What is a Transhumanist?


Sounds like something from the Matrix at first glance doesn’t it? You might still think so after studying it for a long time if you are inclined to be a Luddite or you just don’t think our leaders and ‘experts’ have been acting in the best interests of life on earth. I have an open-mind about brain implants and enhancing drugs or prosthetics and I can see the justification for the research when I consider people like Christopher Reeves who have lost the use of their limbs. I can see how good some of these things could be and I might even agree with Hillis and others who look forward to dumping the contents of their brain into a sentient robot as they near the end of the natural existence of the body on earth. Here are some words from Mr. Bostrom a top academic and seemingly nice young man who founded a Transhumanism group.


“It sounds cheesy, but one of the things I would want to do is make the world a better place.


How? - Indirectly, by improving our understanding of how anticipated future technologies can be turned to human good, and how the biggest risks can be avoided. I work on some of the philosophical and strategic problems that might somehow be connected to these issues. I also try to help others to make progress in this area.


Why? - By historical standards, things are now moving fast. There is a possibility that we will have molecular manufacturing or superintelligent machines. These prospects are at the same time very promising and very dangerous. In a worst-case scenario, intelligent life could go extinct. However, if we play it nice and smart, you and I or our descendants might manage to make the leap and become "posthuman persons" -- beings with vastly longer healthy lifespans and enhanced intellectual, emotional, physical, and moral capacities. Being human is great in many ways, but I don't think we are as good as we can be. There is much room for improvement. Some people dislike the idea of tampering with nature, and especially human nature. We do need to tread carefully and hold each other's hands as we walk this path. But imagine a world without involuntary suffering, aging, and disease! We're already set on a journey that might eventually take us into new realms of wonderful ways of being, thinking, feeling, and relating to each other. We need vision and the courage to dream about a better world. In order for these dreams to come true, we need to grow up. Ultimately, that may even entail shedding some of our current biological limitations. Let us hope that we may get the opportunity to truly grow up and experience life as it should have been all along.


What is needed is not just transformative technology but also the wisdom to use it well. It is time to do some serious thinking on this topic. Difficult ethical, strategic, technical, social, personal, and cultural issues must be addressed to make this vision a reality. In a bid to encourage research and constructive public debate, I co-founded the not-for-profit World Transhumanist Association in early 1998. It currently has over 3,000 members from all walks of life and chapters all over the world. There is also the beginnings of greater interest within academia to cease to ignore what is probably the biggest question of our time.� (1)


Yes it is the biggest question of our time and yet how can we trust people who are not aware of the abuses of technologies including all manner of eugenics and genetic manipulations or other mind control efforts. I see no evidence that this young man has studied what history tells me.

Did you check him out? I seem to recall Oxford University - maybe that is not enough for you.

I don't know what other people think, but I find the naivety of the "transhumanism" post above to be a big turn-off. It is to be hoped that the writer has written something more worthwhile on the topic, and if so, that it should be posted here. Otherwise, imho, a fifth grader could have written this essay, which is overflowing with platitudes and hot air.

Yes, it is as I said - devoid of a knowledge of history and as you say full of platitudes.

However, I cannot do all your work for you. Actually I could and I have put other things here about the danger of neuroscience and its work to enhance the brain. SO have others. You will have a lot of reading to do - before you can formulate an appropriate question.

Well I agree actually. But it is not the common perspective that a POST DOCTORAL person from Oxford is not without credentials and when you find him co-founding a group such as this you should wonder if the ghosts of John Ruskin (Oxford DON) and Cecil Rhodes are at work.

Nick Bostrom

yes, nice site. I have seen his publication list and would have to ask, what has he published that's respectable? To self-label one of his "areas of competence" as computational neuroscience is humorous and begs the question, what works has he produced that demonstrate such competence? A vague, wishy-washy philosopher-wannabe is not the same as a scientist or a creative innovator. I have yet to see anything authoritative or even original come from him, and when you also consider his list of shenanigans (which are not posted on his vanity site), it constitutes hard proof that even Oxford post-docs can be buffoons to the bone though obviously he's not going to want others to know this.

