melo13

What conspiracy?

I am not trying to prove anything. The author of this site is. Did you read the quotes? or the link? here is this equation he proposed. I do not nessesarily agree with him I'm just trying to get as many educated opinions on it as possible. Honestly though if you aren't even going to read what he is saying then I dont wan't your opinion "The key to God, religion, souls, the afterlife, mind is contained in the cosmic equation r >= 0. What this equation says is that although there is a single continuum of existence, it can be regarded as the interaction of two separate domains: one in space and time (r > 0) and one outside space and time (r = 0). We previously showed how light in its own frame of reference is outside space and time, yet is perceived by us as being in space and time. This dichotomy and supreme paradox is the essence of existence. Any mind perceiving the cosmos from the perspective of space and time can't help but impose space and time on everything, including those things such as light that are not actually in space and time. Things that exist in space and time have a beginning and an end. They are mortal. They die. Humans die. The part of the human mind shaped by space and time dies. These are the facts of space and time. These are the facts of a life lived within space and time. Yet part of the cosmos is not in space and time. It is immortal. It cannot die. It is not subject to the laws of space and time. It does not partake of those laws. Instead, it partakes of the radically different laws of an existence outside space and time. It has an entirely different perspective of the cosmos. What does the universe look like from outside space and time? If everything is interconnected because there is no physical distance between any two things, how does that work? If no time ever passes, how can anything ever change? Isn't everything just eternally frozen? Isn't the universe outside space and time incomprehensible? Certainly, we cannot hope to describe it in the familiar terms of space and time since these do not apply. Still, it is useful to have some kind of image in our minds. The r = 0 cosmos is hard-wired to the r > 0 cosmos. The r = 0 domain is not in space and time, but is indissolubly linked to something that is (the r > 0 domain). So, the r = 0 DOES experience space and time, albeit at second hand. In particular, it experiences it informationally, mentally. Consider a time-lapse film. You film traffic going over a bridge for a 24-hr period. You then speed up the film and compress the 24 hours into, say, 24 minutes. The speeded up film looks both familiar and very different. The compressed film is operating according to different rules of space and time compared with the original film. Now speed up the film to infinity. What happens? If something is travelling infinitely fast, it does not experience the passage of time. It gets anywhere in no time. Everything is instantaneous. The time-lapse film ends as soon as it begins. All of the information it contained is processed instantly. And now we get to the heart of it. An observer in the r = 0 domain perceives the r > 0 domain as running at infinite speed. Everything that happens is instantly reflected in r = 0. No time passes and yet information accumulates infinitely rapidly, in complete contradiction of the notion that nothing can change in a timeless environment. This is the ultimate time-lapse film. If you could view the r > 0 domain from the r = 0 domain you would experience all the events of the universe flashing past you at infinite speed, and yet not a single moment would ever elapse. You wouldn't experience "physical" time - the time of the r > 0 domain that can be measured with a clock, but you WOULD experience another type of time - psychological/mental. In times of extreme danger, people report that time seems to almost stop. Each second passes much more slowly. This is not physically true of course, but it is mentally, and, in the pure mental realm of r = 0, this would be the only type of time that would be experienced: mental time. By the same token, the mind would be able to cope with distance. It would have a mental ability to differentiate all of the spatial events taking place in r > 0 even though it did not itself experience physical space. So, in the r = 0 domain, physical space and time, measured by physical rulers and clocks, are replaced by a mental experience of space and time, measured by mental rulers and clocks. The statement that something is outside space and time is something of a misnomer. The precise meaning is that it is not subject to physical space and time. The r >= 0 universe is a cosmic two-way feedback process. The informational content of the r > 0 domain (all the events happening everywhere) are fed into the r = 0 domain, which mentally processes the information and responds to it, which is then instantly reflected in the r > 0 domain, as scientifically demonstrated by the famous EPR paradox where quantum particles that are "entangled" are able to coordinate their behaviour instantaneously. Some people claim that a domain outside space and time must already have experienced all future events. Such things have been said about God: he knows the future because he is outside time. This is utterly absurd. The future hasn't happened yet. No one can know that which has not yet happened. They might be able to predict it, but they certainly can't "know" it. We have now presented the proper philosophical, scientific and religious framework in which this matter should be contemplated: the union of two domains, one outside space and time, and one inside. The domain that is outside space and time is continually and instantaneously updated by what's going on in the r > 0 domain, but it never has access to any events that have not yet happened in the r > 0 domain. This is a simple impossibility. No one can ever know the future and all talk of precognition, seeing the future, travelling into the future and back again etc is pure fantasy. It can never happen. We can certainly influence the future and make certain events more likely to happen, but we cannot "know" the future. God cannot know it. No one can. People can have strong intuitions about the future, but that's as far as it goes."

