IEET > Rights > CognitiveLiberty > FreeThought > CyborgBuddha > Vision > Bioculture > Directors > Giulio Prisco
In Praise of Soft Rationality and Rational Spirituality
Giulio Prisco   May 5, 2012   Turing Church  

I cultivate the excellent habit of rationality and consider it as a very useful tool. But rationality is indeed a tool (a useful means to achieve a desired result), and not an end in itself. Far from being the enemies of science, religion and spirituality often drive scientific advances. Open-minded soft rationality is a much better approach to science than dull, fundamentalist rationalism.

The endless debate on science and religion has been re-ignited by a Science article on “Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief,” commented in a good (and open access) Nature article on “Is rationality the enemy of religion?

The authors of the Science article state that they “focused primarily on belief in and commitment to religiously endorsed supernatural agents.” This is a too narrow definition of religion, which not necessarily and not always includes supernatural agents.

For example, I am a believer (I say this very clearly at the end of my recent talk at the MTA 2012 Conference) without believing in the supernatural, which I consider as a contradiction in terms: if we define nature as all that exists, then the supernatural cannot exist by definition. I believe in Shakespeare’s “ more things in heaven and earth” though.

It’s highly plausible that in the universe there are God-like creatures,” thinks Richard Dawkins. “Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine.” These are the Gods I believe in, and I believe that our descendants may also become Gods when the time is right. I am also open to the possibility that some weird time physics may permit future Gods to influence events in (their) past times, before they are born, or that “we [may] live in a computer simulation, set up by some vastly superior civilization” (Dawkins again).

In history, there are countless examples of rational scientists who demonstrate the impossibility of doing something… and irrational engineers who do it anyway. Scientists worship rationality and the current scientific paradigm, but engineers want to realize their dreams, the current scientific paradigm be damned if it stands in the way. Often, facts prove that the irrational engineers are right, and soon the rational scientists realize that they had just made one or two little mistakes here and there in their papers.

Science is about what reality is, and engineering is about what reality must become: reality imitates art, or at least it should. We need both attitudes of course, but I have little patience for fundamentalist rationalism, and I am an engineer at heart. If the laws of nature stand in our way, let’s just try to rewrite them. This does not mean that reality should be ignored (always a dangerous thing to do), but it does mean that unpleasant aspects of reality can often be engineered away, someday if not now.

Nature writer Philip Ball tries to keep a balanced position, and acknowledges that “ it seems to be extreme views of any sort, whether religious or the opposite, that are the real enemy of analytical thinking,” and “ there are plenty of devout believers [...] who perhaps have no need of a belief in God in a traditional or Christian sense (Max Planck was one such example).”

Religious believers and spiritually oriented New Age seekers often have powerful intuitions, beyond what current science can analyze. Their visions form an aesthetic layer that colors their (and then our) perception of the universe and, even when they are not entirely correct, inspire scientists and engineers to turn visionary dreams into actual reality.

For example many mystics, and some scientists, believe in telepathy and extras-sensory perception (ESP), and many scientists think that it is all crap. I am open to the possibility that some yet undiscovered science may provide solid theoretical foundations and experimental evidence for ESP, and I am also open to the possibility that ESP may not exist. In science, we let experiment decide.

But ESP will exist. Soon we will have brain implants linked to our thoughts and to the Internet. These implants will give us instant telepathic communication with others, and the ability to access the Internet in our minds and see what happens elsewhere. Brain implants will also permit influencing, by thought alone, physical objects in remote places via appropriate actuators. So, regardless of whether or not we possess native ESP abilities for telepathy, remote vision and psychokinesis, the mystics are right anyway. If we have no native ESP, we will engineer ESP someday soon.

Engineered ESP will be a joint achievement of the visionaries who have given us powerful dreams, and the scientists and engineers who have made them true. Soft rationality and rational spirituality join the advantages of both mindsets in a whole bigger than the sum of its parts.

In an article on “Combining Extreme Distrust and Spastic Bursts of Blind Fait… What New Edge Culture has to say about Today’s Schizophrenic Information Society,” appeared in 2011 on RU Sirius’ accelerator, Dorien Zandbergen remembers how “Intellectuals at Esalen were inspired by Eastern spirituality as much as by cutting edge science and technology. As Esalen historian Walter Truett Anderson writes, they even turned ‘the flowing together of East and West, the ancient and the modern, science and religion, scholarship and art’ as a guiding principle. [...] Both the use of psychedelics and high tech endorsed the experience among these early pioneers that they were godlike in their potential for comprehending reality. ‘We are as gods and might as well get good at it,’ as Stewart Brand famously stated in the pages of the Whole Earth Catalog.”

The story of Esalen is also told by the excellent book How the Hippies Saved Physics, mostly dedicated to the “Fundamental Fysiks Group.” The book shows that modern physics, and especially quantum information science, has a surprisingly psychedelic past.

