I suspect reality is as follows, and I want liberation from it

reply to post by Jezus

Sensation is the message created by your body and synthesized by your brain.

Perception is an abstract concept. It is a state of mind and the result of your consciousness receiving the message created by your brain.

And again, i state, if you say the brain is the manifester of sensation and perception, what EVIDENCE do you have that life goes on after death?

Your study of linguistics, psychology etc. relies on evidence gathered from people using their brains and reacting to whatever stimuli.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Jezus

 

Sensation is the message created by your body and synthesized by your brain.

Perception is an abstract concept. It is a state of mind and the result of your consciousness receiving the message created by your brain.

And again, i state, if you say the brain is the manifester of sensation and perception, what EVIDENCE do you have that life goes on after death?

The brain does not create perception.

The brain does not feel.

The nonphysical responder IS perception that feels the message created by brain.

The real issue is that there is no reason to believe that existence ceases just because the physical vehicle is destroyed.

reply to post by Jezus


Yeah you're right, i could take your brain out and you'd feel everything just fine, You'd still be able to percieve because clearly the brain as nothing to do with it. Sorry for being ignorant, Afterlife is clearly provable, and our super special souls go on to another place. Yay

reply to post by awake_and_aware


The afterlife is not what is provable.

The provable part is the non-physical characteristic of consciousness.

The brain synthesizes a message, but something else experiences the message; we experience the message.

You should study physiological psychology.

This topic is very complicated and can not be simplified into vague rationalizations.

reply to post by Jezus


Good luck with your Physiological Psychology, Jezuz.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Jezus

 

Good luck with your Physiological Psychology, Jezuz.

Physiological psychology is only a starting point to under the correlation between moving pieces (chemical reactions) and perceived consciousness.

At this point it is easy to understand that scientifically "consciousness" is only a theoretical concept and not an observable phenomenon.

If you really want to understand the abstract nature of consciousness linguistic brain damage studies reveal how even the brain is physically structured from concepts.

Some people have been known to lose the words for a very specific group like vegetables.

reply to post by Jezus


All consciousness means is that you are aware of yourself and your situation. Being human, it's the reason we have a "conscience" which may be the reason we take emotional solidarity in animals, or empathy with fellow homo-sapiens.

An afterlife? Conciousness ceases when the brain ceases to function, because the brain is the machine that allows for us to percieve, think and be aware.

As far as the decomposition of matter in terms of the human brain, i'd love to see your theories and/or evidence to back up this conscious after-death hypothesis.

From what i understand, when you die you become conscious or "non-conscious"

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Jezus

 

All consciousness means is that you are aware of yourself and your situation.

Being aware of yourself is an individual "self-consciousness" and is distinct from raw consciousness or perception.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Jezus

 

Being human, it's the reason we have a "conscience" which may be the reason we take emotional solidarity in animals, or empathy with fellow homo-sapiens.

I'm sorry but this statement is simplified to the point of meaninglessness.

"We have a 'conscience'" - Do you see how this is circular?

We ARE consciousness experiencing the message created by the physical body.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Jezus

 

An afterlife? Conciousness ceases when the brain ceases to function, because the brain is the machine that allows for us to percieve, think and be aware.

The brain does not perceive its own message.

Again, you are confusing sensation and perception.

Sensation is the physical part created by the body and synthesized by the brain.

Perception is a the nonphysical concept. It is mind/consciousness.

Remember scientifically consciousness can not be proven to exist, it is just a theoretical concept.

Obviously our perception will change once we are no longer receiving this particular sensation.

However, there is no reason to believe that the receiver is destroyed just because the message synthesizer is destroyed.

----

You are simplifying the issue to the point of meaninglessness when you try to speak of a very complex topic with general rationalizations.

reply to post by Jezus


Roger that - cool stories bro.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Well if you ever want it to be more than just a "story" look into linguistic brain damage studies.

Some people have been known to lose the ability to say a very specific conceptual group like vegetables.

This will help in understanding the abstract nature of consciousness.

To the OP – a terrific, thought-provoking thread. Many thanks!

“Trying to define non-physical consciousness in physical terms is like trying to define a flower in terms of the number 3.”

The above musing is a shameless paraphrasing of something Jane Roberts said a lifetime ago. But what I perceive as being its central premise has always served as one of the thrusts, one of the catalysts for my choosing to push on in my own explorations into the reality that I assume I am experiencing.

“Defining” a given dynamic may contribute to a [perceived] orderly exploration of a particular reality probability. However, it is the understanding resulting from placing the grasp of a given dynamic or action (quite often identified as a “singular” occurrence, event or definition) into some sort of assumed overall context that seems to provide both comfort and confidence FOR that Individual. Whether it is the “reality” Itself providing virtually limitless potential for literally infinite varieties of perception (non-locality) or the conclusions arrived at from those perceptions themselves derived from the application of personal values pertaining to some kind of almost static, pre-existing reality is, for me, the single most determining factor in shaping the experience of a given Individual.

For me, the very premise of non-locality is intuitively acceptable for the concept explains, to my own personal satisfaction, the variety of “possible and probable substance” which would, to my way of thinking, be absolutely vital for the manifestation of countless environments - provided for a given Individual’s growth potential - which would necessarily exist (in this or similar manner) for these “realities” to be constructed (become manifest) and perceived progress to be realized through contextualization.

At this point of my own [perceived] physical existence, which at the moment spans six decades, I have simply concluded that while attempting to “define” a concept such as consciousness, a given Individual cannot limit the explorative parameters of their search for understanding of perceived physical reality to physical terms and concepts alone; for there is absolutely no recourse to choose with which to place that experience into some sort of overall context. In other words, this overall context MUST demonstrate the innate ability of perceptibly “containing” or including the premise of physical probability while, simultaneously, not being limited TO those physically-derived concepts.

Of course, the “creative artistry” of an Individual comes into play out of necessity when stepping outside of what could be considered as being the accepted physical “norm”; and it is at this point that the dogma of religious decree or the rigidity of science bang their respective gavels. Put another way, blinders of a sort are applied by each system of belief and, ultimately, the choice of a given Individual to subscribe to a particular belief system includes those blinders…blinders which are an accepted, even necessary part OF the chosen beliefs and are applied to whatever appraisals and assessments that Individual levies upon their perceived experiences. That Individual’s “reality” is, for me, an Individual creation – absolutely unique and inviolate, based upon their applied beliefs and assumptions.

Does “reality” exist independently from the perceptions of Individuals? Within conclusions derived from my own experience, I believe It (reality) DOES exist independently from our perceptions of It…but that independence is NOT limited to our perceptions of It, and Its existence is quite beyond our most creative imaginings of It. I also believe that “It” revels in our creative efforts – no matter how those imaginings manifest...to us.

I have concluded that “reality” is EXACTLY what a given Individual “believes” it to be, and that “order” can and does exist despite whatever assumptions we apply when exploring what is, ultimately, ourselves through our own applied beliefs.

Thanks for listening.

Mindpeace

"If you want to change the world, change yourself"...Mohandas Gandhi

reply to post by Jezus


Riveting tale, chap.

reply to post by schuyler


maybe the afterlife of the ones who know truth is the future where the energy lives in harmony, /which seems to be a common aspiration no matter what level... And the afterlife of the searcher is the past where one get's to do it all again until they too learn the truth.

reply to post by Mindpeace


You bring up an important issue.

Just as we can never prove another entity has consciousness we can not even prove that a reality exists outside of consciousness.

It sounds like the same issue but the distinction is the existence of multiple conscious entities.

For example, the existence of a nonphysical experiencing root of consciousness is evident but the question is, Do we all have individual souls or is it simply a raw conscious force that is indistinguishable from each other.

---

Also, here is some basics on "Neurolinguistics" to help in understanding the way our abstract consciousness structures our physical brain.

Mind and Brain
www.ling.upenn.edu...

Language and the brain
pandora.cii.wwu.edu...

Neurolinguistics
www.lsadc.org...

reply to post by schuyler


Excellent thread schuyler,

This part got me thinking..

It appears that “time” is an intellectual concept that is a convenience, but doesn’t really exist. In other words, your next life could be in 900 BC; time is not lineal.

If this concept turns out to be so..'we' could end up at any point in what we consider to be history. Even the pre-Cambrian, many millions of years ago or we could be born in the 'now'.

What if..those out of place and time objects that are being dug up from under mountains etc, or the ancient technologies that are on a par with ours, yet should never have existed are actually evidence of souls that have lived in the present, were reborn in the past, yet somehow retain some of the memories or engrams from the present?

Could this explain the Inca aircraft? The unbelievable technology that fashioned and built the many astounding megalithic temples and monuments scattered about the Earth? All down to those that have been reborn in what we view as the past, but had once lived in the present, or perhaps just recently, 'intuitively' knowing how to pull off these technological marvels and conceive of powered human flight.

Maybe this concept also explains 'intuition' itself..it would mean that intuition doesn't actually exist, it is our interpretation and the intellectual sensation that occurs when somehow, an individual is accessing a portion of the memories taken from other existences, in what we would view as other time periods.

Thought provoking stuff you've given us schuyler, hopefully i've go some small way in returning the favour.

Cheers.

reply to post by Jezus


"For example, the existence of a nonphysical experiencing root of consciousness is evident but the question is, Do we all have individual souls or is it simply a raw conscious force that is indistinguishable from each other."

Interesting question Jezus.

Firstly, many thanks for the links. Interesting reading.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In all honesty, perhaps “tools” such as words and ideas derived from “this” reality are not necessarily appropriately applied in dimensional probabilities we are not [consciously] focused on…at least that thought represents one of many I have concerning overall existence - and the contexts we seemingly place our experiences into.

I have given this subject matter great attention over the years Jezus and, in all candor, all sorts of perceived “dilemmas” arose – with respect to whatever “validity” could possibly be ascribed [by me] to exploration of dimensional probabilities not found within the confines of my “current” reality. Questions such as “Do we have “individual” souls, or are each of us simply “Souls” experiencing a particular kind of physical probability?” tended to, quite literally, fall by the wayside, so to speak, as I reached out with(in) my mind for experience. Similar questions just felt inappropriate, even superfluous.

In other words, I tried to approach all my explorations with as little “contamination” as possible (preconceived notions, definitions, expectations etc.), and strived for some measure of purity of whatever events I may, or may not, witness. I also was plagued with the idea that any and all experiences I would possibly encounter would somehow be “corrupted” when translating those events into terms and concepts derived from “this” current experience.

I can tell you here and now my friend that I have been witness to experiences that “took my breath away”…this being the case simply due to my “comparing” those experiences with what has become all-too-familiar to me over these past decades. I have earnestly concluded that there are basic “root assumptions” with respect to my current reality experience [here] that quite literally do not exist in other dimensional probabilities…plain and simple; assuming, of course, that those experiences were “real”. But, then again, who can say that ANY experience is any more “real” than need be…

With your acquiescence Jezus, I’ll share one or two snippets of events I have encountered during a few of these adventures in what follows. By the way, I DO employ the “eyeroll method” of self-sypnosis before beginning these “experiments”. I have found that hypnosis tends to “relax” my almost deathgrip on this reality.

I encountered a “reality” (on several occasions, as a matter of fact) within which experience was acquired by simply assuming the vibrational harmony of a given [attractive] sensation. In other words, I was sensing an event (non-physical as we usually use that term) which appealed to me and I KNEW while participating in that specific dimensional probability (or probable reality) that I could experience whatever I wished by “becoming the vibration harmony” – as though I could function in similar fashion to a living and adaptive tuning fork. I also KNEW that I was NOT wearing any sort of physical “costume”. I was a disembodied consciousness, if you will.

I experienced another kind of physical reality – similar in appearance to my current one – although the “matter” which was used to construct that reality was much more…shall we say…”malleable”. I could mold apparently individual objects at will, with absolutely no strenuous effort applied. I watched myself, so to speak, mold a lit candle; the candle "morphed" into a sphere, then back again; and I recall experiencing a measure of satisfaction with this accomplished manipulation.

For me Jezus, there is no “dichotomy” with respect to the mind/brain seeming paradox…except when assumptions generated within our current reality probability are applied. Perhaps the “brain” is a seemingly physical branch on the tree of the mind and, after all is said and done, maybe the physical brain is nothing more than the interface the mind uses to interact with the reality it perceives.

Interestingly, there are countless other examples I could cite here. But I won’t…to everyone’s relief, not doubt. I will say this, however: The one concept which seemed to accompany me on each and every one of those adventures was that “physical reality” isn’t necessarily “physical”, and that it IS physical ONLY if the reality’s creator wishes it to be.

And THAT statement brings me to the next, logical question: “Who is doing all this “creating”?”.

Any thoughts you may have Jezus would be enjoyed.

Thanks for listening.

Mindpeace

reply to post by Mindpeace

The one concept which seemed to accompany me on each and every one of those adventures was that “physical reality” isn’t necessarily “physical”, and that it IS physical ONLY if the reality’s creator wishes it to be.

Reality is as it is, we are part of it, reality is objective, we are pattern seeking animals and we're made up of same DNA, the majority of healthy human beings see reality similarly to each other and therefore can come to agreements in science using mathematics that we have created to define reality.

You can hypnotise someone NOT to see an object, this has been done, but the fact of the matter is, infact matter itself, if the person walks into the object they will still experience its presence as if a person who is able to see the object would.

Reality is objective, we can all agree that the earth is an oblate spheroid, that's science, that's FACT. There's no getting around that fact, If someone says well it's my subjective opinion of reality that it's flat, you would tell them to check some satalite imagery.

Never trust unfalsifiable hypothesis, I could say we're actually living in a simulated reality like in the Matrix, and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong, i could say the universe requires a creator, i could say i can fly but only when no person is looking. These are all suspicious claims. Be wary of them

reply to post by awake_and_aware


“Reality is objective, we can all agree that the earth is an oblate spheroid, that's science, that's FACT. There's no getting around that fact, If someone says well it's my subjective opinion of reality that it's flat, you would tell them to check some satalite imagery.”

and

“Never trust unfalsifiable hypothesis, I could say we're actually living in a simulated reality like in the Matrix, and you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong, i could say the universe requires a creator, i could say i can fly but only when no person is looking. These are all suspicious claims. Be wary of them”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hello Awake_and_Aware. Your advice in this matter is sincerely appreciated, and I thank you for it.

For me, “facts” serve the purpose of providing foundational footholds for exploration of given subject matter in an orderly fashion. When used in this manner, their carved-in-stone accuracy is, in most cases, absolutely crucial for a given Individual to arrive at what could be considered as being rational conclusions – at least according to the Individual’s [personal] value system. And I do not disagree with this premise a single iota.

But (and, for me, that’s a BIG “but”), there are certain considerations which are not usually associated with the term “reality” when this concept is visualized by some. For example, how many dimensional probabilities are there in the universe? Well, the answer to that question would quite heavily depend on the belief system of the Individual to whom this question was being posed…wouldn’t it? In other words, if one Individual subscribes to “String Theory”, then their reply to the question would possibly be something akin to eleven (11) spatial dimensions in our physical world (M-Theory, 1990’s – wiki). On the other hand, if you could pose this query directly to Albert Einstein, his response would most certainly be based upon “locality”, a primary foundational stone of his Theory of Relativity. Could it be that Quantum Theory, which postulates “non-locality” as the way of things, so to speak, has absolutely proven the very premise of Relativity wrong?

Well, for me, this wouldn’t necessarily indicate that Einstein was “wrong”. As the old chestnut goes “If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, then the whole world looks like a nail”; although this is ONLY if the very same tool is applied to EVERY scenario. Put another way, assuming scales of various existences to be [appropriately] different (these scales most probably determined by the applied perspective), then “appropriate tools” are applied to “appropriate scales”. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity works just fine on the macro level of study, but has proven to be woefully insufficient on the micro level of “reality”. Please bear in mind here Awake_and_Aware that we may not necessarily be limiting our explorations to ONLY that which appears to be physical in construct, and that the human [physical] brain is OUR "appropriate tool" when we interface with OUR dimensional probability.

In other words, “facts” serve their purposes; but outside their realm of "appropriate" application, “facts” which have been formulated within the parameters of a particular kind of dimensional probability are possibly nothing more than gossamer – simply because they are being applied to possibilities not necessarily adhering to our current “physical laws” or, in other words, our “root assumptions”. I fully agree with the “fact” that “…the earth is an oblate spheroid…” but only to the point that she APPEARS to be a sphere; and that this assumption of shape is quite “appropriate” in our current adventure. I also feel that the satellite imagery would “appropriately” indicate “appropriate”, and most significantly, CONSISTENCY of form. This, of course, is in direct reference to linear time and its “objective” observe-ability.

But OUR perceptions of this “sphere” are not necessarily the only points of view being applied, and to perspectives NOT reflective of human values and contrived concepts (non-human life forms), this spheroid would undoubtedly appear “appropriately” to THOSE points of view. Perhaps whether or not a “sphere” would be registered as such by brains NOT encased in human skulls is a matter for consideration. But I do feel that our "sphere" may appear to be nothing of the kind in a dimensional probability not adhering to OUR root assumptions. And what is “objective” to one perceptive consciousness would possibly prove to be “subjective” to another.

Maybe the delineation between objective and subjective points of view is arbitrary. It COULD be that “objective” perspectives are simply tools meant to serve the purpose of divining “facts” to be applied to the construction of that stairway to unshakeable “TRUTH”; "truth" as it is considered to be in OUR kind of dimensional probability - but not necesarily universally "true" in other dimensional probabilities because of differing but "appropriate" root assumptions.

And this kind of "truth" is not necessarily considered as such with the “subjective” approach, being that the two seemingly differing points of view appear to have differing purposes to be served. But I DO believe that respective perspectives serve their “appropriate” purposes…whatever those purposes prove to be.

Thanks again for your thoughts my friend. Your generosity in this is appreciated...more than you may know.

Mindpeace

Hi NewlyAwakened,

I'm well read and, shall we say, "highly educated" in the academic sense. All the things I said are my own personal viewpoints that I have come to conclude based on my life experiences, exposure to science, exposure to religion, politics, society, different cultures, literature, fictional works, spirituality, philosophy, etc.

Basically they are my own opinions. And we both know the most annoying thing on this planet is a man with an opinion.

reply to post by schuyler


I just want to say that this is the best OP that I have ever come across on this site.
Touched me very deeply.