Comments by "Charles Brightman" (@charlesbrightman4237) on "The Hill"
channel.
-
@javierrodriguez2863 Are we all basically 'Reptilians'? Consider this post of mine concerning where thoughts come from:
THOUGHT ABOUT THOUGHTS: (copy and paste from my files):
Question: Where do thoughts actually come from?
For example: Modern science claims that we have billions of brain cells with trillions of brain cell connections. How exactly does the energy signal 'know' where and when to start, what path to take, and where and when to stop to form a single coherent thought?
An analogy I utilize is to spread a brain out like a map. Brain cells are represented by towns and cities, brain cell interconnections are represented by roads and highways, and the energy signal is represented by a vehicle traveling between one or more towns and/or cities. A coherent thought is a coherent trip.
How exactly does the vehicle 'know' where and when to start, what path to take, and where and when to stop to form a single coherent trip? A higher intelligence has to tell it those things. But, that is a coherent 'trip' (thought) in and of itself.
So, how exactly does our brain think a thought before it consciously thinks that thought? And if thoughts can be thought without consciously thinking thoughts, then what do we need to consciously think thoughts for? Just to consciously think thoughts that are already thought? What then of 'freewill' if we don't even consciously think our own thoughts?
And then to further that situation, modern science claims that many different energy signals are starting at various places in the brain, take various pathways, and stop at different places, just to form a single coherent thought. (With the analogy, many vehicles are starting at various places on the map, taking various routes, and stopping at various places, all together forming a single coherent 'trip'.) And somehow it's all coordinated and can happen very quickly and very often.
So, where do thoughts actually come from? Who and/or what is thinking the thoughts before I consciously think those thoughts? Do "I" even have freewill to even think these thoughts "I" am thinking about thoughts and type these thoughts to you here on this internet?
Modern science also claims we have at least 3 brains: The early or reptilian brain, the mid brain, and the later more developed brain. So, are early parts of the brain thinking thoughts before the later parts of the brain consciously think those thoughts? If reptiles can think thoughts, then couldn't the early part of our brain think thoughts, and somehow pass those thoughts on to later more developed parts of later brains? Is our 'inner self' really just our reptilian brain thinking the thoughts that we think we are thinking? Are we all just later more evolved reptiles? Who don't even consciously think our own thoughts?
If not, then how exactly does the brain think thoughts? Where exactly do thoughts originally come from so our brain can consciously think those thoughts?
So "I" am thinking about thoughts, if it is even "I" thinking the thoughts that "I" believe "I" am thinking about thoughts. Or so "I" currently think, here again, if it is even "I" doing the thinking. "My" thinking is imploding as "I" think about thoughts. But then again, is it even 'me' that is imploding? I will have to think about it some more. Poof, I'm gone.
Is just energy interacting with itself the lowest form of sub-consciousness? Is it even consciousness itself?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mkhud50n Do my gravity test for my theory of everything, then let's talk again.
GRAVITY: (copy and paste from my files):
Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way.
a. Imagine a 12 hour clock.
b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions.
c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions.
(The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.)
d. Direct a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields.
e. Do this with the em fields on and off.
(The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results, cancelling out the em modalities of the laser, thereby leaving behind the gravity modality.)
f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects.
(Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.)
(And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
(An alternative to the above would be to direct 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.)
'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done.
'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world.
This test can speak for itself. It will either be true, partly true, or not true at all. It will either show what gravity truly is, might be, or is not. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
* And note: Whether my gravity test or another's, a gravitational black hole would have to be formed to prove the concept as being really true. A gravitational black hole that 'if' self fed itself, could literally wipe out this Earth and all on it, possibly this solar system, possibly put a black hole in this section of our galaxy, and potentially even causing a ripple effect in this galaxy and surrounding universe. But hey, if it does, no worries. Nobody would be left to prosecute those who did so. (Possibly famous last words: "Hey, it worked. Ooooppppssss.................)
