I have a small introduction on my website you could read, but if you are really interested, then I would recommend the universe in a nutshell by Stephen Hawking.
Heres the link if you're interested:
My Webpage
Full Version: delusion of immortality!
..no, no excerpt but i should write a book on the subject (-:
Perceiving separation is a mindthing, and leads us to believe that there's an actual entity doing, thinking, acting, conceptualizing.. and that list is endless...
What reason is there to suggest there's something else but consciousness reflecting consciousness?
Perceiving separation is a mindthing, and leads us to believe that there's an actual entity doing, thinking, acting, conceptualizing.. and that list is endless...
What reason is there to suggest there's something else but consciousness reflecting consciousness?
excerpt or expert?
..and excerpt of a not yet written book by a non-expert of no-thingness...
Thanks Laz will have a look 
sorry I haven't replied in a while (work on ya know) any way the guest's point is interesting, how do we know that consciousness is a reality? it could be that rather than introspection being an infalible internal sense it is like all our other senses, easily fooled. Churchland brings up a couple of interesting points about it *ahem*
"you do not clearly apprehend a neural network pulsing with electrochemical activity: you aprehend a flux of thoughts, sensations, desires and emotions" and later he talks about when we look at an apple we do not see photons of light reflecting at different frequencies we see a shiny red apple etc. and I have to admit it's a fairly convincing argument. xx
sorry I haven't replied in a while (work on ya know) any way the guest's point is interesting, how do we know that consciousness is a reality? it could be that rather than introspection being an infalible internal sense it is like all our other senses, easily fooled. Churchland brings up a couple of interesting points about it *ahem*"you do not clearly apprehend a neural network pulsing with electrochemical activity: you aprehend a flux of thoughts, sensations, desires and emotions" and later he talks about when we look at an apple we do not see photons of light reflecting at different frequencies we see a shiny red apple etc. and I have to admit it's a fairly convincing argument. xx
..tabula_rasa, why would you doubt knowing you are? This is the only thing we can know, that we are. That is it, and that is all...
| QUOTE |
| how do we know that consciousness is a reality? it could be that rather than introspection being an infalible internal sense it is like all our other senses, easily fooled. |
When you find consciousness, you will know that it is real. Introspection on the other hand is as you say fallible, and is not consciousness. It is a just tool that we use in our everyday lives. Its more linked with logic and language than consciousness.
I've not heard of Churchland, but his quote seems to refer to Introspection as well. If I look at an apple, I can tell you that I can see photons bouncing off of it, because that's what human eyes do.
The fact that we choose in our language to say something different does not affect the underlying reality that photons are emitted from light sources and bounce around until the eye absorbs them, converts their enegry, and shows the brain a mental image of the world!
Churchland = Patricia Churchland
on the incompatability of networks and mind-stuff/thoughts, maybe we're talking about different levels of abstractions. The stuff of consciousness is an abstraction of lower-level network activity.
on the incompatability of networks and mind-stuff/thoughts, maybe we're talking about different levels of abstractions. The stuff of consciousness is an abstraction of lower-level network activity.
Okay, so we are in straight dissagreement on this then 
would you care to post your heirarchy of network activity showing the layers and explanations of each? I'd be keen to see how you've organised it
would you care to post your heirarchy of network activity showing the layers and explanations of each? I'd be keen to see how you've organised it
| QUOTE |
| would you care to post your heirarchy of network activity showing the layers and explanations of each? |
not yet.
Given that there are 100 billion neurons in the brain that operate on timescales of 1 millisecond, it seems evident that, when we compare these numbers to our own conscious experience (i.e., that consciousness operates on timescales greater than 1 millisecond, and that consciousness consists of far, far fewer than 100 billion distinguishable components at any given time), that some sort of abstraction must be what consciousness is about, that it's abstracting, over space and time, from the activities of 100 billion neurons.
I am new to this site so I don't know if this is the best place to post this, but I have a question.
Can anyone lucid-dream, and if you haven't before is there a specific way (if any) to learn how? One of my friends claims that he can lucid-dream, and he says its because he does certain drugs. I haven't done those drugs because I am afraid of what could happen, is that the only way to have that ability?
Thanks All,
Amy
Can anyone lucid-dream, and if you haven't before is there a specific way (if any) to learn how? One of my friends claims that he can lucid-dream, and he says its because he does certain drugs. I haven't done those drugs because I am afraid of what could happen, is that the only way to have that ability?
Thanks All,
Amy
Hi Deep2drown,
There are a number of lucid dream threads around, but if you wish to start a new one, it's always a popular topic
There are a number of lucid dream threads around, but if you wish to start a new one, it's always a popular topic
How about just a rough outline Guest, I really am interested in what you have to say, is it like:
Human consciousness
---------------
Higer level thinking
---------------
Reptile Brain
---------------
Basic autonomic functions
Human consciousness
---------------
Higer level thinking
---------------
Reptile Brain
---------------
Basic autonomic functions
Laz, can you lucid dream?
Okay well I have to go...If anybody has any techniques they'd like to share my email address is babyblue6272@hotmail.com
I wish I could deep, i am practising though, i'll let you know if i make a breakthrough
forgot to login, that last one was mine
..what is witnessing all this conceptualizing? Is there a silent backdrop to the babble of thinking?
Eh?
Can you be more descriptive Guest?
Can you be more descriptive Guest?
