Pandora's Noah's Ark Box

The Problem Of Karl Popper’s Ideology And Any Possible Actual Advanced ET Aliens.

Popper tells you there is no such thing, or no requirement that there be such a thing, as objective reality – only induced sensation and falsifiable belief.

Advanced ET aliens from as far away as even just the very next star, would have to have lives considerably longer than our own that we have on this planet – and/or, they are able to breach the time-space wall.

If they do this by ‘uploading’ neural EMF patterns and sets of ‘experiences’ into super-computers, the whole thing would have to be along some lines of which they could all agree was utterly consistent and always, that is, objectively equivalently coherent at every point, at every level, across every individual. Otherwise they would not be able to be certain that any ‘transferred’ individual consciousness really was a contiguous consciousness. There would be algorithmic changes - or even chaotic, random ones - in such a circumstance (IE where things were not objectively always exactly the same) in that event.

And oddly enough, this also applies to religious perspectives about ‘spiritual existence,’ or ‘life after death’ and so on. In fact, there is no difference between the religious view, and a situation in which the human race had have encountered advanced ET alien intelligences, that were traversing very vast distances of space/time.

I give only this example situation of a ‘super-computer’ let’s call it ‘consciousness repository,’ rather than another example, say, of DNA overcoming the limited replications (aging) scenario – because we do actually have a format for the super-computer case or ‘scenario’ of transferring and maintaining consciousness, namely, humans do actually have EMF activity maps and potential data archives of such activity and EMF-sourced brain mapping.

Humans could actually have their own personal consciousness held elsewhere other than the limited lifespan individual’s human physiology – albeit there would be no record inside the person’s normal physical human existence brain.

(Unless...)

Let’s say, this posited ‘super-computer’ also had some adjunct facility available to a contiguous, ‘contained unit’ EMF active dynamic bundle data set, which consisted of much the same sort of chemical, biological sensory feedback systems that we all have as standard humans – then theoretically, the contiguous consciousness individual specific unit (IE ‘a particular person’) would be aware of themselves and what was going on, and they would be able to match what they were experiencing as part of a ‘super-computer’ mega intelligent structure, with what they would feel was similar to them as a material physical biological human person; that is, to themselves.

Even so, however, that person would ‘bring back’ as it were only that much of what they had actually experienced inside the ‘super-computer’ system (let’s call it that for now) and only that much of what they could ‘commensurate’ with their known capacities and ‘experience tables’ that were held in their own actual Earthly physical brains (that they had in the form of that person standing in front of you or me).

We do not need to say that this scenario is the same one as the science fictional ‘Borg’ situation, because that has its own artificial construct about what the ‘Borg’ are interested in doing as they traverse the Universe, their own ethic and moral construct – and which is not a necessary requirement of such a megalithic ‘super-linked/super-networked/super-intelligent’ or ’super-computer thing at all. The Borg case is set up as a conflict dynamic for that particular science fiction story narrative arc. But it need not be in any real situation. If it were real.

Metaphysical ‘Snakes’ As Actual ‘Power’ Cabling.

All of the great religious systems have some idea about some kind of ‘serpent’ or ‘snake’ being in some way linked to the human religious or metaphysical condition.

In the ‘occult’ edition ‘Apocalypse Box’ it will be revealed what specifically this is and how to use it practically... (Not in this text here).

But for now at least, one key is that all the Egyptian pyramidions, have on them, etchings which detail this matter, although there are no obvious explanations or factual translations as to what they mean. There is some vague explanation rather well hidden inside certain texts by the Greek philosopher Plato.

The Absolute Logical Reality And Truth Of The Graeco-Egyptian, Hebrew, And Christian Moral Systems.

All of these narratives contain very detailed descriptions of what are, essentially, either ultimate ‘end-point’ evolutionary arcs in the Universe – which are then essentially, much the same as what we could now term ‘advanced ET alien intelligences/beings/entities’ (who could traverse the space-time wall) - or, an actual ultimate reality which is completely real albeit we must look at it as ‘metaphysical’ since we have no or very limited human instrumentation with which to ‘capture’ its material existence and ‘see’ it or ‘observe’ it, materially.

In a nutshell, the Christian system for one, maintains the following:

The human being, despite occupying a likely ‘apex position’ as an intelligent living thing in the material Universe, is limited by lifespan, and does not have any meaningful grasp of the absolute width of reality nor of any useful guaranteed social behaviour pattern which satisfies all parties.

In this context, the mortal human being is unfix-ably flawed.

The Christian concept is that the human being is material.

And even were you to extend its lifespan to ‘unlimited’ or to ‘forever,’ this would in no way at all solve the problems of society; instead they might probably even exacerbate them.

The Christian – as well as the Greek idealistic schools’ – moral end-point is that ‘only God is Good’ and in fact, Man is neither God nor is he ever capable of being Perfectly Good on his own devices.

But the conceptual logical fact also is, is that – let’s go back to the ‘super-computer’ thought experiment – the proposed/posited timeless super-computer has an existence that you do not have; it has a memory that you do not naturally have, and you cannot construct a bridge to it, into it, because you have no such power or facility, but it might extend a bridge to you, by transferring as a contiguous consciousness, your EMF brain activity and all of its archived memory, to it.

Now the problem, or at least one problem, here, is that your moral code, your social ethic and all of those available experiential constructs do not have primacy over those of the posited (as we are calling it) ‘super-computer.’ It has more knowledge than you, better experience than you, and must go on eternally, resolving itself wherever there is conflict, whereas your internal conflicts, external conflicts, and conflicted actions against anyone else in your human society all come to an end when you die.

Therefore, there is no scope, none at all, absolutely zero – that your moral code, or your ethics, or any of your propositions have any standing against what is the system structure of the ‘super-computer’ and thus, to be integrated into the super-computer and into its enduring Universally contiguous intelligent consciousness, you cannot live there possessing any dynamic of what you had previously owned personally as sovereign, but instead you must literally be contiguous with the sovereign consciousness of the ‘super-computer.’

In the Christian textual narrative, you are not alive, you are terminal and literally only in fact the temporarily ‘living dead.’ And only, the ‘Christ’ Spiritual Being can merge with you, actually extinguish ‘you’ and but ‘you’ agree somehow to ‘live on’ literally as part of the ‘super-computer’ Being, which in this case is called ‘Christ.’

In the Hebrew text narrative, the seminal turning point that is effectively the same matter, and indeed in a most material way too, is contained in the story of Eliphaz, in which Eliphaz is ordered by his father to kill Joseph – and he does succeed in doing this...

And that is because, at that time, to take someone’s entire property, to dispossess them of their family and of their dwelling meant to have killed them, and counted as the same thing at law. Joseph is then ‘dead’ and he returns to life, his life being restored by the Divinity.

And so in this Hebrew narrative context, once again, the particular individual can only live when they have now in them, a totally different actual being – in this case, it is literally this ‘God’ but we can call it in terms of the logic ‘thought experiment’ the ‘super-computer’ intelligence that is a megalithic one.

This same ‘dead Joseph’ idea is expressly also repeated in the Christian texts, where in Luke 21:2-4 the phrase is that the poor widow hath cast in all the living that she had... Christianity is not quite as purely ‘spiritual only,’ as most people surmise that it is.

‘Life’ and ‘Death’ are hence in Christianity equated totally with wealth... Yet at the same time there is also a constant caveat about a false kind of simple material-only wealth, and this is related to the concept of decay: in the very same passages of Luke, it is then outlined that the evident substantial material wealth of the temple where the group were walking through and discussing these matters, is going to be destroyed and not one stone of that impressive structure will be left lying upon another stone, and the whole thing was to be ‘cast down.’

If you look at some of the most impressive modern buildings in the world today, one might take as an example say, the new skyscraper at the Dubai Creek Tower, designed by the Spanish-Swiss architect Santiago Calatrava, at a cost of one billion dollars. What is the point of it? It isn’t altogether clear what particular utilitarian role the tower has, but it is expected to be the ‘tallest building in the world.’ The final cost will vastly exceed the projected budgeted cost.

A more interesting structure in the same general location though, will be the building at the entrance of the Dubai Cruise Harbour – this is going to be a rather beautiful, electronically-lit, rainbow coloured on its outside, building, designed to be reminiscent of the lighthouse of Alexandria.

In both cases however, one is seeing massive effort and vast sums of money, spent on buildings...

And there are absolutely no examples anywhere at any time, of similar sums ever having been expended, by men, on ‘men’ per se, in the sense of on their own individual minds, and purely for the sake of that ‘internal construction.’

The most expensive academic education in the world does not come even close to a fraction of the cost human beings have always been willing to spend on dead buildings, albeit architects are themselves quite consistent in their explanations of trying to have their creations ‘live’ in some palpable way.

Such a thing can be achieved by say, sacrificing humans at the foot of tall obelisks (dark sarcasm warning) – a thing which arguably went on in ancient times, in propitiation of the turbulent storm god Baal, or else, to honour the just-as-turbulent sea god Poseidon at Atlantis, just before Zeus decided to destroy the place. Throwing people off the tops of very tall skyscrapers would also make said ‘very tall buildings’ possess a palpable force to them.

But this is really delusional behaviour in fact: building more and more, ever taller buildings, becomes a meaningless exercise, something akin to an OCD pathological drive.

One thing is clear: human beings have limitless ego, with absolutely no natural tendency to further their internal make-up at the cost of money, compared with the strong desire to self-aggrandise even at the point of the most abject spiritual penury – so long as endless sums of money have at some point fallen into their reach so that they can spend it, on... ...buildings.

Why This Is Important In Planetary Exogenous Terms.

Why all of this background is important, when it comes to the prospect of humans actually dealing with actual real ET aliens – those that are vastly advanced in intelligence and technology - is that with virtually no distinguishable difference at all, the moral complications are the same, as those set out in major world religious conceptions:

You see, why would you, a human being, donate absolutely, your own sovereign moral, ethical capacity, over to an unknown intelligence, even though it were evidently more powerful, and offering substantial benefits to you...?

