Shortly
after noon. You have two articles you copied yesterday but did not post or
comment on. The first is more on UFO’s, one of your long time interests and the
other is on consciousness, another long time interest. Neither article is
satisfactory in your mind but post because both relate to your inner passions.
- Amorella
Clinton campaign
manager: 'The American people can handle the truth' about UFOs
CLAIRE
LANDSBAUM
Mar 4th 2016 11:28AM
Among the issues
at the forefront of Hillary Clinton's campaign are things like health care, those damn emails, and, evidently, extraterrestrials. According to John
Podesta, Clinton's campaign manager, if Clinton takes office she'll make it a
priority to declassify government files on UFOs. Speaking to KLAS-TV in Las
Vegas, Podesta -- who's long advocated for releasing government files to the
public -- said
he's "talked to Hillary about that," and
he thinks she'll see the expedience in telling the American public what the
government knows. "I think I've convinced her that we need an effort to
declassify as much as we can so people have their legitimate questions
answered," he said. "More attention and more discussion about
unexplained aerial phenomena can happen without people who are serious about
this being ridiculed."
This isn't the first time the UFO question has come up in
Clinton's campaign. At a campaign stop in New Hampshire, Clinton said she would "get to the bottom" of the UFO
mystery, and back in 2007 she said that of all the Freedom of Information Act
requests her husband received during his presidency, the vast majority had to
do with UFOs. She also said she "thinks we may have been visited already,"
but neither she nor the shadowy government officials with whom she works is
quite sure about that. And Bill Clinton, during his presidency, asked aides to find out whether there had ever been a
government cover-up of alien contact.
But for Podesta, the issue is less about alien discovery and
more about principle. "We ought to do it because it's right," he
said. "We ought to do it because the American people, quite frankly, can
handle the truth. And we ought to do it because it's the law." He went on,
"I come in for my fair share of people raising questions about whether I'm
off my rocker, but I've been a longtime advocate of declassification of
records. People really want to know what the government knows."
When Podesta stepped down as an Obama adviser this time last
year, he said his biggest regret
was keeping the American people in the dark about
UFOs. It seems he's determined not to make the same mistake under a
hypothetical President Hillary Clinton.
Selected and
edited from -- http://www.aolDOtcom/article/2016/03/04/clinton-campaign-manager-the-american-people-can-handle-the-tr/21322943/
** **
** **
Answer
written • Quora
•
Mar 3
Jean-Pierre
Legros, Author of "Stratium", a theory of mind layered
from biology to consciousness
557
Views
To facilitate the understanding of the answer I will ask two
questions equivalent. The answer is the reason for this equivalence.
« Is the solidity of a chair an emergent property of the atoms
that constitute it, or a fundamental property of quantum probability flows? »
« Is evolution (personified by genes seeking to perpetuate
themselves) an emergent property of biology or a fundamental property of
organic matter? »
Have you already guessed where I'm getting?
Two choices of each question, rules are different. We have,
within the issue, independent paradigms, both valid according to the level of
compliance where observer is placed. Therefore it is impossible to answer the
question without arbitrarily choosing one or the other.
For example, the chair: the physicist know it constituted by
elementary particles, both quanta and probabilistic waves. If he sits on it, it
comes in mind that not hitting the buttocks on the ground comes from emergent
properties of the particles of the chair, refusing to let his buttocks pass
through. If he had a way to directly visualize these particles (currently
minimal resolution observation is atom level), he would see that the same
assembly of them always causes the same organization in 'chair', despite the
fact that the quantum laws proposed for these particles infinite possibilities.
He can tell by this vision, that the 'chair' result is a fundamental property
included in this assembly. Macroscopic and microscopic paradigms come together
while they seem incompatible. Need theoretical "crutches" for melting
them (decoherence, etc…).
None of the two paradigms is false. The problem arises when we
attempt to extend one to the field of the other, instead of simply define the
rules of their overlay.
This transition is commonly called emergence. It is a
change of level of organization. Science I call 'descendant' allows to trace
its origin from the underlying levels, once the emergence observed. Question of
technological progress. Science I call 'ascendant' is more delicate: it can
predict yet unobserved emergence. Question of theory in progress.
In the end, Yes, the consciousness is an emergent property of
the brain, through the organization of its neurons in multiple layers with
independent paradigms, ensuring the transition from biological to psychological.
And, Yes also, consciousness is a final property attached to the matter
constituting the brain, in the sense that consciousness could not exist without
the support of this matter, that its particles have the potential promise to
organize brain (as a mother holds the promise of giving life to a child) or
anything else, depending on the context. The particles can give rise to
everything, everything what we observe, included consciousness. Our ideas, which are
specific neural configurations, are also a ballet of particles.
This design
bypasses the adventurous hypothesis to assign a sort of 'conscious energy' to
the particles themselves, irrational in the current state of knowledge: Why
some quarks would form a human consciousness, and others, in number and
equivalent characteristics, a stupid rock? The difference in their organization
Selected and edited from recent QuoraDOTcom
** **
1210
hours. I don’t intuitively feel humans have been visited by aliens with higher consciousnesses
similar to ourselves. I don’t intuitively feel consciousness is a ‘noun’ to be
identified scientifically as such. If anything, it is 'to-be' verb-like in nature
whether consciousness is induced by the brain (the body is also a direct part
of the brain) or not. I don’t know much and I don’t think anyone else knows
that much either. Knowledge is asserted by ourselves and as such is
self-defined with ‘us’ in mind. It would be interesting to see what constitutes
human knowledge a thousand years from now and what does not. Facts will still
be there but how will they be interpreted (based on, by then, many more known
facts)? The practical answer here is ‘no one knows’. All in all though, I find
this stuff interesting. In a bygone age I would have probably found faeries and
enchantments (as science) interesting too. Ten thousand years from now
consciousness will no doubt seem to be more fully enlightened even though doubt
will continue to seep in and through the humanity within our minds. Such is
life human. (1226)
A late
lunch at Longhorn’s and a stop at Kroger’s on the way home. You are thinking on
Dead Eleven but first you had a question last night and this morning about ‘how
it is’. – Amorella
1449
hours. You are right. I said the question several times in an attempt to
remember it. I still can’t remember – oh, it had to do with the heart and how
it is that we cannot consciously know or appreciate the depth (for lack of a
better word) of our hearts until the depth is drawn out. I am thinking here of
my grief from David’s death in comparison with my Grandfather Orndorff’s
death. No other person's 'death grief' comes close. I want to say it relates to emotion more
than intellect but then that is what grief is.
** **
grief –
noun (dictionary)
deep sorrow,
especially that caused by someone's death: she was overcome with grief.
grief – noun (thesaurus)
1 he was overcome with grief:
sorrow, misery,
sadness, anguish, pain, distress, heartache, heartbreak, agony, torment,
affliction, suffering, woe, desolation, dejection, despair; mourning,
mournfulness, bereavement, lamentation; literary dolor,
dole.
Selected and edited
from the Oxford/American software
** **
1503
hours. We do not measure the depth of the human heart well whether in grief or
love or anything else. Why is this?
This allows for innocence, boy, that’s the
way it is in here. – Amorella
1544
hours. Carol and I are home. What about the Book of Genesis and the Garden of Eden?
You are arrogant. – Amorella
1547
hours. I don’t like the ‘sound’ of that.
Too bad. You asked, I responded. – Amorella
1548
hours. I suddenly lack the words . . ..
If I were to say, “Innocence is built in to
the human psyche, what would you say, how would you respond?”
1551
hours. Good question. First, I would say, “Amorella, that’s arrogant.” Then I
would proclaim my own arrogance first. Oddly, I did not expect this response. I
don’t know what I expected but this isn’t it.
At least your response here ends in a tone
of humility. – Amorella
1554
hours. I don’t know that. The tone just ends to me because I can’t think of any
response. If I were younger and less experienced in this sort of conversation
with you I would be angry and defensive; ready to stand up to defend God’s
Word.
You don’t use God anymore. It has lost its
meaning; G---D has taken its place. – Amorella
1557
hours. In context this appears blasphemous to me; that is, it is blasphemous
for me to think and consider such matters.
Do you call the above conversation (this
posting) thinking and considering? – Amorella
1600
hours. The first part was ‘opinion’. The second part is about defining grief. I
don’t know how we got to the innocence part.
I brought it up. – Amorella
1602
hours. Yes, you did. Weird. One would have thought I would remember this.
This is a good example why you write your
thoughts down; you cannot remember how you get from point A to B sometimes. –
Amorella
1604
hours. Oddly, when you are responding with the fingertips I am not here. Now
this is downright odd. This is how it is though. How can I not be here
(consciously) when you are here?
No comments:
Post a Comment