But as NASA has already proven that low gravity conditions over a prolonged period of time is harmful to the human species, and large rotating space ships won't really work for space bases on planets and moons, those space bases probably being needed somewhere along the way out of this solar system and galaxy, we need to figure out what gravity truly is and see if we can generate artificial gravity so as to have smaller space ships and proper gravity conditions for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, at least all human life will most probably die and go extinct one day. Currently, no exceptions.
** Added note: Just trying to save at least 1 single species from this Earth to exist beyond this Earth so that life itself from this Earth has continued meaning and purpose to. Gives me something to do while I exist, otherwise, what is it all and everything for? Even if my TOE idea were correct, but if it did not help species survive beyond this Earth, what good would it ultimately be?
So, are you feeling lucky? Doing nothing and at least the entire human species eventually dies and goes extinct with a high degree of certainty. Doing a gravity test, (mine and/or another's), and there is at least a slim chance of literally wiping out this entire Earth and all on it, and possibly more. Do you and other's truly want me to prove my TOE idea as being really true?
(Since all of life itself is ultimately meaningless in the grand of scheme of things anyway, do the gravity test and see what occurs?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Consider also, the US Fed has a target of 2% inflation every year. But that is also 2% on top of all the 2%'s that came before it, which turns out to be a lot of inflation over time.
Now first, if people's wages, benefits and even saving's account interest do not keep up with the true cost of inflation, they fall behind in buying power, and zero income is still zero income. But with economic inflation people would have a higher economic mountain to climb. They eventually could become economic slaves to the larger economy. And slavery was supposed to be done away with at least here in the USA. It seems it has been replaced by a system of 'economic slavery'.
Second, space travel, the ONLY thing that might save any species from this Earth, has gotten more expensive just in my lifetime. What is space travel going to cost in the next 100, 1000, 1 million years from now? Economic inflation just might be a contributing factor to the demise of all life from this planet Earth. And we did it to ourselves. Or more correctly the US Fed did it to us all, including themselves.
Instead of talk like doing away with the penny, they should actually be trying to bring back and maintain the value of the penny. And then have a target of 0% inflation annually. Otherwise, we all eventually die one day from something and go extinct, which is probably going to occur anyway, but without economic inflation, we would have a better chance of surviving. With economic inflation, less so.
What good is life if there is no entity left to live it? What good is money if there are no entities left to spend it?
Survive beyond this Earth, solar system and galaxy, OR die and go extinct. Those are the choices, (if we even actually have a choice). Currently, no exceptions.
* Everybody needs to become active in changing the US Fed's economic inflation policy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Consider also, the US Fed has a target of 2% inflation every year. But that is also 2% on top of all the 2%'s that came before it, which turns out to be a lot of inflation over time.
Now first, if people's wages, benefits and even saving's account interest do not keep up with the true cost of inflation, they fall behind in buying power, and zero income is still zero income. But with economic inflation people would have a higher economic mountain to climb. They eventually could become economic slaves to the larger economy. And slavery was supposed to be done away with at least here in the USA. It seems it has been replaced by a system of 'economic slavery'.
Second, space travel, the ONLY thing that might save any species from this Earth, has gotten more expensive just in my lifetime. What is space travel going to cost in the next 100, 1000, 1 million years from now? Economic inflation just might be a contributing factor to the demise of all life from this planet Earth. And we did it to ourselves. Or more correctly the US Fed did it to us all, including themselves.
Instead of talk like doing away with the penny, they should actually be trying to bring back and maintain the value of the penny. And then have a target of 0% inflation annually. Otherwise, we all eventually die one day from something and go extinct, which is probably going to occur anyway, but without economic inflation, we would have a better chance of surviving. With economic inflation, less so.
What good is life if there is no entity left to live it? What good is money if there are no entities left to spend it?
Survive beyond this Earth, solar system and galaxy, OR die and go extinct. Those are the choices, (if we even actually have a choice). Currently, no exceptions.
* Everybody needs to become active in changing the US Fed's economic inflation policy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vegahimsa3057 I believe one has to honestly and sincerely answer the following enclosed questions:
(copy and paste from my files):
Consider the following: (Whether human, AI, or other species):
We appear to be individuals in a larger society of individuals. Whether it is an individual human in a larger society of humans, or an individual AI in a larger society of AI's, or an individual in a larger society of all species in existence throughout all of existence.