Zandbergen notes that [”Mondo 2000] conjure[d] up worldviews very similar to what was being proposed in New Age circles, while also including distant, skeptical, rationalistic stances,” which is exactly the soft rationality, rational spirituality attitude that I am recommending here.

Giulio Prisco is a writer, technology expert, futurist and transhumanist. A former manager in European science and technology centers, he writes and speaks on a wide range of topics, including science, information technology, emerging technologies, virtual worlds, space exploration and future studies. He serves as President of the Italian Transhumanist Association.


A good one Giulio;
btw, even if the hippies didn’t actually save science, they did save water by not taking showers. Now I’m going to (collective groan from IEET readers) provide an anecdote illustrating what I really think of religion: recently a church group was stuffing envelopes and asked me to help without bothering to mention what was being stuffed into the envelopes. Halfway through it became apparent it was an appeal for funds to buy more stamps and envelopes, etc., so as to inundate politicians with pro-“life” letters. It occurred to me right then that religion does have a collateral purpose, but a purpose being almost the antipode to what the religious claim it to be; the purpose is a Darwinist one.
The act of stuffing the envelopes with strident pro-life ‘literature’ gave the congregation an ecological niche, they were asking via the fund drive for funds to start a large scale pro- life campaign, to ultimately send out tens of thousands of letters to politicians who were getting an equal amount of pressure from pro-choice activists. So in a sense, the pro-life and pro-choice factions ‘cancel each other out’—there is a sort-of homeostasis involved. Religion can therefor be perceived as not ethereal but quite the opposite in practice: hardnosed, materialistic- the abortion issue, for one, is pretty earthy and materialistic, isn’t it? that is to say, a religion may ‘transcend’ itself.

@Intomorrow re “Religion can therefor be perceived as not ethereal but quite the opposite in practice: hardnosed, materialistic- the abortion”

Right. Most religious organizations are like all other organizations, companies and political parties: they are only interested in money and power. They do anything to get more money and more power, and ruthlessly exploit the sincere feelings and aspirations of believers. Good old Marx and Darwin knew it well: mostly we are not motivated by philosophy, but by cash, and wolves eat lambs.

But I am not talking of organized religions here, I am talking of disorganized religions and personal quests for meaning and transcendence.

Yes, I like this article as well. I agree that belief in the supernatural is to narrow a definition of religion, and even though on the whole I prefer the Wiktionary definition to using religion to refer to a “personal quest for meaning and transcendence” - I think the “spirituality” of the article’s title is a better word for this -  I very much agree with the spirit of what Giulio is saying.

Two quick comments. Firstly, when scientists take the current paradigm for granted they are being less rational, not more rational, than the visionary engineers. Secondly, the current paradigm I want to see damned is the second law of thermodynamics. Does anyone else share this “irrational” (but actually perfectly rational) aspiration?

Your assertion that “the mystics were right anyway” just because techlepathy will achieve a roughly functionally equivalent ability in humans is absurd. Yes, if you squint, both look pretty similar, but one denies the accumulated weight of evidence from all of history in favor of deluded wishful thinking, while another harnesses science (a method of knowledge accumulation that is proven to work precisely because it has built-in safeguards to overcome such delusionary tendencies). Suggesting that the reasoning of primitive goat herders was sound because millennia later a civilization beyond their ability to comprehend realized similar results is an affront to logic itself.

I question the utility of separate terms such as “soft rationality”. What, exactly, is your definition of this? I suspect it’s something akin to rationality minus the tendency to treat established paradigms as incontrovertible truth. However, rationality, properly understood, already takes this into account. It is not rational to declare certain pieces of knowledge as 100% absolutely known, forever and always, and the scientific method does not operate like this. Sure, certain notions, such as the laws of thermodynamics have much higher (but not absolute) barriers protecting them from dissolution, but the weight of accumulated evidence justifies this.

@Peter re “the current paradigm I want to see damned is the second law of thermodynamics.Does anyone else share this “irrational” (but actually perfectly rational) aspiration?”

I certainly do, but I am afraid it is not that easy. Maxwell proposed a workaround, but others found that his demon would be quickly incapacitated by thermodynamics.

We use to consider thermodynamics as derived by fundamental laws, but sometimes I think that Prigogine was right and the 2nd Law should be considered as fundamental.

However, what is important is what we can do. The 2nd Law allows to reduce entropy locally, provided it can be exported somewhere else. This is how coolers work, and much of our technology is based on local reduction of entropy.

If the MWI is right, information is conserved in the multiverse. Perhaps we will be able to export our entropy to dedicated “sink” universes.

@SHaGGGz re “I question the utility of separate terms such as “soft rationality”. What, exactly, is your definition of this? I suspect it’s something akin to rationality minus the tendency to treat established paradigms as incontrovertible truth.”

