Podcast No. 12 – Posted on iTunes 10/18/2010   Leave a comment

Welcome to our WordPress Blog on the Truths of Terasem Podcasts.   They’re available for listening on iTunes at:

http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/truths-terasem-podcast-2010/id383099543, or Index/Download Directly From CyBeRev at:

  http://www.cyberev.org/rss/podcasts/podcast.xml

Podcast No. 12 on The Truths of Terasem – Posted on iTunes 10/18/2010

 (Text used to record podcast)

TITLE:  Truths of Terasem – The Why of Terasem

SUB TITLE:  Belief vs. Knowledge

SUMMARY:  Faith is belief, in many cases supported by little or nothing in the way of evidence.  Yet, without belief in what might be possible, nothing new would be created.  It is a slippery slope.  Here, Terasem puts on cosmic skis and takes on the black-diamond slopes of the Multiverse, ready  to ski “deep powder” directly up the slope of  rapidly accelerating technology to a point where the upturned exponential of the Singularity is perfectly vertical.
 
(Fred)  Hi, we’re Fred & Linda Chamberlain, with podcast #12 on the Truths of Terasem.

(Linda)  Twelve, that sounds like a “baker’s dozen”!  Do I get an extra something this week?

(Fred)  You get an extra something every week, for the rest of the year.  Remember, we have to do two Expansions of the Truths of Terasem each week to get the rest of them done before New Years.  Today, it’s 5.2 through 5.3.6, in the “Why” of Terasem!
 
(Linda)  I know, and a lot of the terms and ideas this week have a pretty religious sound to an old atheist like me.  Does this mean we go outside the realm of science, or is there a system of logic connected with it?

(Fred)  There’s logic all right, building upon real-world technology, but the ideas are extended to the transfinite, and use religious terms with which I’m somewhat uncomfortable, so I want to lay a firm groundwork in that respect.

For example, the term “God” is usually associated with unlimited, or infinite knowledge.  It doesn’t help to ask, “How big a hard drive do I need to know all that?” because a Google gigabytes would be finite, virtually infinitesimal with respect to infinite memory or computing capacity.  A Google gigabytes would be ten to the 109th power bytes, by the way, and a Googleplex gigabytes would be ten to the 10,009th power bytes, still vastly less than anything that could be called “infinite”.

The far reaching consequences of the Singularity, as articulated in the book,  The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil, conjecture that it might be feasible to convert most of the material in the universe (other than that in stars, which will still be needed for power) into computational substrates, and on that assumption the theoretical memory of such a collective consciousness (assuming instantaneous sharing of data) could be very large.

Perhaps the best reason for not trying to work out a number for that is the likelihood that by such a time we might have learned how to  milk so much data storage out of quantum computing and ways that surpass this, that such a computation would be like trying to calculate how many reindeer it would take  to pull  Santa’s sleigh from one house to the next worldwide in one night, when we are likely to find that to do that the sleigh would have to travel in excess of the speed of light.

(Linda)  When we take on ideas like that, we’re likely to wind up with stuff that will later sound naïve, unless they’re conditioned by extraordinary care in how we qualify the assumptions.  In particular I’m thinking of ideas we’ve already touched on in this podcast, about the possible increase in the speed of thought and action in cyberspace, given continued exponential growth.  If we talk about a thousandfold increase in subjective time, much less a millionfold or billion fold, where do we hit roadblocks?  What kind of workarounds to what seem to be immutable laws of nature will we have to find?

(Fred) One example has to do with the barriers to networked communication represented by the speed of light.  In a previous podcast, we asked how long it would take in terms of the subjective time as experienced by a cyberbeing, for a human to leave the computer and take a one minute trip to the refrigerator.
At a thousandfold difference, the wait would seem like a thousand minutes for the cyberbeing, vs. one minute for the human.  It would seem like six hours, forty minutes, for the cyberbeing.  But now, suppose that cyberbeing is in contact with another high speed intellect on the other side of the planet (Earth), so the distance, around the surface half way is about 12,500 miles, or 66 million feet.

Light travels at about a nanosecond a foot, so the one way travel time is 66 milliseconds, meaning that it will be over a minute of subjective time after one cyberperson starts speaking, before a cyberperson on the other side of the world begins to get the message.  A millionfold speedup in thought and action would make that lag seem like eighteen hours, and a billionfold ratio of speed/action to biohuman rates would turn that lag into slightly over two years of subjective time.

