Ghet for Prez (Small Q&A) pt. II

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Cedric, Nov 18, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cedric

    Cedric or otherwise Ced

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1999
    Messages:
    3,356
    In the Mapping Personal Growth thread, this post has never left my mind, and nearly every encounter we’ve had [thus far] has clashed because of how we’ve mapped personal growth, and I hope this clears our differences. I’ve some questions to ask of your amorality and political standing. Keep in mind that everything I’ll say throughout are assumptions, I won’t treat anything as fact. If I become too personal once again, fill free to answer these questions elsewhere:

    -You desire to process “information” for personal gain, so for that, your current research has been focused on molding yourself whilst in Class C-mplexity. In doing so, what do you desire to ultimately obtain in your life-span? Is part of your ultimatum in increasing life-span? What is your long-term vision [if it’s already been established]? My last thread [to you] was asking about what you desire to materially obtain [in life], if there is a desire, so these questions should more than complete that.

    -Lingering in Class C-mplexity and gaining personally, is any bit of your intentions in uplifting specific people’s well-being? Based on your past political discussions, it seems like your concern lies only in tracking your mold and where you plan on taking yourself, and that your intentions lie not in others, albeit they can be a hindrance to you if morals differ, regardless where either of you stand in moralistic society (dare I say traits of “totalitarianism”… “fascism” if RM-rumors are true and you contain racism). Maybe there are those that have an agenda similar to yours that you never discuss here that you currently associate with in the world, so correct me if I’m wrong. This question is asking about your Posthumanistic ultimatum, if existent… and how amoral emotionlessness has shifted how you associate with moral society. Going back to question 1, it would seem like you use Class C-mplexity to wield humans for personal gain (which I say again, looks like “totalitarianism”).

    -You keep up with politics. For what purposes? Is your intention in predicting shifts in society to assist a different goal/intention in mind? Is it to one day run for an office, and use Class C-mplexity to create an environment that works in fulfilling your personal gain? How will your filtration of the human species look like if you had your way, and why?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Condensed: I’m asking about your goals/intentions as you map personal growth, and how your goals/intentions interact with others.
    test
  2. I appreciate the discourse.

    Modern humanity has been inflamed in two great moral crusades. One was to save the lost souls from eternal damnation. (which is easy to point fingers to due to it's very well documented activity) The other was to save the lower class from the upper class. (Which is more difficult to point fingers at because people still, en masse, believe this to be a legit crusade)

    A new moral crusade is on the horizon: Saving the planet from our activities. You call it environmentalism. I call it just another front Marxists are using to instill their moral codes into the world yet again.

    Every moral crusade, from here until the end of time, believes in the following fundamental principle without even knowing it. hey instinctively believe the population worth saving from <insert moral threat here> is trapped and can never expand, retreat, or otherwise leave. There is no flight. There is only forcing everyone's behavior into a mold that is compatible with the current standing population. Those who do not capitulate will be put to the sword, imprisoned, tarred and feathered, slandered, etc. People who partake on these moral crusades are obsessed about maintaining a closed system instead of looking beyond the horizon and exploring.

    Christ said to capitulate with his Golden Rule.
    Marx said to fight with his Class Struggle.
    Not to put myself on par with those colossal personalities, but I say leave.

    My method of achieving this end cannot be exposed because only I understand how to connect the points. Not to be sound elitist, it's just that the people required in that plan are so unrelated and are just starting out in their respective technological industries. So far, I have electric engineers, neuropsychopharmacologists, quantum physicists, software designers, biologists, and soon, I'll have CDC and epidemologists contacts as well. Right now, I am securing a financial flow to help get what needs to get done started.

    It's gotten to the point where I am done trying to convince unrelated people on what needs to be done. I'd rather just do it with the technicians that I know are needed. My book will help explain my path.

    People asked me a long time ago "Well, if you understand all this shit technically, then why are you in the music industry?"

    The short answer is "Threat reduction."

    Sidenote: Jesus. 104 views with one reply. o_O
    test
  3. Stash

    Stash R.I.P Point Game

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Messages:
    12,856
    Ghet for President.
    test
  4. johnny spanish

    johnny spanish New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5
    hate to interject.. jus curious.

    ghet, on the reals son, are you god fearing to at least some extent?
    test
  5. If I was to translate my belief system in a way that is theologically palatable...

    My understanding of God is that no man... NO MAN... can understand such a vast intelligence. No technological gap can ever make a human understand it. Imagine an amoeba attempting to fathom the actions of a dog. Imagine a dog attempting to fathom the actions of a human. That is what a human looking at God would experience.

    If God is as compassionate as His actions have been interpreted to be (giving us our wonderful ability to observe patterns and organize, for example), I would be less fearful and more grateful.

    My uncle used to tell me God's gift to you is life and your life is your gift to God.

    One cannot look at God directly with any attempt to comprehend an intellect that is orders of magnitude above our own. Therefore, since the universe is God's creation as much as we are, the closest you can ever get to God is by studying that system. You can indirectly understand, at the very least, the local intentions of God with such a pursuit.

    That would be the theological translation of my beliefs.
    test
  6. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    In other words, You theorically believe in one Universal God?
    You follow CTMU?
    test
  7. No.

    Within this universe, there are regions that can never be inferred. Hell, within molecules, there are states that cannot be calculated with precision. Within each person, there are emotional states that clash to take control.

    Everything has a wavefunction. Everything.

    When humanity attempts to observes God, they project themselves into the observatiopn. They always have and they always will. This is why the constructs of faith and belief are insufficient tools for the job. They are laden with anthropomorphic bias, resulting in incomplete definitions. They collapsing God's wavefunction, but they simply return the result we want to see.

    God will always and forever remain Unknown to human comprehension or even direct observation. Any attempt to bridge that gap is humanity projecting their will and desires.

    Claiming certainty over the unknown cannot be done until you collapse the wavefunction. However, when you do so, you have interfered with the observation and have influenced the answer simply by asking the question.
    test
  8. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I've heard this quite a bit. It all depends on how we define understanding.

    What is understanding?
    How does one attain knowledge on any subject?

    Anybody who has ever had a dog knows that verbal communication is impossible. The dog cannot tell you what it is thinking and it probably doesn't understand your words (unless you're saying sit, or fetch, roll over, etc). But, anybody who has ever had a dog knows that the dog understands when you are suffering, depressed, etc. If you are depressed and your dog is close to you it will know that you are depressed and it will become depressed also.
    It understands you better than you understand it.

    God cannot exist outside of energy and matter. Nothing can be outside of energy and matter and therefore God (if we are to use that word at all) is the unity and monistic oneness of all energy and matter throughout the vastness of space and time. We can understand God in that sense, but we can only understand it if we feel it and experience it with a part of ourselves that is not of the mind . . . in the same way that we feel love.

    Anybody who has been in love and been hurt has felt it in their chest. It feels as if your heart is literally breaking and the suffering is not in the head, but in the chest.

    Man can understand God only by understanding himself.
    test
  9. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I like that.
    test
  10. If you want me to believe that, for a second, you have directly observed God in It's total complexity, I'm going to ask for mathematical proofs. Again, by attempting to observe God, you can only see yourself and what you want to see because of your human limitations. Therefore, you are not seeing God. That's why "Man can understand God only by understanding himself" is a misnomer.
    test
  11. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Hypothetically speaking, what proof could I provide you?
    If I told you that I have been in love, could I prove it to you?
    If you don't believe in love . . . what can be done?

    God, if God is the unity of all energy and matter comprising a monistic and eternally ongoing circle who's center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere, then God is not a thing to be observed but a process to be felt.

    To feel God one would have to cease to be an individual and melt into the totality through meditation (or what have you).

    It depends on what the self is.
    test
  12. You have to prove quantum physics wrong.

    You have to provide a mathematical proof that suggests wavefunctions can be directly observed without collapsing the state.

    Until then, human observation continues to interfere with any attempt at theological clarity.
    test
  13. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Why would I have to do that? Einstein already proved that it is incomplete.