I was reading a little of Bernard Baars book 'In the Theater of Consciousness' before going to bed last night, and recall a line that may be apt for interpreting Guest's comment:
"There seems to be a basic connection between self and conscious experience. They are not the same thing but stand in the relation of context to content."
But Baars shouldn't get too much credit since similar statements are to be found in the Bhagavad Gita and myriad other sources pre-dating his comments.
I guess the basic point that Guest is trying to make is that, for everything observed (or thought about), there's an observer lurking behind it all.... conscious experience seems to necessarily imply an observer, or at least that's what our own conscious experiences seem to suggest. Of course, it's dangerous to extrapolate based on our own limited conscious experiences to make general statements applicable to all conscious experiences, though I'm sure Guest is well aware of that.
"There seems to be a basic connection between self and conscious experience. They are not the same thing but stand in the relation of context to content."
But Baars shouldn't get too much credit since similar statements are to be found in the Bhagavad Gita and myriad other sources pre-dating his comments.
I guess the basic point that Guest is trying to make is that, for everything observed (or thought about), there's an observer lurking behind it all.... conscious experience seems to necessarily imply an observer, or at least that's what our own conscious experiences seem to suggest. Of course, it's dangerous to extrapolate based on our own limited conscious experiences to make general statements applicable to all conscious experiences, though I'm sure Guest is well aware of that.
I like the quote Shawn but i still dissagree with guests comments.
To impose a little of my own experience now, If you can remove sensory input to oneself through meditation, drug taking, or some other technique then what is left?
The introspection falls away without input, thoughts stop rising in ones head. This is a state of pure consciousness/pure self, it's not even consciousness witnessing consciousness. This is what the quote tells us; self and conscious experience are different, you can get to a point where there is no longer an observer involved.
To impose a little of my own experience now, If you can remove sensory input to oneself through meditation, drug taking, or some other technique then what is left?
The introspection falls away without input, thoughts stop rising in ones head. This is a state of pure consciousness/pure self, it's not even consciousness witnessing consciousness. This is what the quote tells us; self and conscious experience are different, you can get to a point where there is no longer an observer involved.
wow guys I don't post for a day or so and the topic has moved so fast! Anyway
1.) not Paula!: Paul. M Churchland "matter and Consciousness" [revised edition, MIT press] a really usefull book with a lot of good stuff in it on the mind-brain problem, although I think maybe he has a bit of a functionalist axe to grind.
2.) don't take drugs Deep2drown especially if you are worried about them. It's never as great as any one makes it out to be.
3.) my argument was that consciousness is a fallacy, it's just our way of understanding the churning of neuronal cogs in our heads. Self is a concept we developed to help us have a solid feeling of agency e.g. my actions have a purpose, morals are not just rules that help society function better and death is not the end of everything.
4.) I'm sorry Laz but...
1.) not Paula!: Paul. M Churchland "matter and Consciousness" [revised edition, MIT press] a really usefull book with a lot of good stuff in it on the mind-brain problem, although I think maybe he has a bit of a functionalist axe to grind.
2.) don't take drugs Deep2drown especially if you are worried about them. It's never as great as any one makes it out to be.
3.) my argument was that consciousness is a fallacy, it's just our way of understanding the churning of neuronal cogs in our heads. Self is a concept we developed to help us have a solid feeling of agency e.g. my actions have a purpose, morals are not just rules that help society function better and death is not the end of everything.
4.) I'm sorry Laz but...
| QUOTE |
| thoughts stop rising in ones head |
how can you call some sort of stupor brought on by drug taking pure consciousness? I've taken drugs, I've been in that place and it's more commonly called unconsciousness 
| QUOTE (Laz) |
| This is what the quote tells us; self and conscious experience are different, you can get to a point where there is no longer an observer involved. |
The observer is arguably always in the background of all conscious experiences, even when we are not aware of the existence of the observer.
| QUOTE (tabula_rasa) |
| not Paula!: Paul. M Churchland "matter and Consciousness" |
Do you know, offhand, whether Patricia and Paul are a husband/wife team or are otherwise related?
| QUOTE (tabula_rasa) |
| I'm sorry Laz but... how can you call some sort of stupor brought on by drug taking pure consciousness? I've taken drugs, I've been in that place and it's more commonly called unconsciousness |
as you also know, based on your experience, you cannot always predict what other people will experience, nor can you presume that because others have done something similar to you, that they thereby had similar experiences, even if they use similar words as you to describe such experiences. You infer a state of mind based on Laz's verbal description, but you cannot be certain whether your inference is correct. At the very least, Laz's verbal description vastly under-determines the range of conscious states that could be described by his verbal description, which plagues any inferences based on his verbal description with uncertainty. In short, you are identifying with Laz, but you can't be sure about it.
About your views on consciousness, I'd be interested in seeing how they change with time.
Like the Joesus of old, i'm not going to deny anyone their experiences
I think we are all going to have to except eachothers view point is based on individual experience and that's all that matters
I would still like that Guest to tell me more about his heirarchy that leads to consciousness though.
I think we are all going to have to except eachothers view point is based on individual experience and that's all that matters
I would still like that Guest to tell me more about his heirarchy that leads to consciousness though.
good point, Laz
Maybe we should have a thread on consciousness without an observer. It seems like it comes down to how one defines the observer....
Maybe we should have a thread on consciousness without an observer. It seems like it comes down to how one defines the observer....
..consciousness without an observer is unknown, it is the unknown, it is what/who we are. This unknown was not born, can not die. The sense of immortality, through temporary illusion of separation [self], come from this beingness...
Come off it! I can easily infer what sort of state drugs put individuals in mentally, pharmacological studies have helped us to understand how drugs work by loooking at the neuronal receptors they effect and how they interconnect with other networks giving us a v. direct view into the signs and symptoms of drug use along with their behavioural counterparts. Although, ok, I can't say on a scale of one to ten how much more paranoid/elated/dissociated Laz may have felt in comparison to myself, I think I can say without any hesitation that what Laz experienced should not be called "pure conbsciousness", it just reeks of 70's hippies taking acid and thinking that their going to a higher plane. It's condescending, and what's more a very dangerous way to talk about drugs.
ok I'm done
Anyway sorry shawn I'm not sure about the Pat&Paul thing...
ok I'm done
Anyway sorry shawn I'm not sure about the Pat&Paul thing...
which drugs have you taken Tabula?
Joker! Like I'd post something that personal on a web site...lets just say I've taken pretty much everything, including some of the really bizzare and scummy stuff e.g. ketamine, a lot of it was recreational but some of it was part of research for the university of london pharmocology dept, for which I got paid. As I get older though I wish I hadn't, the more research I read on the long term effects of drugs e.g long term potentiation, dendritic spine change, the more I worry for the future. Neither dementia or schizophrenia run in my family but there's such a potential for other dormant genes to get triggered by drug use that I truly beleive even if you think your missing out, drug use is never worth it. Why what drugs have you taken Laz?
and back on topic why does the impression of immortality fade as we age (I never worried about the effects of drugs when I was younger
)? Experience, cinicism or a growing closeness to the truth...
The Joesus of Old?
Would that be different than the Joesus of late or of new or inbetween
Here's an interesting interview between a research scientist and a reporter on the Subject of God.
"I like the way an obscure writer, by the name of Gustave Naquet, put it:
'Whenever knowledge takes a step forward, God recedes a step backwards.'
"God is a unifying force, primal and eternal. This force is the original force that summoned life from itself to become both its companion and journey. The life that was summoned was experimented with many times until a soul carrier was formed that could take a particle of this force into the outer, expanding universes.
The formless consciousness is that which observes and experiences through forms or structures, not just physical embodiments. For example, consciousness can be contained inside a structure or form, but not be physically based. The mind is such a structure, while it's not physical, consciousness -- when physically embodied -- peers through a mind structure like someone looking through a window. Soul is often confused with the mind and vice a versa.
"The formless consciousness is that particle of God that is decelerated from the frequency of the God state into individuality where it can become autonomous and exercise freewill. Think of it like a photon or subatomic particle that is cast into a web of interconnected particles of like-mindedness. That is to say, all the particles have a similar frequency or spin-rate, and they're able to step down their frequency, at will, in order to enter membranes of consciousness that can only be entered by taking on a form. So the formless becomes form, and just before it enters the body, consciousness activates the DNA template according to its desired experiences within the membrane of reality it chooses."
Sarah: "What do you mean by the term membrane?"
Dr. Neruda: "The multiverse is a collection of reality membranes, clustered together in a dimensional matrix that responds to the thought circuits and gravity fields of our formless consciousness. We've been trained, through evolutionary timescales, to accept the three-dimensional world as our reality. These reality membranes are not structured like parallel planes or rungs of a ladder, but rather are like lattices of interlocking cells. If you want, I can describe them in more detail, but I think it becomes so abstract from here forward that I suspect your eyes will glaze over."
Sarah: "All of this seems unbelievable. I'm beginning to wonder if you're the reincarnation of Jesus or Buddha."
Dr. Neruda (Laughing): "I'm reincarnated, and that's as far as I can attest."
Sarah: "Do you remember any of your previous incarnations?"
Dr. Neruda: "Previous is a relative term. I prefer to think of my incarnations not so much as a function of memory, but something more akin to a bleed-through of a simultaneous reality membrane. The compartments into which human experience is divided are not so watertight that they exclude one life from entering, or influencing, another. And from my experience, these compartments represent parallel moments in the life of an individual across a broad sweep of time and space."
Sarah: "So you're implying that our past, present, and future lives are all lived out at the same time, even though they seem to be taking place in different places and times?"
Dr. Neruda: "Yes."
Sarah: "Okay, then explain how it's possible, because it doesn't make any sense to me."
Dr. Neruda: "Our formless consciousness is like a sphere with many, many spokes leading outwards from its central core. Each of these spokes connects into the vertical time continuum through forms, and these forms -- human or otherwise -- feed the formless consciousness with insights about the different reality membranes in which it has form. In this way, the forms of the formless bring it awareness of different reality membranes, which in turn is processed by the formless and passed on through the unification force to God."
Sarah: "God's the recipient of all this information or experience -- from every living thing -- from every time and place? How?"
Dr. Neruda: "I don't have any idea."
Sarah: "But this is what you believe, and I have to assume you wouldn't believe it if you didn't have some evidence to support your belief."
Dr. Neruda: "Sometimes you follow a trail of evidence to a point where it comes to an abrupt end, but you can still imagine how the trail continues despite the lack of proof that it moves forward in a particular direction. You can intuit its pathway. Call it imagination or pure conjecture, I don't care, but it's what I've done in this case. I truly don't know how this magnitude of data could possibly be processed for any useful purpose, but I believe it."
Sarah: "Okay, give me a second to review my notes -- because I want to go back to something you said earlier. Hear it is. You said that everyone defines his or her motion of being at the causal level. If that's the case, and assuming that soul is intelligent, why would any soul choose to be impaired mentally, emotionally, or physically?"
Dr. Neruda: "How do you mean that?"
Sarah: "Let's say that soul entered a body, but chose to be close-minded, stupid, and generally a blob. Why would an intelligent consciousness choose this and then imprint it on their DNA so their life is made more difficult, or at least more boring?"
Dr. Neruda: "Let me ask you a question. Why would God impose this same condition on a person?"
Sarah: "Ah, but you're starting with the assumption that God exists."
Dr. Neruda: "Make this assumption and then answer my question."
Sarah: "I know what you're implying, but why would either God or soul impose these -- at least from my point of view -- stupid decisions?"
Dr. Neruda: "It has to do with complex systems and their inherent rules of dynamics."
Sarah: "Could you be a bit more specific?"
Dr. Neruda: "In order to expand and ultimately support diverse life forms, the universe required an incalculably complex system of interrelated principles and rules. The more complex this system is, the more dynamic are its poles of interaction. Think of it like an uncut diamond. When you shine a focused beam of light on it in a dark room, there's only a muted glow, but if you facet the diamond, making it more complex, it spreads light in a radiant pattern upon all the walls of the room.
"Complexity works in a similar manner with consciousness, it facets human experience and spreads the light of consciousness upon all the walls of experience, including ignorance, stupidity, wickedness, beauty, goodness, and every other possible condition of human experience. The formless consciousness is not stupid in choosing to experience something that we might deem difficult or boring. It's simply acknowledging that the reality membrane of earth requires it.
"No one can live within this reality membrane and be untouched by the dynamics of the human experience. No one's exempt from difficulties or pain. Does that prove that every one of us makes stupid decisions? No, it only proves that we live within a complex world. That and nothing more."
Sarah: "Not to sound defensive, but you'd agree that some have easier lives than others."
Dr. Neruda: "Yes, but it's not relevant to the intelligence of the formless consciousness."
Sarah: "Okay, so is it related to the age of the formless consciousness?"
Dr. Neruda: "Are you asking if the formless consciousness -- as it gains experience -- becomes better at selecting its motion of being?"
Sarah: "Exactly."
Dr. Neruda: "The formless consciousness looks upon hardship and ease, the way you might look upon the negative and positive ends of a battery. With relative indifference, I would imagine."
Sarah: "There's no difference, is that what you're saying? No value to being an Einstein verses a Hitler? I don't believe that."
Dr. Neruda: "The choice is not made to be evil or wicked, or to select a life path that is excruciatingly difficult for oneself and others. Nor, in the case of Einstein, did he choose to contribute to humanity's understanding in a way that permitted the creation of nuclear weapons. In the formless consciousness of these individuals -- prior to their most recent incarnations -- they didn't make choices to harm or help humanity. They made choices to experience aspects of this reality membrane that would contribute to their own understanding."
Sarah: "So, you're saying that the soul chooses its motion of being according to its selfish desires? It doesn't think about the greater good at all?"
Dr. Neruda: "It doesn't need to think about the greater good. That's what the unification force does."
Sarah: "It's an interesting philosophy. We can be as selfish as we desire, and leave it up to God to make our selfish, clumsy actions into something that contributes to the common good of humanity. Is that what you're really saying?"
Dr. Neruda: "No. I'm saying that God, working through its unification force, orchestrates the intermingling of life in order to bring about transformation in the universe. God is like the cosmological alchemist who transforms the selfish interests of the one in to the transformative conditions for the many."
Sarah: "Then you're saying that God solves all of our human frailties. We can do anything and it doesn't really matter because he'll fix it. If this philosophy were taught in our world, we'd be in sorry shape."
Dr. Neruda: "While it may not be taught in a formal way, humankind is unconsciously aware that this is the way it works."
Sarah: "On this point, I have to disagree with you. Selfish interests, evil intent, stupidity -- these are not the traits of a responsible society, and I don't know of anyone who believes that we should act in this way and then let God perform damage control or mop up after our poor judgments."
Dr. Neruda: "You misunderstand. Perhaps I'm not explaining this very well. Let me try again.
"First, the selfish interests of the formless consciousness are to facet its consciousness in such a way that it can receive and radiate the unification force. In so doing, it can become consciously connected to this force and knowingly become a conduit for it into a broad range of reality membranes. Now, the formless consciousness selects reality membranes to enable the faceting of its consciousness. None of this is done with an attitude of universal contribution or noble purpose. However, this isn't a result of selfish behavior as you think of it. It's a result of its nature -- the way it was designed.
"I'm not saying that God cleans up after our messy mistakes. I'm saying our messy mistakes are not messy mistakes. Again, we live in a complex system of interdependent reality membranes. You can think of these membranes like scales on a snake, and the snake represents the collective human consciousness. Each scale protects the human soul and, collectively, propels it through its environment -- in this case, the multiverse. The messy mistakes that we individually and collectively make are as responsible for the existence of the multiverse as are the noble contributions."
Sarah: "Let me see if I got this right. You're saying that our mistakes -- both as individuals and a species -- make it possible for us to exist, so, therefore, they're not mistakes?"
Dr. Neruda: "As I said earlier, complex systems require a near-infinite range of dynamics in order to sustain the system. Our reality membrane is form-fitted to the complexity of our universe, which in turn created the environment of earth and its various life forms. Yes, our mistakes, our individuality, is a central part of our ability as a species to sustain itself in the face of a complex, interconnected structure of the quantum world and the cosmos.
"The selfish motivations harvest the experience that facets our consciousness, which in turn are harvested by the unification force and used to transform reality membranes into passages through which a species can return to the God state. The mistakes weigh equally in this process, as do the unselfish contributions. Nothing is wasted."
Would that be different than the Joesus of late or of new or inbetween
Here's an interesting interview between a research scientist and a reporter on the Subject of God.
"I like the way an obscure writer, by the name of Gustave Naquet, put it:
'Whenever knowledge takes a step forward, God recedes a step backwards.'
"God is a unifying force, primal and eternal. This force is the original force that summoned life from itself to become both its companion and journey. The life that was summoned was experimented with many times until a soul carrier was formed that could take a particle of this force into the outer, expanding universes.
The formless consciousness is that which observes and experiences through forms or structures, not just physical embodiments. For example, consciousness can be contained inside a structure or form, but not be physically based. The mind is such a structure, while it's not physical, consciousness -- when physically embodied -- peers through a mind structure like someone looking through a window. Soul is often confused with the mind and vice a versa.
"The formless consciousness is that particle of God that is decelerated from the frequency of the God state into individuality where it can become autonomous and exercise freewill. Think of it like a photon or subatomic particle that is cast into a web of interconnected particles of like-mindedness. That is to say, all the particles have a similar frequency or spin-rate, and they're able to step down their frequency, at will, in order to enter membranes of consciousness that can only be entered by taking on a form. So the formless becomes form, and just before it enters the body, consciousness activates the DNA template according to its desired experiences within the membrane of reality it chooses."
Sarah: "What do you mean by the term membrane?"
Dr. Neruda: "The multiverse is a collection of reality membranes, clustered together in a dimensional matrix that responds to the thought circuits and gravity fields of our formless consciousness. We've been trained, through evolutionary timescales, to accept the three-dimensional world as our reality. These reality membranes are not structured like parallel planes or rungs of a ladder, but rather are like lattices of interlocking cells. If you want, I can describe them in more detail, but I think it becomes so abstract from here forward that I suspect your eyes will glaze over."
Sarah: "All of this seems unbelievable. I'm beginning to wonder if you're the reincarnation of Jesus or Buddha."
Dr. Neruda (Laughing): "I'm reincarnated, and that's as far as I can attest."
Sarah: "Do you remember any of your previous incarnations?"
Dr. Neruda: "Previous is a relative term. I prefer to think of my incarnations not so much as a function of memory, but something more akin to a bleed-through of a simultaneous reality membrane. The compartments into which human experience is divided are not so watertight that they exclude one life from entering, or influencing, another. And from my experience, these compartments represent parallel moments in the life of an individual across a broad sweep of time and space."
Sarah: "So you're implying that our past, present, and future lives are all lived out at the same time, even though they seem to be taking place in different places and times?"
Dr. Neruda: "Yes."
Sarah: "Okay, then explain how it's possible, because it doesn't make any sense to me."
Dr. Neruda: "Our formless consciousness is like a sphere with many, many spokes leading outwards from its central core. Each of these spokes connects into the vertical time continuum through forms, and these forms -- human or otherwise -- feed the formless consciousness with insights about the different reality membranes in which it has form. In this way, the forms of the formless bring it awareness of different reality membranes, which in turn is processed by the formless and passed on through the unification force to God."
Sarah: "God's the recipient of all this information or experience -- from every living thing -- from every time and place? How?"
Dr. Neruda: "I don't have any idea."
Sarah: "But this is what you believe, and I have to assume you wouldn't believe it if you didn't have some evidence to support your belief."
Dr. Neruda: "Sometimes you follow a trail of evidence to a point where it comes to an abrupt end, but you can still imagine how the trail continues despite the lack of proof that it moves forward in a particular direction. You can intuit its pathway. Call it imagination or pure conjecture, I don't care, but it's what I've done in this case. I truly don't know how this magnitude of data could possibly be processed for any useful purpose, but I believe it."
Sarah: "Okay, give me a second to review my notes -- because I want to go back to something you said earlier. Hear it is. You said that everyone defines his or her motion of being at the causal level. If that's the case, and assuming that soul is intelligent, why would any soul choose to be impaired mentally, emotionally, or physically?"
Dr. Neruda: "How do you mean that?"
Sarah: "Let's say that soul entered a body, but chose to be close-minded, stupid, and generally a blob. Why would an intelligent consciousness choose this and then imprint it on their DNA so their life is made more difficult, or at least more boring?"
Dr. Neruda: "Let me ask you a question. Why would God impose this same condition on a person?"
Sarah: "Ah, but you're starting with the assumption that God exists."
Dr. Neruda: "Make this assumption and then answer my question."
Sarah: "I know what you're implying, but why would either God or soul impose these -- at least from my point of view -- stupid decisions?"
Dr. Neruda: "It has to do with complex systems and their inherent rules of dynamics."
Sarah: "Could you be a bit more specific?"
Dr. Neruda: "In order to expand and ultimately support diverse life forms, the universe required an incalculably complex system of interrelated principles and rules. The more complex this system is, the more dynamic are its poles of interaction. Think of it like an uncut diamond. When you shine a focused beam of light on it in a dark room, there's only a muted glow, but if you facet the diamond, making it more complex, it spreads light in a radiant pattern upon all the walls of the room.
"Complexity works in a similar manner with consciousness, it facets human experience and spreads the light of consciousness upon all the walls of experience, including ignorance, stupidity, wickedness, beauty, goodness, and every other possible condition of human experience. The formless consciousness is not stupid in choosing to experience something that we might deem difficult or boring. It's simply acknowledging that the reality membrane of earth requires it.
"No one can live within this reality membrane and be untouched by the dynamics of the human experience. No one's exempt from difficulties or pain. Does that prove that every one of us makes stupid decisions? No, it only proves that we live within a complex world. That and nothing more."
Sarah: "Not to sound defensive, but you'd agree that some have easier lives than others."
Dr. Neruda: "Yes, but it's not relevant to the intelligence of the formless consciousness."
Sarah: "Okay, so is it related to the age of the formless consciousness?"
Dr. Neruda: "Are you asking if the formless consciousness -- as it gains experience -- becomes better at selecting its motion of being?"
Sarah: "Exactly."
Dr. Neruda: "The formless consciousness looks upon hardship and ease, the way you might look upon the negative and positive ends of a battery. With relative indifference, I would imagine."
Sarah: "There's no difference, is that what you're saying? No value to being an Einstein verses a Hitler? I don't believe that."
Dr. Neruda: "The choice is not made to be evil or wicked, or to select a life path that is excruciatingly difficult for oneself and others. Nor, in the case of Einstein, did he choose to contribute to humanity's understanding in a way that permitted the creation of nuclear weapons. In the formless consciousness of these individuals -- prior to their most recent incarnations -- they didn't make choices to harm or help humanity. They made choices to experience aspects of this reality membrane that would contribute to their own understanding."
Sarah: "So, you're saying that the soul chooses its motion of being according to its selfish desires? It doesn't think about the greater good at all?"
Dr. Neruda: "It doesn't need to think about the greater good. That's what the unification force does."
Sarah: "It's an interesting philosophy. We can be as selfish as we desire, and leave it up to God to make our selfish, clumsy actions into something that contributes to the common good of humanity. Is that what you're really saying?"
Dr. Neruda: "No. I'm saying that God, working through its unification force, orchestrates the intermingling of life in order to bring about transformation in the universe. God is like the cosmological alchemist who transforms the selfish interests of the one in to the transformative conditions for the many."
Sarah: "Then you're saying that God solves all of our human frailties. We can do anything and it doesn't really matter because he'll fix it. If this philosophy were taught in our world, we'd be in sorry shape."
Dr. Neruda: "While it may not be taught in a formal way, humankind is unconsciously aware that this is the way it works."
Sarah: "On this point, I have to disagree with you. Selfish interests, evil intent, stupidity -- these are not the traits of a responsible society, and I don't know of anyone who believes that we should act in this way and then let God perform damage control or mop up after our poor judgments."
Dr. Neruda: "You misunderstand. Perhaps I'm not explaining this very well. Let me try again.
"First, the selfish interests of the formless consciousness are to facet its consciousness in such a way that it can receive and radiate the unification force. In so doing, it can become consciously connected to this force and knowingly become a conduit for it into a broad range of reality membranes. Now, the formless consciousness selects reality membranes to enable the faceting of its consciousness. None of this is done with an attitude of universal contribution or noble purpose. However, this isn't a result of selfish behavior as you think of it. It's a result of its nature -- the way it was designed.
"I'm not saying that God cleans up after our messy mistakes. I'm saying our messy mistakes are not messy mistakes. Again, we live in a complex system of interdependent reality membranes. You can think of these membranes like scales on a snake, and the snake represents the collective human consciousness. Each scale protects the human soul and, collectively, propels it through its environment -- in this case, the multiverse. The messy mistakes that we individually and collectively make are as responsible for the existence of the multiverse as are the noble contributions."
Sarah: "Let me see if I got this right. You're saying that our mistakes -- both as individuals and a species -- make it possible for us to exist, so, therefore, they're not mistakes?"
Dr. Neruda: "As I said earlier, complex systems require a near-infinite range of dynamics in order to sustain the system. Our reality membrane is form-fitted to the complexity of our universe, which in turn created the environment of earth and its various life forms. Yes, our mistakes, our individuality, is a central part of our ability as a species to sustain itself in the face of a complex, interconnected structure of the quantum world and the cosmos.
"The selfish motivations harvest the experience that facets our consciousness, which in turn are harvested by the unification force and used to transform reality membranes into passages through which a species can return to the God state. The mistakes weigh equally in this process, as do the unselfish contributions. Nothing is wasted."
| QUOTE |
| what drugs have you taken Laz? |
I've tried many but the two that have given me experiences that are worth remembering, and I have used repeatedly are white widow marijuana bud and salvia divinorum. I'd love to get hold of some mescaline but that's stuffs as rare as people who are genuine.
