Confession #66:

I will meet with trepidation the publication of Masque's Encyclical Quanta Cura and his Syllabus of Errors, as an upgrade to the originals by Pope Pius IX. Speaking ex cathedra is a burden that is best left to really silly people, like Popes. Though I must confess that I actually admire Pope Pius IX and his Chutzpah. One of my favorite Popes, baring some of the more rapscallion Popes from the Borgia Era of course.

Any neuropsychology textbook. You will note that he isn't mentioned in any of them. He is mentioned in a lot of writings by gurus.

Here is a joke for you: Why do they call certain people gurus?

I don't know, it makes my mind go blank to think about it....is this about quantum physics?

I don't know any decent quantum physics jokes

you left the joke hanging tho, is there a punchline?

I bet ex cathedra is exactly how it looked when someone suggested with conviction they all hunt together and share the food and the processing of the food for tools and clothes in the tribe 40k-100k years ago instead of being angry at each other and stealing each other's wives and food. Is law and all our institutions ex cathedra when defended? How about their expansion to even more advantageous game theoretical states? Fusion Zeno is something unnatural in the universe. But it takes you to a great sequence of places once the atoms at the cores of stars are pressed enough and start doing it. Barrier penetration is the key. It doesnt happen easily but then it takes you to a nice outcome. They do not happily get there and align to fuse. Barrier penetration to better game theory solutions is the very game we call civilization. Humans and wolves have to approach very carefully each other initially before the path to the modern dog is explored.

Of course it is only ex cathedra if the one suggesting whatever they are is not also incorporating in the suggestion a methodology to self correct the system itself at all times and re-evaluate its organization ie rejecting a static proposal from the beginning.

Who is ex cathedra now?

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/

From the above link:
************************************************** *********

In the future you get "money" for slow ponying zeno they're called z-notes

Not necessarily. The mechanism of dog domestication is unknown and controversial. Many scientists believe that it was merely a matter of raising orphaned grey wolf cubs. There is experimental evidence to support this, as well as evidence from raising silver foxes. Other scientists minimize the proactive role of humans and hypothesize that certain wolves were naturally better at human interaction, and that this would have given them a selective advantage when permanent human settlements were formed. Yet it was only this latter view that was portrayed by Tyson in Cosmos as if it were established scientific fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_...#Domestication

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogs#History_and_evolution

However it occurred, I personally wish they'd reverse the process and send the yapping pooping vicious mutts back to the wild where they belong. I'm rooting for the rising population of coyotes to conquer them. Even better, wildcats.

Naturally the process is implied metaphorically as a careful approach when in fact its a very complex thing over significant time. Of course it is gradual and of course its like the silver fox program or along these lines of gradual improvements over generations. But obviously you need some transition from seeing the animal as an enemy/threat first and vice versa to a cooperative system. As an idea not all humans will instantly jump to it either. It might even be suggested from some initial encounters where the animals werent entirely scared and humans explored the possibility later with cubs or whatever other mechanism. I didnt imply, here some (wild) wolf, lets feed him something and suddenly we are friends, although it wouldn't be impossible to have happened on occasion that way too briefly as they might be following humans and their kills or domesticated animals etc. All i meant was that the process of breakthrough is gradual and initially doesnt look easy, some jump is often needed for the idea to attain critical mass.

Aren't we now talking about the probabilistic unfoldment of wholeness?

This is where I get confused with ends vs means, If we choose the wrong ones tho, I think bad things result. Perhaps because of illogics of the collective.

We had domesticated man in the same form of dogs in a sense for quite some time didn't we? This might be useful in the discussion of suppression and liberation.

I am very much starting to consider the possibility that this is all some clever ruse.

I would take even odds against. If the bet size were for $1 over the cost of building a time machine, I'd take even odds and pay for the time machine.

No. The concepts don't even relate.

No. The concepts don't even relate.

Fusion is now considered unnatural? That is a quite interesting development. I thought that the sun did such a thing naturally.

**** me. I am now certain that you are ****ing with me. The bait is too easy though. I am not your trout. Everyone with even a few years of math and physics knows that you can get stuck at a local low on a graph.

Who put you up to this?!? Think, Brian, think! They must be clever. They laid out the amateurish trap of making masque claim to be rationally emotional, but that was far too easy. They know that you typically jump right on that sort of crap, but it was far too easy to see coming. There must be some land mine. What could it be?

Et tu Bruce? I saw your clever little distraction.

There is so much wrong with all that that I don't know where to begin.

Still you. What positions have you flip-flopped on since this thread began?

It is entirely wrong though. The reason why we have big brains is because we can cook.

Confession: I have talked people into watching Krull.

I think I see the Bohm/brain issue you might take. Bohm explained (as I understand him) the size of the brain came out of a "higher level" implicate order. Like mold spores maybe growing simultaneously. But not from a linear time so much.

Krishanmurti, and other Buddhist or monk types believe the mind can change the brain, so could probably grow it too. Although no one I can find agrees with K on the 'technique'. I still suspect you would.

I was forced/asked to watch a Ted talk, which I don't want to post because I think TED is silly (thats how ya'll put it), but the speaker feels that psychiatrists are generally guilty at not looking at the brain. Don't know if that question applies to you, whether you look at the brain.

Is it a ruse or not a ruse, how can one know? If its not, then I have a poker formula for any of the few of you, that I can't formulate (bohm definition), that we need to relavate.

If its a ruse, I can't be blamed for everything.

Not so! Fusion Zeno is something you order from a trendy San Francisco Restaurant at $125 a plate. No one knows what it is, which is why it so expensive. And you will enjoy it and rave over it; as you should.

I thought it was a Japanese restaurant in Minneapolis. They dont accept commas. And yes, sushi is kind of unnatural.

That's just Fusion that used to be called Zeno.

There is nothing like "used to be Zeno". It is forever.

No, Zeno has most definitely bitten the dust. It says so right here.

I still think Zeno stays with you forever, even after the events of fusion though. Every last effort to penetrate the barrier takes an infinity for some people, especially if the fusion was happening as the system was crossing the horizon.

As a matter of fact there exists a particular solution of General Relativity, a lens type metric in a galaxy far away that a local observer sees the same place having both names. The left side "says" Fusion and the right Zeno.

Its just that, and especially if MDZ and BTM are not inline in this content, then we have most certainly misread something. And I don't really care to bring up anything not related to poker. But if we do believe that a new "line" popular with "central banking" sheds light on asymptotically ideal money, then we MUST be able to see, that since poker sites function as banks, then the players always can observe this line and extrapolate from it to bring about asymptotically ideal poker (stabilization in the form of "effective" rake (or site profits in relation to deposits)).

I generally assumed ya'll were ****ing with me for some reason, but I understand the material is dense and maybe not really in your view.

If you are truly in disagreements, and Masque is forlorn about cooperation with regards to humanity...we need to take a real look at this.

I'm not here to make trouble, or be a pain, or troll...I just recently realized that the many people I've talked to this about, are not able to read the words in the way I have.

We have a solution to formalize, and the tool(s) to implement it, I've just been in disbelief the players cannot understand, but now I might have realized, 3 of the four important names in this thread might not have seen it. And the 1 doesn't seem to agree with Masque.

With the recent posts I've read of MDZ, I couldn't possibly think its not an incredibly significant and appropriate discussion. I've just been not appropriate because I thought it (ideal poker) was obvious.

And if you read the website they linked, you see an article about removal of armpit hair.

That no hair theorem/conjecture will prove a lie eventually.

I am looking forward to "Cooking With SMP."

Confession #467.3: I see parallels between CSNY becoming CSN and in the break-up of Fleetwood Mac everywhere. I mean that figuratively, but they both suffice to show group dynamics. The second case was more interesting because there was significantly more sex.