http://www.gaianxaos.com/holographic_reality_of_being.htm
Please comment as you see fit...
QUOTE (tikay+May 7 2007, 04:41 PM)
Please comment as you see fit...
I don't see any problem with it! Why would you ask, T.?!?!?!
I don't see any problem with it! Why would you ask, T.?!?!?!
From the link...
What you see, hear, taste, touch, and smell are all ultimately patterns of neuronal stimulation that in some way correlates with what is out there, but still are not really that.” 9 The frequencies that are translated into neural stimulation are, in and of themselves, colorless, textureless, and tasteless. The qualities we experience through sensory perception are created by the mind and represent an “explicate” order or secondary reality.
Our material reality is but a filtered version of the ultimate unity which connects everything. This filtered version creates separateness because it only perceives bits and pieces of the whole at a time. If we could remove the filter, we would experience reality directly as an interference pattern where all information is distributed non-locally. Again, let’s not forget that we are this pattern. Your hands, this paper, the trees outside the window, our solar system, the entire universe; it’s all a seamless, unbroken extension of everything else. It is one thing. If this is true, then there can be no objective reality because the observer, the process of observing, and the observed become one thing.
According to this, everything actually IS...ONE and the same, an interconnected WHOLE and No ELEMENT Exists of it's own accord, This everything a product of the perceptive MIND. If the mental process is not in the act of observing, NOTHING EXISTS? If the "material" forms before you, appearing to be solid, because You "percieve it" to be There, as the ultimate Observer, are you it's Creator?
In other words Are WE Fundamentally the Makers of the "thing", event or program unfolding? Are we the observer/respondant of the event or thing, along with containing aspects of the event within us or even lacking any separation from the Whole of the thing or event, in a holographic sort of daydream which we like to call REALITY?
It seems then, if this is so, that everything I have ever experienced,has also been (rather magically) experienced by everyone else and vice versa. If there is potentially physically-mentally, a hologram within ~me~ of your life, your thoughts and life events, and in ~you~ there is a hologram of my lifes events and thoughts...so that if the Universal fabric is torn, there will be/could be another hologram containing the information matrix of these non-separate localities and perhaps alternate realities we may engage in in another brane?
Am I on the right track? Anyone?
What you see, hear, taste, touch, and smell are all ultimately patterns of neuronal stimulation that in some way correlates with what is out there, but still are not really that.” 9 The frequencies that are translated into neural stimulation are, in and of themselves, colorless, textureless, and tasteless. The qualities we experience through sensory perception are created by the mind and represent an “explicate” order or secondary reality.
Our material reality is but a filtered version of the ultimate unity which connects everything. This filtered version creates separateness because it only perceives bits and pieces of the whole at a time. If we could remove the filter, we would experience reality directly as an interference pattern where all information is distributed non-locally. Again, let’s not forget that we are this pattern. Your hands, this paper, the trees outside the window, our solar system, the entire universe; it’s all a seamless, unbroken extension of everything else. It is one thing. If this is true, then there can be no objective reality because the observer, the process of observing, and the observed become one thing.
According to this, everything actually IS...ONE and the same, an interconnected WHOLE and No ELEMENT Exists of it's own accord, This everything a product of the perceptive MIND. If the mental process is not in the act of observing, NOTHING EXISTS? If the "material" forms before you, appearing to be solid, because You "percieve it" to be There, as the ultimate Observer, are you it's Creator?
In other words Are WE Fundamentally the Makers of the "thing", event or program unfolding? Are we the observer/respondant of the event or thing, along with containing aspects of the event within us or even lacking any separation from the Whole of the thing or event, in a holographic sort of daydream which we like to call REALITY?
It seems then, if this is so, that everything I have ever experienced,has also been (rather magically) experienced by everyone else and vice versa. If there is potentially physically-mentally, a hologram within ~me~ of your life, your thoughts and life events, and in ~you~ there is a hologram of my lifes events and thoughts...so that if the Universal fabric is torn, there will be/could be another hologram containing the information matrix of these non-separate localities and perhaps alternate realities we may engage in in another brane?
Am I on the right track? Anyone?
Too many joints.
QUOTE (tikay+May 8 2007, 10:25 PM)
From the link...
Oh, dear...
Tikay, I can't pick and chooes what I like and what I don't like from an article whose author hasn't asked my opinion! If it is a "code to live by" for you, it's fine with me. There is good stuff here. It fits right in with spiritualist literature... of 100 years ago.
Some misunderstandings are very subtle and it takes *months* to unmake them, when and if it's worth the time. One of them is the thing about our "mental" perception *making* reality. If we had never existed, if no brain had ever existed, the universe would still be exactly the same, because at one point it had no brains but it had itself. Mind was always there, on the other hand.
There are different meanings to a lot of other things that simply have no place on this forum. There are statements that seem to mean one thing and mean things quite different, and those who are outside the loop will remain outside no matter how explicitly it is explained, because it's out of their communicational reach.
That third graph, for instance, in no way implies "in other words" what you think it does, "holographic" isn't getting within 2 miles of me, and last graph is all true and all lie simultaneously; it kind of leaves in the air --somewhat sourly, at least for me-- that what **youse** are permitted to think by The Powers That Be is that "physically-mentally, a hologram within ~me~ of your life, your thoughts and life events" not because the hologram is there but because it is easier to admit re-creation of a whole new timeline than to admit , ah, uh, mmmmm, "mindly languages", for instance. It's a desperate measure! It's also been going on for quite a while... it didn't start yesterday.) This in no way is a "dig" at the authors, mind you: I like the article, and wouldn't deny my moral support to the site even if I seem to be disagreeing with this or that. There are a few other things going on...
Go discover your books, T.
(Don't worry: the door is closed to barbarians, they are not invited and they know it, and if you invited any I am hereby dis-inviting. This is what I meant before... some sci-folks are trying to found a new school of thought from all that lies at the heart of numerous spiritualist schools of thought because they don't want to face extinction. What is at the heart of spiritualism already has an owner. If people are not going through the trouble of realizing that the doors are closed for them that is their problem.
The doors are closed and they are not negotiable.)
Oh, dear...
Tikay, I can't pick and chooes what I like and what I don't like from an article whose author hasn't asked my opinion! If it is a "code to live by" for you, it's fine with me. There is good stuff here. It fits right in with spiritualist literature... of 100 years ago.
Some misunderstandings are very subtle and it takes *months* to unmake them, when and if it's worth the time. One of them is the thing about our "mental" perception *making* reality. If we had never existed, if no brain had ever existed, the universe would still be exactly the same, because at one point it had no brains but it had itself. Mind was always there, on the other hand.
There are different meanings to a lot of other things that simply have no place on this forum. There are statements that seem to mean one thing and mean things quite different, and those who are outside the loop will remain outside no matter how explicitly it is explained, because it's out of their communicational reach.
That third graph, for instance, in no way implies "in other words" what you think it does, "holographic" isn't getting within 2 miles of me, and last graph is all true and all lie simultaneously; it kind of leaves in the air --somewhat sourly, at least for me-- that what **youse** are permitted to think by The Powers That Be is that "physically-mentally, a hologram within ~me~ of your life, your thoughts and life events" not because the hologram is there but because it is easier to admit re-creation of a whole new timeline than to admit , ah, uh, mmmmm, "mindly languages", for instance. It's a desperate measure! It's also been going on for quite a while... it didn't start yesterday.) This in no way is a "dig" at the authors, mind you: I like the article, and wouldn't deny my moral support to the site even if I seem to be disagreeing with this or that. There are a few other things going on...
Go discover your books, T.
(Don't worry: the door is closed to barbarians, they are not invited and they know it, and if you invited any I am hereby dis-inviting. This is what I meant before... some sci-folks are trying to found a new school of thought from all that lies at the heart of numerous spiritualist schools of thought because they don't want to face extinction. What is at the heart of spiritualism already has an owner. If people are not going through the trouble of realizing that the doors are closed for them that is their problem.
