Otherworldly view on “our” nature. Users

Let’s contemplate the thought experiment:

Three different families bought the same type of a TV. These identical TVs were sold in one and the same store and produced at the same enterprise… But the first family constantly watch the news broadcasts, the second family prefers various TV series, and the third one is a fond of sports programs. There is nothing to be surprised about. Why? Because in every family there is a primary User of the device purchased (a TV set in this case) and exactly this person determines its usage policy. As a rule, this TV was bought to satisfy the wishes of this particular User…

 The same situation is with all other devices…

 In fact, the term “device” always denotes some object (device, mechanism, construction, installation …) human beings have created for their own needs to perform strictly defined functions (personal computer, mobile phone, TV, radio, refrigerator, air conditioner, cookstove, car…)


For example, a personal computer (PC). Computers are called “personal” just because they are used by certain “persons”, i.e. “Users”. As a rule, each personal computer has one user. Each user is free to use his personal computer in his own discretion: to play computer games, to develop any innovative facilities, to constantly surf the social networks, etc.

 What is an obvious conclusion we can arrive at after the results of this thought experiment?

Using a lot of identical devices, will never help different people to create the same information, since it is called “personal information” for a reason, that is, Users (“persons”) create it as well as possess it. And each user produces his own “personal information”, using the certain devices he prefers.

The same situation is with people…

Despite the similar functionality of the human bodies as well as the possibility to duplicate (clone, copy) their genetically identical material bodies, they all have and will always possess different memory, different consciousness, different character, different knowledge, different experience… Why is it so? One of the possible variants is that various people just have various Users.

The material body just provides “own” User with the opportunity to cognize “our” World and perform certain actions in it. It is he (“our” User) who feels anxious, thinks, dwells on something, enjoys… And each reader can guess what is the name of “his” User — it’s your Personality.

There are good reasons why such terms as a person that denotes the integrity of a human being (from the Latin persona) and a personality denoting social and psychological aspects of a human being (from the Latin personalitas) have the same deep root persona.

Otherworldly view on “our” nature. The World of a Human being

Every Human being constantly processes information during his cognitive activity. Once this information is systematized (generalized), it acquires a new status — now it’s knowledge (“life experience”) of this particular Human being.

That’s why people reflect (“see”, feel) the outside World, and each of them does it in his/her own way (from his/her own “point of view”, “with his/her own eyes”).

Every person admits the existence of only those things he underwent by himself, then thought through, turned over in his mind, thought out, passed through, felt out, created, etc., that is, he cognized and realized something without any assistance.

If a human being did cognize and did realize “something”, then this “something” definitely exists for him!

If a human being didn’t cognize and didn’t realize “something”, then this “something” doesn’t exist for him at all!

All systematized and generalized feelings of a person are his consciousness (memory). There can be nothing more! This is the World of a human being he “lives” in.

P.S. If we imagine a meeting of two people, whose consciousnesses contain completely different information, they will not be able to communicate with each other, since they will have nothing to talk about, because these interlocutors live in “different Worlds” (they perceive the World “with different eyes”).

Intelligence. How is it measured?

The modern researchers are actively discussing such concepts as “intellect”, “intelligence”, “artificial intelligence”, “natural intelligence”, “Human intelligence“, etc., but up to this day no one has ever offered an approach to measuring the scale of intelligence of various beings. This article is the first attempt to move in this direction.

I want to pay your attention that there is a slight difference between my terms and the modern scientific ones. From my point of view, it allows us to see cognitive process in a more realistic light …

The MIND is a set of «thinking» abilities of the Brain (a set of Brain Powers), which enable the Body and the Personality of a Human Being to effectively process information during cognition, i.e.:

  • the maximum amount of data processed;
  • the maximum data processing speed;
  • a variety of processed data;
  • a variety of the methods of information input for further processing;
  • a variety of the methods of information output after it has been processed;
  • etc.

This set of abilities we call as “capacities of thinking”.  People who are able to effectively think, have always been called “thinkers”.

MIND is the objective characteristic (a set of parameters) of an object, which can be accurately measured, using the appropriate techniques.

Many objects are able to independently systematize (generalize, comprehend) information about the outside world during cognition. Such information (systematized knowledge) is called «consciousness» of objects, and objects themselves are called «conscious».


CONSCIOUSNESS is the objective characteristic (parameter) of an object. Consciousness can be accurately measured, using the appropriate techniques.

But there are objects that we call «creatures». They are able both to systematize information about the outside World and to use their «experience and knowledge» (their consciousness) in their activities.


REASON is the integral ability of Beings to use the accumulated «experience and knowledge» in their activities; it is this ability that distinguishes them from objects which are simply conscious. If the Beings have “reason”, they will possess abilities to analyze, abstract, generalize, logically think …

That is why «creatures» at all times were called “reasonable“, that is experienced, knowledgeable. And their activity was also considered to be “reasonable“.


INTELLIGENCE  is a property of an object that characterizes its ability to cognize the World (in the broadest sense of this word) by a heuristic method based on the object’s:

  • MIND; «thinking» abilities;
  • CONSCIOUSNESS; the volume of systematized information about the world (the volume of accumulated experience and knowledge):
  • REASON; ability to fully or partly use consciousness in certain activities.

INTELLECTUAL is the characteristic of a Being with excellent «cogitative» («thinking») abilities, great knowledge and personal experience, which ultimately allows him to take more correct decisions in his activity.

But intellect can also be expressed mathematically as a variable that changes in time and depends on three main variable functions:

Intelligence (t) = f(«thinking» abilities, t) * f(The volume of systematized information or the volume of Consciousness, t) * f(The amount of consciousness used for activities or Reason, t)

I(t) = f(TA, t) * f(C, t) * f(M, t)

I = Intelligence
TA = «Thinking» Abilities
C = Volume of Consciousness or Volume of Systematized Information
M = The Мind or a part of Consciousness used for performing one’s activity
t = time

Thus, «intelligence» is the variable in time objective characteristic (parameter) of an object; it can be accurately measured, using the appropriate techniques.

Of course, everything I’ve mentioned above is a very simplified model for defining “intelligence” of any Being. But this model really works. Its effectiveness differs it from all the rest models existing nowadays.

When and how can somebody be done a favor?

The question: When can somebody be done a favor?
 The answer: If you’re asked for a help. Otherwise, it will be a kind of involuntary action.


The question: Can somebody be offered with advices?
The answer: Yes,it’s possible but undesirable.If you advise someone else, this one will start thinking about your own advice, that is, about your personal point of view on the issues he is interested in. As a result, this person will make no efforts in order to get answers on his own! But take into account that in the end, the one who gave advice will always be at fault …


The question: Is it possible to change some person for the better?
The answer: Nobody has a right to change another individual.Neither for the better nor for the worse! In no circumstances! People have a right to make the information (their thoughts) available for each other!


The question: What is the way out then?
The answer: You just need to bear information and a person decides by himself whether to think over it or to shut his ears to the words being heard. If he wants to hear these words and his intelligence allows to realize what he heard, then he’ll make decision by himself about the necessity of these or that changes…


The question: What rules must curer follow during the healing of individuals?
The answer: Do not advice anything! Just ask your patient how can he/she change the current situation? How can he/she improve the current situation? Help (afford an opportunity) to “see” (sense) the way out of the current challenges. Do not interfere with this processunder any circumstances!

Jokes about psychics

“We are looking forward to welcoming talented magicians, clairvoyants, psychics and mediums for creative and highly paid work.
The time and place you already know.”





I was about to go to a psychic, but I changed my mind because I wasn’t sure in his abilities…
And I instantly get the message “That’s a pity!”.


  • Are you a clairvoyant?
  • Right you are, it’s Clairvoyance Services company. I am a clairvoyant Alex, what’s your problem?
  • Can we make an appointment on Thursday? If it’s possible, I’ll come at two o’clock, is it all right?
  • You won’t be able to. You’ll break your leg on Tuesday.



– Oh my God! — a fortuneteller exclaimed, looking at the client’s hand.
– You will be quartered, salted and then eaten up!
– One minute, please!- the client said. I just forgot to take off my gloves. They are made of a genuine pigskin leather.


Experimental proof of “immortality” of a human being’s Personality and its Consciousness as the basis for changing the vector of development of modern humankind in the future

Modern scientists claim that they have already determined the directions that will enable humanity to make a breakthrough into its radiant future: nanomaterials, smart houses, travelling to other planets, cloning various creatures, storing information in DNA-like media, artificial intelligence, robots and biorobots, studying ocean depths and the depths of Space…

I dare say that most of the state-of-the-art technologies created today are so significant that their creators may erroneously believe that it is the development of these technologies that will allow their owners to “rule ‘Our’ World” in the nearest future.

 But, from my point of view (and, unfortunately, not only mine), modern mankind currently has no future. All new technologies will only lead the modern mankind to collapse. The more revolutionary the new technology is, the faster it leads the modern humanity to the end.

It is not because these technologies are harmful, but solely because people use the fruits of any technological revolution primarily for such purposes as arms race, seizures of power, turning people into ‘zombies’, etc.

Invention of a wheel and a knife proved to be a much less dangerous technology for humans than creation of new viruses and bacteria, climate and chemical weapons over the past 100 years. And most importantly, the inventors (creators) of these technologies are not able to prevent such use in any way.

Many modern researchers realize the current situation and consider it to be hopeless so far, since up to the present there have not been found any acceptable solutions for mankind’s exit from its “nosedive” to death…

While investigating prospects for development of the mankind, I carried out many imaginary experiments, and as a result I “saw” the following main causes of this problem:

  • Cause #1: Most people consider themselves “the center of the Earth”, kind of “ kings of Nature” and don’t realize their true place in the hierarchy of the Universe. These earthlings honestly believe that they are at the top of the “food chain” and they can do whatever they want with complete impunity throughout their short life on the planet Earth.

  • Cause #2: People haven’t yet realized that a human being actually is a kind of an essence of field nature, which is “dressed” in a material body. This body is only a part of a human being, and it’s far from being the most essential one.  

The result obtained in this experiment clearly showed thatno technological improvements of human bodies and the environment of these bodies are able to change the people’s attitude towards the Nature (the Universe) and to all its inhabitants, including their own species…

That is why, it is not the body of a person that should be “altered” – it is, first of all, people’s worldview, way of thinking, meaning of their lives. Change of the outlook will automatically lead to replacement of current dominant values ​​(money, power, fame…) with new ones, such as harmonious relations with the objects of the Universe and with all its inhabitants. These new values will determine behavior of people and their social relations in the long run. On this basis, the direction of the modern mankind’s development will change automatically.

“You are looking into the interlocutor’s eyes and realize that a bag of meat and bones cannot radiate an intelligent look. You see the flesh, but you communicate with an invisible spiritual essence.”  Yuri Larichev, writer and philosopher

Obtaining a strictly scientific proof of immortality of a human Personality and its consciousness and disclosing it to the general public (by means of demonstrating so-called ‘miracles’) should become the cornerstone of this crucial task.

At present, due to the conservatism of the official science, even studies in these areas are considered absurd, and any publications on such topics in scientific journals are kind of a taboo and are considered “undesirable”…

The consciousness, which is already transforming and organizing a hefty chunk of “our” solar system, is denied objective existence only because traditional science doesn’t know how to approach it, didn’t create an appropriate conceptual apparatus and scientific tools for its study, and it is in no hurry to correct these mistakes and to overcome the arising difficulties.”  George Somov, “Matter of Consciousness & Consciousness of Matter (Материя Сознания и Сознание Материи)

This situation has led to the fact that even ‘crazy investors’ “do not see the advisability” of investments in this field. Investing in human development has become completely unprofitable, as the payback period can reach 30-60 years. Investors don’t realize that they themselves are blocking the most promising areas of investment in the history of “modern mankind”.

“If there is no immortality, then neither is the remorality: all is permitted.  Vladimir Bekhterev,  Immortality From the Scientific Point of View

 “It sounded an excellent plan, no doubt, and very neatly and simply arranged; the only difficulty was, that she had not the smallest idea how to set about it…” Lewis Carroll, “Alice in Wonderland”

 I do have an idea how to.

Continue reading 

Can we put a new meaning into the idea of personal immortality

T. J. Kolev

This article has been published for the first time in “Man Evolution Cosmos” Volume #1 / 1983 , p.74-88.


Can we put a new meaning into the idea of personal immortality

“If death was a good, the gods would not be immortal…”, Sapho

The idea of personal immortality arose in remote antiquity, later it came into play over and over again, above all in religion and also in philosophy and the natural sciences, it was discredited but again revived. Is it necessary to go back and consider this idea after its having been subjected to a detailed critical analysis1 from the dialectical materialistic point of view no so very long ago? Yes, it is necessary, and maybe now not so much from a negative position but rather to preserve some positive points in it, ones that may prove useful in giving meaning to certain concrete scientific results.

We can begin with the most general conceptions about the aging and death of living organisms. The elucidation of the nature of these phenomena is one of the fundamental tasks of general biology and gerontology. There is an impressive number of different ‘theories’ about aging and death, but actually most of them are of significance only for the historical study of the progress made in gaining knowledge in this area. They are built up on erroneous methodological foundations, considering the particular, the secondary phenomenon as the primary, the general, the leading one and they do not explain the general regularities of the phenomena in question2. The thesis that the processes of aging and death in the organisms are expedient biological phenomena bound up with the development of the species3 is widespread and has gained recognition. As A. B. Kogan pointed out, one of the fundamental inconsistencies arising in the development of life rise in the breach between the stability of the forms of self-regulation of living systems and the mutability of the environment. The resources of the environment being limited, inevitably the first step of evolution should be the emergence of mechanisms for changing the forms of self-regulation and self-restriction of the growth of liking systems. Thus an unceasing stream of life transforms itself in discrete cycles. Here it is a matter of the emergence of an ‘active’ supplementary regulatory mechanism which, at a define state of the ontogenesis enters into a struggle with the mechanisms safeguarding life and cuts short its course.4 In this manner aging and death ‘represent active destructive functions of the organism, phenomena of the biological expediency of the species5. It must, however be emphasized that life does not carry death in its primary nature, but in the secondary laws of evolutionary development under definite conditions.

It is natural that this notion of aging and death underlies the criticism leveled at the idea of the religious immortality of the soul, of worlds beyond the grave and so on, and substantiates the thesis that in aging and death there is nothing mystical and supernatural. As John Bernal notes: ‘Now we must accept death not as our mystic lot imposed as a punishment by a jealous god, but actually as an inheritance, ensuing from biochemical facts and processes…6, as the result of the fact that we have inherited bodies for which death is the normal end7. Some authors, however, go further and, carried away by their zealous endeavor to oppose the religious delusion to the bitter end, try fervently to convince their readers that, since death is a biological necessity, it is natural and acceptable both for animals and man, that man must be resigned to it and accept it as an inevitability.8 Such a position is going too far, does not reflect the things in their true light, is not heuristic and sounds unconvincing. A number of arguments can be brought against it. First, man is, of course, a biological organism, integral formation comprising within him both biological and social forms of movement of matter in a definite kind of subordination. The uniting of the biological and the social form of movement in man on an individual and social level is being realized on the basis and under the hegemony of the social form of movement9. At once the conjecture arises as to whether aging and death, which are self-regulation mechanisms on the level of the biological forms of movement, do not enter into contraindication with the phenomena of the social form of movement. Could it be that in man aging and death are turned into a phenomenon inexpedient for higher form of movement – for the social one? We cannot simply reject this conjecture; it must be examined in detail because there are a number of phenomena of similar inexpediency. Second, in spite of all exhortation and suggestion, people feel aging and death as a personal and social tragedy10. Of course, there are deviations from the general feeling, exceptions to the rule: those who are bed-ridden and tortured by severe illness or those who are fettered and wasting away in dungeons welcome death as an escape; the superannuated, who are isolated for a long time before their physical death from the community in which they live, face it with indifference and apathy; those who have dedicated their lives to some cause meet it with calmness and courageous firmness. The overwhelming majority of people, however, is afraid of death and strives to put off the fatal end. Unlike the whole vegetable and animal kingdom, people are endowed with the ability of being conscious of the surrounding reality and of themselves, have developed self-consciousness (their ‘Ego’). Perhaps that is why they react so violently to death. ‘To die is not terrible; what is terrible is not to live’ (Henri Barbusse), it is not the process of dying they fear, not the pain and agony, but the fact that they will vanish from this world for ever, that the flame of their “Ego” will die out for ever and ever. The verses of both ancient and modern poets sound sad and hopeless when they turn their minds to the unavoidable doom of the individual existence. Third, that which is a complete tragedy for the individual man as subject – his own organism, in spite of his jibbing at it – is a regressive moment also in social development. For the community aging and death mean the unceasing amortization and destruction of already well shaped, creatively developing personalities. It is well known that, once it has emerged, human society, developing historically, has no longer any need of genetic evolution; natural selection has lost its significance for man as a race and species forming factor11. This gives raise to immediate doubt as to the expediency of death as a mechanism for changing the forms of self-regulation in man, even it the pattern of the whole of society. Besides this, death leads to the destruction of the socially useful information that has accumulated and organized itself for many years in the brain of the individual. Naturally, knowledge and experience are handed down from one generation to another, but this manner of handing them on is not perfect and not uneventful, ever-growing difficulties arise12. It must be said that within the framework of our contemporary human society, with the established way of life, there would arise a number of unsolvable problems if aging and death did not exist – firs of all. There a crisis would arise in the form of overpopulation with all the things, which accompany it: shortage of fuel and electric power, hunger, environmental pollution, etc. But these problems should certainly not be tacked only on the basis of the notion of the non-existence of death. So that the analysis should be correct, it is also necessary to have a ‘model of immortality’ available, and then to draw our conclusions about the existence of definite crises and the possibility of overcoming them. In any case, the harm done by aging and death is obvious, while the usefulness of these phenomena in man is very doubtful, particularly if we weigh up their value for the future. And fourth, science, in particular anthropology, cybernetics, philosophy in the epoch of the techno-scientific revolution, has arrived at concepts, ideas, which allow it to turn again, already suitably equipped, to the problem of the limited individual existence and the development of man. The new ideas and facts require, on the one hand, that the proper meanings should be given to them and, on the other hand, they make it possible to build up a new approach to the personal immortality of man. This makes it necessary to reexamine our old positions in respect to this question.

Continue reading