Subtract also the self-righteous bigotry of ultra-rationalists, and add the appreciation that rationality is but one of many cognitive tools, and other approaches can have their own validity.

Re “Yes, if you squint, both look pretty similar…”

Right. If it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then I call it a duck. Mystics said that we will be able to communicate mind-to-mind, and engineers will make us communicate mind-to-mind. So it was really a duck, and I call it a duck.

Again, your vagueness prohibits productive conversation. Is your definition inherently subjective, calling on one to “know it when they see it” when one is being a “self-righteous bigot”? What is a cognitive tool that is proven to be effective that is explicitly eschewed by rationality?

Okay, here you are completely missing the point I was making, by shifting the goal posts and now defining mystics as those who said that we “will be” able to communicate mind-to-mind, not those that have stated that those abilities already exist. Clearly I was denigrating the latter, and the reality-challenged means of reasoning used to reach such a conclusion. Perhaps reading some Gettier would be useful: knowledge is justified true belief, brought about through a reliable mechanism. A broken clock that just so happens to be right twice a day is not functional during those brief moments.

@Giulio Indeed, I agree that there is plenty we can do within the constraints of the 2nd law, with or without parallel “sink” universes. Yet I also believe that there are more serious and plausible objections than Maxwell’s demon to the 2nd law as a fundamental/incontrovertible principle. One is the general argument you made in your article about the need to question limiting paradigms, another is the fundamentally subjective nature of entropy. Entropy is subjective because ultimately it depends on a choice about how to categories microstates into macrostates.

On a more flippant note, it is ironic for a founder/adherent of something the Turing Church to argue that rationality has its limitations, since surely there is nothing more rational than a Turing machine. But I agree with you: as Shania Twain might have said, rationality doesn’t keep us warm at night. Perhaps this is the point that SHaGGGz is missing. Whether your goal is seduction, or inspiration towards noble ends, rationality on its own won’t get you far.

@Peter: I reject the notion that just because I advocate sound reasoning and eschewing unsound reasoning that I must be some emotionless robot. I’m well aware that without emotion to drive us we can succumb to indecisive deadlock or other unproductive dead ends. And I, too, find it funny that a self-proclaimed Turing deifier is also extolling the virtues of mysticism, the antithesis of the sort of logical rationality that Turing and His work epitomized.

@Peter and SHaGGGz Re Alan Turing:

He mastered the art of rationality much better than most of us, and his countless contributions to science prove it.

He committed suicide at the age of 42, and a bigot society pushed him to take his own life. As Peter says, rationality did not keep him warm at night. He wanted other persons to keep him warm at night, and he preferred persons of the “wrong” gender.

If he had been _just_ rational, surely he would have given up his “irrational” emotional needs, which caused practical problems. But he didn’t. He was not only a genius, but first and foremost a person. And he was twice a great person: one, because he was a great rational thinker; two, because he knew that rationality is not all. He wanted to be warm at night with those he loved.

@Peter re ” the need to question limiting paradigms”

We need to question limiting paradigm, but we have not yet found a viable alternative to this specific paradigm, at least not that I know of.

Re “the fundamentally subjective nature of entropy. Entropy is subjective because ultimately it depends on a choice about how to categories microstates into macrostates.”

Now, this sounds interesting. Please say more.

@Giulio re “Please say more”

I wrote a couple of posts on the subject on my Wordpress blog last year. In a nutshell, my argument is that entropy only increases over time because the Big Bang corresponds to a low-entropy state, and that this is only the case because we have found a more precise way to describe “Big Bang” conditions than present-day conditions. Essentially what we,ve done is to extrapolate backwards, using a combination of the standard model and cosmological evidenceto build a picture of Big Bang conditions where, in (roughly) the words of Roger Penrose, all variables are randomised EXCEPT gravitational ones, and it is this lack pf random gravitational clumping that (in contrast to black holes) makes the Big Bang much more precisely defined - and thus low entropy.

Basically, as long as we are defining entropy in accordance with (currently) standard physical parameters, and assuming we have no particular wish to go back to closer-to-Big-Bang conditions (though Intomorrow will doubtless remind us that many do!) there is no reason to think that entropy, as so defined, will decrease (except locally). But the more we define entropy in terms of parameters that are closely linked with human intention the more it seems plausible that the apparently fundamental nature of the 2nd law will prove illusory.

At least that’s the theory, and it’s scarcely better developed (in my head, that is - perhaps others have made more progress) now than it was when I wrote the posts last year, but I still think it has potential.

Re Turing: indeed, this is a shameful chapter in the history of my country, not least given what he did for us during the second world war. And it’s one of the factors that makes me enthusiastic about the Swedish initiative re gender-neutral pronouns. I think Peg is basically right when she says that the systematic identification of a person’s gender, even in situations where it is (or should be) irrelevant, creates a superhighway towards discrimination, including against homosexuals.

