Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 05-04-2005

You know, there’s been plenty of news about the Pope’s death, but comedian Mitch Hedberg died last week too. Each of those people made me laugh, but only one of them intentionally. I know which one I’ll miss more…

Quote of the Day:

I think Bigfoot is blurry, that’s the problem. It’s not the photographer’s fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And that’s extra scary to me, because there’s a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside.

Mitch Hedberg

Editor
  1. I love the quote
    I can just imagine a blurry bigfoot.

    That’s hilarious about Bob Marley receiving an email from the BBC.Well he didn’t I suppose but he would have.
    If he had been alive I mean.
    But he’s dead.

    Well I didn’t see that old porn you were on about and I had a good look for it.

    That photo of the UFO in Oz is good.
    The best pic I have ever seen is the one on the same site of the Los Angeles UFO in 1942.That’s a fantastic pic.I don’t think it’s faked either.

    About Randi.
    Ever notice that everyone who writes to him sucks up to him?
    Suck suck suck.
    I guess with someone as superior as Randi you would have to suck up.

    I reckon that the steep cliffs on Mars are from nuclear explosions that took place in the great war that happened just before they sent Martians to earth.
    Some of those Mars pics are terrific.

    Great links thanks Greg.

    shadows

    1. Shadows
      Look towards the Temple of Man , go back in the blogs…..Ist one I think…..get back with me.
      XC

      Dr. Colette M. Dowell ND
      Circular Times
      Moving Forward Publications

  2. Intelligent design
    1. Who says “intelligent design” means “God”? Not me. Yet, that is the line of attack most of those letters in Time magazine used against ID. I can understand not wanting to give creationists any more amunition, but not at the cost of closing ones mind to other metaphysical possibilities. Such as:

    2. Scientists cannot even tell me what energy is, much less what the fundamental “particles?” (waves?) it uses to manifest are. Any theory of evolution must start THERE, not with the coloration on moths wings or the length of a birds beak. Darwins idea works very well for hair color and what not. You’d have to be brain dead not to accept it on that level. On the level of biochemistry though, it completely falls apart, due to irreducibly complex systems that cannot be broken down into small, gradual changes *

    On even smaller scales than that, such as “where did the energy come from?”, Darwinism has nothing to say. As everything in the universe is merely different configurations of energetic wave patterns (not new age gobbledygook this, it is from physics), this is no small issue.

    3. There is another approach, that of the mystic, who says that the “intelligence” involved in intelligent design is not some “ruler of the universe” to which creation is beholden, but rather the intelligence that is present in each and every living cell. It works as a “living” expression of the unit of consciousness present in every wave (particle) of energy.

    Thought is the motive force behind all creation, and subatomic particle are the units of resolution, like a pixel. Think this is gibberish? What about the dream you had last night? If, in your dream, you had gotten together some friends and built a particle accelereator, you might have “discovered” the exact same structures. And, again in your dream, even argued for their “real-ness”, calling anyone who told you it was merely a dream, “deluded”.

    Cheers,
    Dashour
    frc

    * For an astonishingly well argued case for this, read “Darwins Black Box” by Micheal Behe, Biologist and prefessor of Biochemistry at Leigh University. Dawkins fans, take note, he demolishes a lot of Richards arguments.

    1. too ambitious
      With respect (really), you are being too ambitous in wanting to explain how things work. On the other side, the description of science in the popular media claims too much. Let me give an example.

      I can make a nice computer system on a PC that simulates a different kind of computer that’s vastly different from a PC, call it the QD (as in the letters after P and C). This works very well, I can use this simulator to predict what the QD machine will do, how much time it will take to run certain programs. That’s a very useful thing to know if you don’t have a QD machine. This happens regularly, for example when people design QDs.

      For this I don’t need to know how many transistors the QD has (or the PC for that matter), or how transistors work. Nevermind how energy makes particles, I do not need that much accuracy. I need some bassic assumptions to hold, for example that (true OR false = true). Even if the current physics theory about how electrons work is completely wrong, my simulator will work just fine. Why those assumptions hold is of no consequence to the purpose at hand, only that they hold, and that (true OR false) is the same tomorrow as it is today.

      Evolution works fine for many purposes. I am sure that there are as yet unknown biochemical processes that limit the kinds of mutations that can happen. This gives contraints on how animals, plants and the like can change over generations. But the basic mechanism of selection is independent of that. Whether that works has nothing to do with how (or whether) energy coalesces into matter.

    2. Intelligent Design
      I agree with you Dashour. Intelligent design does not equate God. Human psychology can only define consciousness within the limitations of its ability to observe from the material perspective, from the densified energy perspective.

      Cellular consciousness, atomic consciousness, anti-consciousness (as in anti-matter or visible vs invisible) are not discussed because not observed.

      Evolution may have more to do with atomic and then cellular consciousness than with Darwinian theories and may hold a firmer ground at the universal scale.

      1. that ‘s interesting Richard
        That’s really great Richard.
        I don’t really understand this concept but I am learning.

        Can I ask you a question about Terri Schiavo?

        You know how occasionally you read a story about some perfectly normal person who has a brain scan and they find nothing much there…well how does that work?
        And does that apply to Terri?
        I believe that at some times the remaining cells have the memory for the whole brain and certainly Terri’s responses seemed to indicate somnthing going on.
        If you have seen a brain-dead person, then that person has nothing going on at all.