How old are you Tabula?
| QUOTE |
| The Joesus of Old? |
He's not round here much these days, and rarley contributes
what the hell is salvia divinorum when it's at home? has it got a laymans name I might know it by (like toilet bleach ha ha) or a chemical name so I can look it up? And isn't mescaline the stuff you only need a drop of to be tripping on for days? Don't you ever worry about flashbacks?! I've only had one and it scared the living day lights out of me!! Sorry that was a lot of punctuation. anywho I'm 20 and I'll be 21 in august (happy birthday to me 
) why did you want to know? and how old are you...?
Back on the point: Joesus the interview was interesting, if not a little long winded, but when peple are so self assured in their beliefs, especially beliefs that require faith and are so individual as his... don't you ever get the impression that they could just have it all wrong? For example the point he makes about reincarnation, fair enough reincarnation may be as he says (I presume it's a he) it may be a bunch if different incarnations of the one life force all living in seperate body's at the same time but how does he back it up? he doesn't, he's just saying that's what he believes...
) why did you want to know? and how old are you...?Back on the point: Joesus the interview was interesting, if not a little long winded, but when peple are so self assured in their beliefs, especially beliefs that require faith and are so individual as his... don't you ever get the impression that they could just have it all wrong? For example the point he makes about reincarnation, fair enough reincarnation may be as he says (I presume it's a he) it may be a bunch if different incarnations of the one life force all living in seperate body's at the same time but how does he back it up? he doesn't, he's just saying that's what he believes...
..whether you are on drugs or not, which can be a tool [but nothing more] the witnessing is always there. It is there when you read this post, when you pick your nose or tie a shoelace, it is always there because you are always there, it is you [deathless and eternal]...
| QUOTE (tabula_rasa @ Mar 23, 03:21 PM) |
Back on the point: Joesus the interview was interesting, if not a little long winded, but when peple are so self assured in their beliefs, especially beliefs that require faith and are so individual as his... don't you ever get the impression that they could just have it all wrong? For example the point he makes about reincarnation, fair enough reincarnation may be as he says (I presume it's a he) it may be a bunch if different incarnations of the one life force all living in seperate body's at the same time but how does he back it up? he doesn't, he's just saying that's what he believes... |
Is that what you believe?
Many 'prophets' declare their beliefs as if they are facts.
I am beginning to suspect that any individual who really does become aware of the TRUTH [of all these philosophical questions] will not pass this TRUTH on to the rest of us. The simple reason is that each of us has to be able to realise the TRUTH [ie., work it out] in order to comprehend the TRUTH.
We each must be sufficiently predisposed to work it out for ourselves!
If I am correct, don't believe what others say, work it out for yourself.
If GOD had wanted us to be armed with the TRUTH, HE would have made very sure that everyone knew the TRUTH. I think HE has left it for us to determine individually.
I am beginning to suspect that any individual who really does become aware of the TRUTH [of all these philosophical questions] will not pass this TRUTH on to the rest of us. The simple reason is that each of us has to be able to realise the TRUTH [ie., work it out] in order to comprehend the TRUTH.
We each must be sufficiently predisposed to work it out for ourselves!
If I am correct, don't believe what others say, work it out for yourself.
If GOD had wanted us to be armed with the TRUTH, HE would have made very sure that everyone knew the TRUTH. I think HE has left it for us to determine individually.
Well said Rhymer
| QUOTE (rhymer @ Mar 23, 08:50 PM) |
| Many 'prophets' declare their beliefs as if they are facts. I am beginning to suspect that any individual who really does become aware of the TRUTH [of all these philosophical questions] will not pass this TRUTH on to the rest of us. The simple reason is that each of us has to be able to realise the TRUTH [ie., work it out] in order to comprehend the TRUTH. We each must be sufficiently predisposed to work it out for ourselves! If I am correct, don't believe what others say, work it out for yourself. If GOD had wanted us to be armed with the TRUTH, HE would have made very sure that everyone knew the TRUTH. I think HE has left it for us to determine individually. |
No one can pass the truth to another, only point the way.
| QUOTE (Joesus @ Mar 23, 11:22 PM) |
| No one can pass the truth to another, only point the way. |
Wrong Joesus - viz., 2+2=4 is a TRUTH - pass it on.
| QUOTE (rhymer @ Mar 23, 11:51 PM) | ||
Wrong Joesus - viz., 2+2=4 is a TRUTH - pass it on. |
What is 2?.
If I refuse to believe it can't be passed on.
That's the thing about any teaching. There has to be a Student and an open mind to recieve.
So the Teacher can point the way but he/she cannot make another accept.
Beliefs are defined by the experiences not passed from one to another.
one does not so much point the way to truth as suggest likely routes
rhymer: If GOD had wanted us to be armed with the TRUTH, HE would have made very sure that everyone knew the TRUTH.
- ..what is it that makes you believe you [who is that?] are not armed with Truth?
- ..what is it that makes you believe you [who is that?] are not armed with Truth?
ok , ok I get the point guys but....
1.) why have you not anwswered my questions Laz
2.) I kind of agree with what Joesus is saying i.e. truth relies on a believer for it to exist otherwise it is not the truth, that being the intrinsic quality of a truth, but how many believers do you need for something to be true? Can things be semi true or is truth, as we discuss it here, something complete. If so I guess nothing can ever be true or TRUTH as rhymer is so fond of saying, because there is never a circumstance that always "is", there are too many exceptions. Oh and Rhymer using maths as the explination for a truth in a philisophical debate is so passe!