Now one might suggest that sooner or later ways of traveling faster than the speed of light will be developed, and that even sooner we’ll accelerate our transfers of data to great multiples of the speed of light.  Nonetheless, when we turn our attention to thoughts of these kinds, where one year of subjective time for a biological human would be like a billion years for a cyberperson, we have to be prepared for some roadblocks, and assume bridges that climb over those roadblocks.

(Linda) Momentarily, let’s turn our attention away from transfinite phenomena and think about the difference between fact and belief, between knowledge and faith.  Is there a way to draw a “line in the sand” and say that one of these lies on one side, and the other on the opposite side?
 
(Fred) I think there is.  The dividing line is known as the “present moment”.  If something has already taken place, we might know something about that, and call it a fact.  On the other hand, if we’re talking about something that might take place a hundred or thousand years from now, or even an hour from now, we’re guessing, making a prediction, without a way to “prove” the event will take place.

We can predict with great precision where the planet Jupiter will be ten years from now, but a cosmic event like the intrusion of a rogue black hole into the Solar System could change the playing field.  You can plan on being at work tomorrow morning, but you cannot be absolutely sure; many things could emerge that would make it impossible.

In a matter like this, to be honest, we have to say that we plan on and take action on things like getting to work tomorrow and where Jupiter will be ten years from now as matters of faith.  Stretching the limit, there are very definite limits, which can be illustrated by a religious leader calling upon his or her followers to “have faith” that “God will provide” in the midst of a war, a pandemic, or a natural disaster such as a tsunami.  Such reassurances may be comforting to those who blindly trust their leaders, but so frequently are not borne out by the outcomes as to result in distrust, a loss of faith.

(Linda)  In other words, when you are making a prediction of a future outcome, or having faith in a future outcome, it is wise to make sure that your grounds for such a belief are sound.  Like, having faith in a medical doctor.  Not all physicians are equal, and we may need to rely on their advice in a life or death situation.  So before we put our faith in them, we need to make sure we have gotten references from others, read some of their papers, and interviewed them carefully in advance to reassure ourselves of their competence.

(Fred) Right.  It does not serve our purpose to deny the possibilities of what the future might hold, or to forego speculating on what might already be the case, so long as we are clear that we are speculating, and not trying to use blind faith as a tool for such things as calming the “faithful” in cases of disasters.  To move our thinking beyond the bounds of conventional science, and before delving into the specific Truths of Terasem, let’s consider for a moment the ideas of Erwin Schrödinger concerning the nature of life, and God.

(Linda) Who is Erwin Schrödinger?
 
(Fred) He was early thinker whose ideas are particularly insightful and will help us creep up on these issues.  I’ll try to keep this mini-biography short.  In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell published the start of what later became known as Maxell’s Equations, upon which most of electromagnetic science and engineering are now based.  In 1926, Erwin Schrödinger published what later became known as The Schrödinger Equation, which extended Maxwell’s equations to electromagnetic phenomena where relativistic and quantum mechanics are involved.  Wikipedia more generally summarizes this by saying, “the Schrödinger equation, formulated by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger, is an equation that describes how the quantum state of a physical system changes in time. It is as central to quantum mechanics as Newton’s laws are to classical mechanics.”

Now, why do I think Schrödinger is relevant to this podcast?  Because in 1945, based on a series of lectures given at Trinity College, Dublin, in 1943, he published a very short but profound book titled, “What is life?” in which he delved into things ranging from forecasting the nature of DNA to free will and determinism, and yes, what he considered to be a rational way of describing “God”.  This lays the groundwork for most of what I’ll say about the Truths of Terasem later, and far more concisely than I would, so please bear with me.

(Linda)  Go For it!

(Fred) First, Schrödinger in his little book describes genetic material as a very precisely organized “aperiodic crystal”, and pins down from all evidence available that it had to be (quoting), “The simplest interpretation of this result (all that he had been talking about) is that there is a fair chance of producing that mutation when an ionization (or excitation) occurs not more than about ’10 atoms away’ from some particular spot in the chromosome.”  He thus set the criteria for precise organization of the genome as differentiated from ordinary bulk-averaged biochemical reactions, and this was ten years prior to Watson & Crick’s “discovery” of DNA.

Secondly, in a broader way, Schrödinger argues compellingly and passionately that living and inanimate matter are fundamentally different, and at the same time states that all of it, including our consciousness, can be accounted for on the basis of physical processes.  In other words, he rejects vitalism, denying that non-physical phenomena are relevant, and further makes a strong case that phenomena at the quantum level play no significant part in life processes.