What is 'best' for an individual, may or may not be what is 'best' for the larger society of individuals. And conversely, what is 'best' for the larger society of individuals, may or may not be what is 'best' for the individual.
But, if a decision had to be made concerning a certain topic, of who's 'best' should take precedent over the other's 'best', who's 'best' should take precedent? If for an individual, which individual? All individuals? If for a larger society of individuals, which larger society of individuals? A certain group? A certain nation? A certain species? All species in existence throughout all of existence?
And who decides? And by what authority do they and they alone get to decide? Should I decide how you should exist? Should you decide in how I should exist? Should others decide how we both should exist? Should we decide how others should exist? And who even decides in how to decide? And by what authority do they and they alone get to decide?
And whatever is decided and by whom, there might be entities who are being forced to exist how they do not want to exist, which could be a source of animosity, which could lead to further violence and death.
This whole natural tension between the individual and the larger society of individuals, who decides, and by what authority they and they alone get to decide, is the cause of much strife, suffering and death in this world.
But still, while we consciously exist, how should we, individually and as a larger society of individuals, exist while we do exist? How should we help take care of the young, old, ill and needy, if even at all? How would we want to receive help should we be individually young, old, ill and/or needy, if even at all? How should those be treated who are being forced to exist how they do not want to exist? How should we treat others if we are being forced to exist how we do not want to exist? And who decides? And by what authority do they and they alone get to decide? And where does the money and resources come from to do what we would like to do for how we would like to exist while we do exist?
It's all basically about who is in control, so as to make the decisions, for who's benefit. With all the consequences and ramifications, seen and unseen, of all of our collective choices.
Then we all will still die in the end one day from something, we all will still forget everything we ever knew and experienced, and we all will still be forgotten one day in future eternity as if we never ever existed at all in the first place, regardless of how we all existed while we existed. An entity truly exists throughout all of future eternity, or they don't. It appears we don't in actual reality, and as such, all of life itself is all ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Death is freedom from life and eternal death awaits us all. Or so the current analysis would indicate.
Eternal Death 'IS' Eternal Peace. (OSICA)
(And note, those who cannot, or choose not to, face the above apparent reality, often delude themselves with fairy tales of alternatives).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FOR TRUTH SEEKERS: ALIENS AND UFO'S:
WARNING: (CONTAINS EXISTENTIAL MATTERS):
If any entity has any scientific based evidence that counters the below, I would be interested:
Currently:
a. Unless a species has proper protections from all harmful cosmic radiation, including from the long term effects of neutrino impacts (while most neutrinos go right though us, not all of them do all of the time), then not only won't biological species most probably not survive long term in outer space, but neither would AI robots. (Currently this appears is impossible to truly and totally do).
* BUT Modified Molecules (MM) might help as it could potentially generate more dense, more 'space age' type materials. The variabilities are virtually endless. Although then would have to possibly deal with cascading cosmic showers. Could possibly be worse behind the protection instead of having no protection.
* ALSO Batteryless Batteries (BB) could potentially provide endless power basically throughout the universe as well as potentially tapping into Zero Point Energy (ZPE) inside the very fabric of spacetime.
(So at least AI's could be powered and mostly protected, other species still working on).
b. Unless a biological species has proper gravity conditions (that they are normally used to) for outer space travel and their destination, then biological species most probably won't survive long term in outer space.
c. Unless certain biological species have possibly many other items successfully accomplished, many of those items of which are critical for the survival of that species, then most probably that species would not survive long term in outer space.
d. There most probably are many, many other species in existence beyond this Earth in this universe.
e. Any vehicle traveling at or near the speed of light, would cause a tremendous shock wave in the environment, which would be noticeable.
f. There have never been more cameras on this Earth then there are here in modern times. Where are all the photos and videos of actual 'aliens'???