I'm with you, dude.

tell me more of these shenanigans

Almost no mention of Bostrom and I imagine you could find far worse on many people who actually DO anything - eg. BUSH or the CIA,

Such as:

From: Eternum1 (Original Message) Sent: 14/07/2004 10:14 PM
…or was it Colonel Mustard in the drawing room with the rope? On Friday the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee issued its 511 page report --an estimated 20% already censored out by the CIA (so assume this was the best news available) -- and as all press reports indicate, it savaged the Agency. Its essential implied conclusion was that the CIA more or less single-handedly led a misinformed Congress and a misadvised administration into war. ("The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure [CIA] analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.") The committee Democrats signed off on this and then held edgy press conferences or like House minority leader Nancy Pelosi released statements indicating that it probably wasn't this way at all.

So, gee, like they used to say when I was a kid about those drawings that had five-legged cows floating through the clouds, what's wrong with this picture? To make sense of all this, it helps to compare the shameful CIA intelligence record on Saddam's Iraq to the various pretzled legal memos the Defense Department, the CIA, and others solicited from working groups of administration legal brains on the issue of torture and the president's power to create an offshore torture system. Like the CIA's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq, with its even more doctored, unclassified public version (a White House construct which took much heat in the Committee report), these were essentially after-the-fact efforts to bolster decisions already taken or in the process of being taken by top administration officials who had, until then, largely consulted each other.

Remember, long before that NIE was produced, top administration figures were already out on the national and international hustings selling their wares and their prospective war with their own "intelligence" right at the tips of their tongues. As Dick Cheney, for instance, said in August 2002 speech to the VFW, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"; while the President addressed the UN General Assembly thusly in September of that year, "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons," and so on, ad nauseam. And keep in mind, they already had their own outfit, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans (OSP), set up in the Pentagon in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, to create a perfect storm of intelligence exactly to the administration's liking.

In the case of BushCos offshore mini-gulag of injustice, we know that essential decisions were taken quickly in late 2001 and early 2002 -- including the creation of a new category of prisoners, "unlawful" or "illegal combatants" -- by top Bush administration officials, including the President, without resort to any corps of lawyers. In the case of intelligence on Saddam's Iraq, we know from various kiss-and-tell memoirs that, within nanoseconds of the 9/11 attacks, the administration was readying itself for a long-desired invasion of Iraq. Though its urge to go to war had nothing to do with Saddam's actual danger , excuses were needed -- wmd threatening the world, ties to al-Qaeda, and so on -- and when that's what they wanted, as the legal memos on torture indicate, that's what they got. In fact, what they got was the Agency's already infamous "unfounded 'group think' assumptions." Whether the CIA's top officials leapt on board or were shoved on board by the neocons and the vice president, whether those vice presidential visits to Langley, Virginia did or did not push CIA analysts over the brink ("The committee found no evidence that the vice president's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts…") -- these aren't small points, but they're not the largest points either.

Really, if you think about it, the President made this clear in his response to the Senate report: He indicated that, report or not, he had no regrets about his war with Iraq: "Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons, I believe we were right to go into Iraq. America is safer today because we did. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take." With or without weapons. With or without those ties.

It was a point made no less strongly just after the war by Paul Wolfowitz in a Vanity Fair magazine interview, "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction [as justification for invading Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." He meant, of course, the main reason everyone in the administration could agree on that would sell the war to Congress and the American public.

If you take a longer view, it's clear that the most essential aspects of the CIA's terrible intelligence, which supposedly bedazzled this administration and misled America into war, had long been in the hands of the Bush warriors. A quick peek, for instance, at the website of the neocon Project for a New American Century (PNAC) makes clear that Wolfowitz's "bureaucratic reason" was already well established when, in their out-of-power years, seventeen of them, most with remarkably familiar names (Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, R. James Woolsey), wrote Republican congressional leaders Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott an open letter in May 1998 forcefully suggesting what would come to be called "regime change" in Iraq: "We recommended," they said, referring to an earlier letter the group had sent President Clinton, "a substantial change in the direction of U.S. policy: Instead of further, futile efforts to 'contain' Saddam, we argued that the only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction was to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power…" And they warned that, failing to do so, "The administration will have unnecessarily put at risk U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf, who will be vulnerable to attack by biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons under Saddam Hussein's control."

Once in office, of course, they cranked it all up several notches, tossing in that useful post-9/11 canard about Saddam's al-Qaeda ties, and with it the endlessly reiterated implication that Saddam had had a hand in the September attacks. (This tale from the crypt, we now know from an "annex" to the Committee report written by three Democratic senators, was first concocted by the Pentagon's Feith, who set up an unofficial "Iraqi intelligence cell," as an adjunct to his Office of Special Plans, to counter CIA dismissals of those Saddam/al-Qaeda ties and, it seems, to offer counter-CIA briefings at the White House.) Having concluded soon after 9/11 that they could successfully take the country to war against Iraq (once the Taliban in Afghanistan were polished off), they went for it and the CIA, as the Senate Intelligence Committee's report makes dismally clear, offered plenty of help in the process; but the basics were all in place well before the CIA did its painful worst and the decisions -- even though you won't find a single smoking-gun order on Iraq -- as well.

David Corn of the Nation magazine, who has been a bulldog on this issue, writes of the Senate report, "The United States went to war on the basis of false claims." The Los Angeles Times lead piece on the report the morning after it was released begins in the same vein: "The United States went to war with Iraq on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments that 'either overstated or were not supported by' the underlying evidence on Baghdad's weapons programs, according to a scathing report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday."

This is strictly true. The United States as in-- we the people -- went to war on the basis of false claims. The Bush administration, however, went to war on another basis entirely. As Corn reports, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Committee's vice chairman, said that this was one of the "most devastating...intelligence failures in the history of the nation." Perhaps in the history of the nation. But it was not an intelligence failure for the Bush administration. It was an intelligence success. As the Los Angeles Times piece put it in a wonderful cart-before-the-horse line, "The report amounted to such an indictment of prewar intelligence that lawmakers from both parties questioned whether the invasion would have occurred if information on Iraq's weapons programs had been accurate." Exactly. For the Bush administration, that would have been an "intelligence failure."

As Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) wrote recently in an e-letter to friends and acquaintances,


"The CIA analysis on WMD, however unconscionably warped and wrong, was really not the main issue -- that the [October] National Intelligence Estimate came only when it was seen as necessary to deceive Congress into ceding to the Executive Congress's exclusive Constitutional prerogative to declare war; that indeed, the [official] decision to make war on Iraq preceded the estimate by at least several months and probably came in early spring of 2002 at the latest… and was made for reasons other than WMD or alleged Iraqi ties with al-Qaeda. (Reasons were/are primarily oil and Israel in my view.) WMD was just a cover story needed to get the people and Congress frightened enough to approve the war...and it worked."

It's hard now even to recall the foolishness that a majority of the American public and most of its representatives in Congress accepted as reality. To take but one outrageous example, the administration not only claimed that the Iraqis were developing a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), capable of delivering biowarfare agents deep inland from Americas coasts, but that they were a threat to do exactly that. The President said this on national television -- such planes could, he claimed, potentially penetrate hundreds of miles inland with their deadly cargoes -- but not before his administration offered this "intelligence" in briefings to Congress as it was trying to stampede representatives into a war resolution. Here, for instance, is part of a sad statement (worth quoting at length and reading in full) Senator Bill Nelson of Florida made on the subject this January:


"I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles. Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern seaboard cities of the United States.

"Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the United States? The first public disclosure of that information occurred perhaps a couple of weeks later, when the information was told to us. It was prior to the vote on the resolution and it was in a highly classified setting in a secure room. But the first public disclosure of that information was when the President addressed the Nation on TV. He said that Saddam Hussein possessed UAVs.

"Later, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in his presentation to the United Nations, in a very dramatic and effective presentation, expanded that and suggested the possibility that UAVs could be launched against the homeland, having been transported out of Iraq. The information was made public, but it was made public after we had already voted on the resolution, and at the time there was nothing to contradict that.

"We now know, after the fact and on the basis of Dr. Kay's testimony today in the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the information was false; and not only that there were not weapons of mass destruction-- chemical and biological--but there was no fleet of UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles, nor was there any capability of putting UAVs on ships and transporting them to the Atlantic coast and launching them at U.S. cities on the eastern seaboard."


"At the time there was nothing to contradict that" -- but common sense, of course. We now know that there was no fleet of Iraqi UAVs (in a New York Times chart of "The Senate Committee's Conclusions," this falls under the category not of "incorrect" or "unsupported," but hilariously enough of "overreaching" -- click here and then on "Graphic: Individual Assessments" below at screen right). Had there, however, been such a fleet, the means of launching them far inland from somewhere off America's coasts to spray deadly toxins (hardly a sure thing, by the way) were obviously missing -- or will a previously undiscovered Iraqi navy be produced one day for our edification? Did no Senator ask how these planes would be delivered to western coasts and launched to deliver their rain of terror? Nothing tells us more about the bizarre state of public consciousness at that prewar moment than that this literally inconceivable possibility could have been raised by the nation's top officials and then gone unchallenged -- or even really discussed -- in the press.

The Senate report on prewar intelligence focused particularly on that October 2002 NIE, a report requested not by the administration itself, which tellingly had felt no need for such a document, but by senators being pressured to vote on a war resolution as that administration, to quote the Los Angeles Times, "ratcheted up its case for war." This led to a quickie, distinctly shameful, doctored intelligence document, produced in only a few weeks -- and then, as the Committee report makes clear, its public version, under skilled White House penmanship, lost even the modest caveats and qualifications the CIA had put in.

Now, like so much smoke blown away by the wind, gone are all those public justifications for war in Iraq: the threatening aluminum tubes, the mobile weapons labs, the vast stores of off-the-shelf, ready-to-roll weapons of mass destruction, the fleets of UAVs, Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda, Iraq's military as a regional danger -- all, that is, of Secretary of State Powell's UN speech, hailed at the time by media as a magnificent performance, as this administration's "Stevenson moment" (a reference to Adlai Stevenson, a UN representative at the time of the Cuban missile crisis).

Here's how Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus, fine reporters for the Washington Post began their piece on the Senate Committee's report Saturday: "Yesterday's report by the Senate intelligence committee left in shreds two of the Bush administration's main rationales for the war in Iraq: that Iraq had illicit weapons and that it cooperated with al Qaeda." Okay, I've been on another planet, admittedly. But weren't they already in "shreds"? No, it seems, as they say in paragraph two, that they were previously only "in tatters." There must be a subtle hierarchy of tearing and rending here. My only question, since this process is clearly going to go on and on and on, with ever more "revelations" of what we all should have known or assumed long ago: What comes after "shreds"? As subsequent reports arrive, we might have to turn to other methods (and imagery) to produce, say, ashes or cinders?

While commenting that the "undermining of the administration's case for war is potentially a grave threat to Bush, whose reelection prospects are closely tied to Americans' view of the merits of the Iraq war and whether it advances the fight against terrorism," Milbank and Pincus describe the Senate report thusly:


"On the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the bipartisan committee report absolved administration officials of pressuring CIA analysts to inflate the case against Saddam Hussein. And while making no judgment on whether the administration distorted the intelligence it was given, the committee made plain that the CIA's case against Iraq was plenty exaggerated on its own. Without 'any evidence' of administration coercion, the committee found, the intelligence community's judgments on Iraq's weapons were 'either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting.'"

Ho-hum. This is the nature of media debate in the United States today, even after -- with its Iraq policies in tatters (or is it shreds?) and angry military, State Department, and intelligence agency leakers stirring up a storm -- the media floodgates have finally opened partway. But to this day what you still can't find is an article in one of the major papers leading off with the sort of straightforward assessment of the Senate report Julian Borger of the British Guardian offered:


"Yesterday's Senate report on the intelligence failures that helped speed the march to war in Iraq was in many ways a political coup for the Republican party, that defused a potentially dangerous landmine between President Bush and re-election in November. The Democratic members of the Senate intelligence committee were persuaded to sign a report containing a central finding they disagreed with -- that senior administration officials did not pressure CIA analysts to produce assessments that would support a war."

But perhaps it hardly matters. A desperate administration may feel that it's ducked responsibility for the war it wanted and led you into -- the CIA did it! -- but such fine points of dispute are unlikely to carry much weight with an American public increasingly dismayed and disillusioned with the rush to battle.

The Transhumanist organization started by Bostrom which I mentioned earlier has a lot of former directors talking about cronyism and fraud or tyranny in it. If they are an example of what superior genetic or drug enhancements and the like which they promote, will achieve; or even if they were to succeed in promoting some of the good things gene-therapy will allow; we are in for a major problem. We do not need immortal elites leading us to doom or leaving us behind while they take their loved ones off to some new habitat for humanity on other planets like Alpha Centauri has, and we can reach in fifteen years.
I am totally behind the use of gene-therapy to extend the potential for human life to 900 years which they say science will allow by the year 2070. Only it must be freely available to all people and implemented with ethics in government which include limits to children being brought into the world if their parents do not have the wherewithal to raise them. In other words I think the society at large should have Elder Councils to approve each new life brought into their clan just as was once the case in extended family tribal and pan-tribal days.
I think the opportunity for wise people who have lived for centuries is most exciting. Imagine the possibilities if education was a lifetime pursuit just as we see Jean-Luc Picard and his Joy of Learning on the TV and movie shows like Star Trek.
There have been attempts at creating the ‘ubermensch’ or perfect human and homonuncluses (or is that homonuncli?) in the past. Gardner suggests they have had some success and he describes how – but he uses things that were only recently learned in science in his explanations. But I do know they had programs to select special people who often were illegitimate or breed to have certain traits and then trained them to be what they became. The case of Hitler is most interesting but Napoleon and the likes of Charles Martel and Constantine are worthy of massive investigation along with St. Germain and Professor Short or others who taught them.

it looks like the WTA is nothing more than a vanity organization

pretty funny stuff

Vanity is thy name - mankind.

And all the lobbyists and politicos sucking at the sump-pump of sensationalism are no better as they foment all manner of grossly indecent dialogue.

Pity is my credo, for all of these your's, Bob, as your ist's and ism's are all that killing you all...no matter where nor what draws your bow stings, and nor the lines from what's eithers/or's sty or sky!
And only my shame keeps me here...?

Jasper aka The Suicidal Nihilist
Just bite me to see nothing but the best ist any ism can never be!

"Pity" is dishonest because it rarely exists though is often touted. More often than not, "pity" is a facade for deeper, baser, rawer emotions which we do not want to acknowledge exist in us, and so our subconscious fabricates this nonsense called pity.

Pity is a lie, and when it is not a lie, it is weak. In any event, pity should not be touted. It should be avoided.

Thus does my wisdom teach: Do not pity your neighbor, and if your neighbor "pities" you, be thankful that you are not half as stupid as he.

Do not pity your neighbor, for Nature has her reasons.

Truly said - (unknown) and yet Jasper is using the word pity to say something about his lofty station in his mind and well developed soul in reference to the likes of poor pitiful me.

Thanks RTB. I should not have called it "my wisdom" but rather just "wisdom".

Transhumanism huh?

I think it will be a viable option if we let it be one!

An interesting website is www.bltc.com

Quite farfetched i hear some people saying? I Think not...

We have the "potential"...Lets turn it into "current"

bltc.com, the "hedonistic imperative", has been around for several years, has little (i.e. nothing) new to say, and has accomplished even less. So much for hedonism.

BLTC is unable to keep up with today's pace and the forefront of research. Everything on that site is old news and hasn't changed for several years now.

Yup,i know!

It is good reading material though,at least for an "initiation" on some neurochemistry issues.

Not that bad if you ask me.What we need is either more updates,or some new sites

I wonder whether any site can really keep up with everything current.

Very difficult i guess....It requires constant maintain and constant looking into sources...From an economical point of view one would have to subscribe to many magazines/services in order to be "top notch" especially in fields like that!

More importantly most of these organizations and web sites are too specialized and not addressing the most important aspects of what will be needed for the decisions to be made. They hope to get the necessary approvals and funding through the greed need as they have the goods - and they may prove to be right on that; but I think the whole issue will not be palatable to the masses and they will have to demonstrate ethical safeguards exist in society at large.

Their special interest academic prattle or clubs are also experiencing a lot of in-fighting as we saw with Bostrom's group.

Hopefully there will come a time when this stuff becomes a hot topic in the media and sometimes I wonder if without such exposure they will ramrod their soul destroying technology gradually into so much of society that it will become a moot issue. When I see nothing about it discussed by the major political parties (including the impact of gene therapy life extension) I wonder. I wonder if there is an agenda to further segment a class society where only the few privileged master race become the new creature - homo sapiens immortalis.

yeah, 'unknown', it would be kind of a stretch to imagine such a website existing. Maybe we can imagine the internet itself as this 'website', with some kind of central reference site that supplies continuously updated scores for top experts of all fields. How could such a central reference site be created? Likely, there would be many such sites in competition at first. But with time, certain sites would prove most credible and, presumably, would converge in their rankings of experts

Dear Dan

Although I recognize it is possible that the homo sapiens will be retired I think this will only happen when the elites who are already very old due to the gene therapy usages get absolute certainty that the sentient robots are indeed getting our (theirs) soul. Of course if there is no soul or some fools become convinced of that or some technology gets out of control (Even by a simple mistake) then we will disappear for other than a decision made by those elites.

I am pretty sure that 'elites' will push technology in the direction of devising sentient synthetic brains (with a fully operational synthetic body included, of course) in order to solve the problems inherent in biological systems. It also seems feasible that a mind can be transferred in a continuous fashion from a biological brain to a synthetic brain, although this would clearly require some pretty intense scientific know-how. What is most likely is that the 'elites' continue to enable the development of sentient synthetic brains, and as an afterthought attempt to transfer into one if possible. Either way, a new kingdom of sentient life is born.

Here is a response of mine to fellow researcher Tim Cummins on the matter of new technologies and the soul.
This is the crux of my current book and it is also part of technological designs I am imagineering. The recent San Diego Neuroscience Conference attended by Shawn Mikula who owns Mind-Brain.com and is a doctoral candidate from John's Hopkins (Who liked and participated some in my Integrating Soul and Science; which the beginning of the intro is on Professorsearch.) just provided another ancient use of electricity and improving brain performance at 20 amps (enough to power a minor digital watch at most).
If (and I know they have dumped the contents of a human brain into a chip in 1999) one has a robot with the contents of all the top people in it and it has a soul (which it will) it doesn't matter if Gary Hillis is right about it being one person's soul.
I don't buy that limited concept of the soul to begin with - beyond the limbo or purgatory state I see the soul as part of a multi-dimensional personality.

Can you pleeeeease show or directly reference the journal article that tells of this supposed 'brain dump'? I'm glad that you are convinced about it, but I need more than a repeated claim to 'believe'.

Last week I gave three other supporting articles and thoughts from various people including Wallace of Carnegie Mellon. You can of course also look at the Millennium Issue of Time that dealt with the future for the SRI data comment on bain contents dumping.

Here is a comment today on my piece that Professorsearch put up. That being part of my intro to Integrating Soul and Science which includes comments from Shawn Mikula who has read the first draft of it I believe.

Of course I gave him this book via e-mail because he has an open mind and could be helpful in my quest to help mankind see what can be.

Written by Rev. Terry (*.tnt1.adelanto.ca.da.uu.net) :
Excellent, innovative and a service to all that lives, -mankind.

Of course, you know that goverment is in the business of getting, storing and keeping powerESP research, part of our natural being, was cut off, and out of public view under Nixon in about 1974. It holds the key to breaking tech. that imposes a Totalitarian global structure, -making life not worth living -whatsoever). So, I'm sure you will ignore the hired dead, grey matter, shills -paid to discourage thought and lock-up freedom. Ofcourse, they will be sent to criticize your work.

AND, YOU cannot be bought or threatened. A big problem, for them.

Fortunately, there are many types of intellectuals, scientists and healers, who are working for the tools we must have (knowledge) to allow life on Earth to continue, under the immense odds, that have been placed againt it doing so. If people knew the deaths from unnessesary pollution, just current, along with many other facts -they would paull, at the situation.


It is up to us, those selflessly, working, to unlock the knowledge which will allow our children to LIVE, at all. And, I hope (and know you do, too) do it well and with an over-running spirit, in freedom, promise, and justice.

sorry about the 'unknown' post, I'm at the physics building and forgot to log in. In any case, I anxiously await an actual direct reference to this 'brain dump' experiment

Not an experiment - an actual fact - unlike your peer review process.

Dan

There is only one issue focused on the Future around the Millennium I imagine. It is a rare event (a millennium).

oops, I did the 'unknown' thing again

in any case, here's the Time Millenium Issue webpage.

The next month might have focused on the Future - it may have been the Canadian issue had a different format. It might be in there but I get advertisements when I click on the headings. In any event I have provided the thoughts of many in the field including Hillis who know or believe it is a fact.

There are many facts not presented for peer review - in fact most facts require no such thing.

I have presented copious reference to the fact and to the future of it.

you've presented exactly squat to prove this particular claim. And I suspect you will continue to present exactly squat

Ridicule and gutter sniping is the nature of your argument - address the facts please.