages'; and scientists have justifiably thought any mention of a bridge to religion is fraught with these kinds of intellectual authoritarian terrors. Perhaps now we can re-evaluate our belief in godly forces and not involve religious or priestly interpreters who ask us to 'follow' like sheep. To replace one set of interpreters with another form of 'expertise' is not good. Surely there is a balance that harmonizes with purpose and true knowingness. I like the thought expressed by James Watson in his foreword to Discovering the Brain. He said, ‘The brain boggles the mind.’. It is also true that a lot of the ‘boggling’ has been done by those saying they seek God.

The equipment based on Tesla's 'non-force info packets' that draws energy from a vacuum that Bearden has patented and the wireless transmission of generated energy will make perpetual motion seem tame. The real possibilities of using other dimensions as storage for energy we create could be just around the corner. Someday the barriers we have created in our real world through an ignorant adherence to conventions of black and white certainty will be brought down just like the Berlin Wall; we built it to keep ideas and people from each other. We can overcome these walls we create in our minds. I mean that literally too. In November 2004 Sharon Begley of The Wall Street Journal reported on the scientific analysis of brain plasticity and integration in the brains of Buddhist monks. There are limits to what we can achieve but those limits are far different than we have been led to believe.

I'm not cognizant of all the ins and outs of 'red-shifts' or other astrophysical esoterics so the generalities of my insights might not have as much merit. The exorcisms I've been involved in helping free both the possessed and possessor are part of the limbo state which energy exists in after death. Does this limbo state include the same energy band- width that our solar or auric body travels in? Not by experience of the astral work I've done. However, one can meet dead people in astral travel if one has a guide or the spirit is attuned that you are about to visit. That spirit would be a multi-dimensional traveler then. There are many shades and variations of spiritual bandwidths and it may be because there is so much more energy in the unseen world that the astrophysicists told us about earlier. Ninety-five per cent versus 5 per cent is a large ratio in favor of the unseen. The ultraviolet and light energies might even be part of the visible universe, which would mean we can only actually see a percentage of the material universe. And as big an issue as all of this kind of talk is, we still must consider whether or not we know what we see when it slaps us in the face, as they say.

The average person today will likely have their mind and senses closed to the opportunity that the thalami offer to accentuate, amplify and direct non-visual forces to our conscious processing centers. The operational paradigms of the spiritual world are a science unto themselves, and the astrophysicists may not have as good a picture as I hope they do. There are those I have met, who can travel between dimensions and we will deal with these aspects of life and natural possibilities versus hallucination in other parts of this book. But, if the modern research is right about the Thalami, I feel quite certain that all the dimensions are at our disposal in every aspect of our existence. When one remembers the way we thought about spirits and devils as we listened to the preachers who tried to tell us about HELL - it is difficult to open our minds to what they were saying about the saints who performed the very miracles that men and women have always been able to do.

We see that the Gospel of Thomas from the Dag Hammadi 'finds' confirm Jesus never performed any miracle that you or I can't do. (John 10:34). The dimensional spiritual world is science and real even if we are ignorant of it. That is what the Gnostics he studied with say is the 'Original Sin' that separates us from God - IGNORANCE! Scipio Africanus and others before and after the time of Jesus were used to seeing each other and the spirits of their loved ones alive or dead! In many instances there is potential to visualize the future and it will happen with proper INTENT. Bucky Fuller did it, and I have too. Some say the forces of darkness that created the Dark Age were able to re-program the world mind to the point that our ability was diminished by the evil they fomented. Energy of a negative nature does have to be attuned with good, in order for Abraxas or unity to occur, on the grand scale and as an individual. That is why selfish prayer is wasteful and one must operate in 'brotherhood' and love to come up with things like the geodesic dome or wireless 'free energy'. Still these things are on the shelf and few really know how great they are and how much better the world might be.

Microchemical potentials and observations are exciting corollaries to chaos science. The laws of universe are 'unfolding as they should' (Desiderata was a nice poem that Pierre Trudeau often quoted as Canada's Prime Minister when I was a young man.) 'whether or not it is clear' to us! There are always good things to learn when one looks at the work of these scientists. I especially enjoy those who are willing to do what Bucky Fuller described when he talked about 'stepping outside the circle' or 'biting his tongue' when he felt complacent in the knowledge he had in a particular area of deliberation. Professor Morowitz is a microbiologist and chemist at Yale University who we will show later as an example of what can happen when people think integratively and lose their ego. He also correctly observes that few of the physical sciences encourage this integration. Is it possible to have an answer when the questions are slanted to dovetail with only one perspective? We respectfully offer that no real truth has ever resulted from the need of any tenured or other 'expert' who sought power from his peers rather than enlightenment from 'ALL that is!'

What with genetics and the basic building blocks of matter becoming more apparent to researchers who are free of old philosophic rule by the church there is truly a dawning of a new age. The title of Prof. Morowitz's article in August of 1980's Psychology Today was quite appropriate - 'Rediscovering The Mind'. As we continue to RE!-discover we might even know what is important 'within' our soul. Of course, my opinion is just 'post-modern democratized' ideology as Prof. Wiseman points out. No one person can know all things. He would be right, if he said that. But my response would be that we must all try to integrate rather than compartmentalize our knowledge. That leads to coping skills and application of thinking processes that produce a net creative improvement rather than agreement from those we 'hang with'!

It has been said that there is not much advancement in a civilization which has science separate from its belief system or religion to any great extent. Social dilemmas appear to exist all around us. They reach into our past, distort our present, and add a twist of despair to our future. They sound so negative when put this way. They are negative to journeys of the Soul. I find a lot of physics in many religious writings throughout time and yet there are still a lot of controlling interests who promote sins and demons in these religions. Here is a little of the Dag or Nag Hammadi papyruses which the Gnostics (later Cathars) saved from the destroying Empire-builders. It is specifically from the Gospel of Mary which was mostly found before the end of the 19th Century.

“22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots.

23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone.

24) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?

26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.” (2)

A neuroscience forum which I was invited to has had many people respond to various postings without identifying themselves. I think some of that is because they have a reputation to protect or job they value. Here is one such response to a thread I started.

“Science is reductionist whereas mysticism is broadly integrative. It would seem that science and mysticism occupy anti-podal positions. They are both concerned with truth, yet go about it differently. Science seeks to objectively and mathematically describe truth, whereas mysticism seeks to experience truth. Science and mysticism are flip sides of the same coin. The greatest scientists have invariantly been deeply mystical. I'm tempted to say that the greatest mystics have invariantly been deeply scientific, or at least had an appreciation for science, but this I'm less certain of.”

I responded by saying I agreed and that I was certain the sages or greatest scientists were indeed very spiritual. One of those sages is David Bohm and here is a little of how he approached physics.

“In an interview in 1989 at the Nils Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, where Bohm presented his views, Bohm spoke on his theory of wholeness and the implicate order. The conversation centered around a new worldview that is developing in part of the Western world, one that places more focus on wholeness and process than analysis of separate parts. Bohm explained the basics of the theory of relativity and its more revolutionary offspring, quantum theory. Either theory, if carried out to its extreme, violates every concept on which we base our understanding of reality. Both challenge our notions of our world and ourselves.

He cited evidence from both theories that support a new paradigm of a more interrelated, fluid, and less absolute basis of existence, one in which mind is an active participant. ‘Information contributes fundamentally to the qualities of substance.’ He discussed forms, fields, superconductivity, wave function and electron behavior. ‘Wave function, which operates through form, is closer to life and mind...The electron has a mindlike quality.’” (3)

In May 2004 there is a report of an archaeological find in Mayan tunnels (they loved the spiritual cenotes) saying it was a millennium earlier than the Mayan ascendancy and yet it was just 200 BC. Aside from the fact that I have proven these people were there at least 3000 years earlier the ‘find’ is a mask of a sun god. The sun god or Heliopolitan Druidism is just one of the esoteric clues to follow in tracing the ‘travelers’ or Red-Headed League of Megalith Builders all over the world. The Harmonic of Light was the science behind the shamanic attunements that led to the knowledge mythologized in the various sun-gods which is also interpreted as the ‘son of god’.

The neuroscience forum has a minister of the Unitarian Universalist persuasion. We are discussing all manner of things related to the soulful sciences and I wish to have my readers see this wise older man has a lot to offer at this juncture. Here is Rev. Lindsay King’s response to me (as RTB) in a thread dealing with healing and hypnotic effective or positive thinking potentials. There is also a man from India that NASA may be convinced can gain energy from the sun to the point that he has not needed to eat for many years. They are trying to learn how to do this; and if they do, they will teach it to those who are about to travel the cosmic light fantastic.

‘BTW, RTB, to my great relief, way back when, I came to understand that--and I am not sure where I first got the idea, maybe from the writings of Milton Erickson--hypnosis is not something that a "master" does to a "subject". It is, rather, what happens between people when they interact with one another. Hypnosis is something a curious student learns from a wise teacher.

For good or ill, this powerful interaction can take place between individuals and, on a one to one basis, lead to negative and/or positive things happening. Or, like the example you gave, charismatic personalities or leadership types, including entertainers, spiritual leaders, evangelists, political leaders, whoever, can "work" the audience and make positive and/or negative things happen.

THE "FORCE" IS NEUTRAL

For some time, now, I have been convinced--and I am always open to be persuaded otherwise--that this powerful mental/spiritual force, which I call the pneuma component and factor, is like the light and energy which comes to us from the sun. Of itself, it is neutral. It can be used to do evil or good. If I exposed myself to the blazing light and heat of the sun for too long, without mercy, it will physically kill me. If I look at it, without proper protection, it will blind me.