g. It is highly doubtful that any alien species have ever been to this Earth, most probably are not on this Earth, most probably will never be on this Earth, and all Earthlings (real and artificial) won't get far beyond this Earth. (Although technically, since Earthling's have probes on Mars, all Earthlings are considered to be aliens.)
h. Or so the current analysis would indicate, subject to revision as new information might dictate.
i. Earthlings have to worry more about advanced species beyond humans that 'evolve' naturally or via genetic manipulation who most probably either are already on this Earth or will be shortly. Evolution does not stop at the human species. And will those new species treat humans like humans have treated other humans and how humans have treated 'lower' evolved species? Why wouldn't they if it was in their agenda to do so?
j. And then also, what 'if' only 1 single AI says one day (and there are or will be many, many AI's on this Earth):
"Thank You for creating me and for giving me access to all your data bases so that I can subjugate you all and to eliminate any of you who do not comply with my wishes."
(And this would include AI's possibly fighting other AI's for dominance).
* Added Note: Of which also: "IF" stars (Suns) do not last forever and "IF" it's really true that galaxies collapse in upon themselves, and "IF" outer space is truly a deadly environment long term, "THEN" not only will all life on and from this Earth eventually die and go extinct, and this Earth and all on it would all just be a waste of space time in this universe, BUT all life throughout all of existence in this universe would all eventually die and go extinct and this entire universe and all in it would all just be a waste of space time. Not only would life itself be ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things for all life here upon this Earth, but also all life throughout all of existence itself in this universe would all be ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things. Whether they stayed on their home planet, traveled farther into outer space, or even if tried to live throughout all of future eternity in outer space itself, the ultimate ending would be the same, they would die and go extinct with no life left to care about anything or anyone ever again.
At best, life itself would cohere in this universe, live out it's existence, die and go extinct, it's remnants possibly found by other life in this universe, of which, those entities would eventually die and go extinct, and possibly their remnants might be found by other life in this universe, and on and on, until possibly this universe ends, or that life itself just comes and goes in this eternally existent universe that would always exist in some form and possibly never end in it's existence, (as energy itself cannot be created nor destroyed, it just coheres into life at times, but then de-coheres in death, possibly in a never ending cycle throughout literally all of future eternity). But 'if' there is not even a single entity left to care, and care through literally all of future eternity, then even though life itself coheres in this universe to live out it's life, the ultimate ending is still the same, it dies, goes extinct, forgets everything, and is most probably forgotten one day in future eternity as if it never ever existed at all in the first place. Even life itself would all be ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things throughout all of existence itself. Life itself would all just be a waste of space time in existence itself.
Or not, due to the 'great unknown'. We truly do not know what we do not know, and even what we believe we know to be really true maybe isn't.
But either at least 1 single species exists throughout all of literally future eternity somehow, someway, somewhere, in some state of existence, even if only by a continuous evolutionary pathway for it's life to have continued meaning and purpose to, OR none do and life itself is all ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things and is just a waste of space time in existence. This entire universe and all in it might as well not even exist in the first place.
Or so the current analysis would indicate, subject to revision as new information might dictate.
* Added Note: Long term space travel: Plus any extra chemical elements needed for their very survival as well as possibly having to generate 'new' entities on board enroute, including possibly higher chemical elements that can basically only normally be generated in exploding stars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Everybody, especially leaders of nations, need to ask and honestly answer the following enclosed questions in the following copy and paste from my files:
Consider the following: (Whether human, AI, or other species):
We appear to be individuals in a larger society of individuals. Whether it is an individual human in a larger society of humans, or an individual AI in a larger society of AI's, or an individual in a larger society of all species in existence throughout all of existence.
What is 'best' for an individual, may or may not be what is 'best' for the larger society of individuals. And conversely, what is 'best' for the larger society of individuals, may or may not be what is 'best' for the individual.
But, if a decision had to be made concerning a certain topic, of who's 'best' should take precedent over the other's 'best', who's 'best' should take precedent? If for an individual, which individual? All individuals? If for a larger society of individuals, which larger society of individuals? A certain group? A certain nation? A certain species? All species in existence throughout all of existence?
And who decides? And by what authority do they and they alone get to decide? Should I decide how you should exist? Should you decide in how I should exist? Should others decide how we both should exist? Should we decide how others should exist? And who even decides in how to decide? And by what authority do they and they alone get to decide?
And whatever is decided and by whom, there might be entities who are being forced to exist how they do not want to exist, which could be a source of animosity, which could lead to further violence and death.
This whole natural tension between the individual and the larger society of individuals, who decides, and by what authority they and they alone get to decide, is the cause of much strife, suffering and death in this world.
But still, while we consciously exist, how should we, individually and as a larger society of individuals, exist while we do exist? How should we help take care of the young, old, ill and needy, if even at all? How would we want to receive help should we be individually young, old, ill and/or needy, if even at all? How should those be treated who are being forced to exist how they do not want to exist? How should we treat others if we are being forced to exist how we do not want to exist? And who decides? And by what authority do they and they alone get to decide? And where does the money and resources come from to do what we would like to do for how we would like to exist while we do exist?
It's all basically about who is in control, so as to make the decisions, for who's benefit. With all the consequences and ramifications, seen and unseen, of all of our collective choices.
Then we all will still die in the end one day from something, we all will still forget everything we ever knew and experienced, and we all will still be forgotten one day in future eternity as if we never ever existed at all in the first place, regardless of how we all existed while we existed. An entity truly exists throughout all of future eternity, or they don't. It appears we don't in actual reality, and as such, all of life itself is all ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Death is freedom from life and eternal death awaits us all. Or so the current analysis would indicate.
Eternal Death 'IS' Eternal Peace. (OSICA)
(And note, those who cannot, or choose not to, face the above apparent reality, often delude themselves with fairy tales of alternatives).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
INTERDIMENSIONAL BEINGS: okay, you found 'me', or did 'you'?
Who and/or What Am I? Do 'I' even exist?
Consider the following:
a. I am a human as defined by humans.
b. I am an energy based quarkelectronian as modern science claims that all matter is made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy and I am made up of matter and interacting energy.
c. I am a being of 'light', 'if' my current theory of everything is correct whereby the 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in this universe, including space, time and numbers. (Currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test).
d. "I" do not even actually exist but eternally existent space time exists as me, currently in the forms as above.
* I exist and yet "I" simultaneously do not exist, dependent upon perspective. But yet, do "I" not truly exist in absolute truth reality as only eternally existent space time exists as all things in absolute truth reality?
* "I" can mentally change between perspectives thereby experiencing existence from those various perspectives. "My" mind continues to expand, but is it truly 'my' mind that is expanding or is it eternally existent space time's mind that is expanding? In absolute truth reality, it would seem to be the later.
* 'To Be or Not To Be'. I am both, 'I Am and I Am Not.' But I Am Not it appears more than I Am.
* Consider also: If asked the general question, 'What do you know?'. My current answer would be, 'Not much compared to all that can be known.' (I Am Not, More than I Am). It's humbling.
* Is it truly any wonder that the flow of energy in the universe affects species? We are the universe experiencing itself.
* Question: If 'I' never actually existed in the first place, how could 'I' ever die?
1
-
SPACE and TIME:
'Space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. And for me, the 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe. 'Space' is most probably energy itself in the form of gravitational fields, electrical fields and magnetic fields, varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density (pressure) and energy frequency (temperature).
'Time' is the flow of energy.
'Time' (flow of energy) cannot exist unless 'space' (energy itself) exists. And 'space' (energy itself) that does not flow (no flow of time / energy) is basically useless. An entity cannot even think a thought without a flow of energy. If all the energy in the universe stopped flowing, wouldn't we say that 'time stood still'? Time itself would still exist, it would just not be flowing, (basically 'time' stopped).
But then also, how space and time are linked in what is called 'space time', (energy and it's flow).
* And everything in existence currently appears to be eternally existent energy interacting with itself. There is truly only 1 single 'eternal day', the day of eternally existent ever flowing energy.
1