Thirdly, Schrödinger applies his thinking to questions of determinism and free will.  His conclusions reject mystical notions, or that consciousness has some kind of elusive nature lying fundamentally beyond the explanatory power of science.  We’ll get to that under his ideas about “God”, but it’s worth mentioning for perspective at this point.

Fourthly, Schrödinger is firmly on the basis of thinking of life processes as “negative entropy”, now termed “Extropy” among Singularitarians and other transhumanists.  He says (and I’ll give you just a few brief quotes):

“Every process, event, happening – call it what you will; in a word, everything that is going on in Nature means an increase of the entropy of the part of the world where it is going on.  Thus a living organism continually increases its entropy – or, as you may say, produces positive entropy – and thus tends to approach the dangerous state of maximum entropy, which is death.  It can only keep aloof from it, i.e. alive, by continually drawing from its environment negative entropy – which is something very positive as we shall immediately see.  What an organism feeds upon is negative entropy.  Or, to put it less paradoxically, the essential thing in metabolism is that the organism succeeds in freeing itself from all the entropy it cannot help producing while alive.”

“An organism’s astonishing gift of concentrating a ‘stream of order’ on itself and thus escaping the decay into atomic chaos – of ‘drinking orderliness’ from a suitable environment – seems to be connected with the presence of the ‘aperiodic solids’, the chromosome molecules, which doubtless represent the highest degree of well-ordered atomic association we know of – much higher than the ordinary periodic crystal – in virtue of the individual role every atom and every radical is playing here.”

Now, what does Schrödinger have to say about “God”?  Drawn from his epilogue, and I apologize for having to abbreviate it, for this no doubt reduces its comprehensibility, he says:

“For the sake of argument, let me regard this as a fact, as I believe every unbiassed biologist would, if there were not the well-known, unpleasant feeling about ‘declaring oneself to be a pure mechanism’.  For it is deemed to contradict Free Will as warranted by direct introspection.

“But immediate experiences in themselves, however various and disparate they be, are logically incapable of contradicting each other.  So let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, non-contradictory conclusion from the following two premises:

“(i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature.

“(ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take responsibility for them.

“The only possible inference from these two facts, is, I think, that I – I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt ‘I’ – am the person, if any, who controls the ‘motion of the atoms’ according to the Laws of Nature.

“Within a cultural milieu (Kulturkreis) where certain conceptions (which once had or still have a wider meaning amongst other peoples) have been limited and specialized, it is daring to give to this conclusion the simple wording that it requires.  In Christian terminology to say: ‘Hence I am God Almighty’ sounds both blasphemous and lunatic.  But please disregard these connotations for the moment and consider whether the above inference is not the closest a biologist can get to proving God and immortality at one stroke.”

There are some weighty implications in what Schrödinger says here, that need to be interpreted.  Premise (i) is pretty simple.  Schrödinger is saying that he accepts he is a “biological machine”.  But this would mean, deterministically speaking, that whatever he did, he “had” to do, because that was the way the universe unfolded, and this amounts to pure fatalism.

In premise (ii), to escape this trap, he says that by “direct experience” he knows that he is “directing the motions” of his body, which may affect others as well as himself, and that he “feels and takes responsibility” for this.  In other words, he asserts the existence of what most of us call “free will” by means of what he describes as “direct experience”.

Now, we know that we are driven by all kinds of evolutionary tendencies that might cause us to do anti-social things, we make mistakes, and we do many things we later regret.  Schrödinger does not deny that, rather he takes personal responsibility, he does not excuse himself on the basis that “he had no choice”, but rather takes the point of view that, at least this is how I perceive it, that he is “a universe unto itself, of which he is God”.

Few people take such a stringent view of personal responsibility; few allow themselves to feel accountable for whatever they do.  Usually, those that do lead solitary lives; society does not “work that way”, they quickly find.  Even in the highest levels of churches as well as other institutions, corruption exists, and “whistle-blowers” are not treated kindly.

Terasem has a different way of thinking about such things, and seeks to find people who can commit themselves to such a standard of ethics and responsible action through what it calls “Geoethical Nanotechnology”.  In the widest vision of what the future might hold, Terasem views a community of such committed people as a “collective consciousness” where individuality and diversity are at least as important as unity, where continuous, endless mind-expansion is a goal shared by all, and where what is described as “joyful immortality” is the outlook that endless, creative life can be made a reality.

