here's an interesting link, that itself contains a link to a pdf article, that I think is interesting and am curious what other people think about it:  http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001727/

Also, I was wondering if anyone has anything to say over consciousness, or whether anyone has an interesting links they'd like to share with the rest of us.

thanks,
Shawn

interesting... i gotta finish reading it and i'll make a post on my thoughts afterwards!

In expanding one's consciousness, is meditation a main tool? If so, what method of meditation is best, Buddhist, Taoist? Or is it a self learning meditation? I don't know much on the subject.

Is a self actualized person the same as an enlightened person, what is the difference?

Maybe my mind-set and approach aren't right. If anyone could help me out, it would be most apreciated.

Any approach that expands the mind permanently and establishes the steps to continuing expansion is a useful tool.
Humans are the only creatures that have the ability to evolve or devolve. Enlightenment is not necessarily the byproduct of creation. If the awareness does not expand into union and forever focuses on the downward currents of life it can fade back into the source. You can make choices to choose for the infinite awareness, or the limited realities of the senses. Once one turns towards God, God  enlivens the soul and facilitates everything that is needed to continue expansion.

Pada 2 sutra 1 of Patanjalis yoga sutras:
Tapah svadhaya isvara pranidhanani kriya yogah,
Austerity, study of the Self and surrender to the supreme being are the actions that stabilize Union

Austerity or Tapas means renouncing the lower, sense oriented style of functioning of the mind for the sake of the higher.
Establishing useful boundaries or habits that keep the mind focused on the infinite, such as meditation that allows the mind to naturally go inward.
The mind cannot be forced. If one tries to force the mind it raises the metabolism of the body and the mind and body are intimately connected. The Mind is naturally drawn towards thoughts that lead to inner peace and expansion, one need just give it the vehicle or the appropriate thoughts and get out of the way. Finding the appropriate vehicle begins with the earnest desire to follow the heart back to its source.

Tivra samveganam asannah, Pada 1 sutra 21
To the intensely vehement, soon
This sutra has misled many of the seekers of truth for ages. It has been mistranslated to mean intensity of thought or concentration. But it only refers to the desire that is placed formost in and amongst all other desires to know ones Self and seek enlightenment before all other lesser desires.

One good way to find is to seek and when you seek and you find others that have been changed in their persective as result of their practice you will be given the opportunity to apply the teaching to yourself. All true teachings point the finger back at the heart. When the student is ready the teacher and the means will appear.

There are many practices with labels that are attached to belief systems that create moods but not expansion. There are also many teachings that when applied in earnest produce great results. I could recommend them but what works for one may not work for another and it is always best if you find what works for you. Part of the process is the time spent in one pointed dedication to your goal, and what you invest in it, is always rewarded.

Thank you very much.

Shawn,
I have read the article to which you refer at the start of this post.
I must admit that I don't fully understand what is being said, though I do get a feel for it!
I'm not even sure whether he is talking of modelling how the brain works, or trying to explain (model) the models of the world which I am sure the brain produces.
I suspect that he is proposing a different technique within the brain for creating its own models, than has been proposed by others.
His examples of symbolism usage by modelling seminars, GUI's and another are good.
Beyond that I'm afraid I can't add to what he says or support or criticise it.
My career was in electronics (GM's), in particular problem solving, and I found that I was modelling situations all the time. I was always saying to myself 'it's as if .....' whether working on components, cct. boards, LRU's or systems (and their test equipment, which was often the problem) as I tried to find logical explanations for the presented symptoms and indications. It was also necessary to design 'tests' to yield further information.
This is, I think, why I came to the conclusion that the primary role of the brain is to model itself (actually the other way round - to build a brain from the model) and then to model the body, and then to model the outside world. This is a simplistic statement.
My poem which I think I have posted on site, (but include below anyway -it's not even a poem really!) was probably based on these thoughts.

Modelling

Brain controls the body
brain models outside world
brain updates model by testing
brain updates model by experience
brain models its model of outside world
brain updates its model of its model by testing
brain updates its model of its model by experience
brain retires..

Bill.

Hi! I do have a question or two about the nature of animal consciousness. By analogy to computers - what is the signal that is 'me' and what is the platform it comes on? Obviously a certain level of neural signalling is enough to run the body. Instructions to adrenals, for example, or an order for this or that muscle to contract are apparently gross electro-biochemical signals.

However 'Me' is much more than that. In fact there is no reason to connect 'me' to these processes at all, even though we know consciousness can be demonstrated to be powerfully present in the brain - and possibly the extended central nervous system. Since we have no idea of the nature of either the software or the platform (we merely know the brain is the hardware) we still have no conception of what we're looking for.

Hameroff and Penrose's theories of quantum calculation are interesting. We don't know enough about quantum computing yet to say that this is definitely the platform, but when we begin to realise the theoretical density of the parallel processing we should be able to obtain from quantum computing (ie, numbers of calculations per second that are hundreds of orders of magnitude greater than the theoretical number of particles in the Universe) then we might begin to feel daunted about the possibility of understanding the code in which 'we' are written. Furthermore this is no design job that can be retro-engineered by logic - ity's the result of incalculable billions of operations of the evolutionary mechanism itself operating in protoplasm. You try 'thinking' your way to a solution in those circumstances.

Although quantum computing in the human glial cell is the suggested mechanism from Hammeroff and Penrose, they still beg the question: what is the platform and what is the code? I don't see any evidence for the conversion of the elusive signal from quantum to classical states in animals, even though the boys have a really elegant explanation for how it happens. Excuse me guys, but when this stepped-down signal hits our glial cells as processing in a classical state of computing that embodies 'us' in its architecture, er, where do we put it? What does it alter with its presence so we know it's there?

Look this may not be rigorous, but I guess you get the message. Anyone out there got some hard physical theory that fits in with what we know? ???

The brain, the most complicated thing in the universe, can and will be reverse-engineered.  It's just a matter of time.

What does 'me' correspond to in the brain?  Unfortunately, all I can say at the moment is that 'me' is a particular type of structured neural activity.   It's an amazing thing that neural activity can yield 'me', and consciousness in general, and I think it's fair to say that the central problem in all of science, obviously so for neuroscience but also true for other fields as well since they all depend on consciousness, is resolving the mind-brain problem; i.e., what is the exact relation between neural activity and consciousness?    Or, for the spiritually-inclined scientist, it becomes a spiritually-inspired quest to answer the question, 'What am I?', in the language of science, in a language that grants us the power to modify consciousness and expand it at will.  

Hameroff and Penrose are just flat-out wrong.  All neuroscientists possessing sufficient knowledge of quantum mechanics know this.  Only physicists and mathematicians lacking knowledge of the brain's organization would find Penrose's notion of consciousness as simply a "Bose-Einstein condensate" formed through quantum coherence in microtubules appealing.   I think that if Hameroff and Penrose knew more about neuroscience and the organization of the brain, that they would retract their ridiculous theory.

QUOTE

what is the signal that is 'me' and what is the platform it comes on?

I have an atari 800 around here somewhere in a box.. when you turn it on, if there's no cartridge in it, it boots up into this "memo" mode or something like that where you can type stuff and it'll show up on screen--that's all it does
the program that does this is in the hardware, in a rom chip on the board.. but there's nothing keeping it from being built right into the processor
let's say it was built into the processor? what is the signal that is the program and what is the platform (hardware) it comes on?

QUOTE

even though we know consciousness can be demonstrated to be powerfully present in the brain - and possibly the extended central nervous system

the only part of the CNS that isn't the brain is the spinal cord.. everything that isn't encased in bone is the PNS.. I'm not sure which you're referring to, but personally I don't expect to find "consciousness" in the PNS..

but really.. I don't think I understand your post..
I'm gonna have to mostly agree with Shawn, who seems to be in charge around here, on this one

however, I'm not so quick to throw out quantum effects at all.. I think it's silly to look for consciousness in microtubules, but I think penrose shows it's at least possible that quantum effects could affect a cell.. though personally I think they'd be so small as to not make a difference at all

I don't know what the consensus is on minksy's the society of mind, but I think his chapter on consciousness can help demystify it a little..

The problem with all these quantum/microtubule approaches to consciousness is that they are muddled in failing to distinguish between providing some deeper level Law-like correlate of consciousness - i.e. quantum efects at the level of microtubules, etc. - and actually explaining WHY a fundamentally 1st person aspect of reality should arise when some particular fine level of structure and function is achieved. At the risk of getting buried in a metaphysical polemic regarding issues of neccessity and possible worlds (which I feel is best left to analytic philosophers and ultimately boggs down mind-brain research) I will go so far as to say that that they fail to distinguish between logical and natural supervinience. I think this distinction does some useful work in keeping clear on what we mean by psycho-physical laws.
Joe Cannavo

QUOTE

here's an interesting link, that itself contains a link to a pdf article, that I think is interesting and am curious what other people think about it:  http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001727/ Also, I was wondering if anyone has anything to say over consciousness, or whether anyone has an interesting links they'd like to share with the rest of us. thanks, Shawn

Chapter 2 of The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing contains the explanation from a system perspective for consciousness as well as the reasons why there are so many different attempts at definitions.

Would be happy to discuss it.

nothing like pushing the wrong finger....

http://www.enticypress.com is the location of the book.

sorry

could you point me to a url with criticisms of your work? I did a quick search and couldn't find any and don't really have a lot of time to dig..

I've tried twice to read this grand book, but I can't get past the first chapter.. a good deal of the sentences strike me as nonsense

I know, I'm supposed to read it one syllable at a time, but doing that won't help make any sense out of the whole.. heh.. which sounds like your criticism of science, keep looking at smaller pieces and lose sense of the whole..

QUOTE

could you point me to a url with criticisms of your work? I did a quick search and couldn't find any and don't really have a lot of time to dig.. I've tried twice to read this grand book, but I can't get past the first chapter.. a good deal of the sentences strike me as nonsense I know, I'm supposed to read it one syllable at a time, but doing that won't help make any sense out of the whole.. heh.. which sounds like your criticism of science, keep looking at smaller pieces and lose sense of the whole..

It is understandable that you seek to find understanding of the first chapter in something someone might have written saying why it is wrong.

There is nothing written to my knowledge. At least not that I have found through a spidering.

There are vast amounts of objections contained within the book itself. And there are links within the book to talk board threads where objections have taken on a sort of religious fervor.

I know it may not be intuitive, but drop the wall refusing further reading and just pass over chapter one. It appears most major research organizations have done so.

Read the rest of it then return to chapter one and evaluate it then.

You are welcome to write a critique of the book, or any of its themes or chapters at any time.

It would help for the science behind it, to read the link for On The States of Energy, Gravity & The Exponential Universe at the http://www.enticypress.com site, as that will give you more insight into the topic of chapter one.

It has a deep discussion of the main reasons why your initial and subsequent interpretation of chapter one need not be a stumbling block.

lkh

Hello all.

Storage of knowledge and consciousness can be seen as an effect of infolded spacetime. When you start with an unbreakable and alomst infinite stretchable membrane a part can penetrate another part. Since the brane is unbreakable it will create a double layer. (That's how mass, particles, energy ... is created). Then these membrane parts can have all type of interactions bringing via the oscillations of the sub-holon layers resonances, thermodynamics, etc.. The KEY is the "coupling" which provokes multi-layers. Those multi-layers can be coupled too by peaks.

When you want to go deeper into this approach you can check my website: http://www.mu6.com. Direct to knowledge and consciousness: http://mu6.com/knowledge.html.

On the pdf-page ( http://mu6.com/pdf.html ) you can download a pdf about Pelastration versus Hammeroff-Penrose.

This is a kinetic approach. An engineering picture that allows you to "see" a logic energetic system.

Have fun ;-)

dirk

QUOTE

consciousness can be seen as an effect of infolded spacetime.

this is an interesting thought.  On a related note, I've occasionally thought of consciousness as action (in the classical or quantum mechanical sense) acting on itself (sort of like a snake biting it's tail), though such thoughts always makes me wonder, what consequences does this have for brain organization?   I guess you could answer this question in terms of recurrent connections in the brain and self-reference, but perhaps something more can be said about it.  What do you think?  

btw, a very colorful site you have, dirk.  I'll check it out some more later today.

QUOTE

The brain, the most complicated thing in the universe, can and will be reverse-engineered.  It's just a matter of time. What does 'me' correspond to in the brain?  Unfortunately, all I can say at the moment is that 'me' is a particular type of structured neural activity.   It's an amazing thing that neural activity can yield 'me', and consciousness in general, and I think it's fair to say that the central problem in all of science, obviously so for neuroscience but also true for other fields as well since they all depend on consciousness, is resolving the mind-brain problem; i.e., what is the exact relation between neural activity and consciousness?    Or, for the spiritually-inclined scientist, it becomes a spiritually-inspired quest to answer the question, 'What am I?', in the language of science, in a language that grants us the power to modify consciousness and expand it at will.   Hameroff and Penrose are just flat-out wrong.  All neuroscientists possessing sufficient knowledge of quantum mechanics know this.  Only physicists and mathematicians lacking knowledge of the brain's organization would find Penrose's notion of consciousness as simply a "Bose-Einstein condensate" formed through quantum coherence in microtubules appealing.   I think that if Hameroff and Penrose knew more about neuroscience and the organization of the brain, that they would retract their ridiculous theory.

Shawn. I have deep concerns.

I note your comment that Hameroff and Penrose are 'just wrong' and that quantum-savvy neuroscientists would all believe so. Penrose and Hameroff say that their theory is testable, and indeed by describing precise mechanisms they do let themselves in for deep study. You mention the Bose-Einstein condensate part of the theory - and you decry it. Great. Why? It does have elegance, at least I find it does, but do you have reason to favour another theory?

As a layman, without the maths, I do have to say that at least I can clearly understand Penrose's and Hameroff's reasoning ? the mathematician and the anaesthetist ? even if they are only proposing an overall mechanism, without describing the nature of the platform that carries the code of 'me' (bet it?s not electrical!) or a description of the code itself (which is what I?m really after). I would love to find that it's all tosh. I would equally love to find that it is the real anwer. I?d then be part of a process of learning. However, rationality would appear to depend on 'stepping-stone' logic sequences, and you've left me with an unfilled hiatus.

My deep concerns focus on the fact that the very first thing - datum one - about the nature of consciousness is a total mystery. We don't even have a vocabulary to describe its hypothetical nature, and yet there seem to be whole hierarchies of detailed analyses based upon...well, I'm not sure what. In the very middle of us, filling totally everything that we are ? is a total enigma. Not one hard datum appears to have yet emerged to describe any aspect of ?me-ness? since primitive Man decided we had an indefinable essence called the soul. Nothing has changed since despite all our vaunted technology and science. How can we live with this?

All we can say is that consciousness can be turned off ? by trauma or death?or by chemical action such as anaesthesia. That?s it. That?s the only starting point we have.

I am not able or willing to perform an act of faith. It is a desecration of reality.

Where then to seek?

John Newson

Dirk,

Yoir site is fascinating. I love the juxtaposition of your theory with Penrose's. Although I fail to understand it completely, you have to admit - as you do - that you're in the same general universe as Penrose. My question to you is what is the excitation you describe? You describe what I see as a data-processing operation - how does the data arrive and in what form?

John Newson

QUOTE

It would help for the science behind it, to read the link for On The States of Energy, Gravity & The Exponential Universe at the http://www.enticypress.com site, as that will give you more insight into the topic of chapter one.

-lkh

I did read a bit of this the other day and it seems that it indeed does make chapter 1 a bit more understandable (well, what I remember of chapter 1)..
unfortunately I don't have the time to read all of your book, as I just got back from vacation and now need to pack as I'm moving to boston in 5 days.. then once there I have lots to do, so it may be a while before I get the chance to read it all..

I've repeatedly made the conscious decision to not ridicule any new theory until I've given it a chance, after seeing in the history of science that the theories we still hold true were as poorly recieved as things like the timecube.. however, I do feel that chapter 1 of your book is poorly written.. I don't know if the fault is the chapter or in your writing ability, for I haven't read enough of your work.. but I'll tell you something you likely already know, presentation may not relate to how correct your views are, but it does affect how many people consider them.. if people don't understand what you're saying, you won't likely win anyone over


and now for a seperate comment:

QUOTE

All we can say is that consciousness can be turned off ? by trauma or death?or by chemical action such as anaesthesia. That?s it. That?s the only starting point we have

-jnewson

this is something I held as true, until I saw someone else say it and my internal critic kicked in..
can consciousness be turned off by chemical action? what if anaesthetics disrupted memory instead, so that we weren't able to remember being conscious.. (either in the sense of not remembering what you did the night before while drunk, or a breakdown of short-term memory such that you can't remember what you were thinking half a second before--a loss of continuity) would we notice a difference? is there a difference at all? (I think monists and dualists may have differing opinions..)

hm.. I have some other thoughts, but I'm tired and not even sure if the above makes any sense.. and if it doesn't the others definitely wouldn't..

QUOTE

here's an interesting link, that itself contains a link to a pdf article, that I think is interesting and am curious what other people think about it:  http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001727/ Also, I was wondering if anyone has anything to say over consciousness, or whether anyone has an interesting links they'd like to share with the rest of us. thanks, Shawn

A definitive piece about it:

AWARENESS: Understanding self-awareness, awareness and consciousness.

There is a general assumption that the relation of opposites is equality.

As a kind man recently mused, "hmm, how are we to get somewhere, then.."?

The opposite can only be in relative relationship. Not total opposites: as they do attract, but they can never combine to make a new thing.

Read the latest paper from http://www.enticypress.com : AWARENESS

Learn how to read another person's letter, write for the reader's perspective and how to find the cause of a known condition.


About The Enticy Institute:

The Enticy Institute focuses on the study of brain function and the utilization of the knowledge of brain dynamics to aid and assist mental health. If young children are trained to use their brain their brain will not be misused.

Through the EnticyPress.Com facilities, the book "The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing" and research presentations of supporting documentation, The Enticy Institute will lead a world-wide effort for understanding the brain and utilizing such understanding to reduce incidents of suicide, train therapists, educate educators and speak to the needs of mental health issues and solutions.

Understanding how the brain really works will lead to useful applications of intelligence in machines and NOT to the small-minded goal of replacing human workers.

http://www.enticy.org

You make an extremely good point, that loss of consciousness may be loss of memory. But this seems to be fine distinction. Loss of memory such as you suggest, to be effective in anaesthesia (ie in order to stop pain) has to be a pretty profound effect. So profound that in definitive terms it's hard to see the difference. Furthermore, it doesn't actually help my search for the thing in the middle of me - but it has added a new facet to my thinking. Thanks for the insight.

John Newson

I know very little about anaesthesia now that I think about it...

I'm guessing the body doesn't react to pain while unconscious, like increasing heart rate or blood pressure, but I imagine any animal would show those signs when injured, even simpler animals that we wouldn't consider conscious.

Hmm.. there's a very real sense in which sensory organs are forms of memory. The data they send to our brain is 'old', it has a delay from traveling through the nerves, and in come cases from moving across space as well (for vision and hearing).

So if anaesthetics did block memory, not only would it block pain and sensory information, but it would also likely prevent new memories from being made, and we'd be unconscious for all intents and purposes. But maybe that's too much of a stretch...

There are a class of anaesthetics called dissociative anaesthetics, such as ketamine, dextromethorphan, and nitrous, which seem to act by blocking sensory data, but leaving a person 'conscious', in that you can experience your own little drug-induced world while 'unconscious' to an outside observer and remember it, or at least remember having experienced it, afterward.

