Sounds crazy at first: and it was the accepted theory once upon a time before Earth Tectonics was proposed.
Basics of the theory – the sun is emitting radiation, particles that go through to the centre of the earth which is a rotating plasma ball. This plasma ball is ‘feeding, on the particle bombardment’ and thus expanding. The planetary crust has to expand.
This may well be the cause of strange weather, volcanic activity and tsunamis – to come!
BUT, this was the theory before plate tectonics was discovered. And, how would the mountain ranges form in the expanding Earth model? AND, and this and goes for both: How did the Earth get its water?
So we have information – is information knowledge?
Another strange theory about the earth and its orbit believes the earth was closer to the sun and it happened when ancient civilisations pre-dating ours built monolithic stone structures: ETAMENANKI– cosmology of the three worlds.
Nassim Haramien is very controversial, he predicted that a Black Hole is at the centre of all Universes. That was over 25 years ago, now its gaining acceptance. More recently he extended his theory to include black holes as the Singularity at the centre of everything and thus accounting for the missing ‘Dark Matter’ which makes up most of the Universe – 97% of it. Matter, the physical stuff: elephants, rocks, planets, galaxies, old socks, trees and you and me are therefore only 3% of all and everything, that we call physical matter. The more we look out there through our telescopes the more there is, and the more we look down into the smallest of particles, the more there is; and in the centre of all these things there is a singularity: a black hole.
This doesn’t make Astro Physicist’s very happy, and that wheelchair guy; as Homer Simpson calls Stephen Hawkins, is as incensed at Nassim’s conclusions like any other of his fraternity and probably because they had a different theory first: so have to stick to it to maintain reputations. Stephen Hawkin‘s big TOEmay turn out to be an ingrowing toenail.
And it gets far worse for them as Nassim then concludes that we are living within a black hole and thus calls this the: Black Whole, as it then becomes the answer to the overarching cosmological question of a Unified Field Theory. This, then if/when verified and accepted puts him as the greatest Physicist ever: I guess the others won’t like that too much, especially as his conclusions lead him to interperate a multiple set of strange belief associations. And the big one is that the universe is CONCIOUS !
The news tells me that Google has bought a small company for lots of millions, the company has never made any tangible solutions resulting in any profitability, so that’s a good track record in the software and web systems business!
It is October 2014 Newsnight BBC 2. The company is Deep Mind and they know that there are two roads towards A.I. Artificial Intelligence and on the journey to producing A. I. the processes may throw up new insights and methods. Right now there are two agreed starting points that experts see as the paths to generating such a leap in machine intelligence. Pre-programming is one way the other machine learning itself. Both are complex but the first involves mountains of work, the other may never actually produce intelligence but will produce functionality.
No one mentioned the Turing test in the television programme coverage. The Turing test is a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. I think this is a long way off maybe never achievable in its full meaning. We need to consider many aspects of the meanings of all of this.
Starting with Babbage: The Analytical Engine, The Difference Engine and I don’t believe its moved on in terms of intelligence; as repetition is the underlying, yet now, even more obscured key. Modern methods have dismissed the need for punch card instructions with software variables, but its the use of speed in the physical chips combined with repetition that provides the ‘known’ results, plus the capacity these days to keep sets of known results for additional use and then feeding these as the start of further operations. There is NO THINKING INVOLVED not by the machine.
So there are indeed two methods of approaching A.I. however in real terms they are confused as they are both linked. The first is to pre-programme (remember the punch card – punch card is now a programme) a known solution or sets of these are entered into a machine (or a further programme) to do calculations and execute results from. Basically its a program put into another program.
The second method is for the machine to ‘learn’ from these inputs and work out the results for itself.
Programming information into a known data containing system or network is where we are at currently; for example the Internet within which Google has algorithms that seek out itemised, strings or keyword identity tags to find associated results material. Web designers use SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) methods to match a Google search with a particular webpage. This may be biased to provide the largest sector on the subject, the locations or websites most used for it etc. Additionally results can be skewed by pushing advertiser’s pages as results for organisations that have purchased certain descriptive keywords (Pay per click). So ignoring Google’s inherent biases it’s the best example to date of a real world useful information retrieval system.
This is only very low level content retrieval it has no intelligence and it is certainly not A.I. I believe there is a very long way to go, others believe something different.
Google hired futurist Ray Kurzweil as Engineering Director in 2012. Kurzweil claimed that in 30 years, “humans will be able to upload their entire minds to computers and become digitally immortal” – he named this as ‘singularity’.
It is statements such as this that get attention and thus assist in book sales.
There is no foundation upon which to even begin to build the link from a human mind’s memory, let alone to obtain the functionality of the unconscious mind which makes up about 80% of what it is to be human; into a chipset.
The Film Transcendence has Johnny Depp uploaded into his computer and another the Spike Jonze film, Her in which Joaquin Phoenix falls in love with his A. I. operating system are money spinning derivatives of Kurzweilian thinking. These movies are Hollywood’s examples of fantastic assumptions. The problem is that such assumptions as films can become a sort of subliminal mythic belief.
Two films around similar subjects released about the same time and both actors have moustaches – a signal of intelligent design or just coincidental thinking. That may be a current enigma, however in the 1930’s there was a machine that started all of this off :
The German Enigma machine was a set of turning wheels to give cryptographic comparisons. Physical wheels turning, like the Babbage concept is not thought of as A. I. or some occult science because it has physical parts and real-world manifestations. What I believe is that because the functions of software is somewhat invisible it gains a magic quality. Yet it is still operating just like cogs and wheels; software inputs, and results are disassociated from thier physical connection to our real world and such mechanical operations, which in comparative terms is what is happening, is therefore hidden
We have got a confusion in our minds about the description of these operations and somehow believe (wrongly) for them to now have functions that are beyond our understandings. This is because the visible and intellectual concept of mechanical actions has been hidden within the operations of the inputs, outputs and invisibilities of software operations. However they are still ‘mechanical’ – mechanistic repetitive functions.
Roll on The Butlerian Jihad – a war against machines that ‘think’ and attempted to take over – similar to Terminator but as told in Frank Herbet’s ‘Dune’ which resulted in humans building better memories , better brain capacity and better predictive reasoning. Human computers evolving within human minds – conscious evolution, because it was necessary, well so it went in that book.
A. I. is a gathering, a collective of many things including; information correspondences, sensing, action – interaction, planning, reasoning, repetition and many more facets converging towards knowledge and then becoming predictive. But its not possible to deal here with all of that so a target upon a single theme will have more focus: words. Text and voice search methods: as words are the fundamental of Google search tactics.
So going deeper into this. Taking language, vocabulary, words as the descriptions of intelligent communication. Text, audio, word descriptions have meaning for us – language communicates meaning and understanding.
Programming information directly into a system for the objective of generating ‘apparent’ A.I. for text search results: means giving the data descriptors themselves extra – meta data – (data about the data). Tag descriptions of the meaning of each piece of data, i.e. like a dictionary and a thesaurus describing the words, their combinations and look up tables that describe these. All need adding to each and every word. Then taking these as the next input. Building this into a programme that then operates ‘on the fly’ almost instantly to ‘parse’ the word strings to glean the meaning of a Google search; which in return is then more able to produce a much more defined accurate result matching the needs of the user (internet searcher). A further step would then take these ‘meaningful programmes sts’ into other computational activities: the hope is that this will provide more advanced interactive systems with real meaning and outcomes. And not just more meaningless meandering Chat Bot type conversations.
Have you heard any of the mindless lyrics of Rap artists who are sort of rhyming word associations and stringing similar nouns together, often angrily.
Juxtaposing how we think with that of a machine puts all of this into a different perspective – do we posses concious thought from moment to moment? Can a machine? We just somehow know the meaning of words. Whether or not from such a data-bank, or the computer itself; such a ‘device’ would be aware of these meanings it associates to these resulting text, audio word descriptions or pictures is another thing altogether. But that’s exactly what the public might believe and the emerging A.I. industry have an agenda to keep things mysterious.
Indeed the root question posed above throws up insights into our own thinking mechanisms and our own intelligence. Do we really understand the meaning of our own brain function, our minds and conciousness? And if we don’t know that how then can we assess the supposed intelligent mind of a machine, a robot, or a piece of software?
It seems that much of our thinking is driven by automated function responses like anger, emotions that colour our responses, and many of our responses themselves can be unconsciousresponses which are learned over years from external inputs. Examples of this are put forward in the book ‘A Mind Of Its Own’ – by Cordelia Fine.
A baby as it grows leans from experiences, looking, hearing, touching, and language is thought to be subliminally learned before the child can speak. Then there is education. The abc is learned then words and their associated meanings and their representation as marks on paper, then we communicate these with others through speech, writing, typing. When we verbally communicate between ourselves. Quite often our discussions are coloured by automatic unthinking responses, most of the time we tend to be completely unaware of this! We ourselves can be mostly robotic!
Its difficult to observe this within oneself. So we can observe such things first in others. Continuous irritating repetitive statements. Bringing up the same subjects relentlessly. Picking up and repeating words and the statements of others. Words in vogue. Word viruses. Adding senseless adjectives at the end of sentences – you know!
Our responses in communication are coloured by many things; from certain knowledge and experiences, biases (often mingled with emotions, and our subconscious). We may have multiple minds (or selves) that come to the fore when we are at work, in the home, out socially with friends. In such environs are we constant or does our personalty drift due to the expectation of others? Are we constant and self aware from moment to moment? Our, our opinions our own, or put there by externals, the views of others, advertisers for example and then look at vested interests like a politician who does not believe what he says but is following a trend in the public’s attention that they want to be associated with, mostly to profit from. At other times we might argue an opposing view that we ourselves may have previously opposed. Also we have a stock of instant answers that are simply automatic responses. You can see its complex. A much more scruntinouse study of all of this is from: Idries Shah- The Commanding Self.
So I mention this to give a perspective upon machine intelligence as our own intelligent mind needs some understandings before we can claim such capacities in a machine. It is these surface operations of our minds, the learned automaton reactions that can most likely be programmed one way or another into a machine. But it is the other qualities that make us intelligent, human and emotional beings: I believe that such a combination will be extremely difficult to accomplish within an inanimate object, however it might exhibit superficial cleverness.
These methods already mentioned of programming for A.I. mean starting at the very basics with meta data meanings of everything: it’s one huge task and so due to the cost, efforts and resources required; nobody wants to go down this route. Shame, as I have always though this will be the most productive.
The second option is far easier in comparison and involves computing machines to observe, engage and gain knowledge over time of all moves and possible strategies, before putting all of this into a memory with a programme over-arched with this information. Good in games and gaming systems. Designed so as to act upon each event as a separate possibility and look up the result, thus to apply the correct option. Very much akin to the unthinking auto-mind that is the surface semi dreaming mind of many of us when we lose our self-awareness over to such automatic thinking: daydreaming. And don’t dismiss the need of this function. If we needed time to study the fact that our hand is resting on the oven hot plate instead of a pre-programmed instant reflex action to pull away, its unlikely that we would have survived so far. Instantaneous none thinking responses are required, but they are not the mindfulness that we would claim as our identity – our real self, but such responses are very much the type of thing that A.I. might well achieve. A computer is very good at this and once the strategies are all know it can do it at lightening speed, far faster than a human, but it’s a limited role focused upon single tasks. These may appear to be complex but in fact for a computer once set up and its ‘learned’ all the moves it makes are easy for it. This is a good starting strategy for A.I.
So Deep Mind is using a 1980s Space Invaders game to show what is meant by this. To begin with the machine plays slowly all options and loses all the time until it gains understanding through trial and error the best options. At first it is far worse than a human, later on it has no human competition, as all moves are known so it applies the best known to itself in its memory and wins every time and rapidly.
A human may learn all these moves in game playing but will forget them, the computer never forgets, but this is not A.I. Now, all of this posses questions; if humans had to learn everything by trial and error we would have died out thousands of years ago. Its most likely therefore that Darwinian evolution of subconscious responses had been learned and passed down the chain of living things from microbes to man.
Playing Space Invaders. The human may be distracted by hand movements, peripheral vision – eyes seeing other things in the surroundings. Also internal emotions that all influence the game playing and of course not being fast enough mentally nor remembering all strategies. There are other factors too: the human mind can be drawn off track by continuous internal thought, such thoughts even at the subliminal level will draw away focus; unlike the computer which has no such distractions but its probably those distractions that make us human. Such sidereal abstract thought in variable situations, takes up some of our surface awareness, we are multiple situation processing at some level – all of the time.
So a machine can be totally focused beyond human comparison and fantastic at Space Invaders or its potentials may used in other actions, like sorting out selections of text string results – which is what Google seek. But I maintain it will still be nothing like the A. I. as popularised into public understanding by the media and other influences. It will certainly be nothing like the flexibility of a human mind even with all its shortcomings of data memory retrieval, which the speed of a computer in doing such feats so impresses us into the belief of its intelligence; when its just moving very fast over its memory which unlike humans never fails it.
Yes its all exceedingly clever, useful and will become profitable. There will emerge many applications. Cars that drive themselves and other activities can be programmed in the same manner as option two above. It predictive observation, a baby learns in this manner, there are automatic responses and it leans from situations like the instant recoil from hot food, sharp objects and so on. External experience. Have you noticed how effective this is? It deeply programmes our automatic nervous system, much of which through Darwinian iterations is part of us from microbial single cell memory.
An electric turbine spins and generates electricity and through the interconnected wires turns the lights on. But nobody would claim that the turbine had intelligence. It is mechanically attuned to its task. I believe its functionality is in the same way as these emerging methods – like the Space Invader application – that are tagged as moving towards A.I. Such descriptions are faulty thinking.
The Space Invader and Chess playing machines such as Holmes and other applications are still, no mater how fast and efficient and beyond our capability, are not intelligent. A human cannot spin a turbine to produce electricity but we don’t stand in awe of its intelligence. So lets not be confused as these supposedly A.I. applications won’t be intelligent in our sense either.
The dark occult arts of supposed ‘intelligent’ computing minds of such ‘A.I.’ machines are mindless and robotic. Such qualities are useful for many future tasks and also extremely valuable, due to the human aspects that intelligent beings do possess, which they will not have.
Yes they will be very good for warfare; better drones etc without human emotions holding them back and no other such distractions, they will fulfil their tasks without ANY THINKING.
Deep Mind will initially be focussing upon using its insights into building better search results for Google. This has raised the issue:
When will machines emerge that think like us? A question posed already in the media showing the belief’ that this could be possible. When in fact it posses the question really of how do we think? and I believe that much of our thinking is unconscious and automatic and pre programmed and thus could be said to be machine like.
The TV show CAPRICA a spin off from Battle Star Galactica poses the way it could happen.
Many animals can do things faster than we can, and have capacities that we do not possess, yet they have not yet invented an industrialised complex society. Which may be the step required to reach towards where we are venturing now with these ideas of a post industrial, computer functional one.
A.I. its just a rapid habit!
So I believe that machine functionality is a programmed operation and in the case of such machines they do posses a very rapid capability: but its still in real definable terms a: HABIT! So My name for current computational machines in deference to Babbage is: A Habitual Engine. And a good name that shows to ourselves how habitual and automatic we ourselves are. The word habitual ought to be applied to the method of such ‘A.I.’ machines for a more corrective balance in understanding.
Continuing and further with exposition of the subject – would such machines have the capacity for separate motivation to take on unique new and challenging concepts to do things that interest it? What would be its motivation driver? what would be its reward? Ours it seems are all based upon attention. Attention to ourselves, our own self value, self worth, and you can see this everywhere; and bloated in celebrity, political and business people who have large ego drivers; its all reward seeking unto themselves. And we all do this to a greater or lesser extent.
Descartes: I Think Therefore I am, or is the question rather; I am because others think of me.
