What is Consciousness? Options

[Author of The Hidden Truth]

One of the interesting findings I reached while writing my book, The Hidden Truth: A logical path through compelling evidence to discover the nature of reality and the meaning of life, was the true nature of consciousness. In chapter two, which discussed many findings within quantum physics, a series of findings and proofs lead the reader to understand that physical matter is not only comprised of energy, it actually is nothing but energy. Shortly thereafter, I show how energy is also equivalent to light, and later we learn that light resides outside of space and time because it does not operate by the rules of the universe, but requires a “Special Rule of Relativity.” From the transitive property of mathematics where if a=b and b=c, then a=c, we prove that matter = energy = stabilized light.

The discussion of consciousness is one of the most difficult aspects of the book, including chapter two. Scientists have been grappling with what consciousness is without clear resolution. Through the progression of findings in my book, I feel it is safe to say that “the light” and consciousness are virtually interchangeable, which could allow us to expand the transitive equation above to reflect that physical matter is not only energy. It is by definition also comprised of stabilized light, which is itself the consciousness of the universe. By this reasoning, the entire universe is comprised of a single consciousness which chooses to manifest itself in an infinity of physical and nonphysical forms in order to create and express Itself in order to experience and get to know Itself.

The implications of this idea are far reaching and imply that your consciousness is actually not separated from my consciousness. We are all one and the same, and part of a larger overarching, all encompassing consciousness. Our ‘separation’ and individuality is only the illusion of separation, which physical reality creates specifically for the purpose of allowing us to experience that sensation for further development.

There are so many more implications that these findings imply, and I look forward to sharing them with you. If you’re interested, the first half of my book is available for free online. I expect the entire book will be published and available near the beginning of autumn, 2012. In the meantime, I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on consciousness (as well as the first half of my book). Thanks for reading.

Wade Wilson, Author of The Hidden Truth

[Joesus]

Tho consciousness has energy, it can also manipulate energy. It could not logically be contained in the definition of energy unless energy was undefinable and had an infinite number of names. I think God is one of those names, and tho religion and Webster may offer definitive descriptions, the Authors of many books will, and have, put their own descriptions into the pot of evidence within boundaries of their own relative definitions. Some are more entertaining than others. In particular those that are authored in testimony to definition rather than a tradition in experience that goes beyond the definable.

It would be impossible to contain the infinite in a book, let alone the quart jar of personal definition.

Good fortune in writing your book. Hope it enlivens your reality beyond the complacency of the ego and self identification with relative Idols.

[Joesus]

So far a fascinating read.
I will be purchasing the book.

[P JayS]

God is a Spirit. Spirit can control energy and matter and light.

Consciousness comes from the Spirit realm.

[Joesus]

God is a Spirit. Spirit can control energy and matter and light.

Consciousness comes from the Spirit realm.

God is more than a spirit, or an apparition. God is consciousness and the spirit of God resides in all of reality.

[P JayS]

What if God were to die? Would consciousness end?

http://school0pjs1.multiply.com/journal/item/7

[Joesus]

What if God were to die? Would consciousness end?

http://school0pjs1.multiply.com/journal/item/7

God the person is not God consciousness which creates the person or personality. If the Person dies the ego that defines God and the person will die, but then what is death?
Science has pondered the differences between relative perspectives and the timeless qualities of potential which does not differentiate between past present and future in the theories of quantum physics.

People determine what God is, what spirit is and what consciousness is, yet consciousness is not bound by the ideals created by the ego in the boundaries that are determined when God consciousness dwells within the relative.

The quart jar of human identity lacks a certain insight due to the short sightedness of belief and opinion set within the boundaries of birth and death as the reality of life.

[P JayS]

What if God were to die? Would consciousness end?

http://school0pjs1.multiply.com/journal/item/7

God the person is not God consciousness which creates the person or personality. If the Person dies the ego that defines God and the person will die, but then what is death?
Science has pondered the differences between relative perspectives and the timeless qualities of potential which does not differentiate between past present and future in the theories of quantum physics.

People determine what God is, what spirit is and what consciousness is, yet consciousness is not bound by the ideals created by the ego in the boundaries that are determined when God consciousness dwells within the relative.

The quart jar of human identity lacks a certain insight due to the short sightedness of belief and opinion set within the boundaries of birth and death as the reality of life.

Therefore God who was alone became Father when he created. Later God became irrational and now has died as a result but the Person of Father lives on. Since God gave the first man the breath of life or consciousness and in turn created a female for the man so that children could be born with consciousness then this quality lives on in Father and people even though God has died.

[Joesus]

Therefore God who was alone became Father when he created. Later God became irrational and now has died as a result but the Person of Father lives on.

God is not an entity that lives within the concepts of isolation, aloneness, or surrounded by relative creations, that is the religious concept of God.
Religion in the name of God has killed: imagination, intuition, awareness and objectivity and replaced it with superstitious nonsense.

Since God gave the first man the breath of life or consciousness and in turn created a female for the man so that children could be born with consciousness then this quality lives on in Father and people even though God has died.

God never died. God gave man all that God is and man imagined himself dead. There is a distinct difference.
It'd be like you imagining God, and then God becoming what you imagine. How ridiculous is that?

[P JayS]

Therefore God who was alone became Father when he created. Later God became irrational and now has died as a result but the Person of Father lives on.

God is not an entity that lives within the concepts of isolation, aloneness, or surrounded by relative creations, that is the religious concept of God.
Religion in the name of God has killed: imagination, intuition, awareness and objectivity and replaced it with superstitious nonsense.

Since God gave the first man the breath of life or consciousness and in turn created a female for the man so that children could be born with consciousness then this quality lives on in Father and people even though God has died.

God never died. God gave man all that God is and man imagined himself dead. There is a distinct difference.
It'd be like you imagining God, and then God becoming what you imagine. How ridiculous is that?

But when God created the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden it was God who said the man would die if he ate from a forbidden fruit tree. It was not the man who imagined this. God issued the control over death.

[Joesus]

But when God created the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden it was God who said the man would die if he ate from a forbidden fruit tree. It was not the man who imagined this. God issued the control over death.

So your saying God did not create man in the image of God, but God imagined man dead and as such imagined man to have a destiny to die as a result of Gods imaginings.
Man having no idea what death was but still given control over what he could not imagine.

i.e. God put man in (mythical) garden of eden, stating thusly "you will die as a result of eating of the fruit of the tree of good and evil" creating the edict (since God is all powerful and doesn't make ambiguous statements) "you shall die" without first giving Adam or Eve any insight to the reality of death.

[P JayS]

But when God created the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden it was God who said the man would die if he ate from a forbidden fruit tree. It was not the man who imagined this. God issued the control over death.

So your saying God did not create man in the image of God, but God imagined man dead and as such imagined man to have a destiny to die as a result of Gods imaginings.
Man having no idea what death was but still given control over what he could not imagine.

i.e. God put man in (mythical) garden of eden, stating thusly "you will die as a result of eating of the fruit of the tree of good and evil" creating the edict (since God is all powerful and doesn't make ambiguous statements) "you shall die" without first giving Adam or Eve any insight to the reality of death.

How old is a fossil? Could not the man see that some life form gave up its life to reside in rock? Likewise perfect man could see the animals die and realize that God could end his life too if he rebelled against God's wishes for man's continued life.

[Joesus]

How old is a fossil? Could not the man see that some life form gave up its life to reside in rock? Likewise perfect man could see the animals die and realize that God could end his life too if he rebelled against God's wishes for man's continued life.

You're saying the garden of Eden had fossils and dead animals....?

[P JayS]

How old is a fossil? Could not the man see that some life form gave up its life to reside in rock? Likewise perfect man could see the animals die and realize that God could end his life too if he rebelled against God's wishes for man's continued life.

You're saying the garden of Eden had fossils and dead animals....?

The Garden of Eden was a special property bordered by 4 rivers. The man was brought to the garden by God. The serpent was the most cautious of the beasts of the field. The man may have named the animals outside the garden, i'm not sure what the record says definitely right now.

Are there any fossils of humans? Perhaps man was here first. Who knows? But after man fell short of God's glory then he was no longer perfect and ended up having the same eventuality as an animal. A dead soul.

If man came from a monkey and animals die then it may be hard for some to believe that man once was perfect. However not everybody believes in evolution.

[Joesus]

The man may have named the animals outside the garden, i'm not sure what the record says definitely right now.