In my opinion, if there is a powerful mental/spiritual force waiting to be understood and used, the worse thing we can do is nothing. Sure the taking of any kind of action involves risk, and the making of mistakes that could cause us some pain. However, if we allow ourselves to be motivated by fear of the unknown and other destructive emotions-powerful pneumatological tools often used by clever obscurants--and not to try to understand and to work with this "pneumatological force", evil is bound to happen.’ (4)

That same forum has a Doctoral engineer in artificial intelligence (AI) that works at an aerospace company in LA. Here is my response to him.

Dear Rick

You say:

‘So that leaves the giant question: assuming that artificial computers are unconscious how is it that we can imagine computer-driven robots that behave intelligently?’

Quite a lot of assumptions there - both explicit and implied. The word 'artificial' implies something that may not be fully factual. For example - it is a mystical premise that each chakra in the human body is a nexus of lesser consciousnesses all of which are not on the radar screen of what our original poster here seems to think are conscious. In fact there is evidence of a lesser brain in the solar plexus or stomach area chakra that physiologists have described briefly operates with headless people such as I have posted here.

The issue of consciousness being collective goes to what is called Intelligent Design - I hope I do not have to explain.

The collective is operating according to the same laws of reality (science - such as in the Law of the Magi - As Above, SO Below) that show us the microcosm and macrocosm have similar design constructs (and adepts use these archetypes or constructs to affect Matrices through Myths and more subtle means).

The last part of your question I presume relates to Gary Hillis and the sentient robots he is working on that we have discussed before; including dumping the contents of a human brain into them which was done in 1999 at Stanford.

In that discussion we must again ask what is consciousness and the soul - as Bill Joy and others have properly done. You perhaps used the phrase 'behave intelligently' to mean that - although it would have been better to word it differently. If you did not mean that and work in the area you do - I would be amazed. I say that because the matter of behaving intelligently is implicit in the whole idea of AI.

At Berkeley and Arizona universities (going from memory) there are people who posit that consciousness is a purely synaptic issue and this can be created and the robots will soon replicate themselves to the same end. Some of these people clearly do not believe in a soul which I think is collective despite some interesting regressions I have witnessed and can explain within the hierarchies of layers of organizationally attuned lattices and wells of energy. Then a few months after I had written this book came the University of Florida’s scientist named DeMarse who built a brain computer that could fly an airplane. It was made from rat brain cells and is alive. That report in October 2004 is the harbinger of more ethical quagmires which mankind must address. (5)

Notes:

1) Everyday Immortality, by Deepak Chopra, Harmony Books, NY, 1999, pgs. 76-7.

2) http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

3) http://www.twm.co.nz/Bohm.html

4) The Rev. Lindsay G. King, also posts to several Brain-Meta.com topics. He was ordained in 1953, as a minister of the United Church of Canada, which respects freedom of thought. He served the church and had a successful ministry, until 1994--just over 40 years. Now, he likes to think of himself as re-directed, not retired. Not your typical theist--though he respects all sincerely held beliefs which contribute morally and ethi

The average person today will likely have their mind and senses closed to the opportunity that the thalami offer to accentuate, amplify and direct non-visual forces to our conscious processing centers. The operational paradigms of the spiritual world are a science unto themselves, and the astrophysicists may not have as good a picture as I hope they do. There are those I have met, who can travel between dimensions and we will deal with these aspects of life and natural possibilities versus hallucination in other parts of this book. But, if the modern research is right about the Thalami, I feel quite certain that all the dimensions are at our disposal in every aspect of our existence. When one remembers the way we thought about spirits and devils as we listened to the preachers who tried to tell us about HELL - it is difficult to open our minds to what they were saying about the saints who performed the very miracles that men and women have always been able to do.

We see that the Gospel of Thomas from the Dag Hammadi 'finds' confirm Jesus never performed any miracle that you or I can't do. (John 10:34). The dimensional spiritual world is science and real even if we are ignorant of it. That is what the Gnostics he studied with say is the 'Original Sin' that separates us from God - IGNORANCE! Scipio Africanus and others before and after the time of Jesus were used to seeing each other and the spirits of their loved ones alive or dead! In many instances there is potential to visualize the future and it will happen with proper INTENT. Bucky Fuller did it, and I have too. Some say the forces of darkness that created the Dark Age were able to re-program the world mind to the point that our ability was diminished by the evil they fomented. Energy of a negative nature does have to be attuned with good, in order for Abraxas or unity to occur, on the grand scale and as an individual. That is why selfish prayer is wasteful and one must operate in 'brotherhood' and love to come up with things like the geodesic dome or wireless 'free energy'. Still these things are on the shelf and few really know how great they are and how much better the world might be.