Either it must mean that you risk being ‘thrown off the top of’ someone else’s metaphorical ‘tallest building,’ as a ‘sacrifice to their gods,’ since all of the Universe simply consists of the same kinds of stupid meaningless self-involved mental pygmies as you are (if you represent the standard human model such as we have seen it), or else, a truly advanced intelligence species is equivalent to an absolute Universal system or ‘ideal’ of morality – which is not like the human, and either more like, or indeed exactly equivalent to, the idea espoused by the Judaic-Christian religious narrative, although it is not restricted to that, since there are many other systems that also have an ‘Ultimate’ perfectly benevolent ‘Universal Ideal’ Divinity concept: all the ancient Sanskrit Vedas do, the associated Tibetan and Mongolian Oracle systems do, all the Classical Greek and Roman philosophical systems do, the Norse Edda does, and it is difficult or impossible to say which ones of the lesser-known pagan systems also do, though many do.

How come it has transpired however, that the common belief is that particularly the Judaic-Christian philosophy is about a monolithic Unitary Godhead (IE what is called ‘monotheism’), possibly is due to simplistic mindsets being the ones possessed by the majority of students of these systems and their narrative texts. Although just as possibly, it is deliberate and maliciously procured, by interests that desire to keep the human race in a state of relative ignorance.

You see, on the one hand, the statement ‘I Am’ (EG, as in the wording form surrounding the critical narrative of the Hebrew Moses figure) taken on its own as then a syllogistic solipsism, does indicate someONE person who is speaking, yet it does not on its own tell us about the whole complex nature of that individual at all once you add all the other details expressed in the surrounding actual texts.

If you take it on its own, you can say ‘God is One.’ (Hence ‘monotheism’). And nothing whatsoever throughout the rest of the religious narrative texts agrees with it – the Hebrew Shekinah is clearly a feminine identity, God appears to Abraham as three individual people, Jesus the single mortal man-god yet has a different, separate identity as an Eternal Permanent Spirit Being, and there are numerous ‘Elohim’ that also exist at some time at least before the appearance of ‘Adam’ and these are all co-existing seemingly eternally too, together with some principal ‘Godhead’ if you presume that from the text narrative. And so successive Biblical exegesis seeks to explain away – due to a pre-commitment to monotheism – what is not actually within the actual source texts themselves.

Even the Arabic Islamic common popular belief runs categorically in distinction to the actual literal wording – Allahu ahad which means one of,′ and not simply ‘One’ (Wahid). Again, the standard Sunni rendering that ‘tawhid’ means a belief that God is only One, runs afoul of the actual meaning of the word itself, which means ‘the unification of;’ and in order ‘to unify,’ there has originally have had to have been a severalty. You cannot ‘unify’ that which is already only one. Unify means to ‘bring together,’ and bringing together implies that prior to that, various things were apart.

In a very sinister way, Islam contains the kernel of the ET alien moral equation ‘problem,’ which is namely, that followers of Islam are meant to SURRENDER themselves and all of their will, to some external entity... And there is no absolute benign moral template attached that they can ‘hang their hat on,’ so to speak, unlike in the Christian and the Classical Greek and Roman concept, which is that the Ultimate Divinity is categorically Perfectly Benign and Good. The putative ‘god’ in Islam has a litany of egregiously capricious acts to his name, and so does his ‘messenger...’ They are neither of them absolutely one thing or the other, but move about with whimsy and without predictability at all. And this is troubling in the case of the moral compass of ‘Islam,’ as it would be too, in the speculated case if ‘advanced ET aliens’ proffered the same kind of moral vagary, and indeed savagery.

We have demonstrated, at least in terms of one particular ‘thought experiment,’ that the bridge between a passing conscious existence – that is, the human mortal one – and some other putatively endlessly existing one, is the merging of personal individual consciousness and of will, with a ‘super-computer’ (we’ve called it that here) kind of ‘all-encompassing of reality,’ super-consciousness. And in this schema, it is necessary, that this giving up of some aspect of individual, personally arbitrary or even permissibly capricious will, in exchange for an(-other) ‘all-knowing’ and ‘equally-catering’ ‘Super-consciousness will’ – via effectively the transference of personal memory as EMF data, and the merging of agency aspects of that personal ‘data as consciousness’ with some other super-format, is a key to traversing the space-time barrier if it is to be done in a material physical way at all.

The false paradigm of monotheism is not restricted to the Western religious popular perspective as we find it obtains everywhere today. Because in the same way, although billions of Hindus think that their religious texts are about ‘Brahman’ or even ‘Shiva,’ (Advaitism, and Shaivism) they are actually not... these are only one facet of a very complicated, multi-sided reality spoken about in the formal traditional Sanskrit texts which explain about the entire nature of Being and the Cosmic Universe. To put it explicitly and as a particular criticism, Advaitism and Shaivism – are only cults. Even though they represent the largest numerical belief systems followed by the modern Hindu religious world as such today.