The doors are closed and they are not negotiable.)
To introduce you to the confusions that are being caused by this crossover... Q: what is the difference between "holographic" and "etheric"? A: none.
Eventually it will all boil down to a manquee spiritualism that will immediately try to take over the world. Haven't you heard this story before? Hint: it's old.
Eventually it will all boil down to a manquee spiritualism that will immediately try to take over the world. Haven't you heard this story before? Hint: it's old.
Hi Tikay, Guest_IAMoraes et al,
As a physicist I am sympathetic to this concept ... not the mysticism. The latter scares me. The visible Universe is a part of a much larger hologram which itself embeds relatively smaller dimensional components and is itself embedded by even greater dimensional components . Smaller parts of this Hologram are microcosms of the larger "big picture" in the same way that if you snap off a small fragment of a larger Hologram it has its place in the overall picture and reflects a single viewpoint of the entire structure as seen from that limited and constrained point of view... The bigger the "piece" you are able to get, the better and more global the point of view. .. This is like mankind, only its piece is currently extremely tiny at this point in our history.
I am not a fan of the idea that mankind is anything other than a very small part of this almost infinitely repeating theme like (... but not the same as... ) a fractal. We are a part and therefore must contain aspects of the whole but I am unconvinced that we are able to partake in any meaningful way in shaping the destiny of this Universe. The Universe has an emergent behavior beyond the component parts that depend on a non-locality of the whole. You may call this "purpose" but I prefer to call it "order" beneath the apparent superficial chaos as perceived by the small minds of man.
To me this does not mean there is any 'g*d', but it means that there are strong organizing principles there. Primitive societies identify this as 'g*d' and then they start to no longer partake in this wholeness but adopt egotistic expressions of their will then fight and kill each other. We learn more as Physicists from the Buddhists and the teachings of the Buddha when his message was "Sure there are 'g*ds', but they have no idea of their destiny or purpose. Man can think of himself as a 'g*d' but he simply joins that former group of unenlightened egotistic beings". If we want to understand our place in this Universe we must give away the idea of these personal 'g*ds' and see how we may become part of this emergent nature of the Universe not as a 'g*d' but as a tiny subservient part of a whole and stewards of this Earth.
If people think this is mysticism... so be it. I do not consider it anything of the sort. It is a practical way to live our lives and to survive the greed and delusions of wanting it all without contributing it all.
Cheers
As a physicist I am sympathetic to this concept ... not the mysticism. The latter scares me. The visible Universe is a part of a much larger hologram which itself embeds relatively smaller dimensional components and is itself embedded by even greater dimensional components . Smaller parts of this Hologram are microcosms of the larger "big picture" in the same way that if you snap off a small fragment of a larger Hologram it has its place in the overall picture and reflects a single viewpoint of the entire structure as seen from that limited and constrained point of view... The bigger the "piece" you are able to get, the better and more global the point of view. .. This is like mankind, only its piece is currently extremely tiny at this point in our history.
I am not a fan of the idea that mankind is anything other than a very small part of this almost infinitely repeating theme like (... but not the same as... ) a fractal. We are a part and therefore must contain aspects of the whole but I am unconvinced that we are able to partake in any meaningful way in shaping the destiny of this Universe. The Universe has an emergent behavior beyond the component parts that depend on a non-locality of the whole. You may call this "purpose" but I prefer to call it "order" beneath the apparent superficial chaos as perceived by the small minds of man.
To me this does not mean there is any 'g*d', but it means that there are strong organizing principles there. Primitive societies identify this as 'g*d' and then they start to no longer partake in this wholeness but adopt egotistic expressions of their will then fight and kill each other. We learn more as Physicists from the Buddhists and the teachings of the Buddha when his message was "Sure there are 'g*ds', but they have no idea of their destiny or purpose. Man can think of himself as a 'g*d' but he simply joins that former group of unenlightened egotistic beings". If we want to understand our place in this Universe we must give away the idea of these personal 'g*ds' and see how we may become part of this emergent nature of the Universe not as a 'g*d' but as a tiny subservient part of a whole and stewards of this Earth.
If people think this is mysticism... so be it. I do not consider it anything of the sort. It is a practical way to live our lives and to survive the greed and delusions of wanting it all without contributing it all.
Cheers
HOW DO WE "SEE" BLACK?
QUOTE
I am not a fan of the idea that mankind is anything other than a very small part of this almost infinitely repeating theme like (... but not the same as... ) a fractal. We are a part and therefore must contain aspects of the whole but I am unconvinced that we are able to partake in any meaningful way in shaping the destiny of this Universe. The Universe has an **emergent behavior** beyond the component parts that depend on a non-locality of the whole. You may call this "purpose" but I prefer to call it "order" beneath the apparent superficial chaos as perceived by the small minds of man.
Your post addressed a lot of the misunderstandings of the text, that is, ambiguities that are present in the text but don't readily explain themselves. There are a lot of collapsed meanings there, and you can be simultaneously right and wrong if you try to write like that, precisely because of that collapse. It's not mere mysticism.
On of these misunderstandings is here: "but I am unconvinced that we are able to partake in any meaningful way in shaping the destiny of this Universe". There is nothing that is as frontally against terminal disorder as life. Are you saying that since 1-we must contain aspects of the whole and since 2-the emergent behaviour beyond the component parts that depend on a non-locality of the whole exists, and since 3-we are, however, **not** able to partake in any meaningful way in shaping the destiny of this universe, you conclude that the universe is therefore somewhat **pre-destined** to take its course independent of what we do? Then you have killed free-will, that is, the universe will be the universe and we have no say in it. But this is what the text says, rather, asks:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am not a fan of the idea that mankind is anything other than a very small part of this almost infinitely repeating theme like (... but not the same as... ) a fractal. We are a part and therefore must contain aspects of the whole but I am unconvinced that we are able to partake in any meaningful way in shaping the destiny of this Universe. The Universe has an **emergent behavior** beyond the component parts that depend on a non-locality of the whole. You may call this "purpose" but I prefer to call it "order" beneath the apparent superficial chaos as perceived by the small minds of man. |
Your post addressed a lot of the misunderstandings of the text, that is, ambiguities that are present in the text but don't readily explain themselves. There are a lot of collapsed meanings there, and you can be simultaneously right and wrong if you try to write like that, precisely because of that collapse. It's not mere mysticism.
On of these misunderstandings is here: "but I am unconvinced that we are able to partake in any meaningful way in shaping the destiny of this Universe". There is nothing that is as frontally against terminal disorder as life. Are you saying that since 1-we must contain aspects of the whole and since 2-the emergent behaviour beyond the component parts that depend on a non-locality of the whole exists, and since 3-we are, however, **not** able to partake in any meaningful way in shaping the destiny of this universe, you conclude that the universe is therefore somewhat **pre-destined** to take its course independent of what we do? Then you have killed free-will, that is, the universe will be the universe and we have no say in it. But this is what the text says, rather, asks:
In other words Are WE Fundamentally the Makers of the "thing", event or program unfolding? Are we the observer/respondant of the event or thing, along with containing aspects of the event within us or even lacking any separation from the Whole of the thing or event, in a holographic sort of daydream which we like to call REALITY?
There is a bewildering, wonderful short story by Philip Jose Farmer, if I am not mistaken. This guy is in the middle of a trafficking transaction when his spaceship is suddenly pushed into a space void by the bad guys. There is no way out. So he passes his time watching a soap-opera/novel/cartoon (the book doesn't specify) in his computer to prevent from going insane. But each day he turns it on, the soap is more and more real!! In the end, he is whining his unhappiness to the soap characters and **they** turn him off because he has become a boring and repetitive cartoon. They had switched places slowly, and he had become their fiction!
This is one of those "nodal points" (William Gibson) where you actually chose to be real or not. It's all in your mind, of course, and your reality will in no way affect our lives --we are all characters in the novel you are reading. Then, you understand the point of the last graph: "It seems then, if this is so, that..."
At no point did the text above imply that you "were" or "were not" God, but this is what people understand because there are too many meanings collapsed into those sentences and not enough in the reader's background to give it substance. It's not clear even after repeated readings, that you should go back to the graph that starts with "According to this, everything actually IS...", and this unfortunately sounds mystic (memo to writers: get rid of those damn capitals). The graph says there is only one narrative, and you are a part of it as observer and observed, as cartoon and tv audience.
That is one of the reasons I didn't want to nitpick the text. I truly think it is fine.
QUOTE
To me this does not mean there is any 'g*d', but it means that there are strong organizing principles there.
Mind. "Strong organizing principles" aren't getting within 10 miles of me! God as a concept has a beautiful biography by the best primitive tribes... used to be driver of the fire chariot, used to live in Olympus, was not much for about 17 centuries, became the primordial watchmaker, the architect of the universe, the elemental mathematician, the ultimate scientist, the cosmic computer... then become "mind", because we can not come up with a concept more advanced. So in that sense, always restricted, the text is saying that "yes, we are gods", or even "yes, we are God" -there is no sin in saying it.
This in no way equates us with God, but with the best possible collapsed meaning we can arrive at for the concept. And if we want to stop becoming soap characters, we in fact act according to that principle as a matter of mental health, as in:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To me this does not mean there is any 'g*d', but it means that there are strong organizing principles there. |
Mind. "Strong organizing principles" aren't getting within 10 miles of me! God as a concept has a beautiful biography by the best primitive tribes... used to be driver of the fire chariot, used to live in Olympus, was not much for about 17 centuries, became the primordial watchmaker, the architect of the universe, the elemental mathematician, the ultimate scientist, the cosmic computer... then become "mind", because we can not come up with a concept more advanced. So in that sense, always restricted, the text is saying that "yes, we are gods", or even "yes, we are God" -there is no sin in saying it.
This in no way equates us with God, but with the best possible collapsed meaning we can arrive at for the concept. And if we want to stop becoming soap characters, we in fact act according to that principle as a matter of mental health, as in:
If we want to understand our place in this Universe we must give away the idea of these personal 'g*ds' and see how we may become part of this emergent nature of the Universe not as a 'g*d' but as a tiny subservient part of a whole and stewards of this Earth.
General rule of thumb: well-bred Buddhists do not make philosophical mistakes.
Hi'
QUOTE (IAMoraes+)
Are you saying that since 1-we must contain aspects of the whole and since 2-the emergent behaviour beyond the component parts that depend on a non-locality of the whole exists, and since 3-we are, however, **not** able to partake in any meaningful way in shaping the destiny of this universe, you conclude that the universe is therefore somewhat **pre-destined** to take its course independent of what we do? Then you have killed free-will, that is, the universe will be the universe and we have no say in it.
What do you think about a single foraminifera swimming in the ocean that has ambitions of controlling the destiny of the Universe? Do you think that its wishes or concerns should influence humankind and then go on to conquer the universe ... of course that means "eat everything it sees" in "foraminiferal" terms.... he he he!
I read recently that a fruit fly has been found to have 'free will" and they all exhibit "individualism"... this is a good thing but that does not make it a "g*d". Head on up to man and the same argument applies... of course it wants to be the center of creation, of course it wants conquest of everything, and of course it secretly has aspirations of being a "g*d". Man's bigger brain does not entitle it to unbridled action, it is very capable of absolute and total folly. But in the course of a Universe and the scale of things man is just like the "foraminifera". He has a choice of being a good "foraminifera" or a bad "foraminifera". Lets stay with the stewardship of our Earth for now and if he lasts a few billion years maybe he may gain something more than what he currently is but the odds are way against it... I do not need to elaborate... Man's unbounded greed has a natural way to elaborate all by itself. Are we really that different to the foraminifera? Perhaps it is "pride" that he excels in more than any other ability and this will be his final undoing.
Cheers
I read recently that a fruit fly has been found to have 'free will" and they all exhibit "individualism"... this is a good thing but that does not make it a "g*d". Head on up to man and the same argument applies... of course it wants to be the center of creation, of course it wants conquest of everything, and of course it secretly has aspirations of being a "g*d". Man's bigger brain does not entitle it to unbridled action, it is very capable of absolute and total folly. But in the course of a Universe and the scale of things man is just like the "foraminifera". He has a choice of being a good "foraminifera" or a bad "foraminifera". Lets stay with the stewardship of our Earth for now and if he lasts a few billion years maybe he may gain something more than what he currently is but the odds are way against it... I do not need to elaborate... Man's unbounded greed has a natural way to elaborate all by itself. Are we really that different to the foraminifera? Perhaps it is "pride" that he excels in more than any other ability and this will be his final undoing.
Cheers
If we are just part of the larger whole of the universe, unable to change our fate, like a computer program, why is it possible to have/experience feelings? Whats the point? Surely this is more than nessicary. Should we be no more than a collection of Neural impulses and input/output reactions, governed completely by mathematical and physical laws, giving the impression of conscious living beings, react to pain ans stimulus the exact same way, but are like wind up ties/robots, with no qualifiable experience and feelings.
Hi "Guest" and Guest_IAMoraes,
QUOTE (Guest+)
If we are just part of the larger whole of the universe, unable to change our fate, like a computer program, why is it possible to have/experience feelings? Whats the point? Surely this is more than nessicary. Should we be no more than a collection of Neural impulses and input/output reactions, governed completely by mathematical and physical laws, giving the impression of conscious living beings, react to pain ans stimulus the exact same way, but are like wind up ties/robots, with no qualifiable experience and feelings.
I see you really want a lot more than your fair lot in this world ... but where will it end? Just because I have stated that your wish to control the fate of our Universe is "misguided" does not infer that you are unable to control your personal destiny. It is the irrational desire for control of everything without also contributing back everything that is out of balance with our collective places in the Universe. Every mighty river must flow to the sea otherwise to keep it back ultimately causes desolation and inundation. If there was a "g*d" of all the Universe, do you really think your existence would be of any substantial worth to him and do you think there would be any true generosity left to allow such a lesser creature as yourselves to exist? All g*ds demand sacrifice from those within their dominion. Such a greedy and acquisitive "creature" has no room for lesser creatures, just like really greedy and dominating humans have no time or compassion for lesser humans.
The world is never big enough to satisfy human greed when it is given unlimited worldly power. Greedy "g*ds" want it all and so do greedy humans because they both come from the same origin... man's mind. If a worthy "God" truly existed, its existence would be undetectable and undemanding of any creature in the Earth. Such a "principle" has no need to "own" or "hoard" so it gains only from giving, allowing the natural realm to thrive and prosper as it did before man's advent. The world is currently beset by "future eaters"... consuming the future of all your children's heritage.
The Incas and Mayans believed their "g*ds" drank human blood and to feed them the sacrifices would need to be increased until the "g*ds" were fully placated and filled to overflowing... so they would sacrifice thousands of human lives in a single day of merciless slaughter... such is primitive man's idea of a "g*d" in their own image. How could they think otherwise. Even the Christian g*d thrived on the blood of the sacrifice of it's only begotten son. Are we supposed to believe that this would stay such a g*d's hand against them?... Not at all... If such a "g*d" had such an "appetite" in the past, the time will naturally come when the appetite for blood will return ... the "acolytes" and "chosen" are all waiting for the final apocalypse when blood will flow in their streets... They only hope and fear it is not their blood... They know this because their g*d is a truly vengeful and all consuming g*d. And what do these "devotees" reasonably want?... eternal life. Not just a very long life but eternal. And what would they give for it?
Luckily we elves do not have an immortal soul to worry about. For me I am content to accept what is reasonable and to try and live according to the Laws of the Universe and not bother with "g*ds". I do not want life eternal I want life with meaning and purpose beyond "The winner is the one who dies with the most property" aphorism. The earliest Pharaohs had burial ceremonies which included their servants in life, they were buried alive with him, similar to the South American and Central American experience of human sacrifice. Later Pharaohs were content not to be great tyrants, they did not demand that sacrifice, they undertook great constructions so that their people could be a part of their afterlife and they were too fond of them to be cruel. Indeed... recent studies have shown that their "slaves" were willing participants in that ritual and lived off the best of the states resources while they were in the Pharaohs service which was a kind of "pilgrimage" they could undertake as part of their service in life. I believe that these rulers eventually understood that while they strove to "take everything with them" they also shared some of their wealth with their people in their lifetimes and the riches of their culture and knowledge. It took thousands of years to arrive at that conclusion, I wonder how long will it take for us to arrive at a similar conclusion... if ever.
So do not fret, just because you may be denied total and absolute control of the entire Universe does not mean you are a "robot". As to being a machine, that part is a given, we are indeed a kind of machine. As to being programmed, well we could change that bit of the program that says we must want everything and that might let some of the rest of us survive on Earth as well.
Cheers
The world is never big enough to satisfy human greed when it is given unlimited worldly power. Greedy "g*ds" want it all and so do greedy humans because they both come from the same origin... man's mind. If a worthy "God" truly existed, its existence would be undetectable and undemanding of any creature in the Earth. Such a "principle" has no need to "own" or "hoard" so it gains only from giving, allowing the natural realm to thrive and prosper as it did before man's advent. The world is currently beset by "future eaters"... consuming the future of all your children's heritage.
The Incas and Mayans believed their "g*ds" drank human blood and to feed them the sacrifices would need to be increased until the "g*ds" were fully placated and filled to overflowing... so they would sacrifice thousands of human lives in a single day of merciless slaughter... such is primitive man's idea of a "g*d" in their own image. How could they think otherwise. Even the Christian g*d thrived on the blood of the sacrifice of it's only begotten son. Are we supposed to believe that this would stay such a g*d's hand against them?... Not at all... If such a "g*d" had such an "appetite" in the past, the time will naturally come when the appetite for blood will return ... the "acolytes" and "chosen" are all waiting for the final apocalypse when blood will flow in their streets... They only hope and fear it is not their blood... They know this because their g*d is a truly vengeful and all consuming g*d. And what do these "devotees" reasonably want?... eternal life. Not just a very long life but eternal. And what would they give for it?
Luckily we elves do not have an immortal soul to worry about. For me I am content to accept what is reasonable and to try and live according to the Laws of the Universe and not bother with "g*ds". I do not want life eternal I want life with meaning and purpose beyond "The winner is the one who dies with the most property" aphorism. The earliest Pharaohs had burial ceremonies which included their servants in life, they were buried alive with him, similar to the South American and Central American experience of human sacrifice. Later Pharaohs were content not to be great tyrants, they did not demand that sacrifice, they undertook great constructions so that their people could be a part of their afterlife and they were too fond of them to be cruel. Indeed... recent studies have shown that their "slaves" were willing participants in that ritual and lived off the best of the states resources while they were in the Pharaohs service which was a kind of "pilgrimage" they could undertake as part of their service in life. I believe that these rulers eventually understood that while they strove to "take everything with them" they also shared some of their wealth with their people in their lifetimes and the riches of their culture and knowledge. It took thousands of years to arrive at that conclusion, I wonder how long will it take for us to arrive at a similar conclusion... if ever.
So do not fret, just because you may be denied total and absolute control of the entire Universe does not mean you are a "robot". As to being a machine, that part is a given, we are indeed a kind of machine. As to being programmed, well we could change that bit of the program that says we must want everything and that might let some of the rest of us survive on Earth as well.
Cheers
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.