here is thge site address http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/ An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God, gods, souls or minds. A scientific materialist atheist denies all of the above and also all of metaphysics, anything noumenal, anything transcendent, anything Platonic, anything non-sensory, any independent mental reality. Illuminism is about the Pythagorean-Leibnizian mathematical soul - the monad, hence, by our definition, it can't be anything other than a religion. It is, however, a religion like no other. It's the world's only Logos religion: a religion based on ontological mathematics and the principle of sufficient reason. Illuminism explicitly repudiates the claim that ultimate Truth has any connection with the senses, faith, experiences, meditation, chanting, praying, revelation, prophets, gurus or mysticism. Truth is revealed by the principle of sufficient reason alone, and this principle is ontologically conveyed by mathematics. Illuminism has no connection with Mythos, except to add a touch of "colour". Any Mythos that contradicts Logos is automatically false and ridiculous. All the great "holy" books of the world are absurd. None of them is about mathematics, science and metaphysics. Illuminism concerns the mathematical transformation of souls into Gods via teleological, dialectical, mathematical evolution, proceeding by way of the Fourier transform which links the Singularity (frequency) domain of mind and the spacetime universe of matter. A "God" is simply a fully optimised soul, a soul that has converted all of its potential into actuality, that has fully optimised and solved itself, hence has attained its perfection. Only mathematics can furnish perfection, and perfection is manifested in terms of perfect mathematical symmetry. ***** How can any system that is about cosmic meaning, purpose and the alchemical transmutation of base souls into Gods not be religion? If you don't like the word "religion" - and you're so dumb as to be unable to distinguish between Mythos religions of faith and a Logos religion of reason - well, go and join your materialist, nihilist brethren who believe that the universe is a stupendous accident, and has no meaning, point or purpose whatsoever. Mythos religions are about mysticism, faith, ancient stories, tribal customs, superstitions, prophets, popes, priests, preachers, and involve the slavish worship of some tyrannical God, or the practice of some speculative, meditative technique to get in touch with a "Higher Force". A Logos religion is about pure reason, pure mathematics, pure ontology, epistemology and metaphysics. It's devoted to attaining absolute, infallible, rational knowledge and understanding of the cosmos. It's about achieving total mastery and control of the universe. It has nothing to do with praying, meditation, chanting or any other anti-intellectual practices that contribute zero to understanding reality. Gnosis is a rational state - a state of absolute knowledge, of Total Mind. It's the opposite of Eastern "enlightenment", which is a hypothetical empirical state involving the total suppression of knowledge and thinking, leaving nothing but "bare awareness" ... a state of No Mind. Rationalism is always opposed to empiricism and faith. Catholic Scholasticism was false because it sought to combine faith and rationalism, with the latter subordinated to the former. Science is false because it seeks to combine empiricism and rationalism, with the latter again in the subordinate role. Ontological mathematics is all about rationalism. You have two choices. Either you're on the side of: 1) religion, spirituality and metaphysics, of a non-sensory, non-"naturalistic" order of existence, with meaning and purpose, or 2) you're an atheist, and nihilist, who believes that humans are Cartesian automata without free will or subjective agency; you possess an autistic sensory mania and literally cannot conceive of anything non-sensory; you deny that existence has any meaning or purpose; and you insanely claim that we are made of lumps of lifeless, mindless matter that jumped out of non-existence for no reason, via no mechanism, then miraculously and randomly arranged themselves into living beings with minds, even though this is formally impossible since atoms possess neither life nor mind. We find that "skeptics" are, exactly like religious believers, totally skeptical towards all beliefs other than their own, towards which they are absolutely credulous. You may consider science rational. We certainly don't. Science is empirical, and empiricism is explicitly opposed to rationalism, just as faith is. Scientists trust their irrational senses more than their reason. They regard their experiences as more trustworthy than their intellect. We repudiate all mystics, all people of faith, and all empiricists. We are rationalists, and pure rationalism is simply ontological mathematics. Ontological mathematics concerns immortal mathematical energy systems (monadic "souls"), and how they can be rendered perfect (transformed into Gods) via ontological Fourier mathematics. You may not understand anything of what we've said - but that's your problem, not ours. The Truth is not a democracy. It's not for everyone. Only the most rational human beings - those who can transcend the human condition itself (i.e. their human senses, human feelings, human desires, human intuitions, human experiences and human delusions) can break on through to the noumenal order of eternal, necessary Truth that preceded the existence of any human being, or any human delusions about the nature of reality. Your task, if you want to discover the Truth, is simple. You must speak the same language as the Truth. The Truth's language is perfect, analytic mathematics. Faith is about human feelings, not about Truth. Science is about the human senses, not about Truth. Mysticism is about human intuition, not Truth. If you don't know what the Truth is and what its language is, then, naturally, you can never come into contact with it, and you will always be in the grip of the Lie. All humans are fluent in the language of the Lie, of the False, of the Delusional and Fantastical. Humanity's tragedy is that it has insisted on calling the Lie the Truth. Look at Abrahamism. The "God" that ordered a father to murder his innocent son as a test of slavish obedience is plainly the Devil, yet is called the opposite. Human beings almost invariably invert everything. That's what happens when you fail to speak Truth's language. Illuminism is the one and only system of thought concerning the ultimate, rational, infallible, absolute Truth. If you've been brainwashed into believing that Logos religion and mathematics aren't the same thing, that math is just some weird manmade abstraction, just remember that the first great mathematician, and indeed the first ontological mathematician, was Pythagoras, and he was entirely preoccupied with the fate of the mathematical soul. The greatest insight in the whole of history belongs to Pythagoras: "All things are numbers; number rules all." Isaac Newton, so revered by science, was much more interested in alchemy and religion than he was in physics, and was convinced that he was a prophet of God and that his scientific work was shedding light on the Mind of the God, and the modus operandi of God. Don't let scientific atheists put you off religion. Don't let deranged Abrahamic people of faith, and equally deranged followers of Eastern mysticism and Karmism, put you off religion. True religion is the most rational undertaking of all, and is about nothing more "odd" than conferring ontology on mathematics.