        Am I still on the same subject?
        Sorry if I am a little vague lately….I have so much going on here at present…family stuff…health problems..tradesmen…animals…I need another few billion brain cells to manage all the different sections I seem to have made in my brain.

        Thanks,

        shadows

        1. Brain cells and consciousness
          Is consciousness simply the sum of the interactions between particular cellular units? Does the brain control all of the body’s actions directly or indirectly?

          There are cells in your arms, if your arm is cut off, do you lose part of your consciousness? (Beside passing out if not properly anesthetized of course.)

          I put the brain as an interface between the invisible and the visible, as a support between those worlds and a support to the interaction with the dead who use it.

          Taken from that angle, if consciousness is cut off from its ability to transmit material sense information that gets picked up by the astral body, consciousness will not feel its physicality and automatially project outwards.

          If there is not occupying of the psychic space through the interaction of the brain, a consciousness could not have the impression of itself and if it were further incapable to communicate or be communicated with it would most likely believe to be dead.

          Cellular consciousness is not in my view the support of consciousness as a whole but the result of the penetration of consciousness at the material level. The more evolved or advanced the energy that penetrates is, the more advanced the consciousness and its ability to alter the cellular consciousness.

          In our case, we have an animal material consciousness at the cellular level that brings us to live physically at the instinctive level. A full penetration of the energy of our source in our psychic territory would have for effect the elevation of the vibration of the cellular consciousness at the physical level and, likewise, all the subtle bodies that constitute the human construction would be elevated in vibration and the incarnated consciousness would be taken out of or cleansed of the animal consciousness that conveys its instinctive mark.

          I guess I mean that cellular consciousness is the natural result of the penetration of consciousness at the material level and that consciousness exists at many levels, not just at the level that the ego thinks at and that this creates an anti-entropy where consciousness organizes itself apparently out of chaos. Remove consciousness and the law of entropy fully applies again.

          In other words, consciousness is not dissociable from the energy.

          Does that make sense?

    1. It’s the ‘dake!
      Hi Arch,
      You want to watch out or Kat will kill you again.I thought she would have got you last week with her 2 inch penis growing to 6 inches story.
      She posted it specially because we love the sound effects of you falling dead from shock.

      (Not really, we like having Hairball around).

      shadows

      1. Luck was on my side this time!
        Thanks to the Great Conspirator in the Sky I’ve missed that post because I was away for the last two weeks and thus my internet presence limited!

        Your description of the “falling ‘dake” phenomenon is not complete. I emanate fizzy sounds as well which have nothing to do with the science of physics but with the burned out capacitor in my brain!

        1. fizzy sounds?
          Fizzy sounds sound like they are coming from somewhere other than your brain.
          Do not strike a match while being fizzy.
          And mind you don’t fall on Hairball.
          You can always look for that post, it was only last week.
          We will await fizziness and falling dead.

          shadows

          1. Oh no, you naughty shadow you!
            I must do my best to reinstate my good(?) name here after the blatant attack on behalf of the aforementioned aussie!

            Although I am capable of making fizzy sounds that can be described by the ‘don’t light a match’ category – it’s humanly impossible not to! – they are by no means typical of my shock sounds!

            Btw, Hairball seems to dodge my falling body everytime (and please no jokes about him smelling the disaster in advance!)

            P.S: I’ve read the bloody link!

          2. And so you should………
            kat put it there just for you!

            That link was hilarious.Did you read the comments?
            I could think of lots of things I could say but decided I had better not.
            Do you think Kat has someone making up this stuff to post here just to kill you off?

            Heheh I’m still laughing at your post.

            shadows

          3. Against all odds!
            “kat put it there just for you!”

            I’m bloody sure she did!

            “Do you think Kat has someone making up this stuff to post here just to kill you off?”

            Against all (s)odds I will be victorious! It will take more than a series of well organised hit-links to finish off this ‘dake!

            “Heheh I’m still laughing at your post.”

            If you still want me around to make such comments please tell Kat to stop (don’t do it – I’m a masochist, he)

          4. hitlinks Arch?
            My my,that’s a big word.Where did you learn that, from Hairball?Isn’t Kat sweet, posting links just for you.
            I notice she does not post parrot links for me.
            I keep requesting people to insert the parrot, but do they?
            Nooooooo they don’t.
            It is after 2am here and I am too tired to sleep, but I better give it another go.
            Keep well Arch, wouldn’t want anything happening to you.
            Would we ??

            shadows

    2. dreaming invisibilities
      Sometimes I love it when a plan comes together, and sometimes it’s just plain scary. Dashour’s talking about dreams seeming real, others are talking about bigfoot being blurrily visible whenever his cloaking device fails, and last night I dreamed Harry Potter gave me his invisibility cloak. A strange congruence, for sure.

      Arch, you’ve got ’til April 15th to prepare yo-selph for my next news onslaught. You’ve been warned. hehe 😉

      Kat

      1. Go easy on the ‘dake
        I don’t want him spirited away with your invisibility cloak Kat.We can’t manage without Hairball.
        It must have been the night for strange dreams.I dreamt about my aliens again.
        They always fly overhead and then come in to land.They take over and then leave.
        It is the same story.
        I am always terrified when I see the UFOs coming in.
        But I always survive it.
        I think they are trying to tell me something.

        shadows

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal