[Turtle]

Turtle said:

...
they do specify 1 brain, 2 brain, and 3 brain species, so that is something to keep a look-out for in the early science fiction as we pursue our comparisons.

my bad. i overlooked early psychology as a contributor to this multi-brain theme. fortunately i saw a reference today by sman in another thread* that used the term "triune brain" so i followed that lead and found that the creator of the term does overlap, i.e. predates, the book's publishing date of 1955.

Triune brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote

The triune brain is a model proposed by Paul D. MacLean to explain the function of traces of evolution existing in the structure of the human brain. In this model, the brain is broken down into three separate brains that have their own special intelligence, subjectivity, sense of time and space, and memory[1]. The triune brain consists of the R-complex, the limbic system, and the neocortex. Though still popular among some psychiatrists, the triune brain model is not accepted by researchers in comparative, evolutionary neuroanatomy[2] ...

Paul D. MacLean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*

sman said:

...The behaviorism of B.F. Skinner et al has gone the way of Freud's Id/Ego/Superego and MacLean's Triune Brain.

[Majeston]

Gobekli_Tepe

I wonder how they hoaxed this--

In 1994, almost forty years after The Urantia Book’s 1955 publication, excavations began at the Gobekli Tepe archaeological site in Turkey. This site has produced over 50 Stonehenge-type rock carvings and other artifacts, some of which date back to at least 12,000 years ago. A full excavation to the bottom of the site has not yet occurred. The artifacts are especially inconsistent with prevailing theories about the development of civilization. ------------

What makes this report especially intriguing is that The Urantia Book, published in 1955, explains Gobekli Tepe decades before we even discovered that this mysterious site existed.

[REASON]

Majeston said:

Gobekli_Tepe

...What makes this report especially intriguing is that The Urantia Book, published in 1955, explains Gobekli Tepe decades before we even discovered that this mysterious site existed.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? From the link you posted, the UB doesn't specifically mention the site now known as Gobekli Tepe. It does describe early tribes and peoples such as the Andites that occupied the Mesopotamian region thousands of years prior to the earliest known civilizations. To have uncovered ancient artifacts and evidence of a civilization that predates what has been discovered to date is definitely an extraordinary find, and it is intriguing to consider that the UB refers to civilizations older than what was previously known. But even with this discovery, it is not known that the inhabitants of Gobekli Tepe were Andites or any of the other tribes of people mentioned in the UB, and it is not a stretch for the authors of the UB to profer that in what is known as the "cradle of civilization" there were humans that existed much earlier than what has been revealed through archeology to date.

Once again, too much generalized conjecture and not enough detail with supporting evidence. Had the UB described the use of "T" shaped pillars, for instance, I might find it more compelling.

[Moontanman]

Majeston said:

Gobekli_Tepe

I wonder how they hoaxed this--

In 1994, almost forty years after The Urantia Book’s 1955 publication, excavations began at the Gobekli Tepe archaeological site in Turkey. This site has produced over 50 Stonehenge-type rock carvings and other artifacts, some of which date back to at least 12,000 years ago. A full excavation to the bottom of the site has not yet occurred. The artifacts are especially inconsistent with prevailing theories about the development of civilization. ------------

What makes this report especially intriguing is that The Urantia Book, published in 1955, explains Gobekli Tepe decades before we even discovered that this mysterious site existed.

Majeston! long time no see buddy, how ya doin'? I read your link, rather cool, but i think i have said this before but I will say it again. "Even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn" The Book of Urantia makes so many wild predictions I am genuinely surprised it hasn't got more of them right. If i were to make 100 random predictions i am sure one of them might come true in 20 years or so, it wouldn't make me special it would just be the laws of chance playing out.

But again as Reason pointed out this new link doesn't pan out any better than any of the others you have come up with. Good to see ya again dude, I've always been intrigued by the idea of a civilization that predates what we think of as current knowledge so I'll keep following your stuff, you just might get one right eventually.

[modest]

Majeston said:

What makes this report especially intriguing is that The Urantia Book, published in 1955, explains Gobekli Tepe decades before we even discovered that this mysterious site existed.

So does Plato's story of Atlantis... and it was published before 1955

~modest

[Majeston]

I wonder how they hoaxed this also........ nahhhhh just more co-incidence


Theory Points to Civilization Under Persian Gulf
http://www.aolnews.c....-east/19756748

Dec. 11) -- The waters of the Persian Gulf may be hiding a lost civilization that could change our understanding of human history, according to new research.

This huge fertile stretch of land may have been home to humans from about 74,000 years ago until about 8,000 years ago, according to Discovery News.

When the waters around them began to rise, these early humans may have migrated to what is now the gulf shoreline, founding new settlements there, according to a paper published in the December issue of Current Anthropology.


New research suggests the waters of the Persian Gulf, depicted here in an historical map of the region, may be hiding a lost civilization that could change our understanding of human history.
Over the past several years, archaeologists have uncovered new evidence of those shoreline settlements......link to cont>

*******************
********************

Urantia book....


78:7.7 The remnants of this, one of the oldest civilizations, are to be found in these regions of Mesopotamia and to the northeast and northwest. But still older vestiges of the days of Dalamatia exist under the waters of the Persian Gulf, and the first Eden lies submerged under the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea.

>>>>>>>

77:4.6 3. The central or pre-Sumerian Nodites. A small group at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers maintained more of their racial integrity. They persisted for thousands of years and eventually furnished the Nodite ancestry which blended with the Adamites to found the Sumerian peoples of historic times.

77:4.7 And all this explains how the Sumerians appeared so suddenly and mysteriously on the stage of action in Mesopotamia. Investigators will never be able to trace out and follow these tribes back to the beginning of the Sumerians, who had their origin two hundred thousand years ago after the submergence of Dalamatia. Without a trace of origin elsewhere in the world, these ancient tribes suddenly loom upon the horizon of civilization with a full-grown and superior culture, embracing temples, metalwork, agriculture, animals, pottery, weaving, commercial law, civil codes, religious ceremonial, and an old system of writing. At the beginning of the historical era they had long since lost the alphabet of Dalamatia, having adopted the peculiar writing system originating in Dilmun. The Sumerian language, though virtually lost to the world, was not Semitic; it had much in common with the so-called Aryan tongues.

77:4.8 The elaborate records left by the Sumerians describe the site of a remarkable settlement which was located on the Persian Gulf near the earlier city of Dilmun. The Egyptians called this city of ancient glory Dilmat, while the later Adamized Sumerians confused both the first and second Nodite cities with Dalamatia and called all three Dilmun. And already have archaeologists found these ancient Sumerian clay tablets which tell of this earthly paradise "where the Gods first blessed mankind with the example of civilized and cultured life." And these tablets, descriptive of Dilmun, the paradise of men and God, are now silently resting on the dusty shelves of many museums.

>>>>>>>>>snip...

[Turtle]

Majeston, on 13 December 2010 - 08:17 PM, said:

I wonder how they hoaxed this also........ nahhhhh just more co-incidence
...

Urantia Bokk [boldenation by turtle] said:

...The Sumerian language, though virtually lost to the world, was not Semitic; it had much in common with the so-called Aryan tongues. ...

77:4.8 The elaborate records ...

i thought we covered the nazi racial supremecy connection to the book's author. nahhhhh; i'm sure of it.

[Qfwfq]

Turtle, on 13 December 2010 - 09:25 PM, said:

...the nazi racial supremecy connection...

Sure enough, ایران was invaded for having kept more ties with Germany than with UK and USSR... But oddly enough the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was also one of the allies of the Nazi-Fascists, I guess folks always forget that Arabs are Semitic too.

[modest]

Majeston, on 13 December 2010 - 08:17 PM, said:

77:4.6 3. The central or pre-Sumerian Nodites. A small group at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers maintained more of their racial integrity. They persisted for thousands of years and eventually furnished the Nodite ancestry which blended with the Adamites to found the Sumerian peoples of historic times.

77:4.7 And all this explains how the Sumerians appeared so suddenly and mysteriously on the stage of action in Mesopotamia. Investigators will never be able to trace out and follow these tribes back to the beginning of the Sumerians, who had their origin two hundred thousand years ago after the submergence of Dalamatia. Without a trace of origin elsewhere in the world, these ancient tribes suddenly loom upon the horizon of civilization with a full-grown and superior culture, embracing temples, metalwork, agriculture, animals, pottery, weaving, commercial law, civil codes, religious ceremonial, and an old system of writing. At the beginning of the historical era they had long since lost the alphabet of Dalamatia, having adopted the peculiar writing system originating in Dilmun. The Sumerian language, though virtually lost to the world, was not Semitic; it had much in common with the so-called Aryan tongues.

[my bold]

Perhaps a clue. Whoever wrote the passage above may well have been familiar with the work of Benno Landsberger an Assyriologist and linguist,

Once again it was linguistic analysis that provided the proof. In a paper published in 1944 in a journal sponsored by the University of Ankara, Benno Landsberger, one of the keenest minds in cuneiform research, analyzed a number of culturally significant “Sumerian” words—that is, words known from Sumerian documents of the third millennium B.C. and therefore generally assumed to be Sumerian—and showed that there is good reason to believe that they are not Sumerian at all. All of these words consisted of two or more syllables—in Summerian, the majority of roots are monosyllabic—and in general showed the same pattern as the words for Tigris, Euphrates, and the non-Sumerian city names; Landsberger concluded that they must therefore belong to the language spoken by the same pre-Sumerian people that had named Sumer’s two rivers and most of its cities.

The Sumerians: their history, culture, and character

Turtle, guess which city Landsberger taught in from the mid '40's to mid '50's.

~modest

[Turtle]

modest, on 14 December 2010 - 03:36 AM, said:

Perhaps a clue. Whoever wrote the passage above may well have been familiar with the work of Benno Landsberger an Assyriologist and linguist,

...

Turtle, guess which city Landsberger taught in from the mid '40's to mid '50's.

~modest

erhm...Chicago? how conveeeenient.

let's shine a little more light on benno.

http://en.wikipedia....lfram_von_Soden

wikipedia said:

Wolfram Freiherr von Soden (19 June 1908, Berlin - 6 October 1996, Münster) was a leading German Assyriologist. Born in Berlin, he studied at Leipzig, was appointed a professor at Göttingen University, served the Nazi regime during the Third Reich, and later returned to the academy at Vienna and finally for many years at the University in Münster, where he died.

Von Soden studied under Benno Landsberger at Leipzig and received a doctorate in 1931, at age 23, with his thesis Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen (The Hymnic-Epic Dialect of Akkadian). In 1936, he was appointed a professor of Assyriology and Arabic studies in a newly created position at the University of Göttingen. While Landsberger was obliged to leave Germany due to National-Socialist racial policy, von Soden joined the Sturmabteilung (the SA, the so-called brownshirts) in 1934. Though he did not immediately join the Nazi party, in 1944 membership was automatically conferred upon him, along with all other members of the SA who had not affiliated with the party by then. He supported Nazi academic politics with such works as Der Aufstieg des Assyrerreichs als geschichtliches Problem (1937, The Rise of the Assyrian Empire as an Historical Problem) and Arabische wehrsprachliche Ausdrücke (1942, Arabic Military Terminology and Expressions). He did not shrink from making racial slurs against his thesis director at this time. From 1939 to 1945, he served in the military, primarily as a translator, and in 1940 this kept him from being able to accept the offer of a chair in Ancient Near Eastern studies at the Friedrich Wilhelm University in Berlin. ...

so it's not that the nazi's didn't like benno's academic work, they just didn't like it that he was a jew.

[dduckwessel]

Freethinker, on 13 July 2005 - 11:37 AM, said:

Don't worry. If god keeps at it, he will get a book right one of these times.

The Bible and some Aprocryphal books are a huge puzzle. You just have to know how to put it together and then it will all make sense.

Turtle, on 12 July 2005 - 10:12 AM, said:

___The Urantia Book, first published in the early 1950's, purports to contain discertations delivered by "angels" on God, creation, science, spirits, Jesus, etc.. At some 3,000 plus pages it's no easy read!
___So I want to know if you have heard of it? Read it? Have an opinion on it?
___I believe it is a hoax for the record so my question is "who could have hoaxed this?". Even though it was published in the 50's, it seems to have been written earlier; possibly in the 30's. By the writing style which is so cleverly convolute, & the broadness of the topics covered, I tend to think it is the work of an enclave rather than a single author.
___I do heartily recommend people read it in any case because it is if nothing else a very fine work of mystical science fiction.

Addendum: 30,000+ hits on Urantia

It seems to me be a mix of many religions. I don't think it's that unique. Much of it can be tied to Christian and Judaic mysticism, esoteric cults like Gnosticism, and a host of others.

[Turtle]

dduckwessel, on 14 February 2011 - 10:33 PM, said:

dduckwessel, on 14 February 2011 - 10:23 PM, said:

The Bible and some Aprocryphal books are a huge puzzle. You just have to know how to put it together and then it will all make sense.

...
It seems to me be a mix of many religions. I don't think it's that unique. Much of it can be tied to Christian and Judaic mysticism, esoteric cults like Gnosticism, and a host of others.

the question here is who wrote this urantia crap; we have other threads on who wrote other mystical crap.
Hermeneutics - Who [Re-]Wrote the Old Testament?
Who [Re-]Wrote the Bible?


you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear or sense out of nonsense. . . .

[CraigD]

dduckwessel, on 14 February 2011 - 10:23 PM, said:

It seems to me be a mix of many religions. I don't think it's that unique. Much of it can be tied to Christian and Judaic mysticism ...

What set’s the Urantia Book apart from other primary Judeo-Christian religious documents is its age (written 1925-1935 or later, published 1955), the certainty of its authorship (at least the humans – though some identities were kept secret, and the human “receiver” is claimed to have gotten most or all of it via telepathic communications with “celestial beings”), and, key IMHO for a science discussion forum, its inclusion of fairly modern scientific ideas, those familiar to a well-educated person in the 1920s.

It’s contemporary with, and IMHO vaguely similar, to L Ron Hubbard’s Scientology writings.

Quote

... esoteric cults like Gnosticism, and a host of others.

Though I’ve not read it all, from what of it and commentary on it I have, I see not a hint of Gnosticism in the UB. Ontologically, the UB is very straight-forward, without hint of the key Gnostic belief that ordinary reality is imperfect and false. There’s no demiurge in the UB!

For me, a key charms of the UB is that it makes scientifically testable claims, often in the style and tone of a clearly written introductory science text book. A key indictment of its accuracy is that some of these testable claims have been tested, and found unambiguously wrong. For example, the UB claims that Mercury’s rotation is tidally locked to the Sun – a reasonable assumption, commonly accepted by astronomers prior to about 1970, but now known to be incorrect. (see this post and this one for details)

I wonder how William Sadler, a major contributor to the UB and a reputable debunker, would have reacted had he lived long enough to see the UB’s Mercury’s rotation claim refuted? I’m inclined, perhaps over-charitably (as folk like my long-time hypography friend Turtle can attest, I’m prone to being over-charitable), to think that he and others of the UBs contributors, would no longer accept their own work, were they alive today. Those who today believe the UB to be without error, despite such clear examples as above, tend to be “true believers”.

[dduckwessel]

ab-de, on 03 August 2005 - 07:55 PM, said:

No one is questioning "scientific bias", but one should take into account the book recognizes its own inferiority by warning the reader against worshipping it - especially on scientific grounds. I'm less apt to denounce personalities who recognize and forewarn me of the imperfections of their enterprise. Science fiction? Maybe so, but we can still learn quite abit from such literary works.

I haven't come across where it states it's own inferiority. Unless of course you mean that the writer basically states that he cannot perfectly see into the divine mind but is only presenting what he himself has seen and witnessed!

The Bible does not claim to be a book written by men (penned by men but not authored by them) or angels, although angels/messengers apparently impart divine knowledge to human beings.

Nevertheless, I must do an abrupt about-face - the book (so far as I've read) is amazing. In most ways it does not challenge Biblical, or the Apocryphal writings of Adam and Eve, Enoch and Solomon.

However, I was surprised (and warning bells went off in my head) that it states that Michael is the creator of this universe/reality because the Bible clearly states that Satan is the 'god of this world' (2 Cor. 4:4). Although the Bible does state that Michael (Daniel 10:13 & 21) is prince protector of the true Israel and more (Dan. 12:1, Jude 1:9, Rev. 12:7).

The unique thing about Bible writings and some Apocrypha is that they confirm each other and I also see this pattern in the Urantia book. I need to study it more.

[Turtle]

dduckwessel, on 21 February 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

...
The unique thing about Bible writings and some Apocrypha is that they confirm each other and I also see this pattern in the Urantia book. I need to study it more.

enough of your proselytizing. stay on the topic of who wrote urantia as we have laid out.

CraigD, on 15 February 2011 - 04:23 PM, said:

What set’s the Urantia Book apart from other primary Judeo-Christian religious documents is its age (written 1925-1935 or later, published 1955), the certainty of its authorship (at least the humans – though some identities were kept secret, and the human “receiver” is claimed to have gotten most or all of it via telepathic communications with “celestial beings”), and, key IMHO for a science discussion forum, its inclusion of fairly modern scientific ideas, those familiar to a well-educated person in the 1920s.

For me, a key charm of the UB is that it makes scientifically testable claims, often in the style and tone of a clearly written introductory science text book. A key indictment of its accuracy is that some of these testable claims have been tested, and found unambiguously wrong. For example, the UB claims that Mercury’s rotation is tidally locked to the Sun – a reasonable assumption, commonly accepted by astronomers prior to about 1970, but now known to be incorrect. (see this post and this one for details)

I wonder how William Sadler, a major contributor to the UB and a reputable debunker, would have reacted had he lived long enough to see the UB’s Mercury’s rotation claim refuted? I’m inclined, perhaps over-charitably (as folk like my long-time hypography friend Turtle can attest, I’m prone to being over-charitable), to think that he and others of the UBs contributors, would no longer accept their own work, were they alive today. Those who today believe the UB to be without error, despite such clear examples as above, tend to be “true believers”.

i find nothing charming of it and firmly hold the opinion that sadler would defend his creation. this is no happy accidental tale, but an evil vicious intentional deception promoting racism and other discriminatory precepts.