I thank you for the link, I'll have to read it sometime. While I am sure that cooking had a lot to do with the encephalization of early hominids, I feel as though it can easily turn into a "which came first? chicken or the egg" question. Now it is pretty easy to assume that the first ingestion of cooked food was more than likely an accident, but as far as im aware cooking was first "invented" near 800,000 years ago and there are still 2 million years of encephalization to account for, which is possibly explainable by circuit redundancy in the brain. its possible that heat from the sun kills of brain cells that our brain simply just keep growing to keep up with the constant loss of neurons. There is also the heat stress hypothesis http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.5403.pdfbut anyway, i am starting to digress. The main thing I wan't to know is why neanderthals encephalized differently than us and if that effected their brains a different way than ours? If the climatic variability caused neanderthal encephalization and lets say cooking or the social hypothesis is what caused homo sapiens to encephalize do you believe that would have had and impact on why neanderthals are not here anymore? Would the neanderthals grew a more mathematical like intelligence while homo sapien stayed social and developed language?

I may be incorrectly extracting information from this analysis but, according to the study: " in our more refined analysis, there was no relationship between periods of accelerated change (i.e. large brain residuals) and increased climate variability over 100 ky time-blocks, contrary to what would be expected from Potts' variability selection hypothesis. Nor is there consistent evidence at the super-species level to support either the variability selection or the aridity hypotheses using sea-level indicators . Furthermore, when we use aeolian dust records, which provide a continental indicator for both aridity and variability, we do not find consistent evidence to support either hypothesis . There were no significant models incorporating more than one climate record for any of the taxonomic levels. The main weakness with the palaeoclimate records used in these analyses is that they are unable to explain the large step changes in brain size that have periodically occurred throughout hominin evolution. The most marked and unexplained increase is contemporary with the appearance of H. erectus (or H. ergaster) in Africa. The global sea-level palaeoclimate records have some predictive power for within species change over all hominins and within H. erectus. As we have better resolution in the data from Eurasia, this suggests that sea-level changes are likely to reflect environmental processes at higher latitudes, but they are unable to explain the environmental processes operating within Africa." So if i am reading this correctly does that mean homo sapiens did NOT get as intelligent as they are through climatic variability? So the study suggests neanderthal encephalization was caused by climatic variability While homo sapiens were not. Is this how you perceived this information as well? I am slightly confused, what could have caused our encephalization if not the variability in climate? A demanding social environment? Do you think the differences in causes of encephalization may have caused different "kinds" of thinking between neanderthals and homo spaiens? http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1599/2130#sec-18

that makes a lot of sense.

Well their point is that europeans came over here by crossing the Atlantic preclovis or not. So it doesn't really matter where the clovis are. I would have expected to find more articles for older evidence but they tend to be from racist websites. The only suitable links i Found were the two that i just posted earlier but just googling "oldest tools dated in north america" i can already show you 3 sites that state the oldest tools are 12,000 to 15,000 years old. So why do my links say the oldest tools are 19,000 to 26,000 years old and found in Virginia? Like i said, you explained that confusing part but at the same time it's irritating because i have this source that says this and another that says the opposite. I'm just trying to be sure. all of these are what state the dates are 12,000- 15,000 http://www.redorbit....america-030815/ http://westerndigs.o...in-western-u-s/ http://www.theguardi...ica-stone-tools

I had already posted links to archaeological finds but i will again. Like i said though, i realize it is highly unlikely but it was bugging me and i thought i'd come on here where people tend to know what they're talking about. Your other points actually explain a lot, I had gotten into an argument with some random guy about the solutrean hypothesis and he had showed me these links, I guess i was so used to thinking of the west coast as this dry hot place that i forgot it was a lot colder back then and people moving more southeastern isn't really that far fetched. either way though these artifacts are older and are on the east coast. EDIT: "Say, you have some artifacts left in the North on top of glaciation. What would happen with those when glaciers eventually melted? " How is a lack of evidence considered evidence? I know you didn't mean it like this but it seems kind of like an excuse. Solutrean supporters will sometimes claim the lack of maritime tools and other equipment on the ice the solutrean would of had to travel on are at the bottom of the Atlantic. both of these explanations seem like excuses to me. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-evidence-suggests-stone-age-hunters-from-europe-discovered-america-7447152.html http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/cactushill.htm

i Understand that it is highly unlikely but i was just wondering why all the oldest artifacts show up on the east coast when supposedly we came from the west.

Basically the solutrean hypothesis states europeans made it to the americas first. Evidence comes from archaeological finds on the east coast that date older than ones on the west coast. If "beringians" came to the americas first woudlnt we expect to find older artifacts on the west coast instead of the east coast? http://archaeology.about.com/od/cterms/g/cactushill.htm http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-evidence-suggests-stone-age-hunters-from-europe-discovered-america-7447152.html

I am aware that race is a continuum, and i know lineage isn't by any means "pure" but, aren't averages still a real thing? This may be changing the subject a little but, i am confused.

"We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/