Microchemical potentials and observations are exciting corollaries to chaos science. The laws of universe are 'unfolding as they should' (Desiderata was a nice poem that Pierre Trudeau often quoted as Canada's Prime Minister when I was a young man.) 'whether or not it is clear' to us! There are always good things to learn when one looks at the work of these scientists. I especially enjoy those who are willing to do what Bucky Fuller described when he talked about 'stepping outside the circle' or 'biting his tongue' when he felt complacent in the knowledge he had in a particular area of deliberation. Professor Morowitz is a microbiologist and chemist at Yale University who we will show later as an example of what can happen when people think integratively and lose their ego. He also correctly observes that few of the physical sciences encourage this integration. Is it possible to have an answer when the questions are slanted to dovetail with only one perspective? We respectfully offer that no real truth has ever resulted from the need of any tenured or other 'expert' who sought power from his peers rather than enlightenment from 'ALL that is!'

What with genetics and the basic building blocks of matter becoming more apparent to researchers who are free of old philosophic rule by the church there is truly a dawning of a new age. The title of Prof. Morowitz's article in August of 1980's Psychology Today was quite appropriate - 'Rediscovering The Mind'. As we continue to RE!-discover we might even know what is important 'within' our soul. Of course, my opinion is just 'post-modern democratized' ideology as Prof. Wiseman points out. No one person can know all things. He would be right, if he said that. But my response would be that we must all try to integrate rather than compartmentalize our knowledge. That leads to coping skills and application of thinking processes that produce a net creative improvement rather than agreement from those we 'hang with'!

It has been said that there is not much advancement in a civilization which has science separate from its belief system or religion to any great extent. Social dilemmas appear to exist all around us. They reach into our past, distort our present, and add a twist of despair to our future. They sound so negative when put this way. They are negative to journeys of the Soul. I find a lot of physics in many religious writings throughout time and yet there are still a lot of controlling interests who promote sins and demons in these religions. Here is a little of the Dag or Nag Hammadi papyruses which the Gnostics (later Cathars) saved from the destroying Empire-builders. It is specifically from the Gospel of Mary which was mostly found before the end of the 19th Century.

“22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots.

23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone.

24) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?

26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.” (2)

A neuroscience forum which I was invited to has had many people respond to various postings without identifying themselves. I think some of that is because they have a reputation to protect or job they value. Here is one such response to a thread I started.

“Science is reductionist whereas mysticism is broadly integrative. It would seem that science and mysticism occupy anti-podal positions. They are both concerned with truth, yet go about it differently. Science seeks to objectively and mathematically describe truth, whereas mysticism seeks to experience truth. Science and mysticism are flip sides of the same coin. The greatest scientists have invariantly been deeply mystical. I'm tempted to say that the greatest mystics have invariantly been deeply scientific, or at least had an appreciation for science, but this I'm less certain of.”

I responded by saying I agreed and that I was certain the sages or greatest scientists were indeed very spiritual. One of those sages is David Bohm and here is a little of how he approached physics.

“In an interview in 1989 at the Nils Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, where Bohm presented his views, Bohm spoke on his theory of wholeness and the implicate order. The conversation centered around a new worldview that is developing in part of the Western world, one that places more focus on wholeness and process than analysis of separate parts. Bohm explained the basics of the theory of relativity and its more revolutionary offspring, quantum theory. Either theory, if carried out to its extreme, violates every concept on which we base our understanding of reality. Both challenge our notions of our world and ourselves.

He cited evidence from both theories that support a new paradigm of a more interrelated, fluid, and less absolute basis of existence, one in which mind is an active participant. ‘Information contributes fundamentally to the qualities of substance.’ He discussed forms, fields, superconductivity, wave function and electron behavior. ‘Wave function, which operates through form, is closer to life and mind...The electron has a mindlike quality.’” (3)

In May 2004 there is a report of an archaeological find in Mayan tunnels (they loved the spiritual cenotes) saying it was a millennium earlier than the Mayan ascendancy and yet it was just 200 BC. Aside from the fact that I have proven these people were there at least 3000 years earlier the ‘find’ is a mask of a sun god. The sun god or Heliopolitan Druidism is just one of the esoteric clues to follow in tracing the ‘travelers’ or Red-Headed League of Megalith Builders all over the world. The Harmonic of Light was the science behind the shamanic attunements that led to the knowledge mythologized in the various sun-gods which is also interpreted as the ‘son of god’.

The neuroscience forum has a minister of the Unitarian Universalist persuasion. We are discussing all manner of things related to the soulful sciences and I wish to have my readers see this wise older man has a lot to offer at this juncture. Here is Rev. Lindsay King’s response to me (as RTB) in a thread dealing with healing and hypnotic effective or positive thinking potentials. There is also a man from India that NASA may be convinced can gain energy from the sun to the point that he has not needed to eat for many years. They are trying to learn how to do this; and if they do, they will teach it to those who are about to travel the cosmic light fantastic.

‘BTW, RTB, to my great relief, way back when, I came to understand that--and I am not sure where I first got the idea, maybe from the writings of Milton Erickson--hypnosis is not something that a "master" does to a "subject". It is, rather, what happens between people when they interact with one another. Hypnosis is something a curious student learns from a wise teacher.

For good or ill, this powerful interaction can take place between individuals and, on a one to one basis, lead to negative and/or positive things happening. Or, like the example you gave, charismatic personalities or leadership types, including entertainers, spiritual leaders, evangelists, political leaders, whoever, can "work" the audience and make positive and/or negative things happen.

THE "FORCE" IS NEUTRAL

For some time, now, I have been convinced--and I am always open to be persuaded otherwise--that this powerful mental/spiritual force, which I call the pneuma component and factor, is like the light and energy which comes to us from the sun. Of itself, it is neutral. It can be used to do evil or good. If I exposed myself to the blazing light and heat of the sun for too long, without mercy, it will physically kill me. If I look at it, without proper protection, it will blind me.

In my opinion, if there is a powerful mental/spiritual force waiting to be understood and used, the worse thing we can do is nothing. Sure the taking of any kind of action involves risk, and the making of mistakes that could cause us some pain. However, if we allow ourselves to be motivated by fear of the unknown and other destructive emotions-powerful pneumatological tools often used by clever obscurants--and not to try to understand and to work with this "pneumatological force", evil is bound to happen.’ (4)

That same forum has a Doctoral engineer in artificial intelligence (AI) that works at an aerospace company in LA. Here is my response to him.

Dear Rick

You say:

‘So that leaves the giant question: assuming that artificial computers are unconscious how is it that we can imagine computer-driven robots that behave intelligently?’

Quite a lot of assumptions there - both explicit and implied. The word 'artificial' implies something that may not be fully factual. For example - it is a mystical premise that each chakra in the human body is a nexus of lesser consciousnesses all of which are not on the radar screen of what our original poster here seems to think are conscious. In fact there is evidence of a lesser brain in the solar plexus or stomach area chakra that physiologists have described briefly operates with headless people such as I have posted here.

The issue of consciousness being collective goes to what is called Intelligent Design - I hope I do not have to explain.

The collective is operating according to the same laws of reality (science - such as in the Law of the Magi - As Above, SO Below) that show us the microcosm and macrocosm have similar design constructs (and adepts use these archetypes or constructs to affect Matrices through Myths and more subtle means).

The last part of your question I presume relates to Gary Hillis and the sentient robots he is working on that we have discussed before; including dumping the contents of a human brain into them which was done in 1999 at Stanford.

In that discussion we must again ask what is consciousness and the soul - as Bill Joy and others have properly done. You perhaps used the phrase 'behave intelligently' to mean that - although it would have been better to word it differently. If you did not mean that and work in the area you do - I would be amazed. I say that because the matter of behaving intelligently is implicit in the whole idea of AI.

At Berkeley and Arizona universities (going from memory) there are people who posit that consciousness is a purely synaptic issue and this can be created and the robots will soon replicate themselves to the same end. Some of these people clearly do not believe in a soul which I think is collective despite some interesting regressions I have witnessed and can explain within the hierarchies of layers of organizationally attuned lattices and wells of energy. Then a few months after I had written this book came the University of Florida’s scientist named DeMarse who built a brain computer that could fly an airplane. It was made from rat brain cells and is alive. That report in October 2004 is the harbinger of more ethical quagmires which mankind must address. (5)

Notes:

1) Everyday Immortality, by Deepak Chopra, Harmony Books, NY, 1999, pgs. 76-7.

2) http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

3) http://www.twm.co.nz/Bohm.html

4) The Rev. Lindsay G. King, also posts to several Brain-Meta.com topics. He was ordained in 1953, as a minister of the United Church of Canada, which respects freedom of thought. He served the church and had a successful ministry, until 1994--just over 40 years. Now, he likes to think of himself as re-directed, not retired. Not your typical theist--though he respects all sincerely held beliefs which contribute morally and eth

It has been said that there is not much advancement in a civilization which has science separate from its belief system or religion to any great extent. Social dilemmas appear to exist all around us. They reach into our past, distort our present, and add a twist of despair to our future. They sound so negative when put this way. They are negative to journeys of the Soul. I find a lot of physics in many religious writings throughout time and yet there are still a lot of controlling interests who promote sins and demons in these religions. Here is a little of the Dag or Nag Hammadi papyruses which the Gnostics (later Cathars) saved from the destroying Empire-builders. It is specifically from the Gospel of Mary which was mostly found before the end of the 19th Century.

“22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots.

23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone.

24) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?

26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.” (2)

A neuroscience forum which I was invited to has had many people respond to various postings without identifying themselves. I think some of that is because they have a reputation to protect or job they value. Here is one such response to a thread I started.

“Science is reductionist whereas mysticism is broadly integrative. It would seem that science and mysticism occupy anti-podal positions. They are both concerned with truth, yet go about it differently. Science seeks to objectively and mathematically describe truth, whereas mysticism seeks to experience truth. Science and mysticism are flip sides of the same coin. The greatest scientists have invariantly been deeply mystical. I'm tempted to say that the greatest mystics have invariantly been deeply scientific, or at least had an appreciation for science, but this I'm less certain of.”

I responded by saying I agreed and that I was certain the sages or greatest scientists were indeed very spiritual. One of those sages is David Bohm and here is a little of how he approached physics.

“In an interview in 1989 at the Nils Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, where Bohm presented his views, Bohm spoke on his theory of wholeness and the implicate order. The conversation centered around a new worldview that is developing in part of the Western world, one that places more focus on wholeness and process than analysis of separate parts. Bohm explained the basics of the theory of relativity and its more revolutionary offspring, quantum theory. Either theory, if carried out to its extreme, violates every concept on which we base our understanding of reality. Both challenge our notions of our world and ourselves.

He cited evidence from both theories that support a new paradigm of a more interrelated, fluid, and less absolute basis of existence, one in which mind is an active participant. ‘Information contributes fundamentally to the qualities of substance.’ He discussed forms, fields, superconductivity, wave function and electron behavior. ‘Wave function, which operates through form, is closer to life and mind...The electron has a mindlike quality.’” (3)

In May 2004 there is a report of an archaeological find in Mayan tunnels (they loved the spiritual cenotes) saying it was a millennium earlier than the Mayan ascendancy and yet it was just 200 BC. Aside from the fact that I have proven these people were there at least 3000 years earlier the ‘find’ is a mask of a sun god. The sun god or Heliopolitan Druidism is just one of the esoteric clues to follow in tracing the ‘travelers’ or Red-Headed League of Megalith Builders all over the world. The Harmonic of Light was the science behind the shamanic attunements that led to the knowledge mythologized in the various sun-gods which is also interpreted as the ‘son of god’.

The neuroscience forum has a minister of the Unitarian Universalist persuasion. We are discussing all manner of things related to the soulful sciences and I wish to have my readers see this wise older man has a lot to offer at this juncture. Here is Rev. Lindsay King’s response to me (as RTB) in a thread dealing with healing and hypnotic effective or positive thinking potentials. There is also a man from India that NASA may be convinced can gain energy from the sun to the point that he has not needed to eat for many years. They are trying to learn how to do this; and if they do, they will teach it to those who are about to travel the cosmic light fantastic.

‘BTW, RTB, to my great relief, way back when, I came to understand that--and I am not sure where I first got the idea, maybe from the writings of Milton Erickson--hypnosis is not something that a "master" does to a "subject". It is, rather, what happens between people when they interact with one another. Hypnosis is something a curious student learns from a wise teacher.

For good or ill, this powerful interaction can take place between individuals and, on a one to one basis, lead to negative and/or positive things happening. Or, like the example you gave, charismatic personalities or leadership types, including entertainers, spiritual leaders, evangelists, political leaders, whoever, can "work" the audience and make positive and/or negative things happen.

THE "FORCE" IS NEUTRAL

For some time, now, I have been convinced--and I am always open to be persuaded otherwise--that this powerful mental/spiritual force, which I call the pneuma component and factor, is like the light and energy which comes to us from the sun. Of itself, it is neutral. It can be used to do evil or good. If I exposed myself to the blazing light and heat of the sun for too long, without mercy, it will physically kill me. If I look at it, without proper protection, it will blind me.

In my opinion, if there is a powerful mental/spiritual force waiting to be understood and used, the worse thing we can do is nothing. Sure the taking of any kind of action involves risk, and the making of mistakes that could cause us some pain. However, if we allow ourselves to be motivated by fear of the unknown and other destructive emotions-powerful pneumatological tools often used by clever obscurants--and not to try to understand and to work with this "pneumatological force", evil is bound to happen.’ (4)

That same forum has a Doctoral engineer in artificial intelligence (AI) that works at an aerospace company in LA. Here is my response to him.

Dear Rick

You say:

‘So that leaves the giant question: assuming that artificial computers are unconscious how is it that we can imagine computer-driven robots that behave intelligently?’

Quite a lot of assumptions there - both explicit and implied. The word 'artificial' implies something that may not be fully factual. For example - it is a mystical premise that each chakra in the human body is a nexus of lesser consciousnesses all of which are not on the radar screen of what our original poster here seems to think are conscious. In fact there is evidence of a lesser brain in the solar plexus or stomach area chakra that physiologists have described briefly operates with headless people such as I have posted here.

The issue of consciousness being collective goes to what is called Intelligent Design - I hope I do not have to explain.

The collective is operating according to the same laws of reality (science - such as in the Law of the Magi - As Above, SO Below) that show us the microcosm and macrocosm have similar design constructs (and adepts use these archetypes or constructs to affect Matrices through Myths and more subtle means).

The last part of your question I presume relates to Gary Hillis and the sentient robots he is working on that we have discussed before; including dumping the contents of a human brain into them which was done in 1999 at Stanford.

In that discussion we must again ask what is consciousness and the soul - as Bill Joy and others have properly done. You perhaps used the phrase 'behave intelligently' to mean that - although it would have been better to word it differently. If you did not mean that and work in the area you do - I would be amazed. I say that because the matter of behaving intelligently is implicit in the whole idea of AI.

At Berkeley and Arizona universities (going from memory) there are people who posit that consciousness is a purely synaptic issue and this can be created and the robots will soon replicate themselves to the same end. Some of these people clearly do not believe in a soul which I think is collective despite some interesting regressions I have witnessed and can explain within the hierarchies of layers of organizationally attuned lattices and wells of energy. Then a few months after I had written this book came the University of Florida’s scientist named DeMarse who built a brain computer that could fly an airplane. It was made from rat brain cells and is alive. That report in October 2004 is the harbinger of more ethical quagmires which mankind must address. (5)

Notes:

1) Everyday Immortality, by Deepak Chopra, Harmony Books, NY, 1999, pgs. 76-7.

2) http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

3) http://www.twm.co.nz/Bohm.html

4) The Rev. Lindsay G. King, also posts to several Brain-Meta.com topics. He was ordained in 1953, as a minister of the United Church of Canada, which respects freedom of thought. He served the church and had a successful ministry, until 1994--just over 40 years. Now, he likes to think of himself as re-directed, not retired. Not your typical theist--though he respects all sincerely held beliefs which contribute morally and eth

He cited evidence from both theories that support a new paradigm of a more interrelated, fluid, and less absolute basis of existence, one in which mind is an active participant. ‘Information contributes fundamentally to the qualities of substance.’ He discussed forms, fields, superconductivity, wave function and electron behavior. ‘Wave function, which operates through form, is closer to life and mind...The electron has a mindlike quality.’” (3)

In May 2004 there is a report of an archaeological find in Mayan tunnels (they loved the spiritual cenotes) saying it was a millennium earlier than the Mayan ascendancy and yet it was just 200 BC. Aside from the fact that I have proven these people were there at least 3000 years earlier the ‘find’ is a mask of a sun god. The sun god or Heliopolitan Druidism is just one of the esoteric clues to follow in tracing the ‘travelers’ or Red-Headed League of Megalith Builders all over the world. The Harmonic of Light was the science behind the shamanic attunements that led to the knowledge mythologized in the various sun-gods which is also interpreted as the ‘son of god’.

The neuroscience forum has a minister of the Unitarian Universalist persuasion. We are discussing all manner of things related to the soulful sciences and I wish to have my readers see this wise older man has a lot to offer at this juncture. Here is Rev. Lindsay King’s response to me (as RTB) in a thread dealing with healing and hypnotic effective or positive thinking potentials. There is also a man from India that NASA may be convinced can gain energy from the sun to the point that he has not needed to eat for many years. They are trying to learn how to do this; and if they do, they will teach it to those who are about to travel the cosmic light fantastic.

‘BTW, RTB, to my great relief, way back when, I came to understand that--and I am not sure where I first got the idea, maybe from the writings of Milton Erickson--hypnosis is not something that a "master" does to a "subject". It is, rather, what happens between people when they interact with one another. Hypnosis is something a curious student learns from a wise teacher.

For good or ill, this powerful interaction can take place between individuals and, on a one to one basis, lead to negative and/or positive things happening. Or, like the example you gave, charismatic personalities or leadership types, including entertainers, spiritual leaders, evangelists, political leaders, whoever, can "work" the audience and make positive and/or negative things happen.

THE "FORCE" IS NEUTRAL

For some time, now, I have been convinced--and I am always open to be persuaded otherwise--that this powerful mental/spiritual force, which I call the pneuma component and factor, is like the light and energy which comes to us from the sun. Of itself, it is neutral. It can be used to do evil or good. If I exposed myself to the blazing light and heat of the sun for too long, without mercy, it will physically kill me. If I look at it, without proper protection, it will blind me.

In my opinion, if there is a powerful mental/spiritual force waiting to be understood and used, the worse thing we can do is nothing. Sure the taking of any kind of action involves risk, and the making of mistakes that could cause us some pain. However, if we allow ourselves to be motivated by fear of the unknown and other destructive emotions-powerful pneumatological tools often used by clever obscurants--and not to try to understand and to work with this "pneumatological force", evil is bound to happen.’ (4)

That same forum has a Doctoral engineer in artificial intelligence (AI) that works at an aerospace company in LA. Here is my response to him.

Dear Rick

You say:

‘So that leaves the giant question: assuming that artificial computers are unconscious how is it that we can imagine computer-driven robots that behave intelligently?’

Quite a lot of assumptions there - both explicit and implied. The word 'artificial' implies something that may not be fully factual. For example - it is a mystical premise that each chakra in the human body is a nexus of lesser consciousnesses all of which are not on the radar screen of what our original poster here seems to think are conscious. In fact there is evidence of a lesser brain in the solar plexus or stomach area chakra that physiologists have described briefly operates with headless people such as I have posted here.

