"Reality" is founded on Thought and Consciousness, not Matter.

Humanity has long pondered the fundamental nature of reality from the ancient Greeks with Plato and Democritus arguing over Materialism and Idealism, to modern day philosophers and psychologists like Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung who argued over a "Collective Unconscious".

Religion often turns to mystified creation stories that glorify a concept of an external or divine creator that has through the sheer power of godly awesomeness forged the very essence of matter into existence from nothing. The early Veda's and Hindus proposed that we are all living in the dream of Brahman; and the Gnostics believed we existed in the "Black Iron Prison" of the Demigurge (an evil god who created a prison for the mind, an illusionary reality much like the modern movie The Matrix).

From our Materialistic endeavour to dismiss anything spiritual or intelligent behind the Origin of the Universe, we have turned to material theory such as a theoretical Big Bang, and a theoretical Objective Universe. All of our modern science and physics employ hard measurements against the most obvious states of energy and matter to conclude a rule-set by which these systems interact and affect each other.

From a myriad of religious beliefs and physical sciences we still barely have a coherent model of what the Universe actually is. We assume that it had a beginning, hence we have Big Bang theory that suggests although totally impossible to prove and quite presumptuous that everything existed in a singularity with a dimensionality no less then the head of a pin.

Quantum Mechanics has been devastating the laws of the macro Universe by showing in the microcosom and quantum scale the Theory of Relativity and Newtonian Law simply cease to exist. For example, in 2010 a team of scientists in China teleported information 10 miles utilizing Quantum Entanglement. This defies Einsteins theory that nothing can exceed the speed of light.

Jeff Tolkassen produced evidence proving that the "Arrow of Time" can flow backwards in the case of photons with an experiment that is now called The Rochester experiment. This experiment has been reproduced a few times proving in quantum states a future event can affect a past state. This defies Sir Issac Newton's law of time that suggests time can only flow forward and in a serialized manner.

What further complicates the concept of an Objective and Physical Universe is particle/wave duality and wave-function collapse. Particles such as electrons and photons exhibit an ability to be both a particle, and a wave. This problem occurs only when there is a measurement to observe what state the electron or particle is in. The Double-Slit experiment has long told the tale of particle/wave duality. Wave-Function collapse only happens when there is a measurement. The same holds true for Quantum Superposition where an electron exists in every possible state simultaneously until measured. This is furthered by research that plants use superposition to maximize photosynthesis efficiently.

It is also in this year that physicists have been able to scale up quantum effects into the macro world by creating a switch that is both on and off at the same time. This observable behaviour suggests that Erwin Schrodinger's Cat thought paradox potentially has more valid arguments then just a thought experiment. Scaled up Quantum States certainly begs some strange physics lies in wait for the macro Universe.

When we look at human experience, we see that each of us must endure a very personal and subjective relationship with the "Objective" Universe. In this relationship, we have problems with this subjectivity that creates very challenging arguments like that Subjective Argument, or the Hard Problems of Consciousness. Human experience is quite profound and recent research into human brain neurology shows that the human brain is actually a binary using computational system. O'Riely in 2006 showed that neurons in the Prefontal Cortex and Basal Gangia exhibited an active/inactive state similar to how binary switches work in computers.

It does not come as a complete surprise for those of us who know about Cellular Automata, however did you ever consider Atomic Automata when carbon-atoms form a lattice? In each neuron, the axion and dendrils contain microtubulin that use alpha/beta tubulin and ions and infra-red photons as part of a quantum "bit" system that then scales up into our macro neurology.

It seems digital information processing is a means by which our sense of reality emerges. We are natures walking talking "Reality" rendering farm!

If Consciousness scales up from the Quantum scale, which logically makes sense as everything in our existence scales up from the quantum scale; how does strange physics and spooky action from a distance affect consciousness? Could quantum bi-loction and entanglement explain out-of-body experiences and remote viewing? Could backwards causality already be effectively used by our neurology? Could this explain precognitive dreams and premonitions?

Look at your own experiences with Deja Vu. Have you ever had deja vu where you linked the memory to something you dreamed? If the answer is yes, then this is called deja reve which leads deeper into something called precognitive dreams.

Which brings us to the point of this thread. The Origins of Reality as being based on Thought and Consciousness and not Matter. By examining your own self, not what I am writing per say, how much of your deja vu is actually deja reve?

How can a dream in say March 12, 2010 actualize and come true in April 4, 2010? I know there are those of you reading this post who have had this type of non-linear perception through dreaming. It is not an uncommon phenomena, rather more of a taboo in our materialistic and paranormal-bias society. Those arguments do not change the fact people have these experiences, that you can have them.

Abe Lincoln dreamed of his death. Mark Twain dreamed of the death of his brother in striking detail down to the coffin, where it was located and even the flowers that adorned it weeks before his brother Henry died on a river-boat. Our historical record is full of these anecdotal cases, which if you do have precognition should give you some comfort that it has been talked about since the written record. Aristotle in 350 BCE debated it in his paper, "On Prophesying in Dreams"

Skeptics debate the reality of such phenomena with bias arguments that are, and always will be just arguments. Arguments simply debate around the issue stating it is not in fact what it is. A simple means to and end for the sake of ego and lack of awareness in this matters. Since 1888, scientists and researchers have documented, logged and accumulated evidence showing precognitive dreams do exist. However because the non-linear context of such experience is difficult to localize and measure the research is always disregarded as anecdotal and irrelevant. This is also known as Paranormal-Bias, even though such phenomena exists measurable within the quantum world. These facts are ignored when applied to how everything scales up from quantum scale including consciousness.

Why such a staunch push to disregard consciousness as having an relationship to "Reality"? Why wage a war on Idealism because of materialistic belief-systems? The Observer Effect and Measurement Problem show that the Observer collapses Wave-Function and resolves the issue of particle/wave duality. Without the observer, there is only wave-function. This is quantum fact. The observer and the observed are entangled. If we are to believe we all came from a singularity, then the entire scale of our Universe is entangled.

The reality is, consciousness is a part of "Reality" and every living system; potentially even particles possess it. (Photons and Electrons create what is called a Quantum Diepole which creates a field that produces a feed-back loop. This simple loop could be the very tinest "bit" of awareness that scales up when photons are organized holographically by the holographic defractors within the tubulin lattice in the neuron).

Precognitive Dreams show that the "Arrow of Time" does not apply to consciousness and in fact, gives us a broader insight into the nature of "Reality" and the relationship between what is dreamed, what is actualized and "who" dreams it.

It is this angle, this vantage point that I come from which gives me a strong authority on how dreams and reality, much like particle/wave duality also exist in two distinct states. The Dream preceeds the future event resolving a long standing debate called the Causality Dilema. In the case of what came first, the dream or the future event. It is obvious the dream came first.

How does a dream convey a future event in literal detail? How did Abe Lincoln dream his death? How did Mark Twain dream of his brother's death? How have you dreamed a future event? The answers lie in the dream itself, and the relationship to "Reality".

Dreams are organized thoughts. Consciousness and awareness organize thoughts into these virtual reality simulations called dreams. A scaled up and astronomical consciousness organizes these thought-packets into a serialized chronological probability field that then later must collapse from probability into actuality when it is time for the observer to realize the dream/reality dualism.

Why it works this way, is because there is no matter, only organized thought and consciousness that creates a non-verbal language of thought-forms and symbols that we have come to call Physical Reality. The reason for this is the effective way consciousness has constructed the equivalency of a "Virtual Reality" where thought adheres to a desired rule-set and operates on an intelligently designed program like a scaled up MMORPG so that consciousness (which has existed forever) can escape the eternal boredom and evolve newer and more interesting thought-based systems by which to experience itself.

You, me and everything is part of this Unified Field of Consciousness, or Carl Jung's Collective Unconscious. The "Virtual Reality" that we now exist in, is a very scaled up version of a dream that lasts a lifetime. It adheres to a strict rule-set by which to give us a sense of "Mortality" although all of us are eternally bound by existence as part of this eternal consciousness of which we are all One with.

This One Consciousness has evolved through organized thoughts and repeat processes "Many" dream-worlds and systems like the Earth Life Experience. We have helped evolve these systems by our participation as characters in a cosmic story that is both the programmer and player of a never-ending cycle of existence.

So get used to it... your dip into mortality will be reprieved when you wake up and remember your Origins of Self. Until then, enjoy this Physical Illusion up until you are able to remember the underlying conscious reality that props up the stage. May the dreamer awaken.

reply to post by YouAreDreaming


Yes and no.

While our experiences of reality are subjective (wouldn't they be, we would have no disagreements and different opinions), there is objective reality as well. Our existence defines our reality; which means that certain physical characteristic of our beings sets the framework or the context in which we act. Our experienced reality is the reality where we live in. We cannot walk past the walls as if they doesn't exist - we may not be aware of the wall, but we still cannot go through it. But some other things can pass the wall as if it wouldn't exist.

However, I argue that fundamentally there is (objective) reality which is equal for everyone and everything. That it is the existence itself. I can only tell about nature of existence through my experiences and my viewpoint, which makes my experience subjective.

So, while our thoughts and consciousness paints the picture we have about reality, this reality is nevertheless a reflection of the objective reality.

Yours is a good post and worth of reading

-v

That was one of the most awesome things I've read. It really makes people think but when I think of this kind of thing I can never figure anything out. How do you suppose we figure out our origins? I never could understand why people say that. Also the other thing I never understood is that we are usually based from one source of light, thought, etc. but what made the original source? I think my brain just imploded into another dimension reading your thread and writing a response lol.

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by YouAreDreaming

 

Yes and no.

While our experiences of reality are subjective (wouldn't they be, we would have no disagreements and different opinions), there is objective reality as well. Our existence defines our reality; which means that certain physical characteristic of our beings sets the framework or the context in which we act. Our experienced reality is the reality where we live in. We cannot walk past the walls as if they doesn't exist - we may not be aware of the wall, but we still cannot go through it. But some other things can pass the wall as if it wouldn't exist.

Yet to a neutrino, that wall, the earth and all matter may as well not exist. It simply passes on by merrily void of that objectivity. Now I am not saying there isn't an objective reality, I am actually acknowledging that Science hasn't actually proven that it is exactly what they claim it to be objectively. This stems from challenges in theories like string-theory, M-theory and the holographic principle.

For me, objective/subjective are a dualism of a greater system of "Reality". That all there is, is "Reality" and nothing else. It's how we come to understand what this bigger picture is. It is both a physical idea, and the underlying consciousness that props the ideas into a belief-system. However, there is no such thing as physical in a probabilistic field of wave-function. Everything is really just energy and information. More-so, organized thoughts forming the encoding for the "bit" that consciousness then renders into a perception of reality. That is where I steer from materialism into a strong knowing of idealism. Reality still exists either way, but the idealism is different for the sake of arguments.

Originally posted by v01i0
However, I argue that fundamentally there is (objective) reality which is equal for everyone and everything. That it is the existence itself. I can only tell about nature of existence through my experiences and my viewpoint, which makes my experience subjective.

There is nothing that can experience this system objectively. Everything that has a 3D time/space vector subjectively interprets information and models out a subjective rendering based on perception. It is that perception that gives an idea that there even is a reality to begin with. It's the subjective paradox and none-of-us are above it, perhaps until like a rain drop, we fall back into the ocean when our journey here is done.

Originally posted by v01i0
So, while our thoughts and consciousness paints the picture we have about reality, this reality is nevertheless a reflection of the objective reality.

Right, and what is that Objective Reality? Science has theories and not all of them can be proven, belief-systems are not often good substitutes for knowledge and understanding.

Originally posted by v01i0
Yours is a good post and worth of reading

-v

As is yours, thanks

Originally posted by RayTheWizardLiotta
That was one of the most awesome things I've read. It really makes people think but when I think of this kind of thing I can never figure anything out. How do you suppose we figure out our origins? I never could understand why people say that. Also the other thing I never understood is that we are usually based from one source of light, thought, etc. but what made the original source? I think my brain just imploded into another dimension reading your thread and writing a response lol.

The origins have long been abandoned in favor of experience. We are not our original self anymore, the pursuit of experience has evolved us into a much grander system then the initial ideas we first had. There is no question everything we are achieving accomplishes a form of evolution.

What makes it interesting is absolutism. When we look at time/space which in itself could just be the product of information processing within a virtual reality simulation, for anything to exist and take place; it has to have always existed.

A void begets a void, from emptiness arises emptiness. However in a Universe of substance, even if it is organized thought arranged by a system of consciousness (on a scale far in excess of human consciousness rather universal consciousness) all that exists is this fundamental awareness of the Universe. Everything that comes from it is nicely interconnected and integrated into many parts of the same whole.
My head always explodes when I think about it... more so when I experience it in action.

First of all, a quite exhaustive summary of the current published understanding of the issue of consciousness:

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming

Jeff Tolkassen produced evidence proving that the "Arrow of Time" can flow backwards in the case of photons with an experiment that is now called The Rochester experiment. This experiment has been reproduced a few times proving in quantum states a future event can affect a past state. This defies Sir Issac Newton's law of time that suggests time can only flow forward and in a serialized manner.

Reverse Speech Analysis, discovered by David John Oates, also clearly demonstrates that information can go backwards in time from the future to the present and conveys information from the 'unconscious', whereas the forward message of speech conveys the information of the 'thinker'.

If Consciousness scales up from the Quantum scale, which logically makes sense as everything in our existence scales up from the quantum scale; how does strange physics and spooky action from a distance affect consciousness? Could quantum bi-loction and entanglement explain out-of-body experiences and remote viewing? Could backwards causality already be effectively used by our neurology? Could this explain precognitive dreams and premonitions?

Many, if not all the 'problems' raised by the parapsychologists could be fairly easily resolved by the understanding that there is a third dimension of consciousness beyond the 3-dimensional 'curved' space consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker'; that dimension of consciousness being a 2-dimensional 'flat' space consciousness in which time, as such, does not exist. That is, information can be brought directly from the past into the present--as in the Revelation of teh Memory of Creation and the revelation of the memories of previous lives; and information can also be brought from the future into the present--as with Prophecies and predictions. In other words, the arrow of time continually goes in both directions simultaneously.

There's only one problem:

Those involved in writing what they refer to as a "science of consciousness" are concerned almost exclusively with the consciousness of the 'thinker'--that is, the consciousness in which the arrow of time goes ONLY in forward direction. Publications on the "science of consciousness" characteristically refuse to publish anything that seriously, rather than merely trivially, suggests a bi-directionality to the "arrow of time".

The reason for this is simple: Time going backwards threatens the very existence of the consciousness of the 'thinker' upon which the entire scientific method is based. In other words, what is at stake here is the entire scientific method itself as the most accurate paradigm for the description of reality;or, the best understanding of consciousness is not necessarily a science of consciousness at all.

You, me and everything is part of this Unified Field of Consciousness, or Carl Jung's Collective Unconscious.

Now, here is where you have introduced a very serious problem.

If "you", "me" and "everything" is "part" of this Unified Field of Consciousness, then "you" and "me" do not exist at all.

In other words, there is quite a difference between saying that a person can receive information from a third dimension of consciousness in which time does not exist and space is quite different than it is generally assumed to be; and, on the other hand, claiming that one IS that consciousness. As long as a person is alive, there is a consciousness of a "self" and a consciousness of a 'thinker'. The difficulty is in understanding that, 'prior' and 'behind' these dimensions of consciousness there is what the Buddhists refer to as a non-dualistic "observing consciousness".

This One Consciousness

Now there is another problem.

Do you actually 'think' that the consciousness of a man is in any way similar to the consciousness of a woman, and vice versa? Men and women have fundamentally different, but complementary, experiences of reality.

If you don't understand that, I suggest that indicates, well, a lack of information or experience of one kind or another; and too much of an emphasis on the merely theoretical.

On the whole, however, a very good effort; there being a number of issues that I was unable to address at this time, although I hope the conversation continues.

Mi cha el

What are your thoughts on the stuff David Icke says on how there are different frequencies and we are experiencing a certain frequency that creates what we experience. I saw this video where a sound frequency was able to create energy which got my imagination going on how maybe are universe uses sound as a source to create everything in it. Also what do you think happens to us when we die? Just curious as what you believe because I would like to hear your take as you seem more knowledgeable than anyone I know on this kind of stuff.