Are you making an assumption that Man knew about death by using the fossil idea relating to dead animals and your interpretation of Eden as a real place? Possibly a place located on Planet Earth? (Getting up to speed with the Jehovahs Witnesses and their religious beliefs)

[P JayS]

The man may have named the animals outside the garden, i'm not sure what the record says definitely right now.

Are you making an assumption that Man knew about death by using the fossil idea relating to dead animals and your interpretation of Eden as a real place? Possibly a place located on Planet Earth? (Getting up to speed with the Jehovahs Witnesses and their religious beliefs)

Yes. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the garden was a place on earth with the first man. Fossils may have come after the first man due to a global flood which heavy waters may have turned matter into stone.

When man came to live he would be conscious that he had a start by seeing his enviroment around him and being able to talk to God personally as a physical son of God. When man was told that he could die, the man could probably understand that he wouldn't exist anymore.

[code buttons]

The Garden of Eden was a special property bordered by 4 rivers. The man was brought to the garden by God. The serpent was the most cautious of the beasts of the field. The man may have named the animals outside the garden, i'm not sure what the record says definitely right now.

Are there any fossils of humans? Perhaps man was here first. Who knows? But after man fell short of God's glory then he was no longer perfect and ended up having the same eventuality as an animal. A dead soul.

If man came from a monkey and animals die then it may be hard for some to believe that man once was perfect. However not everybody believes in evolution.

What you are saying makes you a Christian who believes in evolution... Right? Or an evolutionist who goes to church?... So, basically, you take the historical content of the Bible at face value, PJay'S?

[Joesus]

So, basically, you take the historical content of the Bible at face value, PJay'S?

He subscribes to the tenets of the Bible of The Jehovah's Witnesses, a rewrite of a rewrite of a rewrite etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses


The New World Translation

The New World Translation of the Bible is Jehovah's Witnesses own translation, no other religious group uses this Bible and Jehovah's Witnesses make very little use of other Bibles.

The translators of The New World Translation were: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz, M. Henschel

"Fred Franz was the only one with any knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew." ["Crisis of Conscience"; by Raymond Franz; Commentary Press, Atlanta; 1983 edition; footnote 15; page 50.]

Four out of the five men on the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training at all, and only a high school education. Franz studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, but dropped out after his sophomore year. When asked in a Scotland courtroom if he could translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, Franz replied that he could not. The truth is that Franz was unable to translate Hebrew or Greek.

What we have is a very inexperienced translating committee that twisted Scripture to make it fit the Society's doctrine.

In A Grossly misleading translation ( new world translation )

John 1:1, which reads "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," is shockingly mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god," in a New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published under the auspices of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation I am making this statement.
The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, "the Word was deity." Moffatt's rendering is "the Word was divine." William's translation is, "the Word was God Himself." Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek. For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done. But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have

A Grossly misleading translation ( new world translation )
Reprinted with permission


John 1:1, which reads "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," is shockingly mistranslated, "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god," in a New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, published under the auspices of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation I am making this statement.

The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, "the Word was deity." Moffatt's rendering is "the Word was divine." William's translation is, "the Word was God Himself." Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek. For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done. But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have.

If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1 the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that "the Word was with (the) God" (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and the nature is the highest in existence, namely divine.

Examples where the noun in the predicate does not have an article, as in the above verse, are: John 4:24, "God is spirit," (not a spirit); I John 4:16, "God is love," (not a love); I John 1:5, "God is light," (not a light); and Matthew 13:39, "the reapers are angels," i.e. they are the type of beings known as angels. In each instance the noun in the predicate was used to describe some quality or characteristics of the subject, whether as to nature or type.

The apostle John in the context of the introduction to his gospel is pulling all the stops out of language to portray not only the deity of Christ but also His equality with the Father. He states that the Word was in the beginning, that He was with God, that He was God and that all creation came into existence through Him and that not even one thing exists which was not created by Christ. What else could be said that John did not say? In John 1:18 he explained that Christ had been so intimate with the Father that He was in His bosom and that He came to earth to exhibit or portray God. But if we had no other statement from John except that which is found in John 14:9, "He that has seen me has seen the Father," that would be enough to satisfy the seeking soul that Christ and God are the same in essence and that both are divine and equal in nature.

Besides, the whole tenor of New Testament revelation points in this direction. Compare Paul's declaration in Colossians 1:19, for instance: "that all the divine fullness should dwell in Him," or the statement in Hebrews 1:3, "He is the reflection of God's glory and the perfect representation of His being, and continues to uphold the universe by His mighty word." (Williams translation). And note the sweeping, cosmic claim recorded in Matthew 28:19, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and earth."

And, if we contrast with that the belittling implication that Christ was only a god, do we not at once detect the discord? Does not such a conception conflict with the New Testament message both in whole and in part? Why, if John, in the midst of the idolatry of his day, had made such a statement would not the first century hearers and readers have gotten a totally inadequate picture of Christ, who we believe, is the Creator of the universe and the only Redeemer of humanity?


Julius Robert Mantey, A.B., Thd.D., PH.D., D.D.

CRI, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Phone (949) 858-6100 and Fax (949) 858-6111

http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/New_Wo...translation.htm

[code buttons]

I don't know what you just typed Joesus, As I have chosen the 'Ignore' buttons on you and all of your posts. Just letting you know so you don't waste your time any more answering to any of my posts.

[Joesus]

I don't know what you just typed Joesus, As I have chosen the 'Ignore' buttons on you and all of your posts. Just letting you know so you don't waste your time any more answering to any of my posts.

Then I guess I'll not think of wasting my time on you, and just waste my time with everyone else.

[Jakare]

However not everybody believes in evolution.

And what do such disbelivers think about vaccination then? Doesn´t flu viruses 'evolve' every year?
http://www.livescience.com/7745-swine-flu-...ion-action.html
There is nothing wrong with having strong beliefs. Having said that, being emotionally attached to such
beliefs prevents people from realizing reality.
Needless to say that proof of evolution doesn´t necessarily disprobe god at all. And keeping an outdated belief just because has been historically attached to the idea of god is just a childish attitude.

[P JayS]

I don't know what you just typed Joesus, As I have chosen the 'Ignore' buttons on you and all of your posts. Just letting you know so you don't waste your time any more answering to any of my posts.

Then I guess I'll not think of wasting my time on you, and just waste my time with everyone else.

Joesus here is my response to the Worldwide Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses being one of them myself.
I hope that you understand the affect that you have had on me to do this.

Open the link and see commnt 5 if you want too.
http://school0pjs1.multiply.com/journal/item/7

Your shared education is appreciated.

Peter

[Joesus]

What affect has it had? By directing me to your personal site, I get the feeling you really want to be taken seriously. Note that I can understand you are dead serious.
However, I don't share your belief in your religion or the translations created by the JW's to imply such a limited and personal perspective.

[Dan]

What affect has it had? By directing me to your personal site, I get the feeling you really want to be taken seriously. Note that I can understand you are dead serious.
However, I don't share your belief in your religion or the translations created by the JW's to imply such a limited and personal perspective.

Dontcha think maybe PJS is, ahem, a bit out of your league? I guess if you are really bored, or just want to help, or something. Maybe you can play some mathemagic with him, he seems fond of that. He does look a bit serious with regard to his threat to take down Visa unless it cops to its role in his family breakup 10 years ago. I hope he takes it to 'em!

[Joesus]

Out of my league?

[Dan]

Out of my league?

Well, maybe just a different league. Like baseball and basketball. Both play with their balls, but the rules of engagement are quite different.

[Joesus]

Like baseball and basketball.

I'm underwhelmed... But you are consistent.

[Dan]

I guess it just gets quiet around here sometimes. Not much highbrow thought going on, other than psychochemical "research". Carry on ...

[P JayS]

Out of my league?

Well, maybe just a different league. Like baseball and basketball. Both play with their balls, but the rules of engagement are quite different.

What's wrong with ping-pong? You need balls to play that too or 8 Ball for example! Good choice in sports though. Hantsport loves both of them (baseball and basketball ... oops and soccer too). There are three soccer fields in one small town. Two places to play basketball (one outdoor and one indoor court) and two baseball fields.

[Mahesh]

your explanation towards Consciousness is impressive and i found your book online too. i would very much like to know what your opinion about Theory of Everything (TOE). anyways i will read your book and let you know more about my opinion towards it. meantime i think this Article also about Consciousness is overwhelming.

http://www.worldtransformation.com/consciousness/