The issue of consciousness being collective goes to what is called Intelligent Design - I hope I do not have to explain.

The collective is operating according to the same laws of reality (science - such as in the Law of the Magi - As Above, SO Below) that show us the microcosm and macrocosm have similar design constructs (and adepts use these archetypes or constructs to affect Matrices through Myths and more subtle means).

The last part of your question I presume relates to Gary Hillis and the sentient robots he is working on that we have discussed before; including dumping the contents of a human brain into them which was done in 1999 at Stanford.

In that discussion we must again ask what is consciousness and the soul - as Bill Joy and others have properly done. You perhaps used the phrase 'behave intelligently' to mean that - although it would have been better to word it differently. If you did not mean that and work in the area you do - I would be amazed. I say that because the matter of behaving intelligently is implicit in the whole idea of AI.

At Berkeley and Arizona universities (going from memory) there are people who posit that consciousness is a purely synaptic issue and this can be created and the robots will soon replicate themselves to the same end. Some of these people clearly do not believe in a soul which I think is collective despite some interesting regressions I have witnessed and can explain within the hierarchies of layers of organizationally attuned lattices and wells of energy. Then a few months after I had written this book came the University of Florida’s scientist named DeMarse who built a brain computer that could fly an airplane. It was made from rat brain cells and is alive. That report in October 2004 is the harbinger of more ethical quagmires which mankind must address. (5)

Notes:

1) Everyday Immortality, by Deepak Chopra, Harmony Books, NY, 1999, pgs. 76-7.

2) http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

3) http://www.twm.co.nz/Bohm.html

4) The Rev. Lindsay G. King, also posts to several Brain-Meta.com topics. He was ordained in 1953, as a minister of the United Church of Canada, which respects freedom of thought. He served the church and had a successful ministry, until 1994--just over 40 years. Now, he likes to think of himself as re-directed, not retired. Not your typical theist--though he respects all sincerely held beliefs which contribute morally and eth

That same forum has a Doctoral engineer in artificial intelligence (AI) that works at an aerospace company in LA. Here is my response to him.

Dear Rick

You say:

‘So that leaves the giant question: assuming that artificial computers are unconscious how is it that we can imagine computer-driven robots that behave intelligently?’

Quite a lot of assumptions there - both explicit and implied. The word 'artificial' implies something that may not be fully factual. For example - it is a mystical premise that each chakra in the human body is a nexus of lesser consciousnesses all of which are not on the radar screen of what our original poster here seems to think are conscious. In fact there is evidence of a lesser brain in the solar plexus or stomach area chakra that physiologists have described briefly operates with headless people such as I have posted here.

The issue of consciousness being collective goes to what is called Intelligent Design - I hope I do not have to explain.

The collective is operating according to the same laws of reality (science - such as in the Law of the Magi - As Above, SO Below) that show us the microcosm and macrocosm have similar design constructs (and adepts use these archetypes or constructs to affect Matrices through Myths and more subtle means).

The last part of your question I presume relates to Gary Hillis and the sentient robots he is working on that we have discussed before; including dumping the contents of a human brain into them which was done in 1999 at Stanford.

In that discussion we must again ask what is consciousness and the soul - as Bill Joy and others have properly done. You perhaps used the phrase 'behave intelligently' to mean that - although it would have been better to word it differently. If you did not mean that and work in the area you do - I would be amazed. I say that because the matter of behaving intelligently is implicit in the whole idea of AI.

At Berkeley and Arizona universities (going from memory) there are people who posit that consciousness is a purely synaptic issue and this can be created and the robots will soon replicate themselves to the same end. Some of these people clearly do not believe in a soul which I think is collective despite some interesting regressions I have witnessed and can explain within the hierarchies of layers of organizationally attuned lattices and wells of energy. Then a few months after I had written this book came the University of Florida’s scientist named DeMarse who built a brain computer that could fly an airplane. It was made from rat brain cells and is alive. That report in October 2004 is the harbinger of more ethical quagmires which mankind must address. (5)

Notes:

1) Everyday Immortality, by Deepak Chopra, Harmony Books, NY, 1999, pgs. 76-7.

2) http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

3) http://www.twm.co.nz/Bohm.html

4) The Rev. Lindsay G. King, also posts to several Brain-Meta.com topics. He was ordained in 1953, as a minister of the United Church of Canada, which respects freedom of thought. He served the church and had a successful ministry, until 1994--just over 40 years. Now, he likes to think of himself as re-directed, not retired. Not your typical theist--though he respects all sincerely held beliefs which contribute morally and ethically to the public good--the Rev. King advocates a fairly unique theological approach which he calls 'unitheism' similar to the Panentheism of Professor Marcus Borg and others. He supports the scientific study of all things to do with religion, including any claims made by it. [If you wish, you may refer people to my site http://www.flfcanada.com for details.]

5) http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2004news/braindish.htm