Dubstepforum.com

Parson wrote:

"there is no sandcastle"

Sophia Stewart

The Terminator and The Matrix are actually “one book”. That’s my "Third Eye" manuscript. It’s nine chapters but it's all from the same source (no pun intended) Terminator starts from the front of my book to the back. Matrix starts from the back of my book and works its way to the front. They are moving in two opposite directions. My book was separated into two. "The Third Eye" is an epic, my book spans three time frames the past, the present and the future. Those films do the same thing. The child in the first Terminator who is born to the pregnant lady (Sarah Connor) grows up to be the same as the grown man character in the Matrix called Neo, it’s that chosen one, savior concept. Matrix starts in the future, when technology has taken over. The Terminator was sent to kill the child who was prophesized to destroy the machines.

http://www.playahata.com/pages/intervie ... artpt1.htm

In the end, John Connor gets captured and enslaved. The machines win the war but the resistance as Zion fight on thinking John dead. Neo becomes free but no one recognizes him and neither does he remember his life as John until he becomes one with the machine and sends himself back through time to father himself with Sarah.

Throw in parallels to God, Jesus, the immaculate conception, self fulfilling prophecies, mans rise to create life in his own image, karma, reincarnation, nirvana and we got a cyclic theory worth talking about.

makes perfect sense

spicerack wrote:

Parson wrote:

"there is no sandcastle"

Sophia Stewart

The Terminator and The Matrix are actually “one book”. That’s my "Third Eye" manuscript. It’s nine chapters but it's all from the same source (no pun intended) Terminator starts from the front of my book to the back. Matrix starts from the back of my book and works its way to the front. They are moving in two opposite directions. My book was separated into two. "The Third Eye" is an epic, my book spans three time frames the past, the present and the future. Those films do the same thing. The child in the first Terminator who is born to the pregnant lady (Sarah Connor) grows up to be the same as the grown man character in the Matrix called Neo, it’s that chosen one, savior concept. Matrix starts in the future, when technology has taken over. The Terminator was sent to kill the child who was prophesized to destroy the machines.

http://www.playahata.com/pages/intervie ... artpt1.htm

In the end, John Connor gets captured and enslaved. The machines win the war but the resistance as Zion fight on thinking John dead. Neo becomes free but no one recognizes him and neither does he remember his life as John until he becomes one with the machine and sends himself back through time to father himself with Sarah.

Throw in parallels to God, Jesus, the immaculate conception, self fulfilling prophecies, mans rise to create life in his own image, karma, reincarnation, nirvana and we got a cyclic theory worth talking about.

Win.

great thread! i wish i had something to add, but my brain is dead from reading every page.

You know, i've seen this thread so many times.

And i can honestly say i have no fucking clue as to what its about.


*reads the previous 8 pages

Von wrote:You know, i've seen this thread so many times.

And i can honestly say i have no fucking clue as to what its about.


*reads the previous 8 pages

LOL this.

eLBe wrote:i would dispute that a computer could ever work like a human brain.

there are too many level our brain work on.

how can you programme feelings, likes/dislikes, abstract thought?
and to a greater extent, without a complete understading of how our brains work (which are still very far from
) you cannot recreate exactly.


on the point of another civilisation or us already in such a simulation it brings no serious questions, life is life, i can consider who I am, that is as real as I need to be, simulation or not.


tbh, as far as a theory goes it can't be disproved, so scientifically it can stand as a truth.

"life is life?" What does that mean? I can't agree with you that because one can consider something, that makes the something 'real'. Yes, that 'something' may be a reality for that one person at that one moment in time and place, but do people truly want to live in such a limited perspective [even after being given the opportunity to consider other 'somethings' and other perspectives]? There is a Buddhist adage that goes 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him'. You haven't possibly become so enlightened about life, have you? Truly?

I have to disagree with your point that our brain has 'too many levels' to understand, and to subsequently manipulate. Consider the many neurological discoveries we have made as a species in the past 100 or so years. I'm most certainly not sure how the 'levels' or 'connections' which make up our neurophysiology could or would be programmed, but I am open to the possibility that some other entity has considered/discovered this programming. However I am also a believer in free will, which I haven't necessarily been able to incorporate into this schema.

I'm not going to satiate myself with beliefs that humans are the most evolved and capable life-form in the universe/galaxy. There are infinite possibilities.

Parson wrote:Socrates says in the Republic that people who take the sun-lit world of the senses to be good and real are living pitifully in a den of evil and ignorance. Socrates admits that few climb out of the den, or cave of ignorance, and those who do, not only have a terrible struggle to attain the heights, but when they go back down for a visit or to help other people up, they find themselves objects of scorn and ridicule.

According to Socrates, physical objects and physical events are "shadows" of their ideal or perfect forms, and exist only to the extent that they instantiate the perfect versions of themselves. Just as shadows are temporary, inconsequential epiphenomena produced by physical objects, physical objects are themselves fleeting phenomena caused by more substantial causes, the ideals of which they are mere instances.

this

Although I think you already know how I feel about the idea of 'evil', 'good' vs 'bad'. It's possible that Socrates' 'evil' might have had a different connotation than the 'evil' of what we know today. I could be wrong, though. I haven't studied enough of his philosophies to not be talking out of my ass regarding what he meant by this.

what do i think of this theory? i think its a bunch of cockamamie malarky! take your shenanigans and get outta this hideout!

Misk wrote:what do i think of this theory? i think its a bunch of cockamamie malarky! take your shenanigans and get outta this hideout!

thought it would make a change from the usual rabble in here

Piston wrote:

Misk wrote:what do i think of this theory? i think its a bunch of cockamamie malarky! take your shenanigans and get outta this hideout!

thought it would make a change from the usual rabble in here

Dontcha worry, this is the sort of rabble that was going on here before the hideout started blowing up with sex/love/i miss my fish threads. Trust, it's appreciated by the likes of me

Become a Mckenna freak like i do.......=D

Parson wrote:

eLBe wrote:

Parson wrote:

eLBe wrote: far was you reasoning on god goes, I think the fact that everything works so intricately points the other way, it suggests that it is by chance rather than a higher orde/being/conciousness, the idea that any higher order, no matter how 'powerfull' (for want of a better word) could concieve such in depth complexities is beyond the capacity of my faith and reasoning.

if you came across a sandcastle on the beach and babylon told you it was just there by chance, would you believe it

no, but equally a sandcastle is not a living world full on concious beings.

yeah, so a sandcastle must have been built by intelligent beings, but a complex universe full of intricate systems to support life of all kinds is mere chance. boy do you ever think about the stuff you say?

Sorry for dragging this back in but I just got back on the net.

are you serious, did you read my post? The reasoning behind me thinking the world was not created by a higher being is that it is so complicated; the idea of something being able to create something in such fine balance is ridiculous to me.

The idea that this planet happend by chance is more plausible, yes it took a lot of factors to be just right but consider the amount of planets in the universe one of them was going to the conditions right for us.

on a note closer to the original topic, I read an interesting idea the other day whilst on the shitter that has relevance to the simulation of the human brain by a computer.

If we say that a computer can simulate the human brain we are suggesting that all human traits: feelings, emotions, memories etc are simply neurological processes, that is to say they are completely materialistic in nature which suggests the lack of a soul, or at least the lack of a should as a separate part of our nature from our 'earthly' body.







having said this I don't believe I have a soul that is separate from my body

i unwittingly had a near death experience about 2 months ago and i saw HEAVEN & HELL, and from there i chose to be righteous cos the vibrational frequency of hell is not fun. its very edgy. i reckon someone is definetly watching us and there is good and bad but they manifest themselves in different ways according to our cultural conditioning, such as heaven and hell for example

ands wrote:

eLBe wrote:i would dispute that a computer could ever work like a human brain.

there are too many level our brain work on.

how can you programme feelings, likes/dislikes, abstract thought?
and to a greater extent, without a complete understading of how our brains work (which are still very far from
) you cannot recreate exactly.


on the point of another civilisation or us already in such a simulation it brings no serious questions, life is life, i can consider who I am, that is as real as I need to be, simulation or not.


tbh, as far as a theory goes it can't be disproved, so scientifically it can stand as a truth.

"life is life?" What does that mean? I can't agree with you that because one can consider something, that makes the something 'real'. Yes, that 'something' may be a reality for that one person at that one moment in time and place, but do people truly want to live in such a limited perspective [even after being given the opportunity to consider other 'somethings' and other perspectives]? There is a Buddhist adage that goes 'If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him'. You haven't possibly become so enlightened about life, have you? Truly?

I have to disagree with your point that our brain has 'too many levels' to understand, and to subsequently manipulate. Consider the many neurological discoveries we have made as a species in the past 100 or so years. I'm most certainly not sure how the 'levels' or 'connections' which make up our neurophysiology could or would be programmed, but I am open to the possibility that some other entity has considered/discovered this programming. However I am also a believer in free will, which I haven't necessarily been able to incorporate into this schema.

I'm not going to satiate myself with beliefs that humans are the most evolved and capable life-form in the universe/galaxy. There are infinite possibilities.

Parson wrote:Socrates says in the Republic that people who take the sun-lit world of the senses to be good and real are living pitifully in a den of evil and ignorance. Socrates admits that few climb out of the den, or cave of ignorance, and those who do, not only have a terrible struggle to attain the heights, but when they go back down for a visit or to help other people up, they find themselves objects of scorn and ridicule.

According to Socrates, physical objects and physical events are "shadows" of their ideal or perfect forms, and exist only to the extent that they instantiate the perfect versions of themselves. Just as shadows are temporary, inconsequential epiphenomena produced by physical objects, physical objects are themselves fleeting phenomena caused by more substantial causes, the ideals of which they are mere instances.

this

Although I think you already know how I feel about the idea of 'evil', 'good' vs 'bad'. It's possible that Socrates' 'evil' might have had a different connotation than the 'evil' of what we know today. I could be wrong, though. I haven't studied enough of his philosophies to not be talking out of my ass regarding what he meant by this.

LOL ITS SO TRUE BUDDHA IS A SUCKA! nah seriously though i must of been cothcing in the garden in my pants, basking in the sun, feeling nature and feeling enlightened when i realised "this is kinda boring"

ands wrote:Dontcha worry, this is the sort of rabble that was going on here before the hideout started blowing up with sex/love/i miss my fish threads. Trust, it's appreciated by the likes of me

couldn't agree more this thread has partially restored my faith in the hideout

it's just a shame that most of the other threads are doing the opposite

I just got around to reading this entire thing - I knew it was going to be a daunting task, but ....

If the universe is composed of circles or spheres, then the shortest distance between two points can never be a straight line..

Ok there..I said it..

Maybe our ability to observe is on a kind of occilation..naturally.

That could account for at least one extra dimension..

I prolly sound like a kinderphysisist.