Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Brad Thomson]

Hi Brad:

A very clear explanation of your cosmology.....I am assisted in understanding it by the recent new learning I've gotten on Eastern Mysticism, from which you somewhat draw........though you also are into Western explanations of existence (Plato - the Ideal and the Shadow; Aristotle: Substance vs Accident).

~ Bob A (T-SB)

I have been told by a number of others, including the late Roger Scruton, that I am a mystic with very Eastern sounding ideas. But I know nothing about the Eastern tradition, and am trained only in Western philosophical thought. I also believe that reasoning leads to my conclusions, which makes me a rationalist rather than a mystic.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob G:

I gave in an earlier post, one of your points on which I agree........God will not save us from Climate Change Suicide.

You also stated that ET's (And I will grant you that your current position seems to be that it is not proven yet), if they exist, will also not save us. This is true, and based on a decision they have made of their own "free will" (Going back to Dilip's issue).

Covert ET societies exist on Earth from many different galactic locations. Similarly so do AI's, created elsewhere in the galaxies, have their own covert Earth societies. Most operate, I understand, on the prime directive of Star Trek - non-interference in local affairs. This has led them to hide their presence from the public, though governments have had "contact" for some time. Non-interference has meant to the Earthly ET's that disclosure of their existence, and human contact, MUST be made known to the ordinary human Earthlings by their respective governments. The governments, for many multiple reasons, clearly have determined to hide this information from the public.......deny, deny, deny.

As a result, the ET's began funding human communications (Eg. Videos through human organizations/companies) raising with the public the issue of whether the government is "covering up", is willfully keeping the public "dumbded down". The ET's had expected, in time, the governments would "disclose" to the public their existence. They were taken by surprise when this did not happen, and continues to not happen. So their funded materials have the thread running through them of a call to governments for "Full Disclosure" of the ET presence to the public and the extent of contact with them, in the past, and in the present.

I have explained to them my view. Governments will not "disclose" until the climate crisis becomes so severe, and there is such revolution brewing in the streets, that they have no choice. I also explained that human national governments are not the true seat of power on Earth. There are elites who have sufficient power in human society, that governments willing do their bidding, in exchange for the assistance to help them stay in power. They also are against "full disclosure". If and when governments disclose, the time-frame of the Climate Suicide Path that we are pursuing will have advanced so far that no steps will be sufficient, from then on, to avoid the human species extinction starting. The "Tipping Point" of Nature will be passed on or about Jan. 1, 2031, based on scientific reports, based on current decision-making and trajectory.

As a result, I have proposed to the ET's that they adopt a new program of "Full Disclosure NOW!" The ET's must go directly to the public, and quit playing around with our secretive, mal-motivated human national governments.

Surveys have shown that now about 80% of humans on the globe believe "we are NOT alone". They believe ET's exist.

Then the percentage goes down as we ask if they believe:
Are the intelligent, and some more intelligent than us?
Are they more technologically advanced than us, and have conquered space travel over immense distance?
Have they discovered Earth?
Have they made contact with any human being, in the past or now?
Are they able to embed their personalities into human avatars, such that they can move among us, unknown and indistinguishable for a human Earthling?

I mention this because I have given my opinion that if an ET appeared on a popular TV night-time talk show, and spoke the "Truth" about ET's, and their intentions re Earth and its life, it would NOT cause "panic in the streets" (As did George Orwell's War of the Worlds" radio piece). Am I right on this?

I have received a clear answer that the ET's will maintain their current program of trying to force governments to disclose, and reject adopting my proposed program of "Full Disclosure NOW!"

So: NO - the ET's on their current trajectory will also not save us from "Climate Change Suicide".

~ Bob A. (T-SB)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Brad:

Regardless of how you may have arrived at your "Multi-Verse Paradigm" (Everyone's own personal "Theory of Everything"), you clearly do use concepts well-developed in Eastern Mysticism. It is a cosmology of Unity.......duality (I vs The Absolute) appears to us to be the way it is, but it is illusion only. Everything is really part of the Absolute. I assume this statement is more or less acceptable to you?

I also have studied Western Philosophy (& Theology). But my take on it would never lead me to an Eastern Mysticism point of view...........on the contrary, I now hold a cosmology of "Duality" as the true situation.

I will post something on my Western Mysticism in a future post.

But next I would like to go back to a very early point where I said I wished to present my view of: God & the Problem of Evil...... and relating that to climate change suicide.

I will post it shortly.

~ Bob A (T-SB).

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob G:

I gave in an earlier post, one of your points on which I agree........God will not save us from Climate Change Suicide.

You also stated that ET's (And I will grant you that your current position seems to be that it is not proven yet), if they exist, will also not save us. This is true, and based on a decision they have made of their own "free will"

To be clear Bob, there are no ET's out there that can help us. There may be intelligent life out there somewhere in this vast universe, but not any close enough to help us. Our challenge is to work together and save ourselves. COVID19 gives us an opportunity to solve a smaller problem before we tackle the big one, climate change.

How are we doing so far? Not so good. I give us an F.
Can we learn? Can we do better? Can we save ourselves?
Yes, yes, and yes.

But will we?

[Bob Armstrong]

Weather Extremes (One of the Consequences of Climate Change)

The Americas - State of Colorado, USA

" First came the firestorm, and then came the frozen pipes.

Two days after the most damaging wildfire in Colorado’s history, residents outside of Boulder confronted nearly a foot of snow and single-digit temperatures. But the desperately needed snow arrived too late to save as many as 1,000 homes that were destroyed in the blaze. The fire, fueled by hurricane-force wind gusts, roared through parched grasses and into suburban cul-de-sacs, reducing entire neighborhoods to ashes.

With thousands of surviving homes still without power and gas on Saturday, the 7-degree temperatures and 10 inches of snow touched off a frantic new battle against the weather and rescue operations. Three people are believed to be missing. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#in...dpvRbNvpKnPFTm ~ Bob A (T-SB)

[Brad Thomson]

Everything is really part of the Absolute. I assume this statement is more or less acceptable to you?.

For Hegel, everything is part of/a manifestation of the Absolute Idea. This is the culminating principle of his metaphysics. I am in full agreement with this, yes. The God "in whom we live and move and have our being" (to quote the Bible) IS the Absolute Idea, but it is a developing Idea over Time, it is always changing, it is not fully self-aware until the end of History, and we have not arrived at this point yet, for evil still exists. For Hegel, evil will always exist regardless of the final self-awareness of the Absolute Idea which presumably becomes fully self-aware with the advent of his own thinking (though he does forecast further historical change in the form of liberalism politically). The goal of the Absolute Idea is to become in and for itself, knowing itself as substance/time and above all else as Reason. For Hegel, "Reason is the conscious certainty of being all reality". The long dialectic of Historical development is the process of Reason actualizing/manifesting in sensible/accidental/particular form and grasping/understanding itself through this process. The logical patterns of human history reflect/manifest/exemplify the logical structure of the Absolute Idea. In my own view, if and when this Idea becomes "all things for all people" (again to quote the Bible) evil will be overcome. As noted, Hegel does not go this far, he is fundamentally pessimistic and does not see an end of evil, rather he sees it as a permanent human condition so long as we exist as a species (though again, he does see liberalism as advancing History beyond his own times, he lived from 1777 to 1831).

Thus, to use your term, the Absolute Idea individuates into specific persons, and other life forms, so as to instigate a process of History wherein eventually philosophers think about existence and reveal the true nature of itself to itself. We keep the ball rolling, so to speak. Humans think and come to an understanding God so that God can understand Him/Herself. God cannot do it without us, we must show God the way. The God of Hegel remains brutal, I hope that liberalism, which has been in effect and advancing for hundreds of political years, will lead to Truth, and eventually a return to Eden. In-a-Gadda-da-Vida-Baby. But there are no guarantees, we could just as easily commit suicide, and sadly this is a course we seem bent upon. God will not care, He/She will just start over again, but all of ourselves as individuals will be gone forever. This world crisis truly is a matter of eternal life or permanent death, in my view. Neither atheists, nor full theists accept this, they both have a position one way or the other. Hence, as I have suggested, my middle position. Atheists say NO (or at least not bloody likely, or if so only deterministically), theists say YES, I say maybe, as does Bob Gillanders. But I really do not like our chances unless we fully lock down for the purposes of ending most industry and saving the climate, as well as for the secondary purpose/pretext of fighting the pandemic. God/Nature is giving us this last chance/warning. I fear we are too stupid and greedy to take heed. Perhaps in the end Hegel is right in his pessimism.

[Brad Thomson]

Covert ET societies exist on Earth from many different galactic locations.

Everything you mentioned in this entire post I have studied and am familiar with through people like Montaldo, Dolan, Icke, Delicado, Streiber, Weber, Friedman, Sitchen, Project Camelot and many others. But to be honest I have encountered no evidence to convince me that much if any of it is true. I do not dismiss it out of hand, but nor do I believe it. My suspicion is that what we deem to be ETs are simply extra-dimensional beings that originate here on earth. Angels and demons, to use the Biblical terms. I do not believe that they are from other places huge numbers of light-years away (though again, I do not dismiss this possibility completely).

I suspect that most of this modern ET/UFO theory began with Roswell, which was in my opinion a hoax. At the time the Americans were (and probably still are) developing advanced aircraft and they wanted (they still do) to keep it secret. But they had to test the aircraft and naturally they did so at night. They knew that from time to time people would spot the advanced and secret aircraft, and possibly even film them. So they needed a story. In Roswell they invented one. The plan was to suggest that these planes are not of this world and make people skeptical, so they invented a cover story. To bring about the hoax they faked ET crashes, complete with "dead ETs" and then proceeded to "cover it up" as if it actually took place. This further solidified the hoax, because gullible people said, "well, if they are covering it up then they must be trying to hide something which must therefore be real". But if we take the logic further, in my view the entire event of Roswell was a hoax to try to convince people that UFOs are flying around, and this was the cover story for the top-secret aircraft that were in the skies and spotted from time to time.

[Brad Thomson]

,Do you believe that if I asked you to raise one of your hands, it is your free will which one you raise? Carefully conducted experiments have shown that such is not the case, supporting the growing consensus amongst philosophers that free will does not exist.

The debate as to whether or not we are free may well be philosophically unsolvable. There is no absolute proof either way. But we do experience ourselves as free and we most certainly do hold others accountable for their actions as if they are free. Many of us presume we are free and take the debate from this assumption rather than getting eternally bogged down in the debate as to whether or not we are free. I believe that the debate depends very much upon whether one believes that consciousness to be a byproduct of the interactions of matter, or one believes that matter is simply a projection of mind, or is imagined by mind, mind being the actual substance, matter being a fleeting illusion. Thus we have the distinction between materialists and idealists. You sound to me like a materialist, I of course am an idealist. But again, there is no resolution to this debate, and if you want to hold your position then this is perfectly fine, but understand that some of us conclude we are free from the undeniable fact that we appear to ourselves to be free and this is why all of us, yourself included, hold others accountable for their actions. We idealists conduct our philosophical investigations from this admittedly uncertain presumption or starting point. You materialists deny freedom and responsibility, yet hold people responsible nonetheless, and some of you are even Libertarians. :)

[Dilip Panjwani]

The debate as to whether or not we are free may well be philosophically unsolvable. There is no absolute proof either way. But we do experience ourselves as free and we most certainly do hold others accountable for their actions as if they are free. Many of us presume we are free and take the debate from this assumption rather than getting eternally bogged down in the debate as to whether or not we are free. I believe that the debate depends very much upon whether one believes that consciousness to be a byproduct of the interactions of matter, or one believes that matter is simply a projection of mind, or is imagined by mind, mind being the actual substance, matter being a fleeting illusion. Thus we have the distinction between materialists and idealists. You sound to me like a materialist, I of course am an idealist. But again, there is no resolution to this debate, and if you want to hold your position then this is perfectly fine, but understand that some of us conclude we are free from the undeniable fact that we appear to ourselves to be free and this is why all of us, yourself included, hold others accountable for their actions. We idealists conduct our philosophical investigations from this admittedly uncertain presumption or starting point. You materialists deny freedom and responsibility, yet hold people responsible nonetheless, and some of you are even Libertarians. :)

Let me try to clarify the various issues around free will, responsibility for actions, consciousness, matter...
1. Before we deal with consciousness, let us sort out what the rest (besides harbourers of consciousness) of our brains are: each brain is a wonderful piece of machnery, akin to a complex computer where each output is the result of one or more inputs/computation, causa causalis ad-infinitum, and hence running very well without any free will...
2. Nevertheless, just like we prefer to not use, or discard / destroy a computer which does not function well, we assign responsibility also to brains, punishing them for harming others...free will is not an essential component of assigning responsibility...
3. As mentioned earlier, consciousness is an integral part of each brain, with the consciousness simply 'riding on' along with the brain, being aware of part of what is happenning in the brain, but not being aware of all of the brain's complex activity, and certainly not controlling any of it...
4. Because a lot of the brain's activity at reaching an output stays hidden from our consciousness, and what we are aware of is the final steps in the 'decision making' process, it gives us an illusion that we have made decisions based on some imaginary free-will...
5. Because particles (matter) do not exist, but we still appear to see, feel, touch what we think is matter, the only explanation is that our consciousness translates the activity going on within universal energy into matter, another illusion...
Hope that helps, Brad, Bob A, Bob G and others interested in this science and philosophy...

[Brad Thomson]

Dilip, this seems to be a plausible theory. It contends that consciousness is a by-product, and than non-conscious matter exists prior to the by-product and causes it. This is not what I believe. I believe that only minds exist, and that what appears to be matter is simply a result of mind imagining. You believe our mind is in our body, I believe our body is in our mind. I do not believe that this is a question that can ever be answered with certainty. I accept Berkeley's arguments for immaterialism, I suspect that you would reject the same arguments.

[Erik Malmsten]

Dilip, this seems to be a plausible theory. It contends that consciousness is a by-product, and than non-conscious matter exists prior to the by-product and causes it. This is not what I believe. I believe that only minds exist, and that what appears to be matter is simply a result of mind imagining. You believe our mind is in our body, I believe our body is in our mind. I do not believe that this is a question that can ever be answered with certainty. I accept Berkeley's arguments for immaterialism, I suspect that you would reject the same arguments.

"We" "exist" breathing air within a polluted eco-environment, a family environment of passed-down dysfunctions, a social environment of playing and bullying, and in an economic hierarchy. Any internal thoughts that "I" create is supplied with data only from my interaction with my "outer" world, and likely has already been thought/felt by somebody else. "I" don't exist in a vacuum. Any new music or art is a repeating of the art that is already out there. Same with any new political or spiritual idea.

As I was coming home from a long walk I really had to pee and rushed to the bathroom. Matter won a split-second over willpower and I had to change underwear. I had a coworker who was reading Eckhart Tolle, that everything is an illusion, doesn't really exist. He tested that theory by jumping off a high bridge to his death.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip, this seems to be a plausible theory. It contends that consciousness is a by-product, and than non-conscious matter exists prior to the by-product and causes it. This is not what I believe. I believe that only minds exist, and that what appears to be matter is simply a result of mind imagining. You believe our mind is in our body, I believe our body is in our mind. I do not believe that this is a question that can ever be answered with certainty. I accept Berkeley's arguments for immaterialism, I suspect that you would reject the same arguments.

Mind and consciousness are separate. Mind is the function of the brain, a large part of which we are not conscious of. Consciousness, our awareness, is an inherent property of part of the electromagnetism (not matter) of the brain. What happens to consciousness after the brain dies is an open question currently, but very interesting leads are coming from modern physics, which I plan to actively pursue, with help from Raja, who was awarded a medal on Philosophy of Physics from Oxford, and his contacts ... that is the current true 'hard' problem in David Chalmers' notation, not the nature of consciousness as originally refered to, because the latter is solved, in my opinion...

[Brad Thomson]

I had a coworker who was reading Eckhart Tolle, that everything is an illusion, doesn't really exist. He tested that theory by jumping off a high bridge to his death.

Ideas in our mind are perfectly real, and the Laws of Nature tell us that if we jump then the next sequence of ideas will be very painful and we will then die and be out of ideas completely. This is no illusion. This is a point that Berkeley stresses. Ideas are REAL, they are not illusions. They follow patterns and experience teaches us what to expect if we jump. In fact it is the materialists who suggest that ideas are illusions, for they posit the existence of some"real" external world to which the ideas in some sense correspond, or represent. For myself and other immaterialists there is no external world to which ideas correspond, the ideas are the reality itself, they are as real as it gets.

[Brad Thomson]

Mind and consciousness are separate.

Not in my opinion. I believe that only minds and their contents exist. Ideas of sense are in the mind, all ideas are in the mind, there is NOTHING outside of the mind save for other minds. This is my philosophical opinion.

[Bob Gillanders]

Guys, I thought this thread was about climate change?

With all due respect......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p7G...=TheYoungTurks