So I guess for 'normal' anaesthetics in which you remember nothing, you just lose the time, perhaps both sensory data and new memories are blocked... but I get the feeling you may still experience the kind of drug-induced world as described above, you'd just be unable to remember it.

This is all speculation; I'm just throwing out ideas.. but I think they're testable using imaging... but perhaps people have already published real answers... However, I'm too lazy to check pubmed at the moment.

QUOTE

Shawn: this is an interesting thought.  On a related note, I've occasionally thought of consciousness as action (in the classical or quantum mechanical sense) acting on itself (sort of like a snake biting it's tail), though such thoughts always makes me wonder, what consequences does this have for brain organization?   I guess you could answer this question in terms of recurrent connections in the brain and self-reference, but perhaps something more can be said about it.  What do you think? Â

Thanks Shawn.
With QM I have a problem with 'uncertainty'. To me it's a cult and even promoting human ignorance.

Recurrent ... yes, in my opinion there a multi-layered energetic structure of spacetime. So several layers.
To me unbreakable, since they represent the gravity membrane. (a lot to say about that).

Several layer: to keep it simple let focus on consciousness.

Top layer: full consciousness - daily brain activity -> beta-waves. (can activate latent memory -> stored information, accessible by concentration).
Middle Layer: individual sub-consciousness -> partly theta-waves (hidden stored memory - even blocked/covered by super-stress on some membrane parts). Access: without control or when triggered by specific technics like meditation.
Down Layer: Jung collective sub-consciousness.

Now in my opinion they are all the same time vibrating. All layers. But when - during sleep or meditation - we lower the beta-wave activities we the middle and down membrane vibrations will 'peak' up in our perception systems. So neurotransmitters will now distribute other images and events which are not related to our outside perceptors but from similar vibrating deeper layers. That will be dreams including mixing individual sub-consciousness information (fear, hidden failures, secret passion, ...) combined with archetypical information from a down layer.

When one layer moves (i.e. excited) the other may move to. So there is a recurrent movement.
Now there can be super peaks (when crests and trough work together) which leads to harmonics, but also disharmonic interference (mixed wave).

The inter-dynamics of the three above mentioned membrane layer is thus very complex.
When you want to see such a layer interaction work: I made an animated gif (but related to my interpretation a a phenomena know in physics as the "Casimir-effect' ). To see that image please check this link (third image): http://www.mu6.com/show7.html. That image shows how - during the sleep when the Top layers is at almost zero-degree - the under-lying layers become 'observed'. (some remarks I had: this is a doggie thing ... so I say: yes ... why not ... it seems to be a universal mechanism! : Self-re-enforcing excitation of multi-layers: pro-creation.)

My approach is that everything is connected with everything because it's all originated by only one unbreakable and super-elastic membrane that restructures. So it's a holistic approach. Now holistic comes from the idea of "holons" which are structures that includes previous information. Nobody had an idea how that can happen but when we start with such 'unbreakable' membrane it's all very simple and imo very logic. ;-).  Specific on consciousness I designed the membrane interactions in relation to knowledge knots (holons) and consciousness for a post on a forum (superstringtheory.com) that I happen to follow, here it is (so i don't have to copy everything :-) : (1) http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/met...ages18/126.html , and (2) http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/met...ages18/127.html . Sorry Shawn, you are a moderator but it's not my intention to take away people from this forum (which by the way impresses me a lot by the pointed remarks). "Chapeau", like the French say.

These images are not on the website now ... lack of time.

Now I found the way ... you will see me here a lot! ;-)

That's for now.

Dirk

QUOTE

My question to you is what is the excitation you describe? You describe what I see as a data-processing operation - how does the data arrive and in what form? John Newson

Thanks John.

Excitation can come from three ways:
(1) exogenous information: other holons can arrive and have a surface contact with the specific holon, and his membranes start to co-vibrate. By this vibration internal membrane will start to co-vibrate also. Such excitation may create the conditions that oscillating peaks 'couple' in a knot. This knot can be very temporary but may also be really long-lasting (memory) when there is a 'pelastration' (that's a penetration where several layers are bound in a new entity.). So that new unity (containing joined duality) has a unique combination of oscillations: a unique resonance. That's unique INFORMATION. When the outer - provoking holon disappears: the knowledge-knot is still there!
In our brain we will have collectors of "resonance" who will just 'mirror' such knowledge knot and transport that surface-stamp to another units, and stamp there again (that way reproducing the identical information in the receptor). Such mediators can be the neurotransmitters.
(2) Internal excitation: because the overhaul system vibrates and kinetically moves, all sub-sets will have internally friction between the internal layers. Friction means: thermodynamics, Electro-magnetism and nuclear interaction; Thus: by the internal movement also new knots can be made (IF the stretchability of the internal membrane(s) allow so. Most of the time membrane moves will not lead to new information knots. Knowledge knots will be 'rare events'.
(3) Embedded information: external information may also ENTER inside a holon, and staying there. That will influence the holon's oscillation. This holon will start to vibrate differently.

Data-processing? Of course. But there is more. A very strange thing happens with the number of layers. Depending from what holon is impacting ... the number of layers in the new holon unit will be different! So the direction of the impact changes the layer numbers. What is the active tube, what is the passive. Very strange .. but logic. If you want to see more of this paradox: check: http://www.mu6.com/numbers.html .

Dirk.

I've had an experience in my childhood, several times, and was wondering if I could finds some explanation on this forums.
For several time, while asleep, or usually in the alpha state before "falling" asleep, I'de become aware and slightly awake of my surronding which appears to me as a very huge void of emptiness, and a strong sense of time delation, in other words I feel like I am a very small object or the smallest possibel to exit, like an atom, between my surrounding.
Well, the feeling is tense and uneasy, the silnce is so loud and I am unable to awake my self, and I am very sure I am not in a dream.

Thank you Dirk,

Replying to your comments on Pelastration, I do have to say that I can sense its internal logic and fascinating potential for complexity. In that way it certainly fulfils the conditions required of a potential model for sapient awareness. May I ask you at what point this theory checks out best with current understanding? How can I most easily integrate a world-view based on pelastration into my understanding of the physical universe?

At the same time, in a spirit of scientific enquiry (and I must admit considerable personal frustration - after all, we are all monkeys) I would like to challenge Shawn, our moderator, as to why he feels that Penrose and Hammeroff are "just wrong". I personally have invested a considerable amount of my limited intellectual capital in trying (and beginning) to understand a model of consciousness based on a theory involving quantum calculation for the logic processes and Bose-Einsten condensates for the integration of these processes. Have I spent that capital in the wrong place? Have I wasted several precious and irreplaceable years?

Shawn, if this theory doesn't work for you, please tell me exactly what it is that you feel is broken here?


John Newson

hello John,

one of the common criticisms of the Penrose/Hammeroff quantum theory of consciousness is that microtubules are too noisy to support bose einstein condensation. But, laying aside that criticism for a moment, let's consider the fact that neuronal communication is mediated by networks of synaptically connected neurons producing action potentials, which are then propagated to other neurons, where they undergo spatial and temporal summation, resulting either in other neurons firing action potentials or not. There is no room for information processing mediated by microtubule networks. It's simply biologically implausible to conceive how microtubules could ever be implicated in inter-neuronal communication since they are confined within neurons. Thus, at best, you might have individual bose einstein condensates for each of the billions of neurons comprising your brain. But that leaves you with billions of bose einstein condensates, and so the question of how they're integrated remains unanswered.

Much research in neuroscience has established that a fundamental functional unit in the nervous system is the neuron, and that it's method of communicating with other neurons is through action potentials and their spatio-temporal summation. Penrose and Hammeroff come across as ignorant of much of neuroscience by emphasizing the importance of microtubules (which presumably are the only structures that could possibly support bose einstein condensates, though even this is highly doubtful), while having nothing or little to say about the role of coordinated neuronal activity in producing consciousness, which is no doubt the main reason why neuroscientists, in general, do not take him seriously (since the vast majority of neuroscientists believe that certain types of neuronal activity give rise to, or are the neural correlates of, consciousness).

Personally, I find the penrose/hammeroff theory flat-out ridiculous. I don't preclude the possibility that quantum theory will be shown to have ramifications for consciousness, and it doesn't mean that I regard Penrose and Hammeroff as any lesser human beings. In fact, I have much admiration for Penrose, and I'm sympathetic to their desire to construct a theory of consciousness and attempt to answer probably the biggest mystery which has confronted Man since the time he acquired self-awareness. I just think that they're both very ignorant of neuroscience. You cannot answer the problem of consciousness by ignoring the relation that coordinated neuronal activity has been shown to have with consciousness. And this is precisely what Penrose and Hammeroff have done.

Their theory will soon be forgotten. It's inevitable, and it's just a matter of time. But it's not cause to lament, since bits and pieces of a truer theory of consciousness already exist, and no doubt the future has yet to herald an integrative and satisfying solution of this problem that will be recognized and willingly accepted by all those involved, and which will yield practical results that cannot readily be imagined today.

Btw, I don't think you've wasted your time. Quantum mechanics makes fascinating study in it's own right, and in fact, I do believe that it has implications for consciousness that I could speculate on, though I think the role of coordinated activity of neurons in consciousness cannot and should not be underestimated at any cost. There are billions of neurons in your brain, firing action potentials in some peculiar form. What you experience is based on the structure of this neuronal activity. Determining the relation between the structure of the neuronal activity of billions of neurons in your brain and the contents of your consciousness and state of mind is the problem that confronts us now. We should not rest content and self-satisfied with simple quantum solutions, particulary when their validity is highly questionable due to the 'noisiness' of biological systems. We must understand the neuronal system so as to control it. If a theory does not offer us control, then it should be thrown away as useless.

take care,
Shawn

[quote author=pelastration link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg9525 date=1061993400]
Thanks Shawn.
With QM I have a problem with 'uncertainty'. To me it's a cult and even promoting human ignorance.

Recurrent ... yes, in my opinion there a multi-layered energetic structure of spacetime. So several layers.
To me unbreakable, since they represent the gravity membrane. (a lot to say about that).

Several layer: to keep it simple let focus on consciousness.

Top layer: full consciousness - daily brain activity -> beta-waves. (can activate latent memory -> stored information, accessible by concentration).
Middle Layer: individual sub-consciousness -> partly theta-waves (hidden stored memory - even blocked/covered by super-stress on some membrane parts). Access: without control or when triggered by specific technics like meditation.
Down Layer: Jung collective sub-consciousness.

Now in my opinion they are all the same time vibrating. All layers. But when - during sleep or meditation - we lower the beta-wave activities we the middle and down membrane vibrations will 'peak' up in our perception systems. So neurotransmitters will now distribute other images and events which are not related to our outside perceptors but from similar vibrating deeper layers. That will be dreams including mixing individual sub-consciousness information (fear, hidden failures, secret passion, ...) combined with archetypical information from a down layer.

When one layer moves (i.e. excited) the other may move to. So there is a recurrent movement.
Now there can be super peaks (when crests and trough work together) which leads to harmonics, but also disharmonic interference (mixed wave).

The inter-dynamics of the three above mentioned membrane layer is thus very complex.
When you want to see such a layer interaction work: I made an animated gif (but related to my interpretation a a phenomena know in physics as the "Casimir-effect' ). To see that image please check this link (third image): http://www.mu6.com/show7.html. That image shows how - during the sleep when the Top layers is at almost zero-degree - the under-lying layers become 'observed'. (some remarks I had: this is a doggie thing ... so I say: yes ... why not ... it seems to be a universal mechanism! : Self-re-enforcing excitation of multi-layers: pro-creation.)

My approach is that everything is connected with everything because it's all originated by only one unbreakable and super-elastic membrane that restructures. So it's a holistic approach. Now holistic comes from the idea of "holons" which are structures that includes previous information. Nobody had an idea how that can happen but when we start with such 'unbreakable' membrane it's all very simple and imo very logic. ;-).  Specific on consciousness I designed the membrane interactions in relation to knowledge knots (holons) and consciousness for a post on a forum (superstringtheory.com) that I happen to follow, here it is (so i don't have to copy everything :-) : (1) http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/met...ages18/126.html , and (2) http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/met...ages18/127.html . Sorry Shawn, you are a moderator but it's not my intention to take away people from this forum (which by the way impresses me a lot by the pointed remarks). "Chapeau", like the French say.

These images are not on the website now ... lack of time.

Now I found the way ... you will see me here a lot! ;-)

That's for now.

Dirk
[/quote]

So we go where the neuroscientists are, to get straightened out. How do we blend the nature of the matters with the physics of consciousness(?).

Maybe a neuroscientist might have a better explanation?

Sol

-Shawn-

I had a few questions about neuroscience.

"Interestingly, such prominences on the head have been traditionally associated with spiritual awareness, and it's been said that Buddha possessed a prominence on his head too."

^Does brain size actually have anything to do with intelligence. If so, to what extent, and can you exersize certain areas of your brain by certain mental activities or exersizes?

Is there a more general categorization of the brain that shows relation to certain activities that have been proven to correspond with certain areas of the brain? Such as, hand eye coordination, or memory.

Have you done any tests concerning brain activity and the psycologically permanent effects; when useing LSD, Psylosybin Mushrooms, Salvia Divinorum, Peyote or, any other psychedelics? If so, what kind of experiments? I'm very interrested in the permanent effects of alterring ones conciousness using psychedelics.

I have heard that extreme users of Psylosybin Mushrooms, form a gewy jeliton like substance ontop of their brain, when an otopsy is performed, that is. I'm not sure if that's something you would know about or not.

"If we understand the organization of these networks, and are in a position to control or manipulate network activities (by the use of implanted stimulating electrodes, for example), then we are in a position to correct aberrant network activity (and thus treat various mental disorders) and, more generally, to alter and enhance consciousness. "

^What exactly are "stimulating electrodes"? How would you go about doing such a thing?

.................................................ENLIGHTENMENT-TOPIC........................................................................

Would you say that two enlightened people could have the same level of enlightenment, and thus be at the same levels of conciousness, with the same exact ideas of right and wrong and same mentality in exactliness? Or would you say that no two minds can think exactly allike, and although their states of conciousness are similar, their past events are different and their "enlighenment" expieriences cannot be exactly the same.

Maybe that is a bit of a mixed up question, I'l just ask it differently again.

Is there a universal enlightenment that anyone, most anyone, can experience, given the effort be put in?

Or perhaps my view of enlightenment is alltogether wrong. Ive read the sections on this site regarding conciousness, self actuallized persons and, that view on enlightenment and it's levels,and there being no ulltimate level.

Also, with enlightenment viewed in that light, what is the ultimate goal if there is no ultimate enlightenment? Is it to go as far as you can? But then what?

When the Buddha speaks of enlightened ones, awakened ones, no longer being in the circle of reincarnation, do they then expand their conciousness in another relm, or do they remain the same because they have set their minds that way before their departure? Viewed in that light, once you get to that level of conciousness, can you make a concious decision to what you would rather do, so that when you die you can actually choose. Or do you think that Buddha, limmiting himself to his"enlightenment", was simply unaware of anything beyond his enlightenment and, considered it the enlightenment, and as far as he knew, anything beyond that was after death and, a steady enlightenment for all of eternity?

I once heard Buddha speak of an elightened one, being able to choose out of these two choices opon nearing his end:

A. Break his circle of rebirth

B. Return again to become an adherant, awakened one, so that he could help others to escape suffering.

I think my thinking on this matter is an unsure one. If anyone could answer my questions, or help me understand this better, I'd be a happy camper.

~river~

hello River,

I'm glad to see your questions about neuroscience. Because of time, I'm just going to try answering them off the top of my head, but will give you better answers for some if you'd like.

[quote author=river link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14063 date=1064305467]

"Interestingly, such prominences on the head have been traditionally associated with spiritual awareness, and it's been said that Buddha possessed a prominence on his head too."

Does brain size actually have anything to do with intelligence. If so, to what extent, and can you exersize certain areas of your brain by certain mental activities or exersizes?

[/quote]

I've come across studies showing weakly positive correlations between brain size and intelligence, bearing in mind that these correlations are for populations of people and don't say anything about whether an individual with a big brain has a high IQ or not. Also, correlations alone do not say anything about causality (i.e., whether big brains have a tendency to cause high IQ, vs whether high IQ results in a bigger brain). The quote above about "prominences on the head being traditionally associated with spiritual awareness" and about Buddha having such a prominence, I read at a museum display featuring Buddhist art. I'm not sure about the validity of such statements (they're likely only folklore).


[quote author=river link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14063 date=1064305467]

Is there a more general categorization of the brain that shows relation to certain activities that have been proven to correspond with certain areas of the brain? Such as, hand eye coordination, or memory?

[/quote]

Yes. I can't go into it now, but one example would be the localization of speech vocalization and understanding to Broca's and Wernicke's areas, respectively. Of course, these areas are mere components of larger distributed brain networks, though what all the other components of this network are, is not so clear.


[quote author=river link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14063 date=1064305467]

Have you done any tests concerning brain activity and the psycologically permanent effects; when useing LSD, Psylosybin Mushrooms, Salvia Divinorum, Peyote or, any other psychedelics? If so, what kind of experiments? I'm very interrested in the permanent effects of alterring ones conciousness using psychedelics.

[/quote]

yes, I am very interested in this too, but have not done any real tests myself (unless you include controlled self-experimentation).


[quote author=river link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14063 date=1064305467]

I have heard that extreme users of Psylosybin Mushrooms, form a gewy jeliton like substance ontop of their brain, when an otopsy is performed, that is. I'm not sure if that's something you would know about or not.

[/quote]

I have read something about different types of brain damage induced by abuse of certain drugs, but have never heard of this gooey gelatin substance effect from schrooms, and cannot imagine what that substance would be composed of. Right now, I'm sceptical of the validity of this gelatin effect..... maybe pubmed can turn up something.



[quote author=river link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14063 date=1064305467]

"If we understand the organization of these networks, and are in a position to control or manipulate network activities (by the use of implanted stimulating electrodes, for example), then we are in a position to correct aberrant network activity (and thus treat various mental disorders) and, more generally, to alter and enhance consciousness. "

^What exactly are "stimulating electrodes"? How would you go about doing such a thing?

[/quote]

stimulating electrodes are electrodes that could be implanted in, and used to stimulate, different areas of the brain by passing current through them. Alternative means for significantly manipulating brain network activity exist, like biofeedback, pharmacological methods (i.e., drugs), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), fetal stem cell implants..... that's all i can think of at the moment, but I'm sure the list can go on and on.


[quote author=river link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14063 date=1064305467]

Would you say that two enlightened people could have the same level of enlightenment, and thus be at the same levels of conciousness, with the same exact ideas of right and wrong and same mentality in exactliness? Or would you say that no two minds can think exactly allike, and although their states of conciousness are similar, their past events are different and their "enlighenment" expieriences cannot be exactly the same.

[/quote]

I would say that our sense of individuality is an illusion and that we're all of the same universal consciousness. But this doesn't really answer your question, so let me try this: In general, I think that two minds can be identical, in principle, but not practically. That is, there's a miniscule probability that two minds will be identical, but the probability is so small that it will never happen. It's just like in thermodynamics, there's a miniscule probability that after you drop your coffee cup and it shatters, that the shattered pieces will just happen to form back together again..... but this never happens. Now, I say the preceding would seem to hold in general, but what about the exceptional cases ..... I do not rule this out. I think it's possible, but whether it's happened already or not is another matter..... Perhaps all of our minds during 'deep sleep' are very, very similar to one another? It's a very good question, River. I need to think about this more.

[quote author=river link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14063 date=1064305467]

Is there a universal enlightenment that anyone, most anyone, can experience, given the effort be put in?

[/quote]

yes. I believe there are universal states of enlightenment that most anyone can experience, or rather, that there are universal rungs on an infinitely high ladder of enlightenment. Whether the ladder remains a single ladder, or whether it splits into multiple ladders (maybe to rejoin into one ladder, higher up), that's an interesting question.

[quote author=river link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14063 date=1064305467]

Or perhaps my view of enlightenment is alltogether wrong. Ive read the sections on this site regarding conciousness, self actuallized persons and, that view on enlightenment and it's levels,and there being no ulltimate level.

[/quote]

yes, that's right. We are unbounded. To the extent that we realize (i.e., directly experience) our unboundedness and our vastness, thus do we expand our consciousness (at least along one direction or dimension).

[quote author=river link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14063 date=1064305467]

Also, with enlightenment viewed in that light, what is the ultimate goal if there is no ultimate enlightenment? Is it to go as far as you can? But then what?

[/quote]

What is the goal? What is the point? What is the meaning? These are all excellent questions. The answers are not intellectual, but are things to be experienced in higher modes of consciousness. That's the best answer I can offer. I can try to intellectualize or verbalize it more (and will try to do so soon), but it ultimately comes down to direct experience. I can point the way with words and signs, but it is you who must experience it for yourself.

Believe me, the answers are there. In fact, the questions don't even really exist. It's all a state of mind. But enough of my trite talk already. Open yourself up to the experience... sometimes we try too hard to make something happen, and because of misguided efforts, we fail to make it happen. So, try something different.... try all sorts of different, subtle (and not so subtle) things.


[quote author=river link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14063 date=1064305467]

When the Buddha speaks of enlightened ones, awakened ones, no longer being in the circle of reincarnation, do they then expand their conciousness in another relm, or do they remain the same because they have set their minds that way before their departure? Viewed in that light, once you get to that level of conciousness, can you make a concious decision to what you would rather do, so that when you die you can actually choose. Or do you think that Buddha, limmiting himself to his"enlightenment", was simply unaware of anything beyond his enlightenment and, considered it the enlightenment, and as far as he knew, anything beyond that was after death and, a steady enlightenment for all of eternity?

[/quote]

I think enlightened people realize their vastness, unboundedness, and universal nature. Buddha, by going beyond himself (or shedding himself of false notions), found that which is universal..... call it "Buddha consciousness" if you will.... nonetheless, it ("Buddha consciousness") lives on, because it is universal, because it is open to almost everyone.

About whether he was simply unaware of anything beyond his enlightenment, hmm, I'm not sure how to answer this, but would think that he was, to some extent (certainly before his enlightenment).


[quote author=river link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14063 date=1064305467]

I once heard Buddha speak of an elightened one, being able to choose out of these two choices opon nearing his end:

A. Break his circle of rebirth

B. Return again to become an adherant, awakened one, so that he could help others to escape suffering.

I think my thinking on this matter is an unsure one. If anyone could answer my questions, or help me understand this better, I'd be a happy camper.

[/quote]

I have read a bit of eastern philosophy/religion, and while most of it I understand and try to experience, there are almost invariably parts that I disagree with or do not understand. Your preceding statements about enlightened ones being able to choose would fall under the latter heading.



I hope my answers helped a little.

take care,
Shawn

-Shawn-

[quote author=Shawn link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14093 date=1064363840]

I've come across studies showing weakly positive correlations between brain size and intelligence, bearing in mind that these correlations are for populations of people and don't say anything about whether an individual with a big brain has a high IQ or not. Also, correlations alone do not say anything about causality (i.e., whether big brains have a tendency to cause high IQ, vs whether high IQ results in a bigger brain).
[/quote]

Thank you for answering my questions. It seems that, all in all, brain size and intelligence are two parts of the same whole and, hard to put definite ideas or, any real sure distiction between brain size and, intelligence, relating to the general puplic.

The idea of weather a high IQ makes a big brain or, a big brain means a high IQ I found interresting. Maybe it's a little bit of both, what do you think?

[quote author=Shawn link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14093 date=1064363840]

stimulating electrodes are electrodes that could be implanted in, and used to stimulate, different areas of the brain by passing current through them.
[/quote]

How would the electrodes be implanted so that they could stumulate the brain? Does this technique have to do with electrical currents in the brain? If so, than I wonder if a relation could be found in acupuncture, since this is based on the lines of meridian, lines of electrical currents found in the body, chi. Do you think there could be any signifigance in that?

[quote author=Shawn link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14093 date=1064363840]


I would say that our sense of individuality is an illusion and that we're all of the same universal consciousness. But this doesn't really answer your question, so let me try this: In general, I think that two minds can be identical, in principle, but not practically. That is, there's a miniscule probability that two minds will be identical, but the probability is so small that it will never happen. It's just like in thermodynamics, there's a miniscule probability that after you drop your coffee cup and it shatters, that the shattered pieces will just happen to form back together again..... but this never happens. Now, I say the preceding would seem to hold in general, but what about the exceptional cases ..... I do not rule this out. I think it's possible, but whether it's happened already or not is another matter.....
[/quote]

I see what you mean about two minds being identical in principal but not practially. If I flipped a penny onto the ground an infinite amount of times, would it eventually land exactly the same twice? So the likelihood of two minds being exactly the same is not likely at all......a pondering thing it is. Do you think that the univese is in balance and order because of randomness?

I don't think that a penny could ever land twice, exactly the same, no matter how many times I flipped it, even if the sircumstances meant that I would flip it for eternity, but then again, I would have to get the same flip eventually, wouldn't I? Maybe, to do anything exatly the same twice, would mean the destruction or, recreation of the universe.....or the symbolization of it. Like the theory, that the universe started whith an explosion caused by matter and energy splitting in two. Maybe the puzzle in itself helps explain the nature of infinity and the laws or returning that Lao Tzu refers to. I'm curious to hear more on this if you have any ideas. I don't think it is quite the same as the coffee cup theory but, it goes along the lines of randomness

[quote author=Shawn link=board=11;threadid=1892;start=0#msg14093 date=1064363840]

What is the goal? What is the point? What is the meaning? These are all excellent questions. The answers are not intellectual, but are things to be experienced in higher modes of consciousness. That's the best answer I can offer. I can try to intellectualize or verbalize it more (and will try to do so soon), but it ultimately comes down to direct experience. I can point the way with words and signs, but it is you who must experience it for yourself.
[/quote]

I suppose that if an answer can't be answered intellectually, then it can only be learned through experience. For example, you can read every book on cooking, watch all the cooking shows, memorize all the recipies but, eventually all these things can only guide you, you have to actually put in the effort and, cook and bake in order to make it a reallity. This is one of the fundamental learning tools of life.

I think the following paragraph is a great explanation on how to properly go about mastering something, no matter what that something is. Allthough the section is relating to martial arts, it's universally true for all things. It explains well the prosess of returning, in three stages.

Bruce Lee once explained the learning of martial arts with the three stages of cultivation, I will copy it from one of his books, The Tao of Jeen Kune Do.

Three stages of cultivation

There are three stages in the cultivation of gung fu. Namely, the Primitive stage, the Stage of Art, and the Stage of Artlesness. The Primitive Stage is the stage of ignorance in wich a person knows nothing of the art of combat and in a fight he simply blocks and hits "instinctively." The second stage (the Stage of art) begins when he starts his training in gung fu. In his lessons, he is taught the different ways of blocking and striking, the forms, the way to stand, to kick, etc. Unquestionably he has gained a scientific knowledge of combat, but his original "self" and sense of freedom are lost. His mind "stops' at various movements for intellectual analysis and calculations. His actions no longer flow by itself. The third stage (the Stage of Artlessness) arrives when his training reaches maturity; his techniques are performed on an almost uconcious level without any interference from his mind. Instead of "I hit," it becomes "it hits!" This is the stage of cultivated ignorance. In other words, before I learned martial art, a punch was just like a punch, a kick was just like a kick. After I learned martial art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick was no longer a kick. Finally, after I understood martial art, a punch is just like a punch, a kick just like a kick.

I may be a bit off topic but, I felt that this section fit in well. Because it's relevant I think.

I'd really like to hear what you think about all this, when you get the time.

~river~

I firmly believe in the following model of the consciousness/universe:
There are infinite possibilities. There exist consciousness, which realizes(makes them real) the infinite possibilities simultaneously.

This is not an experience and I donot know how I got this idea, but I believe this (and ofcourse with an element of doubt at the back of the mind). I find this model simple and complete.

Any expert opinion on how close this model is to the reality?

Regards
Rj

my understanding of quantum mechanics is also along those lines, for the most part, though it's useful to bear in mind that it's an interpretation, and that there are several different interpretations. For example, David Bohm has a purely deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics and the 'collapse' of the wave function which does not support the infinite possibilities view you brought up.

If you haven't, you should read John Wheeler's article posted at http://brainmeta.com/invision/index.php?showtopic=281 for an interesting interpretation and discussion.

Shawn, i have read many threads here, and your thoughts are nearly parallel to mine. There just a couple areas of thinking where i differ from you.

What are your thoughts on 'mind over matter'? - the control over pain, fear, body tempature, ..ect.?

hello Scoutxx0r,

and welcome.

Yeah, well.. about two years ago someone mentioned 'mind over matter' to me. Ever since then I have been practicing how i interpret what my body feels, and how i can change/make my own perspectives.
Its to the point now that i can walk outside on the coldest of days with pants and a t-shirt on. Pain has also reached the point that it barely scathes me at all.
Anyways, I think a lot of good ideas cluster here.
nice forum..

sometimes it helps to regard or reinterpret pain as just any other sort of sensation, like the "sensation of red" or any other color. Pain consists of two distinct parts, the sensation and your reaction to the sensation. The key is to not even react, and then pain won't affect you.

Control is a noble Idea because it gives power to the individual in a given situation, the idea that you are in charge and that you have mastered a given situation.
Mankind has long taken the idea of control into his mind and from his perspective created the mechanical means to support the idea.

In olden times to control invasion from unwanted people we buit castles with high walls, a gate and even a moat. This form of control created an illusion of safety from what we focused on as undesirable, but the mind never dropped the idea of the threat, it was and always is everpresent in control.

IF you remove the threat from the mind then there is no control and no reason to control, non-fear does not create a need for control and the peace that ensues is more real than a peace that contains potential threat in the midst of control.

You can train the mind to do just about anything but anything that is created on the foundations of limitations always lives amongst limitation.
Even training the mind to not feel pain does not remove the stress from the nervous system.

For example, I have a friend who works in the medical field and she gave me a description of an organ transplant donor and the procedure.
A young man about 19 suffered a massive head injury in a motorcycle accident, although they had determined that he was brain dead his body was very much alive and he was kept alive by artificial means until they could harvest the organs.
During the procedure they monitor the blood pressure, heart rate, skin tempurature etc but they do not use any anaesthetic. Why would they if the guy is really dead and not able to wake up during the procedure, but really they don't because they want all of the harvested organs to be free of any chemicals.
(Anyone ever killed an animal before, and tasted meat that is from an animal that is killed under stress or by complete suprise and tasted the difference in the meat?)
Anyway as they cut into the body the heart rate goes way up, the breathing becomes erratic, skin tempurature climbs and he starts to sweat. Although the procedure is quick and everything ends in silence the body reacts much as if the brain were still actively involved in some kind of awareness of what is happening.

IF you train the brain to act a different way does it still retain the memory of what it was turned away from? It would seem to indicate that the cellular memory without the aid of the brain was still able to sense through the neuropetides and reciever sites of the cells, the memory, or the reaction to the invasion of the surgeons knife.

The point of mind over matter would seem an ideal but if the mind contains any doubt or any information of the limitations that are to be overcome would the mind be able to free itself from the reality of the opposing thought no matter how deep it was buried?

Consciousness in limitation produces manifest reality that is always in limitation. If you try to expand limitation it is still limitation but now in greater understanding of its reality based on limits.
Expand the awareness to experience consciousness in its true essence, without limits and the manifest reality does not contain limits.

Relative reality is always relative to what is underlying the basis of beliefs and thoughts about reality. Expand the mind to recieve what is not relative and life automatically changes.
Then you do not react because there is nothing to react to. Manifest reality is just a thought and what value should we give to thoughts, and what types of thoughts would you have without limits and limitations?

Beliefs are another story, control does not remove the stress of the underlying threat. You can build your castle walls but you will always carry the burden of the opposing thought no matter how well you condition the mind to ignore it.

Hi Janus,

If you are interested in learning about things Joe is saying I can provide you with some links to articles and e-books that will help you understand.

Laz

'control' is a manifestation of desire, in that one seeks to obtain/maintain a desired state (i.e., the desire for a particular state motivates related 'controlling' behavior).



Joesus' nonsense is simply a severe case of his particular strain of newagecultguru-itis

Thanks, Laz, but I think I'll pass.


Now, then.
Joesus, this is what I said: "You can desire control for the purpose of creating something, not out of fear, but because you will it and want it." When you say the following: