What do believers believe heaven or hell are like?

p157The Blind Watchmaker
"In The Selfish Gene I speculated that we may now be on the threshold of a new kind of genetic takeover. DNA replicators built 'survival machines' for themselves - the bodies of living organisms including ourselves. As part of their equipment, bodies evolved on board computers - brains. Brains evolved the capacity to communicate with other brains by means of language and cultural traditions. But the new milieu of cultural tradition opens up new possibilties for self replicating entities. The new replicators are not DNA and they are not clay crystals. They are patterns of information that can thrive only in brains or the artificially manufactured products of brains - books, computers, and so on. But, given that brains, books and computers exist, these new replicators, which I called memes to distinguish them from genes, can propagate themselves from brain to brain, from brain to book to book, from book to brain, from brain to computer, from computer to computer."WWNORTON&Company New York London 1986I have thought more about heaven and hell than memes.

I think that heaven and hell are as objectively different as comparing primates to other animals are subjectively the same.I would need to give a thought consideration to the following footnote before I could expurt any of my past thoughts to all I might have on the topic today.Kant, Critique of Judgement, Critique of the teleological judgment, methodology of the theleological judgement p 315
"(20 We can indeed think one of two dissimilar things, even in the very point of their dissimilarity, in accordances with the analogy^22...
TWENTYTWO-"analogy(in a qualitative signification) is the identity of the relation between reasons and consequences (causes and effects), so far as it is to be found, notwithstanding the specific difference of the things or those properties in them which contain the reason for like consequences,i.e., considered apart from this relation). Thus we conceive of the artifical constructions of beasts by comparing them with those of men, by comparing the ground of similiar effects bought about by men (reason), which we do know; i.e. we regard the ground of the former as an analogon of reason. We then try at the same time to show that the ground of the artisan faculty of beasts, which we call instinct, specifically different as it is in fact from reason, has yet a similar relation to its effect ( the buildings of the beaver as compared with those of men). But then I cannot therefore conclude that because men uses reason for his building, the beaver must have the like, and call this a conclusion according to analogy. But from the similiarity of the mode of operation of beasts (of which we can not immediately percieve the ground) to that of men (of which we are immediately conscious),we can quite rightly conclude according to analogy that beasts too act in accordance with [i]representations[i/] not as Descartes has it, that they are machines)."I think that creatures made up by artists about the past adaptations are more fictional (I cant remember the name of the guy who came out withe the book of fictional creatures with made up adaptations of the future started with Den..something) than any beast provided by reading Revelation say. There is no such thing as a "basic" phenotype. Memes are like beaver's Malthusala THE
Access denied
POND characters. Heaven and Hell are more real. I had said "presentations" eariler today. All we got more was the representation. I think the turtle has more brains than Richard had memes but that is my own opinion. The duck of course had it all.

Now all you would need do is compare the pond characters with this other artist I can quite put my tongue on. I have always thougt that Croizat had used MORE than two genuses of thought and that study would enable me to verify my suspicion actually but if Kant's use of machine was applied throught the phenomenology I think only Gould's book keeping survies the machine that would do the BIble coding or whatver Neitzian lingo was not Freuds projection neuronally. I must stop. I had encourgaing people inthis kind of free thinking. We need to uderstand more basics after the quote is understood NO MATTER THE USE.