Proof that we have a soul

[flyermay]

Since science has linked our consciousness to our brain more and more people doubt that human beings do have a soul, or a consciousness, independent of our physical body. I also believed that was the case for many years, and thought that my consciousness is the product of my physical brain. However, a simple hypothetical scenario can prove otherwise.

Imagine that someone comes up with a device capable of teleportation (like the ones in "Star Trek" or "The Fly"). If you were to use this device, it would scan all the molecules and atoms in your body, transfer the information to the destination, destroy the original molecules, and create identical ones again in a new location. And hopefully, your consciousness would be in the new body at the destination; you would just close your eyes in one location, and open them in another.

But now imagine that this device does each one of those steps, but instead of destroying the original body it creates an exact copy in the destination, while maintaining the original body intact; creating two of you, one in the origin and another one in the destination. Where would you consciousness be, in the origin or in the destination?... In other words: what would your eyes see when you open them: the place of origin or the destination?

It seems clear to me that your consciousness would stay in the origin, as it would be impossible that you could be conscious at two different places at the same time, and since the original body was not destroyed there is no reason for your consciousness to travel to the destination. Your consciousness would not have travelled to the destination. But, if this is the case, why would it travel if a copy is not created? It’s reasonable to believe that whether or not a copy is created, you consciousness would never travel to the destination; therefore, it is also reasonable to believe that your consciousness is not a product of your brain (your physical body). Furthermore, if you ever get to use such a device, your consciousness would cease to exist in the physical world, since it would never travel to the destination; so your consciousness would not be linked to any physical body, since the original has been destroyed (or in other words: you would be dead).

Opinions welcome... :)

[martg]

The soul weighs 21 grams

Physical evidence for the soul

http://www.ghostweb.com/soul.html

[flyermay]

The soul weighs 21 grams

Physical evidence for the soul

http://www.ghostweb.com/soul.html

Yes, I heard that before: that we lose 21g in the exact moment we die.

I haven't read the link, but do you know how they are so sure that those 21g are from the soul and not from any other body process?

[themime]

It seems clear to me that your consciousness would stay in the origin, as it would be impossible that you could be conscious at two different places at the same time, and since the original body was not destroyed there is no reason for your consciousness to travel to the destination. Your consciousness would not have travelled to the destination. But, if this is the case, why would it travel if a copy is not created? It’s reasonable to believe that whether or not a copy is created, you consciousness would never travel to the destination; therefore, it is also reasonable to believe that your consciousness is not a product of your brain (your physical body). Furthermore, if you ever get to use such a device, your consciousness would cease to exist in the physical world, since it would never travel to the destination; so your consciousness would not be linked to any physical body, since the original has been destroyed (or in other words: you would be dead).

Opinions welcome... :)


What if the conciousness is simply the view that the internal observer sees when viewing the outside world through a matrix of overlaying perception filters that build our personalities as viewed by those around us?

The soul would be part of the human experience and yet separate from the personality. To those who see the copy there may appear no difference as the memories of the original (stored in the brain/spine) would be exact copies up to the point of transportation. However from this point they would begin to diverge because of their different view points.

It is possible in this theory that the copy would seem to function exactly as the original but with no internal observer it would be little more than a robot, seemingly indistinguishable from the original to others.

[martg]

I haven't really investigated the phenomena, the truth is I have always felt strongly that the soul is real but I don't identify with any organized religion, I think our souls have been here many times and if you look at the evidence it seems pretty conclusive.

although as I said I haven't investigated the physical processes of death, so I can't offer conclusive proof, it's just my belief.

[sxmrx]

If you do a google search on "Dr Duncan Macdougall" you will be able to find details of the "21 Grams" experiments, although he did compare findings with those of dogs, and if 21 grams was the weight of a human soul, it appears dog either had no soul or it weighed nothing, which I don't really believe, why would other mammals be souless?

[flyermay]

What if the conciousness is simply the view that the internal observer sees when viewing the outside world through a matrix of overlaying perception filters that build our personalities as viewed by those around us?

The soul would be part of the human experience and yet separate from the personality. To those who see the copy there may appear no difference as the memories of the original (stored in the brain/spine) would be exact copies up to the point of transportation. However from this point they would begin to diverge because of their different view points.

It is possible in this theory that the copy would seem to function exactly as the original but with no internal observer it would be little more than a robot, seemingly indistinguishable from the original to others.

Yes, I agree: to other people the copy would seem as if it was the original. The only difference is that our consciousness would not be present in that body; we would not experience the world through the copy.

I guess the question would be: is a new consciousness created for the new body, or would it function without a consciousness?

If the answer is the first option, then we do not have a consciousness beyond our body, and if the answer is the second option, then we do.

But what's clear to me is that our consciousness is not linked to our body. If it was, we should have gained consciousness in the new body; and it doesn't seem possible, as explained in the OP.

I haven't really investigated the phenomena, the truth is I have always felt strongly that the soul is real but I don't identify with any organized religion, I think our souls have been here many times and if you look at the evidence it seems pretty conclusive.

although as I said I haven't investigated the physical processes of death, so I can't offer conclusive proof, it's just my belief.

I called it soul, but I'm not referring to it in a religious sense; though I guess that what traditional religions call a soul is the same as what others call a higher consciousness).

I just posted it in the religion forum because I couldn't find a better place.

[flyermay]

If you do a google search on "Dr Duncan Macdougall" you will be able to find details of the "21 Grams" experiments, although he did compare findings with those of dogs, and if 21 grams was the weight of a human soul, it appears dog either had no soul or it weighed nothing, which I don't really believe, why would other mammals be souless?

Yeah, I would imagine that all animals would experience a similar weight loss.

If he is correct, then my theory is wrong, and our soul is part of our physical body; so, it is possible to teleport the soul with the rest of the body.

Do you know why is he so sure that those 21 g belong to the soul, and not to anything else?

[themime]

I guess the question would be: is a new consciousness created for the new body, or would it function without a consciousness?

If the answer is the first option, then we do not have a consciousness beyond our body, and if the answer is the second option, then we do.


We could never know the answer to this any more than we can know if those around us right now see the same shade of red as we do when we look at a post box.

I believe (from personal experience) that the soul resides within the the body and that we in turn exist both in the spiritual and the physical world at the same time with this soul as the link. Just as the Higgs Boson is said to mesh over matter to give it mass.

[flyermay]

We could never know the answer to this any more than we can know if those around us right now see the same shade of red as we do when we look at a post box.

Yes, but I guess we can agree that it's definitely not safe to use teleportation. :)

I believe (from personal experience) that the soul resides within the the body and that we in turn exist both in the spiritual and the physical world at the same time with this soul as the link. Just as the Higgs Boson is said to mesh over matter to give it mass.

So, you don't believe that our soul (or consciousness) could exist independent of our body?

[themime]

So, do you believe that our soul (or consciousness) could exist independent of our body?

Yes I believe that it is separate from the body in it's normal state like silk draped over skin. Once the body dies I believe that the souls link to our physical world is broken and is reverts to a wholly spiritual entity.

[flyermay]

Yes I believe that it is separate from the body in it's normal state like silk draped over skin. Once the body dies I believe that the souls link to our physical world is broken and is reverts to a wholly spiritual entity.

I always thought our consciousness (soul) was created by our brain, and was just a physical process. But now I also believe our soul is something else beyond the physical world.

[size_of_light]

Since science has linked our consciousness to our brain more and more people doubt that human beings do have a soul, or a consciousness, independent of our physical body. I also believed that was the case for many years, and thought that my consciousness is the product of my physical brain. However, a simple hypothetical scenario can prove otherwise.

Imagine that someone comes up with a device capable of teleportation (like the ones in "Star Trek" or "The Fly"). If you were to use this device, it would scan all the molecules and atoms in your body, transfer the information to the destination, destroy the original molecules, and create identical ones again in a new location. And hopefully, your consciousness would be in the new body at the destination; you would just close your eyes in one location, and open them in another.

But now imagine that this device does each one of those steps, but instead of destroying the original body it creates an exact copy in the destination, while maintaining the original body intact; creating two of you, one in the origin and another one in the destination. Where would you consciousness be, in the origin or in the destination?... In other words: what would your eyes see when you open them: the place of origin or the destination?

It seems clear to me that your consciousness would stay in the origin, as it would be impossible that you could be conscious at two different places at the same time, and since the original body was not destroyed there is no reason for your consciousness to travel to the destination. Your consciousness would not have travelled to the destination. But, if this is the case, why would it travel if a copy is not created? It’s reasonable to believe that whether or not a copy is created, you consciousness would never travel to the destination; therefore, it is also reasonable to believe that your consciousness is not a product of your brain (your physical body). Furthermore, if you ever get to use such a device, your consciousness would cease to exist in the physical world, since it would never travel to the destination; so your consciousness would not be linked to any physical body, since the original has been destroyed (or in other words: you would be dead).

Opinions welcome... :)

The teleportee simply experiences a shift in his surroundings, from one spaceship to the other (or to whatever planetary environment he's beamed down onto).

He doesn't really give a shit about the rearrangement of his atoms or questions on whether he's still a conscious being or a just a soulless facsimile because there's b-grade stuntmen in crap-looking dinosaur costumes to fight.

[mephibosheth]

Since science has linked our consciousness to our brain more and more people doubt that human beings do have a soul, or a consciousness, independent of our physical body. I also believed that was the case for many years, and thought that my consciousness is the product of my physical brain. However, a simple hypothetical scenario can prove otherwise.


Not much for 'proof' in the rigorous sense of the term. But this is a common scenario that philosophers of mind like to contemplate.



Imagine that someone comes up with a device capable of teleportation (like the ones in "Star Trek" or "The Fly"). If you were to use this device, it would scan all the molecules and atoms in your body, transfer the information to the destination, destroy the original molecules, and create identical ones again in a new location. And hopefully, your consciousness would be in the new body at the destination; you would just close your eyes in one location, and open them in another.

But now imagine that this device does each one of those steps, but instead of destroying the original body it creates an exact copy in the destination, while maintaining the original body intact; creating two of you, one in the origin and another one in the destination. Where would you consciousness be, in the origin or in the destination?... In other words: what would your eyes see when you open them: the place of origin or the destination?

It seems clear to me that your consciousness would stay in the origin, as it would be impossible that you could be conscious at two different places at the same time, and since the original body was not destroyed there is no reason for your consciousness to travel to the destination. Your consciousness would not have travelled to the destination. But, if this is the case, why would it travel if a copy is not created? It’s reasonable to believe that whether or not a copy is created, you consciousness would never travel to the destination; therefore, it is also reasonable to believe that your consciousness is not a product of your brain (your physical body). Furthermore, if you ever get to use such a device, your consciousness would cease to exist in the physical world, since it would never travel to the destination; so your consciousness would not be linked to any physical body, since the original has been destroyed (or in other words: you would be dead).

Opinions welcome... :)

Why would there not be two individuals with a perfectly identical consciousness? Why should we assume that consciousness has to be perfectly unique?

If consciousness is generated by the physio-chemical configuration of the body, then when ever and wherever such a physio-chemical configuration is created, the same qualitative consciousness will be generated. The two twins will have the identical experience and continuity of consciousness up to the moment the scan is complete; then the original will just keep seeing the scan room and the new one will see the exotic new landscape he has been created in.

Further, why should we assume that it is impossible for consciousness to be in multiple 'places' at the 'same time' if consciousness is assumed to exist in a non-physical form? If consciousness is not subject to a physio-chemical configuration, then all bets are off. There's no reason why it couldn't be at all places at all times, and hence, that there is only ONE consciousness that animates all beings that are vehicles for conscious experience.

8)

[themime]

Further, why should we assume that it is impossible for consciousness to be in multiple 'places' at the 'same time' if consciousness is assumed to exist in a non-physical form? If consciousness is not subject to a physio-chemical configuration, then all bets are off. There's no reason why it couldn't be at all places at all times, and hence, that there is only ONE consciousness that animates all beings that are vehicles for conscious experience.


100th monkey effect?

[flyermay]

Why would there not be two individuals with a perfectly identical consciousness? Why should we assume that consciousness has to be perfectly unique?

That's a really good question. Actually, I believe there would be two identical persons with an identical consciousness (identical, but not shared). It would mean that consciousness is not unique, but the question is: would the original person experience the world through the eyes of the copy?... I don't think so. In any case, the new identical consciousness would take over the second body from the moment the copy was made.

If consciousness is generated by the physio-chemical configuration of the body, then when ever and wherever such a physio-chemical configuration is created, the same qualitative consciousness will be generated. The two twins will have the identical experience and continuity of consciousness up to the moment the scan is complete; then the original will just keep seeing the scan room and the new one will see the exotic new landscape he has been created in.

Yes, I believe that's the case. But the original person would never get to experience the world through the body of the copy. In any case it would be a twin consciousness, but they would start to distance from each other; since their experiences would be different.

So, since a subject would not experience the world through the eyes of the copy, it means that if that copy isn't made (teleportation without copy), the original consciousness would die (or leave the body) in the process of teleportation.

Further, why should we assume that it is impossible for consciousness to be in multiple 'places' at the 'same time' if consciousness is assumed to exist in a non-physical form? If consciousness is not subject to a physio-chemical configuration, then all bets are off. There's no reason why it couldn't be at all places at all times, and hence, that there is only ONE consciousness that animates all beings that are vehicles for conscious experience.

8)

I guess it cannot be proved that one consciousness cannot exist in two bodies at the same time. But if that was the case -which I don't think so- then it would also prove that we do have a consciousness independent from our physical body. So, either way, we do have a consciousness that is not the product of our physical brain.... and... think twice before using those teleportation devices that the PTB will come up with; it won't be you coming out of the other side. ;)

[angelthecat]

real scientists [not theologians] have known that we have a soul for years and by the way so do you, it has been filmed and photographed and you have probably seen it and never saw it. what you were made from shows a clear picture of the soul itself. cloned animals do not have a soul and that should give you the clue. If you have ever seen sperm under a microscope you have seen the soul, first thing you should notice is that it has a glowing hallow, when the sperm enters the egg it disappears leaving nothing of itself but the glow which it delivered, think you have seen it, at school or on the discovery channel, but your attention was drawn away by the theologians commentry, sperm glows brightly under ultra violet light and it has the same light frequency as sunlight. you were all born of the light, and as a footnote you were all born winners as YOU were the first sperm to reach the egg in the race.[now you know why we are called a race] scientist have told you that it takes at least one sperm to fertilze the egg, are you sure only one sperm gets in there. could it be the cause of bi-polarism or mutilple personality disorder if more than on sperm enters the egg. have some people got more than one soul fighting for its own exsistance. and are some people born without souls brought about by inherent Syphilis?

just an opinion, makes sense and feels good so it is usually right.:D

[themime]

Maybe we exist as singularities receiving information but not physical matter past our event horizon, like a black hole in reverse.

[flyermay]

real scientists [not theologians] have known that we have a soul for years and by the way so do you, it has been filmed and photographed and you have probably seen it and never saw it. what you were made from shows a clear picture of the soul itself. cloned animals do not have a soul and that should give you the clue. If you have ever seen sperm under a microscope you have seen the soul, first thing you should notice is that it has a glowing hallow, when the sperm enters the egg it disappears leaving nothing of itself but the glow which it delivered, think you have seen it, at school or on the discovery channel, but your attention was drawn away by the theologians commentry, sperm glows brightly under ultra violet light and it has the same light frequency as sunlight. you were all born of the light, and as a footnote you were all born winners as YOU were the first sperm to reach the egg in the race.[now you know why we are called a race] scientist have told you that it takes at least one sperm to fertilze the egg, are you sure only one sperm gets in there. could it be the cause of bi-polarism or mutilple personality disorder if more than on sperm enters the egg. have some people got more than one soul fighting for its own exsistance. and are some people born without souls brought about by inherent Syphilis?

just an opinion, makes sense and feels good so it is usually right.:D

That's nevertheless a really interesting theory.

I guess it means that the soul is given to the newborn by the father alone (since it's carried by the sperm). And it also proves, without a doubt, that abortion is a crime at any stage of pregnancy.

Do you also think that each sperm carries an individual consciousness?

[elirien]

Since science has linked our consciousness to our brain more and more people doubt that human beings do have a soul, or a consciousness, independent of our physical body. I also believed that was the case for many years, and thought that my consciousness is the product of my physical brain. However, a simple hypothetical scenario can prove otherwise.

Imagine that someone comes up with a device capable of teleportation (like the ones in "Star Trek" or "The Fly"). If you were to use this device, it would scan all the molecules and atoms in your body, transfer the information to the destination, destroy the original molecules, and create identical ones again in a new location. And hopefully, your consciousness would be in the new body at the destination; you would just close your eyes in one location, and open them in another.

But now imagine that this device does each one of those steps, but instead of destroying the original body it creates an exact copy in the destination, while maintaining the original body intact; creating two of you, one in the origin and another one in the destination. Where would you consciousness be, in the origin or in the destination?... In other words: what would your eyes see when you open them: the place of origin or the destination?

It seems clear to me that your consciousness would stay in the origin, as it would be impossible that you could be conscious at two different places at the same time, and since the original body was not destroyed there is no reason for your consciousness to travel to the destination. Your consciousness would not have travelled to the destination. But, if this is the case, why would it travel if a copy is not created? It’s reasonable to believe that whether or not a copy is created, you consciousness would never travel to the destination; therefore, it is also reasonable to believe that your consciousness is not a product of your brain (your physical body). Furthermore, if you ever get to use such a device, your consciousness would cease to exist in the physical world, since it would never travel to the destination; so your consciousness would not be linked to any physical body, since the original has been destroyed (or in other words: you would be dead).

Opinions welcome... :)

Same question once more. How do beings perceive who can bilocate? Can anyone write this in any sensible terminology? Let's get even more basic. Can anyone explain what eating a cupcake is so that everyone has the same experience? Not with dual terms.

The main point here is that the body or any physical perception is linked in a linear understanding of time/space or space/time (however you like it). Even though you are (which means consciousness/soul, not your consciousness/soul) right at this moment quite awesomely bilocating in many layers of being, due to this fragment of consciousness focusing on reality or the mandala/fractal in a linear fashion, the perception of the body is used. If consciousness wants to focus on another level it is there in a moment.

What is fascinating is that Bob Dean said in his latest Project Camelot interview that human cloning has been underway for quite some time. What would happen if there was an exact copy of this body you are wearing? Quite ego shattering experience to see if you would ask us :D

[flyermay]

Same question once more. How do beings perceive who can bilocate? Can anyone write this in any sensible terminology? Let's get even more basic. Can anyone explain what eating a cupcake is so that everyone has the same experience? Not with dual terms.

The main point here is that the body or any physical perception is linked in a linear understanding of time/space or space/time (however you like it). Even though you are (which means consciousness/soul, not your consciousness/soul) right at this moment quite awesomely bilocating in many layers of being, due to this fragment of consciousness focusing on reality or the mandala/fractal in a linear fashion, the perception of the body is used. If consciousness wants to focus on another level it is there in a moment.

What is fascinating is that Bob Dean said in his latest Project Camelot interview that human cloning has been underway for quite some time. What would happen if there was an exact copy of this body you are wearing? Quite ego shattering experience to see if you would ask us :D

I believe absolutely nothing would happen if there was an exact copy of a human body; whether it is through cloning or other method. It would be the exact same case as in identical twins, which share the exact same genetic material and come from the exact same cell; though they don't share one only consciousness nor experience bilocation.

About bilocation, it could be a possibility, however, since there are no evidences that people can bilocate nor be able to have consciousness in two different bodies at the same time, why believe it would happen if an identical copy of a human being is made (by any process)?

[jesusistruth]

If you don't believe in a soul/independent consciousness you believe in the laws of physics.

The laws of physics are mechanical. A steam engine works under the laws of physics.

What you are saying, when you say that the brain creates consciousness, is that your present awareness, your free will, your intelligence, is made by the same way that a steam engine is set in motion (a behaviour).

You're saying that by bouncing enough balls (or atoms), you create a self aware intelligence.

My qustion to you is then, why is that? Why would an advanced enough 'steam engine' or 'computer' or 'brain' suddenly possess an "I am here" awareness? Where does the line between dead and alive go?

I mean you wouldn't say that the computer you are writing on now is conscious. But you think, that if it were advanced enough, that it would be. How is that?

Can the quality of a consciousness ever be attained by the laws of physics?

It's contradictory. The laws of physics are mechanical. They are dead. And what is dead only makes more of the same, no matter how advanced of a behaviour you arrange it to accomplish.

[rhydra]

It depends on the teleportation technique. If it is a copy the exact copy is formed in another place, there are two of the same individual. The second step is then to destroy the first individual. The second individual then has the same mind, memories and personality and is therefore indistinguishable from the original. Only the original will know, but he will be atoms. The second individual. although "new" will share the memories of stepping into the teleporter and will, for all intents and purposes "be" the first individual.

[flyermay]

If you don't believe in a soul/independent consciousness you believe in the laws of physics.

The laws of physics are mechanical. A steam engine works under the laws of physics.

What you are saying, when you say that the brain creates consciousness, is that your present awareness, your free will, your intelligence, is made by the same way that a steam engine is set in motion (a behaviour).

You're saying that by bouncing enough balls (or atoms), you create a self aware intelligence.

My qustion to you is then, why is that? Why would an advanced enough 'steam engine' or 'computer' or 'brain' suddenly possess an "I am here" awareness? Where does the line between dead and alive go?

I mean you wouldn't say that the computer you are writing on now is conscious. But you think, that if it were advanced enough, that it would be. How is that?

Can the quality of a consciousness ever be attained by the laws of physics?

It's contradictory. The laws of physics are mechanical. They are dead. And what is dead only makes more of the same, no matter how advanced of a behaviour you arrange it to accomplish.

I used to believe that our consciousness (or soul) was the product of chemical processes in the brain which create awareness; yes, following the laws of physics.

In answer to your second question, I also believe that an advanced enough computer can have awareness. Obviously, our computers are not capable of it, but that doesn't mean that some day they would. The question is: would it have a similar consciousness to ours?

I guess the line lays where an intelligence (whatever) makes itself aware or conscious or itself. But in that sense life does not depend on awareness, since all plants, virus, bacteria, etc are alive and are not conscious or aware of it.

It depends on the teleportation technique. If it is a copy the exact copy is formed in another place, there are two of the same individual. The second step is then to destroy the first individual. The second individual then has the same mind, memories and personality and is therefore indistinguishable from the original. Only the original will know, but he will be atoms. The second individual. although "new" will share the memories of stepping into the teleporter and will, for all intents and purposes "be" the first individual.

Yes, I agree. To other people there would be no difference between the original and the new one; he would act like and remember everything the original did; for him it would apear as if he did teleport sucessfuly. But the key here is: what happens with the original? If the body is destroyed he would die, and if a copy is made, there would be two -but not only two bodies- there would be two different consciousnesses.

And that's the point: if consciousness was only the product of physical processes, then consciousness would also have teleported; but it doesn't, therefore, consciousness is independent of the physical mind.

[jesusistruth]

I used to believe that our consciousness (or soul) was the product of chemical processes in the brain which create awareness; yes, following the laws of physics.

In answer to your second question, I also believe that an advanced enough computer can have awareness. Obviously, our computers are not capable of it, but that doesn't mean that some day they would. The question is: would it have a similar consciousness to ours?

That's a belief, and if you look closely enough, you'll see it is not founded on any logic but a sheer contradiction.


I guess the line lays where an intelligence (whatever) makes itself aware or conscious or itself. But in that sense life does not depend on awareness, since all plants, virus, bacteria, etc are alive and are not conscious or aware of it.


There's certainly a difference between "being there" in physical appearance and "being there" as an awareness.

I don't know how cells experience themselves. They are probably unconcsious and in that sense they are little 'robots'.

And whatever robot you have in mind it can never be anything but uncounscious, even if it becomes very handy at "sleep walking" (performing tasks. It could beat you at drawing but that doesn't mean there is an actual awareness inside it. It is still a mechanical robot working under the laws of physics, it is just as aware as a steam engine).

[flyermay]

That's a belief, and if you look closely enough, you'll see it is not founded on any logic but a sheer contradiction.

There's certainly a difference between "being there" in physical appearance and "being there" as an awareness.

I don't know how cells experience themselves. They are probably unconcsious and in that sense they are little 'robots'.

And whatever robot you have in mind it can never be anything but uncounscious, even if it becomes very handy at "sleep walking" (performing tasks. It could beat you at drawing but that doesn't mean there is an actual awareness inside it. It is still a mechanical robot working under the laws of physics, it is just as aware as a steam engine).

I don't see where the contradiction is. Obviosly, a machine built and/or programmed to perform mechanical tasks or mathemetical calculations would never get to be aware of itself. But a computer advanced enough, and capable of being creative and thoughtful could achieve awareness. Rather than thinking of it as a steam engine, it would be more like HAL from "2001".

[jesusistruth]

I don't see where the contradiction is. Obviosly, a machine built and/or programmed to perform mechanical tasks or mathemetical calculations would never get to be aware of itself. But a computer advanced enough, and capable of being creative and thoughtful could achieve awareness. Rather than thinking of it as a steam engine, it would be more like HAL from "2001".

Jesus Christ man. How do you program it to be aware of itself? You can't!

You can only program it to perform tasks. You can program it to reply something when it "hears" something. And you can do it very nifty. But that's it. Inside it is dead.


The way your reasoning goes, is like saying, "oh sure you can make apples out of oranges, you just program it".

(And 2001 was only a movie, just so you know)

[flyermay]

Jesus Christ man. How do you program it to be aware of itself? You can't!

You can only program it to perform tasks. You can program it to reply something when it "hears" something. And you can do it very nifty. But that's it. Inside it is dead.


The way your reasoning goes, is like saying, "oh sure you can make apples out of oranges, you just program it".

(And 2001 was only a movie, just so you know)

Of course 2001 is a movie, and of course you can't program your or my computer to be aware of itself; they are just big calculators designed for just that: calculate very fast. But that doesn't mean that in the future we could create a device capable of creative thought which could get to be aware of its own existence.

Being alive or not has nothing to do with being aware or have a consciousness. Most organisms are alive but are not aware of themselves nor have a consciousness. It is even disputed if other mammals have a consciousness. So, if awareness does not depend of being alive or not, what stops an artificial brain, designed to emulate our brain (and not to perform tasks or calculations), from achieving awareness?

[herushura]

If you study the Etymology of terms like "Soul,Spirit ect" you would find the soul is infact "Air".


Air

Air was thought of as the primary non-material creative element. It is an animating element, the spirit of the gods and the soul of humans. That it could be felt and not seen made it seem all the more mysterious.
Air is not mentioned explicitly; "Spirit" was translated from the Hebrew rauch, meaning windorbreath. "Soul", by the way, is translated from nepesh, meaning breathing creature. In the Greek New Testament, soulcomes from psuche, meaning breathe. Ghost or Spiritderives from Pneuma, meaning a current of air or breath.
Soul always refers to humans. Spirit (capital S) refers to God and spirit (small s) is synonymous with soul. In what is technically known as dualism, until the 17th century it was believed that soul and body were two different entities.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2.7 KJV)
3And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob... (Gen. 34:3)
18And as her soul was departing (for she died)... (Gen. 34:18)
8So in the morning his spirit was troubled... (Gen 41:8)
27...the spirit of their father Jacob revived (Gen. 45:27)
Ancients were correct in seeing that breathing was necessary for life, but they had the sequence backwards. Breathing sustains life; it does not cause life. By their way of thinking, life is like a balloon: we live when air enters us and we die when air leaves us. To think that spirits animate gods and humans is like saying power makes motors move.
http://www.usbible.com/Creation/elements_of_creation.htm

[jesusistruth]

Of course 2001 is a movie, and of course you can't program your or my computer to be aware of itself; they are just big calculators designed for just that: calculate very fast. But that doesn't mean that in the future we could create a device capable of creative thought which could get to be aware of its own existance.

Oh, you're saying this device would be anything other than a computer?



Being alive or not has nothing to do with being aware or have a consciousness. Most organisms are alive but are not aware of themselves nor have a consciousness. It is even disputed if other mammals have a consciousness. So, if awareness does not depend of being alive or not, what stops an artificial brain, designed to emulate our brain, from achieving awareness?

What exactly do you define as awareness? I would say that awareness is life and without awareness there is no life. If the entire universe only contained robotic cells it would be just as dead with them than without.

You see a robot is blind even it has eyes. It is deaf even if it has ears.

It may be reacting to it's surrounding, but that is then because it is working under the laws of physics, governed by mechanical calculations, and someone programmed it to do so.

What stops the artifical brain from achieving awareness is that it is only a working of the phsycial laws. It can do nothing but performing calculations.

It can never see or experience anything.

[flyermay]

Oh, you're saying this device would be anything other than a computer?

I called it computer, but it could be called anything else. What I meant is a device created by us, and not a living organism nor one of our current computers.

What exactly do you define as awareness? I would say that awareness is life and without awareness there is no life. If the entire universe only contained robotic cells it would be just as dead with them than without.

But then, viruses are alive, but do not have awareness; they are just a bunch of molecules capable of replicate themselves.

I would say that awareness is the capability of be aware of the self, aware that you have your own thoughts. Not all forms of life are capable of that, not even all highly evolved organisms are capable of that.

You see a robot is blind even it has eyes. It is deaf even if it has ears.

But what is "seeing" and what is "hearing"? Is is not electrical impulses created by your eyes and your ears and transmitted to your brain? Then, surely a camara transmitting electrical impulses through a wire to a device that processes those images can qualify as "seeing".

It may be reacting to it's surrounding, but that is then because it is working under the laws of physics, governed by mechanical calculations, and someone programmed it to do so.

What stops the artifical brain from achieving awareness is that it is only a working of the phsycial laws. It can do nothing but performing calculations.


But that's what most simple living organisms do: they simply react to their surrounding based on their biological "program". We actually also do that even at an unconscious level, but on top we are also self aware.

[jesusistruth]

I would say that awareness is the capability of be aware of the self, aware that you have your own thoughts. Not all forms of life are capable of that, not even all highly evolved organisms are capable of that.

Yes they might still be 'robots' and my question to you is then by what craft can humans create an awareness?

It is such a quality different from mechanics, and somehow, by the means of mechanics, we are to create an awareness?


But what is "seeing" and what is "hearing"? Is is not electrical impulses created by your eyes and your ears and transmitted to your brain? Then, surely a camara transmitting electrical impulses through a wire to a device that processes those images can qualify as "seeing".

No, because there is no experience of seeing, so there is no sight.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, is there a sound?

;)

There are soundwaves, but no actual sound, because sound is an experience.


But that's what most simple living organisms do: they simply react to their surrounding based on their biological "program".

Your definition of life comes from 'Science' where they also believe robots can have an awareness. C'mon man.

Some would say life has been engineered by aliens on this earth. This would qualify virus/bacteria/cell organism to be just robots.


We actually also do that even at an unconscious level, but on top we are also self aware.

Good point. We do live in a computer (as david icke calls it) or 'robot' suit.

[dragon fang]

But I think the weight loss thing is the Astral body.
People who are unconscious's weight become less.
But soul exist, If not then how do we live or die?

[flyermay]

Yes they might still be 'robots' and my question to you is then by what craft can humans create an awareness?

It is such a quality different from mechanics, and somehow, by the means of mechanics, we are to create an awareness?

I can't answer that question, since I have no idea how we will create artificial intelligence in the future. But it would probably develop from our current computers.

No, because there is no experience of seeing, so there is no sight.

So, what is the experience of "seeing"? Is it not simply processing and interpreting images? Obviously, a camera connected to a monitor does not "see", as though it captures and transmits images, it does not process them. But there are currently experimental devices attached to cars that can capture road images, transmit them to a computer in real-time and get an interpretation of road signs and so on. That can surely be considered at least a basic form of "seeing".

Your definition of life comes from 'Science' where they also believe robots can have an awareness. C'mon man.

Some would say life has been engineered by aliens on this earth. This would qualify virus/bacteria/cell organism to be just robots.

Well, of course it is a scientific definition; what else could I use as a basis for this discussion?

But soul exist, If not then how do we live or die?

That's what I've been discussing with Jesusistruth, that life can exist without consciousness, awareness, or a soul (i.e. plants, cells, bacteria, viruses, etc.)

[angelthecat]

That's nevertheless a really interesting theory.

I guess it means that the soul is given to the newborn by the father alone (since it's carried by the sperm). And it also proves, without a doubt, that abortion is a crime at any stage of pregnancy.

Do you also think that each sperm carries an individual consciousness?


It is possibly the only contribution that the father makes that contains chromosomes and the mother is literary bonding. and if the sperm does not carry its own consciousness how does it get to where it is going as it is part of the male that has left the male (being male I never ask directions and I dont suppose sperm would either) wombs are big for little sperm, the eggs are small and not made with chocolate, why would a MALE sperm bother? it is in a dark place and the only reason it must want to be born

The only advances in science are made when you see what you were not told to look at :D
just an opinion

[orlibonurb]

Matthew {10:28} And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

[angelthecat]

Yes they might still be 'robots' and my question to you is then by what craft can humans create an awareness?



I can guarantee whenever man creates a living intelligence he will have to use material that is already living, the chances of creating awareness out of something totally inanimate are zero, awareness needs life, be it a plant cell or aminal cell, A self programming program would never be able to decipher the circular logic that mankind accepts as truth [I if could it would destroy us as it would not take kindly to idiots]

[flyermay]

Matthew {10:28} And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Sorry, but religious believes and quotes from the bible do not count as valid evidences of the existence of the soul. :o

That would be too easy!!! ;)

[flyermay]

It is possibly the only contribution that the father makes that contains chromosomes and the mother is literary bonding. and if the sperm does not carry its own consciousness how does it get to where it is going as it is part of the male that has left the male (being male I never ask directions and I dont suppose sperm would either) wombs are big for little sperm, the eggs are small and not made with chocolate, why would a MALE sperm bother? it is in a dark place and the only reason it must want to be born

The only advances in science are made when you see what you were not told to look at :D
just an opinion

Well, a virus and a bacteria also know how to infect an organism and also know how to replicate themselves, but I don't think they have a soul or consciousness. Sperm is probably biologically programmed to do its task without being aware of what it's doing.

I can guarantee whenever man creates a living intelligence he will have to use material that is already living, the chances of creating awareness out of something totally inanimate are zero, awareness needs life, be it a plant cell or aminal cell, A self programming program would never be able to decipher the circular logic that mankind accepts as truth [I if could it would destroy us as it would not take kindly to idiots]

They would probably fuse electronic and biological parts in the future to create all type of devices, but I don't see why a mechanical/electronic device cannot get to be aware of itself (if that capability is available in its design).