How would a machine gain such a quality of self and self interest or worse self obsession? Often in human terms this can be attributed to a fault, yet such a drive is linked to emotions of being and having an external identity that is admired by others. It is observable in its external forms such as: I have followers, I have Facebook friends, I have others that like me: thus I am real. Is that phone ringing for me, do I have any new messages, is anyone looking at my messages, my texts, my TWEETS?
A machine has no such requirement for responsive pats on the back, even if it were possible to imbibe it with such a protocol, which I doubt. So I don’t think that we will lose control over such machines as they will not run amok unless programmed to do so. I believe this is so because its seems that our ‘intelligence’ is driven by rewards that give us identity and attention. This is an intangible and not a functional thing that could be put into a machine to then enable it to be intelligent like us, because then it will be as dumb as us!
Solving cryptographic crossword puzzles is also habitual! We are rewarded for doing so by thinking how bright we are, when we are really using memory and associations, just like an intelligent computer.
The boss of the deep mind company said on the BBC TV programme Newsnight that the resulting technology and derived devices would be sensibly used and not for military purposes! I think the very opposite. Its that driving force and its funds that will indeed drive such technology forwards. And they the military don’t want thinking machines, it is the very fact pointed out herein that these machine will NOT THINK that is the factor of value to certain people. They don’t really want thinking emotional and conscience driven soldiers.
It can’t be stopped, you cannot un-invent an atom bomb. So its coming. Its predictable that we will see none emotionally driven, single focused (dare I say it robotic) singularly fixed ideologically (a program directive) driven combatants. A rapid robotic unquestioning mechanical soldier is just the job. Somewhat like its human comparison: the idealogical and mindless IslamicState robotic thinking lunatics.
To mollify us the boss of Deep Mind assures us that Google is an ethical company and thus his technology now bought out by Google is in safe hands. Well I think that the military complex somewhere will in anycase be simultaneously developing this stuff. And lets not forget the fact that the Snowden leaks have already informed us that Google tips off anything that the secret NSA people want – already.
A.I. Attack Droids seem to me to be a real outcome. The future soldier, metal boots on the ground. Robotic Terminators! But I doubt they will have the self attention seeking characteristic of we humans, and so will obligingly stay within their programmed functionality.
Deep Mind that’s a curios name tag and one that gives an impression of a deep intelligence when in fact its clever, very clever, but its still just mechanical actions at very high speed. We should know it for what it is; a mechanical function and mechanical things are mechanical and don’t really have any integral deep thoughts and no mind. We need to be careful we don’t miss comprehend all this. These devices imbued with ‘A.I.’ will be amazing, and useful but they won’t be self aware and thinking, they wont object to being switched off. Lets not classify it as thinking, intelligence, and not really the A.I. we are being conditioned to expect. We are being manipulated by popularised simplistic thinking (another thing we can easily fall prey too) and thus wrongly believing these emerging ‘A.I.’ applications puts extra value to all of this and we then ad ‘wonderment’ to it because we cannot do it but don’t be confused: what our eyes see and our ears hear does not mean such things have internal intelligence nor sentience.
Humans have a lot of real-time simultaneous mental functions, and often the faculty of emotions, guilt anger, humour and – that thing called conscience.
A conscience comes from the word consciousness it means to be aware. We have simultaneous running mentalised functions: separate awareness of our actions, even of our own thoughts.
An advanced meditation practitioner for example can observe their own thoughts. And become aware of an identity within themselves of a faculty known as the ‘observer’ which is able to see and passively observe internal thoughts as they rise, interconnect and fade. This faculty all humans have and it shows that we have a separate consciousness to all of the mechanical automated response mechanisms that have been programmed into us from childhood by environment, education, upbringing, beliefs, emotions and all that. This observable separate identity apart and distinguishable from the thoughts we have – this awareness – is what separates us from the animals.
No computing machine even with amazing abilities and speed can have such an internal capacity as that described above, if it could be given to it it would probable be less functional as all those attributes would slow it down just like us. It would become responsible for its actions; if fully aware, (as often we too are not!)
What A.I. does show us is how we delude ourselves with descriptions of a thing like A.I. and indeed how for most of our day we are distracted unthinking automatic and robotic in our attitude responses and our thinking. For the most part of our day we can be involved and mentally lost in an internal world of endless thoughts. A dialogue with a continuous talking to ourselves, incessant inner chatter. This shuts out that awareness of our inner deep self that is always observing and sometimes butting in when its essential: like the application of our conscience, having free will. The ability to distinguish wrong from right.
Conciousness is a word derived from a state of being concious, being aware. Now all of this emerging story about artificial intelligence professes to be also an acquisition of conciousness that sort of just comes along with A.I. but what I have attempted to point out here is that real conciousness is a very different thing. It is also evolving. And we should use these insights from observation of external advances in clever systems – Habitual Machines – to make us more aware of our own state of Conciousness.
I read of a theory a long time ago that suggested that electricity resides in the fields aroundconductors, electrical components etc, and what we see flowing in the wires is the reaction to those fields existing on the outside of the conductors. In other words, it is the reverse of current beliefs that electricity travels in the wires. It doesn’t in this theory. It travels outside the wires, but we detect something in the wire, because our machines for detecting it, create the conditions for measuring it there. I.e. because we “interfere” with the wire when we test for electricity, the “interference” causes our measuring instruments to register something. A bit like waving a coil of wire in a magnetic field. It must produce electricity.
I wish I could remember who the author was of that, but it fits with the above link, and if we take that a step further, then if that field is conscious, that explains why software or other machines are not conscious. I.e. they don’t have that external field of consciousness associated with them.
REPLY: It was Eric Dollard who describes electricity that in fact travels external around the wires, not in them and thus creates EM fields flowing both ways and even accumulating power: THE FOUR PHASES OF ELECTRICITY.
Another from J. Hadlow:
I just found that article I had buried for years on electric field theory.
The man (Ivor Catt) might still be alive. His website also has one of those sob stories of rejection by the establishment (I think you told me a few stories about that too!). He was involved in the early days of computing, and did some important work for some big companies of the period.
Look Up at the skies and you will see that a lot of planes leave white trails across the sky from horizon to horizon. Some do. Some don’t. You have to believe your own eyes don’t you? If your older than 20 you may remember that our skies were clear and blue on sunny days. These days ,not always but on some days the skies are criss-crossed with expanding white aircraft trails. Some days if you spend a little time to watch these white lines fan out, join together and make the sky a milky haze obscuring the sun: So what’s going on?
One thing I have researched myself is Ionizers and (good) ozone generators.
These can assist in clearing the air locally. These contrails are said to have aluminium particulates in the fallout dropping to the ground: such aluminium is known to contaminate the brain and is associated with Alzheimers.
One of the best I have tried is the EANLRA: there is a range: a house or office unit, one for the car and another for personal use which you wear around the neck. I have the office unit Mk2 and it has various settings which you can adjust; other units I believe lose their potency whilst these units have that renewed with each change to new needles annually. Its not cheap, and its costly to use as the needles have to be replaced yearly. But it does seem to do what it claims: clears the air and makes it more breathable: the effect is similar to what you can identify in your breathing near to running water.
Known as The Star In A Jar and first proposed by Philo Farnsworth the inventor of electronic television; as a fusion reaction tube. Its real serious stuff as Georgia Tech is doing practical experiments with laboratory fusion generators. They have promise for low cost future power generation, maybe good to counter our reliance on oil.
A Star is a Sun and the Sun is now proving to be controversial, does it have a cool inner core? Does it have a core atall? Is its heat produced similarly to the Star in a Jar experiment; with the outer surface membrane collecting energy from the surrounding nuclear particles attracted to it from surrounding space: is this what’s heating up the Sun?
Variations upon this symbol configuration have been known from the past: in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. More recently perpetuated within the symbolic nature of Islamic art (tiles). Did they know something we have missed? These tiles hold geometric designs and mathematical formulations within them that underpin mathematics and Euclidean geometry. On a single dimensional surface they display one interpretation however expanded into a three-D model they show much more startling properties. Don’t forget that the Islamic rulers of Spain encouraged mathematics and university education, the roots from which invigorated Western intellect and lead to the period of European enlightenment and the science and mathematics we have today. Our ancestors may have reproduced symbols that have potentials way beyond current knowledge, this concept was expressed in an old Science Fiction book: A Canticle For Liebwitz.
Could there really be a structure underneath the appearance of cosmology, held as a formative medium within electrical magnetic potentials? The Electric Universe Theory almost predicts this.
On a similar yet different aspect of the ‘Star in a Jar’ type of phenomenon Eric Dollard and John Polakowski are following methods first experimented with by Nikola Tesla and are producing a test model of a device known as the Cosmic Induction Generator. It is said to demonstrate underlying formative forces in nature. Based upon a new underlying unseen structure in nature formed from a void that surrounds and underpins our reality, given the name first proposed by Rudolf Steiner: Counter Space. Using special mathematical formulations generated by Tesla over a century ago and now re-worked by professor Dollard: John Polakowski (Eric’s student) has used these equations to re-build the machine proposed by Tesla that generates longitudinal waveforms. Putting two of these electro magnetic production machines facing each other is said to generate at the point of interference of the two opposing wave-forms meshing: possibly an area of this Counter Space.
At the edges of this central area they put an unconnected held in the hand florescent tubing which ignites into brilliant light. It is said that future testing may reproduce an effect with ordinary but spent light-bulbs of a very similar effect to the ‘Star in a jar’ phenomenon but much more controversial. The effect has been said to have been observed as unpredictable but when centred into the middle location of the proposed Counter Space area that the glass bulb begins to show an underlying instantaneous shadow of the Flower of Life symbol as a sphere, before flashes of discharges form in fractal patterns, then in the centre of the spent glass light bulb: a galaxy forms!
We are sometimes absent from our minds, you know this: like when you drive to a destination and have no memory recall of the route and its landmarks. Sometimes you might drive unconsciously to a common repetitive destination, such as a place of work, only to wake up to the fact that on this occasion you are going somewhere else. We forget where we leave things; like glasses, keys, phones etc.
Specialists in a given field can use the mind to concentrate on singular subjects and exclude other aspects or even rule out potentials that may apparently conflict with the issue under study.
We all know of the absent minded scientist who might invent marvellous things and discover fundamental scientific advances, and yet forget his wife’s birthday and be unable to keep to timescales, forget meetings, and sometimes may defend a theory (his) even when opposite proof is overwhelming.
Not only can we all be absent from our minds, we can be automatically controlled by it. There are many new discoveries emerging pertinent to this question, and we know that most of our brain is not, apparently, used by our more obvious thinking mechanisms.
Questions arise about consciousness, when we think who is doing it? This consciousness that we have? Are we conscious of our conciousness: are we awake? If we concentrate on a problem who takes care of other bodily functions and processes. Well of course that’s a function of the automatic and ‘unconscious’ mind, however these days observations and experiments are proving that this mind is far from unconscious, and yet in all this where are we, who are we.
Are we constant in our minds; a constant I, a certainty of a me?
Some doubts regarding this do arise when this awareness of self submerges into absence, on those quite frequent occasions when we drift in our daydreaming, only to re-emerge to the task in hand that requires us being present, when working on something important for example, we can have the experience that we have been vacant.
A great scientific mind pondering deep problems could under such circumstances walk under a bus, if it were not for the ever watchful super aware ‘unconscious mind’.
The question arises; if this mind has such capacity: is it us? Can we benefit from becoming more associated with it and therefore would such a thing be beneficial?
Greater awareness and more consciousness must be a worthwhile goal, certainly for open-minded use in problem solving.
How can theories, things we believe to be true, be exactly so; if we ourselves and also those that expound them are subjected to metal sleepwalking for multiple periods in a day, often most of the day!
This brings about a discussion about awareness and also being aware of our own conscious awareness! It’s a sort of mental gymnastic. However if you try you can quite easily prove to yourself that you have lapses in awareness when ‘you’ are no longer present.
Surely until we produce individuals trained and capable of really objective thinking, with more awareness, and real objectivity, then our scientific models which are not entirely proven or those (and there are many) that ignore inconsistencies in the theory etc we cannot have real objective certainty.
Mathematics is a good example as it is the basics of much of our modern worlds theories.
For example: Pi being “a mathematical constant” yet it’s an indeterminable mathematical equation only comparatively correct so it changes! So we round it up, thus ignoring other possibilities: circles may change diameter! And if they do so this is achieved by circumstances that we cannot imagine.
At one time the speed of light was calculated differently and changed periodically when studied, that is until an international agreement stabilised it at 299 792 458 meters per second but is this correct or is it an agreed assumption?
In mathematics there is no way to smoothly calculate one number up or down to the next the nearest unit – all we can get is: .9999999999999999 recurring. This means there are unique objects with huge gaps or spaces between which we have no idea about , so: we ignore it.
Science can prove that Homoeopathy does not work and yet many people obtain a cure.
We are informed that Global warming is a fact but we really need several centuries of observation to prove it.
A lot can be hidden from us if we decide not to look. Not to think and fail to observe.
Not only are we often absent from our minds also our minds can be usurped! Well at least that part of our mind which we identify with as being: ‘me’ . I mean our concious awareness of ourselves actually being there behind our eyes and quite consciously doing the thinking / talking. However often it goes on auto-pilot. When ‘we’ return do we even notice our recent absence?
By automatic thinking , which is a result of our training , our education, our upbringing, our preferences and our habits; we can very often issue entirely unconscious and automatic responses and this just stops us from thinking for ourselves. Worse still its a habit that is hard to overcome because most of us are entirely unaware of it.
This is due to the fact that someone has previously established the way things are and in so doing ‘rounded up’ our reality to the nearest approximation and we automatically go with the flow and ourselves repeat unconsciously a concept, idea, or theory as our fact. This un-thinking is removing and diminishing the potentials for ‘out of the box thinking’ . We tend not to question the already established status quo because we also conform to the herd instinct.
The book ‘A Mind Of Its Own’ by Cordelia Fine goes some was to show that we are not fully in control of our minds. Many scientific, and psychological observations prove that we are often the subjects of automatic thinking, using responses to external circumstances and situations by a learned automatic un-thinking responses; anger and violence being at the extreme end and possibly just as debilitating: belief without questioning and fed – in – indoctrinations that have been put into us from an early age.
The possession of real objectivity comes into question when considering the above facts.
Most science is controlled by the pre-set rules of conformity.
Okay yes there are ’maverick’ scientists we resist conformity and who make wild uncertain claims, crazy ideas etc., but, and quite often a few are eventually proven to be correct. Therefore we can see that such a maverick may be proven correct only when and if the consensus of opinion has moved on to allow it to become so.
I believe that we could improve our understandings and advance our knowledge by certain new approaches, with far less dogma, but they would have to begin with a long term programme involving the way we educate our children. Also to some extent people who are interested in mental improvement of any age could adopt some schemes to improve mental agility and importantly awareness.
For example Qigong is a Chinese martial art assisting breathing which in turn develops inner strength of sinews and internal organs (not muscular strength) and results in ‘observable’ more wakefulness and consciousness. Meditation is another. There are many more methods.
Can we trust those who are subject to an inability to focus awareness in a real sense to be our leaders in science and for that matter in any other walk of life ? and certainly not politicians! They exhibit all the features of individuals bent upon power and dominance due to ego dominant mind-traits, once useful when we were neolithic cave-men facing physical dangers and requiring strength and dominance from a leader, these days these functions are detrimental to real awareness and insightful progress, and for problem solving in our modern stressful world.
Before leaving this subject I want to mention an area of science that is being overlooked and I want to throw in a potentially ‘off the wall observation’ and a resulting possible new line of thinking.
Electricity powers our world but in fact we really do not understand its function. One ‘maverick’ thinker and scientist is certain that wires do not carry electricity. They act as wave-guides for an electro-magnetic flow channel orbiting around and instantly along the metal wires. They can become power line aerials!
We have functioning electrical systems, we found these out from Faraday, Tesla and many others and put to work, in other words rounded up from potentialities that could produce far different systems, with all other possibilities and options for other energy functions; but these are closed off, due to the evolved current status quo, “ we don’t need to fix what’s working, no need to even bother to understand or to see if there are better options etc.,” which might turn out to provide us with more and better and high efficiency low cost electricity. The guy in question is Eic Drollard.
Here is one of my own musings after contemplating the possibility of sub-level electro-magnetism operating on a very low sub human observation level:
A Hollyhock flower for all the world looks exactly like a microwave dish antenna. It has a tall stem and grounded in the earth roots: we could under different circumstances be looking at a receiver transmitter – grounded: what does such a thing do?
Consider that as a living organism it has developed strategies (quite in line with Darwinian theory) to grow, survive, flourish and continue its existence (seeds). It takes up water, which is like a standing wave of contiguous droplets moving up its length: water has electro-static properties. It also takes in energy by photosynthesis: radiated sunlight – electrons.
We are told that it emits a smell, and by colours and shape it attracts insects to pollinate itself; so producing seeds and providing food and energy to bees and other pollinating insects. This process is in fact mutually reciprocal and self beneficial: the plant gains the bees gain.
But what if this process also operates on an entirely different level and method, maybe a fail-safe option juxtaposed to the one we can see and describe as above?
Consider this. What if the plant, when it is ready for pollination transmits signals on a certain frequency that is picked up by the insects, then they travel directly to it at exactly the right time.
Have you ever wondered why all those insects have various and variable shapes of antenna? Is it to tune into certain exact frequencies?
Do flowers, plants, and trees have low power magnetic fields due to their water content and electrical grounding, could plants communicate by such methods? Is the waggle dance of bees an electro-magnetic signal exchange? And if so, then why not research into such forms of very subtle alternative energy and power for our own low cost energy needs?
You see how alternative thinking combined with observation and without listening to accepted preconceived solutions can block other realities….
The first individual to come up with just such a theory described regarding insects was:
There is no doubt that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has value and is correct in some of its observations; those confined to internal species development of features and faculties. He never said it was the absolute 100% truth, it was a THEORY, a hypothesis. These days with the likes of Richard Dawkins it has become a fanatical religion; based upon faith!
There is much evidence emerging to show that cells are not necessarily following the Darwin protocols. If they don’t at such a fundamental level then how can anything higher up the chain do so, when basic bacteria is at the roots of all life. As a Biologist you might expect Dawkins to be an impartial scientist looking at evidence, but no there is none so blind as those who refuse to see. (Maybe too big a pill to swallow when a career has already been established on an ever increasingly shaky evidence.)
Darwin’s theory states that Random Mutations over long periods of time have and are the only driving force of adaptation and evolution, with survival of the fittest additionally moderating things.
BUT science is now showing that NON-RANDOM mutations are observed in cells; thus ipso-facto at the very least throwing the Darwinian theory back to a requirement for additional caveats.
“The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection of random mutations should be consigned to history where it belongs; electronic intercommunications and resonance may be involved in activating and mutating just the right genes…” Dr Mae-Wang Ho ( SCIENCE IN SOCIETY 60 Winter 2013)
Cells are at the heart of biological change therefore, discoveries that cells are organised from external organising signals does change all things assumed about adaptation from the viewpoint only from survival and environmental pressures. Maybe cells can change rapidly from such external conditions mutating creatures and life to fit, within a generation or two; but no evidence to support this fits with Darwin’s long term slow paced adaptation theory.
The theory goes: random mutations are shaped by natural selection; but modern genetics show no proof of this in fact the very opposite “mutations” according to Dr Lee ” have never been found to ad information” Mutations visibly delete information from the genetic code taking things downwards rather than upwards to a better more newly adapted result; that just doesn’t appear to happen at the genetic level. Dr Lee Spencers book
Another book, The Case Against Darwin: “Mutations have never been observed to originate a new hormone, organ or other functional structure: they reduce, but do not generate, biological technology” – James Perloff.
Cellular life supposedly originated from lightening strikes into a chemical soup that generated amino acids (but that’s not organic life its chemical) over millions of years these acids somehow sparked into proteins then organic primitive cells; crossing the chemical biological barrier, all by accident. This has yet to be observed or generated in a laboratory – under better controlled circumstances than those supposed to have done so originally! Sir Francis Crick has trouble with this too (the discoverer of the DNA code) and is on record saying its mathematically infeasible, and that’s the odds against just one single protein being generated, chance would need to roll its dice multiple numbers of times to generate enough proteins from the electrically (lightening) generated amino acids to even begin to form long chain molecular structures that could feasible produce a single cell. And then that cell would need the genetic code creating from some totally unknown method to even begin to rise up the ladder of biology to then, we are told, generate every living thing on the planet. Amazingly that first cell must also have created its own method of cell division (quit a complex operation) in order to generate offspring – this stretches credulity to its outer limits.
At higher levels of life that cellular there are many conundrums. There are many examples that stretch credulity for fitting with Darwin’s theory like the Vella Jelyfish which is a composite of a communality of co-operating operating entities: very strange.
Now we come to sex and the male – female reproductive system. Why and how could nature generate a male reproductive system? As until it was fully developed it would serve no function, it would take a huge amount of time to become functional. Why would it be required unless it co-operated with a similarly chance generation of a female reproductive system, you see the problem, how could any species get going on this basis? Millions of paralleling chance steps on two reproductive systems to come together to produce offspring before the actual species existed in the first place – so we have eggs and chickens in circular patterns of confusion.
Scientists have worked upon fruit fly generations for decades as they breed new generations every few days. Since the 1900’s this observation and methods of intervening in such breeding and all manner of external applied conditions has not yet produced another developed offspring species; just fruit flies, always fruit flies. Nothing other than a fruit fly has ever evolved and the timeline ads up more than enough of it to have shown something if Darwin s theory of species developing out of others was possible. Bacteria never turn into anything other than bacteria. Micro-evolution is when there are changes inside a species like the adaptation of bird beaks, macro-evolution states changes from one species into another, Darwin claims everything came from a single species evolving over time into all the others we see toady: and yet bacteria, the starting point dose not. (see Debunking Evolution) There is evidence for evolution within a species, and this has been taken as the method for all evolution, but there is no evidence nor fossil record for one species to turn into another; no donkey has turned into a giraffe.
The Cambrian explosion is another unanswered question for Darwinism. And where are the transitional fossils showing evolving generations of one intermediate form of life into another?
There appears to be not enough time on planet earth’s timeline to be able to generate life. So some theorists have allowed a theory that life may be seeded here from outer space – life spores on comets for example (panspermia theory), but even so how that life originated has to answer the same questions that chemical beginnings of evolution jumping over to biological cells is taught as fact but has yet to be proven in a science experiment.
Why has evolution apparently stopped? apart from that one example of the Peppered Moth which is now thought to be only a fluctuation and debunked as a theory in Icons of Evolution (Jonathan Wells). So, why aren’t reptiles evolving, why aren’t fish trying still to adapt to land and so on; shouldn’t evolution be progressing? or is everything perfectly adapted these days? or is it totally impossible for a species to develop beyond its own gene pool, which most honest genetic scientists are tending to prove. But this will not stop the possibilities of chimeras the gene splicing of one species DNA with another thus generating a none evolution produced hybrid – thus proving external design and intervention!
Bird feathers represent a major difficulty in Darwinism: as they are extremely complex in operation. To get to such technical capability the evolving bird would be easy prey for predictors in the long period before flight could begin.
Other troubles are in ancient remains not only of huge bones, but also unaccountable ancient artefacts, even buildings like the pyramids that exhibit higher levels of technology than our current one, possibly indicating a superior race before us lost in the sands of time maybe following a cataclysmic event. Such avenues may distract but more and more annoying (to orthodox scientists) facts and artefacts continue to emerge.
If we have such a fundamental flaw in our understanding as to the beginnings of life, then how can science be trusted? When only the Darwinian model is taught in education and the ‘problems’ with it are not given voice, then real science can never evolve.
The topic is only briefly covered here but enough to show that the theory of Darwin needs to be completely re-evaluated: it doesn’t work and is holding us back on a set of completely false assumptions, now for detailed information READ THESE BOOKS:
Anything that we think is beneficial for our health, from an authoritative source, even if false, can have positive effects on health and even performance. The placebo scores higher in tests that most of its comparative medicines, in fact the placebo is the most tested and best proven effect in medicine and health. If you believe it will help, if you are informed so from an authoritative person or organisation or by recommendation; the effects appear to be positive.
This is amazing and must be playing a major role in all emerging fringe scientific and other types of alternative treatments. (These are covered here in other sections: Water, Electronic & Energy Medicine, )
The placebo is the most tested and safest drug available, it has been tested as a control, against every single drug that makes its way to be consumed by patients and the general public, in fact it mostly scores effectively at a higher rate than the actual drug under testing! And it has no discernible side effects. And this is not just for drugs; other conditions even capabilities can be enhanced.
Masses of drugs taken means gigantic profits for the chemical based pharmaceutical industry, and most have horrific side effects. American Addict is a new film about the reliance and addiction of the Western world on taking pills for everything.
Auto suggestion and hypnosis, homepathy, acupuncture, etc.
Water – DNA – Genetics – Evolution – Darwinism – Ancient Engineering – Egyptology – The Brain – Conciousness – Electronic Medicine, Placebo and much more.
Early in the development of electricity battery powered massage machines for ‘health’ were sold: these days things have moved on:
PEMF devices: Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy
Known to speed up bone fracture healing.
IMRS 2000 has a good reputation for treating certain ailments and is according to some researchers very good as a preventative tool for peak health. However it does not come cheap. The book PEMF The 5th Element of Health is good for an all-round introduction to this subject; but also a sales brochure for the IMRS 2000.
A good review/appraisal and background to these devices is found at pmft.net .
The placebo effect is certainly at work with many of these emerging devices, they do work. Yet much of the healing is thought to be initiating or jump starting the bodies own immune and regeneration systems. Quite startling results from research regarding placebo effects are now emerging. BBC TV Horizon.
One thing I have researched myself is Ionizers and (good) ozone generators.
One of the best is the EANLRA there is a range: a house or office unit, one for the car and another for personal use which you wear around the neck. I have the office unit Mk2 and it has various settings which you can adjust; other units I believe lose their potency whilst these units have that renewed with each change to new needles annually. Its not cheap, and its costly to use as the needles have to be replaced yearly. But it does seem to do what it claims. (And you can sharpen the needles with sand paper then replace saving on expensive new ones).
There are many machines coming onto the market, most have some basis from the work of Dr Rife – like the BIO Resonator. An expensive piece of kit, used by practitioners. Of course mainstream medicine see all this as sued-science and at best a placebo effect, but if it works…
Then there are emerging certain diagnostics surounding bio-energy fields, some say crackpots, but isent that always so, before acceptance…