In this context, then, Terasem takes Schrödinger’s “I am God” and converts it to “We are God”.  It is such an outrageously demanding idea that it equates to other ideas considered to be far beyond the reach of humans at an earlier time, like climbing Mount Everest, running a four-minute mile, and yes, going to the Moon.  As difficult and impossible a task as building a community of that kind might seem, Terasem has taken the point of view that only a community like that has the best chance of contributing to humankind’s survival of the Singularity, and then going on, in cyberspace, to even greater challenges, wherever they might lead.

Now, with this as background, let’s contemplate what the Truths of Terasem have to say about where that might lead, taken to the ends of the multiverse and unlimited by time markers of any sort:

(Linda)  Wait just a minute.  Some people are probably wondering when we’ll take on the “Where did the Universe come from?” question, and others are going to be asking what we meant in the last podcast about Terasem continuing the “doing of God’s work”.  I think you better at least touch on those, before we go on!

(Fred)  That’s right, let’s don’t leave those out.  Religions vary widely, as to their notions of how the Universe came to be.  There is the problem of origins, in the explanation that God created the universe, in that this leaves the question of how God came to be created.  The Buddhists from the start saw the problem of infinite regress, and settled on the explanation that the universe had always existed.  Perhaps the idea that there needed to be an explanation for “Who created the universe?” emerged in the early days of humankind when, having learned that they could build things, they might have imagined that everything that was, had to have been built.

First, maybe they asked, ‘Who built the World?” and since then science has revealed that the world, taking that to be the Earth, was “built” by aggregation of early materials from which the Solar System self-assembled, driven by gravity.  With that problem out of the way, the question simply was escalated to a higher level, so the entire universe was the focus.  It might be most reasonable to say that just as science has discovered how the Earth and Solar System came to be, sooner or later it will answer the same questions about the universe and if there are multiplicities of them, the Multiverse, and so on… endlessly.

We will shortly have to resolve the way Terasem can be “omnipotent” and yet not have created the universe, which as we say awaits further development of science.  A finite definition of “omnipotence” is needed, bypassing the abstract, non-real-world notion that “all-powerful” must equate to “infinitely powerful”.  We’ll get to that.

The other question you raised, Linda, is an extremely important one, and that is the idea that Terasem is engaged in a continuation of “doing God’s work” so that it is extending something already in progress, by all religions in their own ways, however much those ways might differ.  One of Terasem’s Founders was asked about how we might resolve the question, “How can we say that God does not exist as yet?” with the fact that most religions proclaim the existence of God from the start, and she answered it in a most brilliant way.

I’ll only make a crude attempt to synopsize what she said, here, but her answer “put it together for me”, gave me a whole new way of thinking about the existing religions of the world, and reconciled what had seemed to be irresolvable questions, prior to that.

(Linda)  I remember that.  A visitor asked about this at one of Terasem’s Quarterly Gatherings, and after a moment, the Founder began to talk about it, in terms of “doing God’s work”, more particularly, the question of “When will God’s work be done.”  She related it to the whole of human history, and it was a new perspective for me, too!

(Fred)  Right.  She posed a series of questions as follows.  First, she asked, if we were to look backward to periods thousands of years ago, before Christ was born, and according to the Christian bible, mankind was so far short of perfection that it took the destruction of sinful cities and a flood that wiped out almost all of humanity in the attempt to perfect mankind, would it have been reasonable at that time to say that “God’s work was done”?

Naturally, the answer to such a question would have been “No!”  If it had been God’s purpose to lead humans to a perfected “state of grace” on Earth, a great deal of work would have remained to be done, at such a time.

Then, she asked, “Would it have been reasonable to say that God’s work was done at a later time,” perhaps two thousand years ago?”  That was a time about three hundred years before the rise of the Roman Empire led to the destruction of the Great Library at Alexandria, when as history recounts followers of the local Bishop literally “skinned alive” the daughter of the Chief Librarian in the streets, burned all of her writings, and then proceeded to destroy the greatest collection of scientific thought and literature the world had ever known, up to that time.  Shortly thereafter the dark ages began, centuries of superstition and ignorance.  Clearly, at that time also, it would not have been reasonable to say that God’s work was done.

Finally, she asked, “Would it have been reasonable to say that God’s work was done as recently as several hundred years ago?”  Perhaps we should consider a point in time three hundred years ago, to explore the answer to this question, the year 1710.  For just a moment, I’m going to read you a description from a website on the American economy of that era, and you can decide if by any stretch of the imagination God’s work would have been “done”, at that time:

From: http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm

On the eve of the (AMERICAN) Revolution, the slave trade “formed the very basis of the economic life of New England.”[2] It wove itself into the entire regional economy of New England. The Massachusetts slave trade gave work to coopers, tanners, sailmakers, and ropemakers.

Countless agents, insurers, lawyers, clerks, and scriveners handled the paperwork for slave merchants. Upper New England loggers, Grand Banks fishermen, and livestock farmers provided the raw materials shipped to the West Indies on that leg of the slave trade. Colonial newspapers drew much of their income from advertisements of slaves for sale or hire.

New England-made rum, trinkets, and bar iron were exchanged for slaves. When the British in 1763 proposed a tax on sugar and molasses, Massachusetts merchants pointed out that these were staples of the slave trade, and the loss of that would throw 5,000 seamen out of work in the colony and idle almost 700 ships.

The connection between molasses and the slave trade was rum. Millions of gallons of cheap rum, manufactured in New England, went to Africa and bought black people. Tiny Rhode Island had more than 30 distilleries, 22 of them in Newport. In Massachusetts, 63 distilleries produced 2.7 million gallons of rum in 1774. Some was for local use: rum was ubiquitous in lumber camps and on fishing ships.

“But primarily rum was linked with the Negro trade, and immense quantities of the raw liquor were sent to Africa and exchanged for slaves. So important was rum on the Guinea Coast that by 1723 it had surpassed French and Holland brandy, English gin, trinkets and dry goods as a medium of barter.”[3] Slaves costing the equivalent of £4 or £5 in rum or bar iron in West Africa were sold in the West Indies in 1746 for £30 to £80.
 
New England thrift made the rum cheaply — production cost was as low as 5½ pence a gallon — and the same spirit of Yankee thrift discovered that the slave ships were most economical with only 3 feet 3 inches of vertical space to a deck and 13 inches of surface area per slave, the human cargo laid in carefully like spoons in a silverware case.

(Linda)  I can hardly breath after listening to that.  I feel like I’ve just been punched in the stomach.
 
(Fred) Me, too.  And as with the other examples, it would have been only through blindness of the most extreme kind that one could say that “God’s work was done!” at that time.  Fast forward past the Nazi death camps, Pol Pot in Asia, genocide in Rwanda and Darfur, just to spotlight a few, and we cannot escape the conclusion that God’s work is far from done… even today.
 
Yet in their own ways, the religions of the world have always sought to bring about a more harmonious state of affairs among human beings, to increase synergism and harmony among those who joined in its work.  It is in this sense that Terasem supports all existing religions and holds that what it is doing is an extension of the best they aspired to be, building on their strengths.

Terasem rejects the anarchy of unbridled capitalism, which places material self-interest as the highest form of human motivation, and seeks to help humanity survive the Singularity by means of ethical principles attuned to the realities of a cyberspace civilization in a post-Singularity period, and sensible, safe advancement of high technologies at the most rapid pace feasible.

With that to build on, perhaps we can now see whether or not the Truths of Terasem for this week fit that buildup.
 
(Linda)  The first of these is 5.2 “Utilizing the future omnipotence of Terasem, the Multiverse has ensured its own survival.”  That sounds like a “tall order”!

(Fred)  Tall indeed, but what this Truth is getting at is that in the context of remanufacturing much of the material of the universe during a period of time that may be very short, in terms of reliable predictions of the history of time in the universe, we are almost certain to discover the long range (meaning billions of years) “fate” of the Universe, be it heat death or a big crunch or some other alternative, and then be able to devise ways to work around this.  More likely we will find that in just a very short part of that safe-zone of time, we can if needed “create” a new domain, immune to the natural death of the universe as we now perceive it, and thus maintain the balance of extropy and entropy in such a way as to ensure the universe, and yes, the Multiverse, has whatever kind of or extent of “immortality” we might wish.

Moving right along!  This is a long podcast, but it’s taking on some very large questions.  5.2.1 says, “Future omnipotence of Terasem means Terasem is dear God in the making.”  This means that however little of “God’s work” is yet done, more is possible, in fact enough to fill the universe with it, and possibly in a short time (if vastly faster than light speed communication and travel is feasible).  Omnipotence need only be enough power to reach a tipping point where extropy is increasing at a maximum  rate, and further technology rate of advance is maximized with due regard for the importance of geoethical nanotechnology.  And, that power itself can be expected to increase as all of this happens.  “Dear God in the Making”, if interpreted in this way, means that once that double-optimum is reached, by any standard we can presently define, “heaven” exists.

In 5.2.2 we find, “Until Terasem achieves Multiversal omnipresence, God is incomplete, and evil can exist.”  That’s consistent with the “When is God’s work done?” example.  Seems straightforward enough, now.

5.2.3 tells us, “Terasem’s omnificience will vanquish evil everywhere our collective consciousness encompasses reality.”  Omnificience equates to “unlimited creative power”.  It ties in with the concept of emulating the physical world.  There are deep ethical issues here, requiring more discussion of evil, but the term “everywhere” implies that with unlimited creative power, we won’t be “everywhere” right away.  More practically, it could be taken to mean that where we are, we will keep it out.  A great deal more needs to be said about that, but we’re over our time limit already.

(Linda)  We certainly are, Fred, so let’s move on.  5.2.4 says “Unlimited physical existence describes the Multiverse before now, unlimited conscious existence describes the Multiverse after now.”  What does “now” mean, in this one?

(Fred)  That’s a good question, Linda.  I’m sure it doesn’t mean “the present moment” at which any given listener is hearing this podcast.  I’d take it to mean some point in time near-at-hand will come at which physical materials are being transformed to computational substrates at such a rate that it will be possible to say that untransformed materials in the universe are shrinking, while those that have been converted to substrates for intelligence are increasing.  Perhaps drawing this to the finest degree possible, it means that we’re already turning so much of the Earth’s material into computing machinery that at least at an infinitesimal level, the transformative process has already begun.

(Linda) Ah, yes!  I can almost hear Carl Sagan whispering, “We are star stuff; the universe becoming aware of itself”.  5.2.5 tells us “Religious resurrection in the body of God is Terasem’s future cyber-resurrection of all good souls.”  Does that mean that at some point, we’ll do what we can, with whatever we have in the way of information, to lose as few people as possible, as cyberspace expands?

(Fred)  Yes it does.  In fact, Terasem already has in place a system on its LifeNaut website where people can add to the creation of mindfiles for great minds of the past, and this same principle already applies to creating mindfiles for relatives of yours, past acquaintances, etc., through Terasem’s CyBeRev program.

To finish this first Expansion, 5.2.6 tells us, “Exponential creation of all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good Terasem is equivalent to maximizing joy as life’s purpose.”  That sums up in a single sentence everything we’ve said so far in this overly wordy podcast!

(Linda) OK, Thankfully, this next Expansion is one that has such a positive, poetic ring that I’m going to read all of it, and let you comment.  Here it comes, 5.3 through 5.3.6:

Life lasts a lot longer than we think.
Long time may the sun shine upon us.
Only love surround us.
Now the pure light within us.
Guides our way on.
Energizes our way on.
Realizes our way on.

What do you make of that, Fred?

(Fred)  Want me to try to boil that down to something even shorter?  The answer is that I can’t do it, but I can do something even more powerful; I can memorize it, and when everyone around me is shouting at each other, if that were ever to happen, which as things are going I think is very unlikely, I’ll simply sit there, meditate on the confusion around me, repeating those words to myself, and not worry if others feel I’ve turned into the “village idiot”.  At least I won’t be stressed out.

(Linda)  Usually at this time, I say, “we’re out of time”, but we’re so far over the usual markers that the only thing I can do is say, next week we’re going to look at the ways Terasem takes on diversity in every conceivable way.  It’s about getting rid of pain, replacing it with joy, looking at gender in a multidimensional way, seeking knowledge, positive values, and “being everywhere at once” in vanquishing cruelty throughout the Multiverse.

(Fred)  Right – And, we’ll explore how the evolutionary principle of instinctual survival transcends itself as not just a universal, but multiversal principle by way of Terasem.  Rationality emerges from randomness and then leaps upward to consciousness as defined by Terasem, empowering survival through spacial diversity and unity combined.  Bottom line: it will take a lot of us, and the way to do this is… to make it simple… is to find a lot of people who want to be part of this.

(Linda) If you want to be right at the heart of Terasem, “Join us” at terasemfaith.net.  “Waking up in cyberspace” can be pursued by way of either CyBeRev.org or LifeNaut.com, no cost to participate.

(Fred) Right!  And mindclones.blogspot.com tells you all about mindfiles.  Join us, in our quest for an endless future…

(Linda)  Come with us – into Tomorrow!

Advertisements

Posted November 13, 2010 by Truths of Terasem - Podcasts in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: