A Theory of the Mind propogating Quantum Probability / Chance -truth can have no name

[7redorbs]

I know of some men, who would appear to be something like shamans, or what some might possibly incorrectly refer to as 'illuminated' or 'at peace with oneselves' - they would claim of wondrous things that if they believed and trusted in the provision of everything they needed to live, and waited, it would, and does come.

I found this interesting, as many would say, or argue this is not a true thing.


I will not ask or argue on what truth is as it is something that seems to allude as all in varying quantities.

This man would appear, to have overcome quantum probability. He is saying his attitude effects what comes his way and people find this difficult to believe, or fathom.

Many would say that it is just 'luck' , and with no science of repeatable events, it's supposedly scientifically
impossible to show that attitude can affect ones perchancing of money, love, peace and life. It is sufficiently
scientific to be able to assert that people who do not fully want money, love, or peace or life - are those who are most statistically probable to lose it, or never attain it fully - in the premise that desire promotes action.

Quite clearly, if a man is selfish or rude, he may find that he does not succeed in his endeavours as a result of that, nasty rude and abusive people are much in different circumstances may 'succeed' in being hurt by another angry individual.

Obviously, some truths can be observed, even if not scientifically. That ones attitude does indeed have a huge effect on what is bound to come ones way, karma if you will -

The only thing that prevents scientific proof is that a science of unique events does not exist - we cannot repeat the same variables accurately enough to show how attitude really can effect this thing we call quantum probability.

Indeed the probability are a part of the whole, and human beings, being a tiny minute part of this whole, have some special power of propogating opportunities in a way that can be provable, and I believe, without rigid discourse, rejection, and ridicule can show without a doubt that ones approach to life, and ones awareness of the self, may be a greater or 'higher' microcosm of psychology, as the quantum world is to science.

Reserving a psychologically provocative promotion of desire vs action against quantum probabilibty creating a reality we see, yet often never - can, - or do - comprehend totally at one time.

Perhaps basic emotional logic gives this ability of 'psychicness' - one does not need to look far within oneself to be able to charge another with their morality . Indeed, we cannot make comments about others, even implicitly, without commenting explicitly about ourselves - indeed, we are all men - the individual is this.

Goals are only what one chooses. Quantum probability as a process in the universe, or adapted to psychology could suggest sincerely, that this propogation of 'faith' or 'belief' or 'desire' cause distinct promotions of action by the 'self' which cause distinct reactions in others, which cause distinct returns to the propogator of this belief or faith. It, if upon strict statistical explanation, is satisfactorily probable to compromise occams razor itself in comparison with this hypothesis.

Again, the problem is not that there is not a directly statistical approach. But the problem is rather that no
science of unique events exists, which is in itself why a statistical approach is all we know.

We can use occams razor to show it to be true that the intent of a criminal inside a culture of 'do gooders' will inevitably result in a biased, or higher probability of the suspect being caught, than inside say a culture of 'anarchists' - indeed statistics shows us the same thing that a science of unique events would.

Hence I believe why Quantum Electro Dynamics has seemed to advance so far and so quick, even without a science of unique events.

I believe my hypothesis shows human psychology has an admirable ability of 'self' or 'selflessness' to comprehend all of these different ways of thinking, cultural approaches, and the shamanic man who would appear to claim that 'what they need, just comes to them' - seems indeed, to be doing very much the same thing.

I find it particularly interesting culturally, and sociopolitically that it is not accepted as 'science' that man
has an ability, through crude adaptions such as 'faith' 'belief' and 'desire' to change the very fabric, and probabilities of chance , purely on the fact that there is no science of unique events that would explain it.

Perhaps there may be no way for us to repeat the same unique event and understand this process of probability manipulation via psychological premise and examples, truly though - for such a science of unique events, an engineering task not yet mustered or considered in a feasible way yet to human beings, does not at all disprove the hypothesis
any more than it lacks the ability to confirm it.

Indeed the book is open for this consideration, and man's control goes as far as he truly wishes it to go.

Each man succeeds his goals, if and only when he truly wants them to happen.

A rich man could throw away it all. A poor man could rise up and take over Europe.

A dead man could destroy the world. All these are true.

Because there is no science of unique events these will not be heard, but rest assured, these phrases will echo
through time, just in the same way in which they reached you , just in the same way that they reached me, just
at different intervals of echo - what is everything but an echo - culture, novelty, thoughts, love, war, all of these
things.

What of echo's when you do hear them though, perhaps then you will become like the strange man I once met, the shaman.

He knows this, lives this, and experiences this. We call can, but only what the Ego calls "I" does.

Science or nay, if you argue with that your psyche can't even reach out to the science.

And so we can explain the problem in an abstract that scientific atheists may find unfamiliar an interesting.

Perhaps this strange idea can one day be called the "missing part" or "apparent back to front" way of considerate
thinking in quantum and statistical probability thought, instead of just philosophical psychology.

I do not hope I am wrong either, but would willingly accept the possibility, once of course, the ability to check that science of unique events becomes apparent. What is apparent is Occam's razor lacks strength against a null capability, a science of unique events. Psychology already presents these events of cause and effect, control and balance well - it perhaps will not be as long as even I thought, until psychology may be seen as the natural text book of compressed temporal understandings of quantum probability. Knowing how to maintain an advantage to achieve your goals, surely would be an exceptional advantage. One that evolution is predicted to oblige. It certainly if not explaining evolution, and all science and culture, this theory could very well explain religion as well.

It is not the question of perceived logic. It is the question of perception - what logic. This is how this strange
causality tree seems to work in quantum physics, but for me this is how I can write beautiful music, and how I can retain the memories of the past, and be in today, and know what tomorrow can bring.

Some call it intuition, but it isn't -it's everything, everything that could ever possibly have meaning to man.

It's not karma either - we try to explain things, we always did, culture is what Yung called the collective unconsciousness the carrier of just a portion of these unconscious and conscious learning passed on in a tree like fashion, mimicking that of family, and that of fractal and neuron pathway creation. Acting like most natural electromagnetic processes on a very basic level. Seeking balance.

I have no doubt we will invent many new names, but truth does not have a name. It was us who gave it that name.
IT was us in giving us it that name that changed the quantum probabilities. I put to you I am not the heretic for
saying it may exist, but scientists are heretics for ridiculing a theory that cannot be denied, it is philosophically honest, scientifically sound - and every action has a re-action. It has many names, but a shaman names no thing,knows no culture as friend, or foe, but seems to float among all of them - and it is his being accepted of culture which troubles him most, not accepting others - to enjoy going between cultures is to accept all things.

Truth has no name, and a new truth called Quantum Physics can scientifically show that giving it a name does have a measurable effect - apparently though because we can't show and predict the effect in a controlled lab experiment means that human beings are unable to use this force - and I find that apparently unsound and incorrect.

It means we haven't recreated what nature has made us do best. So what? We still barely are getting to grips with the complexities of the human body, and have only recently decoded the human genome. We barely understand what sort of evolutional triumphs that might exist - and be applicable to quantum level physics

because of course, everything is at the quantum level. Even evolution is subject to it. Even us, and that is a fact. Occams razor seems to win for me on this one. However it is a bitter sweet victory, if it cannot be heard.

Indeed who hears are subject to the same forces i speak of, as much as he who speaks. It really is a strange theory, but it is true, and I ask, is the land truly flat? And are your reactions based on just what I say? You , we, I, must ask and reach for this explanation to ourselves. I for one believe it to be the greatest power at the hands of humanity.

An ability to be whatever we want, whenever we want it, and anything to happen in any way we would like. The real problem is knowing that once you know the game, it is somehow different and that is the principle of the observer effect.

The second is really wanting it enough. The mind really is a quantum probability modifier, but only when we realise it, and then in a way that is beneficial for us all, rather than promotions as a natural reaction of our environment or pre-learnings (past memories), hopes(future wishes), future wishes, and so on. Temporal, like QED.

Calling it propaganda or fascism, just won't do for my theory anymore. They are all largely making use of the same one thing. The mechanics of propaganda and fascism works in the same way - by understanding natural promotions of reactions in our brothers, we can assert desires, reactions, and actualities. This is a quantum observer effect - and how it is many trillions of times bigger when looked at as a psychological and cultural temporal tree.

It is not an easy thing to do, I ask that we try. It is one of the masteries of the self man cannot afford to miss.

Principia Legorum, Beginning to Gather. Perception is everything. Perhaps wise men do not seek foes, but know them well.

[Rediscover]

You've got me thinking of Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom, a concept if thoroughly understood brings together all considerations. The thinking process itself.

If all things we understand as quantum fluctuations and therefore probabilities of unfoldment are purely random events originating out of nothing, I see no use whatsoever in investigating or even thinking about it.

I think you are right, if I understand you correctly, that although we have no scientific evidence of the possibility of wilfully influencing the underlying quantum effects, it would be a scientific mistake to deny the possibility of it solely based on the fact that we haven't found a way of measuring it yet.

I believe the moment we let go of all our do's and don'ts which do not originate from our own intuition we find the clarity you just mentioned. We start to think for ourselves about ourselves and we get a small glimpse of our own possibilities of influencing our future. By somewhat further investigation we might even understand this process or at least have a notion of the presence of this process.

Steiner postulates that reality as perceived consists of an observation by our senses plus our intuition about this observation. It is our thinking process which combines the two to our perceived reality. Most of our time we spend solely aware of our sensing world, never really investigating our way of realisation our perception. Once we try to do that we might be able demolish some of the boundaries we are living by and really discover our possibilities as a human being.

I think it is really very hard to loose all the dogmas and have an open mind, but certainly worth a try.


-----------------------
He who acts dutiful, adheres to norms true-hearted and decent is by no means despicable but neither moral. He continues the past without shaping the future. Moral is the act of shaping the future.

[7redorbs]

Steiner postulates that reality as perceived consists of an observation by our senses plus our intuition about this observation. It is our thinking process which combines the two to our perceived reality

My friend , what an interesting conception, dogma indeed!! Perhaps the synthesis of the 2 sense observation/intuition is what one would call thesis. The synthesis of 2 occasionally opposing ideas , into 1 founded clarity. It certainly would at least explain why so many men can feel so right, but act so badly.

Me and my friend Jeremiah say, perception is everything, in fact it will be the name of our book when it comes out ;-) And if everyone saw the same thing, or better still, if everyone is seeing the same thing, why don't more people agree more often. Indeed some truth lays in this observer effect. Perhaps the human device is the one closest to home that merits the most attention.

That is, you may need good maths and physics to write down a formulae, but you still need good higher reasoning to understand what you are describing with the maths. Perhaps if nothing else, this is why each man ought to listen and be more patient, more often.

At least if propagating chance has anything to do with it. Ironic, how it seems to be a test of man in this perspective, rather than a test of God, metaphorically speaking of course. Perhaps, 'gods' test is more accurate. Not as a premise, but perhaps as the closest existing archaic symbol to refer to, in existence to describe such a philosophical process / archetype.

A

[Rediscover]

How interesting that you link this to a test of man, fooling oneself is the easiest thing to do, finding something universal which resembles man as a conscious human being seems somewhat harder

Denying ourself our abilities to think about ourselves is standard practice and we gladly take for granted what is put upon us. At least this holds for our fellow human beings who were not able yet to go beyond this boundary.

As soon as we start thinking about ourselves, start taking the whole apart and consider the individual parts we will not only find the workings of the parts themselves but also that which makes them work together as a whole, that is to say: the idea behind it. As soon as the idea is found we are looking at the work of the creator of the idea, just as we might experience the beauty of a work of art or music when we understand from within ourselves what the composer meant when he or she created the piece out of his or her initial idea.

Maybe here can we come in closer proximity of concepts which are already present, just to be rediscovered by opening up to the understanding of the underlying idea.

In my view everything which is, has someday been created out of an idea by thinking, new things can only be created by creating an idea by thinking only to be understood later by someone else thinking.

Maybe we are missing the most beautiful things of creation by not thinking about the creation. If I had to define god it would be the possibility to create.

And I agree fully that the human mind and body could possible be the best machine for doing just this, at least I haven't found anything better capable of doing it and if we would really take ourselves for what we really are we might get our joy out of creating instead of demolishing. I really hope we are getting there someday.

Looking forward to your combined effort in creating a book with such an intriguing title, would love to read it.

Thanks

-----------------------
He who acts dutiful, adheres to norms true-hearted and decent is by no means despicable but neither moral. He continues the past without shaping the future. Moral is the act of shaping the future.

[Rediscover]

I'm a little reluctant to post the following because it blows the generally imagined god on a cloud watching us to smithereens and introduces a new one.

Please stop reading if you are not open to thinking about such possibilities.

Following are just my thoughts inspired by a very nice chat yesterday with topic starter which led to the following brainwave:


If we are thinking, that is to say: we are creating our perception out of observation and intuition, we are imagining, thus creating our idea or concept of reality.

If in some book of wisdom it is written "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." could it be that this doesn't mean that we look like him but instead it means that man is created in his imagination (the mental image) as an idea, a concept of reality.

Then his thinking creates just as our thinking creates.

Now this raised some interesting questions:

Are we as thinking human beings using the same technique to create our perception of reality as god used to create man in the first place ?

Would god be mind (omnipresent quantum field) and thinking the creative process (creating the fluctuation)?

Are the results of this creative process then perpetually stored in mind by repetition of the creation? (see my post on periodicity)

Do we share mind and all of the concepts stored in there and does our thinking create our individuality (the observer effect)?

Would intuition be an answer available from mind to the question asked: what am I sensing? (everything can be known, just ask the right questions)

By answering yes to all these questions, which I feel quite comfortable with, a concept (out of probably a lot) arises which links mind, thinking and perception to our physical world of sensing electromagnetic waves as the observable part of reality.

It was written long ago, could it be true ?

-----------------------
He who acts dutiful, adheres to norms true-hearted and decent is by no means despicable but neither moral. He continues the past without shaping the future. Moral is the act of shaping the future.

[7redorbs]

You make some interesting points. Perhaps this thing we call thinking is 'borrowed energy' afterall. Perhaps the source of all the ideas that can exist, must already exist to be 'given birth to'. Much like all of the quantum probabilities must exist in order for the light to travel as we see it with our eyes.

I have often wondered if what Da Vinci called the cosmografia del minor mondo - the reflection (or relativity) of the cosmos upon man are what you would call periodicity, or at least, this reflection or refraction is based on the periodicity.

Interestingly upon inspection of the sun, the fusion reactor of each life giving, conscious birthing planet like earth, the one _we know_ that exists - has been found recently to have seasons. And thus, the earth would seem to have seasons as well, like a man has moods, perhaps this is what Da Vinci meant in earnest? I am sure this is what he meant upon inspection of the vitruvian man and my recreation of his diagrams, showing that geometry, refraction, and perpetual harmonics (like a human pulse) - or heart beat - could somehow be created by these week gravitic fluctuations, or 'seasons' of the sun.

The real question is my friend is , do all seasons of all objects in this galaxy come from all seasons of the one life giving object? From the sun, that is 99% the mass of the local solar system planets put together. Interesting how such a weak fluctuation (and that is exactly what it is, flux) - it is not well understood, but the energy exchange from the sun to us, when calculated is so astronomical, its hard to imagine that this is the 'weak' side of the force.

That said, earth's influence of gravity, if scaled down goes out about 0.5 kilometres - the earth is 1cm away on that scale. We are pretty, close - which might be just as well.

Did you know that the suns corona (atmosphere) is twice as hot as the sun? Physicists aren't sure why yet.

interesting isn't it? Perhaps 'god' or the thing that made it all happen is logically obvious via any common sense or higher reasoning, yet logically deriving a description for the symbol of meaning, requires a full understanding of the universe , likely close to its entirety. Sometimes I am not sure that is possible.

I certainly imagine believing the everything of the universe came out from the nothing of nothingness is almost as much a leap of faith, as the belief in a God. The symbolic meaning and importance of what was being described could exist and was always the same thing that gave birth to all things universal, just the description always differed - because the current understanding always did.

Perhaps that is not helpful, but it would solve the importance to understand labels are unimportant - what they really mean are paramount. And understanding what someone means instead of what someone says - is something only a conscious human being, or a pet might be able to do - the interesting philosophical point is yet to come, that the universe somehow seeks to imbue matter the ability to understand and maintain itself in 'higher orders',

So you see, for me it is probably not the curiosity of god exists or not, or whether science is right, but the fundamental understanding that the same thing can be, and is described in many different ways.

For surely why most men form there own individual opinions. Indeed, what it is to be individual, is the opposite of what the universe is.

That is the whole is the opposite of the finite granularity of the whole, on a scale of measure.

Perhaps the truth is broken logic has a meaningful place in problem solving, it certainly provides different input - it would seem after all this, the greatest thing still remains to be self control and balance.

something interestingly, and ironically the universe depends on for its own survival.

It definitely teaches us, even if I cant anthropomorphise the forces of the universe 'wanting' us to 'loop back' , or 'look back' and forwards at its nature. Accident or not, this seems to be one of the gifts nature grants us, whomever and wherever it came.

A

[Rediscover]

Extremely interesting, I really like it.

The reason I can come up with is that the corona is an electrical discharge eminating from the surface* of the sun. While the sun is still in the progress of becoming charged to it's extreme, becoming a true sphere from former oblateness, so preponderantly charging it also radiates.

* Any idea how we could define the surface of something like a plasma ?

Perhaps the source of all the ideas that can exist, must already exist to be 'given birth to'. Much like all of the quantum probabilities must exist in order for the light to travel as we see it with our eyes.

I meant this a little different, if every idea which has been created before repeats itself because it has been created in mind or quantum field at some initial moment then this idea is an accessible possibility which could be used as intuition in every other thinking entity. I'm not into this field but I think this is sometimes referred to as archaic records.

But I think mind or the quantum field allows us to create new ideas as perpetual repeating waves in the field so we can increase and influence the probabilities which are existent in the quantum field, only to be offered later to any thinking entity. I think this might be a way of shaping future events.

So maybe we only make use of the existing ideas/quantum probabilities and continue the past as passive beings or we create new ideas/quantum probabilities to have some sort of influence on the outcome, we're just increasing our chance of obtaining what we thought of when we created the idea.

Ahhh and yes Leonardo, now you've got a mystery on your hand, this guy is incredible, understanding only half of what he did would please me a lot. The vitruvian man has bothered me for a very long time and this is just my humble opinion, some research learned me that the square is denoting the so called outer cosmos and the circle denotes the inner cosmos, it might be somewhat simplistic but scaling anything from biggest to smallest and back yields the same essence of the scaled object only the dimensions change. I link this to my, of course unproven, interpretation of his mirror writing. Looking outwards into a mirror shows you what is inside, again scalability arises. If you look out to see the really big things and their processes you are also looking at the smaller scales.

The real question is my friend is , do all seasons of all objects in this galaxy come from all seasons of the one life giving object?

Bang! Completely flabbergasted. I definitely need some time to think about this, maybe you are hitting the nail on the head by unveiling a possible method of objective observable investigation. Many thanks for twisting my mind into a gordian knot

-----------------------
He who acts dutiful, adheres to norms true-hearted and decent is by no means despicable but neither moral. He continues the past without shaping the future. Moral is the act of shaping the future.

[7redorbs]

Well, I had a discussion about a similar thing I was investigating with a friend the other day. The main opposition to this sort of realm of thought is probably that unification of QM and relativistic effects is like the difference between night and day. Still though, if you want to see fear in any quantum physicists face ask them about the 'measurement problem', where you can make no fully accurate measure of the location of one granular particle, without somehow altering what it was before the measuring.

Quite an annoyance. Perhaps though, they would buy our propaganda into such unification ideology (im sure some would call it theology or philosophy ;) ) - if we said the reason why the marriage, and the source of electromagnetism as a scaled effect related to gravity intertia effects has not occured,

is because QM is unable to solve this 'measurement problem' - one would think, they would be concentrating on a philosophical rationale to avoid the need to measure the damn thing in the first place ;-)

For instance, I do not need a tool to predict the future, any more than I needed a philosophy to make a tool.

Many see the mind, or rather science as distinctly separated from the mind, however - some of us know better. In fact, it would seem everything about the mind is what created quantum mechanics just as much as the application of the minds science can describe the construction of the mind.

This may be a fallacy, but it's one that needs to be resolved, and cannot be logically ignored. The chicken and the egg - might have something more in common with quantum physics measurement problem than initially conceived? Either that - or gravity.

As of course, gravity and the measurement problem both remain badly defined, conceivably unknown, un-unified forces. If we are unable to entangle them together in a model, does not mean that it is likely they are unrelated. In fact, occams razor would predict, it is more likely they are related, since _both_ are undescribed.

Heresy, I'm sure!
But interesting, without doubt! Perhaps the real truth is, science is the understanding, maths is the description, and the mind is the constructor. The mind already does, and so does the universe do - everything that mine did can be, do and did already. Electromagnetically of course. That's what we are, electromagnetic beings - and there is a finite number of combinations, and distinct rules that no doubt lead to us arising in the first place.

And I'm sure our theories of science had jack all to do with it. Still, perhaps the currents can flow both ways, nobody is wrong, or right in such a matter;-)but i am indeed fascinated


Although I'm sure this is heresy too, I see the vacuum, or 'perfect empty space' containing the 'potentials' of all possible events at all possible granularities simultaneously. Surely if space is where all the 'stuff' happens, then space is the gracious enabler of all the possibilities in that state, for if it were not there, none of the possiblities could exist in the first place; conceviably though, space could have been formed from 'nothing' by 'possibility' itself. Interestingly pure space is 'nothing' - although I'm sure some friends might disagree with that generality, semantics, semantics. It's all gravity electromagnetic pedantics

Space just by itself, goes a long way to explaining some of the features of Quantum Mechanics. Well of course it does, the thing that gets me is this notion of vacuum. It was always there, just 'hidden' potential when space inhabits it, and once the equilibrium is reached, it requires additional negative air pressure to re-create the vacuum.

I scream 'we are recreating the vacuum' because it seems to be relevant to the points and science I'm trying to explain, there are so many theories flying about in 2010 ;-)

A

[Rediscover]

I couldn't agree more on the heresy part of it, of course we're going to be ridiculed, expelled, slaughtered, murdered and more for thinking about the box instead of thinking inside the box ;) no doubt!

Maybe by talking about a box, if we are inside an infinitely large box then we have to accept that we are in there and bound by the properties and mechanisms inside the box although it may seem logical that some of the effects observed inside the box could originate from outside the box (e.g. someone is trembling on it). Not until we are able to communicate with the outside of the box could we know anything of an outside, not even it's existence.

Warning! wild speculation ahead

Now for heresy squared, please follow my brainwave and have a look at the perfect empty space, the vacuum, the higgs field, mind or whatever name you want to call it, as substance, liquid elastic substance. Now let's create a vortex in there by vibration as a standing wave forming a double torus. (liquid cymatics will give you an idea)

At this point we haven't changed the substance, we merely created a dynamic self sustaining movement in the substance, self sustained because of the needed movement in the rest of the substance to keep the standing wave as created.

So let one law be applicable to this substance, everything which is to be created must be sustainable as a standing wave. This will also make sure that all necessary vibration is available everywhere in the whole substance.

Now let's see if we can find some properties of these created double torusses of substance in the substance. They have a frequency, a pressure distribution in themselves, can move around, grow, collapse, be created, collide with each other... because of the heresy let's call them corpuscles.

Looking from the outside to this substance we will only see a substance where every created movement is voided and recreated so it is still as a result. The substance itself has at every point everything available for the complete recreation of it, all the necessary vibrations.

For the created corpuscles of the substance everything is "real", movement, collisions, phase differences etcetera. But one thing are these corpuscles not: substance, they are something created by substance from substance but they are not substance.

I look at the substance as the potential to create something out of itself, maybe our creativity will find a way to understand that all we need is balanced vibration and substance.

I'm sorry, just a twisted mind.

Edit: Quantum entanglement could become obvious if a corpuscle is split into two but maintained by the same vibration then any change on one will affect the other.

[Rediscover]

Many, many thanks for your previous post, you have been able to put words together in a way I am not capable of but they connect directly to my feelings too about the subject. Pure, open and unbiased thinking seems to resonate somehow.

Since starting to participate in this thread, it has been a roller coaster ride in my head. All of a sudden previously unconnected separate pieces seem to fit like a jigsaw puzzle. It just pops up, I haven't experienced anything like this before. It's not that I would like to stop it, it's somehow pleasing so I'll let it flow but I feel a little out of control of my own thoughts and understandings.

As I look upon it now:

From our powers as human beings we've been given the ability to think, create mental images and thoughts, as shown before we should in a certain way be able to create in the mind "real" corpuscles by thinking, to be erected in the perceived "real" world. The mechanics of it are beyond me for now but the thinking process seems far more important than normally thought of and could use some research.

We possess a tiny thinking capability, just enough to test how we consciously maintain and grow our own created body, our knowledge and our direct environment. We may do with it as we please, but we'll probably never pass the test and continue to greater creative and maintaining responsibility if we continue to neglect ourselves and our environment in the way we do now.

As a child we are, given the toys of a child only for our own and our environment's safety, only if we prove ourselves worthy of baring the responsibility for it by understanding which powers we have will we get the next toy.

There seems to be far more wisdom out there than in us now, it's there to grasp, it will become obvious if we really understand our current toy and use it as intended.

We seem to exist in a very, very wise environment.

------
Now leaving this, having two feet back on the ground and the real world of today:
------

If, and this is a big IF, all of aforementioned could somehow be true and known and understood by some people on this earth, then they possess powers to control people on this planet by all kinds of means like NLP, propaganda, belief and so on.

They are dumbing people down through bad education, keeping them busy running around just to earn enough to have some kind of living, too tired to think about anything but themselves, feed them a perception of reality through television, create fear in them so they will look for someone to lead them, take dignity out of them so they cannot perceive themselves as worthy.

Bad, bad, bad it made me angry for years, how could they, how dare they, wtf is going on here, we've had so many wise philosophers like Plato, technology to move 200 ton blocks, pyramids have been built, geniuses like Reich, Keely, Schauberger and Tesla walked this earth. Why, why, why oh why are we in such a miserable state right now, it seems we learned nothing.

I blamed these actions for undevelopment by some people to human nature, the nature of greed and control and power, the ruthlessness of these people to inflict pain and agony on other people for their agenda made me want to vomit, to see someone else being hurt still hurts.

Until yesterday, when I realised there's more than one side to the coin. I wondered what would happen if all suppressed knowledge, possibilities and applications would become available to everybody: we're not alone, much more intelligent life is available - maybe attainable, we're mentally immortal, energy is free, we can throw 200 ton rocks like tennisballs.

Would we be able to handle this and use it wisely or would we be stepping on each others back and be throwing 200 ton blocks or complete moons at each other in no time, eradicating ourselves as a species?

I think that long time ago some people had to make a very, very difficult decision, either mankind will know it all and is able to use it, or mankind will not. Based on human behaviour seen around us I think both choices could be legit. I think they decided on the first option, but some clues are possibly deliberately being left for the true seeker to find them. Also the knowledge had to be preserved somehow, hence some secret societies?

I very much doubt if all or most of the current suppressors are aware of the underlying choice being made then and the importance of it. Most of them are probably parroting unknowing people.

Maybe the choice was right, maybe it was wrong.

I tend to think it was wrong because if you are not able to trust your fellow man like you trust yourself to handle things wisely then you are yourself in the barbarian state you think the other is in. But without living in that time and knowing all the facts I can't be the judge to that.

So, here you have it, just my thoughts, plain and open. Maybe I'm also wrong doing this, but something somehow tells me that we are perfectly capable of handling this and helping each other to develop together.

If the system of suppression of knowledge is only kept alive because of a decision made long ago, then I think it is time for a re-evaluation.