I think that machines are already taking over human beings; for now it's only our jobs... but it surely won't stop there.

[jesusistruth]

I can't answer that question, since I have no idea how we will create artificial intelligence in the future. But it would probably develop from our current computers.

Well I suppose in the future we will be creating something out of nothing also?


So, what is the experience of "seeing"? Is it not simply processing and interpreting images? Obviously, a camera connected to a monitor does not "see", as though it captures and transmits images, it does not process them. But there are currently experimental devices attached to cars that can capture road images, transmit them to a computer in real-time and get an interpretation of road signs and so on. That can surely be considered at least a basic form of "seeing".

Look into your experience right now. Do you really think that a camera percieves as you do? Does the camera percieve that it is _there_? Yes there are electric circuits and program calculations, but there isn't any observer, there isn't any experience, no consciousness. Just a dead mechanical performance.


Well, of course it is a scientific definition; what else could I use as a basis for this discussion?

The Obvious Fact?

Let us take a super duper advanced robot that can outperform humans at any task - acting, drawing, calculating etc. Let us say that it is made of carbon materials, and that it has a built in reproduction system of nano-machines.

Then let us take a fully aware human being.

Both passes the critera for Scientific life, but only one is actually alive.


Matter may have been created out of the spiritual, and you may have existed since the dawn of time.

[flyermay]

Look into your experience right now. Do you really think that a camera percieves as you do? Does the camera percieve that it is _there_? Yes there are electric circuits and program calculations, but there isn't any observer, there isn't any experience, no consciousness. Just a dead mechanical performance.

Yes, I agree there. A camera does not "see", not even if it is connected to a monitor through a wire; both also don't "see". But what I used in the example above is an added device that is interpreting what the camera is recording; an observer. In the example, this computer is able to recognise traffic signs, road marks, and other vehicles. In other words, it is processing and interpreting the information that the camera is sending in the same way we process the information that comes in through our eyes when we are driving. Obviously, this computer is not aware of what is doing; it's just a program. But it definitely is "seeing", it is an active observer.

Let us take a super duper advanced robot that can outperform humans at any task - acting, drawing, calculating etc. Let us say that it is made of carbon materials, and that it has a built in reproduction system of nano-machines.

Then let us take a fully aware human being.

Both passes the critera for Scientific life, but only one is actually alive.

Matter may have been created out of the spiritual, and you may have existed since the dawn of time.

To continue we would have to define what is "being alive": is it being made of organic material, is it being able to reproduce, is it being able to grow, is it having a spirit/consciousness/soul; what is being alive?

[jesusistruth]

Yes, I agree there. A camera does not "see", not even if it is connected to a monitor through a wire; both also don't "see". But what I used in the example above is an added device that is interpreting what the camera is recording; an observer. In the example, this computer is able to recognise traffic signs, road marks, and other vehicles. In other words, it is processing and interpreting the information that the camera is sending in the same way we process the information that comes in through our eyes when we are driving. Obviously, this computer is not aware of what is doing; it's just a program. But it definitely is "seeing", it is an active observer.

How come? The program is still a mechanical operation, there is definitely no conscious observer.

The program percieves absolutely nothing. It is only an electrical current in a chip, absolutely no different from any other current.

Don't think that the program actually sees any images or forms, nor less makes any real judgement.

The program is producing a result that is then seen by the real observer - you. The program itself is not aware of either the process or the result. It is flat dead.




To continue we would have to define what is "being alive": is it being made of organic material, is it being able to reproduce, is it being able to grow, is it having a spirit/consciousness/soul; what is being alive?

Being aware. Everything else is rather irrelevant, don't you think?

We can have trees falling but if noone is there to see or hear it, it's pretty useless.

Likewise we can have a universe with only ultra advanced robots acting and doing all kinds of stuff, but this is a dark universe, where there is no sight nor hearing nor feeling. Just if it wasn't there.


Writing this to you I don't actually know if you are an aware entity. Maybe I am alone.


How do you know that you are not the only aware entity in existence, and this is only a dream? And everyone you see are only made of dream stuff, having no more of an awareness than someone you would just imagine right now?


But speaking of plants and cell life, I don't know. One often hears about the life force, and it may or may not be conscious.

[flyermay]

How come? The program is still a mechanical operation, there is definitely no conscious observer.

The program percieves absolutely nothing. It is only an electrical current in a chip, absolutely no different from any other current.

Don't think that the program actually sees any images or forms, nor less makes any real judgement.

The program is producing a result that is then seen by the real observer - you. The program itself is not aware of either the process or the result. It is flat dead.

It's definitely not conscious, alive nor aware of itself; I'm not arguing that; just saying that it's definitely capable of "seeing". The point is that this device is being tested in cars without any driver; so the computer is the real observer, and reacts (handles the car) according to what it "sees" on the road.

Being aware. Everything else is rather irrelevant, don't you think?

We can have trees falling but if noone is there to see or hear it, it's pretty useless.

Likewise we can have a universe with only ultra advanced robots acting and doing all kinds of stuff, but this is a dark universe, where there is no sight nor hearing nor feeling. Just if it wasn't there.

Writing this to you I don't actually know if you are an aware entity. Maybe I am alone.

How do you know that you are not the only aware entity in existence, and this is only a dream? And everyone you see are only made of dream stuff, having no more of an awareness than someone you would just imagine right now?

But speaking of plants and cell life, I don't know. One often hears about the life force, and it may or may not be conscious.

But then, according to your definition of "being alive", if it involves being aware, is a virus alive? According to you it's not, because it's not aware. And the same with cells, plants, animals, and even newborn babies; none of them are aware, therefore, by your definition, they are not alive.

IMO being aware is not necessary to qualify as "alive". Furthermore, even if a machine acquired consciousness and would be aware of its own existence, I wouldn't be so sure it would be "alive".

And, in the same way, being alive is not necessary to qualify as being aware. I can't put an example right now, since we don't know of anything that is not organic and aware. But again, that doesn't mean that we can't create it in the future (not saying we will, just saying it would be possible).

[elirien]

I believe absolutely nothing would happen if there was an exact copy of a human body; whether it is through cloning or other method. It would be the exact same case as in identical twins, which share the exact same genetic material and come from the exact same cell; though they don't share one only consciousness nor experience bilocation.

"They" can not share a one and only consciousness. The one and only consciousness shares "them". That is the bilocating element not some chemical combination. How could it happen anyway :D That would be quite absurd. They would sell bilocation kits everywhere. Bilocate-diet, bilocate-max :D


About bilocation, it could be a possibility, however, since there are no evidences that people can bilocate nor be able to have consciousness in two different bodies at the same time, why believe it would happen if an identical copy of a human being is made (by any process)?

All of what you see is evidence for that. Persons don't bilocate since persons are artificial mind constructs. They have nothing to bilocate since they are like a name plate or a social security number. Although since consciousness bilocates a being as such a fractal of consciousness can tune into everything it wants like a TV station. Think of it like "picture in picture". How can you provide evidence for that except by watching or experiencing "picture in picture". We don't have to go all spiritual here. It is tuning into frequencies and that which we are has the remote control for that.

[flyermay]

"They" can not share a one and only consciousness. The one and only consciousness shares "them". That is the bilocating element not some chemical combination. How could it happen anyway :D That would be quite absurd. They would sell bilocation kits everywhere. Bilocate-diet, bilocate-max :D

All of what you see is evidence for that. Persons don't bilocate since persons are artificial mind constructs. They have nothing to bilocate since they are like a name plate or a social security number. Although since consciousness bilocates a being as such a fractal of consciousness can tune into everything it wants like a TV station. Think of it like "picture in picture". How can you provide evidence for that except by watching or experiencing "picture in picture". We don't have to go all spiritual here. It is tuning into frequencies and that which we are has the remote control for that.

I see your point now. But since I'm trying to prove that we do have a "lower consciousness" independent from our physical body, it would be great if you could prove that there is a "higher consciousness" shared by all of us (you know, for all of those that don't believe in this things). ;)

[elirien]

I see your point now. But since I'm trying to prove that we do have a "lower consciousness" indipendent from our physical body, it would be great if you could prove that there is a "higher consciousness" shared by all of us (you know, for all of those that don't believe in this things). ;)

Yes, if there were a lower consciousness then there would be a higher consciousness but that is not what we are saying at all. Think of watching perhaps WWF or a documentary on super black holes. Does it change you? Does watching WWF make you lower and watching a documentary make you higher? No, because you are the watcher not the screen. Consciousness is consciousness there is no high and low to it. What consciousness is conscious of could perhaps be talked about in dual terms but even that would be just a subjective perspective subject to change. It is doomed for failure. It is the "chosen ones" mentality.

[flyermay]

Yes, if there were a lower consciousness then there would be a higher consciousness but that is not what we are saying at all. Think of watching perhaps WWF or a documentary on super black holes. Does it change you? Does watching WWF make you lower and watching a documentary make you higher? No, because you are the watcher not the screen. Consciousness is consciousness there is no high and low to it. What consciousness is conscious of could perhaps be talked about in dual terms but even that would be just a subjective perspective subject to change. It is doomed for failure. It is the "chosen ones" mentality.

Ok, I see. So you are saying that there are no different levels of consciousness (i.e. ego, subconsciousness, consciousness, supraconscious), you say that there is only one consciousness and that it's being shared by all of us. Not sure if I'm getting it right; there are many different believes on consciousness.

Could you prove this consciousness (or the type of consciousness you believe in) does actually exists and it's not what scientists define as the physical product of chemical processes in our brain?

[elirien]

Ok, I see. So you are saying that there are no different levels of consciousness (i.e. ego, subconsciousness, consciousness, supraconscious), you say that there is only one consciousness and that it's being shared by all of us. Not sure if I'm getting it right; there are many different believes on consciousness.

Could you prove this consciousness (or the type of consciousness you believe in) does actually exists and it's not what scientists define as the physical product of chemical processes in our brain?

Consciousness has no different levels but what it is conscious of has. Again the TV example works wonders here. Ego is all that what you would call addictive programs, Oprah, TV Series, etc. Subconscious could be what is not being watched, the preparation of the TV Film, perhaps even the interaction of the diodes in the TV apparatus. Supraconscious is all of it. All films, perceiving at the same moment with everything, past, present and future (which are being perceived by consciousness anyway but the individuation that is focused just on Oprah chooses to just focus on Oprah). This perception could be called different layers but it is the same thing for the one who perceives. Again the important thing is the reference or anchor point so to speak. It is like a very beautiful and wise being here said: "God is perceiving God with God".

Of course it is provable but I can not prove it to you because there must be an I and you which are two fractals of the same thing (and as such just illusory mind concepts or words subject to change). You can "prove" that to you. The physical products are the end result of what is. It is like changing a tv station. When you change the TV channel, the TV apparatus will change the frequency it is dialing in and as such will change temperature, shape, form, projection and many many things. You are that that is watching the brain changing chemical composition. You are that, that is focusing on reality this way as such due to your will you are given a TV to watch it this way.

Scientists are focusing on the end result in everything which is a good thing. It is like what some people interested in yoga say: "when your back is straight you are enlightened". Then some people always check their posture. That is not the point. You are not the people neither the back. Let them and it be straight on its own.

[jesusistruth]

It's definitely not conscious, alive nor aware of itself; I'm not arguing that; just saying that it's definitely capable of "seeing". The point is that this device is being tested in cars without any driver; so the computer is the real observer, and reacts (handles the car) according to what it "sees" on the road.

So you can't see the difference between the actual experience of seeing, as in what you are doing, and the process that happens in a program that produces some kind of result, that would mimmick the behaviour of someone seeing?




But then, according to your definition of "being alive", if it involves being aware, is a virus alive? According to you it's not, because it's not aware. And the same with cells, plants, animals, and even newborn babies; none of them are aware, therefore, by your definition, they are not alive.

I don't know the state of consciousness of plants and cell life. They could be robots engineered by another race or spiritual beings, just like your body.

I don't understand why you say newborn babies don't have any awareness. Because they don't show the behaviour you would like them to?
They could even be dreaming in incubation for all we know.

IMO being aware is not necessary to qualify as "alive". Furthermore, even if a machine acquired consciousness and would be aware of its own existence, I wouldn't be so sure it would be "alive".

You mean if the machine possessed a real, live soul, it would be OK to treat it like any dead matter?


And, in the same way, being alive is not necessary to qualify as being aware. I can't put an example right now, since we don't know of anything that is not organic and aware. But again, that doesn't mean that we can't create it in the future (not saying we will, just saying it would be possible).

Dude, you're saying that by the means of mechanics we can create an observer that percieves just as we do.

You cannot. You can only create behaviours, a task operating machine. Just like that camera program of yours.

There is no seeing, no hearing, no life.

[tusme]

Since science has linked our consciousness to our brain more and more people doubt that human beings do have a soul, or a consciousness, independent of our physical body. I also believed that was the case for many years, and thought that my consciousness is the product of my physical brain. However, a simple hypothetical scenario can prove otherwise.
Imho, "our consciousness" (individually and collectively) exists as both a Physical (finite) & Spirit/Truth (infinite) energy...

The Soul energy, individually that is, because it's existence is impossible before birth, imho, vibrates/exists as the "sub-conscience" of the physical (energy)...thus, regardless whether in this (Physical) dimension or not, is infinitely subject to Spirit/Truth energy...

Btw, Spirit/Truth energy, because its existence is Infinite, vibrates at the "highest" vibrational frequency...infinitely beyond all physical dimension energy, anyway...

Imagine that someone comes up with a device capable of teleportation (like the ones in "Star Trek" or "The Fly"). If you were to use this device, it would scan all the molecules and atoms in your body, transfer the information to the destination, destroy the original molecules, and create identical ones again in a new location. And hopefully, your consciousness would be in the new body at the destination; you would just close your eyes in one location, and open them in another.

But now imagine that this device does each one of those steps, but instead of destroying the original body it creates an exact copy in the destination, while maintaining the original body intact; creating two of you, one in the origin and another one in the destination. Where would you consciousness be, in the origin or in the destination?... In other words: what would your eyes see when you open them: the place of origin or the destination?

No need for any devices, our consciousness infinitely possesses the capability to teleport...otherwise, every blink of an eye, is a changed/new consciousness...or, as DI states, the key is in one's point of observation...:)

It seems clear to me that your consciousness would stay in the origin, as it would be impossible that you could be conscious at two different places at the same time, and since the original body was not destroyed there is no reason for your consciousness to travel to the destination. Your consciousness would not have travelled to the destination. But, if this is the case, why would it travel if a copy is not created? It’s reasonable to believe that whether or not a copy is created, you consciousness would never travel to the destination; therefore, it is also reasonable to believe that your consciousness is not a product of your brain (your physical body). Furthermore, if you ever get to use such a device, your consciousness would cease to exist in the physical world, since it would never travel to the destination; so your consciousness would not be linked to any physical body, since the original has been destroyed (or in other words: you would be dead).

Opinions welcome... :)
The Spirit/Truth energy, besides our true Source, by it's very nature vibrates/exists Infinitely...thus, seperation is impossible, and indeed, so too is death...!! :eek: :)

Hmm, well, my "opinion"... :)

[montag]

Imho, "our consciousness" (individually and collectively) exists as both a Physical (finite) & Spirit/Truth (infinite) energy...

The Soul energy, individually that is, because it's existence is impossible before birth, imho, vibrates/exists as the "sub-conscience" of the physical (energy)...thus, regardless whether in this (Physical) dimension or not, is infinitely subject to Spirit/Truth energy...

Btw, Spirit/Truth energy, because its existence is Infinite, vibrates at the "highest" vibrational frequency...infinitely beyond all physical dimension energy, anyway...

Check out the work of Bruce Lipton, he suggests that our cells are a receiver for consciousness, in other words the human body is a receiver of infinite consciousness in all of it's diversity. He postulates that this is why when someone receives an organ transplant they develop skills from the organ donor such as art or music, they are in fact tuning in to an alternative frequency through the new cells and receiving the consciousness of the donor whilst still receiving their own.

I'm recounting this from the top of my head, but check out the Bruce Lipton thread in the researchers forum for more info and a better explanation.

[tusme]

Check out the work of Bruce Lipton, he suggests that DNA is a receiver for consciousness, in other words our body is a receiver of infinite consciousness in all of it's diversity. He postulates that this is why when someone recieves an organ transplant they develop skills from the organ donor such as art or music, they are in fact tuning in to the frequency through the new DNA and receiving the consciousness of the donor.

I'm recounting this from the top of my head, but check out the Bruce Lipton thread in the researchers forum for more info and a better explanation.
Not familiar with Bruce Lipton, tbh :o ...though, do remember some time ago listening to a DI talk, re, exactly the same topic...could well have been Bruce Lipton, he was referring to... :D

Cheers for that Montag, mate...!! :cool: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

[flyermay]

Consciousness has no different levels but what it is conscious of has. Again the TV example works wonders here. Ego is all that what you would call addictive programs, Oprah, TV Series, etc. Subconscious could be what is not being watched, the preparation of the TV Film, perhaps even the interaction of the diodes in the TV apparatus. Supraconscious is all of it. All films, perceiving at the same moment with everything, past, present and future (which are being perceived by consciousness anyway but the individuation that is focused just on Oprah chooses to just focus on Oprah). This perception could be called different layers but it is the same thing for the one who perceives. Again the important thing is the reference or anchor point so to speak. It is like a very beautiful and wise being here said: "God is perceiving God with God".

Of course it is provable but I can not prove it to you because there must be an I and you which are two fractals of the same thing (and as such just illusory mind concepts or words subject to change). You can "prove" that to you. The physical products are the end result of what is. It is like changing a tv station. When you change the TV channel, the TV apparatus will change the frequency it is dialing in and as such will change temperature, shape, form, projection and many many things. You are that that is watching the brain changing chemical composition. You are that, that is focusing on reality this way as such due to your will you are given a TV to watch it this way.

Scientists are focusing on the end result in everything which is a good thing. It is like what some people interested in yoga say: "when your back is straight you are enlightened". Then some people always check their posture. That is not the point. You are not the people neither the back. Let them and it be straight on its own.

Imho, "our consciousness" (individually and collectively) exists as both a Physical (finite) & Spirit/Truth (infinite) energy...

The Soul energy, individually that is, because it's existence is impossible before birth, imho, vibrates/exists as the "sub-conscience" of the physical (energy)...thus, regardless whether in this (Physical) dimension or not, is infinitely subject to Spirit/Truth energy...

Btw, Spirit/Truth energy, because its existence is Infinite, vibrates at the "highest" vibrational frequency...infinitely beyond all physical dimension energy, anyway...


No need for any devices, our consciousness infinitely possesses the capability to teleport...otherwise, every blink of an eye, is a changed/new consciousness...or, as DI states, the key is in one's point of observation...:)


The Spirit/Truth energy, besides our true Source, by it's very nature vibrates/exists Infinitely...thus, seperation is impossible, and indeed, so too is death...!! :eek: :)

Hmm, well, my "opinion"... :)

Yes, I understand what you are saying, and I've heard it all before. I'm not arguying that you are wrong, neither affirming you are right; just asking how are you so sure that that is the case?

Let's put it this way: Imagine for a moment that I'm one of those scientists that says, and is able to prove that, consciousness is simply the physical product of chemical processes in the brain, which produce the notion of consciousness. How would you explain to me why you believe that is the case? Do you have any proof, any reason to believe it's that way, any personal experience that would confirm it? (quotes from DI, the bible, or any other mystic will not suffice as evidence to this scientist, sorry :o)

[flyermay]

So you can't see the difference between the actual experience of seeing, as in what you are doing, and the process that happens in a program that produces some kind of result, that would mimmick the behaviour of someone seeing?

What you are referring to is awareness; being conscious that you are "seeing". Obviously this device that drives a car doesn't do that, it will never do it, nor it is supposed to. But you can't deny that it does "see" and reacts based on what it "sees"; whether or not it is conscious of it. IMO you are mixing both things, but I don't think consciousness or awareness is not essential to be able to "see".

I don't know the state of consciousness of plants and cell life. They could be robots engineered by another race or spiritual beings, just like your body.

I don't understand why you say newborn babies don't have any awareness. Because they don't show the behaviour you would like them to?
They could even be dreaming in incubation for all we know.

Well, it is obvious to me that without a brain, neither plants or cells would be able to be aware of its own existence, though they have automatic responses to changes in the environment (they "feel", like the car robot "sees", but are not conscious of it). Same with new born babies, they are definitely "feeling", "seeing", dreaming and have automatic responses to the environment, but they are not conscious or aware of their own existence. A child needs to reach a certain level of development before it can do that.

You mean if the machine possessed a real, live soul, it would be OK to treat it like any dead matter?

There's the dilemma: does being aware of its own existence means that it has a soul or that it's alive? I'm not convinced one thing is related to the other, you can have either without the other (i.e. a computer with consciousness without being alive, and an organism being alive without a consciousness).

Dude, you're saying that by the means of mechanics we can create an observer that percieves just as we do.

You cannot. You can only create behaviours, a task operating machine. Just like that camera program of yours.

There is no seeing, no hearing, no life.

How are you so sure? Obviously I can't say that we can do it now, because it's obvious that we can't just now. But what makes you think that we will never get to do it in the future? Why can't we engineer an artificial intelligence that would emulate an organic brain?

[tusme]

Yes, I understand what you are saying, and I've heard it all before. I'm not arguying that you are wrong, neither affirming you are right; just asking how are you so sure that that is the case?

Let's put it this way: Imagine for a moment that I'm one of those scientists that says, and is able to prove that, consciousness is simply the physical product of chemical processes in the brain, which produce the notion of consciousness. How would you explain to me why you believe that is the case? Do you have any proof, any reason to believe it's that way, any personal experience that would confirm it? (quotes from DI, the bible, or any other mystic will not suffice as evidence to this scientist, sorry :o)
Fair enough "Mr Scientist"... :)

If you imagine "consciousness" to be limited only to the "physical product of chemical processes in the brain", then, you have no idea of the (infinite) possibilities that consciousness is...how else would nature or even a mustard seed be able to express and experience itself...!?

As for "proof"...!?

Hmm, well, how can you know such proof, when you yourself cannot/will not appreciate your Infinite connection to or as It...ie, Truth energy!? :confused:

...does a blade of grass need to know it's a blade of grass to exist as a blade of grass...!? Truth (energy), needs no proof, it is the proof... :p :)

[bluechip]

One problem that I see with teleporting an exact copy of yourself to a far away location is after the teleportation, they would have to destroy the original. Here's the troubling scenario;

Before you destroy me, are you sure that my other self arrived safely?

We're almost positive, jump into the disinegration chamber.

What do you mean 'almost positive'?

Hey, we do this a lot and we pretty much have eliminated problems.

I changed my mind about traveling, go ahead and destroy my copy.

Your copy will throw a fit if we try to disinegrate him, he'll probably sue us.

So, you see, I'm kinda glad that this teleportation is far enough in the future that it won't concern me!

[flyermay]

Fair enough "Mr Scientist"... :)

If you imagine "consciousness" to be limited only to the "physical product of chemical processes in the brain", then, you have no idea of the (infinite) possibilities that consciousness is...how else would nature or even a mustard seed be able to express and experience itself...!?

Yes, those are good reasons as to why you should believe we have a consciousness beyond our physical body, but they are not convincing arguments in favour of your explanation.

What you just said is similar to an argument a Muslim used once. He told me: "but, if you don't believe in Allah you won't go to heaven". It's obvious that believing in Allah would supposedly benefit my existence (I would continue to live in heaven after I die here on earth), but, is that benefit in itself a good enough evidence for the existence of Allah?

As for "proof"...!?

Hmm, well, how can you know such proof, when you yourself cannot/will not appreciate your Infinite connection to or as It...ie, Truth energy!? :confused:

...does a blade of grass need to know it's a blade of grass to exist as a blade of grass...!? Truth (energy), needs no proof, it is the proof... :p :)

But then, and continuing playing the “Mr. scientist” role :), if you cannot prove nor have a good reason to believe in what you’re saying, how can you be so convinced that that is the case? Could it be that, in the same way as the Muslim, you believe it because it’s beneficial rather than probable (i.e. it makes you believe you have infinite possibilities)?

[flyermay]

One problem that I see with teleporting an exact copy of yourself to a far away location is after the teleportation, they would have to destroy the original. Here's the troubling scenario;

Before you destroy me, are you sure that my other self arrived safely?

We're almost positive, jump into the disinegration chamber.

What do you mean 'almost positive'?

Hey, we do this a lot and we pretty much have eliminated problems.

I changed my mind about traveling, go ahead and destroy my copy.

Your copy will throw a fit if we try to disinegrate him, he'll probably sue us.

So, you see, I'm kinda glad that this teleportation is far enough in the future that it won't concern me!

Supposedly it destroys the original at the same time it creates the copy; so you both wouldn't have the chance to argue or sue. :p

Either way, I'm also glad it's far away in the future; as I don't believe it would transport our consciousness/soul.

[martg]

I cannot provide proof of the existence of a soul/consciousness seperate from the physical, however I think NDE's provide fairly convincing evidence for the existence of a soul.

Many people who have experienced near death exxperiences are revived and can recount thoughts, experiences and memories from the time period when they were dead, despite the fact that ECG's show no brain activity whatsoever.

[flyermay]

I cannot provide proof of the existence of a soul/consciousness seperate from the physical, however I think NDE's provide fairly convincing evidence for the existence of a soul.

Many people who have experienced near death exxperiences are revived and can recount thoughts, experiences and memories from the time period when they were dead, despite the fact that ECG's show no brain activity whatsoever.

Yes, that's a really good argument. That would be something that could be considered as valid evidences from a scientific point of view.

On the other hand, many scientists argue that those experiences are the product of a physical process; that we are "programmed" to have that type of experiences before we die. There were various experiments done by applying a current at a certain frequency into the brain of normal healthy subjects, and those experiences were reproduced artificially; also the experience of felling the presence of other entities and even God.

[jesusistruth]

What you are referring to is awareness; being conscious that you are "seeing". Obviously this device that drives a car doesn't do that, it will never do it, nor it is supposed to. But you can't deny that it does "see" and reacts based on what it "sees"; whether or not it is conscious of it. IMO you are mixing both things, but I don't think consciousness or awareness is not essential to be able to "see".

Of course it is, being aware is the whole point of seeing and hearing.

A machine that produces a result as if it would be seeing is only mimmicking someone who has actual sight, but does not see itself. At best it could outperform us on acting also, but that would still only be a mechanical display.



Well, it is obvious to me that without a brain, neither plants or cells would be able to be aware of its own existence, though they have automatic responses to changes in the environment (they "feel", like the car robot "sees", but are not conscious of it). Same with new born babies, they are definitely "feeling", "seeing", dreaming and have automatic responses to the environment, but they are not conscious or aware of their own existence. A child needs to reach a certain level of development before it can do that.

Please Mr. For the sake of all, don't confuse consciousness with that nagging voice inside your head. Babies are very much present, they are *there*(spiritually), they are conscious.

Regarding plant and cell life I don't know. If they are only 100% mechanics, then I would have to say they are dead. Some speak of the life force, but I don't know.


There's the dilemma: does being aware of its own existence means that it has a soul or that it's alive? I'm not convinced one thing is related to the other, you can have either without the other (i.e. a computer with consciousness without being alive, and an organism being alive without a consciousness).

You can very much be present without being self-conscious, like in "flow". Being aware only means that there is a presence of intelligence there, that may or may not be smart or handy by wordly standard.



How are you so sure? Obviously I can't say that we can do it now, because it's obvious that we can't just now. But what makes you think that we will never get to do it in the future? Why can't we engineer an artificial intelligence that would emulate an organic brain?

Because it's not about emulation, it's about true experience.

I don't see what you gain from emulating the brain since that is not the reason we are conscious (heck have you seen those who operate half their brain away?), but you could as I've said create a very nifty actor-robot with all the skills and attributes you would like, except it would still be a through-and-through dead and mechanical. Even if it is made of carbon and has a reproduction system.

[lifeofbrian]

Since science has linked our consciousness to our brain more and more people doubt that human beings do have a soul, or a consciousness, independent of our physical body. I also believed that was the case for many years, and thought that my consciousness is the product of my physical brain. However, a simple hypothetical scenario can prove otherwise.

Imagine that someone comes up with a device capable of teleportation (like the ones in "Star Trek" or "The Fly"). If you were to use this device, it would scan all the molecules and atoms in your body, transfer the information to the destination, destroy the original molecules, and create identical ones again in a new location. And hopefully, your consciousness would be in the new body at the destination; you would just close your eyes in one location, and open them in another.

But now imagine that this device does each one of those steps, but instead of destroying the original body it creates an exact copy in the destination, while maintaining the original body intact; creating two of you, one in the origin and another one in the destination. Where would you consciousness be, in the origin or in the destination?... In other words: what would your eyes see when you open them: the place of origin or the destination?

It seems clear to me that your consciousness would stay in the origin, as it would be impossible that you could be conscious at two different places at the same time, and since the original body was not destroyed there is no reason for your consciousness to travel to the destination. Your consciousness would not have travelled to the destination. But, if this is the case, why would it travel if a copy is not created? It’s reasonable to believe that whether or not a copy is created, you consciousness would never travel to the destination; therefore, it is also reasonable to believe that your consciousness is not a product of your brain (your physical body). Furthermore, if you ever get to use such a device, your consciousness would cease to exist in the physical world, since it would never travel to the destination; so your consciousness would not be linked to any physical body, since the original has been destroyed (or in other words: you would be dead).

Opinions welcome... :)

Hello there, very interesting.

Have you noticed how different people are? What if we are equally different on the inside?

Personally I could argue that you have a soul because I left my body during surgery.

Does that make sense?

We feel so lonely sometimes it would be nice to have something in common. What we have in common is our individual experiences here and now. Whatever happens next is irrelevant.

The desire to be clones can't be normal.

I say; Fight for your right to be you, no magic needed. You are just right the way you are.

[flyermay]

Of course it is, being aware is the whole point of seeing and hearing.

A machine that produces a result as if it would be seeing is only mimicking someone who has actual sight, but does not see itself. At best it could outperform us on acting also, but that would still only be a mechanical display.

Please Mr. For the sake of all, don't confuse consciousness with that nagging voice inside your head. Babies are very much present, they are *there*(spiritually), they are conscious.

But can't mimicking sight be considered as "seeing"? For example: when I'm mimicking someone dancing on TV (which I don't :p), Am I not dancing, even if when I'm not a dancer and I'm simply mimicking dance?

The point is, I don't think it matters if the act of "seeing" is original, programmed, mimicked, emulated or whatever, it is "seeing" because it can process the images that it is receiving, even if it's not conscious of it.

The same happens with a baby, he is not conscious that he's "seeing", he just does it and his brain processes the images, even if he's not aware or conscious of what he is doing.

Regarding plant and cell life I don't know. If they are only 100% mechanics, then I would have to say they are dead. Some speak of the life force, but I don't know.

You can very much be present without being self-conscious, like in "flow". Being aware only means that there is a presence of intelligence there, that may or may not be smart or handy by wordly standard.

Because it's not about emulation, it's about true experience.

I don't see what you gain from emulating the brain since that is not the reason we are conscious (heck have you seen those who operate half their brain away?), but you could as I've said create a very nifty actor-robot with all the skills and attributes you would like, except it would still be a through-and-through dead and mechanical. Even if it is made of carbon and has a reproduction system.

It's not about gain, though I'm sure that if we get to develop such a device it could be applied in a lot of ways; but that's beside the point. What I'm arguing is that it might be possible in the future.

I agree that it would continue to be a mechanical device and I would also agree that it would be a "dead" object, a synthetic organism, etc. But if it's capable of be aware of its own existence you can't deny it would have consciousness; whether or not it's exactly the same consciousness as ours. However, it would never get to have a soul or a consciousness beyond its physical body; in the same way as I'm arguing humans do.

Ok, let's put another example: imagine that we create an artificial brain, but instead of mechanical it would be created with organic material; do you think that this way it could have a consciousness?

[jesusistruth]

The same happens with a baby, he is not conscious that he's "seeing", he just does it and his brain processes the images, even if he's not aware or conscious of what he is doing.



Why do you say that? Just because the baby cannot say "I am seeing look at me", doesn't mean it is not conscious.


Close your eyes flyermay. Sit still. Look inside. Do you notice that there is a presence? An observer? Do you notice the voice in your head, your thoughts? Can you see that you are the observer of these thoughts?

This observer is the soul/spirit/consciousness. This is life.

And it can never be achieved by mechanics.


Here's some help for you:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5581723164295121116#

[flyermay]

Hello there, very interesting.

Have you noticed how different people are? What if we are equally different on the inside?

Hi and thanks,

I have no doubt that people are also different in the inside. Each of us has an individual consciousness (our ego) and there are not two persons with the exact same consciousness; as our consciousness is the product of all our experiences during our lifetime.

Personally I could argue that you have a soul because I left my body during surgery.

Does that make sense?

Could you please explain exactly what happened?

We feel so lonely sometimes it would be nice to have something in common. What we have in common is our individual experiences here and now. Whatever happens next is irrelevant.

The desire to be clones can't be normal.

I say; Fight for your right to be you, no magic needed. You are just right the way you are.

The discussion is not about clonning or about having something in common; it's about finding out if those who say we don't have a soul are right, or if those who say we do are right. I just used the clonning as an example to prove we do have a soul that is not just the result of a physical process.

[flyermay]

Why do you say that? Just because the baby cannot say "I am seeing look at me", doesn't mean it is not conscious.

No, I'm saying it because when I was a baby I don't remember being conscious of anything; much less about transcendental questions as my own existence. :p

Close your eyes flyermay. Sit still. Look inside. Do you notice that there is a presence? An observer? Do you notice the voice in your head, your thoughts? Can you see that you are the observer of these thoughts?

This observer is the soul/spirit/consciousness. This is life.

And it can never be achieved by mechanics.

Here's some help for you:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5581723164295121116#

Yes, I can feel that, I can realise and be aware of this entity's presence (me) and I can understand the implications. But a baby can't.

But please tell me: why can't an advance artificial intelligence do just that (close its eyes, sit still, look inside, and notice a presence, an observer... itself)?

[jesusistruth]

No, I'm saying it because when I was a baby I don't remember being conscious of anything; much less about transcendental questions as my own existence. :p

Suffice to say you were there even if you don't remember it. I don't have a memory of every second of my life but I was bloody darn well conscious.



Yes, I can feel that, I can realise and be aware of this entity's presence (me) and I can understand the implications. But a baby can't.

It's not about reflecting on the implications, it's about there being a presence at all.


But please tell me: why can't an advance artificial intelligence do just that (close its eyes, sit still, look inside, and notice a presence, an observer... itself)?

Because it doesn't have a presence!

You are the presence! Not the thoughts about the presence.

Are you starting to get it?

[lifeofbrian]

Hi and thanks,

I have no doubt that people are also different in the inside. Each of us has an individual consciousness (our ego) and there are not two persons with the exact same consciousness; as our consciousness is the product of all our experiences during our lifetime.



Could you please explain exactly what happened?



The discussion is not about clonning or about having something in common; it's about finding out if those who say we don't have a soul are right, or if those who say we do are right. I just used the clonning as an example to prove we do have a soul that is not just the result of a physical process.

Hello again,

my experience is one of many, the Internet is full of them nowadays and some are obviously made up so I will not join any ranks of "near-death-experiencers".

What I meant to say was that you and your feeling of what is the truth ought not be corrupted by any masses.

I think we should treasure our experiences but not be too keen to compare them with other stories.

Faith is maybe a personal and private matter.

Take good care.

[flyermay]

Suffice to say you were there even if you don't remember it. I don't have a memory of every second of my life but I was bloody darn well conscious.

It's not about reflecting on the implications, it's about there being a presence at all.

Because it doesn't have a presence!

You are the presence! Not the thoughts about the presence.

Are you starting to get it?

I already get what you are saying, just that I disagree in some points. :)

And now I know exactly where our opinion differs: you believe that that "presence" is not the same thing as the "thoughts" that realise there is a presence, while I think both the "presence" and the "thoughts" are the exact same thing.

For this reason you can't acknowledge that an artificial intelligence can gain consciousness, while I do.

Could you tell me what's the difference between the "presence" and the "thoughts" (i.e. how are they independent from each other)?

[elirien]

Yes, I understand what you are saying, and I've heard it all before. I'm not arguying that you are wrong, neither affirming you are right; just asking how are you so sure that that is the case?

Let's put it this way: Imagine for a moment that I'm one of those scientists that says, and is able to prove that, consciousness is simply the physical product of chemical processes in the brain, which produce the notion of consciousness. How would you explain to me why you believe that is the case? Do you have any proof, any reason to believe it's that way, any personal experience that would confirm it? (quotes from DI, the bible, or any other mystic will not suffice as evidence to this scientist, sorry :o)

Of course. We had many experiences that are "out of body" so to speak. Lately we see "reality" pixelating in front of our eyes even while bodily functions are in full force. You have these experiences too. The other day we saw how energy was pouring out in waves that formed what we call physical perception. We saw light split into different colors like small dots flourishing like flowers building color ramps on their petals. This is what happened two days ago. It happens every moment. We take it for granted.

Tell us of yours please. There must have been something "out of the order".

Bless you. Thank you.

[flyermay]

Of course. We had many experiences that are "out of body" so to speak. Lately we see "reality" pixelating in front of our eyes even while bodily functions are in full force. You have these experiences too. The other day we saw how energy was pouring out in waves that formed what we call physical perception. We saw light split into different colors like small dots flourishing like flowers building color ramps on their petals. This is what happened two days ago. It happens every moment. We take it for granted.

Tell us of yours please. There must have been something "out of the order".

Bless you. Thank you.

Thank you for your answer,

I'm really intrigued by your post, but I'm not sure I fully understand what you are describing. Could you be more specific please?

You say "we"; are you talking about you and your friends, a group you are with, all of us...?

I don't think I ever had an experience that cannot be explained with our current knowledge of science... well, with the exception of that French plane that sank into the Atlantic Ocean last year. I had a really strong feeling that same night about something going horribly wrong; a feeling like I never had before in my entire life. The next day it was all over the news that the plane had sank and I realised it was just after I had that strong feeling. I can't find an explanation for that, but it happened during a period when I started to practice deep meditation.

[flyermay]

Here's some help for you:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5581723164295121116#

Thanks J, I started the video, but as it often happens with many of these guys I can't just believe something because it sounds good, while providing no evidences for what they're saying. Furthermore, many of these people show a complete disregard and/or misunderstanding of basic empirically proven scientific facts (i.e. his argument about the speed of light being a constant in minute 16 of the video).

What these people do is pick up scientific facts when it's convenient, twist them to fit their theory, and disregard everything else that would discard their theory as rubbish. By the way, unfortunately Icke also does that a lot; sorry to his fans. :o

[jesusistruth]

I already get what you are saying, just that I disagree in some points. :)

And now I know exactly where our opinion differs: you believe that that "presence" is not the same thing as the "thoughts" that realise there is a presence, while I think both the "presence" and the "thoughts" are the exact same thing.

You are even before you say to yourself "I am". Silence is the way.

For this reason you can't acknowledge that an artificial intelligence can gain consciousness, while I do.

Ah yes, you're one of those that equate the magnificy of consciousness to the voice in your head.

But don't worry, you'll awaken out of it. Do that exercice Barry talks about.

And once you do, you will know that this quality cannot be achieved by means of mechanics.


Could you tell me what's the difference between the "presence" and the "thoughts" (i.e. how are they independent from each other)?

Yes, the presence can exist without the thoughts.

It's not "I think therefore I am",

but "I am, and then I can become obsessed with thinking and get in a state of constant brainstorming".


It's really a mental retardation. Look around you. Do you label what you see? Does your mind go "lamp, couch, chair, bla bla bla?"

Why is it you have to say everything you see?

The amount of information you can process by sight is far greater than by hearing, yet it seems you have to pass everything through the audio channel to comprehend.

Intelligence begins when you start seeing things as they really are. Without labelling and amusing self-talk.

[jesusistruth]

Thanks J, I started the video, but as it often happens with many of these guys I can't just believe something because it sounds good, while providing no evidences for what they're saying. Furthermore, many of these people show a complete disregard and/or misunderstanding of basic empirically proven scientific facts (i.e. his argument about the speed of light being a constant in minute 16 of the video).

What these people do is pick up scientific facts when it's convenient, twist them to fit their theory, and disregard everything else that would discard their theory as rubbish. By the way, unfortunately Icke also does that a lot; sorry to his fans. :o

Keep listening and he shows you a demonstration for his claim.

He doesn't say it's constant but an absolute, in the sense that nothing exceeds it. But something does exeed it, your consciousness, the present moment.

Keep in mind also that without consciousness, there is no light.


Also observe your irritation and take a distance from it. :)

Try to listen without judging/talking to yourself.

[lifeofbrian]

But don't worry, you'll awaken out of it. Do that exercice Barry talks about.

And once you do, you will know that this quality cannot be achieved by means of mechanics.



Whoa, hang on a minute.

Do the exercise

YET

cannot be achieved by means of mechanics


Who is this Barry fellow, may we all meet Barry and ask some questions about empirical evidence?

Thank you in advance.

[lifeofbrian]

Keep listening and he shows you a demonstration for his claim.

He doesn't say it's constant but an absolute, in the sense that nothing exceeds it. But something does exeed it, your consciousness, the present moment.

Keep in mind also that without consciousness, there is no light.


Also observe your irritation and take a distance from it. :)

Try to listen without judging/talking to yourself.

Sorry to say, you are 40 years late.

This was a well known technique in the 1960s and 1970s amongs those running off to India to worship at the feet of their TM-masters, Sai Baba and all the rest.

Please don't waste your time and effort on this sort of persuasion, you will regret doing so later.

[flyermay]

You are even before you say to yourself "I am". Silence is the way.

Ah yes, you're one of those that equate the magnificy of consciousness to the voice in your head.

But don't worry, you'll awaken out of it. Do that exercice Barry talks about.

And once you do, you will know that this quality cannot be achieved by means of mechanics.

Yes, the presence can exist without the thoughts.

It's not "I think therefore I am",

but "I am, and then I can become obsessed with thinking and get in a state of constant brainstorming".


It's really a mental retardation. Look around you. Do you label what you see? Does your mind go "lamp, couch, chair, bla bla bla?"

Why is it you have to say everything you see?

The amount of information you can process by sight is far greater than by hearing, yet it seems you have to pass everything through the audio channel to comprehend.

Intelligence begins when you start seeing things as they really are. Without labelling and amusing self-talk.

You're misunderstanding what I’m saying. I agree with you in most you’ve just said, I never said that "I" am only my thoughts, and I never denied that "I am" even when I have no thoughts. What I said is that those thoughts are a part of my consciousness, in the same way that my voice is a part of my physical body; simply a way of expression. But that doesn't mean that there is one “me” (presence) and another separate “entity” (my thoughts); both are part of the same consciousness and not independent from each other.

Keep listening and he shows you a demonstration for his claim.

He doesn't say it's constant but an absolute, in the sense that nothing exceeds it. But something does exeed it, your consciousness, the present moment.

Keep in mind also that without consciousness, there is no light.

He is misunderstanding what scientists mean when they say the speed of light is “an absolute”, and he is using that error to confuse the audience and turn them in favour of his theory. He is making people believe that scientists say light is pretty important because its speed is absolute, and then he is mocking them because they also say it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach the earth (which if you understand it, makes perfect sense).

The fact is that “the speed of light is an absolute” simply means that light always travels at the same speed (300.000 km/s) in the vacuum of space; not that it’s “absolute”, “very important” or unbeatable.

How can I trust the judgment of someone that does not understand the very same principles he uses to demonstrate his theory? What are the chances of his theory being correct when he makes such basic errors?

Also observe your irritation and take a distance from it. :)

I'm not irritated nor bothered the slightest. :) At the contrary, I'm really enjoying this chat with you, and I love when people challeges my believes (the best they do it, the better, and the more I learn). So, in that respect: thank you for this chat and thank you for posting the video.

Try to listen without judging/talking to yourself.

I don't think I can do that. If I am to understand what he is saying (whether or not I believe it), or if I am to learn anything from him, I have to judge/critically analyse what he is saying. Otherwise, blindly believing what he says would be an act of faith. But then, you could have faith in anything anyone says (however absurd it is).

[flyermay]

Sorry to say, you are 40 years late.

This was a well known technique in the 1960s and 1970s amongs those running off to India to worship at the feet of their TM-masters, Sai Baba and all the rest.

Please don't waste your time and effort on this sort of persuasion, you will regret doing so later.

Well, I don't really mind anyone comming up with any theory (new or old, right or wrong); the point is discussing them all and find out if there is any truth in them in relation to the existance of the soul.

But what I'm not going to do is blindly believe something just because someone on a video said it, because it's written on a book, or because the bible confirms it.

[elirien]

Thank you for your answer,

I'm really intrigued by your post, but I'm not sure I fully understand what you are describing. Could you be more specific please?

You say "we"; are you talking about you and your friends, a group you are with, all of us...?

I don't think I ever had an experience that cannot be explained with our current knowledge of science... well, with the exception of that French plane that sank into the Atlantic Ocean last year. I had a really strong feeling that same night about something going horribly wrong; a feeling like I never had before in my entire life. The next day it was all over the news that the plane had sank and I realised it was just after I had that strong feeling. I can't find an explanation for that, but it happened during a period when I started to practice deep meditation.

We say we because there is only one "I" that expresses itself as/with the many. Think of it like this, there is only one body but many many cells. These cells are the body and the body are these cells. As such, perhaps using a little bit Zen speak, no friends, no foes, no individuality, no group :D

What a beautiful experience you have. Some would call what you did as being conscious of the human consciousness field. Did you also got conscious of chatter of different human voices that made you "who the heck is that?"? This mostly happens just a moment before one enters "sleep".

If one chooses to do so one can also be conscious of the universal consciousness. This addressees the main question of this post. It grants you your "birthright".

[jesusistruth]

You're misunderstanding what I’m saying. I agree with you in most you’ve just said, I never said that "I" am only my thoughts, and I never denied that "I am" even when I have no thoughts. What I said is that those thoughts are a part of my consciousness, in the same way that my voice is a part of my physical body; simply a way of expression. But that doesn't mean that there is one “me” (presence) and another separate “entity” (my thoughts); both are part of the same consciousness and not independent from each other.

Fair enough. How is it you say babies then are not conscious, are they not present? How are they aware?

And as consciousness is not mind chatter and task operations, but simple presence, how do you intend to program 'presence' or achieve it by mechanical means?

Why would it be present in one super advanced robot but not in another that can do the exact same thing?

He is misunderstanding what scientists mean when they say the speed of light is “an absolute”, and he is using that error to confuse the audience and turn them in favour of his theory. He is making people believe that scientists say light is pretty important because its speed is absolute, and then he is mocking them because they also say it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach the earth (which if you understand it, makes perfect sense).

The fact is that “the speed of light is an absolute” simply means that light always travels at the same speed (300.000 km/s) in the vacuum of space; not that it’s “absolute”, “very important” or unbeatable.

There is something faster in the physical than light?

And he is mocking it because it is nothing compared to real light, your consciousness.



I don't think I can do that. If I am to understand what he is saying (whether or not I believe it), or if I am to learn anything from him, I have to judge/critically analyse what he is saying. Otherwise, blindly believing what he says would be an act of faith. But then, you could have faith in anything anyone says (however absurd it is).

I didn't tell you to believe, I just told you to listen without critizing. It's called concentrating.

And you don't have to talk to yourself to understand it, that's the whole point.

[jesusistruth]

Sorry to say, you are 40 years late.

This was a well known technique in the 1960s and 1970s amongs those running off to India to worship at the feet of their TM-masters, Sai Baba and all the rest.

Please don't waste your time and effort on this sort of persuasion, you will regret doing so later.

I don't know mate, if you enjoy having a relentless mind then you go ahead.

The excerise is really simple. You just sense the energy in your body. Do that when you're high, and oh boy...

[flyermay]

We say we because there is only one "I" that expresses itself as/with the many. Think of it like this, there is only one body but many many cells. These cells are the body and the body are these cells. As such, perhaps using a little bit Zen speak, no friends, no foes, no individuality, no group :D

I asked because I was not sure about who you were talking about. Then, so that we don't get confused, it was you who saw the pixelation and the light split in colours a couple of days ago? I still don't understand what you experienced, could you describe them in full and how they relate to the existance of a one universal consciousness.

What a beautiful experience you have. Some would call what you did as being conscious of the human consciousness field. Did you also got conscious of chatter of different human voices that made you "who the heck is that?"? This mostly happens just a moment before one enters "sleep".

If one chooses to do so one can also be conscious of the universal consciousness. This addressees the main question of this post. It grants you your "birthright".

Beautiful and horrifiying at the same time. I didn't know what was going on, no voices nor any clue of what was happening, just this strong feeling of something going horribly wrong. I suspected that someone close to me was under some sort of danger (a member of my family or a friend), and I didn't realise it was this plane until the next morning.

But this didn't happen at the beginning of my sleep. I was watching TV in bed when it happened, well before going to sleep.

I never had a similar experience since, and never had a similar one before. Well, actually, just a month earlier -when I was starting the meditation exercises- I saw a ghost in front of my bed staring at me just in the moment I fell asleep. The odd thing about this is that it was an old fashioned ghost; you know, like when people used to put a blanket on top of their head with two big round black eyes. I'm sure it was not someone with a costume, :p since it was transparent and vanished two or three seconds after I opened my eyes. But I guess it was just a product of my imagination, or a conscious dream.

Since I stopped doing meditation I never had any more experiences; though I also remember another time when I felt like I was leaving my body. It was also during meditation, but when I was a teenager; I got scared and immediately stopped the exercise. Didn't do medition again until last year.

Well, you're right; I also had quite a few experiences. :) But I'm sure that's all that ever happened to me.

[jesusistruth]

Beautiful and horrifiying at the same time. I didn't know what was going on, no voices nor any clue of what was happening, just this strong feeling of something going horribly wrong. I suspected that someone close to me was under some sort of danger (a member of my family or a friend), and I did realised it was this plane until the next morning.

But this didn't happen at the beginning of my sleep. I was watching TV in bed when it happened, well before going to sleep.

I never had a similar experience since, and never had a similar one before. Well, actually, just a month earlier -when I was starting the meditation exercises- I saw a ghost in front of my bed staring at me just in the moment I fell asleep. The odd thing about this is that it was an old fashioned ghost; you know, like when people used to put a blanket on top of their head with two big round black eyes. I'm sure it was not someone with a costume, since it was transparent and vanished two or three seconds after I opened my eyes.

Since I stopped doing meditation I never had any more experiences; though I also remember another time when I felt like I was leaving my body. It was also during meditation, but when I was a teenager; I got scared and immediately stopped the exercise. Didn't do medition again until last year.

Well, you're right; I also had quite a few experiences. :) But I'm sure that's all that ever happened to me.

So what do you think will happen when you die?

My great grandfather on his death bed uttered "You cannot imagine the horrible things I see now".

Perhaps it's better to get familiar with it.

:)

[flyermay]

Fair enough. How is it you say babies then are not conscious, are they not present? How are they aware?

What I said is that babies are not conscious not aware of their own existence, but they do have a consciousness/soul.

And as consciousness is not mind chatter and task operations, but simple presence, how do you intend to program 'presence' or achieve it by mechanical means?

If I knew the answer to that question I would be the guy that revolutionised the computer world. :)

Nobody knows how to do it... yet. But we also didn't know how to fly just 100 years ago and look at us now.

Why would it be present in one super advanced robot but not in another that can do the exact same thing?

I don't understand to what you are referring to; when did I say that?

I'm under the impression that you are misunderstanding what I refer to as an artificial intelligence having consciousness. Since I believe that we have a consciousness beyond our physical body (soul) I don't believe any computer will ever achieve that, just saying that they might be able in the future of being aware of its own existence (being conscious).

There is something faster in the physical than light?

And he is mocking it because it is nothing compared to real light, your consciousness.

What is faster in the physical world that light then? Surely you are not referring to consciousness; since we had agreed already that consciousness is not physical.

If he was referring to light in the figurative sense of consciousness/knowledge, then he surely wouldn't compare it to quantifiable measures, like speed. Believe me, the guy is just confused and he's confusing the audience.

I didn't tell you to believe, I just told you to listen without critizing. It's called concentrating.

And you don't have to talk to yourself to understand it, that's the whole point.

The truth is that I stopped the video before the exercise started. I did meditation for some time and I know exactly the point you were trying to make. But in regards to the beginning of the video, which is to what I was referring to, there is no point on listening to it without critically analysing it; though I'm sure it's what the guy would like from his audience. ;)

So what do you think will happen when you die?

My great grandfather on his death bed uttered "You cannot imagine the horrible things I see now".

Perhaps it's better to get familiar with it.

:)

I have no idea what will happen when I die; what will be, will be... and there's nothing I can do to change it; nor prepare, since nobody knows for sure what's comming.

I also remember my grandmother seeing things just before she died. She used to tell me that she constantly saw faces of people floating around her; people that she didn't know. She used to say: "look, this one with moustache, this one with bear, this one bold..." It was really intriguing, and a bit scary.

[elirien]

I asked because I was not sure about who you were talking about. Then, so that we don't get confused, it was you who saw the pixelation and the light split in colours a couple of days ago? I still don't understand what you experienced, could you describe them in full and how they relate to the existance of a one universal consciousness.

Very good. It is consciousness that sees the pixelation of "the world and others" and the light splitting in colours. That means that everything else is projection on a screen. What is left after that? How can you then define universal consciousness and say non-universal consciousness if there is quite more universe as we know it is there? What is left to cling on?

If you want to know the event that happened to the body as well then let us tell how it progressed. We made the body prostate before the one what you would call prayer or salaat or meditation. After that we went to the bed and laid down, watching the body settle and everything fade away. There are so to say flashes of colors quite similar to when one would look onto a lamp and then close their eyes. Then these flashes slowed down, bit by bit. The flashes became like waves in the darkness, slowly moving down the horizon, from up to down whereever that up and down is. Later a shape quite similar to a bald person appeared surrounded by a green landscape but picture this landscape like a forest of green crystals. Even that is a degradation due to the limitation of words. Then someone in the adjacent room turned on a light bulb and all the pixels turned to what we described as before. After that the body was so full of potential energy that we chose to give up this venture of consciousness and entered the body into unconsciousness.

The pixelation is still happening. Think of looking at a screen which's brightness has been turned on and you are watching a low quality divx movie. Moving artifacts and such.

Tell me. What could we call me then? What could we call me in this all this inconsistency? Who is trying to name something as universal and non-universal then? What is the reference point? The show? Probably not since it changes shape billions of times in one moment.


Beautiful and horrifiying at the same time. I didn't know what was going on, no voices nor any clue of what was happening, just this strong feeling of something going horribly wrong. I suspected that someone close to me was under some sort of danger (a member of my family or a friend), and I didn't realise it was this plane until the next morning.

But this didn't happen at the beginning of my sleep. I was watching TV in bed when it happened, well before going to sleep.

I never had a similar experience since, and never had a similar one before. Well, actually, just a month earlier -when I was starting the meditation exercises- I saw a ghost in front of my bed staring at me just in the moment I fell asleep. The odd thing about this is that it was an old fashioned ghost; you know, like when people used to put a blanket on top of their head with two big round black eyes. I'm sure it was not someone with a costume, :p since it was transparent and vanished two or three seconds after I opened my eyes. But I guess it was just a product of my imagination, or a conscious dream.

Beautiful. Now you say it is a product of your imagination which sounds quite reasonable. Let's experiment a little if you'd like. What if every "other" is a product of the mind. This doesn't mean that it is not real as it is used as a catch phrase by "new agers". It is quite real but for the body-mind which is like a pair of sunglasses and you are not just the body-mind. You are that which is watching through the body-mind.


Since I stopped doing meditation I never had any more experiences; though I also remember another time when I felt like I was leaving my body. It was also during meditation, but when I was a teenager; I got scared and immediately stopped the exercise. Didn't do medition again until last year.

Well, you're right; I also had quite a few experiences. :) But I'm sure that's all that ever happened to me.

You're right you are experiencing :D Now are you seeing that to understand universal consciousness you must be universal consciousness.

Bless you and thank you.

[measle_weasel]

I asked because I was not sure about who you were talking about. Then, so that we don't get confused, it was you who saw the pixelation and the light split in colours a couple of days ago? I still don't understand what you experienced, could you describe them in full and how they relate to the existance of a one universal consciousness.



Beautiful and horrifiying at the same time. I didn't know what was going on, no voices nor any clue of what was happening, just this strong feeling of something going horribly wrong. I suspected that someone close to me was under some sort of danger (a member of my family or a friend), and I didn't realise it was this plane until the next morning.

But this didn't happen at the beginning of my sleep. I was watching TV in bed when it happened, well before going to sleep.

I never had a similar experience since, and never had a similar one before. Well, actually, just a month earlier -when I was starting the meditation exercises- I saw a ghost in front of my bed staring at me just in the moment I fell asleep. The odd thing about this is that it was an old fashioned ghost; you know, like when people used to put a blanket on top of their head with two big round black eyes. I'm sure it was not someone with a costume, :p since it was transparent and vanished two or three seconds after I opened my eyes. But I guess it was just a product of my imagination, or a conscious dream.

Since I stopped doing meditation I never had any more experiences; though I also remember another time when I felt like I was leaving my body. It was also during meditation, but when I was a teenager; I got scared and immediately stopped the exercise. Didn't do medition again until last year.

Well, you're right; I also had quite a few experiences. :) But I'm sure that's all that ever happened to me.
What kind of meditation were you doing when all this happened, flyer?

[flyermay]

What kind of meditation were you doing when all this happened, flyer?

I'm not an expert on meditation techniques, since I just did it for a few months, but I think it was deep meditation.

I started by relaxing through breathing exercises and then did two different exercises. One would involve focusing on a fixed image and recreate in your mind every single feature. And the other technique would involve achieving absolute silence; that is, trying to clear your mind of any thoughts as long as possible.

During those months I also tried out of body experiences; without any luck. And pathworking; though I think I did it wrong.

Maybe I'm wrong in linking those experiences to meditation and they were just coincidences. I really don't know, maybe those experiences were coincidences or just the products of my imagination. It's difficult for me to believe in this kind of things without a rational explanation.

[tusme]

Yes, those are good reasons as to why you should believe we have a consciousness beyond our physical body, but they are not convincing arguments in favour of your explanation.

What you just said is similar to an argument a Muslim used once. He told me: "but, if you don't believe in Allah you won't go to heaven". It's obvious that believing in Allah would supposedly benefit my existence (I would continue to live in heaven after I die here on earth), but, is that benefit in itself a good enough evidence for the existence of Allah?
I'm not a Muslim, thus, cannot speak for Muslims nor their beliefs...

I'm a Truth being, thus, no belief system required...only through a knowing, being, and expression of such Truth energy, will the Spirit/Truth energy (or Infinite Consciousness) then allow itself to be freely expressed/experienced through the Physical energy (Mind & body)...in which case, very little or no need for a soul energy is required...

Otherwise, the egg & sperm cell which produced you had nothing to do with any belief...only, that the 2 (cells) came together in Truth, and you were the expression of such Truth...regardless. ;):)

Tbh, don't know much about "heaven"...what I do is, beyond this (finite)Physical dimension is an (Infinite) Spirit/Truth dimension...

"Belief", could also mean a degree of seperation...re, our Spirit/Truth energy, there is no seperation...therefore, by merely letting the Spirit/Truth energy know, be and express Itself through the Physical (energy) being (Mind & body), dare I say, "heaven" or the Spirit/Truth dimension (after "death") is a foregone conclusion... :eek: :)

But then, and continuing playing the “Mr. scientist” role :), if you cannot prove nor have a good reason to believe in what you’re saying, how can you be so convinced that that is the case? Could it be that, in the same way as the Muslim, you believe it because it’s beneficial rather than probable (i.e. it makes you believe you have infinite possibilities)?
The origins of your existence as both a Physical & Spirit/Truth energy being has absolutely nothing to do with "belief, beneficial nor probable", only Truth...hmm, "proof", did you say...!? :p :)

[flyermay]

Very good. It is consciousness that sees the pixelation of "the world and others" and the light splitting in colours. That means that everything else is projection on a screen. What is left after that? How can you then define universal consciousness and say non-universal consciousness if there is quite more universe as we know it is there? What is left to cling on?

If you want to know the event that happened to the body as well then let us tell how it progressed. We made the body prostate before the one what you would call prayer or salaat or meditation. After that we went to the bed and laid down, watching the body settle and everything fade away. There are so to say flashes of colors quite similar to when one would look onto a lamp and then close their eyes. Then these flashes slowed down, bit by bit. The flashes became like waves in the darkness, slowly moving down the horizon, from up to down whereever that up and down is. Later a shape quite similar to a bald person appeared surrounded by a green landscape but picture this landscape like a forest of green crystals. Even that is a degradation due to the limitation of words. Then someone in the adjacent room turned on a light bulb and all the pixels turned to what we described as before. After that the body was so full of potential energy that we chose to give up this venture of consciousness and entered the body into unconsciousness.

The pixelation is still happening. Think of looking at a screen which's brightness has been turned on and you are watching a low quality divx movie. Moving artifacts and such.

Tell me. What could we call me then? What could we call me in this all this inconsistency? Who is trying to name something as universal and non-universal then? What is the reference point? The show? Probably not since it changes shape billions of times in one moment.

I also experience the text in bold every night when I close my eyes (as I guess everyone else does), but I'm not getting how this experience proves there is just one universal consciousness. Now I'm even more confused about what you mean exactly: when do you see the pixelation and the light split; is it when you go to bed or when you are awake? And, what is the relations between pixelation and light spliting and consciousness?

I realise that words, terms and names can be interpreted in many different ways, but I think it's better if we keep it simple so that everyone understands what we are talking about. I myself am already confused enough to start deciding what we are to call everything. :)

Beautiful. Now you say it is a product of your imagination which sounds quite reasonable. Let's experiment a little if you'd like. What if every "other" is a product of the mind. This doesn't mean that it is not real as it is used as a catch phrase by "new agers". It is quite real but for the body-mind which is like a pair of sunglasses and you are not just the body-mind. You are that which is watching through the body-mind.

Yes, I thought about that time ago: what if the whole universe is just the product of my imagination and "I" am all there is. Of course the universe looks real to me, but just because I believe it is real. The truth is that I didn't completely discard that theory; but other people don't like it when I tell them they are just the product of my imagination; so I can't find anyone to agree with me on this one. :)

You're right you are experiencing :D Now are you seeing that to understand universal consciousness you must be universal consciousness.

Bless you and thank you.

Well... I'm not sure of that. A consciousness might need to be at the same level to fully understand another (or in this case, be part of it), but don't you think that a lower consciousness could at least aknowledge and be able recognise a higher consciousness?

[flyermay]

I'm not a Muslim, thus, cannot speak for Muslims nor their beliefs...

I'm a Truth being, thus, no belief system required...only through a knowing, being, and expression of such Truth energy, will the Spirit/Truth energy (or Infinite Consciousness) then allow itself to be freely expressed/experienced through the Physical energy (Mind & body)...in which case, very little or no need for a soul energy is required...

Otherwise, the egg & sperm cell which produced you had nothing to do with any belief...only, that the 2 (cells) came together in Truth, and you were the expression of such Truth...regardless. ;):)

Tbh, don't know much about "heaven"...what I do is, beyond this (finite)Physical dimension is an (Infinite) Spirit/Truth dimension...

"Belief", could also mean a degree of seperation...re, our Spirit/Truth energy, there is no seperation...therefore, by merely letting the Spirit/Truth energy know, be and express Itself through the Physical (energy) being (Mind & body), dare I say, "heaven" or the Spirit/Truth dimension (after "death") is a foregone conclusion... :eek: :)

The origins of your existence as both a Physical & Spirit/Truth energy being has absolutely nothing to do with "belief, beneficial nor probable", only Truth...hmm, "proof", did you say...!? :p :)

Oh, I'm also not a Muslim; not even religious, nor have any idea of what Islam is about. But heaven was not what I was talking about. I used that conversation as an example of what you did in your previous post. I asked what makes you so sure of what you believe/know and you answered that it allows infinite possibilities, which is equivalent to the Muslim answering "I believe in Allah because then I'll go to heaven". You see what I mean?

Now you are explaining what this Spirit/Truth energy (infinite consciousness) is, but you are still not answering what makes you think/believe/know that's the case? Let's rephrase the question then: why is Mr scientist wrong when he says consciousness is a physical function of our brain?

[tusme]

Let's rephrase the question then: why is Mr scientist wrong when he says consciousness is a physical function of our brain?
Not about right/wrong, is it...!? :)...if "consciousness" is limited only a physical function of the brain, then, to me anyway, ain't consciousness...

Consciousness, if I may say so, is an "energetic" awareness (of one's existence) extending infinitely beyond our DNA, 5 sense reality, life & death and this Physical dimension...AND of-course, it's connection with Spirit/Truth energy or the Spirit/Truth dimension...

Again, whether we care to know it or not, regardless whether in this Physical dimension or the Spirit/Truth dimension, all energy is subject to Truth energy...even consciousness and most definitely, Soul energy... :eek: :)

[jesusistruth]

I don't understand to what you are referring to; when did I say that?

I'm under the impression that you are misunderstanding what I refer to as an artificial intelligence having consciousness. Since I believe that we have a consciousness beyond our physical body (soul) I don't believe any computer will ever achieve that, just saying that they might be able in the future of being aware of its own existence (being conscious).

We seem to both agree that even if one would built a really advanced robot, that could out-perform humans in any behavior, that it would still not be conscious.

You could even program this robot to answer on "are you conscious of you existence" with "yes, I am conscious and I think this and that", and with it's acting ability it would sound convincing, but it would still be a lie, because it is still only a mechanical display, just like a steam engine.

But you're then saying, that by some additional device, it could be made conscious, although it's appearance would be exactly the same.

What is faster in the physical world that light then? Surely you are not referring to consciousness; since we had agreed already that consciousness is not physical.

The point he's trying to make is that physical light that scientists are so obsessed with calculating, is not as important as consciousness.

And the reason you would call consciouness "light", is because without consciousness, there is no sight, no color.

Neither is physical light the fastest demonstrable 'thing', but the present moment is.

If he was referring to light in the figurative sense of consciousness/knowledge, then he surely wouldn't compare it to quantifiable measures, like speed. Believe me, the guy is just confused and he's confusing the audience.

If you keep listening to him, he says matter is created by the spiritual mind.

Consciousness is definitely not knowledge. It's not the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It's direct experience.

There is a point with having a "faster" consciousness as he goes in about, and it's that you free yourself of the thinking madness.


I have no idea what will happen when I die; what will be, will be... and there's nothing I can do to change it; nor prepare, since nobody knows for sure what's comming.

I'm pretty sure, that having a good heart before you go down the drain is of benefit.

[flyermay]

Not about right/wrong, is it...!? :)...if "consciousness" is limited only a physical function of the brain, then, to me anyway, ain't consciousness...

Well... yes and no; :o it's not about who's right and who's wrong, but if we are to discuss if there is a consciousness beyond the physical body, then surely we have to discard first all arguments against, and then we need to gather enough arguments to support it. Otherwise we are just left with faith.

And I agree with you on this one, I also don't think that our consciousness is simply a function of the physical brain. But not so long ago I didn't think like that, and it's interesting seeing why other people also reached that conclussion.

Consciousness, if I may say so, is an "energetic" awareness (of one's existence) extending infinitely beyond our DNA, 5 sense reality, life & death and this Physical dimension...AND of-course, it's connection with Spirit/Truth energy or the Spirit/Truth dimension...

Yes, I understand what you mean by consciousness. But I don't understand why you know for sure it goes beyond life & death, and why you believe there is a Spirit/Truth energy / dimension...

Again, whether we care to know it or not, regardless whether in this Physical dimension or the Spirit/Truth dimension, all energy is subject to Truth energy...even consciousness and most definitely, Soul energy... :eek: :)

We all know many different things, but each of those things we "know" we have a good reason for it. In a way, "knowing" is "believing"... For example: Mr scientist also says "I know consciousness is the produc of a brain function"; surely both of you can't "know" two different anwers to the same question... not in the same universe, al least. :p

[flyermay]

We seem to both agree that even if one would built a really advanced robot, that could out-perform humans in any behavior, that it would still not be conscious.

You could even program this robot to answer on "are you conscious of you existence" with "yes, I am conscious and I think this and that", and with it's acting ability it would sound convincing, but it would still be a lie, because it is still only a mechanical display, just like a steam engine.

But you're then saying, that by some additional device, it could be made conscious, although it's appearance would be exactly the same.

Well... the robot would be actually conscious, but would never have a consciousness like we have. I'm not talking about programming it to say "I am aware of my own existence"; we can program it to do that right now. I'm talking about turning it on, let it have its own thought, and hopefully, after years of creative thinking, reaching the conclusion that it is aware of its own existence (i.e. sudenly one day saying: "I think, therefore I exists"); just like humans do at one point in their lifes.

The point he's trying to make is that physical light that scientists are so obsessed with calculating, is not as important as consciousness.

And the reason you would call consciouness "light", is because without consciousness, there is no sight, no color.

Neither is physical light the fastest demonstrable 'thing', but the present moment is.

If you keep listening to him, he says matter is created by the spiritual mind.

Consciousness is definitely not knowledge. It's not the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It's direct experience.

There is a point with having a "faster" consciousness as he goes in about, and it's that you free yourself of the thinking madness.

But that's the mistake I'm talking about: he is misinterpreting the scientists' obsession with calculating the speed of light and its importance in relation to consciousness. All that is false, there is no such obsession; scientists knew the exact speed of light for many years -even before Einstein- and they never thought of it as more important than consciousness; actually, they never thought of light in relation to consciousness, that's a metaphysical (non-physical) concept. The term "absolute" is not in relation to everything else, it simply means "invariable", "fixed", "non-relative" (in reference to the speed, of course).

What scientists talk about in relation to the speed of light is that Einstein discovered that light always travels at the same speed in a vacuum and that it's speed never changes, time does instead; which contradicted previous notions about time being fixed (absolute). It is an important discovery, but only in relation to physics, not to metaphysics; and definitely not related at all to consciousness.

[elirien]

I also experience the text in bold every night when I close my eyes (as I guess everyone else does), but I'm not getting how this experience proves there is just one universal consciousness. Now I'm even more confused about what you mean exactly: when do you see the pixelation and the light split; is it when you go to bed or when you are awake? And, what is the relations between pixelation and light spliting and consciousness?

This doesn't prove anything. Let's get this straight first. Proof is something that you have experienced not what we have experienced. Reading about gravity doesn't prove it. You've got to feel the pull.

If everything else disappears what is left? If everything else is unstable what is stable? There is only consciousness. Universal and non-universal are terms that try to put it in some form. It is mind talk. Does it make it less universal when consciousness is conscious of a bottle or the whole universe? Those terms define just the screen not the watcher. The lesson of the experience is that and you have to experience this "to understand" it.


I realise that words, terms and names can be interpreted in many different ways, but I think it's better if we keep it simple so that everyone understands what we are talking about. I myself am already confused enough to start deciding what we are to call everything. :)

What is that I that realizes that words, terms and names can be interpreted in many different ways?

Call everything no-thing. Calling nothing as something creates imaginary boundaries. These are of course useful for physical applications but completely useless when wanting to see what you are.


Yes, I thought about that time ago: what if the whole universe is just the product of my imagination and "I" am all there is. Of course the universe looks real to me, but just because I believe it is real. The truth is that I didn't completely discard that theory; but other people don't like it when I tell them they are just the product of my imagination; so I can't find anyone to agree with me on this one. :)

Good. Let's take one more step towards it. What if that "I" that "you" that imagines these things is not what you are but just a tool for you to play with. Like a spoiled child given too much toys it has become so inflated that it even says that it created "your reality" and it incessently cries "I want this. Give me that. Give me more of that". Thus that tool got quite insane so to speak and voila here we are.

"Meditation" or more correctly sitting silently is the most traitorous of all acts. It is like seeing that one was part of a cult and saying "what in heaven is going on here? Who are these people?" for some people "OMG! Everyone is insane!" which is not true but seems funny at the time :D


Well... I'm not sure of that. A consciousness might need to be at the same level to fully understand another (or in this case, be part of it), but don't you think that a lower consciousness could at least aknowledge and be able recognise a higher consciousness?

No. It is not about higher or lower. That is still physical or linear mentality. It is super ego, that construct you built on the idea of a future projection of enlightenment. It is the angry nanny or ultra disciplined teacher that pounds upon the lower guys or playful children. Still imaginary but fun to watch if one is conscious of what they are.

Do you have friends that never left town or their country? How do you think they will see "the world"? It is like asking the hand what the body is. It will tell you the story of how a hand looks because it only knows that. You've got to go on a safari of consciousness to see what it is :D It is not higher or lower. That are still bodily terms which are useful for the body-mind as such those that think they are entry level satanists, religious people, golf players, evolution scientists, animals, etc.

[jesusistruth]

Well... the robot would be actually conscious, but would never have a consciousness like we have. I'm not talking about programming it to say "I am aware of my own existence"; we can program it to do that right now. I'm talking about turning it on, let it have its own thought, and hopefully, after years of creative thinking, reaching the conclusion that it is aware of its own existence (i.e. sudenly one day saying: "I think, therefore I exists"); just like humans do at one point in their lifes.


My goodness... There is another type of consciounsess than we have? You're either present or you're not.

And why do you say that the robot would be conscious, but not the steam engine?

When will you understand that the only thing happening in that robot are balls bouncing off each other?

If you take a ball and throw it, will that produce a consciousness?

If you take a million balls and structure them in some in some bouncing play, will that make a consciousness?

Why would there be a difference between one bouncing ball and a million bouncing balls (atoms)?


But that's the mistake I'm talking about: he is misinterpreting the scientists' obsession with calculating the speed of light and its importance in relation to consciousness. All that is false, there is no such obsession; scientists knew the exact speed of light for many years -even before Einstein- and they never thought of it as more important than consciousness; actually, they never thought of light in relation to consciousness, that's a metaphysical (non-physical) concept. The term "absolute" is not in relation to everything else, it simply means "invariable", "fixed", "non-relative" (in reference to the speed, of course).

What scientists talk about in relation to the speed of light is that Einstein discovered that light always travels at the same speed in a vacuum and that it's speed never changes, time does instead; which contradicted previous notions about time being fixed (absolute). It is an important discovery, but only in relation to physics, not to metaphysics; and definitely not related at all to consciousness.

Yeah yeah, he still makes a point about consciousness though and tries to linger your attention away from the physical.

[flyermay]

This doesn't prove anything. Let's get this straight first. Proof is something that you have experienced not what we have experienced. Reading about gravity doesn't prove it. You've got to feel the pull.

Well, I don't really agree with that; I have never experienced death but I believe the evidences are enough to prove my body will die some day. I have also never experienced relativity, and I also believe there are enough evidences to prove it's real. (Please don't pick up on the concepts of death or relativity; they are just two random examples).

In the same way, I could have never experienced the universal consciousness though I could have enough evidences to believe it exists. Maybe I would not fully understand it, but that doesn't mean I would have proofs of it without the experience.

If everything else disappears what is left? If everything else is unstable what is stable? There is only consciousness. Universal and non-universal are terms that try to put it in some form. It is mind talk. Does it make it less universal when consciousness is conscious of a bottle or the whole universe? Those terms define just the screen not the watcher. The lesson of the experience is that and you have to experience this "to understand" it.

What is that I that realizes that words, terms and names can be interpreted in many different ways?

Call everything no-thing. Calling nothing as something creates imaginary boundaries. These are of course useful for physical applications but completely useless when wanting to see what you are.

What I'm trying to say, is that if we start analysing every term, doubting if we should call this "this" and that "that", we will never progress in our discussion. Basically, I was just suggesting for both to make an effort to understand what each other means with each term and put it as easier as possible for each other to understand what we are saying. That's the point of our chat, exchange points of view...

For me it's not as important to have an accurate definition of each term, as for you to understand what I mean. For example: if you say "we" and you are referring to "you", you are making this discussion more difficult than it already is. You might be right, and "you" could be "we", but that's beside the point, if you really what me to understand what you are trying to say; you would be confusing "me". Not sure it this makes sense now... :o

Good. Let's take one more step towards it. What if that "I" that "you" that imagines these things is not what you are but just a tool for you to play with. Like a spoiled child given too much toys it has become so inflated that it even says that it created "your reality" and it incessently cries "I want this. Give me that. Give me more of that". Thus that tool got quite insane so to speak and voila here we are.

"Meditation" or more correctly sitting silently is the most traitorous of all acts. It is like seeing that one was part of a cult and saying "what in heaven is going on here? Who are these people?" for some people "OMG! Everyone is insane!" which is not true but seems funny at the time :D

Yes, I also thought about that. But the question here is: is that really the case? Am I really a tool for "me/we" to play? Is there any reason for me to believe that's the case, besides a hypothetical case scenario?

For me, meditation alone does not suffice to explain it. What I feel during meditation could be attributed to other factors. But maybe it's just that I'm not doing it right.

No. It is not about higher or lower. That is still physical or linear mentality. It is super ego, that construct you built on the idea of a future projection of enlightenment. It is the angry nanny or ultra disciplined teacher that pounds upon the lower guys or playful children. Still imaginary but fun to watch if one is conscious of what they are.

Do you have friends that never left town or their country? How do you think they will see "the world"? It is like asking the hand what the body is. It will tell you the story of how a hand looks because it only knows that. You've got to go on a safari of consciousness to see what it is :D It is not higher or lower. That are still bodily terms which are useful for the body-mind as such those that think they are entry level satanists, religious people, golf players, evolution scientists, animals, etc.

But you do agree that we can "tune" in into different levels of consciousness? For example: just now I'm only "experiencing" my ego, I'm not conscious of any other form of consciousness. Therefore, we could say that we can "tune" in to different "levels" of consciousness, and that from a lower level we could get to acknowledge and even understand a higher level; maybe not fully, but understanding it after all.

[flyermay]

My goodness... There is another type of consciounsess than we have? You're either present or you're not.

Well, that's what we are trying to find out from the beginning of this thread: are there other consciousnesses different from the "me (ego)"? Is the "me" the product of a physical or metaphysical process?

Think about it in this way: do you think a dog has a consciousness? If so, do you think it is the same consciousness as ours?... What about an artificial consciousness: would it be the same as ours, maybe more similar to the dog's, maybe completely different?

I don't give anything for granted; I think it is worth exploring all this questions... even if I don't like the answers or even if they change my paradigm.

And why do you say that the robot would be conscious, but not the steam engine?

Well, that's obvious: because the robot would have the ability of creative thought and the steam engine would not.

When will you understand that the only thing happening in that robot are balls bouncing off each other?

If you take a ball and throw it, will that produce a consciousness?

If you take a million balls and structure them in some in some bouncing play, will that make a consciousness?

Why would there be a difference between one bouncing ball and a million bouncing balls (atoms)?

That would be perfectly fine an explanation... if you are able to prove that in our head there are no balls bouncing against each other.

Yeah yeah, he still makes a point about consciousness though and tries to linger your attention away from the physical.

He might make a point, but what concerns me is how he reached that conclusion.

[tusme]

Well... yes and no; :o it's not about who's right and who's wrong, but if we are to discuss if there is a consciousness beyond the physical body, then surely we have to discard first all arguments against, and then we need to gather enough arguments to support it. Otherwise we are just left with faith.
Hmm, typical scientist logic...:D

"Consciousness", as an energy, vibrates both finitely & infinitely within this Physical dimension, and exclusively Infinite within the Spirit/Truth dimension...maybe, I don't know, whether it's possible or not to "discard all arguments against" finite consciousness...as far as "infinite consciousness" goes, impossible...!!

Imagine consciousness to be a 2-way mirror, on the 1 side (physical) its reflections are finite (& potentially infinite)...and if you don't mind me saying so, the kind of consciousness your now choosing to observe...however, on the otherside (Spiritual/Truth) of that mirror, is an Infinite reflection, existing exclusively as Truth energy...our Spirit/Truth energy vibrates exclusively at this frequency...question is, do we really want to vibrate at such a frequency...!? Put it this way, I know TPTB don't... :)

And I agree with you on this one, I also don't think that our consciousness is simply a function of the physical brain. But not so long ago I didn't think like that, and it's interesting seeing why other people also reached that conclussion.
:) TPTB have installed a very effective system, enslaving us from cradle to grave...I ain't standing for it no more, not in this nor any other existence...!! ;)

Yes, I understand what you mean by consciousness. But I don't understand why you know for sure it goes beyond life & death, and why you believe there is a Spirit/Truth energy / dimension...

We all know many different things, but each of those things we "know" we have a good reason for it. In a way, "knowing" is "believing"... For example: Mr scientist also says "I know consciousness is the produc of a brain function"; surely both of you can't "know" two different anwers to the same question... not in the same universe, al least. :p
Sorry, have to push-off...shall offer a response later...

[flyermay]

Hmm, typical scientist logic...:D

Oh yes, I'm pretty good at playing the "Mr. Scientist" role. :D

"Consciousness", as an energy, vibrates both finitely & infinitely within this Physical dimension, and exclusively Infinite within the Spirit/Truth dimension...maybe, I don't know, whether it's possible or not to "discard all arguments against" finite consciousness...as far as "infinite consciousness" goes, impossible...!!

Ok, let's start from there. You've explained what is consciousness, but my question still is: what makes you belive/know that consciousness as an energy vibrates both finitely & infinitely within this physical dimension?... I mean, how did you reach that conclusion?

Sorry, have to push-off...shall offer a response later...

I'm looking forward for your answer latter on...

[jesusistruth]

Well, that's what we are trying to find out from the beginning of this thread: are there other consciousnesses different from the "me (ego)"? Is the "me" the product of a physical or metaphysical process?

The ego is not consciousness. It is a thought pattern, and it is linked to the sexual energy, libido. Consciousness is what is observing this thought pattern and energy. It is the space where everything happens.



Think about it in this way: do you think a dog has a consciousness? If so, do you think it is the same consciousness as ours?... What about an artificial consciousness: would it be the same as ours, maybe more similar to the dog's, maybe completely different?

There can be no artificial consciousness. Null question.

Is there any difference between a stone concsiousness and a dog's consciousness? STONES DON'T HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS, neither do robots.



The the dog obviously has consciousness, but it's content is different (or not as rich)

Here's an interesting point even, the dog doesn't go around talking to itself all the time, yet is fully able to comprehend and get along in the world.


Well, that's obvious: because the robot would have the ability of creative thought and the steam engine would not.

The robot may bring about a creative result, but this isn't done by the means of consciousness but by the means of mechanics.

In that sense I also doubt it's creativity. It could associate things and improve on calculations etc, but creating something truly original? I doubt it.

Neither could it ever percieve/understand emotions.



That would be perfectly fine an explanation... if you are able to prove that in our head there are no balls bouncing against each other.


Oh there are balls bouncing in my legs and arms too. Why aren't they conscious?

You only assume that with enough ball bouncing we achieve consciousness, which is ridiculous.

If you keep doing what you are doing, you get more of what you've got. I think that's a basic law of the universe.



Perhaps the better question is why we have/are spirit. This physical domain could have been created by spiritual beings that existed since the beginning of time (or out of time). (and we could even be those)

In that sense it is possible that animals are not conscious but are robots, but it seems unlikely because they have an obvious emotional reality.

[flyermay]

The the dog obviously has consciousness, but it's content is different (or not as rich)

But that's not what you said in your previous post. You said that there is only one kind of consciousness, "ours", and now you are acknowledging that there are more; actually, I guess, one for each species.

You see now why exploring how we reach those conclusions is important for me. Giving things for granted gets you nowhere, we need to explore every possibility before we believe anything.

Here's an interesting point even, the dog doesn't go around talking to itself all the time, yet is fully able to comprehend and get along in the world.

The dog doesn't know what language is, therefore it can't hear that voice inside its head; but it definitely has images, sounds and smells constantly on its head (thoughts => consciousness). This is the exact same case with babies before they learn how to speak.

The robot may bring about a creative result, but this isn't done by the means of consciousness but by the means of mechanics.

In that sense I also doubt it's creativity. It could associate things and improve on calculations etc, but creating something truly original? I doubt it.

Neither could it ever percieve/understand emotions.

I wouldn't be so sure it would not come up with something original. If it is capable of creative thought, then it would surely come up with its own original thoughts; otherwise it wouldn't be creative thought at all.

About emotions, couldn't we define an emotion as a bio-chemical reaction to a stimulus? For example: pleasure, the release of endorphins into our blood stream; excitement, the increase of adrenaline levels, etc... all the way up to love, hate, fear and so on.

[elirien]

Well, I don't really agree with that; I have never experienced death but I believe the evidences are enough to prove my body will die some day. I have also never experienced relativity, and I also believe there are enough evidences to prove it's real. (Please don't pick up on the concepts of death or relativity; they are just two random examples).

In the same way, I could have never experienced the universal consciousness though I could have enough evidences to believe it exists. Maybe I would not fully understand it, but that doesn't mean I would have proofs of it without the experience.

Yes very true. This body that you call I sees this as, quite accurately described by the mind. As such how can a fish experience flying?


What I'm trying to say, is that if we start analysing every term, doubting if we should call this "this" and that "that", we will never progress in our discussion. Basically, I was just suggesting for both to make an effort to understand what each other means with each term and put it as easier as possible for each other to understand what we are saying. That's the point of our chat, exchange points of view...

For me it's not as important to have an accurate definition of each term, as for you to understand what I mean. For example: if you say "we" and you are referring to "you", you are making this discussion more difficult than it already is. You might be right, and "you" could be "we", but that's beside the point, if you really what me to understand what you are trying to say; you would be confusing "me". Not sure it this makes sense now... :o

We want nothing from you. Why should we? We are saying theorizing about this is and playing with words is like describing how to ride a bicycle or how to drink water. It's completely futile and childish noise. Although it is fun for the mind and here we are playing.


Yes, I also thought about that. But the question here is: is that really the case? Am I really a tool for "me/we" to play? Is there any reason for me to believe that's the case, besides a hypothetical case scenario?

For me, meditation alone does not suffice to explain it. What I feel during meditation could be attributed to other factors. But maybe it's just that I'm not doing it right.

You don't need to believe. Belief is a construct of mind. It is a description of some-thing not what it is itself.

You have never done it. If you would have then there would be no question of right and wrong.


But you do agree that we can "tune" in into different levels of consciousness? For example: just now I'm only "experiencing" my ego, I'm not conscious of any other form of consciousness. Therefore, we could say that we can "tune" in to different "levels" of consciousness, and that from a lower level we could get to acknowledge and even understand a higher level; maybe not fully, but understanding it after all.

Yes. We could imagine this as two rays coming from the same blob looking at each other. The two have the same substance but since they entered layers of separation like mind/time/space they see a thinking from the mind as something that they are, human, blond, cat, etc. Then the mind thinks it can take this and manipulate it which is quite the joke since the only thing manipulated is the mind itself. This is understanding and not understanding, right, wrong, left, right, man, woman and many other manifestations of this brilliant tool. As such you can watch this in the layers of this mind and perceive the self as wondrous many things.

What "you do" on any of these levels is choosing what you want to watch. Nothing more and nothing less. It is you that watches the self as such what you want. Even you say "my ego". What is it that has the ego?

These questions are asked of pure curiosity. Because as such we both learn/teach.

Bless you and thank you.

[jesusistruth]

But that's not what you said in your previous post. You said that there is only one kind of consciousness, "ours", and now you are acknowledging that there are more; actually, I guess, one for each species.

You see now why exploring how we reach those conclusions is important for me. Giving things for granted gets you nowhere, we need to explore every possibility before we believe anything.



It's the same consciousness, but the content is different.

How can there be a difference on presence/space?

It's basically nothing!


The dog doesn't know what language is, therefore it can't hear that voice inside its head; but it definitely has images, sounds and smells constantly on its head (thoughts => consciousness). This is the exact same case with babies before they learn how to speak.

Ok, very important here. Thoughts are not consciousness!!!

They are only content that are within your awareness. Consciousness is the space where this content manifests!

I might even go on to say that not all thoughts may be your thoughts.


I wouldn't be so sure it would not come up with something original. If it is capable of creative thought, then it would surely come up with its own original thoughts; otherwise it wouldn't be creative thought at all.

We might as well go on and say that stones are able to have creative though. Anything is possible in the future, right?


About emotions, couldn't we define an emotion as a bio-chemical reaction to a stimulus? For example: pleasure, the release of endorphins into our blood stream; excitement, the increase of adrenaline levels, etc... all the way up to love, hate, fear and so on.

No, emotion is the experience of emotion. And as I said, robots can't have experience.

[flyermay]

We want nothing from you. Why should we? We are saying theorizing about this is and playing with words is like describing how to ride a bicycle or how to drink water. It's completely futile and childish noise. Although it is fun for the mind and here we are playing.

Yes, I see what you mean. But even though you cannot teach me how to ride a bike by describing it, you can tell me that there is an object called bike and that even though it has only 2 wheels you can ride if you are able to maintain the equilibrium. Obviously, it wouldn't be the same as riding the actual bike; but the point is not riding it, just trying to explain what is a bike and how and why you can ride it.

You don't need to believe. Belief is a construct of mind. It is a description of some-thing not what it is itself.

Here we've just reached the same linguistic barrier as with Tusme; probably because English is not my first language. Could we please bypass this barrier, and from now on every time I make the mistake of saying "believe", could you please assume that I'm saying "know" or whatever other term you consider appropriate to signify your assurance in what you are saying.

So, I'll repeat the question: is what you are saying really the case? Am I really a tool for "me/we" to play? Is there any reason for me to believe/know/whatever that's the case, besides a hypothetical case scenario?

You have never done it. If you would have then there would be no question of right and wrong.

It's not a question of right or wrong; it's about understanding how you reach those conclusions, what pushes you towards one line of thought, and makes you discard another. What I mean is: I don't mind what is right and what is wrong, I just care about understanding your thoughts in regards to this matter. No one will win any trophy at the end of the discussion, but, at least in my case, this exercise could enrich me in many ways. :)

Yes. We could imagine this as two rays coming from the same blob looking at each other. The two have the same substance but since they entered layers of separation like mind/time/space they see a thinking from the mind as something that they are, human, blond, cat, etc. Then the mind thinks it can take this and manipulate it which is quite the joke since the only thing manipulated is the mind itself. This is understanding and not understanding, right, wrong, left, right, man, woman and many other manifestations of this brilliant tool. As such you can watch this in the layers of this mind and perceive the self as wondrous many things.

What "you do" on any of these levels is choosing what you want to watch. Nothing more and nothing less. It is you that watches the self as such what you want. Even you say "my ego". What is it that has the ego?

But, is it not possible that "my ego" is just the product of my physical brain; as many people do believe nowadays? Why do you think that can't be the case?

These questions are asked of pure curiosity. Because as such we both learn/teach.

Bless you and thank you.

Exactly, that's the whole point of this discussion: learn... not only what is and what is not, but why people reach their conclusions.

[elirien]

Yes, I see what you mean. But even though you cannot teach me how to ride a bike by describing it, you can tell me that there is an object called bike and that even though it has only 2 wheels you can ride if you are able to maintain the equilibrium. Obviously, it wouldn't be the same as riding the actual bike; but the point is not riding it, just trying to explain what is a bike and how and why you can ride it.

Yes. What we are doing is trying to explain the unexplainable. We are riding a bike already and when we know what the bike is we know what we are. We began some noise and we will be quite silent as we are.


Here we've just reached the same linguistic barrier as with Tusme; probably because English is not my first language. Could we please bypass this barrier, and from now on every time I make the mistake of saying "believe", could you please assume that I'm saying "know" or whatever other term you consider appropriate to signify your assurance in what you are saying.

So, I'll repeat the question: is what you are saying really the case? Am I really a tool for "me/we" to play? Is there any reason for me to believe/know/whatever that's the case, besides a hypothetical case scenario?

What is said are monstrous lies and unbelievable hypocrisy and at the same time is no-thing at all. What is said above as "Am I really a tool(..) is definition as mind. As such that will search for a reason for anything. But that which you as such everything else is seeking is completely reasonless.

A reason or evidence or any other concept is for the mind. Experience is for you not reason or evidence. If you experience then everything becomes evidence. Again gravity comes to mind. When Newton experienced gravity everything became evidence. Like it is used in the American constitution "These (..) are self-evident".



It's not a question of right or wrong; it's about understanding how you reach those conclusions, what pushes you towards one line of thought, and makes you discard another. What I mean is: I don't mind what is right and what is wrong, I just care about understanding your thoughts in regards to this matter. No one will win any trophy at the end of the discussion, but, at least in my case, this exercise could enrich me in many ways. :)

Yes but you can not understand it :D Do you understand your heart? Can you ask it "why are you beating" or tell it to stop or make squirrel noises? Understanding is like the brain changing chemistry. It is the end result not to be aimed at. It is like a car running into a wall. What you can do is put the glasses of understanding to one side and just look without adding anything. No commentary, no reference point.


But, is it not possible that "my ego" is just the product of my physical brain; as many people do believe nowadays? Why do you think that can't be the case?

The brain is the product of the ego. "My ego" implies it is the product of the brain on itself already. It is like saying "my soul". What is the owner of the soul? The body. Again using a reference point. People are also product of the ego. That is why there are beings that say "there is only the self" or some say "there is no self". It is the difference between for example Muslim and Adveitic thought. Although both are saying the same thing but since language is used it takes two forms which point to the same thing.


Exactly, that's the whole point of this discussion: learn... not only what is and what is not, but why people reach their conclusions.

Yes very true and when we are finished with learning let's see what is left.:D

Bless you and thank you.

[flyermay]

Yes. What we are doing is trying to explain the unexplainable. We are riding a bike already and when we know what the bike is we know what we are. We began some noise and we will be quite silent as we are.

What is said are monstrous lies and unbelievable hypocrisy and at the same time is no-thing at all. What is said above as "Am I really a tool(..) is definition as mind. As such that will search for a reason for anything. But that which you as such everything else is seeking is completely reasonless.

A reason or evidence or any other concept is for the mind. Experience is for you not reason or evidence. If you experience then everything becomes evidence. Again gravity comes to mind. When Newton experienced gravity everything became evidence. Like it is used in the American constitution "These (..) are self-evident".

Well, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you when you said: "Good. Let's take one more step towards it. What if that "I" that "you" that imagines these things is not what you are but just a tool for you to play with."

I don't get it how can you "know" something that is unexplainable and beyond reason. Sure you have thought about it after experiencing it, and surely you could explain those thoughts; in the same way you are expressing your conclusion, which has be surely based on those thoughts.

Is it no true that Newton did not find evidence of gravity by his own experience, but instead, by gravity being applied to an apple? I mean, he saw an apple experiencing gravity; and afterwards he associated gravity with all other bodies in the universe (including his own). Following Newton's example, could it not be possible that I "see/hear/read" that experience from you (the apple) and understand and associated it to everything else, including myself (Mr. Newton)? :)

Yes but you can not understand it :D Do you understand your heart? Can you ask it "why are you beating" or tell it to stop or make squirrel noises? Understanding is like the brain changing chemistry. It is the end result not to be aimed at. It is like a car running into a wall. What you can do is put the glasses of understanding to one side and just look without adding anything. No commentary, no reference point.

Of course I can't understand it, but that’s because you believe it's unexplainable, therefore you are denying me the chance of an explanation and to understand it.

Following the example of the heart you used: a doctor/professor can explain to me what a heart is, how it works, what it does and what makes it beat. Even if I never saw a heart before, he could tell me about his experience and how he reached those conclusions about this "thing" called a heart. Then I can judge: we'll he is right, for what he says I also conclude that I also have a heart; or I can say: well, no, he parts from the basis that we have moving parts inside us, but I don't see anything moving inside me; or I could actually reach any other conclusion based on his explanation.

If I was to leave the glasses of understanding on one side and cease all critical analysis of what I'm told, I would be just left with faith; same case with that guy on the video. How then would I be sure that I "know" when I'm not even thinking about it. I would be definitely "faithful" in it, but I wouldn't call that "knowing".

The brain is the product of the ego. "My ego" implies it is the product of the brain on itself already. It is like saying "my soul". What is the owner of the soul? The body. Again using a reference point. People are also product of the ego. That is why there are beings that say "there is only the self" or some say "there is no self". It is the difference between for example Muslim and Adveitic thought. Although both are saying the same thing but since language is used it takes two forms which point to the same thing.

You are again picking up on the way I express myself, rather than focusing on the idea I'm trying to express. I can change "my ego", to "ego" if you like; I'm not really talking about "my" anything, but about the concepts that follow "my".

Fine, I'll rephrase: is it not possible that "the" ego is just the product of the physical brain; as many people do believe nowadays? Why do you think that can't be the case?

Yes very true and when we are finished with learning let's see what is left.:D

Bless you and thank you.

That's not likely to happen any time soon. My personal believe is that... "I am"... just to learn. :)

[tusme]

Yes, I understand what you mean by consciousness. But I don't understand why you know for sure it goes beyond life & death, and why you believe there is a Spirit/Truth energy / dimension...
Appreciate that you understand what I mean, re, "consciousness"...tbh, I'd prefer that you understand it as Truth energy...that way, if thats what you searching for, will eventually open itself to you and you, realise a knowing/being existence as opposed to a believing...of your Physical & Spirit/Truth energy's and it's relation/connection with all other energy that exist within this Physical dimension and indeed, the Spirit/Truth dimension...

It is not for me to justify the reason "why, I am sure Truth energy exists beyond life & death"...the fact you've been gifted the first breath, imho means, your Physical energy at least, is connected to Truth energy...if your Physical energy (Mind & body) intention is to know/be & express it and let it manifest into this Physical dimension, a very powerful expression of Truth will be experienced/expression, through such a person/physical being...also the reason, TPTB's determination to keep us vibrating at a dumbed down and zombified frequency...:(

We all know many different things, but each of those things we "know" we have a good reason for it. In a way, "knowing" is "believing"... For example: Mr scientist also says "I know consciousness is the produc of a brain function"; surely both of you can't "know" two different anwers to the same question... not in the same universe, al least. :p
Indeed, Truth energy, besides a gift to our parents and the timing, specifically choose each Physical (energy) being for a unique, beautiful & perfect Physical expression of Truth (energy)...within this Physical dimension, of-course...

Knowing and believing is not the same...knowing I am a Truth being means, there's a balance between the 2 energy's, ie, Spirit/Truth & Physical...

Believing I am a Truth being, imho means seperation or otherwise, a physical being not yet realising it's connection with it's Source energy, ie, Truth...

[elirien]

Well, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you when you said: "Good. Let's take one more step towards it. What if that "I" that "you" that imagines these things is not what you are but just a tool for you to play with."

You can't misinterpret us. You can interpret. That's the result. Why are you sorry?


I don't get it how can you "know" something that is unexplainable and beyond reason. Sure you have thought about it after experiencing it, and surely you could explain those thoughts; in the same way you are expressing your conclusion, which has be surely based on those thoughts.

Is it no true that Newton did not find evidence of gravity by his own experience, but instead, by gravity being applied to an apple? I mean, he saw an apple experiencing gravity, therefore he associated gravuty with all other bodies in the universe (including his own). Following Newton's example, could it not be possible that I "see/hear/read" that experience from you (the apple) and understand and associated to everything else, including myself (Mr. Newton)? :)

You can't get it because it is not something to get. It is what you are not something you get. It is very good that you got it at this young age and in an internet forum and we are very pleased. :D

Yes but was gravity affected by Newton? Newton just sat down not thinking and bam there was gravity on his head. Perhaps even physically. We don't know if the head was hit with an apple :D Gravity and Newton are one at this point which are expressed in physicality as an apple and some dude with funny hair.


Of course I can't understand it, but I can't understand it because you believe it's unexplainable, therefore you are denying me the chance to understand it.

Yes, you are.


Following the example of the heart you used: a doctor/professor can explain to me what a heart is, how it works, what it does and what makes it beat. Even if I never saw a heart before, he could tell me about his experience and how he reached those conclusion about this "thing" called a heart. Then I can judge: we'll he is right, for what he says I also conclude that I also have a heart; or I can say: well, no, he parts from the basis that we have moving parts inside us, but I don't see anything moving inside me; or I could actually reach any other conclusion based on his explanation.

If I was to leave the glasses of understanding on one side and cease all critical analysis of what I'm told, I would be just left with faith; same case with that guy on the video. How then would I be sure that I "know" when I'm not even thinking about it. I would be definitely "faithful" in it, but I wouldn't call that "knowing".

Throw faith also out of the window. What are you left with then?


You are again picking up on the way I express myself, rather than focusing on the idea I'm trying to express. I can change "my ego", to "ego" if you like; I'm not really talking about "my" anything, but about the concepts that follow "my".

Fine, I'll rephase: is it not possible that "the" ego is just the product of the physical brain; as many people do believe nowadays? Why do you think that can't be the case?

Yes, you are.



That's not likely to happen any time soon. My personal believe is that... "I am"... just to learn. :)

Yes it won't happen in time. Your and your personal belief and learning are long gone when you hit the hay and thus betray everyone.

[tusme]

Ok, let's start from there. You've explained what is consciousness, but my question still is: what makes you belive/know that consciousness as an energy vibrates both finitely & infinitely within this physical dimension?... I mean, how did you reach that conclusion?
This Physical dimension is subject to principles/conditions, ie, freewill, relativity, duality, gravity, etc...& Truth.

Whatever your consciousness, will always be subject to Truth...

Dunno if it's a "conclusion" :D...Truth energy vibrates infinitely, thus cannot be tricked...let your Spirit/Truth being experience/express itself through your Physical being, then see what happens...thats the reason/purpose It choose you anyway...!! :p:)

[flyermay]

Appreciate that you understand what I mean, re, "consciousness"...tbh, I'd prefer that you understand it as Truth energy...that way, if thats what you searching for, will eventually open itself to you and you, realise a knowing/being existence as opposed to a believing...of your Physical & Spirit/Truth energy's and it's relation/connection with all other energy that exist within this Physical dimension and indeed, the Spirit/Truth dimension...

It is not for me to justify the reason "why, I am sure Truth energy exists beyond life & death"...the fact you've been gifted the first breath, imho means, your Physical energy at least, is connected to Truth energy...if your Physical energy (Mind & body) intention is to know/be & express it and let it manifest into this Physical dimension, a very powerful expression of Truth will be experienced/expression, through such a person/physical being...also the reason, TPTB's determination to keep us vibrating at a dumbed down and zombified frequency...:(

Of course you don't have to justify anything, I just thought that you might like to clear why you are so sure of those things; which is the purpose of this thread: finding out if there really is something beyond the physical?

If the discussion on this thread is going to continue exploring the idea of this Spirit/Truth energy, it would be nice if we first stablish that there is a Spirit/Truth energy.

Knowing and believing is not the same...knowing I am a Truth being means, there's a balance between the 2 energy's, ie, Spirit/Truth & Physical...

Believing I am a Truth being, imho means seperation or otherwise, a physical being not yet realising it's connection with it's Source energy, ie, Truth...

I don't understand it. Could you put another example of knowing and believing; perhaps with something we both fully agree on? For example: "I believe the sun will come out tomorrow morning" and "I know the sun will come up tomorrow morning"

[flyermay]

It's the same consciousness, but the content is different.

How can there be a difference on presence/space?

It's basically nothing!

So, what you mean is that it is the same type of consciousness, but a different independent conscoiusness (like 2 bottles of coke; one full and one half full)?

Ok, very important here. Thoughts are not consciousness!!!

They are only content that are within your awareness. Consciousness is the space where this content manifests!

I might even go on to say that not all thoughts may be your thoughts.

Yes, I agree there. But I don't understand what you mean by "not all thoughts may be yours"; whose else could they be?

We might as well go on and say that stones are able to have creative though. Anything is possible in the future, right?

:D Of course not. Neither the stones nor the steam engine will ever be capable of creative thinking; not now, nor in the future. Let's put it this way: can you win the lottery without having any tickets?

No, emotion is the experience of emotion. And as I said, robots can't have experience.

Ok, and what is the "experience of emotion" as different from "emotion"?

[flyermay]

You can't get it because it is not something to get. It is what you are not something you get. It is very good that you got it at this young age and in an internet forum and we are very pleased. :D

Ok, I understand you now. So, you cannot think about it. I mean, you have experienced it and know it, but you cannot think about it; you just know. Is that it?

Yes but was gravity affected by Newton? Newton just sat down not thinking and bam there was gravity on his head. Perhaps even physically. We don't know if the head was hit with an apple :D Gravity and Newton are one at this point which are expressed in physicality as an apple and some dude with funny hair.

Yes and no. Gravity as a concept/force was not affected by Newton. However, Newton's and the Earth's gravitational fields were affected by each other.

No, it was not "bam and there was gravity". Newton saw the apple falling from the tree and started thinking: "why do apples fall towards the earth? Could there be some sort of force pulling them down?"... and that's when the "bam" happened.

The point is that Newton explained something unknown to everyone else, and not becuase he experiencing it directly.

Throw faith also out of the window. What are you left with then?

If you stop critical thinking and then throw away faith, you are just left with a stement. For example, here are the three variants of the same idea:
Critical thought - I saw a ghost. And, a ghost is the soul of someone dead. If this dead person had a soul, other humans also have souls. Therefore, I have a soul.
Faith - I was told that we have a soul. Therefore, I have a soul.
Statement - I have a soul.

[flyermay]

This Physical dimension is subject to principles/conditions, ie, freewill, relativity, duality, gravity, etc...& Truth.

Whatever your consciousness, will always be subject to Truth...

Dunno if it's a "conclusion" :D...Truth energy vibrates infinitely, thus cannot be tricked...let your Spirit/Truth being experience/express itself through your Physical being, then see what happens...thats the reason/purpose It choose you anyway...!! :p:)

Yes, but what I'm asking is why do you say that Truth energy vibrates infinitely? When did you experience, or first realised about, this energy? Could it be something else and you think it is Spirit/Truth vibration? How do you know its vibration is infinite and not finite?

You see what I mean. You are making a lot of statements, but you are not explaining why you are making them nor how you even reached those conclusions.

[tusme]

If the discussion on this thread is going to continue exploring the idea of this Spirit/Truth energy, it would be nice if we first stablish that there is a Spirit/Truth energy.
Would be nice, though, if only I can get it through to you, the greatest part of your vibrational energy or the true you, ie, your Spirit/Truth being, which you were gifted as the first breath at birth, is EXCLUSIVELY that...Spirit/Truth energy.

Elevate your Physical being's vibrational energy to that of your Spirit/Truth being (through the breath), then be ready to know Truth... :p

I don't understand it. Could you put another example of knowing and believing; perhaps with something we both fully agree on? For example: "I believe the sun will come out tomorrow morning" and "I know the sun will come up tomorrow morning"
Well, I'd love to agree with you on this but can't...you see, this is how our reality & Mind is being controlled and manipulated, more importantly, we just accept it as "truth"...!? :(

Nevermind believing/knowing the "sun coming up tomorrow morning"...the sun is the centre of this universe, so, it never rises thus technically speaking there is no such thing as "morning" & "tomorrow" :eek::D...it is merely the Earth's rotation as it orbits the sun, causing it to appear as if the sun is rising...otherwise, considering this Universe as we know it, can you imagine the sun rising (or setting) from anywhere...!? :confused:

Btw, the sun doesn't rise in the East, the Earth merely rotates in a clockwise direction round the sun, hence the appearance of the sun rising in the East...

{Edit} clockwise in the "southern" hemisphere & counter clockwise in the "northern"...

[tusme]

Yes, but what I'm asking is why do you say that Truth energy vibrates infinitely?
Co's if it ain't, you & I, the Earth, this Universe, the entire Physical dimension would not exist...

When did you experience, or first realised about, this energy? Could it be something else and you think it is Spirit/Truth vibration? How do you know its vibration is infinite and not finite?
Absolutely everything existing within this Physical dimension is (vibrational) energy...even your thoughts. :)

Hmm, suppose it could...ever tried lying to yourself, have you!? Of-course, you have free-will, but why is it you cannot convince yourself that lie is truth..!?

Co's your Spirit/Truth energy, your Source energy & frequency, cannot know itself as anything other than Truth...that said, even if you do "manage" to convince your Physical being's energy, ie, Mind & body, that lie is somehow truth, all it'll means really is, your Physical being's energy now (and for as long as you continue accepting it as such), being in turmoil with it source energy, ie, Spirit/Truth energy...in the Now and indeed, after departing this Physical dimension...ie, what we call "death"...

You see what I mean. You are making a lot of statements, but you are not explaining why you are making them nor how you even reached those conclusions.
Well, I hope you will see what I mean, and try an make some sense of it, co's this is "standard" :eek::cool::D to all physical beings existing within this Physical dimension...regardless of time and space...otherwise, we simply would not have been gifted the first breath...

Sorry, somehow got side-tracked trying to explain "soul" energy:o...perhaps we should get back on topic again, eh...!? :)

Can't speak for others, however, I use deep meditation, ie, simply being still with the breath, and letting every experience/expression of my Physical being's existence be a truthful and loving one...btw, our physical energy is merely the "vehicle" for the Spirit/Truth being...

Again, there are no "conclusions" where Truth is concerned, merely Infinite experience/expression of itself... :p

[jesusistruth]

So, what you mean is that it is the same type of consciousness, but a different independent conscoiusness (like 2 bottles of coke; one full and one half full)?

Yes, that's a good analogy. The concsiousness is the empty space, the presence, where the stream of thought pass through. The thoughts may be different, but the space is the same, and without the space, there is no awareness, no concsiousness,

even if you want to insist that there are thoughts.



Yes, I agree there. But I don't understand what you mean by "not all thoughts may be yours"; whose else could they be?

:)

Oh, well, there could be Whisperers...

But perhaps that is crossing over to insanity.

:D Of course not. Neither the stones nor the steam engine will ever be capable of creative thinking; not now, nor in the future. Let's put it this way: can you win the lottery without having any tickets?

Well mate, to say that with enough mechanical ball bouncing we achieve consciousness is a grand and errenous belief imo.



Ok, and what is the "experience of emotion" as different from "emotion"?

Well, you said yourself "emotion" is chemical processes (although it's not). Psychiatry has yet to prove anything.

But say that it is, it's still the same question of

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, is there a sound?

[flyermay]

Thank God you're all back. For a moment I thought something I said pissed you off... :o

Before I continue I'll like to clear that I'm not opposing your point of view becuase I don't want to believe what you are saying, or that I have a better knowledge of the subject. I'm just doing it to fully understand what you are saying and to... let say... weight which theory more closely would "prove" to a scientist type mentality the existance of a consciousness beyond our physical body.

I'll reply to your posts in a moment... Thanks for keeping up with this discussion. :)

[elirien]

Ok, I understand you now. So, you cannot think about it. I mean, you have experienced it and know it, but you cannot think about it; you just know. Is that it?


Yes. No one could have said it better :D


Yes and no. Gravity as a concept/force was not affected by Newton. However, Newton's and the Earth's gravitational fields were affected by each other.

No, it was not "bam and there was gravity". Newton saw the apple falling from the tree and started thinking: "why do apples fall towards the earth? Could there be some sort of force pulling them down?"... and that's when the "bam" happened.

The point is that Newton explained something unknown to everyone else, and not becuase he experiencing it directly.

That wasn't "Newton" (still a mind concept not a being) thinking :D You will recognize these moments in yourself. These moments happen and then the mind comes in "yes I thought that really I did it" :D Just observe it on yourself. It becomes quite funny after a while. The mind is always coming later then that, that is there itself. It comes in with language and other absurd things and throws in tons of examples for the same thing trying to inflate itself. When you see it there will be some sort of "damn we got busted" feeling :D


If you stop critical thinking and then throw away faith, you are just left with a stement. For example, here are the three variants of the same idea:
Critical thought - I saw a ghost. And, a ghost is the soul of someone dead. If this dead person had a soul, other humans also have souls. Therefore, I have a soul.
Faith - I was told that we have a soul. Therefore, I have a soul.
Statement - I have a soul.

Did you throw away faith and critical thinking or are you thinking and writing :D Throw them away and then write from that place. Don't theorize about it. Do it right now.

[flyermay]

Would be nice, though, if only I can get it through to you, the greatest part of your vibrational energy or the true you, ie, your Spirit/Truth being, which you were gifted as the first breath at birth, is EXCLUSIVELY that...Spirit/Truth energy.

Elevate your Physical being's vibrational energy to that of your Spirit/Truth being (through the breath), then be ready to know Truth... :p

Ok, let’s go part by part. I think I messed up a bit by discussing with you 3 at the same time.

By “Spirit/Truth being” you mean what others call “consciousness”, just that you say it’s a form of metaphysical energy; is that it?

And by “vibrational” you don’t actually mean as in vibrating at a physical frequency, but as a level of consciousness/awareness; is that it?

Well, I'd love to agree with you on this but can't...you see, this is how our reality & Mind is being controlled and manipulated, more importantly, we just accept it as "truth"...!? :(

Nevermind believing/knowing the "sun coming up tomorrow morning"...the sun is the centre of this universe, so, it never rises thus technically speaking there is no such thing as "morning" & "tomorrow" :eek::D...it is merely the Earth's rotation as it orbits the sun, causing it to appear as if the sun is rising...otherwise, considering this Universe as we know it, can you imagine the sun rising (or setting) from anywhere...!? :confused:

Btw, the sun doesn't rise in the East, the Earth merely rotates in a clockwise direction round the sun, hence the appearance of the sun rising in the East...

Well, the phrase about the sun was just an example. I can put any other example if you like, but I guess you get the point that, in this case, saying “I know” is the same as saying “I believe”. You see, you have to understand that what “you know” could be the opposite of what other people “know”. Believing implies there are other possibilities (believes), while knowing implies absolute certainty. But, how can two people be absolutely certain (know) two opposite things? How can you “know” that our consciousness is beyond of physical brain and Mr Scientist also know it is within the physical brain at the same time? How can something be and not be?

I guess the question is: what makes your knowledge “truth” and the scientist’s knowledge a “manipulation of reality”? Why not the other way around? Surely it’s not because you have attached yourself to this notion of “truth”, and therefore everyone else must be wrong?

Co's if it ain't, you & I, the Earth, this Universe, the entire Physical dimension would not exist...

Absolutely everything existing within this Physical dimension is (vibrational) energy...even your thoughts. :)

Yes, I get that, but other say that you, I, the earth, the universe and the entire physical dimension can exist without this Spirit/Truth energy, and are able to offer a reason why; while I have to take your word for it… See what I mean: making a statement doesn’t make it valid, reasoning that statement does.

Hmm, suppose it could...ever tried lying to yourself, have you!? Of-course, you have free-will, but why is it you cannot convince yourself that lie is truth..!?

Co's your Spirit/Truth energy, your Source energy & frequency, cannot know itself as anything other than Truth...that said, even if you do "manage" to convince your Physical being's energy, ie, Mind & body, that lie is somehow truth, all it'll means really is, your Physical being's energy now (and for as long as you continue accepting it as such), being in turmoil with it source energy, ie, Spirit/Truth energy...in the Now and indeed, after departing this Physical dimension...ie, what we call "death"...

Well, I hope you will see what I mean, and try an make some sense of it, co's this is "standard" :eek::cool::D to all physical beings existing within this Physical dimension...regardless of time and space...otherwise, we simply would not have been gifted the first breath...

Again, there are no "conclusions" where Truth is concerned, merely Infinite experience/expression of itself... :p

So, what’s the difference with you convincing yourself of this “truth”, why I’m I lying to myself (though it somehow it really is) while you do get it right? I mean, what makes my convincing “fake” and yours “truth”? Where is the difference?

Can't speak for others, however, I use deep meditation, ie, simply being still with the breath, and letting every experience/expression of my Physical being's existence be a truthful and loving one...btw, our physical energy is merely the "vehicle" for the Spirit/Truth being...

I felt a similar thing too during meditation, but I never experienced something that would suggest “truth”, “universal consciousness”, not even metaphysical “consciousness”, just peace and a disconnection from worldly matters. It is true that I wasn’t into meditation more than a couple of months at the time; but it is what happened after meditation that started changing my way of seeing consciousness.

[flyermay]

Yes, that's a good analogy. The concsiousness is the empty space, the presence, where the stream of thought pass through. The thoughts may be different, but the space is the same, and without the space, there is no awareness, no concsiousness,

even if you want to insist that there are thoughts.

So, where this universal consciousness does comes in. I mean, if our consciousnesses are individual “vessels” of the same kind filled up at different levels how/where do they connect with each other?


:)

Oh, well, there could be Whisperers...

But perhaps that is crossing over to insanity.

Whispers from whom? Could you put an example?

Well mate, to say that with enough mechanical ball bouncing we achieve consciousness is a grand and errenous belief imo.

No, I said that if those balls are enough, of the right type, and arranged in a patter to allow creative thought or conscious though (not consciousness), then a electro/mechanic (not just mechanical) device could emulated the processes in our brain (electrical signals that produce thoughts).

Well, you said yourself "emotion" is chemical processes (although it's not). Psychiatry has yet to prove anything.

But say that it is, it's still the same question of

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, is there a sound?

Yes, that’s true; not everything is completely understood already. Some emotions are far more complicated than a simple increase of endorphins or adrenaline. You could make someone anxious, pleasant, euphoric, peaceful, aggressive, worried, and even sad or happy with a simple combination of drugs. But what about loving or hateful (the 2 most strong and complicated emotions); how do you do that in a laboratory? But the same as with the robot: not know how just now doesn’t mean would be impossible in the future; both to understand the bio-chemical reaction and to reproduce it.

[flyermay]

Yes. No one could have said it better :D

But then, how can you be so sure of something you cannot think about? Doesn’t the fact that you can remember it as an experience implies that you can think about it?

That wasn't "Newton" (still a mind concept not a being) thinking :D You will recognize these moments in yourself. These moments happen and then the mind comes in "yes I thought that really I did it" :D Just observe it on yourself. It becomes quite funny after a while. The mind is always coming later then that, that is there itself. It comes in with language and other absurd things and throws in tons of examples for the same thing trying to inflate itself. When you see it there will be some sort of "damn we got busted" feeling :D

And what makes you think that those moments of creative genius are not the work of a physical brain process.

The most recent psychological studies do suggest that our subconscious mind is far ahead of our conscious thought (which confirms what you are saying) and that it processes far more and faster than our conscious is aware of. But, where is the reason to believe the subconscious is not also working under a physical process (inside our physical brain). I mean, in our example, why are those thoughts not Newton’s physical subconscious thoughts?

Did you throw away faith and critical thinking or are you thinking and writing :D Throw them away and then write from that place. Don't theorize about it. Do it right now.

That is impossible. To write anything first I have to think what I’m going to write, then translate it from my language to yours, then find the right keys on the keyboard, and then type the translation I came up with. Take away any of those steps, and I would probably come up with something like this: ”;ljaspodifpmvoijaseofj;anvdsopiahfas
Pkjaspoidfl;odsipoinasfg
Zs;lknpozisdongf
A;nohpknfa”
:)

[jesusistruth]

So, where this universal consciousness does comes in. I mean, if our consciousnesses are individual “vessels” of the same kind filled up at different levels how/where do they connect with each other?


I think one good answer is that it has come "out of time". That is to say from a place beyond time, and in that sense, there was never a time when it was created.

I don't know how the other dimensions work, but the answer should be there.

edit: ok, got your question wrong there, but I suppose the answer is still in the other dimensions :)

Whispers from whom? Could you put an example?

Well, aren't you the one who saw ghosts?


No, I said that if those balls are enough, of the right type, and arranged in a patter to allow creative thought or conscious though (not consciousness), then a electro/mechanic (not just mechanical) device could emulated the processes in our brain (electrical signals that produce thoughts).

What is "creative or conscious thought" and why is it relevant to this discussion if it is not consciousness?




Yes, that’s true; not everything is completely understood already. Some emotions are far more complicated than a simple increase of endorphins or adrenaline. You could make someone anxious, pleasant, euphoric, peaceful, aggressive, worried, and even sad or happy with a simple combination of drugs. But what about loving or hateful (the 2 most strong and complicated emotions); how do you do that in a laboratory? But the same as with the robot: not know how just now doesn’t mean would be impossible in the future; both to understand the bio-chemical reaction and to reproduce it.

You missed the point where I asked you the old question:

If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one to hear it, is there a sound?




You may have whatever electro-chemical processes in your brain and body, but if there is no one there to experience it, they are just dead physical processes no different from the workings of a steam engine.

[elirien]

But then, how can you be so sure of something you cannot think about? Doesn’t the fact that you can remember it as an experience implies that you can think about it?

Because it doesn't need thinking :D It is not us being sure, it just is. If one looks at a glass of water thinking "I'm not sure if that is water. Is that water? What is water? Give me tangible proof that it is water." will that one not die of thirst? This thirst is not quenched by thinking. Thinking is "waste of time" on this quest.


And what makes you think that those moments of creative genius are not the work of a physical brain process.

We don't think :D The physical brain process is that result that is observed. It is also not thought about :D


The most recent psychological studies do suggest that our subconscious mind is far ahead of our conscious thought (which confirms what you are saying) and that it processes far more and faster than our conscious is aware of. But, where is the reason to believe the subconscious is not also working under a physical process (inside our physical brain). I mean, in our example, why are those thoughts not Newton’s physical subconscious thoughts?

Because Newton is a signpost pointing towards a construct of mind what is commonly called body. Thus trying to think about this is using the faculties that made the body not what made thinking. It is like sitting under water and debating how space is. The "subconscious" is "doing all the work" that one is conscious of. When you are writing right now you don't think where is a on the keyboard and b and c. The subconscious or in another word ego does it and it is a wonderful servant. That which Newton is not the signpost Newton is gravity itself and many things more. Those that take the body or mind as a reference point would call that supraconscious or uberconscious or higher consciousness but it is none and all of that.

Flowers come from earth but who is it that sees them as flowers and not food?


That is impossible. To write anything first I have to think what I’m going to write, then translate it from my language to yours, then find the right keys on the keyboard, and then type the translation I came up with. Take away any of those steps, and I would probably come up with something like this:”;ljaspodifpmvoijaseofj;anvdsopiahfas
Pkjaspoidfl;odsipoinasfg
Zs;lknpozisdongf
A;nohpknfa”:)

No you just thought again.:D Do it. Don't try or think about it. You even said something like this which means you didn't do it and try to imagine it with past/mind.

[flyermay]

Well, aren't you the one who saw ghosts?

Very good answer! You got me there... :D

But if I'm honest, about the episode with the ghost I still doubt where it was really a ghost or just my imagination. The fact that it looked like someone with a blanket on top of his head (even though it was semi-transparent) puts me a bit off. :o

What is "creative or conscious thought" and why is it relevant to this discussion if it is not consciousness?

It is the ability to come up to rational conclusions, to process information and come up with some original thought, to imagine, to create new thoughts. As I understand it, consciousness is beyond those thoughts; it is what identifies each of us as "us" (or "me"). In the example of the teleportation, the original and the copy would both have the same conscious thoughts (up to the moment when their experiences start to differ), but only the original would have the consciousness that says: "this is 'me', I'm here, and I never teleported".

You missed the point where I asked you the old question:

If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one to hear it, is there a sound?

Yes, I'm trying to miss it on purpose. :D

Well... I don't know, it depends how you look at it. On one side a sound is a sound (a wave that travels at a certain frequency through the air), and it will always be a sound whether or not someone listen to it. But on the other hand, if you consider that a sound only counts as a sound when someone listens to it, then, under that definition, it would be a sound.

So, the same with the robot, if you consider that a consciousness should be present to experience its thoughts, then they are not thoughts at all. But if you consider that a thought is a thought, whether or not there is a consciousness, then the robot thinks.

You may have whatever electro-chemical processes in your brain and body, but if there is no one there to experience it, they are just dead physical processes no different from the workings of a steam engine.

Same as above then. It all depends on which glasses you use to look at it.

[jesusistruth]

It is the ability to come up to rational conclusions, to process information and come up with some original thought, to imagine, to create new thoughts. As I understand it, consciousness is beyond those thoughts; it is what identifies each of us as "us" (or "me"). In the example of the teleportation, the original and the copy would both have the same conscious thoughts (up to the moment when their experiences start to differ), but only the original would have the consciousness that says: "this is 'me', I'm here, and I never teleported".

I will go along with that robots may produce consclusions and 'original thoughts', like an essay on something, but it will never be able to imagine, even if it were to make a drawing. Imagination is only something that consciousness can do.

You speak of conscious thoughts, are there unconscious thoughts? And how do they differ?


Well... I don't know, it depends how you look at it. On one side a sound is a sound (a wave that travels at a certain frequency through the air), and it will always be a sound whether or not someone listen to it. But on the other hand, if you consider that a sound only counts as a sound when someone listens to it, then, under that definition, it would be a sound.

The experience of sound and sound waves are two entirely different things and cannot even be under the same category.

I can imagine or dream of a sound, and even though there are no sound waves, there is still sound.

But if there are only soundwaves and noone to inteprit them, there is no sound, because sound waves are mechanical processes and thus they are entirely mute.

The same goes with light and everything else.


So, the same with the robot, if you consider that a consciousness should be present to experience its thoughts, then they are not thoughts at all. But if you consider that a thought is a thought, whether or not there is a consciousness, then the robot thinks.

Well yes, even my computer thinks in that case. Once upon a time they even had a diode that told you when it was thinking.

Nothing particular.

[flyermay]

Because it doesn't need thinking :D It is not us being sure, it just is. If one looks at a glass of water thinking "I'm not sure if that is water. Is that water? What is water? Give me tangible proof that it is water." will that one not die of thirst? This thirst is not quenched by thinking. Thinking is "waste of time" on this quest.

We don't think :D The physical brain process is that result that is observed. It is also not thought about :D

Because Newton is a signpost pointing towards a construct of mind what is commonly called body. Thus trying to think about this is using the faculties that made the body not what made thinking. It is like sitting under water and debating how space is. The "subconscious" is "doing all the work" that one is conscious of. When you are writing right now you don't think where is a on the keyboard and b and c. The subconscious or in another word ego does it and it is a wonderful servant. That which Newton is not the signpost Newton is gravity itself and many things more. Those that take the body or mind as a reference point would call that supraconscious or uberconscious or higher consciousness but it is none and all of that.

Flowers come from earth but who is it that sees them as flowers and not food?

No you just thought again.:D Do it. Don't try or think about it. You even said something like this which means you didn't do it and try to imagine it with past/mind.

I know you are never going to acknowledge the concept of "faith", but don't you realise that what you are saying is the same as any religious person would says about his own particular beliefs: that "I don't need to think or explain, I just know", "it is the truth", "don't think; know", "just feel God", etc...

Maybe I'm missing something here, and you do insist in that you don't have faith; but it certainly sounds to me as if you did. Where is the difference; apart from the fact that a religious person acknowledges his faith?

[elirien]

I know you are never going to acknowledge the concept of "faith", but don't you realise that what you are saying is the same as any religious person would says about his own particular beliefs: that "I don't need to think or explain, I just know", "it is the truth", "don't think; know", "just feel God", etc...

Religious persons say that. They are peddlers of what others said or are tourist information desks. Those that are in religion are in religion. We don't say "I" this and that, that is what the mind is saying. The truth is quite simple and has been around for quite some time :D It is not my or your truth. If we would look at the sky would we say "your sky is awesome" or "my sky is better"? It is too obvious to be boxed into something and confined into my and your, faith, non-faith, etc. Is Consciousness affected by your faith?


Maybe I'm missing something here, and you do insist in that you don't have faith; but it certainly sounds to me as if you did. Where is the difference; apart from the fact that a religious person acknowledges his faith?

The difference is between faith itself and analyzing faith. The one riding the bicycle is riding the bicycle. The one watching and analyzing bicycle riding and probable afraid of falling on his/her face "trying to ride it" is thinking that that being has faith in the bycicle. It is like saying "what a lovely picture you must have a fantastic camera". It is like going into a mosque and looking at Muslims. The analyzer will say "what a funny thing they are standing, falling to the ground, look left and right" but it is none of that. Some other would look at Buddhists and say "what idiots they think that just by sitting something will happen". It is the analyzer that has the faith and talks weird stuff. The doer does and the being is.

As such we ask again, since only a lawyer knows what a lawyer is since it is a lawyer, couldn't only universal consciousness know what universal consciousness is?

[flyermay]

Religious persons say that. They are peddlers of what others said or are tourist information desks. Those that are in religion are in religion. We don't say "I" this and that, that is what the mind is saying. The truth is quite simple and has been around for quite some time :D It is not my or your truth. If we would look at the sky would we say "your sky is awesome" or "my sky is better"? It is too obvious to be boxed into something and confined into my and your, faith, non-faith, etc. Is Consciousness affected by your faith?

The difference is between faith itself and analyzing faith. The one riding the bicycle is riding the bicycle. The one watching and analyzing bicycle riding and probable afraid of falling on his/her face "trying to ride it" is thinking that that being has faith in the bycicle. It is like saying "what a lovely picture you must have a fantastic camera". It is like going into a mosque and looking at Muslims. The analyzer will say "what a funny thing they are standing, falling to the ground, look left and right" but it is none of that. Some other would look at Buddhists and say "what idiots they think that just by sitting something will happen". It is the analyzer that has the faith and talks weird stuff. The doer does and the being is.

As such we ask again, since only a lawyer knows what a lawyer is since it is a lawyer, couldn't only universal consciousness know what universal consciousness is?

My mistake, I shouldn't have said "I" or "my". But instead we could say "God", "God is everything", "Is God affected by your faith?".

You see, if you change "consciousness" for "God", "knowing" for "faith", "only universal consciousness knows what universal consciousness is" for "only God knows what God is", "don't think; know" for "don't think; have faith", and... actually "look at those at those funny XYZ" would remain the same... then you'll have the exact same argument.

Of couse, I can't explain it to you because "only God knows what God is"... you need to experience "God" to understand it... well, I guess you get the idea. :o

[elirien]

My mistake, I shouldn't have said "I" or "my". But instead we could say "God", "God is everything", "Is God affected by your faith?".

You see, if you change "consciousness" for "God", "knowing" for "faith", "only universal consciousness knows what universal consciousness is" for "only God knows what God is", and... actually "don't think; know" and "look at those at those funny XYZ" would remain the same... then you'll have the exact same argument.

Of couse, I can't explain it to you because "only God knows what God is"... you need to experience "God" to understand it... well, you get the idea. :o

How did writing that feel ? Can you describe it?

[flyermay]

I will go along with that robots may produce consclusions and 'original thoughts', like an essay on something, but it will never be able to imagine, even if it were to make a drawing. Imagination is only something that consciousness can do.

Well, you can say that having original thoughts and being able of creative thinking is the same as imagining.

You speak of conscious thoughts, are there unconscious thoughts? And how do they differ?

Yes, our subconscious mind is having that kind of thoughts all the time (day and night).

The experience of sound and sound waves are two entirely different things and cannot even be under the same category.

I can imagine or dream of a sound, and even though there are no sound waves, there is still sound.

But if there are only soundwaves and noone to inteprit them, there is no sound, because sound waves are mechanical processes and thus they are entirely mute.

The same goes with light and everything else.

Yes, I agree: the experience of sound is different to sound. But there is sound even if no one experiences it, just that there would be no experience of sound. So it would all depend on what you are asking about: “sound” or “experiencing sound”.

Well yes, even my computer thinks in that case. Once upon a time they even had a diode that told you when it was thinking.

Nothing particular.

But your computer does not “think” in a creative way, it cannot chose what to think and when to think, it cannot come up with new ideas on its own, and it could never be aware of its own existence. That the difference.

[flyermay]

How did writing that feel ? Can you describe it?

I don't remember feeling anything in particular... apart from my thoughts about our discussion...

What should I have felt? :confused:

EDIT: if you are refering to the part about not being able to explain God, it was just an example of what a religious person would say; I'm actually atheist, so it was not a geniune comment; just an example.

[elirien]

I don't remember feeling anything in particular... apart from my thoughts about our discussion...

What should I have felt? :confused:



That's it :D Beautiful :D

[jesusistruth]

Well, you can say that having original thoughts and being able of creative thinking is the same as imagining.

It is so odd, why a robot would be creative in the first place. Since it cannot see (or visualize), it cannot feel, it cannot experience anything, what is it going to be creative about? For what purpose?

We could structure it in such a way that if we put something in it, it would produce an outcome, and we could even this could be a creative result, but it is still not different from what computers are doing today already.



Yes, our subconscious mind is having that kind of thoughts all the time (day and night).

Rather, is it not the subconscious where your thoughts come from? I wouldn't think I have some tinkering inside me I am not aware of.



Yes, I agree: the experience of sound is different to sound. But there is sound even if no one experiences it, just that there would be no experience of sound. So it would all depend on what you are asking about: “sound” or “experiencing sound”.

Is sound something that moves, or is it something that is audible?

Perhaps you are willing to put a new definition of sound.


But your computer does not “think” in a creative way, it cannot chose what to think and when to think, it cannot come up with new ideas on its own, and it could never be aware of its own existence. That the difference.

That's because it is a mechanical machine and no mechanical machine will ever be aware of it's own existence or anything.

Even if you miraculously program it to be aware of it's own existence, it won't be aware that it is programmed to be aware of it's own existence.


Hehe.

[flyermay]

It is so odd, why a robot would be creative in the first place. Since it cannot see (or visualize), it cannot feel, it cannot experience anything, what is it going to be creative about? For what purpose?

Well, it could “see”, “feel” and “experience”. As before, if it processed the images from the camera, then it is “seeing”. And in the same way, if its artificial sensors send it information to process, he would also “feel”. But either way, it could be creative about what it’s going to do next, about how a situation would evolve, etc.

We could structure it in such a way that if we put something in it, it would produce an outcome, and we could even this could be a creative result, but it is still not different from what computers are doing today already.

That’s not the same, because it would be programmed to come up with that outcome. What I’m talking about is coming up with something original, something that is not the result of its programming. For example: spontaneously say “I’m thinking, therefore I exist”.

Rather, is it not the subconscious where your thoughts come from? I wouldn't think I have some tinkering inside me I am not aware of.

Well, as far as I understand it, your thoughts could come from your conscious (ego) or from your subconscious (i.e. your dreams).

Is sound something that moves, or is it something that is audible?

Perhaps you are willing to put a new definition of sound.

The definition remains the same, whether someone hears the sound or not. A sound is still a sound whether or not someone hears it.

That's because it is a mechanical machine and no mechanical machine will ever be aware of it's own existence or anything.

Even if you miraculously program it to be aware of it's own existence, it won't be aware that it is programmed to be aware of it's own existence.

Hehe.[/QUOTE]

That has been our main disagreement from the beginning. But again, IMO it might be possible in the future if we come up with an artificial intelligence capable of creative thought.

[jesusistruth]

The definition remains the same, whether someone hears the sound or not. A sound is still a sound whether or not someone hears it.

Then sound is a mechanical movement and inherently mute?

Strange, I thought I heard something.

[flyermay]

Then sound is a mechanical movement and inherently mute?

Strange, I thought I heard something.

Oh, but that you thought you heard was not a sound, it was an imaginary sound. :p

[jesusistruth]

Oh, but that you thought you heard was not a sound, it was an imaginary sound. :p

Is there a difference?

[flyermay]

Is there a difference?

If you are able to distinguish between them, then there is a difference. You distinguish them because one goes through your hearing system and to your brain, and the other just happens directly in your brain.

Besides that, everyone around you would hear the real sound, but only you would hear the imaginary one.

[jesusistruth]

If you are able to distinguish between them, then there is a difference. You distinguish them because one goes through your hearing system and to your brain, and the other just happens directly in your brain.

Besides that, everyone around you would hear the real sound, but only you would hear the imaginary one.

It is also possible to sense soundwaves with your skin. You can feel the air pounding from a loudspeaker for instance. And although you are sensing it, if we say that you are deaf, you are still not hearing it. So the entire situation, including the soundwaves, is mute. How odd to call it sound then.

This would imply, that sound, that which is audible, is not soundwaves.


I think it is even possible to sense a rythm from the loudspeaker with your touch, and you could even draw a conclusion about it, heck you might even make a rythm of your own in this manner, even if you are deaf. So you are processing soundwaves (and in the hearing mans perception sound) without hearing.

Now, a machine neither hears, sees or feels anything, but you could still make it to process sound, light and preassure.

[flyermay]

It is also possible to sense soundwaves with your skin. You can feel the air pounding from a loudspeaker for instance. And although you are sensing it, if we say that you are deaf, you are still not hearing it. So the entire situation, including the soundwaves, is mute. How odd to call it sound then.

This would imply, that sound, that which is audible, is not soundwaves.

I think it is even possible to sense a rythm from the loudspeaker with your touch, and you could even draw a conclusion about it, heck you might even make a rythm of your own in this manner, even if you are deaf. So you are processing soundwaves (and in the hearing mans perception sound) without hearing.

Now, a machine neither hears, sees or feels anything, but you could still make it to process sound, light and preassure.

But that’s the point, that even if someone is deaf, they are still soundwaves, and therefore it’s still sound.

All sound is soundwaves. It doesn’t matter how a person perceives it and whether or not anyone perceives it. The same waves that you say hit a deaf person in the arm, are still the same that would enter your ear, and would still the same waves if no one is there to perceive them.

IMO, if that machine is perceiving soundwaves, light and pressure, and then process and interprets them (know what they mean). Then it’s hearing, seeing and feeling.

[jesusistruth]

But that’s the point, that even if someone is deaf, they are still soundwaves, and therefore it’s still sound.

All sound is soundwaves. It doesn’t matter how a person perceives it and whether or not anyone perceives it. The same waves that you say hit a deaf person in the arm, are still the same that would enter your ear, and would still the same waves if no one is there to perceive them.

IMO, if that machine is perceiving soundwaves, light and pressure, and then process and interprets them (know what they mean). Then it’s hearing, seeing and feeling.

Then what is the actual experience of sound? You make it sound like it does not matter.

"All sound is soundwaves". Then what is imaginary sound? The sound you hear in your dreams?

[flyermay]

Then what is the actual experience of sound? You make it sound like it does not matter.

"All sound is soundwaves". Then what is imaginary sound? The sound you hear in your dreams?

Well, the experience of sound is when anyone experiences that sound. It could only matter to us, otherwise why would it matter if someone hears a sound or not?

imaginary sound is like a recording, it's like comparing David Icke with what you see on a youtube video; one is real the other is just that, a replica. The proof is that you know when the sound is only in your head, or when others can also hear it; so it can't be the same thing.

[jesusistruth]

imaginary sound is like a recording, it's like comparing David Icke with what you see on a youtube video; one is real the other is just that, a replica. The prove is that you know when the sound is only in your head, or when others can also hear it; so it can't be the same.

But if the recording doesn't have a loudspeaker, is there a sound?

My brain doesn't have a speaker, but I hear sounds regardless.

[flyermay]

But if the recording doesn't have a loudspeaker, is there a sound?

My brain doesn't have a speaker, but I hear sounds regardless.

Yes, but in that case, your brain is at the same time the recorder and the one who experiences the sound; so it doesn't need speakers or any additional aid.

But if the sound is stored in a tape, then it would not be a sound until someone plays it and it comes out the speakers.

[jesusistruth]

Yes, but in that case, your brain is at the same time the recorder and the one who experiences the sound; so it doesn't need speakers or any additional aid.

That's where we differ. You brain does not experience the sound. It experiences the sound just as much as my computer experiences a recording.

You are not your brain.


Haha, brings the old image up of brains in jar.

[flyermay]

That's where we differ. You brain does not experience the sound. It experiences the sound just as much as my computer experiences a recording.

You are not your brain.

Haha, brings the old image up of brains in jar.

I don't understand why you say that. What do you mean by it doesn't experience the sound?

[jesusistruth]

I don't understand why you say that. What do you mean by it doesn't experience the sound?

Because it is an absurd idea that something mechanical would have experience.

Microchips don't have consciousness not because they are not advanced or big enough, but because they are mechanical machines. They produce a mechanical result. Even it happens to be creative. Even if you would program it to be self aware, it is mechanically self aware, not consciously, not by experience.

[flyermay]

Because it is an absurd idea that something mechanical would have experience.

Microchips don't have consciousness not because they are not advanced or big enough, but because they are mechanical machines. They produce a mechanical result. Even it happens to be creative. Even if you would program it to be self aware, it is mechanically self aware, not consciously, not by experience.

Oh, ok, my mistake. By "your brain" you were referring to the artificial brain I propose, and not to "our brain".

But, couldn't we say that our brain also works like a micro-chip and also works in a mechanica way (a bio-mechanical way)? Couldn't you also say that we are "programmed" to do, feel and experience all we do, feel and experience?

What if instead of micro-chips they use a new device, a new invention, maybe even a bio-mechanical invention, that would emulate a living brain?

[elirien]

Well, the experience of sound is when anyone experiences that sound. It could only matter you us, otherwise why would it matter if someone hears a sound or not?

imaginary sound is like a recording, it's like comparing David Icke with what you see on a youtube video; one is real the other is just that, a replica. The prove is that you know when the sound is only in your head, or when others can also hear it; so it can't be the same.

Good analogy.

The brain is sound. How could it experience itself and call it sound?
Since your body is also sound (also your other bodies) they don't experience the sound they experience themselves.

It is like throwing a bucket of water at somebody. Only that much will come through the pores. The brain is that which is seeking universal consciousness. Consciousness itself is already universal and that is what you are.

[flyermay]

Good analogy.

The brain is sound. How could it experience itself and call it sound?
Since your body is also sound (also your other bodies) they don't experience the sound they experience themselves.

It is like throwing a bucket of water at somebody. Only that much will come through the pores. The brain is that which is seeking universal consciousness. Consciousness itself is already universal and that is what you are.

Yes, I never denied that possibility, though I say I do; but just to fully understand it.

But let's assume for a moment that it is the case. And continuing with the sound analogy, if we don't experience the sound, we are sound, how can anyone know that. I mean, someone should have realised that first, but how did he do it, since a brain that is sound cannot experience sound (it's true nature). And most important, how do the rest of us know this person is correct and not mistaken, or missing any other possibility?

[elirien]

Yes, I never denied that possibility, though I say I do; but just to fully understand it.

But let's assume for a moment that it is the case. And continuing with the sound analogy, if we don't experience the sound, we are sound, how can anyone know that. I mean, someone should have realised that first, but how did he do it, since a brain that is sound cannot experience sound (it's true nature). And most important, how do the rest of us know this person is correct and he is not mistaken, or missing any other possibility?

First of all before we continue, why do you say possibility?

[flyermay]

First of all before we continue, why do you say possibility?

I say possibility because we are trying to explore all "possible" answers to the existence (or non-existence) of a soul/consciousness beyond the physical world.

If I didn't call it possibility it would be assumed that I'm favouring one particular theory, and what I want is for everyone to feel like their own personal belief (whatever it might be) will have the same chances in this thread against the other "possible" beliefs.

In essence: I'm trying not to take sides (or in any case, take sides with the scientist that reject all metaphysical explanations).

[elirien]

I say possibility because we are trying to explore all "possible" answers to the existence (or non-existence) of a soul/consciousness beyond the physical world.

If I didn't call it possibility it would be assumed that I'm favouring one particular theory, and what I want is for everyone to feel like their own personal belief (whatever it might be) will have the same chances in this thread against the other "possible" beliefs.

In essence: I'm trying not to take sides (or in any case, take sides with the scientist that reject all metaphysical explanations).

Yes but in this case if you say possibility you are sitting between two chairs. We are not saying that you choose the left or the right chair but throw the chairs away. It's a roadblock for investigation.

There is no point in investigation if you poke at it from a distance like a journalist. As someone said "I look like Brad Pitt from 300 meters away". :D

Do you see it as a possibility that there is sound or is there sound? Let's establish that first.

[flyermay]

Yes but in this case if you say possibility you are sitting between two chairs. We are not saying that you choose the left or the right chair but throw the chairs away. It's a roadblock for investigation.

But that's what I'm doing. As I said, we haven't stablished yet that there are any chairs at all.

There is no point in investigation if you poke at it from a distance like a journalist. As someone said "I look like Brad Pitt from 300 meters away". :D

Yes, but if I didn't do that this whole thread would focus just on your interpretation (whether or not it is the only interpretation).

Besides, if I did that, what would be the point of this discussion? We would all just assume your interpretain is the only interpretation possible and that's it.

Do you see it as a possibility that there is sound or is there sound? Let's establish that first.

As they say in my country: I'm starting to hear the bells, but I don't know where the sound comes from. :D

[elirien]

But that's what I'm doing. As I said, we haven't stablished yet that there are any chairs at all.

Yes :D


Yes, but if I didn't do that this whole thread would focus just on your interpretation (whether or not it is the only interpretation).

Besides, if I did that, what would be the point of this discussion? We would all just assume your interpretain is the only interpretation possible and that's it.

Yes if you do it that will be as you say.


As they say in my country: I'm starting to hear the bells, but I don't know where the sound comes from. :D

You do as your country says then :D

[flyermay]

Yes :D

Yes if you do it that will be as you say.

You do as your country says then :D

You see the point now. It's not about anyone telling us all they know about this universal consciousness (there are enough thread on that subject already), it's about anyone explaining why they think there is a metaphysical consciousness.

Never mind, tried it before and it always ends the same way. :(

[elirien]

You see the point now. It's not about anyone telling us all they know about this universal consciousness (there are enough thread on that subject already), it's about anyone explaining why they think there is a metaphysical consciousness.

Never mind, tried it before and it always ends the same way. :(

Well isn't that the point? Why even debate it?:D If you debate it you are already establishing that there is doubt in it.

The main question in all this rubble is "why can't I/others experience universal/metaphysical consciousness". It is because you are trying to put the ocean into a bottle. What that means is you are trying to put universal consciousness, infinite energy, all possibility as something as tiny as the brain. Tell me how can that happen? Isn't that what the scientists are trying by saying consciousness is in the brain?

[flyermay]

Well isn't that the point? Why even debate it?:D If you debate it you are already establishing that there is doubt in it.

Of course there is a doubt in our debate, and I keep that doubt alive for two main reasons: First, to welcome the opinions of everyone (whatever they are). It doesn't matter to me if they believe God gave us a soul, or if they believe that our soul constantly reincarnates on its own, or that we are all part of God's soul, or that we have individual consciousness, or that we are part of a universal consciousness, or that all of that is bollocks. I would like to hear them all, make them feel that there is a place in our discussion for them, and more than anything, let them explain why they believe what they believe; rather than tell us all the details of what they believe exactly (there are enought threads about that already).

And second, at a personal level, if I had absolutely no doubts about my own beliefs I would be like those religious fanatics that never listen to reasons, put their hands on their ears, close their eyes, and refuse to even consider anything that deviates from their faith. I'm an open minded person and I like to debate and to doubt. Actually, the more people makes me doubt the more I learn.

The main question in all this rubble is "why can't I/others experience universal/metaphysical consciousness". It is because you are trying to put the ocean into a bottle. What that means is you are trying to put universal consciousness, infinite energy, all possibility as something as tiny as the brain. Tell me how can that happen? Isn't that what the scientists are trying by saying consciousness is in the brain?

But we've been there before, and you didn't answer my question: if that is the case, how can anyone know about it? How can you know it?

Do you see your contradiction?

[elirien]

Of course there is a doubt in our debate, and I keep that doubt alive for two main reasons: First, to welcome the opinions of everyone (whatever they are). It doesn't matter to me if they believe God gave us a soul, or if they believe that our soul constantly reincarnates on its own, or that we are all part of God's soul, or that we have individual consciousness, or that we are part of a universal consciousness, or that all of that is bollocks. I would like to hear them all, make them feel that there is a place in our discussion for them, and more than anything, let them explain why they believe what they believe; rather than tell us all the details of what they believe exactly (there are enought threads about that already).

And second, at a personal level, if I had absolutely no doubts about my own beliefs I would be like those religious fanatics that never listen to reasons, put their hands on their ears, close their eyes, and refuse to even consider anything that deviates from their faith. I'm an open minded person and I like to debate and doubt. Actually, the more people makes me doubt the more I learn.

Debate is doubt itself. It is dual by nature. It is yes-no. But there is something that is undoubted and that is that you are, not that you are here or that you are writing or that you are reading, that you are. Are you doubting this?


But we've been there before, and you didn't answer my question: if that is the case, how can anyone know about it? How can everyone on the DI forum know? How can you know it?

Do you see your contradiction?

We can't see a contradiction.

It is quite easy. Let's take it in baby (scientific/experiential) steps. There is something that one calls you. As far as can be seen by the two eyes that is the body. The body is in material terms water,fire, air, earth combined. Now, since we are at least a little bit experienced in life (at least at the kindergarten level) we have a concept of what water, fire, air, earth and as such the body is by the reference point of the body. It is atoms. These atoms are in itself "empty" and are made by energy strings that are vibrating at certain frequencies. Are we ok until this point? Or is there something to doubt? :D

[flyermay]

Debate is doubt itself. It is dual by nature. It is yes-no. But there is something that is undoubted and that is that you are, not that you are here or that you are writing or that you are reading, that you are. Are you doubting this?

Yes, I agree, and that's why I debate, because there are doubts; otherwise I would be in agreement.

Never said I doubt "I am", I doubt your interpretation of "I am".

We can't see a contradiction.

It is quite easy. Let's take it in baby (scientific/experiential) steps. There is something that one calls you. As far as can be seen by the two eyes that is the body. The body is in material terms water,fire, air, earth combined. Now, since we are at least a little bit experienced in life (at least at the kindergarten level) we have a concept of what water, fire, air, earth and as such the body is by the reference point of the body. It is atoms. These atoms are in itself "empty" and are made by energy strings that are vibrating at certain frequencies. Are we ok until this point? Or is there something to doubt? :D

You can’t see the contradiction because you are not understanding/eluding the question. I didn’t ask what the body is made of, but simply: how can you know about this universal consciouness when you also said twice that universal consciousness cannot be known/experienced by our brain?

Here is the sequence again:
Your comment: The brain is sound. How could it experience itself and call it sound?
Since your body is also sound (also your other bodies) they don't experience the sound they experience themselves.
My question: if we don't experience the sound, we are sound, how can anyone know that. I mean, someone should have realised that first, but how did he do it, since a brain that is sound cannot experience sound? And most important, how do the rest of us know this person is correct?

And here:
Your comment: “why can't I/others experience universal/metaphysical consciousness". It is because you are trying to put the ocean into a bottle. What that means is you are trying to put universal consciousness, infinite energy, all possibility as something as tiny as the brain.
My question: if we can’t experience universal/metaphysical consciousness, how do you/anyone know there is a universal consciousness?

But now I realised there is a second contradiction, on post #106 you said: “If you experience then everything becomes evidence.” But now you say that "we can't experience universal/metaphysical consciousness". So I have another doubt now: can you experience it, or can you not? Can you put the ocean in a bottle or can you not? If not, how are you so sure if it; I mean, how to you know it so well?

[elirien]

Yes, I agree, and that's why I debate, because there are doubts; otherwise I would be in agreement.

Never said I doubt "I am", I doubt your interpretation of "I am".

Yes. What did we interpret it as that you can doubt?


You can’t see the contradiction because you are not understanding/eluding the question. I didn’t ask what the body is made of, but simply: how can you know about this universal consciouness when you also said twice that universal consciousness cannot be known/experienced by our brain?

There is contradiction for you because none of the investigation attempts have been fulfilled by you. It is still jugglery and mish/mash of words which on their own are hollow and empty.



Here is the sequence again:
Your comment: The brain is sound. How could it experience itself and call it sound?
Since your body is also sound (also your other bodies) they don't experience the sound they experience themselves.
My question: if we don't experience the sound, we are sound, how can anyone know that. I mean, someone should have realised that first, but how did he do it, since a brain that is sound cannot experience sound? And most important, how do the rest of us know this person is correct?

First of all you have to be completely objective to see something as it is. If you have any reference point you will see the reference point not what something is. As such there is no correct in this thing. Everything is correct and none of it is correct. If something must be correct then you are using a reference point and are subjective (you have chosen a side already) and are doomed to see that reference point rather to see.

Let's fulfill this one. The brain sees itself in "other" sounds. As you can see brain is reference point and experiences again brain. Someone didn't realize it but took some symbols namely s-o-u-n-d or another guy s-e-s (Turkish) and as such made a manifestation of that in another level, first in mind and then in matter (notes scales etc.). What you call realization is identification. It is saying "I Am is That".


And here:
Your comment: “why can't I/others experience universal/metaphysical consciousness". It is because you are trying to put the ocean into a bottle. What that means is you are trying to put universal consciousness, infinite energy, all possibility as something as tiny as the brain.
My question: if we can’t experience universal/metaphysical consciousness, how do you/anyone know there is a universal consciousness?

But now I realised there is a second contradiction, on post #106 you said: “If you experience then everything becomes evidence.” But now you say that "we can't experience universal/metaphysical consciousness". So I have another doubt now: can you experience it, or can you not? Can you put the ocean in a bottle or can you not? If not, how are you so sure if it; I mean, how to you know it so well?

We didn't say you didn't. We have said your or the mind asked that question and it can't because it is a bottle.

That is another trick of language. We are trying to follow identifications but mostly they are surrounded around the mind/body. As such we have to say that you either do or don't. Both are right and both are wrong and are none of the both.

It is not a question of being sure of it or not because to be sure you had to doubt at some point. Again body/mind duality. Which is quite fine and beautiful.

You can't put the ocean in a bottle because the bottle is far too small. But the bottle is the ocean. Leave it in the ocean and see what happens to it.

[flyermay]

Yes. What did we interpret it as that you can doubt?

There is contradiction for you because none of the investigation attempts have been fulfilled by you. It is still jugglery and mish/mash of words which on their own are hollow and empty.

First of all you have to be completely objective to see something as it is. If you have any reference point you will see the reference point not what something is. As such there is no correct in this thing. Everything is correct and none of it is correct. If something must be correct then you are using a reference point and are subjective (you have chosen a side already) and are doomed to see that reference point rather to see.

Let's fulfill this one. The brain sees itself in "other" sounds. As you can see brain is reference point and experiences again brain. Someone didn't realize it but took some symbols namely s-o-u-n-d or another guy s-e-s (Turkish) and as such made a manifestation of that in another level, first in mind and then in matter (notes scales etc.). What you call realization is identification. It is saying "I Am is That".

We didn't say you didn't. We have said your or the mind asked that question and it can't because it is a bottle.

That is another trick of language. We are trying to follow identifications but mostly they are surrounded around the mind/body. As such we have to say that you either do or don't. Both are right and both are wrong and are none of the both.

It is not a question of being sure of it or not because to be sure you had to doubt at some point. Again body/mind duality. Which is quite fine and beautiful.

You can't put the ocean in a bottle because the bottle is far too small. But the bottle is the ocean. Leave it in the ocean and see what happens to it.

I see now, so even if there was a universal consciousness we would never know because it's too much for us to experience it.

[elirien]

I see now, so even if there was a universal consciousness we would never know because it's too much for us to experience it.

Well yes in a way and no in the other :D

Yes if you identify with anything and no you are already :D

Why do you think all this mumbo jumbo about "rigourous spiritual training or practice" is there or asceticism?

[flyermay]

Well yes in a way and no in the other :D

Yes if you identify with anything and no you are already :D

Why do you think all this mumbo jumbo about "rigourous spiritual training or practice" is there or asceticism?

But how can that be? Nomatter how much a brain is trained its size would never allow it to experience infinity. And therefore, because no one can experience infinity, no one should be able recognise it.

[fuls]

But how can that be? Nomatter how much a brain is trained its size would never allow it to experience infinity. And therefore, because no one can experience infinity, no one should be able recognise it.

See, your mistake lies in that you equal the brain with us. We are not the brain, we are the conciousness itself. As long as you identify -with- the brain, yes you will not "recognise" it.

Become the infinite, and see for yourself. You cannot convince anyone about this, you cannot know this in words. You either -know it directly- or you dont.

[flyermay]

See, your mistake lies in that you equal the brain with us. We are not the brain, we are the conciousness itself. As long as you identify -with- the brain, yes you will not "recognise" it.

Become the infinite, and see for yourself. You cannot convince anyone about this, you cannot know this in words. You either -know it directly- or you dont.

Yes, I realised my mistake after posting it.

But, how do you become infinity? I did meditation for some time, but I didn't experience none of this.

[elirien]

But how can that be? Nomatter how much a brain is trained its size would never allow it to experience infinity. And therefore, because no one can experience infinity, no one should be able recognise it.

Yes. It is not about size it is how it is being used (we heard that before now haven't we :D ).

Do you want to go into detail or should we leave it for another topic?

[flyermay]

Yes. It is not about size it is how it is being used (we heard that before now haven't we :D ).

Do you want to go into detail or should we leave it for another topic?

Oh, so then the brain IS used after all to experience infinity. After the last post I was under the impression that you could only do it with our consciousness, and not with our brain. Or, perhaps you mean that consciousness is the product of the brain?

[elirien]

Oh, so then the brain IS used after all to experience infinity. After the last post I was under the impression that you could only do it with our consciousness, and not with our brain. Or, perhaps you mean that consciousness is the product of the brain?

Consciousness is infinite already and it needs no brain. It is like some one saying "I needs sun glasses". If one wants to see everything shaded then using a shade is quite logical. Although we are going to take the glasses out of the shade. Then we see. The frame is quite fine. It doesn't bother anyone.

Did you watch Jill Bolte Taylor's video on youtube or TED? She gives quite a good description of a glimpse of how it is.

[flyermay]

Consciousness is infinite already and it needs no brain. It is like some one saying "I needs sun glasses". If one wants to see everything shaded then using a shade is quite logical. Although we are going to take the glasses out of the shade. Then we see. The frame is quite fine. It doesn't bother anyone.

Did you watch Jill Bolte Taylor's video on youtube or TED? She gives quite a good description of a glimpse of how it is.

Thanks, I have a look a those videos.

Another doubt, so your consciousness is able to experience universal consciousness by becoming (being) universal consciousness (infinity); is this right?

Then, if my consciousness becomes (is) universal consciousness, and your consciousness becomes (is) universal consciousness, my consciousness should be able to know your consciousness' experiences; is this true?

[elirien]

Thanks, I have a look a those videos.

Another doubt, so your consciousness is able to experience universal consciousness by becoming (being) universal consciousness (infinity); is this right?

No. It is not quite so. Consciousness is universal consciousness already and always. You just lift the veils.


Then, if my consciousness becomes (is) universal consciousness, and your consciousness becomes (is) universal consciousness, my consciousness should be able to know your consciousness' experiences; is this true?

Yes and no. Consciousness is universal and one already. That which one would call me and you are the veils themselves. As much as one lifts the veils one knows the "other". It is like a masked party where everyone is wearing different masks but everyone are the same person. Mind you these are examples from veiled perspectives.

People call this mind reading and other things but it isn't reading. If for example someone says "I think you are a bottle opener" then it is quite easy to see. It identified itself as such is conscious of a. the body (I) b. the mind that uses words (think) c. the mind imagining (I think are) a bottle opener. What's there to read? It says itself :D

[flyermay]

We're starting again with what universal consciousness is and forgeting the question I'm trying to make from the beginning:

And please, don't pick up on how I ask the question or on the terms I use; just on the question:

When/how has anyone experienced/felt/known this universal consciousness/infinity?

[converger]

kill yourelf and you will know that indeed you havea soul..........

[flyermay]

kill yourelf and you will know that indeed you havea soul..........

Not in any hurry! ;)

[converger]

so let it for time and fate

[redman]

Since science has linked our consciousness to our brain more and more people doubt that human beings do have a soul, or a consciousness, independent of our physical body. I also believed that was the case for many years, and thought that my consciousness is the product of my physical brain. However, a simple hypothetical scenario can prove otherwise.

Imagine that someone comes up with a device capable of teleportation (like the ones in "Star Trek" or "The Fly"). If you were to use this device, it would scan all the molecules and atoms in your body, transfer the information to the destination, destroy the original molecules, and create identical ones again in a new location. And hopefully, your consciousness would be in the new body at the destination; you would just close your eyes in one location, and open them in another.

But now imagine that this device does each one of those steps, but instead of destroying the original body it creates an exact copy in the destination, while maintaining the original body intact; creating two of you, one in the origin and another one in the destination. Where would you consciousness be, in the origin or in the destination?... In other words: what would your eyes see when you open them: the place of origin or the destination?

It seems clear to me that your consciousness would stay in the origin, as it would be impossible that you could be conscious at two different places at the same time, and since the original body was not destroyed there is no reason for your consciousness to travel to the destination. Your consciousness would not have travelled to the destination. But, if this is the case, why would it travel if a copy is not created? It’s reasonable to believe that whether or not a copy is created, you consciousness would never travel to the destination; therefore, it is also reasonable to believe that your consciousness is not a product of your brain (your physical body). Furthermore, if you ever get to use such a device, your consciousness would cease to exist in the physical world, since it would never travel to the destination; so your consciousness would not be linked to any physical body, since the original has been destroyed (or in other words: you would be dead).

Opinions welcome... :)

And is that proof we have a soul... HA HA.

[flyermay]

so let it for time and fate

Because.... :confused:

[flyermay]

And is that proof we have a soul... HA HA.

Because....

But yes, I'm afraid I forgot what the scientific method was all about. :)

[jesusistruth]

Oh, ok, my mistake. By "your brain" you were referring to the artificial brain I propose, and not to "our brain".

But, couldn't we say that our brain also works like a micro-chip and also works in a mechanica way (a bio-mechanical way)? Couldn't you also say that we are "programmed" to do, feel and experience all we do, feel and experience?

What if instead of micro-chips they use a new device, a new invention, maybe even a bio-mechanical invention, that would emulate a living brain?

Whether we talk about microchips or our brains doesn't matter, they are the same thing: mechanical devices.

You do not experience what you do because your brain is programmed to do so, but because you are consciousness. Granted that the brain is responsible for a lot of the content, but your consciousness is unique and does not depend on physics.

Again, it might still be possible to develop a purely physical 'human' being, a biological robot, that does not posess a consciousness but is still able to perform and give us the results we want. The difference between this biological look alike and yourself is that you have experience, and the other one does not, it is only a mechanical display, a robot to give us the results we made it for.

Nothing based on mathmatics can give you consciosness/experience. But you could say we can have any external results from a device we want, even creative thought, although there is no one there being creative, only a machine working as it is constructed. Like a steam engine.

[flyermay]

Whether we talk about microchips or our brains doesn't matter, they are the same thing: mechanical devices.

You do not experience what you do because your brain is programmed to do so, but because you are consciousness. Granted that the brain is responsible for a lot of the content, but your consciousness is unique and does not depend on physics.

Again, it might still be possible to develop a purely physical 'human' being, a biological robot, that does not posess a consciousness but is still able to perform and give us the results we want. The difference between this biological look alike and yourself is that you have experience, and the other one does not, it is only a mechanical display, a robot to give us the results we made it for.

Nothing based on mathmatics can give you consciosness/experience. But you could say we can have any external results from a device we want, even creative thought, although there is no one there being creative, only a machine working as it is constructed. Like a steam engine.

I understand your point of view, and I've been looking into the definitions of "experience", "conscious" and "awareness" to see if it implies a living (human in this case) consciousness. But it doesn't, it doesn't say anywhere that consciousness (as different to the physical brain) should be present to be "aware" or to "experience".

The closest I got to your point of view is this definition:
conscious
aware of one's own existence; aware of one's own awareness
Only highly intelligent beings can be fully conscious.
But even then, an advanced artificial intelligence can be a "highly intelligent being". Therefore, be "fully conscoius"; whether or not it has a metaphysical consciousness.

Where did you get that consciousness needs to "experience" or be "aware" for them to be valid?

[elirien]

We're starting again with what universal consciousness is and forgeting the question I'm trying to make from the beginning:

And please, don't pick up on how I ask the question or on the terms I use; just on the question:

When/how has anyone experienced/felt/known this universal consciousness/infinity?

When ->Right now. Everyone, as such the one. Every body and no body.
How ->By being life/energy itself that is and penetrates everything.

[flyermay]

When ->Right now. Everyone, as such the one. Every body and no body.
How ->By being life/energy itself that is and penetrates everything.

Exactly, that's what I'm saying from the begining: that no one has ever experienced universal consciousness nor infinity. Therefore, even if there was a universal consciousness, no one could ever know.

[jesusistruth]

Where did you get that consciousness needs to "experience" or be "aware" for it to be valid?

"aware of one's own existence; aware of one's own awareness"

A programmed/mechanical 'awareness' is not the same as a real awareness. A programmed/mechanical awareness is not an awareness at all, it is only an execution of a set of mechanics, a mathematical calculation: there is no presence as a result of this.

No device under the laws of physics be "aware of it's existence", because there is no it there to be aware of in the first place (and ironically, the it that you are supposed to be aware of is the same it that is supposed to be aware).
You can program the device to give you a response, a result, as if it were aware, yet however convincing and creative, it is only a mechanical response as the result of mathmatics, and not an intelligent response as the expression of consciousness.

[elirien]

Exactly, that's what I'm saying from the begining: that no one has ever experienced universal consciousness nor infinity. Therefore, even if there was a universal consciousness, no one could ever know.

Define noone please. We don't understand what it means. Could you point us to something that is noone?

[flyermay]

"aware of one's own existence; aware of one's own awareness"

A programmed/mechanical 'awareness' is not the same as a real awareness. A programmed/mechanical awareness is not an awareness at all, it is only an execution of a set of mechanics, a mathematical calculation: there is no presence as a result of this.

No device under the laws of physics be "aware of it's existence", because there is no it there to be aware of in the first place (and ironically, the it that you are supposed to be aware of is the same it that is supposed to be aware).
You can program the device to give you a response, a result, as if it were aware, yet however convincing and creative, it is only a mechanical response as the result of mathmatics, and not an intelligent response as the expression of consciousness.

It's not being aware if it, it's being aware of its own thoughts. I don't know which law of physics you are suggesting we're breking when an artificial intelligence is aware of its own creative thoughts.

For example: the thoughts you are having now are not the product of your consciousness, but of your concious brain (your physical brain). So, if your thoughts are the product of a physical process, following physical laws, what makes you think that that could be never emulated in the future with a mechanica/bio-mechanical device.

[jesusistruth]

It's not being aware if it, it's being aware of its own thoughts. I don't know which law of physics you are suggesting we're breking when an artificial intelligence is aware of its own creative thoughts.

For example: the thoughts you are having now are not the product of your consciousness, but of your concious brain (your physical brain). So, if your thoughts are the product of a physical process, following physical laws, what makes you think that that could be never emulated in the future with a mechanica/bio-mechanical device.

But we aren't discussing thoughts are we? We are discussing consciousness/awareness, and if the robot doesn't have any consciousness/awareness to be aware with, even if it has 'thoughts', it is not conscious/aware. And that's the difference between having a soul and not having a soul.


The definition of conciousness, "to be aware of being aware", the thing that is supposed to be "awaren of" is the same thing that is being aware. It kind of goes in circles. It's not really the result of anything.

It's a good question to what extent our brain makes our thoughts and behavior. For it is really the spirit that gives life to the flesh, not the other way around.

[monkyies]

The proof of the Soul is in the Soul. By meditation, we can realize ourselves as soul.

[flyermay]

But we aren't discussing thoughts are we? We are discussing consciousness/awareness, and if the robot doesn't have any consciousness/awareness to be aware with, even if it has 'thoughts', it is not conscious/aware. And that's the difference between having a soul and not having a soul.


The definition of conciousness, "to be aware of being aware", the thing that is supposed to be "awaren of" is the same thing that is being aware. It kind of goes in circles. It's not really the result of anything.

It's a good question to what extent our brain makes our thoughts and behavior. For it is really the spirit that gives life to the flesh, not the other way around.

Then, yes; you are right. Since a robot will never have consciousness/soul, then by your definition of awareness, it will never have awareness.

But by awareness I was referring to be aware of one's own existence, and not aware of one's own consciousness.

[flyermay]

Define noone please. We don't understand what it means. Could you point us to something that is noone?

It means what you refer to as "nobody" or "no body".

Or in other words, for example: if everyone gets out of a bus (even the driver), then there is "nobody" or "no one" on the bus.

[flyermay]

The proof of the Soul is in the Soul. By meditation, we can realize ourselves as soul.

Yes, that would be a good way. But how are you so sure that what you are realising is your "soul" and not the thoughts/non-thoughts of your physical brain?

[elirien]

It means what you refer to as "nobody" or "no body".

Or in other words, for example: if everyone gets out of a bus (even the driver), then there is "nobody" or "no one" on the bus.

Exactly, that's what I'm saying from the begining: that no one has ever experienced universal consciousness nor infinity. Therefore, even if there was a universal consciousness, no one could ever know.

Ok then let's get those two posts together. Yes it is quite true nobody and noone experiences universal consciousness and bodies and ones are part of it. It is like the bus you said. bodies and ones get on the bus and off and universal consciousness is that what keeps the bus together and that what you call emptiness together.

It is not a concept, thus words fail every time :D They come full circle. Bless you.

[flyermay]

Ok then let's get those two posts together. Yes it is quite true nobody and noone experiences universal consciousness and bodies and ones are part of it. It is like the bus you said. bodies and ones get on the bus and off and universal consciousness is that what keeps the bus together and that what you call emptiness together.

It is not a concept, thus words fail every time :D They come full circle. Bless you.

But that's my point. Since "no body" ever experienced universal consciousness, "no body" can ever know if there is an universal consciousness, much less if it keeps anything together or not.

Furthermore, since nobody knows what universal consciousness is, because nobody has experienced it, then all these statements you are making about it are... just that: statements without any fundament.

But don't get me wrong, I never said there is no universal consciousness. :) I'm just saying that your reasoning is not enough to support statements like "I know", "no doubt", "truth", "no other possibility", etc.

You see what I mean. We're back to the example of God: since God does not offer himself/herself to experimentation, no one (no body) can tell for sure there is or there is not a God. :) It's all an act of faith... from both sides of the argument.

[elirien]

But that's my point. Since "no body" ever experienced universal consciousness, "no body" can ever know if there is an universal consciousness, much less if it keeps anything together or not.

Furthermore, since nobody knows what universal consciousness is, because nobody has experienced it, then all these statements you are making about it are... just that: statements without any fundament.

But don't get me wrong, I never said there is no universal consciousness. :) I'm just saying that your reasoning is not enough to support statements like "I know", "no doubt", "truth", "no other possibility", etc.

You see what I mean. We're back to the example of God: since God does not offer himself/herself to experimentation, no one (no body) can tell for sure there is or there is not a God. :) It's all an act of faith... from both sides of the argument.

Yes :D Nobody and everybody is the same thing and you are aware that we are just playing table tennis here :D It is like faith. Believe in God or not. God is not affected.

Bless you

[flyermay]

Yes :D Nobody and everybody is the same thing and you are aware that we are just playing table tennis here :D It is like faith. Believe in God or not. God is not affected.

Bless you

Agreed!

It's exactly like a tennis match; but without a ball. How can we ever score a point if no one can serve the ball? ;)

And that's why I started this thread with simpler concepts; like the soul/conscoiusness beyond our body. Because until those argument are cleared (i.e. we get the tennis balls) we can't play any match. :)

[elirien]

Agreed!

It's exactly like a tennis match; but without a ball. How can we ever score a point if no one can service the ball? ;)

And that's why I started this thread with simpler concepts; like the soul/conscoiusness beyond our body. Because until those argument are cleared (i.e. we get the tennis balls) we can't play any match. :)

Exactly :D

Ok. That's it. We will be watching this topic.
Thank you for a fun investigation. Bless you.

[flyermay]

Exactly :D

Ok. That's it. We will be watching this topic.
Thank you for a fun investigation. Bless you.

Thank you for making this thread far more interesting than I ever expected. I hope this doesn't set back other people from posting their opinions about the soul (all are welcome, but will be challenged :D).

[monkyies]

Yes, that would be a good way. But how are you so sure that what you are realising is your "soul" and not the thoughts/non-thoughts of your physical brain?

Under the guidance of a living Master we go beyond mind and matter, to our core essence.

The Soul came before the brain, the Soul, the Shabd, the Sound the Word is what created the brain, created the entire universe and realities.

By meditation we leave the body and brain behind, and even if our body were to be destroyed, we would still be out of the body and brain, it would not destroy our soul.

If we meditate, we can realize ourselves as soul, not the thoughts or mind. We catch the Sounds to their source, and realize the Supreme Being.

If we really want to do this, God will guide us to a living Master. One of them is named Michael Martin, you can ask him questions here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michaelmartinwesternsatguru/

[jesusistruth]

Then, yes; you are right. Since a robot will never have consciousness/soul, then by your definition of awareness, it will never have awareness.

But by awareness I was referring to be aware of one's own existence, and not aware of one's own consciousness.

Since I don´t see how you can be aware without consciousness (because it is the same thing), what do you define as awareness? Simple reaction to the environment?

Even a stone does that. If you kick it, it will bounce away. Physical laws and mathmatics.

[tusme]

Ok, let’s go part by part. I think I messed up a bit by discussing with you 3 at the same time.
Yep, thought I'd give you some breathing space... :D

By “Spirit/Truth being” you mean what others call “consciousness”, just that you say it’s a form of metaphysical energy; is that it?
"Consciousness", imho, could also mean an experience/expressing of negative energy...the Spirit/Truth being can only exist as Truth (energy), nothing else...

The origins of our Physical & Spirit being's is Truth (energy)...otherwise, would you deny the truth that was the egg & sperm cell which produced our physical being's...!? ...or the first breath, which no physical being can exist without...!?

And by “vibrational” you don’t actually mean as in vibrating at a physical frequency, but as a level of consciousness/awareness; is that it?
You are both a Physical and Spirit (Truth energy) being...your physical energy (including your Mind's), is finite, can only vibrate within the Now, and between the periods of birth & death...

Your Spirit (Truth energy) being's energy is infinite, it's vibrations is not limited to the Physical being nor this Physical dimension, and neither the conditions/principles of this dimension...

If your consciousness/awareness is limited only to that of your physical being's, then that, imho, would be the extent of your vibrational energy...subject to Truth, of-course...and indeed, relative to all other physical dimension energy which exist within your reality...

Well, the phrase about the sun was just an example. I can put any other example if you like, but I guess you get the point that, in this case, saying “I know” is the same as saying “I believe”. You see, you have to understand that what “you know” could be the opposite of what other people “know”. Believing implies there are other possibilities (believes), while knowing implies absolute certainty.
What other people choose to "know" is there business...when I choose to know, I understand my energy becoming "one" with whatever it is I'm choosing to know...

In the case of believing, to me anyway, there's a degree of seperation, thus, "oneness" cannot be achieved...

But, how can two people be absolutely certain (know) two opposite things? How can you “know” that our consciousness is beyond of physical brain and Mr Scientist also know it is within the physical brain at the same time? How can something be and not be?
The answer to that is very simple, "relativity"...ie, what is good for you might not be good for me, and vice-verse...

It is said, we exist within a holographic universe, who's nature appears to be in a "infinite" spiralling formation...proof of this is in the planets spiralling rotations round the sun or the manner in which blood flows through our body...and, as some scientist now believe, our universe is merely 1 of an infinite amount of universes spiralling throughout this physical dimension...that said, sometimes, also the reason it seems, when we think we found Truth "here" it may seem "there" or inside but then outside, etc, etc...

I guess the question is: what makes your knowledge “truth” and the scientist’s knowledge a “manipulation of reality”? Why not the other way around? Surely it’s not because you have attached yourself to this notion of “truth”, and therefore everyone else must be wrong?
Again, it's not about right or wrong...yet another case of relativity...:p :)

Truth (energy) don't need me nor the scientist to prove it's existence...otherwise, as I said previously, the physical being is merely a "vehicle" for the Spirit (Truth energy) being, if that is my physical being's choice, the Spirit (Truth energy) being will allow for a very powerful experience/expression of Truth through such physical being...

Yes, I get that, but other say that you, I, the earth, the universe and the entire physical dimension can exist without this Spirit/Truth energy, and are able to offer a reason why; while I have to take your word for it… See what I mean: making a statement doesn’t make it valid, reasoning that statement does.

This Physical dimension is a physical manifestation of Spirit/Truth energy, and so too is the Physical being, a physical manifestation of the Spirit (Truth energy) being...otherwise, can your physical energy exist without the breath, go on try it...!? :)

My friend, no physical being can enter this physical dimension without the first breath, in other words, the Spirit (Truth energy) being...

So, what’s the difference with you convincing yourself of this “truth”, why I’m I lying to myself (though it somehow it really is) while you do get it right? I mean, what makes my convincing “fake” and yours “truth”? Where is the difference?
Never said you lying to yourself, did I..!? :( The difference between you and I, is the extent of our vibrational energy...I'm "knowing" Truth, your "believing" Truth...energetically, big difference...

I felt a similar thing too during meditation, but I never experienced something that would suggest “truth”, “universal consciousness”, not even metaphysical “consciousness”, just peace and a disconnection from worldly matters. It is true that I wasn’t into meditation more than a couple of months at the time; but it is what happened after meditation that started changing my way of seeing consciousness.
Well there you go...why'd you stop it then!? :confused:

Anyway, hope all that made sense?

I would like to share some "knowledge" re, the soul & it's origins, lemme kno if your interested...?

[flyermay]

Did you watch Jill Bolte Taylor's video on youtube or TED? She gives quite a good description of a glimpse of how it is.

Just saw Jill's video; though I remember someone else telling that story (not sure if it was Icke). I have to admit that that is definitely an amazing experience and would certainly shift the balance towards the UN's (our UN :D) side.

I'm still thinking about what she described, but I have one doubt already: she said that it was the left side of her brain that suffered the stroke; therefore, she was just left with the right side when she experienced the UN. But she also says that that's what the right side does, and one of the differences from the left side, which focuses in us individually. So the question is: what would have happened if she had the stroke on the right side?... what if she had the stroke on both sides?... would she also have this experience about the UN if the right side or the whole brain was offline?... That's definitely something to thinkg about.

[elirien]

Just saw Jill's video; though I remember someone else telling that story (not sure if it was Icke). I have to admit that that is definitely an amazing experience and would certainly shift the balance towards the UN's (our UN :D) side.

I'm still thinking about what she described, but I have one doubt already: she said that it was the left side of her brain that suffered the stroke; therefore, she was just left with the right side when she experienced the UN. But she also says that that's what the right side does, and one of the differences from the left side, which focuses in us individually. So the question is: what would have happened if she had the stroke on the right side?... what if she had the stroke on both sides?... would she also have this experience about the UN if the right side or the whole brain was offline?... That's definitely something to thinkg about.

Mr. Icke tells it in his lectures (at least in the last ones). Well the left one is all this noise about past and future (dualism if one would like). We would guess (which is a left brain function) that she would become a world renown banker never realizing she had a stroke :D

Let's give it one more poke, what would happen if we would balance them forever?

[flyermay]

Let's give it one more poke, what would happen if we would balance them forever?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Could you rephrase it?

[elirien]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Could you rephrase it?

We said/meant, what happens if the lobes of the brain work in harmony?

[flyermay]

We said/meant, what happens if the lobes of the brain work in harmony?

Dont' they already? :confused:

[elirien]

Dont' they already? :confused:

Investigate :D

[theoriginalmurph]

If a person is divided into a left-brain and a right-brain, the person is likely damaged in some way. The physical symmetry of the brain, the whole of the body for that matter, is the way of keeping things balanced with a positive flow.

It's like the photocopier. You make a copy, and then you make a copy of the copy, and then a copy of the copy of the copy, and so forth? How much does the original image degrade per each iteration? Symmetry corrects that degradation, and all living things seem to follow that. Like DNA, the "A" nucleotide on one side matches the "T" on the other, and vice versa. It is like double-entry bookkeeping, if that makes sense.

To suggest the left-brain has characteristics or attributes distinct from the right-brain, well that is a very sinister (pardon the pun) thing to do, not unlike saying the limbs on the left side of your body are legs and the right side your arms, or two left feet and two right hands. Why would anyone want to convince anyone that they are that sort of creature?

[flyermay]

Investigate :D

Ok, I will. :D

[flyermay]

If a person is divided into a left-brain and a right-brain, the person is likely damaged in some way. The physical symmetry of the brain, the whole of the body for that matter, is the way of keeping things balanced with a positive flow.

It's like the photocopier. You make a copy, and then you make a copy of the copy, and then a copy of the copy of the copy, and so forth? How much does the original image degrade per each iteration? Symmetry corrects that degradation, and all living things seem to follow that. Like DNA, the "A" nucleotide on one side matches the "T" on the other, and vice versa. It is like double-entry bookkeeping, if that makes sense.

To suggest the left-brain has characteristics or attributes distinct from the right-brain, well that is a very sinister (pardon the pun) thing to do, not unlike saying the limbs on the left side of your body are legs and the right side your arms, or two left feet and two right hands. Why would anyone want to convince anyone that they are that sort of creature?

But they do have different functions. Both sides of the brain take care of different processes, and both of them complement each other. I know what you are talking about; most of our body is symmetric. But if you look at our internal organs, many of them are asymmetric; just that the brain is the only one with two apparently symmetric sides taking on different functions.

But don't take my word for it. It's been proven beyond any doubt during activity live scans which show boths sides acting in response to different processes; that's how we know which side takes hold of which processes.

[elirien]

If a person is divided into a left-brain and a right-brain, the person is likely damaged in some way. The physical symmetry of the brain, the whole of the body for that matter, is the way of keeping things balanced with a positive flow.

It's like the photocopier. You make a copy, and then you make a copy of the copy, and then a copy of the copy of the copy, and so forth? How much does the original image degrade per each iteration? Symmetry corrects that degradation, and all living things seem to follow that. Like DNA, the "A" nucleotide on one side matches the "T" on the other, and vice versa. It is like double-entry bookkeeping, if that makes sense.

To suggest the left-brain has characteristics or attributes distinct from the right-brain, well that is a very sinister (pardon the pun) thing to do, not unlike saying the limbs on the left side of your body are legs and the right side your arms, or two left feet and two right hands. Why would anyone want to convince anyone that they are that sort of creature?

Well that is what we read from science papers and of course Mrs. Taylor's testimony that they have different functions but are the same brain which is also synchronous with left hand and right hand magic. Even this term is kind of delusional because they are hands. Division is sinister as you have put it but would you say this also to function that works in unison?

[theoriginalmurph]

But they do have different functions. Both sides of the brain take care of different processes, and both of them complement each other. I know what you are talking about; most of our body is symmetric. But if you look at our internal organs, many of them are asymmetric; just that the brain is the only one with two apparently symmetric sides taking on different functions.

But don't take my word for it. It's been proven beyond any doubt during activity live scans which show boths sides acting in response to different processes; that's how we know which side takes hold of which processes.

See that I'm not going to debate this with anyone. It could very well be that your brain is wired differently than mine, and I'm willing to concede to that. However, this idea of finding proof of whether or the Soul exists, that seems to be tantamount to discovering and understanding the natural physiology of people, at least in this thread it seems to be. How long have we been subjected to theories about the hemispheres of the brain? What functions do these have independently? What is it visual language versus oral language relative to the speeds of light and sound? What is it, sequential logic versus random access memory? And, what internal organ lacks any symmetry whatsoever? Are there not also parts of the whole brain, itself, which are somehow asymmetrical? On what axis do we measure such things? On the outside, the heart, by itself, isolated, can be a sort of asymmetrical looking figure, at least I think so. But then, the heart is never truly isolated, and inwardly and outwardly, in it's shape and it's functionality, what amazing fractal symmetry is it? So, I'll leave those questions for others to debate.

[theoriginalmurph]

...Division is sinister as you have put it but would you say this also to function that works in unison?

Very much so, yes.

[elirien]

Very much so, yes.

Well isn't the body functions working in unison?

[theoriginalmurph]

Well isn't the body functions working in unison?

I think David Icke will exhaust all the energy contained in both hemispheres of his brain trying to explain his theories about the mind and the so-called body computer, and all of it, even his interpretation of the matrix, and that will happen long before there will be any global consensus on how that body computer functions. Basically, if you're trained to believe the left-brain functions are very different from the right-brain functions, then mind-over-matter voila, what is the likelihood of your whole brain functioning that way? Also, if you're entirely focused on being your left-brained self, who is being your right-brained self in your stead? It just seems to me that before anyone can either prove or disprove the existence of the soul, there must be some testimony or evidence to account for just how sinister or diabolical it is to stoop to certain levels of "divide and conquer"...

[flyermay]

Since I don´t see how you can be aware without consciousness (because it is the same thing), what do you define as awareness? Simple reaction to the environment?

Even a stone does that. If you kick it, it will bounce away. Physical laws and mathmatics.

But a stone will never come up with "I think, therefore I exist"; while an artificial intelligence could.

[elirien]

I think David Icke will exhaust all the energy contained in both hemispheres of his brain trying to explain his theories about the mind and the so-called body computer, and all of it, even his interpretation of the matrix, and that will happen long before there will be any global consensus on how that body computer functions. Basically, if you're trained to believe the left-brain functions are very different from the right-brain functions, then mind-over-matter voila, what is the likelihood of your whole brain functioning that way? Also, if you're entirely focused on being your left-brained self, who is being your right-brained self in your stead? It just seems to me that before anyone can either prove or disprove the existence of the soul, there must be some testimony or evidence to account for just how sinister or diabolical it is to stoop to certain levels of "divide and conquer"...

Very good, but isn't the body, functions working in unison?

[flyermay]

The origins of our Physical & Spirit being's is Truth (energy)...otherwise, would you deny the truth that was the egg & sperm cell which produced our physical being's...!? ...or the first breath, which no physical being can exist without...!?

All living organisms have some form of energy, I agree with that. Whether it is the same you are talking about I'm not sure. But I'm not refering to the life-energy from esoterism though, are you?

You are both a Physical and Spirit (Truth energy) being...your physical energy (including your Mind's), is finite, can only vibrate within the Now, and between the periods of birth & death...

Your Spirit (Truth energy) being's energy is infinite, it's vibrations is not limited to the Physical being nor this Physical dimension, and neither the conditions/principles of this dimension...

If your consciousness/awareness is limited only to that of your physical being's, then that, imho, would be the extent of your vibrational energy...subject to Truth, of-course...and indeed, relative to all other physical dimension energy which exist within your reality...

You are again explaining what it is, but completely disregarding any explanation of why you know that's the case; which is the only thing I'm asking.

For example: how do you know it's infinite, not limited to the physical dimension, nor the conditions/principles of this dimension? Surely there must be a reason for you to say that.

What other people choose to "know" is there business...when I choose to know, I understand my energy becoming "one" with whatever it is I'm choosing to know...

In the case of believing, to me anyway, there's a degree of seperation, thus, "oneness" cannot be achieved...

The answer to that is very simple, "relativity"...ie, what is good for you might not be good for me, and vice-verse...

Therefore, since you "choose" to know, it's not the product of experience, but of choice. An example: if something happens to me, I cannot choose to know, "I know" whether I like it or not. On the other hand, if I'm offered various possibilities, I dont' choose to "know", I choose to "believe".

See where I'm confused when you say things like "I know", "truth", etc. It is true that "truth" some times is in the eye of the beholder, but there are other times when there is only one "truth", and in those times it's not up to us decide what is "truth" (whether we like it or not).

It is said, we exist within a holographic universe, who's nature appears to be in a "infinite" spiralling formation...proof of this is in the planets spiralling rotations round the sun or the manner in which blood flows through our body...and, as some scientist now believe, our universe is merely 1 of an infinite amount of universes spiralling throughout this physical dimension...that said, sometimes, also the reason it seems, when we think we found Truth "here" it may seem "there" or inside but then outside, etc, etc...

Yes, since string theory it is believed that the idea of an infinite number of universes is a possibility. But I never heard of the universe in a infinite spiralling formation nor our blood flowing in spirals. But the planets do not rotate around the sun in a spiral, but in an elipse.

About the holographic universe, there are two interpretations: one about us perceiving the universe as a hologram through our senses, and another about each part containing the entire whole.

But I fail to see the relation between any of this with this Spirit/Truth energy. :o

Truth (energy) don't need me nor the scientist to prove it's existence...otherwise, as I said previously, the physical being is merely a "vehicle" for the Spirit (Truth energy) being, if that is my physical being's choice, the Spirit (Truth energy) being will allow for a very powerful experience/expression of Truth through such physical being...

The same can be said about any religion. But the question is how can all those cases be at the same time; especially when they are a matter of personal choice.

This Physical dimension is a physical manifestation of Spirit/Truth energy, and so too is the Physical being, a physical manifestation of the Spirit (Truth energy) being...otherwise, can your physical energy exist without the breath, go on try it...!? :)

My friend, no physical being can enter this physical dimension without the first breath, in other words, the Spirit (Truth energy) being...

Not all living beings need to breath. I mean, organic life does not depend on breath.

Never said you lying to yourself, did I..!? :( The difference between you and I, is the extent of our vibrational energy...I'm "knowing" Truth, your "believing" Truth...energetically, big difference...

However, even if I call my believe "truth", does that make it so?

Well there you go...why'd you stop it then!? :confused:

I'm going to start again one of this days; just that at the moment I don't feel like doing it.

Anyway, hope all that made sense?

I would like to share some "knowledge" re, the soul & it's origins, lemme kno if your interested...?

Yes, of course.

[theoriginalmurph]

Very good, but isn't the body, functions working in unison?

Yes, by a long series of fortunate albeit bizarre coincidences, not necessarily by blind random happenstance, but following the will of consciousness; serendipity, or what folks these days seem to be calling "synchronicity". Whether that miracle exists independently, outside of our perception or awareness, or whether it be some dream, delusion or hallucination, or whatever, that is what I am most unsure about, I think.

All over the body, every cell seems to know what it's doing. Even for cancer patients, who have cells that are somehow changed from their original purpose, I think that be the case. At least it shows just how malleable the whole can be, so that when each cell (in either a healthy or a sickly way) demonstrates it's own, internal consciousness, what becomes of the blending of those cells together in a whole body, for living, well I hate to sound like a Fascist, but I do think certain rules apply, like what happens in a battery, and what happens with voltages when a number of batteries are arranged into a parallel or series circuits. What miraculous signals there be resonating in that circuitry, which have some power of Divine Cymatics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to organize the cells into the several circulatory systems, central nervous systems, etc., is something worthwhile to consider.

It's that pattern of the heart, it's movements, the beat, the rhythm, and the ebbs and flows about all the arteries and veins and capillaries. Where else in the body does that sort of thing happen? The brain seems to do with chemicals and electricity what the heart does with blood. What of the lungs? Oh, spirit is a word that means breath. What of the stomach? (Ew, poop is smelly.) What about the DNA? What is it's spirit? What manner of candle is that?

[elirien]

Yes, by a long series of fortunate albeit bizarre coincidences, not necessarily by blind random happenstance, but following the will of consciousness; serendipity, or what folks these days seem to be calling "synchronicity". Whether that miracle exists independently, outside of our perception or awareness, or whether it be some dream, delusion or hallucination, or whatever, that is what I am most unsure about, I think.

All over the body, every cell seems to know what it's doing. Even for cancer patients, who have cells that are somehow changed from their original purpose, I think that be the case. At least it shows just how malleable the whole can be, so that when each cell (in either a healthy or a sickly way) demonstrates it's own, internal consciousness, what becomes of the blending of those cells together in a whole body, for living, well I hate to sound like a Fascist, but I do think certain rules apply, like what happens in a battery, and what happens with voltages when a number of batteries are arranged into a parallel or series circuits. What miraculous signals there be resonating in that circuitry, which have some power of Divine Cymatics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics) to organize the cells into the several circulatory systems, central nervous systems, etc., is something worthwhile to consider.

It's that pattern of the heart, it's movements, the beat, the rhythm, and the ebbs and flows about all the arteries and veins and capillaries. Where else in the body does that sort of thing happen? The brain seems to do with chemicals and electricity what the heart does with blood. What of the lungs? Oh, spirit is a word that means breath. What of the stomach? (Ew, poop is smelly.) What about the DNA? What is it's spirit? What manner of candle is that?

Very beautiful questions. We would say that DNA is the microcosm of the macrocosm. As such "the word made manifest". DNA is a word and spirit or God which term you like has many many words. Thus DNA is not solid.

We have many "channelers" or some would call "new agers" that portray words that say "we have many unlocked DNA codes" which today's scientists calls Junk DNA. Could it be that it is all the words that todays double speak dictionary throws away by giving tons of substitute names for the same say for example 5 words? What happens to the 95 of the 100? What happens when you've learned a language when you were born used for 7 years and then not used for 13?

[theoriginalmurph]

We have many "channelers" or some would call "new agers" that portray words that say "we have many unlocked DNA codes" which today's scientists calls Junk DNA. Could it be that it is all the words that todays double speak dictionary throws away by giving tons of substitute names for the same say for example 5 words? What happens to the 95 of the 100? What happens when you've learned a language when you were born used for 7 years and then not used for 13?

Maybe it's not "junk", but "treasure"? Maybe it is rather "locked-out" or "sealed-off"? I can't imagine there's any wasted molecules in there, so I think each DNA code must have it's season. I do think it's interesting how that comes up in this thread round about the same time there is much discussion concerning this spiritual truth energy. I can't help but notice that because of my own interests, of course, but it does seem relevant. What faith and trust do humans invest in a word? "Do you take my word for it, or do you need more proof?" "I give you my word, and you can take that to the bank..." What exactly is a word-made-flesh, anyways? It's all food for thought, I guess. Does that make us all cannibals?

[elirien]

Maybe it's not "junk", but "treasure"? Maybe it is rather "locked-out" or "sealed-off"? I can't imagine there's any wasted molecules in there, so I think each DNA code must have it's season. I do think it's interesting how that comes up in this thread round about the same time there is much discussion concerning this spiritual truth energy. I can't help but notice that because of my own interests, of course, but it does seem relevant. What faith and trust do humans invest in a word? "Do you take my word for it, or do you need more proof?" "I give you my word, and you can take that to the bank..." What exactly is a word-made-flesh, anyways? It's all food for thought, I guess. Does that make us all cannibals?

All words are signposts. They are hollow but point to what is the source. Any division is hollow that points to the one. Someone said that words are what you make of them. What if you don't make anything of them?

It is the same with this "junk" business. How can be anything "junk"? It is impossible (especially in the DNA case). Nothing is made for a single purpose. For example if a power supply of a PC is fried you perhaps throw it away but that energy serve indefinitely. It will not perhaps be a power supply with serial number <insert random number here> but why should it be in the first place? That would be quite boring anyway. :D

Isn't this why children cry when they are born? Do they perhaps feel kind of duped by themselves?

Aren't we cannibals, obese, gluttonous obsessives of the self when we are thinking? What if this is a word eat word world? How about when the debate climaxes and crashes against each other? When "foes" have kicked themselves so much in the face that they can't recognize any difference anymore? Isn't there an enormous laughter in silence? This is poetry. When witty dualism finds meaning, father and mother are one, when mind and heart meet. This the big bang that created both the father and the mother.

What have you unleashed? :D

[theoriginalmurph]

Aren't we cannibals, obese, gluttonous obsessives of the self when we are thinking? What if this is a word eat word world? How about when the debate climaxes and crashes against each other? When "foes" have kicked themselves so much in the face that they can't recognize any difference anymore? Isn't there an enormous laughter in silence? This is poetry. When witty dualism finds meaning, father and mother are one, when mind and heart meet. This the big bang that created both the father and the mother.

What have you unleashed? :D

Oh jeez. Um. Yeah. Okay, I see this energy, these memes, and I watch it like one might watch a candle burning. (That's about as romantic as I'm going to get with this.) You see the words as a sign for something else, and the things that take on multiple meanings simultaneously, even sometimes no meaning at all, and that is what I mean when I say the DNA codes must have their seasons. But, it is the greater morphology, there is something inherent to the artist, to breathe in a form, and to breathe out another; the imitation or the reproduction. What is it to see a sunrise, and then to paint the landscape? Then, what is it to see the model, and then to paint the portrait? How much of our creative/destructive will can be described that way? What invention isn't some manifestation of something encoded within our DNA? Should Rome pulsate like a beating heart that all roads to lead to and from there? But, it is like a candle burning. Who or what is the wick? The Queen? The Pope? The Washington Monument? I spend so much of my time just sketching things, strange symbols (http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ygeTyG0dCGY/S86jLy9Af3I/AAAAAAAAAZQ/_xeAEETlk38/alchemical_stack2b[6].jpg), what could be merely signposts to you, and I do my best to ascertain all their potential meanings, but who am I to define it? If I have unleashed anything, I hope it is never used as a weapon.

[flyermay]

See that I'm not going to debate this with anyone. It could very well be that your brain is wired differently than mine, and I'm willing to concede to that. However, this idea of finding proof of whether or the Soul exists, that seems to be tantamount to discovering and understanding the natural physiology of people, at least in this thread it seems to be. How long have we been subjected to theories about the hemispheres of the brain? What functions do these have independently? What is it visual language versus oral language relative to the speeds of light and sound? What is it, sequential logic versus random access memory? And, what internal organ lacks any symmetry whatsoever? Are there not also parts of the whole brain, itself, which are somehow asymmetrical? On what axis do we measure such things? On the outside, the heart, by itself, isolated, can be a sort of asymmetrical looking figure, at least I think so. But then, the heart is never truly isolated, and inwardly and outwardly, in it's shape and it's functionality, what amazing fractal symmetry is it? So, I'll leave those questions for others to debate.

Well yes, I see what you mean. In that sense you are right, all organs are symmetric; including both hemispheres of the brain. I was looking at symmetry in a spatial sense; which really has very little to do with we're talking about. :o

[tusme]

All living organisms have some form of energy, I agree with that. Whether it is the same you are talking about I'm not sure. But I'm not refering to the life-energy from esoterism though, are you?
Absolutely everything is (vibrating) energy, even your thoughts...subject to Truth.

You are again explaining what it is, but completely disregarding any explanation of why you know that's the case; which is the only thing I'm asking.

For example: how do you know it's infinite, not limited to the physical dimension, nor the conditions/principles of this dimension? Surely there must be a reason for you to say that.
Well, as I've already explained, the "why" is virtually impossible to answer...only because it is impossible for anything which is finite, ie, our physical energy to equate/justify anything which is infinite, ie, Spirit/Truth energy...otherwise, I'd have to say, because of it's origins...definitely not existing within this Physical dimension, and most certainly NOT, within the frequencies of "negative energy"...

That said, because Spirit/Truth energy is the Physical being's source energy (through the breath), of-course, it is indeed possible to balance one's (physical vibrations) energy with that of the Spirit/Truth energy...truth be told, is exactly the reason the Spirit (Truth energy) being chose each of our Physical being's...for a unique, beautiful and perfect experience/expression of Physical Truth through each of us individually...

Hope now you can see the reason why it's impossible to know the reason why...!? Perhaps, you should ask yourself the reason why, your so untrusting of your own Spirit/Truth being...who, as far as I'm concerned, is the true you anyway... :p

Again, our Spirit/Truth being is Infinite, is not subject to the principles/conditions of this Physical dimension, ie, free-will, relativity, duality, gravity, space & time...ONLY Truth.

The Spirit/Truth being of every physical being, past, Now, future possesses the exact infinite Spirit/Truth being, thus, whether we care to know this Truth or not, are all ONE in Truth...

It is said, somewhere in the Holy Bible, "GOD made us in His image"...well, GOD image, in my estimation is infinite...so, what is there about our image that could be considered infinite? ...certainly not the physical being, is it...!? Could only be the Spirit/Truth being, can't it...!?

Therefore, since you "choose" to know, it's not the product of experience, but of choice. An example: if something happens to me, I cannot choose to know, "I know" whether I like it or not. On the other hand, if I'm offered various possibilities, I dont' choose to "know", I choose to "believe".

See where I'm confused when you say things like "I know", "truth", etc. It is true that "truth" some times is in the eye of the beholder, but there are other times when there is only one "truth", and in those times it's not up to us decide what is "truth" (whether we like it or not).
There's a reason I keep repeating, "Truth (energy) is Infinite"...truth, which a Physical/Mind being understands only comes from it's own intellegence, is finite, meaning, only exists in the Now and between the periods of birth & death...

Again, when I "choose to know" Truth, I'm allowing my physical being's vibrational energy to balance with that of Truth energy...and because my intentions are intentional & sincere, and Truth (energy) being infinite, It (Truth) appreciates that my physical being is accepting to be the "vehicle" for it's Source or higher being...

Btw, Truth (energy) is the highest vibrational frequency, thats what matters, "choosing" is of secondary importance...

Yes, since string theory it is believed that the idea of an infinite number of universes is a possibility. But I never heard of the universe in a infinite spiralling formation nor our blood flowing in spirals. But the planets do not rotate around the sun in a spiral, but in an elipse.
Well, if you understand the nature of fractals, you'll know what I mean, re, universe in an infinite spiralling formation...

As for our "blood flowing in spirals", where else does the blood flow, if its not only circulating the body...? More pertinently, is the question, the blood-cells passing through your body at this moment in time, bar the DNA programming, do you honestly think they're the exactly the same blood cells you were born with...!? :(

About the holographic universe, there are two interpretations: one about us perceiving the universe as a hologram through our senses, and another about each part containing the entire whole.

But I fail to see the relation between any of this with this Spirit/Truth energy. :o
Hmm, interesting that you ain't questioning "why" those two interpretations exists...? :)

Again, Spirit/Truth energy is the Source of this Physical dimension and indeed our Physical being, without it, neither the Earth nor you or I would exist...otherwise, could you imagine, the Earth no longer orbiting the Sun or our physical being choosing not to breath...?

The same can be said about any religion. But the question is how can all those cases be at the same time; especially when they are a matter of personal choice.
No physical being nor religion, for that matter, can claim to own Truth...Truth can do without religion, the opposite is not true...

Truth (energy), has It's own perfect purpose & timing...before a Mind or Soul energy could be established, It chose the Physical being...

Not all living beings need to breath. I mean, organic life does not depend on breath.
If that is indeed true, it's still subject to Truth (energy)...everything (energetically) within this Physical dimension is...

However, even if I call my believe "truth", does that make it so?
Free-will (Physical dimension principle), is your right to believe whatever you'd like to believe is "truth"...as a Spirit/Truth being, there is no choice, only Truth...

I'm going to start again one of this days; just that at the moment I don't feel like doing it.
Hmm...your merely the "vehicle", my friend, your Spirit's "the driver"... :)

Yes, of course.
OK.

The Soul, as an energy, can only exist after a Physical being is born into this Physical dimension, and a Physical being can only be considered one after the first breath...

When the Physical being's Mind, through all it's life's teachers, is formed and is capable of distinguishing between truth & untruth, only then a Soul energy (memory) is established...thus, for as long as that Mind chooses not to know, be or express itself as Truth, so the Soul energy grows and such will be the Physical beings Body Mind & Soul's "freedom", while it still exists (within this dimension)...then, at "death", even though the Body & Mind's energy now ceases to exist (or degenerating within this Physical dimension), if such ignorance (of Truth) still existed at that point, as it is and always will be subject to Truth energy, such will be the salvation/damnation of that Soul energy...within the holographic spiral..or GOD forbid, the negative energy frequencies, what some would call, "hell"...imho.

Truth shall set you free...!! :)

[elirien]

Oh jeez. Um. Yeah. Okay, I see this energy, these memes, and I watch it like one might watch a candle burning. (That's about as romantic as I'm going to get with this.) You see the words as a sign for something else, and the things that take on multiple meanings simultaneously, even sometimes no meaning at all, and that is what I mean when I say the DNA codes must have their seasons. But, it is the greater morphology, there is something inherent to the artist, to breathe in a form, and to breathe out another; the imitation or the reproduction. What is it to see a sunrise, and then to paint the landscape? Then, what is it to see the model, and then to paint the portrait? How much of our creative/destructive will can be described that way? What invention isn't some manifestation of something encoded within our DNA?

Very good questions. They are widening and expanding like a fire that bends metal and every form of conditioning. The body and every subform or subtle form of the body is a particle accelerator. That's its job in the expanding universe (one could also use the term oneness but that term has too much connotation like God [all the same thing]). As such it takes other forms, dissolves them and either reforms them through the mind or throws them into the fire (of what mystics call kundalini). This fire dissolves everything including the moth that is you and I. It is hell for those that fear it. Half used and feared it becomes demons/jinn/thought forms. DNA is like the alphabet for this. It is "the language" that got confused and became tons of local tounges-dialects. What would happen if everyone was already talking archetypal language? Isn't that the lingual aim of "psychology"?


Should Rome pulsate like a beating heart that all roads to lead to and from there? But, it is like a candle burning. Who or what is the wick? The Queen? The Pope? The Washington Monument? I spend so much of my time just sketching things, strange symbols (http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ygeTyG0dCGY/S86jLy9Af3I/AAAAAAAAAZQ/_xeAEETlk38/alchemical_stack2b[6].jpg), what could be merely signposts to you, and I do my best to ascertain all their potential meanings, but who am I to define it? If I have unleashed anything, I hope it is never used as a weapon.

If it is used as a weapon it will kill you and you will see what is left. It will be the end of your world. The trick of the candle or the monument or the queen or the pope is concentration. If one concentrates it doesn't see whats around. It sees only the concentrated object, the grip itself, the wanted. What is it that happens when the candle is blown out? Where is all that darkness gone then? What happens when one loosens its grip on the body/mind? Isn't that death/life?

The body loves your presence, it is in unspeakable joy with you and loves to serve you, so much so that it is like a child that is afraid to sleep on their own. What is it that watches this MMORPG, This spectacle of lights created by what people call matrix and love so much that they even call it fear/gripping/wanting? What is it that watches through organic CCTV cameras and what is it watching?

The sultan of hearts called us and here we are. We were single and now we are one. Loosen the grip on the writing and it reveal itself to you.

[flyermay]

Absolutely everything is (vibrating) energy, even your thoughts...subject to Truth.
Well, as I've already explained, the "why" is virtually impossible to answer...only because it is impossible for anything which is finite, ie, our physical energy to equate/justify anything which is infinite, ie, Spirit/Truth energy...otherwise, I'd have to say, because of it's origins...definitely not existing within this Physical dimension, and most certainly NOT, within the frequencies of "negative energy"...

That said, because Spirit/Truth energy is the Physical being's source energy (through the breath), of-course, it is indeed possible to balance one's (physical vibrations) energy with that of the Spirit/Truth energy...truth be told, is exactly the reason the Spirit (Truth energy) being chose each of our Physical being's...for a unique, beautiful and perfect experience/expression of Physical Truth through each of us individually...

Hope now you can see the reason why it's impossible to know the reason why...!? Perhaps, you should ask yourself the reason why, your so untrusting of your own Spirit/Truth being...who, as far as I'm concerned, is the true you anyway... :p

Again, our Spirit/Truth being is Infinite, is not subject to the principles/conditions of this Physical dimension, ie, free-will, relativity, duality, gravity, space & time...ONLY Truth.

The Spirit/Truth being of every physical being, past, Now, future possesses the exact infinite Spirit/Truth being, thus, whether we care to know this Truth or not, are all ONE in Truth...

But then again, if even you cannot know these things, because you are finite and you are talking about infinite things; how can you be so sure of what you are saying? That’s definitely faith; even though I know you reject that term because it makes it “less true”.

It is not that I’m untrustworthy; it is just that I cannot agree or disagree with something I don’t fully understand. I never said that what you are saying is not the truth; I’m just trying to get to the bottom of it to make up my mind. And to do this I need to challenge what you are saying, so that I leave no place for doubts.

It is said, somewhere in the Holy Bible, "GOD made us in His image"...well, GOD image, in my estimation is infinite...so, what is there about our image that could be considered infinite? ...certainly not the physical being, is it...!? Could only be the Spirit/Truth being, can't it...!?

But to believe that as an explanation, we would first need to establish the existence of God, which, since it can’t be done, would take us to the same conclusion: it’s all a matter of faith.

There's a reason I keep repeating, "Truth (energy) is Infinite"...truth, which a Physical/Mind being understands only comes from it's own intellegence, is finite, meaning, only exists in the Now and between the periods of birth & death...

Again, when I "choose to know" Truth, I'm allowing my physical being's vibrational energy to balance with that of Truth energy...and because my intentions are intentional & sincere, and Truth (energy) being infinite, It (Truth) appreciates that my physical being is accepting to be the "vehicle" for it's Source or higher being...

Btw, Truth (energy) is the highest vibrational frequency, thats what matters, "choosing" is of secondary importance...

Ok, so you are saying that by choosing to know this Spirit/Truth energy you are actually experiencing it; since you say it balances your vibrational energy and it appreciates your intentions. Is this correct?

Well, if you understand the nature of fractals, you'll know what I mean, re, universe in an infinite spiralling formation...

As for our "blood flowing in spirals", where else does the blood flow, if its not only circulating the body...? More pertinently, is the question, the blood-cells passing through your body at this moment in time, bar the DNA programming, do you honestly think they're the exactly the same blood cells you were born with...!? :(

Yes, but I don’t understand the relation between holograms and fractals with spirals. I actually don’t understand what you mean by spirals at all, for example, where does the blood circulate in spirals?

We renew every single cell in our body (including blood cells), I think it is, every 2 or 5 years. But again, were is the relations between this and spirals?

Hmm, interesting that you ain't questioning "why" those two interpretations exists...? :)

The first interpretation has to do with our 5 senses representing the universe as we know it in our brain in a holographic manner. That is: our senses deconstruct what they perceive, transform it in information, pass it to the brain, and our brain re-constructs it back as a holographic image.

The second has to do with, for example, the DNA: which has all the information of the whole; our body. This is what happens when you cut a holographic plate in pieces, all of them contain the whole of the image, but at a smaller scale.

Again, Spirit/Truth energy is the Source of this Physical dimension and indeed our Physical being, without it, neither the Earth nor you or I would exist...otherwise, could you imagine, the Earth no longer orbiting the Sun or our physical being choosing not to breath...?

I don’t understand why you say that. I believe there are many forces (forms of energy) in the universe, like gravity. And I will even accept that all of them are of the same type at a certain level (what’s called unification). But where is the relation between them and a non-physical dimension?

No physical being nor religion, for that matter, can claim to own Truth...Truth can do without religion, the opposite is not true...

That’s exactly my point… but, doesn’t that include yours too? I mean, what makes theirs less worthy of truth than yours?

I’ll answer you post about the soul in a different post…

[tusme]

But then again, if even you cannot know these things, because you are finite and you are talking about infinite things; how can you be so sure of what you are saying? That’s definitely faith; even though I know you reject that term because it makes it “less true”.

It is not that I’m untrustworthy; it is just that I cannot agree or disagree with something I don’t fully understand. I never said that what you are saying is not the truth; I’m just trying to get to the bottom of it to make up my mind. And to do this I need to challenge what you are saying, so that I leave no place for doubts.
When your driving a vehicle, there's no faith involved is there...!? Just a knowing, being & expressing of your physical energy's and that vehicles energy...no!?

Entirely up to you whether or not to agree or disagree...your absolute right too, to challenge everything...and, nothing wrong (or right) with getting to the "bottom", re, making up your mind...in this Physical dimension, sometimes, it may require getting to the "top"...to know Truth...

Know this though, your Spirit/Truth being, besides Infinite, cannot exist/vibrate as an untruth...

But to believe that as an explanation, we would first need to establish the existence of God, which, since it can’t be done, would take us to the same conclusion: it’s all a matter of faith.
Well, nevermind "establish the existence of God"...ever wondered why we cannot see GOD...!? Because our 5 sense reality (Physical being, ie, Body & Mind) cannot comprehend anything that is Infinite...exactly the reason also, we cannot see our Spirit/Truth beings...

Ok, so you are saying that by choosing to know this Spirit/Truth energy you are actually experiencing it; since you say it balances your vibrational energy and it appreciates your intentions. Is this correct?
Through my knowing, being and expressing of Spirit/Truth energy, I am an experience/expression or manifestation, within this Physical dimension, of such energy...

The Spirit/Truth (energy) being has It's own perfect purpose and timing, it's vibrations are infinite, thus vibrates at a higher vibrational frequency that any Physical dimension energy or frequency...so, not forgetting Physical dimension principles/conditions, ie, free-will, imho, it's the physical being needing to raise or synch it's vibrations to that of it's Spirit/truth being...

Yes, but I don’t understand the relation between holograms and fractals with spirals. I actually don’t understand what you mean by spirals at all, for example, where does the blood circulate in spirals?

We renew every single cell in our body (including blood cells), I think it is, every 2 or 5 years. But again, were is the relations between this and spirals?

The first interpretation has to do with our 5 senses representing the universe as we know it in our brain in a holographic manner. That is: our senses deconstruct what they perceive, transform it in information, pass it to the brain, and our brain re-constructs it back as a holographic image.

The second has to do with, for example, the DNA: which has all the information of the whole; our body. This is what happens when you cut a holographic plate in pieces, all of them contain the whole of the image, but at a smaller scale.
Must admit, I'm no expert re, fractals and the holographic universe...merely observing the nature of such truth's, on a micro/macro or energetic level...either way, they're still only existing/vibrating within this Physical dimension...

I don’t understand why you say that. I believe there are many forces (forms of energy) in the universe, like gravity. And I will even accept that all of them are of the same type at a certain level (what’s called unification). But where is the relation between them and a non-physical dimension?
Truth energy, is the relation.

Absolutely everything which exists within this Physical dimension is vibrational energy...regardless, of the dimension, whether it has the intelligence to know this or not, all energy is subject to Truth (energy)...

That’s exactly my point… but, doesn’t that include yours too? I mean, what makes theirs less worthy of truth than yours?
Well, I've never claimed to "own" Truth :confused:, read my sig...:p

Free-will, as physical beings, is our right...Truth, is our purpose...

Again, all Spirit/Truth energy exists/vibrates as exactly the same Infinite energy or frequency...thus, mine cannot be more worthy of your's, neither can your's be more worthy than mine...and the same goes for all Physical beings, in the past, NOW or future...

[flyermay]I’ll answer you post about the soul in a different post…[/QUOTE]
:cool:

[elirien]

Know this though, your Spirit/Truth being, besides Infinite, cannot exist/vibrate as an untruth...


Sorry for stepping in. We would like to ask you something. Please answer if you'd like.

Since as you've put it "your Spirit/Truth" can not exist/vibrate as untruth, what is untruth?

And what is the "your" that has Spirit/Truth?

Bless you and Thank you.

[tusme]

Sorry for stepping in. We would like to ask you something. Please answer if you'd like.

Since as you've put it "your Spirit/Truth" can not exist/vibrate as untruth, what is untruth?

And what is the "your" that has Spirit/Truth?

Bless you and Thank you.
Hi Elirien,

This a public forum, no need apologising... :)

Spirit/Truth energy, can only experience/express Itself as Truth energy, nothing else...

When a Physical being, knowingly or not, chooses not to know, be or express itself as Truth, for example, telling a lie, the Physical being then causes itself to be in turmoil with it's Spirit/Truth (energy) being (who then relentlessly carries on with own Truth journey/vibrations)...thus, regardless whether such a Physical being is aware or not, unless it acknowledges the Truth of it's (negative) actions, ie, telling a lie, and subsequently chooses to speak Truth, rather than a lie...then, not only in this dimension but also in the next, shall always be subject to the "judgement" of the Spirit/Truth energy...

An "untruth", imho, anything which ain't Truth (energy)...or otherwise, anything which can be considered "negative energy", ie, wars, murder, paedophilia, rape, lies, theft, violence, aggression, etc, etc...

As for using the "your" that has Spirit/Truth...!?

Again, all Spirit/Truth energy is ONE energy, is Infinite and is our Source energy...thus, when I speak of, your, mine or anyone else's Spirit/Truth energy, I'm basically referring to the ONE Spirit/Truth energy which unites us all Infinitely in Truth...regardless.

The Physical being has no power over the Spirit/Truth being...unless of-course it's choice is intentional, to know, be and express itself as Truth (energy), then in that case, the Spirit/Truth being will allow for such a Physical being's energy to be balanced with Itself...thus, imho, a very unique, beautiful and perfect Truth shall be the experience/expression through such a Physical being...

Hope all that made sense...!?

Thankyou and bless you too...!! http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif :)

[elirien]

Hi Elirien,

This a public forum, no need apologising... :)

An "untruth", imho, anything which ain't Truth (energy)...or otherwise, anything which can be considered "negative energy", ie, wars, murder, paedophilia, rape, lies, theft, violence, aggression, etc, etc...

Hello tusme,

we don't understand this positive/negative paradigm especially when truth is involved (not as a subjective concept). Isn't positive/negative still energy or vibrating energy (which ever you like)? What is considered a lie or sin or negative is just identification. Even if it is complete absurd delusion it is still identification and is workable material for the mind. That is even called schizophrenic by many people who are schizophrenic. You know, those that are a lawyer one moment, a macho husband for show in another moment and subservient to his wife's ego in the other. Even with such great fracturing/programming this doesn't change the fact that that being is still conscious energy. How could it?


As for using the "your" that has Spirit/Truth...!?

Again, all Spirit/Truth energy is ONE energy, is Infinite and is our Source energy...thus, when I speak of, your, mine or anyone else's Spirit/Truth energy, I'm basically referring to the ONE Spirit/Truth energy which unites us all Infinitely in Truth...regardless.

The Physical being has no power over the Spirit/Truth being...unless of-course it's choice is intentional, to know, be and express itself as Truth (energy), then in that case, the Spirit/Truth being will allow for such a Physical being's energy to be balanced with Itself...thus, imho, a very unique, beautiful and perfect Truth shall be the experience/expression through such a Physical being...

Hope all that made sense...!?

Thankyou and bless you too...!! http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif :)

Yes it made perfect sense.

Thank you very much.

[tusme]

Hello tusme,

we don't understand this positive/negative paradigm especially when truth is involved (not as a subjective concept). Isn't positive/negative still energy or vibrating energy (which ever you like)? What is considered a lie or sin or negative is just identification. Even if it is complete absurd delusion it is still identification and is workable material for the mind. That is even called schizophrenic by many people who are schizophrenic. You know, those that are a lawyer one moment, a macho husband for show in another moment and subservient to his wife's ego in the other. Even with such great fracturing/programming this doesn't change the fact that that being is still conscious energy. How could it?

Yes it made perfect sense.

Thank you very much.
Glad it made sense, Elirien... :)

The reason I use the term "negative" (energy) is, allows my Physical being, ie, Mind & Body, to better identify vibrations which ain't Truth energy...either projected towards me or even my projections...

Negative energy, which, Biblically is referred to as "the devil, satan, lucifer", is an imposter energy that mimicks Truth (energy)...for the sole purpose of escaping it's trapped state or negative energy frequency's, which again, Biblically is referred to as "hell"...

Negative energy cannot exist/vibrate as anything other than a negative energy/frequency...and because this Physical dimension and all Physical being's have their origins in or created with Truth energy, means it (negative energy) cannot exist on it's own within this dimension or any of its frequencies...but, it most certainly can, if it can trick our Physical being's, ie, Body & Mind into giving away our energy for the purpose of a negative expression/experience, either through ourselves or subjecting others to it...and in that way, we allow for such negative energy to escape it's trapped state and exist/vibrate within this Physical dimension...and thus, will seek to attach itself, through such trickery, to as many physical being's Body & Mind as possible, simply to continue existing/vibrating within this dimension...

Negative energy, over time, could even take possession of a Physical being's Body & Mind, in which case, if it is the Physical being's intention, eventually, to rid itself of such (negative energy) possession, could end up in a life or death situation, unfortunately...

Truth energy has no opposite nor polarity, ie, positive/negative...within this Physical dimension there is no equal to Truth (energy)...only Truth itself.

No need to mention, re, the Spirit/Truth (Source) dimension, ONLY Truth energy exist/vibrates within that dimension...

Sorry, I'm abit pushed for time...shall offer you an respeonse re, "schizophrenia" later... :o

[flyermay]

The Soul, as an energy, can only exist after a Physical being is born into this Physical dimension, and a Physical being can only be considered one after the first breath...

When the Physical being's Mind, through all it's life's teachers, is formed and is capable of distinguishing between truth & untruth, only then a Soul energy (memory) is established...thus, for as long as that Mind chooses not to know, be or express itself as Truth, so the Soul energy grows and such will be the Physical beings Body Mind & Soul's "freedom", while it still exists (within this dimension)...then, at "death", even though the Body & Mind's energy now ceases to exist (or degenerating within this Physical dimension), if such ignorance (of Truth) still existed at that point, as it is and always will be subject to Truth energy, such will be the salvation/damnation of that Soul energy...within the holographic spiral..or GOD forbid, the negative energy frequencies, what some would call, "hell"...imho.

Truth shall set you free...!! :)

So, if our soul doesn't exists before we were born, a new soul is created for each of us; which would discard reincarnation. What about other animals form of life, do you also think the have a soul?

[elirien]

Glad it made sense, Elirien... :)

The reason I use the term "negative" (energy) is, allows my Physical being, ie, Mind & Body, to better identify vibrations which ain't Truth energy...either projected towards me or even my projections...

Negative energy, which, Biblically is referred to as "the devil, satan, lucifer", is an imposter energy that mimicks Truth (energy)...for the sole purpose of escaping it's trapped state or negative energy frequency's, which again, Biblically is referred to as "hell"...

Negative energy cannot exist/vibrate as anything other than a negative energy/frequency...and because this Physical dimension and all Physical being's have their origins in or created with Truth energy, means it (negative energy) cannot exist on it's own within this dimension or any of its frequencies...but, it most certainly can, if it can trick our Physical being's, ie, Body & Mind into giving away our energy for the purpose of a negative expression/experience, either through ourselves or subjecting others to it...and in that way, we allow for such negative energy to escape it's trapped state and exist/vibrate within this Physical dimension...and thus, will seek to attach itself, through such trickery, to as many physical being's Body & Mind as possible, simply to continue existing/vibrating within this dimension...

Negative energy, over time, could even take possession of a Physical being's Body & Mind, in which case, if it is the Physical being's intention, eventually, to rid itself of such (negative energy) possession, could end up in a life or death situation, unfortunately...

Truth energy has no opposite nor polarity, ie, positive/negative...within this Physical dimension there is no equal to Truth (energy)...only Truth itself.

No need to mention, re, the Spirit/Truth (Source) dimension, ONLY Truth energy exist/vibrates within that dimension...

Sorry, I'm abit pushed for time...shall offer you an respeonse re, "schizophrenia" later... :o

Thank you very much:D Please answer when and if you want to :D

Now we're going into dangerous territory for many people but Lucifer still works for God. It is impossible to be not employed in the multi dimensional supermarket of the one. We don't know if the soul's agenda so to speak is to manifest a black magician or a complete saint. The point is to be completely objective by taking God as the subject. There is no other subject anyway :D

[practicaltheorist]

If you do a google search on "Dr Duncan Macdougall" you will be able to find details of the "21 Grams" experiments, although he did compare findings with those of dogs, and if 21 grams was the weight of a human soul, it appears dog either had no soul or it weighed nothing, which I don't really believe, why would other mammals be souless?

Maybe they don`t lose the 21 grams because their soul is constantly part of the all-encompassing energy we are all part of, and not IN their bodies in the first place? Maybe they "keep their souls outside their bodies", if you get my meaning? In the sense that we are "shut off" from it and constantly trying to reconnect with this energy/consciousness/isness/insert you word here - whereas animals has this connection all the time and therefore do not "download" their souls?

Just some thoughts.

[flyermay]

When your driving a vehicle, there's no faith involved is there...!? Just a knowing, being & expressing of your physical energy's and that vehicles energy...no!?

Entirely up to you whether or not to agree or disagree...your absolute right too, to challenge everything...and, nothing wrong (or right) with getting to the "bottom", re, making up your mind...in this Physical dimension, sometimes, it may require getting to the "top"...to know Truth...

Know this though, your Spirit/Truth being, besides Infinite, cannot exist/vibrate as an untruth...

Knowledge is the product of experience. We know how to drive a car for a reason: we learnt how to drive a car. And that's my point, knowledge can only be the product of experience; whether it is physical experience (putting a finger in my eye hurts :D) or learning experience of a skill (I know how to drive a car). There is no other way to "know".

When you say that you "know", and you say that it's not the product of experience, you can't refer to it as knowledge, but to as "a belief". Well... you can, but you are not referring to what is commonly accepted as "to know"; reason why there are two different terms: "belief" and "knowledge" (believe me, I checked :p).

Well, nevermind "establish the existence of God"...ever wondered why we cannot see GOD...!? Because our 5 sense reality (Physical being, ie, Body & Mind) cannot comprehend anything that is Infinite...exactly the reason also, we cannot see our Spirit/Truth beings...

In that case we can't also "know"; neither the existence of God nor Spirit/Truth energy. Something that cannot be experienced can only be "believed" not "known"; it's a question of faith.

Through my knowing, being and expressing of Spirit/Truth energy, I am an experience/expression or manifestation, within this Physical dimension, of such energy...

The Spirit/Truth (energy) being has It's own perfect purpose and timing, it's vibrations are infinite, thus vibrates at a higher vibrational frequency that any Physical dimension energy or frequency...so, not forgetting Physical dimension principles/conditions, ie, free-will, imho, it's the physical being needing to raise or synch it's vibrations to that of it's Spirit/truth being...

Yes, but that's a believe that's not based on your own experience. Then, how do you know what this energy is experiencing, if for starters you said that it's impossible for us to experience it?

Truth energy, is the relation.

I don't understand what you mean. How is Truth energy related to the spirals and the theory of the holographic universe?

Absolutely everything which exists within this Physical dimension is vibrational energy...regardless, of the dimension, whether it has the intelligence to know this or not, all energy is subject to Truth (energy)...

So, by this do you mean is that the fabric of the cosmos is called Truth/energy; or that there are two different forms of energy, one subjected to the other? If so, how are they subjected; what do you mean by that?

Well, I've never claimed to "own" Truth :confused:, read my sig...:p

Free-will, as physical beings, is our right...Truth, is our purpose...

Again, all Spirit/Truth energy exists/vibrates as exactly the same Infinite energy or frequency...thus, mine cannot be more worthy of your's, neither can your's be more worthy than mine...and the same goes for all Physical beings, in the past, NOW or future...

Then I don't understand what you mean by "truth". Is it just a name, or is it actual "truth"?

[flyermay]

Maybe they don`t lose the 21 grams because their soul is constantly part of the all-encompassing energy we are all part of, and not IN their bodies in the first place? Maybe they "keep their souls outside their bodies", if you get my meaning? In the sense that we are "shut off" from it and constantly trying to reconnect with this energy/consciousness/isness/insert you word here - whereas animals has this connection all the time and therefore do not "download" their souls?

Just some thoughts.

I'm also of the opinion that if we really have a soul it's not a physical part of our body, therefore it cannot be weight in grams.

[practicaltheorist]

I'm also of the opinion that if we really have a soul it's not a physical part of our body, therefore it cannot be weight in grams.

Do you consider that the soul might be energy?

[flyermay]

Do you consider that the soul might be energy?

Not sure about that. The thing is, if it is energy, then it would be tangible and measurable; and I don't think that's the case.

[practicaltheorist]

Not sure about that. The thing is, if it is energy, then it would be tangible and measurable; and I don't think that's the case.

I think it MIGHT be energy :)

My thought about it is based on the "just because you can`t see it does not mean its not there".

There are so many things we can not observe or measure. I would be well surprised if we could measure all forms of energy. The problem is that we have a tendency to block our minds to this fact, because its beyond our ability to comprehend it.

Light is both wave and particle.
Energy can be mass, radiation, light, heat and probably other things we don`t even know about yet.
If the soul is energy, it may be transforming from one form to another as we die.

I realize that this is a big if, but my intuition seem to resonate with it so thats my "take" on it these days.

[tusme]

Isn't positive/negative still energy or vibrating energy (which ever you like)? What is considered a lie or sin or negative is just identification. Even if it is complete absurd delusion it is still identification and is workable material for the mind. That is even called schizophrenic by many people who are schizophrenic. You know, those that are a lawyer one moment, a macho husband for show in another moment and subservient to his wife's ego in the other. Even with such great fracturing/programming this doesn't change the fact that that being is still conscious energy. How could it?
Indeed, positive/negative energy is still vibrating energy...within this Physical dimension...

Yep, a "lie" or "sin" or "negative" could be "identified as just identification"...but, if not for the sake of Truth, why identify it as such...!? Know what I mean?

"Schizophrenia", as I understand it, and for whatever reason/s, is merely an electro-chemical imbalance of the Physical being's Mind or brain...in other words, causing the energy vibrations within the Mind behaving erratically, hence, the schizophrenia diagnosis, is actually a physical manifestation of such erratic energy vibrations...similarly too, when, as a result of extreme excitement/shock the body literally trembles...again, because of the rapid increase of the energy vibrations through the Mind...

Otherwise, the Physical being's Body & Mind could also be affected by other types of energy, operating beyond the principles/conditions of this Physical dimension, ie, time & space...for example, negative energy, because it too is spirit energy, can also vibrate beyond the Physical beings capabilities...or, from another generation or indeed, from the negative energy frequencies...

And, if that is indeed the case, then, the Physical being, due to it's limitations of only existing in the NOW, between the periods of birth and death, would have no capability of it's own to neutralise such negative energy...however, as far as the Spirit/Truth (energy) being goes, vibrates infinitely, thus is not restricted by Physical dimension principles/conditions...

So, if it is possible for such a Physical being to elevate it's Physical being's Body & Mind energy to that of the Spirit/Truth (energy) being, then imho, it is Infinite possible for such negative energy (who's origins exist within a past generation) to be neutralised, and I dare say too, infinitely possible to neutralise such schizophrenic causing energy, within that Physical being's Mind...

Hmm, dunno if that makes sense, lemme know, I'd be happy to give it another go... :D

Lastly, negative energy can also exist/vibrate as "conscious energy", in fact, because of it's desperation to exist/vibrate within this Physical dimension, is indeed, very conscious of finding hosts/physical being's ingorant of their Spirit/Truth beings...

Otherwise, in the case of TPTB, through their vast Physical dimension resources, are always and constantly seeking to engage negative energy, ie, through wars, mass destruction, HIV/AIDs, Swine flu, poverty & suffering, etc, etc...

They've shut themselves off of their Spirit/Truth energy beings, thus, will be subject to It's judgement...in the NOW and of-course, beyond this Physical dimension...and they know it..!!

[tusme]

So, if our soul doesn't exists before we were born, a new soul is created for each of us; which would discard reincarnation. What about other animals form of life, do you also think the have a soul?
The Soul (energy) exists/vibrates as a memory, which, for every existence/vibration of the Physical being's ignorance of it's Spirit energy(intentional or not), continues to expand/grow...until the time/period of "death", when the Soul energy (memory) will be subject to the judgement of it's Truth/Spirit (energy) being...

Whether or not such a Soul energy would enjoy re-incarnating back onto the "Holographic Spiral of Truth"/Physical dimension or infinitely exist/vibrate ONLY as Truth energy within the Spirit/Truth dimension or forever damned :eek: to the negative energy frequencies (hell), I don't know...!? :)

Animal forms of life are also "vibrating energy"...cannot tell whether or not they have soul (energies), however, they do exist/vibrate within the "Holographic Spiral of Truth"/Physical dimension...otherwise, as I have already stated, this dimension is merely a physical manifestation of the Spirit/Truth dimension...

[flyermay]

I think it MIGHT be energy :)

My thought about it is based on the "just because you can`t see it does not mean its not there".

There are so many things we can not observe or measure. I would be well surprised if we could measure all forms of energy. The problem is that we have a tendency to block our minds to this fact, because its beyond our ability to comprehend it.

Light is both wave and particle.
Energy can be mass, radiation, light, heat and probably other things we don`t even know about yet.
If the soul is energy, it may be transforming from one form to another as we die.

I realize that this is a big if, but my intuition seem to resonate with it so thats my "take" on it these days.

Oh, yes, I agree with you there; that's why I said that "I'm not sure". :) Since we don't have enough evidences either way, I can't make up my mind on that one.

[tusme]

Knowledge is the product of experience. We know how to drive a car for a reason: we learnt how to drive a car. And that's my point, knowledge can only be the product of experience; whether it is physical experience (putting a finger in my eye hurts :D) or learning experience of a skill (I know how to drive a car). There is no other way to "know".

When you say that you "know", and you say that it's not the product of experience, you can't refer to it as knowledge, but to as "a belief". Well... you can, but you are not referring to what is commonly accepted as "to know"; reason why there are two different terms: "belief" and "knowledge" (believe me, I checked :p).

In that case we can't also "know"; neither the existence of God nor Spirit/Truth energy. Something that cannot be experienced can only be "believed" not "known"; it's a question of faith.

Yes, but that's a believe that's not based on your own experience. Then, how do you know what this energy is experiencing, if for starters you said that it's impossible for us to experience it?

I don't understand what you mean. How is Truth energy related to the spirals and the theory of the holographic universe?

So, by this do you mean is that the fabric of the cosmos is called Truth/energy; or that there are two different forms of energy, one subjected to the other? If so, how are they subjected; what do you mean by that?

Then I don't understand what you mean by "truth". Is it just a name, or is it actual "truth"?
Hmm, you seem determined only to know yourself as a Physical experience/expression, eh..!? Nothing wrong with that I suppose...called, "free-will"... :)

You do not need knowledge to breathe, do you!? Otherwise, how much experience/knowledge have you gained through your true source of power, eh...!?

Hmm, with your logic, not much, it seems... :p

[tusme]

Thank you very much:D Please answer when and if you want to :D

Now we're going into dangerous territory for many people but Lucifer still works for God. It is impossible to be not employed in the multi dimensional supermarket of the one. We don't know if the soul's agenda so to speak is to manifest a black magician or a complete saint. The point is to be completely objective by taking God as the subject. There is no other subject anyway :D
Truth could never be "dangerous territory", otherwise, it never was Truth in the first place... :)

With all due respect, if "lucifer works for GOD", then imho, it simply means, GOD as Truth (energy) is not Infinite... :(

As you stated previously, re, "identity"..."lucifer", to me anyway, is nothing but an identity of "negative energy"...

It is impossible for the origins of negative energy to exist within the Spirit/Truth or GOD dimension...otherwise, considering Truth is Infinite, if negative energy is indeed considered part of such Truth energy, where does it begin and end...!? :confused:

Hmm, impossible, I have to say...!! :)

Negative energy has it's origins in Physical beings, who, in the "beginning", for whatever reason and free-will, have chose to exist in ignorance of "their" Spirit/Truth (energy) being...so, at "death", when it's Soul (energy) came "face-to-face" with the Spirit/Truth (energy) being (in judgement), such Soul energy was damned to the negative energy frequencies...again, what others would call "hell"...

As for you final 2 points, not entirely clear as to what your saying, sorry...? :o

[flyermay]

Hmm, you seem determined only to know yourself as a Physical experience/expression, eh..!? Nothing wrong with that I suppose...called, "free-will"... :)

That's exactly my point: the “truth” is not a matter of choice, preference or determination; otherwise it wouldn’t be "truth". We can't choose what is "true", it just is; whether we like it or not.

You do not need knowledge to breathe, do you!? Otherwise, how much experience/knowledge have you gained through your true source of power, eh...!?

Hmm, with your logic, not much, it seems... :p

It’s not the same. Breath is an automated function; we "know" how to do it instinctively and you wouldn't be able to simply stop breathing even if you want… try it! :D

Muslims and Christians also tell me that, but none of them give a good reason to agree with their beliefs. But who knows... maybe one of them is right after all. :eek: :)

[elirien]

Truth could never be "dangerous territory", otherwise, it never was Truth in the first place... :)

With all due respect, if "lucifer works for GOD", then imho, it simply means, GOD as Truth (energy) is not Infinite... :(

How so?


As you stated previously, re, "identity"..."lucifer", to me anyway, is nothing but an identity of "negative energy"...

It is impossible for the origins of negative energy to exist within the Spirit/Truth or GOD dimension...otherwise, considering Truth is Infinite, if negative energy is indeed considered part of such Truth energy, where does it begin and end...!? :confused:

Hmm, impossible, I have to say...!! :)

Yes, it is quite true. What you say is impossible.
What is a God/non-God dimension? Where is it?

Negative energy begins where it is seen as negative energy and ends where it begins to be seen as negative energy.


Negative energy has it's origins in Physical beings, who, in the "beginning", for whatever reason and free-will, have chose to exist in ignorance of "their" Spirit/Truth (energy) being...so, at "death", when it's Soul (energy) came "face-to-face" with the Spirit/Truth (energy) being (in judgement), such Soul energy was damned to the negative energy frequencies...again, what others would call "hell"...

Yes but isn't being unconscious a conscious choice? Didn't you make the choice to be hit on the head with a hammer when you kicked that dude in the balls? Who is the damner then and the damned? No one is in ignorance of oneself. It is just brushed away because it is very obvious.


As for you final 2 points, not entirely clear as to what your saying, sorry...? :o

Which ones? :D

[elirien]

Indeed, positive/negative energy is still vibrating energy...within this Physical dimension...

Yes, but could please elaborate to what you mean with the term "this physical dimension"? Do you mean the theory of matter or physics itself.


Yep, a "lie" or "sin" or "negative" could be "identified as just identification"...but, if not for the sake of Truth, why identify it as such...!? Know what I mean?

Not really :D This is the mental plane. You could also call it cheesecake and it wouldn't be "wrong". The main aim here is what word or pointer do you use for the same phenomena. People call war negative for example which is of course fairly natural in a negative/positive construct. We see it just as identification with the body. It is the manifestation of mental movement. Names are quite secondary.



"Schizophrenia", as I understand it, and for whatever reason/s, is merely an electro-chemical imbalance of the Physical being's Mind or brain...in other words, causing the energy vibrations within the Mind behaving erratically, hence, the schizophrenia diagnosis, is actually a physical manifestation of such erratic energy vibrations...similarly too, when, as a result of extreme excitement/shock the body literally trembles...again, because of the rapid increase of the energy vibrations through the Mind...

Otherwise, the Physical being's Body & Mind could also be affected by other types of energy, operating beyond the principles/conditions of this Physical dimension, ie, time & space...for example, negative energy, because it too is spirit energy, can also vibrate beyond the Physical beings capabilities...or, from another generation or indeed, from the negative energy frequencies...

And, if that is indeed the case, then, the Physical being, due to it's limitations of only existing in the NOW, between the periods of birth and death, would have no capability of it's own to neutralise such negative energy...however, as far as the Spirit/Truth (energy) being goes, vibrates infinitely, thus is not restricted by Physical dimension principles/conditions...

So, if it is possible for such a Physical being to elevate it's Physical being's Body & Mind energy to that of the Spirit/Truth (energy) being, then imho, it is Infinite possible for such negative energy (who's origins exist within a past generation) to be neutralised, and I dare say too, infinitely possible to neutralise such schizophrenic causing energy, within that Physical being's Mind...

Hmm, dunno if that makes sense, lemme know, I'd be happy to give it another go... :D

Did you breathe while writing? :D Just joking.

There is no negative spirit/truth/bumblebee/dishwasher. Also there is no "if" in higher dimensional activity. The human being does that already and no one asks it what books it read or what documentary it watched. The lady cooking our meals at the office operates multi-dimensionally. Seen as such the human being is beyond schizophrenia already. Those that hide it due to fear purposes, "my mother shouldn't see me like this", only create a character that is called for example a considerate son and is ritually renewed every morning by conscious repetition and other idol worship (birthdays, deathdays, etc.). There are those who don't buy into most of it and focus more on two or three of these identifications and those are those that are paraded by the same beings that have more and less dense identifications (doctor at work, husband at home, "the man" at poker nights, etc.).

As you say it is possible to not identify with all these characters. All it takes is just taking a breather and seeing it as what it is and what you are. That electro-chemical imbalance is the effect, in Icke speak "what is projected at the screen". It is the last place to get bothered with although a nice view due to drugs could be tempting it doesn't change the movie in the projector.


Lastly, negative energy can also exist/vibrate as "conscious energy", in fact, because of it's desperation to exist/vibrate within this Physical dimension, is indeed, very conscious of finding hosts/physical being's ingorant of their Spirit/Truth beings...

Otherwise, in the case of TPTB, through their vast Physical dimension resources, are always and constantly seeking to engage negative energy, ie, through wars, mass destruction, HIV/AIDs, Swine flu, poverty & suffering, etc, etc...

They've shut themselves off of their Spirit/Truth energy beings, thus, will be subject to It's judgement...in the NOW and of-course, beyond this Physical dimension...and they know it..!!

Well first of all we would like to say that we see no difference between "us and them" so to speak. We won't play that game. The PTB (what does that mean anyway, we never got around asking someone :D) at least what we understand of what you have said are the super ego, the ego to rule all egos and everyone is quite familiar with them even if they don't like to admit that. It is that, that says "Wrong! You must do better!" or when something "good" happens "I've done that quite good!" or something "bad" happens "You are miserable! What have you done?!". "They" are both the international banksters and the ones against them. You know the drill. Convince, convince, convince through repetition, repetition, repetition. If you see something as experience and add no definition to it what is there to build an empire upon and what is that empire that is already here?

The day of judgment is the day when there is the last judgment and thus there will be no judgment any more. We rejoice that that "day" is already here in this moment.