NASA Relies On Thrusters To Steer Space Station After Malfunction

AP via CNN ^ | December 6, 2003 | AP

[betty boop]

Theoreticians have a place in society, no doubt. When it comes to group consciousness, though, there is nothing to compare with actual practitioners, and the greatest practitioner since Christ was Edgar Cayce, IMHO.

More striking insights, RW! Thank you! Is it reasonable to draw the conclusion that the "theoreticians" had better get together with the "practitioners" pretty soon?

Actually, this sort of thing seems to be happening all over the Earth -- except in America, where established theoreticians seem to think it is beneath their dignity to talk to an actual practitioner....

I read Cayce in my late 'teens, early '20s. I was extraordinarily impressed with his works, which seemed to be so detailed, thorough, and independently attested to by third-parties. I didn't know what to make of him, then. I still don't -- but my mind is definitely open. It may well be that further researches into a universal field theory of consciousness will put us in the way of finding out.

Thanks so much for writing, RW.

[betty boop]

I do believe there may be some experiments in the near future to affirm or falsify various theories of collective consciousness in nature. In a sense, such collective conscious behavior is a case of ”reality being shaped by” the thoughts of its participants.

Indeed, Alamo-Girl -- Hungarian theoretic astrophysicist Attila Grandpierre has proposed some interesting experiments that seem eminently testable immediately, as a result of his efforts to elaborate the critical criteria of life and consciousness in terms of an astrophysical model that is itself predicated on a primary universal vacuum field that, at bottom, mediates all physical and "spiritual" (in the above-elaborated sense) phenomena. This would be a stunning development, integrating classical physics, quantum field theory, mathematics, and information science. I hope that when this article is published (details to follow), theorists and experimentalists alike -- not to mention the general public -- will give it the serious attention it deserves. JMHO FWIW.

Thank you so very much for your kind words of encouragement.

[RightWhale]

The article would be interesting. However, I do not believe we should implement such a program. Human cloning is another technology we should avoid. The reason is threefold. One, we are finite beings and should attempt only finite things. Two, we will each become spiritual beings soon enough in the natural course of events: there is no need to rush these things. Three, we already have a substantial noosphere in operation and being expanded daily.

[betty boop]

I do not believe we should implement such a program.

Nobody's talking about "implementing programs" here, RW.

Notwithstanding, I think we humans are all already "spiritual beings." And so I agree human cloning is most likely a "bad idea" .... [For it has no principle or method whereby it can integrate spiritual phenomena into the realm of the immediately observable facts of nature.]

Among other things, Grandpierre's article places in stark relief the fundamental, unavoidable difference that subsists between a machine and a living organism.

A person could read this paper and disagree with its conclusions -- yet still be grateful for the amazing insights into seemingly routine events in experienced human thought that accrue along the way....

[betty boop]

Good grief, RWP -- it seems you have all the makings of a world-class stand-up comic!!!

Seriously, you know how to "strike the funny-bone" just right. At least I'm laughing. (Point is, I don't think that's an isolated event.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

Attila Grandpierre is one of my favorites! He has refreshingly unique way of looking at just about everything I've ever seen him approach. I anticipate there will be a very large audience for his article here in the U.S. Hopefully it will be on-line too!

[Alamo-Girl]

I think we humans are all already "spiritual beings."

I very strongly agree!

[djf]

Guess I'll jump in.
Greetings, and Happy Holidays.

Science suffers from the "institutional effect". A bit of study about Wegener and the theory of continental drift shows that very well.

Don't get me wrong, science is good, and must be finding out some sort of truth about the universe, else we wouldn't have microwave ovens. But it is simply that effect, that it is good and works, that makes it even more difficult to come to terms with if new or contrary theories are advanced. Science gets caught up in the academics of it, the grant money, etc.

One example might be perpetual energy research. Now, in fact, because of the quantum "noise", we know that it might be possible.

But think about the interests you would be fighting. The energy companies. Generations of educators, etc. Even if it did exist, it would be a hard sell, some might see it as a boon for mankind, but many, many more would be threatened.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! Indeed, your observation makes sense - science seems to be "caught up" in the academics of it.