On 02-04-98 Richard Meic wrote to Day Brown... 
 RM>  DB> So far as I can tell, the universe, and our world in it, shows it 
 RM>  DB> is *still* evolving.  The analysis of the evolutionary processes 
 RM>  DB> that I see seem to converge, and suggest the big bang... i.e. 
> that they came into existence togather. 
 RM> I do not see how you get from a universe still evolving to God and the 
 RM> universe coming into existence together.  It looks like you left out a 
 RM> few steps for the sake of brevity.
Well, we don't have forever here do we? or *do* we? it ain't over 
yet is it? hmmm. But, I did not say that the Universe is evolving 
*to* God, just that they are concurrently evolving.  I can see as 
how they might evolve to unity, but don't know that that will be. 
 
 RM> ...  Will you accept that there are many that do not  
 RM> exhibit the traits you find in evidence, and therefore your evidence 
 RM> is statistical in nature and does not suggest that your conclusion is  
 RM> reality? 
For them, or me? hmmmm. My conception of reality as a holodeck is 
such that there are many minds so formulated as to never reach an 
agreement with my position.  I have no problem with that, nor the 
likelihood that my communication skill is too limited to reach an 
intellect even mildly open to the position. 
 
 
DB> ... The accepted view is that when 
> one sees phenomena like this that the sensory apparatus is faulty. 
> Defensible up to a point, but that does not exclude incidents 
> that are, in fact, supernatural, and perceived that way.   
 RM> Or just merely perceived that way.  You know, a want for there to be  
 RM> evidence of the supernatural?  Is it not just a matter of  
 RM> interpretation?  A melting peanut butter jar can either be a melting  
 RM> peanut butter jar or God, depending on how screwed up you are, yes? 
Interpretation? Exactly! Doesn't that depend on the breadth of 
integration of phenomena?  Does the shaman stoned on shrooms have 
at his disposal the findings of quantum physics experiments, or 
do the quantum mechanics study the cosmology of shamen?  Things 
get real interesting when you see relationships between them. 
 
 RM> Ahhh, but y'see the acid user is not performing a scientific 
 RM> experiment  
 RM> (an experiment that can be designed to prove the supernatural theory  
 RM> wrong).  All one really needs are a number of examples that show that 
 RM> a  user does not interpret the "observations" as supernatural, but 
merely 
 RM> the result of a chemically induced hallucination, in order to show 
 RM> that the "supernatural" conclusion is incorrect/inaccurate. 
The problem here is that the 'experimenter' and the experiment 
are the same, and that the experimenters with the resources to 
do such as you suggest are well aware of the hazards to their 
promising careers by looking into this kind of question. Where 
are you going to find an unbiased researcher? 
 
 RM>  DB> By and large, phenomena like 
 RM>  DB> this have always been present, but simply ignored as trivial to 
 RM>  DB> the fundamental truth of reality.  I am not so sure.  Nor would I 
 RM> [...] 
 RM>  DB> theatre- not responsible for the plot on the screen, just here to 
 RM>  DB> make sure the show goes on, on time.  Since she gets to see so 
 RM>  DB> many movies, I try to be interesting. 
 RM>  
 RM> Sorry, but I find jumping to such conclusions when on acid (a chemical 
 RM> hallucinogen), is not trustworthy.  
Oh, I do not say to trust them when on acid, persuasive as the 
experience might be Richard, but to examine the experience later, 
when stone sober. (izzat an oxymoron?)  Somewhere I have quotes 
to dig up, but Pindar, Sophocles, Aristides... make reference to 
the *understanding* gained from the experience at Eleusis which 
was expressed in poetry, drama, and essay, [in that order above] 
which presumably was authored while totally rational. 
 
The pilgims on the way *to* Eleusis were called 'Mystai', whereas 
those who were on the way back were 'Epoptes'... meaning one who 
had seen, learned, witnessed, had reached a new understanding. 
 
 RM> Well, if one is going to center a religious belief around a 
 RM> hallucinogenic drug,of course your gonna get a lot of people believing 
 RM> in God after hallucinating, thinking that what they saw was in fact 
 RM> God  
 RM> (or higher dimensions, what ever) instead of what it really is (a  
 RM> chemically induced hallucination.  
The problem is defining the *entire* experience as a 'chemically 
induced hallucination.'  Which, frankly is the opinion of those 
who have not actually had the experience... your experience not 
withstanding.  That may well be a large part of your particular 
skepticism, in that you have had no distortion of reality such 
as to make you doubt the underlying substance of it. 
 
I have had the experience of seeing the pixels of reality while 
on acid. Does that mean that I actualy saw them? not necessary. 
But it does leave me with the *idea* of a reality pixel, which I 
can then ruminate over later, which I am still doing 30 years on. 
  
DB> What do you make of Quantum physics? 
 RM>  
 RM> It seems to have been very useful so far, new technologies etc, but 
 RM> not so useful in proving a cosmic singularity. 
I rather thought it was full of demonstrating singularities;  
 
 RM> Think about it, Day.  Acid is a chemical hallucinogen, it plays some 
 RM> very 
 RM> nasty tricks on the poor human brain (which is electro-chemical in 
 RM> nature).  Something tells me that you just saw the movie "Altered  
 RM> States", a good show for the purpose of escapism. 
never saw it. dont see many movies; the one in front of my face 
that I live with every day is interesting enough.  I do not need 
to escape, I am far enough out already. 
 
As to thinking about it, I have. I just don't think like you. I 
understand how it reduces the synaptic resistance, and how this 
in turn enhances closure and extends eidetics to produce typical 
visuals, how it tends to create hypnogogic panic and neural noise 
can be detected and lead to feedback overload.  I can also see a 
state where the external stimuli are minimized, and how rational 
cognition is concurrently applied to understanding all of the 
above phenomena in a far more Gestalt fashion than is normally 
possible. 
 
Most people, most of the time, just get hellucinations; I have 
seen the same things, but been able to look beyond appearances, 
partly because of the nomenclature I have from the study of 
psychology and neurology.  The meditating monk studies a mandala 
in his search for enlightenment.  Would he get there faster if 
he knew, as I do, why the mandala is colored like it is, with 
the patterns like they are, to maximize eidetics? 
 
This electro-chemical system has some characteristics that do not 
fit so well into Newtonian reality Richard.  For one thing, all 
the complex electronic circuits I know of have *resonance*, and 
the more complex, the higher the frequency.  Given the levels of 
resonance I see in computers, I can imagine the frequency of my 
mind... 
 
Some guy announced that space itself is quantized; atoms can be 
only at some integer distance between each other.  As it turns 
out, the wavelength of that distance would be on the order of a 
harmonic frequency my mind would pick up.  It seems the atoms 
themselves vibrate, or resonate at this pitch, and things get  
very weird when you cool them down enough to perturb the normal 
vibration, and that the perturbation is not related to the speed 
of light. 
 
Atheism works in a Newtonian world, but this other stuff is so 
Goddamn weird that it makes Acid look reasonable. 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.58 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------