@SHaGGGz Just to be clear, I wasn’t suggesting that you were an emotionless robot, only that you might be underestimating the important of non-rational sources of comfort, inspiration, and so on. I stand corrected on that score…but in practice, doesn’t the recognition that rationality isn’t everything imply a certain tolerance for the “unsound reasoning” that tends to accompany such “non-rational sources”. One does not expect those in love to be particularly “sound” in their reasoning with regard to the objects of their love, nor would one necessarily wish them to be. By contrast there are circumstances where it makes sense to be as rational as possible, and we therefore need to be able to distinguish when this is happening from when it is not.

Here is the problem you face. The Sun photosphere is a convection surface. Forced up by convection are granules. Within 3 minutes; per K O Kiepenheuer, The Sun, G P Kuiper, Editor, the granules convert into human form. That process is shown fully in a video I prepared and posted on Youtube more than a year ago. Http:// It shows how the celestial humans move into the Corona and the two ways they may leave the corona. Photographs are the only way to study the Sun. These photographs came directly from The Sun, Editor, G P Kuiper astrophysics journal 1 of 4. From the corona they leave by their own flight capabilities into outer space or by CME, corona mass ejection. The process is found in written form at the bottom of my web site; Atheist physicists wish to promote the idea that the human entity is not created and thus it is not supernatural. But, not mentioned is the fact that the celestial human can fly, too. Physics cannot formulate how the flight is done. Therefore, it is supernatural. And, because the creation of the human celestial cannot be written to formula either, it is deemed, supernatural. You may go to my website to educate yourself in this process and find out how celestial horses are created and the specifics about that. The research is written in natural human language and is as easy to read as this post. I will answer this post if you have any questions about it. By the way, I am a christian and have nothing against those who may be agnostic. I have read that Atheists are a minority population in America when compared to christians. Any data on that is welcome to correct that if necessary.

Very nice piece Giulio, thanks. We all need, I think, this kind of tolerant, opened mentality. As Feyerabend have shown, even the most bizarre, irrational beliefs led to important scientific discoveries. And, this is what matters in end - how life, how our biological, human dimension can be concretely expanded in terms of duration and quality. Of course, without forcing improvements on nobody. But that is my usual caveat.

@Giulio, Peter: It seems you are conflating the capability for a fully robustly emotional human experience with the embracing of fallacious belief and reasoning systems. One can be fully engulfed in passions such as love while at the same time rejecting fallacious reasoning. In other words, one can be aware of what love is (roughly), how it affects oneself, why this is so, etc. while rejecting supernaturalism/mysticism/etc.

@SHaGGGz re “rejecting supernaturalism/mysticism/etc.”

In he text above: “I am a believer (I say this very clearly at the end of my recent talk at the MTA 2012 Conference) without believing in the supernatural, which I consider as a contradiction in terms: if we define nature as all that exists, then the supernatural cannot exist by definition. I believe in Shakespeare’s “ more things in heaven and earth” though.”

I am confident that _science and technology_ will permit achieving Shakespeare’s “more things in heaven and earth.” Sir Arthur C. Clarke said that very advanced technologies would seem indistinguishable from magic to us (Clarke’s 3rd Law). I think science and technologies will permit achieving dreams even beyond Shakespeare’s and Clarke’s imagination, and this can re-conciliate science with religious aeathetics.

@Giulio: Yes, I realize this, and that’s all well and good but I still take issue with your equating modern naturalist science having achieved capabilities supernaturalists have long said already existed, with the vindication of the supernaturalists’ clear wrongheadedness.

@SHaGGGz - What are the cell phones in our pockets, but the vindication of the age-old shamanic dream of being able to see and talk to people far away? What is technology, but the vindication of our dreams of transcendence?

Of course the shamans didn’t know how to actually do it, but they got the “possible” part right. In our universe, it _is_ possible to see and talk to people far away. Our technology is part of the universe and evolved within the universe, and I don’t see a clear-cut distinction between natural and artificial. What is artificial is natural because it has emerged through the evolution of a natural specie, ours.

@Peter re “But the more we define entropy in terms of parameters that are closely linked with human intention the more it seems plausible that the apparently fundamental nature of the 2nd law will prove illusory.”

Well, if I re-define entropy as the debt that I intend to have, it will decrease with time wink wink

Having made this rather weak joke, I must confess that I don’t understand what you mean.

Then it’s up to me to refine my thinking on this issue and/or find more understandable ways to communicate it. I freely admit that it might be complete BS, but I’m unwilling to give up on it just yet. smile

I don’t think it’s that we are conflating emotional experience with willingness to embrace fallacious belief. In fact I don’t think either of us are suggesting that anyone should actively and deliberately embrace fallacious belief. Rather that a degree of fallacious reasoning tends to come along with “fully robust emotional experience”, and that this isn’t always such a terrible thing. And it’s an important point: I don’t believe we should be shooting at irrationality wherever it raises its head. Sometimes it can be charmingly comical.

Giulio, My remarks do not agree with many that are posted here. It was my disclosure that started the many discourses. Should you wish to censor my post, I harbor no ill will, but just let me know. I may be complaining too early. After all I submitted my registration and post on a Sunday evening when you may not have been moderating.
Dave Stacey, retired aka doowop62
Glen Allen, VA



I realize you do not agree with me regarding the term supernatural. Thought you might enjoy a different view. It is not unusual for physicist to change term of discription for their use, however, my term supernatural is not for physics, it is a Mystic term used by Christians such as me.  For us when a solution to physical nature is not available or forthcoming, it is easy for us to term it supernatural. Physicist are welcome to use any term they wish to describe the events taking place in the photosphere. Note, I indicated that the Celestial humans have flight capabilities. Are you under the impression that physical action will be resolved, too?  They use that ability to move out of the Corona.

To All,

This may blow you away. I am not a physicist as you may tell from my writing. In fact, I am far from highly educated. In April of 2007, God began putting knowledge into my mind not only about the Sun Physics but many other things that are true about space. My capabilities include a keen mind for research and analyzation. God informed me to buy the old book, The Sun, editor, G P Kuiper. I had no idea why. Then one day I picked it up and started reading, then saw the photographs within it. The rest is history. I did graduate high school and went to an Army Intelligence communications school. Before April of 2007, I had no interest in Physics or anything that was going on in space. God change that in my mind.

Allow me to tell you a story from when I was 4 years old. My family was poor but at 5 years old my mother sent me to Sunday School. Back to the 4 yearl. I slept on an old trundle bed, it was small and some folks called it an Army Bunk. One night I thought I woke up, but I was outside of my body. I floated for a while then all of a sudden I ‘fell’ back into my body. For a while I lay there and could not breathe or speak. After what seem an eternity a gush of air filled my lungs and called out for my mother. She was angry and told me to go to sleep. I did, but I never brought that event back to the table. I did not see a blinding light but it did prove to me that there is an afterlife. This far in life at the age of 67 I have never had an event happen that was as peaceful as that one. But I believe one day I will. I have had six near death experiences. With all of that happening in my liftetime, I grew up a content Christian. We all have free will to do or believe what we may. I choose to be Christian. That make some people mad. Why, I don’t have a clue. I don’t hate anyone, but will readily admit we have some misguided politicians in DC.
Dave Stacey, Retired, aka doowop62
Glen Allen, VA


Are you saying that my that religion is a fallacious belief. Sorry, I haven’t had time to read your other post as a late comer to the group. I hold no malice toward those who are agnostic. We all have free will. Are you a religious hater? I’m curious to know what is charmingly comical about irrationality. Are you a physicist? I believe it is irrational to lean mild disparagement to aid your discourse.

Dave Stacey, retired aka doowop62
Glen Allen, VA

@doowop62 / Dave Stacey

It was I who described irrationality as (sometimes) “charmingly comical”, not SHaGGGz. Neither of us have commented directly on your posts, have we? They seem a bit off the wall to me, but to be honest I haven’t studied them in great detail. I certainly wouldn’t want to disparage them with mild irony.

Regarding your choice to be Christian, and why that makes some people mad, I think there are 1000 reasons for this. Personally I value rationality very highly, but I agree with Giulio in saying that we can overdo this. The kind of Christians that make me mad are the bigoted, self-righteously pious ones, and there are plenty of non-Christians that also display these vices. Anyway I’ve no particular reason to believe you are one of them.

By the by:
A shorthand for Soft Rationality and Rational Spirituality is
‘High Tech, High Touch’

Doowop62, I like you, you make me seem almost normal by comparison- no matter how odious comparisons may be.


@Peter Wicks
Be happy, I just lost a long message because I forgot to log in. If I were Peter I wouldn’t have wanted to read that long diatribe anyway. He he. Thanks for the note about the correct address. My stupidity did it. But, I am a southerner I have a built in right to a little stupidity. Thanks again,

David Stacey, retired 67 aka doowop62
Glen Allen, VA


Thanks, by the time you reach my age, you will be more laid back too! I spent 24 years as a District Manager for Western Union Tel Co. I was the Contact management for the UTW. It didn’t take long to learn not to get upset by the messages I would receive. Once I moved a form holder to another desk at an agency office. I ended up having to pay a Union employee an additional hour for wages because he claimed that was a Union job. He he he. Cursing upset me, though if I get really mad I will blurt out a tone or two. But, I always ask for forgiveness by prayer.

David Stacey, retired 67 aka doowop62
Glen Allen, VA

PS: Dear diary, made a new friend on a blog today. He he he.

To: ALL (if inclined to read it, is the silver bullet that God influenced).

This is my simple research that started a lot of discourse about religion, philosophy, physics, and physics protocols.

Sun Activity Research
David D. Stacey, Private Researcher, Glen Allen, VA.

On July 5, 1885, a spectroheliographic image was taken of the photosphere that demonstrated the best image taken as of that early date. That image was published in ‘The Sun,’ Kuiper editor, 1953. The image is clear enough where one may easily see the photospheric convection granulation transformation into adult extraterrestrial human entities on the photosphere at a temperature near 6,000K. The estimated time of transformation into human entity was submitted by K O Kiepenheuer, ‘The Sun,’ Kuiper editor, 1953; at 3 minutes for granule transformation. The human entities were identified as faculae until K O Kiepenheuer, published in his lecture and included the 1923 Greenwich Observers conclusions identifying photospheric faculae as ‘entities’ and book published photographs. ‘The Sun,’ G P Kuiper, editor, 1953, and written by the Greenwich Observers.

Identified faculae human entities are always present surrounding spot formations. The spot human entities are in place to effect removal of horses from the spot. The Spot process is akin to the supernatural granulation transformation of faculae humans, but comes from the darker sun spot pool with an average temperatures near 4,000K, assisted for removal by the human entities surrounding the Spot there. As horses, ‘The Sun,’ Kuiper, editor, 1953, called ‘leaders or spectra’ are retrieved from the spot pool with the assistance of the faculae human entities, they are quickly matched with an entity rider. In some cases when human entity is matched by horse, a surge prominence or self ability to fly moves them into the lower Corona. Both faculae human entities and horses move into the lower Corona by self flight capability, observance in lower & upper corona and around Planet atmospheres, or by surge prominences; magnetic waves to which they may connect and ride into the Corona. Loop flares single flares are generated from the area of the spots. General prominence waves are generated from the area where human entities reside. The creation processes are supernatural and have not been written to equation.

From the Corona, the human entities with or without horse accompaniment move through the Galaxy and Solar System. The human entities are provided, internally, with magnetic electrical resonance abilities that probably produce high or low temperatures (observed photosphere photographic evidence).

Theory indicates the excessive heat found in the Corona may be partially generated by the numerous human entities found there, having arrived by riding a magnetic wave prominence or self flight into the lower Corona. The human entities and horses demonstrate supernatural abilities (cannot be written to equation).

Theory: The human entities have shown an ability to provide a self induced internal light that will project a beam. Then, too, they have shown an ability with groups to form a biological craft for flight. Each individual human entity exerts the ability of flight without craft of any type. In groups the human entities join arms or hands after which they probably exert a magnetic electrical resonance which joins the entities into a biological craft for flight, a supernatural ability demonstrated. (D Stacey, observed in available photographs.)

Found within the atmosphere of Earth, the entity’s survive well and may not have a need for solid food sources. (Natural food stuffs unknown in outer space.) The human entities and horses can and have traveled to the Earth’s surface and returned to their atmosphere home around Earth, demonstrating a power over Earth’s gravity.

Theory: Showing signs of biological internal magnetic/electric resonance allows them to defy Earth’s gravitational pull. The propagation/creation of Celestial horses and Celestial Human Entities creation is a clue from where some of the Corona heat is generated. The Human entities show a control of the heat factor on the photosphere. (D Stacey private collection photographs observance).

The sun, 1953, G P Kuiper, editor Photographs
1923 Greenwich observers Publication, E W Maunder, Photosphere Activity
NASA and JPL images published in on-line journals
L H Strous, et all, Phenomena in an emerging active region, para 2,2,4, 28 Feb., 1995
R Muller (Springer 1985) High Resolution in Solar Physics
K O Kiepenheuer, Sun Activity, Published, 1953, within The Sun, editor, G P Kuiper
Published photographs, Image 1898, photosphere, Annie Maunder published.
Sun spot image, JPL/NASA images

@Giulio: I agree with the essence of what you’re saying.

@Peter: Okay, if you say you’re not conflating the two then fair enough. that’s just the impression I got when you suggested I had trouble “keeping warm at night” based on my advocacy.
Yes, irrationality can be compatible with a fully robust emotional experience. For example, venture capitalist can go against what his statistical risk model or whatever tells him to invest in based on a hunch or “good feeling” he has about a particular investment. This is not the same as breaking out the rosary beads.

@doowop: Yes, I’m saying that, which your testimony of believing that God is speaking directly to you reinforced substantially. I would only say my antipathy towards religion reaches “hate” levels when it leads people to do morally repugnant things and/or gets tied up in politics, spreading the joy around to the rest of us.

“PS: Dear diary, made a new friend on a blog today. He he he.”

God must have set you to IEET, doowop62; but did you ever consider for a moment how God might be bipolar? now that would explain a great deal, wouldn’t it? smile


Yeah bipolar would explain it. “No Lord that is not blasphemy I think. But, if you do please forgive me for agreeing. After all I’m only human.”  No reason to not play it safe.

When I started knowing things I should not know, it scared the heck out of me. In my mind, I attributed it to mind control waves by the dark side of government.  But, that would not make sense. They wish anything close to being extraterrestrial life to be sensored, because we can’t hand that kind of information. And we might panic like the 1930’s radio program, “War of the Worlds.”

The only reaction disclosure got was from the agnostics who wrote long diatribes exposing the ruin of Physics as they knew it. The also used some of the most weird titles for their writings. I’ll bet 100 or more books have been written but no one has written their books by the process I discribe in my dissertation, I call research. Reason is, youtube was protocol set to copyright my post. And many feared I would sue them if they copied my simple research. The research into the faculae humans and spot horses was easier to ignore than to disclose or try to solve.

Just as information there are other anomalies in physics that have not been resolved properly by formula. I want get into that because it’s a slant against Einstein.

@Giulio Note: In tribute to you blog, this is the most rational and courteous one I have encountered. You might guess right that I am a prolific poster. I’ve spread the word and photos to Physics clubs and institutions all over the U. S. and have sent letters with photograph to my Senators, Congressman, President and Supreme Court, Justic Scalia.  No reaction from any of them when I send by email, a post to the president, he alway send me a reply back about some different event. It would be a big Constitutional blow up if the U. S. Government tried to announce the discover of the religious date I have released under FOIA. It would violate the first amendment of the Constituion because they cannot be show to favor any form of religion under the current interpretation of the amendments.

There I go again, typing more than I needed to type. Just call me big mouth.
David Stacey, retired 67, aka doowop62
Glen Allen, VA

PS: I have posted 94 or more videos on youtube about extraterrestrials. One or two of them is difficult to see. But most are viewable. Everyone here probably know that all space images are edited out for extraerrestrial existence before release to the public.

Thanks doowop62!

Re “I have posted 94 or more videos on youtube about extraterrestrials. One or two of them is difficult to see. But most are viewable. Everyone here probably know that all space images are edited out for extraterrestrial existence before release to the public.”

I don’t think space images are edited out for extraterrestrial existence before release to the public, because such a conspiracy would be impossible to maintain for long in practice. Somebody talks in a pub after drinking too much, and somebody overhears and tweets. Not to mention those involved in the conspiracy who try to make some fast bash by leaking to the press (there are always some).

@doowop62 Of course I’m dying to read the diatribe. What was the jist?

@SHaGGGz I didn’t say you can’t keep warm at night, I suggested (probably incorrectly) that you were missing the point that it’s not rationality that does keep you warm. I don’t think we substantially disagree about anything, do we?

@Peter: Nope, we’re good.


It’s okay to be a skeptic. But I can prove that all space images are edited with paste over characters and colors. Just watch any of my posted videos. There’s even one that show clearly the overlay on the image. you can barely see the real image behind the overlay. The images are at . I have to scale and shrink the images to show the extraterrestrials. I use two different software program to accomplish that; Gimp 26 and Irfanview scaling options.  If you have the knowledge to use these two program you can partialy scale and shrink any of the space images to reveal the truth.

Dave Stacey, retired 67, aka doowop62
Glen Allen, VA

@Giulio, knowing you are a physicis, it is evident you hold the knowledge to learn those two software protocols. They are free, so, take the challenge. All space images are edite with paste overs and color layers.

@Peter Wicks,

The jist is there exist some physicis who would deny the Sun Activity truth regardless of the photographs, and regardless of the physics protol I have outlined in text for Faculae Humans and spot horses and special faculae that encircle all spots. All of that has been edited out of Sun images to deny the existence of Extraterrestrials. By the by, I claim to have made the discoveries, but that is not true. I was led to them by my Lord in strange ways. Those who would deny the process effect my dimeanor in a rejective way that reflects in my post. It’s brain generated. I haven’t learned to control it, so, it reflects in my post. After all, I am only human. As such, I am far from perfect. Unlike some, I recognize my short comings. I wish knew everything, but that’s a pipe dream. However, should Physicst learn to general faculae human and spot horses, my views would change in a very thought changing method.

Dave Stacey, retired 67, aka doowop62
Glen Allen, VA

PS: Many of my brothers and sister, siblings, look upon me as a joking, funny man untruthful person because I remember events back to when I was 2 years old. That’s a feat that men cannot accomplish. I can’t explain why.

Another rambler:
I want a ‘bot to keep warm at night- or a pet (animal); it does not at all seem people will be trustable in the future (shall return ontopic shortly, it is related), not necessarily due to malice but because their minds are being pulled in different directions.. the overwhelming majority of youth today have minds going in several directions at once and part of it is being exposed (manipulated) via religion/spirituality and of course politics, etc (no wonder OWS came about and it demonstrates a patience that they waited so long before rebelling).
Problem with spirituality by its own lights is there are good (positive) and bad (negative) “spirits”.  ‘Problem’ with tech is it will probably end up aiding the ‘bad’ guys more than the ‘good’. I tolerate/accept the prospect of v. mixed outcome yet do not relish it—the outcome IMO is not an outcome of virtue, piety. There is no rhyme or reason to it, we make it up as we go along.


Theres something I do every day of the week. I feed up to 5 cats during the day. But, by night fall I feed at least 5 to 8 racoons and a couple of possums. The cats and racoons know me and allow petting, the possums are very shy but they are getting to know me, especially one small grey one that I brought back to life after it had been in a very mangling accident. It was probably a car strike. It recovered but I have not seen it in a few days. I cannot stay up all night. But, the point I am trying to make is caring for those animals relieves me from stress. The wild animals have 4 emotions. 1. They know when to run. 2. They know when its safe. 3. They know when they may be petted. 4. They know kindness for the one who feeds them every night. Racoons have a cold nose. Cats get wam when they purr. Possums run faster than it appears they are running. Stress relief extra ordinary

Dave Stacey, retired 67 aka doowop62
Glen Allen, VA

Thanks, Dave, your comment is heartwarming- and heart-purring as well smile
Want to discuss conventional religion rather than the ‘High Tech High Touch’ spirituality Giulio’s piece is on; after all, we don’t really need much advice on spirituality if we have ‘hearts’—spirituality isn’t primarily concerned with intellectuality, philosophy, it is, again, from the ‘heart’.
But religious authoritarianism is an ongoing ‘concern’. I tell Christians (they matter greatly because of their numbers and intense motivation) the sermons of Jesus are quite acceptable… however the fairy tales such as the breaking up of the loaves and fishes for the multitudes and, for an example in the Old Testament, Jonah being swallowed by the whale/big fish or whatever the creature was, is not acceptable albeit such may work for some. If some want to be fundamentalists it may be of value to them in subjective ways and also more discernable, ‘practical’, ways. For those who want conventional familial relations, fundamentalism can and does offer simplification to provide a given family shall we say a constant common denominator.
Funny that the surviving intentional communities started 4-5 decades ago are in the majority religious—conventional religious—and not the counterculture communities one thinks of when recollecting them (at least I do).
If you are 67, then you might remember them, too, Dave.

“however the fairy tales such as the breaking up of the loaves and fishes for the multitudes and, for an example in the Old Testament, Jonah being swallowed by the whale/big fish or whatever the creature was, is not acceptable albeit such may work…”

are not acceptable. We always do proper grammar at IEET.

@Intomorrow One of the things for one to remember when perusing the bible is it has parables within its pages. But, the holy scripture does not label which verses contain parables and which ones do not. It is up to the reader to identify them.  There are no fairy tales within the text of the Bible. However, I am curious to know how much of the scripture you have read or is what you are quoting hearsay.

Believe me when I say, one listens closely when someone is quoting partial scripture but I would venture a guess that a majority of people in the U. S. have heard the story of the Sermon on the Mount and the story of Jonah.

It does my heart good when I hear an agnostic quote bible verse, even when it is used as part of the denial process. it just goes to show whether admitted or not you have a little religion in your thoughts.

For the sake of writing, I cannot say my text are always without error. There was a time when I would type 100 WPM without error, but I was much younger then than now. Ha ha ha.

At 67, I grew up in the south with big band music, Guy Lombardo and others on the radio. I loved to listen to Johnny Ray, Patti Page and the like. Then doowop music became lively in the early 50’s and that turned into Rock and Roll and in 1964 before pop music really wound up I was registered in the Army Security Agency for 4 years.

My family grew up in the Bible Belt. I lived in the Piedmont area of North Carolina then. Now I still live in the Bible Belt but I live in the Piedmont area of Virginia, near Richmond.

When I told the woman next door about the Sun created human celestials and horses, she threw her hands in the air and shouted hallaluah. The community in which I live is multiracial; Asians, Spanish, Blacks and White folks. We have lived here for about 33 years and the neighborhood is pretty quiet except during the summer when children are out of school.

When I was a school age child, it was not uncommon to form groups at Christmas and go out carolling.  Those were the days. Wish I still had that voice, but alas, much is lost at the age of 67.

Did you know that the Heavenly Hosts were written about by Paul in Corinthians. If you have access to a Bible, and you’re not to busy, look up Corinthians I, Chapter 15, and begin reading at verse 40 and you will come to a part that describes the heavenly force very well. Corinthians I and II are located in the New Testament. You know the one that is about Jesus.

Dave Dennis Stacey, 67 retired
Glen Allen, VA

YOUR COMMENT Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Ode to the Brain!

Previous entry: Surveillance parenting