quote:

Originally posted by CompGuy:
Those are two very big IFs. As I've remarked before, if your grandmother had four wheels she'd be a bus.

If anything, a mention of a revolution at a "5D city on a hill" hasn't occurred yet.

How come the channelers never predict anything TRULY unexpected, like 9-11?

What does free will have to do with the closing price of the Dow tomorrow or predicting 9-11?

And forget about predictions--why can't these channelers produce ONE scientific fact, ONE bit of knowledge of history, ONE technological artifact, ONE significant mathematical proof that hasn't been known before?

Well if Grandma's feet couldn't be seen and the math of her hair also predicted wheels on her feet then you'd have the same situation. Basically it's hard to give math to general relativity and quantum mechanics without time travel math being included.

For Brian Greene's string theory, the string itself can't be proven yet people work on it. Similarly people can still work on "time travel" math even though there's no way to prove it. Maybe there's ways to disprove some ideas so you can at least narrow down the options (like I said I actually don't like Greene's ideas, I prefer a different way for handling general relativity and quantum mechanics).

City on a Hill had already been linked with the U.S. in a previous session and OWS certainly seems like a revolt against empathy lacking psychopathic greed to me and seems to be something that is spreading into something bigger than it originally was.

You have to have the free will to think that the subtle hints you get from channeling aren't useful. Like I said for me they are useful even if the channelers are frauds. The channeling source said a 1938 paper from Einstein was useful for people who are into Irving Segal's cosmology (I was for years before I knew about this channeling source) and the channeling was certainly right about that whether it was fraud or not fraud. It's just simply useful for me fraud or no fraud for interests I've had long before knowing about the channeling.

quote:

Originally posted by Sean:
Linda,
     I readily agree the time is ripe for us to share the good things of life more equitably and that an enhanced sense of empathy would promote the sharing. When I looked up unitive consciousness I was somewhat shaken: It will take much time for us to attain such virtues and some may be beyond our reach. We might begin by rewarding decency anywhere we see it and disparaging selfishness point-blank.
Seán

Sean,

Thank you for posting that link. That's a really beautiful website! It seems designed not just to define/describe, but to stimulate the actual experience of unitive consciousness. That would depend of course on the viewer's degree of receptiveness, but for someone already affinitized to unitive consciousness, it shouldn't be too difficult to evoke the experience. I look forward to exploring that website further tomorrow.

--Linda

If anyone wants a real handle on how the universe is connected, take a peek at the star chart posting the sources of Gamma-ray Bursts (GRBs) at http://grb.sonoma.edu/ The chart is global.

This takes awhile to load, and to unload, so be patient.

Donald

Linda, I agree that dolphins are intelligent and show compassion. They're an interesting species. But the claim that they interface with the future and have superconsciousness are outlandish for humans and dolphins alike. What's more, I can't even conceive of such evidence for the dolphins today, since we can't communicate with them in the ways necessary to judge their insights into possible futures and future events. So such claims about dolphins are nonsense in my view.

Similarly, I don't see the human race being significantly more enlightened about peace and love etc. than they were fifty years ago. I wouldn't call the current Arab revolutions a sign of a growing movement towards peace and love, for example. Hope I'm wrong about that of course.

Anyway, the point is that all these claims, although interesting, simply have no basis in fact. And without facts to support them, why believe them? I'm not saying there shouldn't be experiments and investigations to uncover verifiable facts. But there don't seem to be any. You'd think those professing such views would make the attempt to provide some evidence for us skeptics, but somehow that never happens.

I have an open mind about such things. Really. But decades of reading has produced nothing whatever to make me a believer.

Jeff

Jeff,
     For a long time, humans hunting for their food, had no occasion to develop their intelligence. So it is for dolphins at the present. When humans learned to farm, their condition changed by giving them the opportunity and reasons to invent the many things, like architecture and writing, that define our present culture.
     I think it would be instructive to teach dolphins an analog to agriculture: If they were taught fish farming, fish is what they eat, they would have the leisure to develop a real culture.
Seán

     Considering the differences between dolphin and human anatomies, our solutions to problems would differ, necessarily. Dolphins, for example, couldn't record their thoughts using pen and paper; more likely they would use something like Morse code by making bite-marks on strands of kelp.
Seán

So, re time travel: it's sort of implied by some speculative models, but with no way yet to pick which of those models is more accurate than the others, so there could well be other models that don't allow it. So table the making of any wagers or investments until something way more definite is known.

Besides that though, I'm thinking that paradoxes can't exist in reality (at least presumably?), so that would seem to rule out any model that implies a possibility changing one's own past. (Changing identical past in an alternate time-line wouldn't be a paradox, but it doesn't offhand strike me as plausible, either. (Not that the validity of a hypothesis depends on how it happens to strike me, though.) )

On the subject of dolphins and farming: The problem with fish farming is that fish are mobile, so farming them would require either fences or continuous labor-intensive patrols, neither of which seem practical for dolphins.

Henry

quote:

The problem with fish farming is that fish are mobile, so farming them would require either fences or continuous labor-intensive patrols, neither of which seem practical for dolphins.

Henry,
     Such negativity! Would you deprive dolphins of the benefits of civilization for such a flimsy reason? An entrepreneurial dolphin could doubtless persuade his fellows to close off a lagoon by stacking pebbles where the lagoon connected with the open sea. Activity of this kind could lead directly to scheduled working days and other benefits like dolphin resource management departments. Paying workers might be a problem for them, but they probably could get by using treasure from sunken pirate ships until they developed fiat currency.
Seán