    Why would I have to do this? I'm agreeing with you that God cannot be known with the mind. It is impossible. That is what you are saying, correct?

    I'm simply saying that God can be known, just not with the mind.

    If one thinks of God as a noun, they are wasting their time.
    God is not a noun, God is a verb. God is not the actor. God is the acting.
    This is the fundamental problem with organized religions.
    They think of God as a concrete thing.

    That's why Yeshua was said to have said, "Close your eyes and see; plug your ears and hear. When what is in front of you is known then that which is hidden from you will be made manifest."
    test
  14. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    There is truth in the religious texts. There is also nonsense in them. Here is a truth in the Quran:

    The Quran (Surah 1:34) says, "Did I not tell you that I know the Ghaib (Unseen) in the heavens and the earth, and I know what you reveal and what you have been concealing?"
    test
  15. Quantum Physics proved Einstein incomplete by proving "Spooky action at a distance IE Quantum Entanglement.

    You are so busy calling up and reciting bogus nonsense that you aren't even addressing the initial moment of contact.

    I am asking about how to cook a pizza, and you're too busy telling me how your favorite topping is sausage. You always do this shit and that's why you get your spot blown from time to time.

    You talk about God as if you figured it out. I'm telling you the very fucking instant microsecond you even rub two synapses together to being thinking about the construct and entire idea of a God, you are influencing that thought with your own projections. You cannot escape that.

    No man can.
    test
  16. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    No, Einstein had integrity. The people who came after him do not and so they say that Quantum Physics is complete. Einstein said that Quantum Theory was not complete. He knew that it wasn't perfect and he admitted it. You can't prove a man incomplete who says that he did not complete it. There is nothing to prove.

    That's not what is happening here.

    Ghet, we're not disagreeing here. No man (or woman) can figure out God or think about God. It is impossible. That does not mean that a man or a woman cannot know God. It just means that they cannot think about God or figure God out.

    You know your mother. But do you know everything about her? Do you know her sexual fantasies? She's a woman, certainly she has them. But you don't know everything about her and you don't necessarily need to in order to know her, do you?

    It's the same with God . . . cept not with sexual fantasies of course.

    I'm not claiming to have figured God out with thoughts and philosophical ideas. I'm saying simply that I know God and I live God. So do you. So does everybody on this site. Knowledge of the mind has its limits. That's why Einstein said:

    "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited..."

    “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”

    “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”
    test
  17. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Ghet, what does Quantum Physics state (in your summary)?
    test
  18. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    What if there is a alternative theory/explaintion that could be proven but hasn't yet? A alternative theory/explaintion that makes no referance to God but explains the creation of Universes? I don't want to figure out God nomore, that is a laymens argument. I gave up on that wild goose chase three years ago. I'm all about proving alternative theories that have nothing to do with God. Are you against alternative hypothesis as well? Couldn't our Universe just be a by-product of others? In a cosmological Darwinian sense? Biology works that way, why not the creation of Universes? By doing this we can by pass all the God retheric and get down to what really was the source of creation.
    test
  19. Thank you for your philsophical snap shots on complex mathematical arguments without providing any actual math, Azeus.

    You'll love this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

    Meanwhile, you have yet to disprove the fundamental problem of decoherence, which is exactly what I have been talking about the entire time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

    In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the mechanism by which quantum systems interact with their environments to exhibit probabilistically additive behavior—a feature of classical physics—and give the appearance of wavefunction collapse.

    It's not a matter of right and wrong. It's a matter of proofs. No proofing, then GTFO.

    Circumvent this and win millions:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    or
    [​IMG]

    You're entire posting career can be summed up as being given the illusion of wavefunction collapse because of your own interaction.
    test
  20. Multiverses are a bastardization of quantum information theory, suggesting that since a wavefunction can be anything until it is observed, some worthless scrub suggested that "WELL LOL ALL POSSIBILITIES EXIST AT THE SAME TIMEZ LOLOLOL SO THAT MEANS THERES TRILLIONS OF YOUS RIGHT NOW OH SHI-"

    Which is not the case at all whatsoever.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)