3.) cool walking man thingy Dan
1.) why have you not anwswered my questions Laz
2.) I kind of agree with what Joesus is saying i.e. truth relies on a believer for it to exist otherwise it is not the truth, that being the intrinsic quality of a truth, but how many believers do you need for something to be true? Can things be semi true or is truth, as we discuss it here, something complete. If so I guess nothing can ever be true or TRUTH as rhymer is so fond of saying, because there is never a circumstance that always "is", there are too many exceptions. Oh and Rhymer using maths as the explination for a truth in a philisophical debate is so passe!
3.) cool walking man thingy Dan
Damn that was me I completely forgot to log in
tabula_rasa-
Some TRUTHS exist before people realise them I am afraid to say [I suspect you may be disappointed by this fact].
Did the first mountain seen by any person not exist before that person saw it for the first time? No! It truly existed before that person saw it.
Ok., the first space ship did not exist before someone designed it. But the TRUTH of its potential existence was there to be realised by man/woman.
So, some TRUTH does not rely on a believer.
The TRUTHS that do rely on a believer are those relating to the concepts we hold in our brains. We each strive to model the real world [internal and external]. To this end we can effectively or ineffectively design concepts of causes and purposes of what we witness. Effective concepts can be regarded as TRUTHS; ineffective concepts can be regarded as beliefs [ie., they may need modifying to become TRUE concepts]. Whilst all our concepts TRULY exist they may not TRULY reflect the TRUTH.
I am glad to see that you don't disagree that 2+2=4.
I chose this example for certain reasons. I did consider using the fact that all mountains existed before man walked the planet [except those that were thrown up afterwards]. But I cannot prove that fact. Neither do they disappear when nobody is anywhere near them, but some people believe they do. I therefore used something I can prove [mind you, not to anyone who does not know what 2 is].
----------------------
Joesus does not believe that anything he/she 'does not believe' can be passed on.
Blue snow is escaping from the bottom of my swimming pool and going up to the sky. I don't believe that, but I just passed it on! So you can pass on things you don't believe in! You can also pass on things you do believe in which are FALSE!
The Teacher student point is true. What concerns me is the need for the student to be receptive [it does help a lot]. This places a responsibilty on the Teacher to tell the student only the TRUTH. If the Teacher passes on things he 'believes' but does not know are TRUE, he should tell the student that it is a 'belief' and that it is for him/her to also so 'believe' or not, based on their own experience and beliefs.
Joesus's last sentence paraphrased "beliefs come from the self" not from others.
Some do, some are broadcast by financially, religiously, power-seeking, esteem-seeking [etc.,] individuals. There is good need to learn to differentiate, therefore, between beliefs and truths.
Some TRUTHS exist before people realise them I am afraid to say [I suspect you may be disappointed by this fact].
Did the first mountain seen by any person not exist before that person saw it for the first time? No! It truly existed before that person saw it.
Ok., the first space ship did not exist before someone designed it. But the TRUTH of its potential existence was there to be realised by man/woman.
So, some TRUTH does not rely on a believer.
The TRUTHS that do rely on a believer are those relating to the concepts we hold in our brains. We each strive to model the real world [internal and external]. To this end we can effectively or ineffectively design concepts of causes and purposes of what we witness. Effective concepts can be regarded as TRUTHS; ineffective concepts can be regarded as beliefs [ie., they may need modifying to become TRUE concepts]. Whilst all our concepts TRULY exist they may not TRULY reflect the TRUTH.
I am glad to see that you don't disagree that 2+2=4.
I chose this example for certain reasons. I did consider using the fact that all mountains existed before man walked the planet [except those that were thrown up afterwards]. But I cannot prove that fact. Neither do they disappear when nobody is anywhere near them, but some people believe they do. I therefore used something I can prove [mind you, not to anyone who does not know what 2 is].
----------------------
Joesus does not believe that anything he/she 'does not believe' can be passed on.
Blue snow is escaping from the bottom of my swimming pool and going up to the sky. I don't believe that, but I just passed it on! So you can pass on things you don't believe in! You can also pass on things you do believe in which are FALSE!
The Teacher student point is true. What concerns me is the need for the student to be receptive [it does help a lot]. This places a responsibilty on the Teacher to tell the student only the TRUTH. If the Teacher passes on things he 'believes' but does not know are TRUE, he should tell the student that it is a 'belief' and that it is for him/her to also so 'believe' or not, based on their own experience and beliefs.
Joesus's last sentence paraphrased "beliefs come from the self" not from others.
Some do, some are broadcast by financially, religiously, power-seeking, esteem-seeking [etc.,] individuals. There is good need to learn to differentiate, therefore, between beliefs and truths.
| QUOTE (Guest @ Mar 24, 08:45 AM) |
| Oh and Rhymer using maths as the explination for a truth in a philisophical debate is so passe! |
hey tabula_rasa, how about this math:
SMART-ALECKNESS + ARROGANCE = BAD ATTITUDE
or this amth:
Stupidity + Determination = Nuisance
Stupidity + Determination = Nuisance
who's that directed to?
Come on Guests, why not become members, so that we can avoid this confusion?
We are all entitled to our ideas and should be prepared to consider the points of view of other people, but how can we when we don't know who is saying what?
We are all entitled to our ideas and should be prepared to consider the points of view of other people, but how can we when we don't know who is saying what?
anonymity has it's advantages
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.