| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Neti Neti Registered: 02/07/15 Posts: 7,426 Loc: The Pathless Path |
| ||||||
Quote: See that is another fine example Why does the moon orbit the earth? Of course it's not gravity ! That's how it orbits the earth
-------------------- 54. The true nature of things is to be known personally , through the eyes of clear illumination and not through a sage : what the moon exactly is , is to be known with one's own eyes ; can another make him know it?
| |||||||
|
Mage Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 86,793 |
| ||||||
Quote: reading that i had a funny, the moon as an Annoying Orange groupie harrassing planet Earth from all sides
| |||||||
|
The Jaded Candy Raver Registered: 03/24/05 Posts: 156 Loc: in a little room far away Last seen: 2 months, 23 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I haven't posted here in over a decade. Hello, everyone. I certainly feel this is the certainly the most cohesive idea of the nature of existence. People quickly fail to remember that time is relative and only seems to proceed in one direction for us. All of time is already there. It's there and done. What I find to be more fascinating is that the universe's growing complexity. The fundamental building blocks become larger ones become atoms, become more complex atoms, become compounds, become more complex compounds, become amino acids, become proteins, become single celled life, become multi-celled life, become "sentient" life, etc. I believe that it will continue even further beyond where we're at as well. So what I'm curious about is what the growing complexity is for? Is it simply like a fractal set? Just reiterations of the same theme? Or is there something else behind it? This is something that has been on my mind lately. Nillion, I would be particularly interested in your take on this since I enjoyed your take on the nature of existence, but I would absolutely love to hear the thoughts of others, of course~! ~ayla -------------------- Legalize Marijuana -- Your PC is now Stoned!
| |||||||
|
Registered: 04/24/09 Posts: 14,555 Loc: Utah |
| ||||||
Quote: Why not.
| |||||||
|
Nobody Registered: 04/14/22 Posts: 1,000 Loc: Terra Firma |
| ||||||
Quote: I feel intimidated. Quote: One might infer that forms of life won't just potentially come to exist which can transcend the laws of timespace, they will inevitably come to exist and consequentially result in closed time-like curves. Quote: In the first iteration, the organization is not influenced by the aforementioned inevitable life, in this thought experiment, as it were. However, after life arises, which through technology and evolutionary development, can overcome the limitations of timespace, then the closed time-like curves scenarios begin and the universe functionally revises its origins towards temporal stability. But, as that the expansion of timespace is an aspect of motion, which is heat, mind you, molecular, atomic and quark spin etc, all motion is heat, then as matter becomes cooler over time it moves more slowly and density changes in a relative manner. Matter cannot, however, reach zero degrees kelvin, because the motion that differentiates the energy, heat, dissipates and the energy ceases to be differentiated into timespace and matter and then returns to the boson state of the singularity, transcending timespace and dimension, but it cannot be created nor destroyed. This return balances the expansion, like a standing wave. The universe is not expanding and slowing and moving towards some entropic death, rather once matter cools to the point that motion is lost entirely, and I mean in terms of the angles of spin relative to the geometry of the quark components of the chromodynamic set, dark matter and all, then energy is no longer positional. The expansion and the return in this fashion is also a manifestation of polarity, and I add another thermodynamic law, of polarity, to the others already existing. I use that law a lot actually, but don't like sharing it with others. Consider that particles do not actually exist. They are akin to packets of quantized energy that cannot reconcile or join because of their angles of motion. That is to say that they are a conceptual criteria we use to consider energy sets as discrete entities. I want to stop here. I normally do not discuss this online and it takes dry erase board and a couple of hours just to cover the foundations required to explain and explore this topic, a theory of everything that I have, let's not call it mine though. But let us go to another aspect and cover that. I have a category called Autoid, Auto-oid, a categorical (hence -oid) automatic or self sustaining reaction (hence Auto-). What we call life is a type of this, but there are many other things in the universe that fit into this category which are not actually considered life. We are such a reaction, however, and all life is. The self sustaining reaction does not need to be made of carbon and oxygen etc, and such things can occur in many substrates, at many pressures and temperatures. This categorical entity of autonomous reaction also applies to the motion of the universe as mentioned above. It is a lot like life, but not like us, so to speak. It is also coherent and stable, structurally, like a standing wave, but it is hyperdimensional. The motion of this autoidal entity we call the universe has to it a level of organization that is profound, this aspect of structure was recognized by Einstein who related it to the beliefs of Spinoza as well. One may think of it as the living universe. The ancient name for this intelligence-like aspect was LOGOS and even in the first book the New Testament, the meaning of the in the beginning stuff, the term is not word, it is not a case of in the beginning was the word, rather it is more like; in the beginning was the motion of the universe, which gave rise to order and influenced itself into the form it takes now. I'm stepping on some religious toes right now and probably seem insane to many who read this, so don't want to spend too much time on that topic or provide my private translations of ancient scripture, but it is the same as I mention previously with regard to the inevitability of life which can, via evolution and technology, come to influence it's own origin, via closed time-like curves. So we have the motion of the universe structure as logos, giving rise to autoidal entities, including life, which then become capable of influencing the order of the universe on increasing levels. And what is a concept of God but that of a form of life able to transcend the limitations of timespace? Indeed I am not talking about magic or supernatural anything. That is not to say that the living universe is personally invested in the existence of any one thing, person, planet etc. It doesn't work like that. It doesn't have a plan. Einstein wrote of it to some degree, to him there was no discrepancy between the higher power, so to speak, and the operation, as it were, of the universe, they are the same. It is not actually a mystical concept. There is so much, however, to cover in this that I am not going to do it justice here. Electrons as harmonic charge structures with a focal point that can be considered positional and thus interpreted as a particle, yet are not when examined differently. A quantum conflation occurs here where it is thought that an electron is a particle and then we look for location and find that it both has and lacks a location. Without a dry erase board to cover aspects of atomic and hadron structure and other facets that are essentially prerequisites this is a prohibitively difficult topic to address. To someone without the foundational knowledge of aspects like general relativity and the structure of matter, this is certain to sound like BS or woo. The topic also contains, what I feel to be, dangerous information that I'd rather not just put out into the world. I have burned notebooks for this very reason. I also enjoy being a nobody and this type of discussion draws too much attention for me to remain comfortable. I am not the kind of person who can type or open their mouth and remain unnoticed as your return here after a decade seems to indicate. I also admit I hate repeating myself and have lectured on this topic privately a few times in the last few years, as dumb as that sounds. I'm a high functioning autistic person, which is pretty obvious if you know what to look for, so I spend considerable time on this privately because I want to understand how the universe comes to exist, as a process of self discovery and exploration. However, let us just say that I am wrong and likely insane and dismiss what I write here, that seems far more comfortable to me than sharing what I know, what I think and what I believe about the universe. There is a reason I listed my profession on my profile as NPC. It helps keep me underestimated and overlooked. Quote: The thing is, there is the idea that there is some sort of purpose, like an end goal and end result, that the universe is working towards... but what then? It is the linear paradox again. We know, already on so many levels, that it isn't about an end goal or a destination. It is about the journey. Take us, for example, what is the purpose of breathing? Is it to get us to death? Is it not to sustain us? Is this not the reason that the universe exists and the purpose the structure serves? To sustain its operation, not to reach a goal, which in terms of the universe is an artifact like concept related to the linearity of human mortality and temporal perception. Maybe? I feel like a jerk now and have also humiliated myself by sharing far more about this and myself than I told myself I would when I first responded to this thread. To answer your question of what the growing complexity is for: I have no idea. What would you use it for, if it was up to you? If it were up to me it would just be kind of like a garden. One that gives rise to plants whose seeds are planted in their past and create a stability ensuring that they, the plants, exist. Sounds boring compared to the idea that there is a plan involving humans having special powers and purposes and divinity and stuff. But honestly, we didn't always exist and we eventually won't. We need to stop thinking of ourselves as the center of the universe if we ever want to see it for what and how it is, which we cannot actually do, ever, but we can observe and describe it in approximate terms well enough to use them to create technology and manipulate matter itself, so our inability to know it for what and how it is does not stop our ability to understand it in a pragmatic or useful way. Not all of that understanding is ideal for our species. After all... Prometheus got burned pretty bad in the end! Assume I am wrong about all of it and we're good! Edited by Nillion (10/23/23 11:32 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/01/13 Posts: 4,216 Last seen: 2 days, 7 hours |
| ||||||
|
The first thing was a posit.. a thought..
Because nothing is nothing.. But something IS necessarily. Something is something.
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Curious to me that a lot of NDEs (and psychedelic experiences) report "time as a panorama"... the sample to my book specifically explores time here: https://whydoesrealityexist.com One NDE: My entire existence… seemed to be placed in front of me in a… panoramic, three-dimensional flashback… I cannot say how long this life review [lasted];… it may have been long…, yet concurrently it seemed just a fraction of a second, as I observed everything at once Maria Sabina on mushrooms: There is a world beyond ours, a world that is far away, nearby, and invisible. And [that] is where God lives, where the dead live, the spirits and the saints, a world where everything has already happened and everything is known. This idea of the past, present, and future all coexisting at once "out there" was already intuitive to the mystics well before Einstein and other's popularized it in the block universe theory of spacetime. In the past, these mystical ideas were considered "woo woo". Now, they're mainstream science. With that said, there's still so much mystics and physicists don't know about time. We don't know, for instance, why it exists and why it flows in one direction when the laws of physics operate in both directions. Quote: But what even are atoms? Werner Heisenberg, one of the pioneers of quantum theory put it: “I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact, the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” In summary, I go back to what Albert Einstein rightly said about Reality and our connection to it: A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. Reality / the Universe / the Divine / God is conscious, because we are. We are not separate from Reality, we are Reality "come alive". Reality is living and breathing through you. How miraculous it is to exist! -------------------- Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Because I'm left wondering how we happened to find ourselves in the circumstance where a universe / multiverse exists vs. didn't exist? To be clear, the answer could be that there is no ultimate explanation at all for why Reality exists, and that would be... pretty magical. It would be like pulling a bunny out of hat, and everything that came out of that hat, Reality, including us and the experience of you reading this text right now -- all of that would have no ultimate cause. That's possibly true, but I don't believe it is true. It is my own intuition that leads to me believe that everything has an explanation; it's just some of it is not going to be amenable for human terms. I suspect the ultimate answer is unintelligible to humans. It's just that we don't have a way to understand it through our normal modes of reason. In my book, I propose that mystical experiences -- whether achieved through psychedelics, UFO encounters, or NDEs -- provide us a window into the "ineffable" where we can appreciate these concepts in a new light: https://whydoesrealityexist.com But, the short answer is, I don't think we know the answer to "Why does Reality exist?" in the here and now, but the point of my book is that, whatever way we go, there's no uninteresting answer to this question. You could say, that there's no ultimate explanation -- that's still magical. You could say that there is... also magical! Our lives are subsumed in magic. Magic mushrooms are magic, because they remind us that Reality, through us, is magic.
-------------------- Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."
| |||||||
|
Nobody Registered: 04/14/22 Posts: 1,000 Loc: Terra Firma |
| ||||||
|
There has been recent work done showing intense brain activity in those who experience near-death states, this was not known before. Many in the scientific community believe it relates to NDEs.
https://www.scientificamerican. I employ a theory of consciousness that relates to the theory of structure and function relationships of psychedelic molecules and the transmission of electrochemical energy from cells. It is an aspect of cellular function and control, in this theory, and all cells have a form of this consciousness, limited as it is, which relates specifically to the nucleotides and genes themselves. This relates to the function of a nucleus as a control unit. I largely developed this theory to account for meristem function in terms of the control of an entire cactus via a small group of specialized cells, which is a known thing. Note that single celled organisms appear to exhibit types of learning and awareness, as do organisms which lack the organ we call a brain. In this there is also a relationship to the concept of transferring the consciousness of an organism to a technological media. It is my assertion that if we cannot do so with the limited consciousness of a single celled organism, akin to one of our ancient ancestors, then we will not be able to do it with multicellular organisms like those which developed from those ancestors. This relates to the function of the mind as an operation of the organ known as the brain. From a religious point of view it can be observed that according to Ecclesiastes, at least, people are animals, literally. It says there, essentially, that if we have souls, then so do all other animals, which for me includes Bacteria and Archaea, which we are an evolved form of: https://cns.utexas.edu/news/res The Einstein quote: Quote: Einstein might not saying here that the universe is conscious. He appears to be saying that consciousness is a delusion. I believe he is referring to the idea of self and how it is an functional mental artifact that does not actually exist. In this view there is no self only the universe entire which we and all other organisms are a part of. However, since we can only experience via sensory perception, we are unable to, ordinarily, perceive that there is no actual self. I cannot under ordinary circumstances, from the isolated window of my perception, perceive that the line between me and the universe does not exist. In that line of thinking self is a projection of the isolation of perception and doesn't actually exit, it is illusory and a type of delusion, as Einstein observed. This teaching can also be found at the heart of Buddhism as well, where the understanding of the nature of self as a type of delusion is called enlightenment. In that teaching, self arises as a function of mind. Thus each time it arises it is as a new thing ergo a new incarnation. When it is not present as a function it does not exist. This is supported by blacking out. It is a condition where the body is still operating but there is no conscious perception. When we approach this type of state where self as a function ceases to exist and we are aware of it we call that ego death, including in relation to psychedelic experience. Not too much further past this point, typically, is blackout where the person is awake and experiencing but the self is not operating and memories are not being created. As profound as this is perhaps it is not a sign of a mystical property but is a sign of the nature of self being an artifact of the function of the organ known as the brain? I believe so. In the Buddhist sense each day one wakes is a new incarnation. Each self state that arises is new, each time it arises. This has later become modified into a concept of where people believe that each self is a distinct incarnation of a self from past lives involving the transfer of self across time and space and through substance to create literal repeated incarnations after death. However, that is entirely contrary to the notion that there is no self. Over time we find divergent sects of Buddhist thought and some have become loaded with dogma and claims about incarnations and past lives, but that stands in stark contrast to the teachings of Buddha in sutras like the Diamond Sutra, one of my favorites, where it is clearly and plainly taught that there is no self. I believe that Einsteins observation is correct, as is the original content regarding this in Buddhism. That self and consciousness are illusory. I cannot convert them however, into claims of the universe being conscious itself. I can affirm that the same electrochemical charges that involve the operation of awareness on and in every level of life are the same as that are found in all matter. But, in this, there is no self nor an operation of awareness inherent to said matter because it lacks the organizational parts required for the operation. A rock has no genes to hold information, modify it and pass it along, but it has the quanta inherent to the hadron material it is composed of, just as do nucleotides. It's all related to quanta, or energy states of molecules, as well, at least in the theory of the function of mind and consciousness that I employ. I may write about that later in much greater detail, but am reluctant to do so. In this, though, one can think of consciousness as the operation of cells, which in our species are numerous and are connected by axons. When those axons transmit an ion carrying charged quanta, sent and received from those cells then it creates measurable field activity. The action of the cells together with the neural axons can be measured thus as brain wave activity but this is like observing the transmission of a telephone call. The electrical transmission of the information is not the soul or the self, which is found in the callers which are, in our case, cells. We can maintain considerable brain function with surprisingly few cells, but not without them. We can use the field activity of neural axons to study brain function but it represents signals and not the source of that communication. This field is not the self, nor the soul, but is rather the activity of cellular signals... pun intended. We can also take a cell, one that is not differentiated, like a stem cell, from an organism and clone it and grow it into a complete being. This is the making of an artificial twin. What of the soul of such a being? The illusion of self would still be experienced, such a person would not lack what we consider a soul or a self, because those are terms we use to refer to a type of function, not a type of thing that can be separated from our biology, hence it is the illusion as Einstein asserted. Or so I think. I could easily be wrong. Edited by Nillion (10/24/23 07:48 AM)
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours |
| ||||||
|
The Einstein quote:
Quote: Quote: It's interesting I don't agree with your interpretation on what Einstein says here, though I agree with your conclusions that follow. Einstein is saying exactly what he is saying when he says: "He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness". He's not saying that consciousness is a delusion; he's saying that the perception by consciousness that we are separate from the universe is what is the delusion, hence his use of the possessive word "his", ie. "separate[ness]" is a delusion of his consciousness and not consciousness is a delusion. A little technical here, but, the em-dash "--" makes it apparent that the characterized "delusion" is the first part of what comes prior to the em-dash, ie. the perception that we are "something separate from the rest". If Einstein was talking about consciousness itself being the delusion, he would have needed to word himself differently. Further, when he says that this is "the one issue of true religion", he's being sympathetic to the religious feeling (which he often was), that the goal of religion is to remind us that we are all interconnected and not separate from the Universe. However, with that said, even though I disagree with your premise on Einstein's opinion, I really like and really agree with your conclusion (humorously enough) Quote: Right on! Edited by solarshroomster (10/24/23 08:26 AM)
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 12/16/06 Posts: 17,848 Last seen: 1 day, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: This brings the question: If it is merely an illusion/delusion to experience individual perceptions, then what individual could possibly realize this? Any individual realization would then necessarily be a an illusion/delusion, no? Viewing this line of thinking as some sort of escape from delusion is perhaps reason for a re-view. Unless I'm missing something...
| |||||||
|
Nobody Registered: 04/14/22 Posts: 1,000 Loc: Terra Firma |
| ||||||
Quote: I believe he is saying both. In this it is my belief that consciousness cannot entail this delusion without itself being illusory in nature. Hence not only is there no self; self perception cannot be separated from consciousness. One cannot have one without the other. Quote: I disagree, as you know, and offer here another one of his quotes: Quote: In this perhaps the goal is not to overcome the delusion of self in a manner of recognizing we are part of the universe but rather it is about right action? Could it be about treating the world and others in it as we do ourselves? I think so. This is also the epitome of the second of the two commandments provided by Jesus Christ, Love thy neighbor as thy self. Let me add more of Einstein quotes lest we somehow create the impression that he believed in a classical religious concept of the soul: Quote: And: Quote: And: Quote: And: Quote: The concept of Near Death Experiences (NDE), which is the notion of a soul experiencing a post death state, as well as related the notion of the reincarnation of that soul, is not something he was a proponent of. Those two notions are, however, the foundation upon which the argument, or position, in your book is built. I also agree with his more aggressive assertion about this: Quote: I am unable to place faith in the ideas that he was saying that the goal of True Religion is to realize that we are a part of the universe and or that he also meant that the universe is conscious as we are. I believe he was saying that the goal of True Religion is something akin to the concept of Do No Harm in Buddhist teachings. You may be correct and I could easily be mistaken about what I believe.
| |||||||
|
Nobody Registered: 04/14/22 Posts: 1,000 Loc: Terra Firma |
| ||||||
Quote: It is not an illusion or delusion to experience perceptions in this line of thinking. The idea of the self as a separate and distinct entity from the body is illusory as is the idea that consciousness is an inherent property of the universe. Rather it, consciousness, like self, is the result of the operation of our biology. It is not an invocation of the philosophy thought experiment paradox of the subjective perception of objective reality, where it is often supposed that the nature of perception, being subjective, undermines the ability to perceive objective reality. That particular thought experiment refutes itself, for if we subjectively perceive that we perceive subjectively then we cannot assert that we are unable to subjectively perceive objective reality. When combined with the actions of reference, measurement and experimentation then we arrive at objective truths, such as the objective knowledge that affords the ability to construct the computer I am typing upon. While it is true that the filter of subjectivity prevents us from seeing and knowing the universe as it is, it does not prevent us from learning objective facts about it that can be of tremendous utility. Ergo perception though subjective is demonstrably capable of providing objective information, which can be and is employed in a consistently objective manner. Related to this is the idea that our perception creates our reality, which it does not. A change of opinion can change our perception in a subjective manner but this changes nothing real. As an example say that someone is a certain weight. Regardless of if one subjectively perceives this weight to be too heavy or too light or just right, the objective perception of the actual amount of weight does not change. Our subjective opinion is not a real thing. The value of the weight is. One of the notions said to defend the position of the thought experiment is the idea that how we measure things affects them, but this is based on concepts of quantum mechanics that suppose that particles exist as things independent from other things. Rather they are forms of energy having a form, hence the notion of particle is very much like the notion of a wave being a distinct thing from an ocean. If we identify where a wave is, we must conceptually separate it from the ocean using a criteria of differentiation. But if we look for aspects of the wave in other locations, we find it because it is not actually separate from the ocean. The same thing applies to quantum physics and is part of the wave/particle duality. It does not have the philosophical relevance as it is often interpreted as having in philosophic circles. Edited by Nillion (10/24/23 10:27 AM)
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours |
| ||||||
|
Nillion, one can pick apart all the quotes that Einstein has said, he said a lot, but he was certainly not an atheist (not sure if you're saying this, but your post makes it seem that way). He was more of an open-minded thinker that said he did "not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
Quote: Quote: We could go on back and forth on Einstein's thoughts forever, but the point is that that quote points out that (a) he did believe the universe was conscious through us and that (b) we are all interconnected. As for your own quotes, Einstein is essentially elaborating on the principal of monism, that body and matter are one: "Body and soul are not two different things, but only two different ways of perceiving the same thing." On this part we agree. Where we disagree is your insistence that the death of the personal ego is equivalent to the death of mind and consciousness itself. There's no evidence of that ever having been the case, nor that Einstein thought it. It's possible, and likely, that he never even considered that topic, as his colleague Erwin Schrodinger did in much detail in My View of the World when he wrote that: Quote: As for this quote here by Einstein: "Although I cannot believe that the individual survives the death of his body, feeble souls harbor such thought through fear or ridiculous egotism". I agree, but note the key operative word here "individual". In other words, Einstein is not saying anything about consciousness itself (as a broader phenomena of the universe), but rather the egoic impression that consolidates an understanding of the Self, as a continuity of memories -- that goes at death. We both agree that that goes in death. That's what we get when we say "ego death". But, as for consciousness itself, I'm with Schrodinger on his thoughts. ** Most important point: You seem to be over-generalizing my thoughts to believing in a conventional afterlife or believing in a personal God who "rewards good or bad behavior", or traditional reincarnation of a soul. (Much less that that is the "foundation" of my book; it isn't, and I don't subscribe to such views as of now... though, that's subject to change as I learn more over time). You need to distinguish between the "God is a man in the sky" religious thinker and those with a more nuanced spiritual bent. As Einstein and Schrodinger rightly cautioned, don't throw out the spiritual baby with the bathwater. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". There's magic in both. -------------------- Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality." Edited by solarshroomster (10/24/23 10:42 AM)
| |||||||
|
Nobody Registered: 04/14/22 Posts: 1,000 Loc: Terra Firma |
| ||||||
|
I did read your book and it is largely concerned with ideas of NDE and reincarnation. It proposes essentially that the human soul is something separate from the human body, does it not?
Quote: I agree with that! Stating that we as part of the universe and having consciousness means that the universe is conscious in and of itself is not something I believe in. We can be and often are the universe pondering itself, but that doesn't mean that consciousness is an inherent property of the universe. What it means is that it is an aspect of biology, no more and no less. You appear to be under the impression that I am an atheist. I am not. Edited by Nillion (10/24/23 10:48 AM)
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: No, it proposes that the "body" is a constructed avatar or mental representation of consciousness, that the Self is an imaginary construction, and that matter and mind are aspects of one ultimate Reality. A theory on monism basically. Ironically, a lot of what you have written resonates very strongly with me, and I like them a lot. There's death to the individual ego, but no ultimate cessation to the Author behind consciousness, who I tend to believe is everyone as Reality itself. But, that's just my view, and am probably wrong in some sense I can't appreciate. The universe has ways of throwing in surprises, and I believe that it exceeds my simple understanding. A lot of people say that the "universe is consciousness", that "consciousness is the ultimate reality". I don't know if I would go that far, but I think it's certainly possible for a lot of different reasons. It's more that I think the "universe is conscious, because we are". Not all aspects of the universe are necessarily conscious, though. A chair that sits in the room alone without a conscious agent doesn't "look" like a chair (it doesn't "look" like anything at all), however I believe it exists in some "real" sense. I just don't know what that sense is, nor do I think I can ever know. I live in my own Mind, all the time 24/7/365. Edited by solarshroomster (10/24/23 11:11 AM)
| |||||||
|
Nobody Registered: 04/14/22 Posts: 1,000 Loc: Terra Firma |
| ||||||
Quote: I apologize. Please forgive my ignorance about your position on this. Does that not inherently mean that the body is a separate thing from what constructed it and if that thing is consciousness, which proceeds the body which represents it, is that not a concept of a soul, as a distinct non-biological thing? How can we have past lives and an afterlife, which is the concept behind NDE without a soul as a thing, distinct from the body? Is every bacteria, virus, rock, star and proton also a type of avatar in this sense? I don't believe that there is a code or language behind the scenes that results in the emergent and coherent properties of the physical universe and maybe that is the issue? I believe that the properties arise because of the forms energy takes, but that there is no code that can be altered that changes the form. Rather I believe the leverage point for the alteration of matter is found in its structure. It is a very chemistry oriented point of view, but I do rely on chemistry and physics as explanatory methods for how I understand the world and that may be limiting. Can we explain the universe without a source code? Is there a need to invoke such a source that arises due to a lack of a satisfactory explanation in terms of the scientific process? I've largely found tenable answers to the questions I have proposed and explored in relation to the universe, answers which satisfy me. I believe I can explain consciousness, timespace, biology and more, but I do so largely from a scientific foundation that I do not feel has any conflict with those beliefs of mine which might be considered religious in a certain light, as it were. I dislike sharing my theories with others because I formed them for myself and I believe it is better to withhold many of them and then see if others out there in the world, who observe the same things I did, come to the same conclusions. So far, I am not aware of many that have, in regard to many of my positions on the matters we are discussing and that may be a sign that I am entirely wrong and ignorant about the matters, which I feel that I can explain to my own satisfaction. I admit I am not overtly concerned with offering explanation to others and I actively try to avoid just that. However I admire what you are doing, writing, thinking, learning, having conversation and more. I think it is a noble thing to work towards and I envy you to some degree that you have such a compulsion. I am fighting all of my instincts, which tell me to keep to myself, just by being here at this forum and discussing things. Clearly I have a fair amount of bias that may cloud my ability to appreciate this material properly. Quote: We agree very much on that point! I mean that it also exceeds my understanding, which is also quite simplistic. I also agree that it throws surprises that are of particular interest and can have potent special meaning to those who experience them. I have experienced a few that I keep to myself. I honestly don't know what to make of them, or what to not make of them. I wonder if we largely agree and I just fail to understand and appreciate your position properly because of my preexisting bias regarding the topic? That is quite possible. I struggle in regard to the question of why reality exists as mentioned before, but we agree on many points and details, certainly. Edited by Nillion (10/24/23 11:53 AM)
| |||||||
|
Wonderer Registered: 11/01/13 Posts: 506 Last seen: 3 days, 23 hours |
| ||||||
|
Thanks Nillion. Yeah, I've wondered the same thing from my perspective as well: "I wonder if we largely agree and... just fail to understand and appreciate [the other's] position properly because of [our] preexisting bias regarding the topic?" Because a lot of what you write resonates very strongly with me.
I also share your preference to listen rather than to share, because at the end, I'm not here to convince anyone. I think it's counter to the psychedelic mindset to be like "I know everything, and that's it!" I also don't like locking myself into any one worldview, as it tends to, over time, become ideological and doesn't age well... I've done that in the past and, suffice to say, lessons learned. The real magic is how incredible the universe / Reality is and how much is out there that we couldn't possibly understand. Again, no matter which way you go with this -- scientifically-minded, skeptically-minded, mystically-minded, it's all very awesome! (The only reason I wrote a book is, I hit a limit, and at some point the thoughts caused by my spiritual awakening boiled over, and I needed to get it "out there". I need to have an outlet to exchange ideas and begin a discussion.) -------------------- Chopin in Eternal Sonata: "I believe that I am somehow being tested. That I am on this journey to come to some realization. And in order to do so, I think I’m supposed to live my life to the fullest, even if it is in this muddled world of dream and reality."
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/14/15 Posts: 2,696 Last seen: 6 minutes, 47 seconds |
| ||||||
|
I haven't read the book yet to which I look forward. To mention in the discussion of basing conclusions in the objective world, correct me if I'm wrong about science, but as we've referred to often, matter is reduced to nothing but information, and in mystical subjects we talk about here this parallels that everything is an idea. An atom is but vibratory information. Some say that there is no material creation. To me it would depend on perceptual medium.
We perceive a physical body in a physical world. In altered, meditative or dream states, and with perhaps kinds of scientific instrumentation, these are perceived differently if at all. In this view a soul or subtle bodies and material are not (as) problematic including with Buddhism mentioned, whether or not there is an ongoing "self", karmas, aggregates etc carrying consistencies transmigrate, in some schools anyway. Concerning the statement that everything is an idea, speaking to myself as well, test the proclamation of the sage Vasistha, the world appearance rises with movement of thought, and together they cease. Quote: Bliss can be a reason or purpose - it is foundational essence, inevitable as being. Asking all as much as saying, true or false?
| |||||||
|
Registered: 01/14/15 Posts: 2,696 Last seen: 6 minutes, 47 seconds |
| ||||||
|
"Some say that there is no material creation."
I think this would be supported or implied across various scripture, if entertained by the perspective, Vasistha again particularly I was thinking of said along these lines - the Creator is purely spiritual and could not create otherwise, and what we have here is spiritual intelligence alone. Shankara I think would support it in obscuration being none other than Brahman. Course in Miracles is much about (unloving) makings in separation as nothing where there is unity. Even traditional Buddhism I assume, concerning phenomenal attributes without self, you decide. Is the Dao material or is it mind? Can we find it in the Bible? Material creation has also been called a memory. How about Omnicyclion, Et Al?
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Greatest Spiritual Quotes? ( |
233,342 | 2,329 | 01/22/24 08:14 AM by RJ Tubs 202 | ||
![]() |
Heaven is coming to earth *the sequel* ( |
178,039 | 1,020 | 03/15/18 06:53 PM by BrendanFlock | ||
![]() |
The 4th Density ( |
16,296 | 49 | 10/19/08 12:07 PM by ariark | ||
![]() |
How to Ascend ( |
12,046 | 28 | 09/10/20 12:08 PM by delusionalpothead7 | ||
![]() |
Everything in our universe can merge with my soul, any time. | 114 | 4 | 12/08/23 09:32 PM by lostintimenspc | ||
![]() |
The Catholic Church No Longer Swears by Truth of the Bible. | 4,356 | 18 | 05/19/06 02:24 AM by gettinjiggywithit | ||
![]() |
Mayan Galactic Signature DB..... ( |
39,228 | 113 | 04/21/05 04:06 AM by emptywisdom | ||
![]() |
Dream Thread ( |
49,343 | 246 | 11/08/07 05:30 PM by gbeatle |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, Shroomism, Rose, Kickle, yogabunny, DividedQuantum 1,397 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

are magic, because they remind us that Reality, through us, is magic.
