Hey everyone, if anyone is interested I got published in this journal. It's a pdf file http://paradispublications.com/site...derfiles/joejournalofepistemologyvol1iss3.pdf Excerpt: I had also got published in a previous edition, a while back, if you're interested. Here's the poem, which precedes a geometric-drawing and an article/essay. http://paradispublications.com/site...derfiles/joejournalofepistemologyvol1iss2.pdf I also planning on releasing a/multiple books, if anyone were interested
Dude if your just going to rip off Timothy Lears 8 Circuts of consciunsness things you should atleast cite him not just claim "these concepts are similar to Timothy Learly in X book...." You could get sued for intellectual plagarism if someone owns the copyright to TL's writings. Also I sense a David Icke inspiration in that some how we will develop writings about the future that are "amazingly prophetic".
I do mention timothy leary(Others used the system as well), plus its a FREE journal. Stop trollin my threads, bro
You mention him but don't credit the ideas to him. Notice how others in that same journal cited their sources. Sorry you can't handle criticism
Yup, whether it's his version of the 'spiritual' or science, Journey is not big on a grasp of reality. His problem comes when he doesn't realise how transparent his attempts are. This is hilarious, "... This is all being done so as to evolve, and then eventually retract womb-planet imprints and have a Godly existence in which we create our own realities, our own worlds. This is our destiny. We have the capabilities to do it now, and it is more relevant, natural, and possible than ever before...' BTW Journey, this isn't your thread. This is an open forum where people post for comment both bad and good and expect to be challenged if they get things wrong. Nobody, full stop, can expect a thread not to have both positive and negative responses in it. You MSU and expect an easy ride because it's free - how could it be anything but? MelT
Are you being sarcastic about a sarcastic response? Or not. For clarification, I have some respect for TheJourney. He's like a Timothy Leary jr. even if I don't always agree.
Well, Timothy Leary is my favorite philosopher, and I also consider myself a 'Timothy Leary jr,' lol, so I take that as a good thing. Knowing who all my favorite philosophers are(Leary, Robert Anton Wilson, John Lily, Terence Mckenna, Osho, etc) also can be helpful in dealing with criticism, cuz they all received basically the same types of criticism(and praise) that I get. Therefore, since my favorite philosophers got certain types of responses, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the response I get is very similar, thinking very similarly n whatnot.
well when the message is similar the only difference is the one carrying it. But I still don't get what it all means in the bigger scheme of things. Like.. sure technologies have influenced the way we move forward through time.. but whats the whole psuedo-scientific references? like, I am all for the internet being a gigantic tool that has created a drastic change in the way we live our lives... and I even subscribe to the whole 'we all live in our own realities' stuff... I just don't agree with the ways you present it. I think it all culminates in an understanding that the current way of life is obsolete.
As for internet/evolution: We are very near to coming up with some key scientific breakthroughs. For one thing, the ability to link brains up to computer systems. As we are able to fully do this, our brains will(literally) function like a computer, which we can hook up with other computers(brains) wirelessly through something like the internet. Given the fact that our brain mediates EVERYTHING we perceive/feel/think of as reality, this computer-internet-brain will be able to create ANY experience it desires on demand, and do any such thing with other people in the wireless network. For another thing, we are nearing the ability to deeply understand the way chemical input can alter brain function(this would have been accomplished sooner if not for the madness called the 'war on drugs'). When we do this, we will develop the abilities to 'manufacture consciousness.' This means to develop the types of chemicals which produce every possible state of consciousness, for any purpose, and then constantly put ourselves into the most perfect state of consciousness for whatever it is we are doing. This includes massive increases to intelligence, etc. Combine that with life extension, which we are on the brink of, and space migration, which we also are on the brink of, and you have a formula for rapid evolution.
It's impressive that you're so dedicated to contributing to the literature, although I implore you to perhaps refine your writing style and theories before attempting to release a book. Not to rain on your parade, but you seem to be lulling yourself into an idea that you're of a higher caliber than you are. Submitting work to an open access epistemology journal is not an indication that you're ready for selling books, and any one of us could have "been published" on this website. If you are an honest writer/researcher, you'd have some respect for what you publish. Your theories are severely lacking in weight, or completely nonsensical. If you want to appeal to an intelligent audience, then honing in on your ideas a little more would be necessary. It sounds like you've found a way to insulate yourself from reality and logic in a blanket of complete ignorance, no offense.
Well, congratulations on getting published. If that is a goal of yours, then even if it is an open-access journal, I guess it IS a start, so congrats. However, I'll say exactly what I've said before when it comes to your theories and ideas - you need to stop touting them as if they are fact, when they are in fact nothing more than theories. IDEAS. You say things like: "We are very near to coming up with some key scientific breakthroughs. For one thing, the ability to link brains up to computer systems. As we are able to fully do this, our brains will(literally) function like a computer" as if it's a FACT. And it just makes everything you are saying look completely ridiculous (just being honest). If you want to present theories and ideas, I suggest you make it extremely clear that they are ONLY theories/conjectures, and not try to present it as if it is truth. That's my constructive criticism.
Well, I currently own a system that reads brain waves, which you can control your computer through...plus they've developed computer chips that can function as neurons, which is what the brain is composed of..(first article I could find with a quick search, from 6 years ago: http://www.livescience.com/681-brain-cells-fused-computer-chip.html). So I mean the fact is that it already exists in primitive form, it just hasn't yet been developed to the degree that I described...but since the technology already exists, its development seems, to me, inevitable...it's not would be akin to developing the very first motor vehicle, and saying motor vehicle technology was done. But I do understand the point you are making, as well. Reading that article(which I wrote quite a while ago), I would shift the way I phrased things at a few points, partially for the reasons you mention. I liked the ideas I presented, but was a bit unhappy with the phrasing of certain things.