"rise" into the fifth dimension -- what does it mean?

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by tgidkp

 

Are you attempting to postulate that consciousness is separate from the body/brain?

now you're talkin. great question.


the baseline of each of the axis in the model (space - time - density) represent a type of quantum field. although, strictly speaking, the quantum field as an acceptable scientific term is found only in the space domain (x axis).

nevertheless, each of these axis-baselines behave in a similar way. because of their similarities, it would be acceptable to merge each of them into a single domain and redraw the model from that perspective. understood as a single domain, they represent raw consciousness. (my color drawings, about halfway down the first page, show a merged version of the model.)

expanded back out into separate domains, as in my OP drawing, i have shown that specific aspects of consciousness or intelligence are manifested according to spacial and temporal relationships.

the "higher consciousness", then, is the only specific aspect of consciousness which involves a change in density of matter. (i am glossing over a few of the finer points here for simplicity's sake. apologies.) truly, it is up to the reader to decide exactly what this means. i have my own ideas....


________
as the raw consciousness becomes manifested upon the density axis, then, according to my model, the cycle repeats itself. basically, you could take the lower-triangle section of my drawing, including the 1-7 demarcations, and draw the triangle plot against the density domain.

in other words, i am saying that as level (1) in the space-time domain relates to "survival, instinctual", so will the first level of psycho-spiritual development in the new domain take a "survival, instinctual" form. we will be as newborn babes....or maybe more like super-evolved cave-people.

i must state EXPLICITLY that just as we retain all of our previous stages of development as we move from (1) through (7) in the time-space domain, a shift of consciousness to a finer density does NOT imply that life as we currently know it ceases to exist.

the shift of consciousness is something that is added upon the other levels.

reply to post by tgidkp


IDK... I think you need to define a few thing's in order for this to be understandable for me.

From my common sense understanding of consciousness, we require a physical brain for it to function and I just don't personally see how there can be any 'shift' *whatever that means* to a 'higher state' *again, whatever that means*. Unless your somehow physically altering the structure of the neuronal pathways that give rise to conscious though... ugh, idk.. I think your complicating something that really isn't that complicated.

By your definition, what is consciousness and what gives rise to it? You haven't adequately answered the previous question either. Is it a product of the brain or is it separate from the brain?

reply to post by Sonata



the first thing a spieces is self identify basicy they figure themselves out. like breathing for example they simply is inherent knolwadge concieved from creation. self idedification is permananent. a fly is a fly idendified fly - multiple aquesence identified -multiple aquesence so on to life till reorienatation. u never know what u are but you know where you have been. life is locked but the lock would be more like stasis-tic and self contained into its itself. life will always be locked into current transisinal envirnment basicly in a state of constant kenitic flux. complete perception is infinatly survivable. life basicly is always ready to any transitions that are the current state of their envirnment. life will always be one step ahead of any of its current disguishers. umm like life is always fighting with survival for survival. would be considered an eternal paradox. the never ending comprehension of everything.

words are ideas nothing more.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by double_frick

 

Ugh please... This thread is about as low as human intelligence can get. Even if there were fifteen-hundred thousand different dimensions, we'd be equally existing in every single one of them. What this kid is talking about is a higher plane of existence and confusing that with dimensional physics which he appears to be basing his whole crackpot theory off of which makes the whole thing bunk and ridiculous. Please people, I beg you learn something for a change... idk if I can handle looking at another remarkable feat of human stupidity. I think I might need a break from this place.

This is the first thread in a long time where the originator of the idea said it's testable. Why don't we see where this goes instead of shooting it down before it's even been tested. I personally don't think it will go anywhere, but am always interested in scientific exploration of new ideas.

You have valid critiques; but isn't it worth promoting scientific exploration of ideas? The alternative is the status quo; where people make up stuff and others believe it.

just remain aboard, fellas. i really am going somewhere with this.

reply to post by xelamental


I understand the OP 'thinks' it's testable, but the idea itself isn't advancement in understanding anything at all really. If the OP would just answer the question I asked about consciousness, then I could explain something, but the OP doesn't want to state what their idea of consciousness is.

Consciousness is just another way of saying self-aware. I understand some people confuse it to mean the mind or the mind plus intelligence, but that is not what consciousness is. A species capacity for being self-aware of itself and it's surrounding is not going to change or shift, for that to occur a lot of physical things need to take place other than wishing really hard we can shift our ability to be 'more self-aware'.

I truly am all for scientific exploration and advancement, but misusing or misunderstanding something to explore an idea born from that misunderstanding is not scientific or advancing anything at all except the misunderstanding of the terminology at hand.

If the OP is trying to postulate that consciousness or a living things capacity for self-awareness is some how variable or able to 'shift', then the idea is just wrong for many reasons and the OP needs to look into why I am saying that rather than getting all upset because someone said they were wrong. If the OP doesn't feel like learning anything, then I'll be more than happy to post a few links to help the OP start out on learning what consciousness is and what it is not.

Originally posted by sirnex
I understand the OP 'thinks' it's testable, but the idea itself isn't advancement in understanding anything at all really.

Time will tell. If one thing's for sure, the answer is not in opinion.
I think the OP needs to expand on his predictions. That will quickly tell if the theory holds up with what we know experimentally. I personally do not believe it will, but will *reserve judgement* until the OP expands and we can verify or not.

Who knows, something interesting may come of this. I consult with researchers of various disciplines, and sometimes breakthroughs come by examining the impossible, or simply not shooting down the improbable.

If the idea is incorrect, I am sure the OP will admit it. We will all find out in the end if he expands on his predictions.

If the OP would just answer the question I asked about consciousness, then I could explain something, but the OP doesn't want to state what their idea of consciousness is.

OP: Do you want to give us something concrete? It's simple to write an idea and make it sound plausible; it's hard to distill it down into a simple hypothesis with testable predictions.

Consciousness is just another way of saying self-aware.

Many philosophers would disagree. I personally agree.

I understand some people confuse it to mean the mind or the mind plus intelligence, but that is not what consciousness is.

Perhaps you need to post your definitive source on what it is? I thought the jury was still out until we have a testable hypothesis.

A species capacity for being self-aware of itself and it's surrounding is not going to change or shift, for that to occur a lot of physical things need to take place other than wishing really hard we can shift our ability to be 'more self-aware'.

Ever studied developmental psych? They certain have stages of mind development. Internal representation, development of logic, empathy etc.

I truly am all for scientific exploration and advancement, but misusing or misunderstanding something to explore an idea born from that misunderstanding is not scientific or advancing anything at all except the misunderstanding of the terminology at hand.

If the OP is trying to postulate that consciousness or a living things capacity for self-awareness is some how variable or able to 'shift', then the idea is just wrong for many reasons and the OP needs to look into why I am saying that rather than getting all upset because someone said they were wrong. If the OP doesn't feel like learning anything, then I'll be more than happy to post a few links to help the OP start out on learning what consciousness is and what it is not.

By all means, show us your information. But dismissing out of hand is not going to raise the standard of "theory" in the alternative world any more than arguing logical fallacies.

I say to the OP: Give us some predictions, concrete and specific. Then we'll find out whether it's right or not.

lawofone.info...

Thats all you need to know in progression of conciousness.

perhaps this snip from an email gives us a clue;

All over the world right now people are celebrating Divali.

It is a significant festival in Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism

Divali or Deepavali is the Festival of Lights. Light over Darkness!

So I'd like to now convey this symbolic gesture and transmission of
Light over Darkness to you.

When Darkness enters your life know that there is ALWAYS Light
to Illuminate the Shadows.

That the Source of All Things WILL find ways to Shed Light for You.

That you are not alone on your journey in this physical existence.

etc etc

this was from mystical wonders . com

reply to post by sirnex

...to the OP: Give us some predictions, concrete and specific. Then we'll find out whether it's right or not.

believe it or not, guys, i dont spend every waking moment on the internet. i have sacrificed the majority of my long weekend to developing this thread, and i am pleased with the results insofar as the specific question posed in the OP. most of the core concepts of my model are now out in the open. it is a good thing.

as for proving any of it: in due time. i am not avoiding the issue at all, and i completely understand what must be done. i am using these concepts as the backbone of my biotechnology thesis (i am a BS Biotechnology), so the more intricate details will all be hashed out and posted here as they develop.

sirnex: i DID answer your question about consciousness. but it was a long and convoluted answer, and so you may have missed it. short answer: raw consciousness exists in the form of "quantum fields" (x,y,z axis baselines). personalized consciousness is manifested in space-time in the manner suggested by the OP, IN THE BRAIN.

[edit on 18-10-2009 by tgidkp]

reply to post by tgidkp

sirnex: i DID answer your question about consciousness. but it was a long and convoluted answer, and so you may have missed it. short answer: raw consciousness exists in the form of "quantum fields" (x,y,z axis baselines). personalized consciousness is manifested in space-time in the manner suggested by the OP, IN THE BRAIN.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by 'quantum fields'?

reply to post by sirnex


i covered that in the long answer at the top of this page....reposted here:

the baseline of each of the axis in the model (space - time - density) represent a type of quantum field. although, strictly speaking, the quantum field as an acceptable scientific term is found only in the space domain (x axis).

nevertheless, each of these axis-baselines behave in a similar way. because of their similarities, it would be acceptable to merge each of them into a single domain and redraw the model from that perspective. understood as a single domain, they represent raw consciousness. (my color drawings, about halfway down the first page, show a merged version of the model.)

reply to post by tgidkp


um like take one and make it one.

the truth is simple its the lies that are complicated i mean we ad 1 and 1. um like take it all and then remember it thats all you have to do. to remember one is to be one. the primary unifier of complex spectric infusion. the primary factory of all perplexing disguishing quantom spectrobes. i mean the complete spectrum of. the basic distuingishers of all.

Originally posted by Psychonaughty
lawofone.info...

Thats all you need to know in progression of conciousness.

You'd think that beings from a higher dimensional state would choose good colors for their website, and better vessels to talk to! But no, *you* are the chosen one, and for only 14.95 you can attend our seminar....

as for proving any of it: in due time. i am not avoiding the issue at all, and i completely understand what must be done.

Please lay out your framework.

i am using these concepts as the backbone of my biotechnology thesis (i am a BS Biotechnology), so the more intricate details will all be hashed out and posted here as they develop.

Small world. My master degree was in biotech. What's your topic?

sirnex: i DID answer your question about consciousness. but it was a long and convoluted answer, and so you may have missed it. short answer: raw consciousness exists in the form of "quantum fields" (x,y,z axis baselines).

What evidence do you have for this statement?

Originally posted by xelamental
Please lay out your framework.

apologise for the late response. attempting to respond has left me a bit befuddled. as you pointed out on page 1, this is not even really an hypothesis. for now, it is going to have to remain "just an idea". but i stand behind it, and believe it to be on solid ground.

What's your topic?

thusfar, i am satisfied with just becoming proficient in the sciences. my secret and unspoken premise is that DNA is an extraterrestrial biotech. i would never say that to my professors, tho. i usually use "transhumanism" to explain my position. ultimately, i seek to expand our understanding of the properties of DNA and its role in manifesting consciousness.

What evidence do you have for this statement?

my statement is based on string theory: single-dimensional energy fluctuations interact across a 2D plane, which inform the state of the quantum probability density function. on the given 2D plane, the uni-dimensional fluctuations are plotted as the theoretical endpoints of a normal-distribution (bell-curve).

a series of these 2D planes, assigned as space, time, and density, intersect at a single grid point. the interaction of their quantum fields give us what we perceive as "the moment of NOW". the quantum interaction is measured against the reference baselines, which by definition have an unchanging null value. because the reference baselines are unchanging and still in the midst of a flurry of energetic activity, they represent (at the very least the illusion of) raw consciousness.

how "stuff" manifests from out of this grid configuration is a much longer story.

evidence? well, i guess i could start quoting textbooks or point you to a wiki article. but i dont think i could tell you anything you dont already know.


[edit on 21-10-2009 by tgidkp]

multiple transioners but begin reform every (rev)(ev)olutionary = (imersion word) cycle. the idea is awalys before the incertion of current amgbiuguaters(complete seperation reticulates) = unused particulates. my power resides from all the unprieceved particulates in this universe basicly i derive my entire being from empty space. i am everwhere you dont see. i simply exist because i think. i would not exist if i didnt think. i am part of the super massive ilumination of the envirnment from all concievable reactions of being. the basic eternity of absolution. questions are nothing we are everthying.

reply to post by tgidkp


Enough with the mental modelling - what are some practical examples that your model predicts? How could we determine if the model is correct or not?
It's not even an idea unless it has some implications... what are they?

reply to post by Psychonaughty


I started a thread on densities/dimensions whatever you want to call it and was referred to those Law of One books, the really amazing thing about it though is that most of all that Ra has said are things that correlate greatly with my thoughts and even some of the practices or things hes said are things I've done or thought of before.

Here's a link to that thread --> www.abovetopsecret.com... it goes into more detail.

reply to post by tgidkp


some things are not ment to be known. your locks are yours but not others. stationary multiscropic compatibilty of potentail isotopes. u have the key to humanity i need it to survive. your potentail is mine share it with me.

potetional modifiers(any possible [ENTITY][LIFE](base 4 understanding) of current combrehension level) im talking to you to as well. preceive yourselves to them or i will!!!

hevan and hell unite im tired of your stuff. its utter adaptablity of reason duh.