Rick,
Quote:-
"That's behavior unbecoming of a human being".

Surely you meant 'civilised and reasonable' before 'human being'.

I find most human beings are neither of these, though I have to admit that it is sometimes difficult to assess over the web!

Good luck to you!!!

Thanks, Rhymer. I think most people have a basically good nature, and if they do something harmful on impulse, they try to make up for it later.

Most of the Velikovskian skeptics were not lying, their individual and collective mental capacities (or is it deficientcies) would not and could not allow them to wrap (warp) their heads around the concepts that Velikovsky theorized. The only harm in having unwittingly falsifying data is that you were misinformed, and if society unwittingly follows your lead, like little lost sheep, then we're in deep caca.

When you know, say you know; when you don't know, say you don't know. this is the secret of KNOWLEDGE.

He who by revising the old knows the new, is fit to be teacher.

To study without thinking is futile. To think without studying is dangerous.

Analects of Confucius.

Please listen to my interview - yes there are VERY scary developments. I think I cover the bludgeoning of Eugene Mallove near the end of the interview.

Here is a TOC for my book Debunking the Debunker that covers a few examples of culpability in government control of academia and other peer controlled environments that cronyism is rampant in.


TABLE OF CONTENTS:

CHAPTER ONE: Who Pays the ‘Mouthpieces?’:

‘IDEAS’ AND THE KENNEWICK MAN:
Marshack’s Lunar Calendar in Iberia:
THE KENSINGTON RUNESTONE:
The Sea Hawks:
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE:
Diabetes Cure and ‘Quack’:

CHAPTER TWO: Velikovsky’s Victories:

In the Stars:
FROM THE PYRAMIDS:
Three Pillars of Ignorance:
NIETZSCHE TOO?
Count Rumford:
ATOMIC HIGH-SPIN TECHNOLOGY:
The Singularity:

CHAPTER THREE: The ‘Amazing Randi’:

KHUIT:
"How Were the Pyramids Built?
THE RISE AND FALL OF PYRAMIDS:
Merton on Mayans:
BILL JOY THE KILLJOY:

CHAPTER FOUR: Driving Good Scholars Out:

Frederick Pohl:
IVAN SANDERSON:
Thor Heyerdahl:
ANTON MESMER:
Farley Mowat:
THE KNOWLEDGE FILTER:
William Dembski:
INTELITAPPING:

CHAPTER FIVE: Manifest Destiny and the Spoils:

CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY:
The ‘Star PEOPLE’:
EASTER ISLAND TO THE MORIORI KELTS OF NEW ZEALAND:
Neolithic Knowledge: - Astronomy, Astrology, Agriculture and Mathematics:
MEDICINE, MINERALOGY AND MEDICINE:
Music and the Muses:
LINGUISTICS AND ARCHAEOLOGY:

CHAPTER SIX: Castaneda, Chopra, Churchward and More:

THE STANFORD ANTHROPOLOGICAL REVIEW:
Wayne Dyer and Time:
GELL-MANN:
Royal Astronomer’s Doppelganger:
SORCERER-GENERAL STUBBLEBINE:
Reichean Orgone Energy:
CASTANEDA INTERVIEW – 1972:

CHAPTER SEVEN: The ‘Para’-normal:

Bohm and Bohr:
SIR WILLIAM CROOKES:
Quakers and Psychiatry:
JUNG AND EINSTEIN:
Richard Feynman:
JOHN VON NEUMANN:
Rediscovering the Mind:
BEARDEN:

CHAPTER EIGHT: Ancient Knowledge:

DR. SENTIEL ROMMEL:
The Forge and The Crucible:
Breath:
THE STILLNESS IN YOGA (UNION):
Tapping-in Can Be Gradual:
COLD FUSION OR FISSION:
Megaliths:
THE MYSTERIES WITHIN:
Homeopathy:

CHAPTER NINE: Social Engineering:

Historians Analyze Hitler:
THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE:
Simon Magus:
FUKAYAMA’S THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN:
The Da Vinci Code:
FAITH AND FAKIRS:

CHAPTER TEN: Dowsing Doctors:

DIVING RODS:
Patch Adams:
AYURVEDA AND ACUPUNCTURE:
Radical Healing:
It does not matter if there is a Soul:
MIND OVER MATTER – PROVEN:
DOCTORS AREN'T RESPONSIBLE:
An Historical or Hysterical Overview:
THE TUSCEGEE EXPERIMENT:
Mengele, American Eugenics, and Morals:

CHAPTER ELEVEN: The Medical Model:

FRESH MEAT:
Hospitals and Prisons Without Walls:
THE PILL IS A PROBLEM:
Alienation:
ALTERNATIVE CARE:

Where can I find a copy of this book? Was it or is it going to be mass produced? Or, is it of a sort of clandestine material?

I have not offerred it for publication yet. I am awaiting a Literary Agency effort and trying to decide what path to take with many of my books. If you buy one of the other offerings and do a review on Amazon for it I will e-mail this one to you gratis.

Parts of the book that intrigue me the most are:

Chapter 2 Velikovsky's Victories (especially the singularity)
Farley Mowat
Concordia University
Neolithic Knowledge - Asrtonomy, Astrology, Agriculture, and Mathematics
Jung and Einstein
The Da Vinci Code

Can this book be read in sections, or is it something that should be read concurrently, front to bach, star to finish?

I have posted tow or three of those sections here.

A short excerpt from:

QED

The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

author

Richard P. Feynman

(Please note the emphasis Feynman puts on motion being the unifying element in all these separate fields)



. . . it was soon discovered, after Sir Isaac explained the laws of motion, that some of these apparently different things were aspects of the same thing. For example, the phenomena of sound could be completely understood in the motion of atoms in the air. So sound was no longer considered something in addition to motion. It was also discovered that heat phenomena was easily understandable from the laws of motion. In this way great globs of physics were synthesized into a simplified theory. The theory of gravitation, on the other hand, was not understandable from the laws of motion, and even today it stands isolated from the other theories. Gravitation is, so far, not understandable in terms of . . .

motion or relative motion that produces not only gravity but all the forces,

that I explained and published in this 1966 relative motion book below:

FREE e-Book:


CLICK before time runs out
FREE e - BOOK


ABSTRACT of the above book:

You do NOT need to visualize four separate fundamental forces when these are really only one force that can easily be viewed by using a frequency modification of Ampere's 1825 laws

http://www.rbduncan.com/pge1.html

Do yo think its a corporate conspiricy with what is happening to Tiger Woods, perpetrated by the Medici (Rothschild)?

Nice 'speed of light' nugget by Romer.

"Unification of the Fields...", by Fitzpatrick, "Einstein, who was thoroughly trained in the use of mathematics, utilized this field to the fullest extent in giving us the Theory of Relativity. . He came extraordinarily close to achieving his goal in untying the gordian knot which confines the mysteries of the universe. . However the scope of mathematics that aided Einstein so much, now failed him when he was almost in view of the solution. . Every lengthy calculation had become an avenue that was ended by a zero or an infinity sign. . Einstein was resolved to proceed farther, but his method of conveyance, the realm of mathematics, had been utilized to its fullest extent and could transport him no further. . He was so near to the answer yet that answer could not be obtained."

Transport into endless emptiness where you sense around you the creative points of the universe.

It is a corporate conspiracy what happens to all people as they use ridicule rather than reason. Once you have people thinking there is a testable truth - they are DONE.

Agreed, but one needs to reason through that riducule, no?

They, as in the clandestine powers that be?

You, as in You and I, as hyperspatial explorers and interpreters of ultimate reality?

Check out this link, very apt for the topic of this thread:

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html

I ask you?

Could quantum information be the key to understanding consciousness?

Sounds elitist.

"Quantum processes in the brain have been invoked as explanations for consciousness and its enigmatic features."

Sounds logically plause-able. Now, how to apply it as relative reality.

Hyper-spatial cognition = (intuit)ion = singularity
in to it = quantum jump

Consciousness - according to many academics is going to be understood through science. THey dumped the entire contents of the human brain onto a computer chip at SRI in 1999. I think consciousness is part of all matter or energy. I even think it may amalgamate through AFFINITY to achieve rudimentary soul in all thinngs. But the soul is not consciousness and consciousness (Intellectual thought processes) alone will not know soul.

I 've refered to this qoute before, however, here it is again because I think that it is quite relative to what you just stated.

“A universe within the mind,” Robert Fudd, a 17th century English physician and inventor, theorized that, “the mind of man was a universe in miniature.”

I think that was quite intuitive of him, don't you?

Intuition means taking quantum leaps of thought (if this is this then that is that and that is this), which in turn leads to hyper-spatial cognition and will unravel the riddle of the singularity, and in turn, the mind.

Nothing inventive or intuitive at all - Fludd was saying what is known as the Law of the Magi - Dictum of Hermes - As Above. SO Below.

In fact this also was part of the Shalespearean Cosmogony of the Spheres. But if you consider Holography today and certain things now being worked upon like Quantum Teleporting leading to Time Travel (such as covered in my interview) it is still an important observation.

"As above, so below." Ahh, I get it now.

So he would have to have been intuitive to intially have made that obsevation.

"Listen not to me but the words I say."

Have you seen my grashopper?

Pingggggg! Pongggggg!

Intellectual Tennis.

Along the line of sports, I'm off to the driving range for a few.

It is older than Hermes.

Aristotle on Rhetoric:

Syllogism of strict logic.

"The true and the approximately true are apprehended by the same faculty; it may also be noted that men have a sufficient natural instinct for what is true, and usually do arrive at the truth. Hence the man who makes a good guess at truth is likely to make a good guess at probabilities."

Intuition = in to it!

I greatly respect the ability of intuition.

Pre-Birth 'Recollection'

Socrates uses the word idea to mean the 'fundamental essence of something.' "What is (the fundamental existence of) that," he would ask? Remember Parmenides' idea that existence is changeless and constant (it is).

In Phaedo, Plato (in the voice of Socrates) explains the idea of 'equality' in the following manner.

Suppose we have two sticks that appear to be of equal lenght . One person looks at these two sticks and thinks: "They are equal." Where does this equality come from? Does it come from human sense perception? Another person might look at these two sticks from a different angle and think: "They are not equal." For this reason, we can say that equality does not come from sense perception. So where does the notion of equality come from? Plato says we are seeing the idea of 'equality' that lies behind the two sticks. A person makes the discrimination that the two sticks are equal or not by recollecting the idea of 'equality." And from where does the person recollect it? Plato's answer is that one recollects it from before one was born.

Plato finds that ideas exist before they appear in our minds, that they have an objective existence. Plato was the first philosopher to state that 'idea' pre-exists 'judgement' or, in more contemporary terminology, that conception precedes discrimination. If we don't know the word (concept) for dog and we see little Spot run, we can't make the discrimination that Spot is a dog.

Plato contends that we are able to recollect ideas because we knew them before we were born, but because the soul is imprisoned within the human body we are unable to see directly in their own right. We have forgotten what we used to know of the realm of ideas. However, when we perceive something here in the phenomenological world that reminds us of what we used to know, our memory is jogged and we are able to recollect it. This is how we recognize the truth.

Hmmm, Hermes, sounds familiar.
Very peceptive of you.
Bahhhh!

There really are alot of connotations to that, "As above, So below."

Hello,

It's been a while although I still maintain a link on my own board , I thought I would check in and see what's been happening.

I wanted to repeat what I had posted here quite some time ago about Liminocentric structures and there is a little more information here( http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=38764 ) that might help a few of you understand what that is.

Regards

My site is here ( http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?14@148.x...fCp.1@.1dde3fdf )

Rick! You sound like a good man. (Damned peer reviews are responsible for everything weird that's going on around here. That's my motto.)

Right, tongue out of cheek... in response to the question of "what is real"? Rick said:

Reality is the collection of things that exist.

So off we go on a merry chase with the triggered questions:

1. What are things and what are not things?

2. What is existence?

(My apologies for not using the quote button... I wanted to address two points here...)

I'm going to ignore question 1. What are things and what are not things? because that would be getting into semantic definitions... and that sort of discussion makes my eyes pop out of my nose, which is extremely painful.

Anyway - suppose we accept Rick's proposition, that reality is "the collection of things that exist".

All collections are defined by a certain characteristic (in this case "existence") that guarantees membership of the collection. Everything excluded from the collection lacks that characteristic. Here, the characteristic for membership is "existence" and what is excluded is the non-existent. Membership of the collection is defined in relation to its opposite - the opposite of the trait required for membership. The collection is defined by whatever is non-collection. We must therefore consider that the reality of existing things is contingent upon the reality of non-existing things.

It's a problem. Can we exclude things that don't exist? If they don't exist, how can we apply a process of inclusion or exclusion to them? How can we define (syn. - delimit, bound, constrain) reality at all?

My answer to the question "what is real?" would be rather more complex... I think things don't have inherent existence - they 'exist' only in relation to other things. If things had inherent existence, and were real of themselves, we should expect them not be be changed by things around them. But things are changed by things around them, so their existence is not intrinsic, but interdependent. In Buddhist philosophy, things we ordinarily regard as really existent are actually just "dependently-arisen mere appearances."

Neither are things nonexistent, however. Obviously, appearances exist. Existence and nonexistence, reality and nonreality, are both extremes that fail to describe the true nature of reality, which transcends all concepts.

And, of course, our perception of reality comes through our minds. So everything we perceive as real is dependent upon our minds. Which are also dependent. *L* It's great...

The Buddhists have a question. They say "A flag moves in the wind. What is it that moves? Is it the wind? Is it the flag?"

The answer, apparently, is: "It is the mind that moves."

Here's my answer to question one: a thing is that which exists. This just shoves the burden onto the answering of question two, which is the real key question.

In mathematics, there are two ways to define sets and set membership. The first is to describe the attributes of membership, which is where Bertrand Russel got into (and out of) trouble with his famous paradox, and which leads to trouble here, as Lao Tzu has so capably demonstrated. The other way is to enumerate the members. Because reality is an infinite set, enumeration is not practical in the limited amount of time available to us, but defining an algorithm for enumeration may serve just as well. Algorithms can be defined explicitly or implicitly. Let us start off with some examples:

1. Abraham Lincoln does not exist, but he used to before he died.

2. Sherlock Holmes does not exist, he never did and never will.

3. The computer keyboard I am typing on exists: it is made of plastic molecules and some other things.

4. My favorite recipe for chocolate cake does not exist, but the book it is written in does exist.

5. My memory of the recipe for cake does exist and I can call it to consciousness any time I want.

6. The pain in my shoulder exists, but it goes away (ceases to exist) when I take aspirin or I am distracted.

And one final example:

7. The ancient Greeks considered the circle (and its 3D counterpart, the sphere) to be perfect "forms." These forms (including numbers) do not exist. Every time a student comes to understand a form, however, his conception of it (as mental or brain structure) does have existence.

And now we just fall back on the miracle of human intelligence: having given just seven examples of existence, a reasonably intelligent person can now infer the implied algorithm and make a correct assignment of any object he should encounter in the future. Call it algorithm "Reality 101."

In summary, things that exist are generally made of mass-energy (books, brains) or consciousness (feeling, emotion, awareness of sense or memory). Nothing else exists.

....soon, can't you just hear it! Time to open your trembling earballs!

Thanks, yours too.

yes....they are both very classical....