Nope, I'll disagree with you. We are most definitely living in a universe of matter and energy, as we have quite consistent evidence that both predate thoughts and consciousness and would continue to exist without the two.

Well, I don't know who you are addressing here, so I'll take a shot at it.

Originally posted by RayTheWizardLiotta What are your thoughts on the stuff David Icke says on how there are different frequencies and we are experiencing a certain frequency that creates what we experience.

I've heard the name, but I can't remember if I have ever read anything by him.

But I do agree that there are fundamental differences of energy frequencies between dimensions of consciousness. The consciousness of the "self" has a fundamental different energy, or phonetic tone, than either the consciousness of the 'thinker' or the "observing consciousness".

A physicist by the name of Rife determined that diseases each have their own specific energy or acoustic frequency and was capable of achieving healing by changing that frequency. I suggest that something similar is going on at the level of not merely biology; but, also, consciousness itself.

Also what do you think happens to us when we die?

Receiving memories of previous lives--rather than any intellectual argument--appears to answer that question definitively.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
First of all, a quite exhaustive summary of the current published understanding of the issue of consciousness:

There is always a need to start somewhere.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Those involved in writing what they refer to as a "science of consciousness" are concerned almost exclusively with the consciousness of the 'thinker'--that is, the consciousness in which the arrow of time goes ONLY in forward direction. Publications on the "science of consciousness" characteristically refuse to publish anything that seriously, rather than merely trivially, suggests a bi-directionality to the "arrow of time".

Which is unfortunate, as time is merely a product to facilitate a vector within an already existing field of information. The information exists but in order to serialize it, time must flow in one direction.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Now, here is where you have introduced a very serious problem.

If "you", "me" and "everything" is "part" of this Unified Field of Consciousness, then "you" and "me" do not exist at all.

I think you are jumping to a conclusion. We do exist, temporal and individualized yet still a part of a larger interconnected system. It's like saying, the atom is not me, yet it's a part of me and the cell is not me, but a part of me. Where "me" scales up in the system is relative to a group-consciousness within a fractal mosaic of self-awareness. The awareness of self is compartmentalized into our individuality but still a fractional node within a larger system of consciousness.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
In other words, there is quite a difference between saying that a person can receive information from a third dimension of consciousness in which time does not exist and space is quite different than it is generally assumed to be; and, on the other hand, claiming that one IS that consciousness. As long as a person is alive, there is a consciousness of a "self" and a consciousness of a 'thinker'. The difficulty is in understanding that, 'prior' and 'behind' these dimensions of consciousness there is what the Buddhists refer to as a non-dualistic "observing consciousness".

Yet, everything comes from that one consciousness. However, that "one" has long since evolved into many. This is representative in our cellular metaphor, how one becomes many. It is how through duplication and replication that many emerged from oneness. Will we ever return to this origin? That seems to be a long abandoned dream in favor of the now established ebb and flow of creative processes and reality generation by the now evolving system.

The electron is also akin to duplicity as when observed each electron appears identical to every other electron and has been theorized that due to entanglement and strange physics could be the only electron; or in virtual reality theory a class object that is the base class.

Originally posted by Michael CecilDo you actually 'think' that the consciousness of a man is in any way similar to the consciousness of a woman, and vice versa? Men and women have fundamentally different, but complementary, experiences of reality.

We should try to avoid calling consciousness the personalty that becomes a man or woman. In the case of this reality, and you probably have dreams that demonstrate this argument; you can experience in such dreams being someone other then who you are right now. Myself included, people have reported being animals, insects even inorganic material such as earth, water, clouds and other forms during a dream. During such a dream, they had no sense of who they were as a person; but had a sense of who they were as themselves.

The self takes on personality experiences as part of the role-play but the underlying self is always the same self. When we die, we shed this personality, and like a page in a book, we move on to the next page. Different page, but the underlying self is the same.

Having come from a previous life into this lifetime, I know all to well what it means to become someone else from something else. I have threads supporting my awareness of past-life and pre-life existence prior to coming to this current incarnation within the stage of life. Make no mistake, I know I existed prior to this lifetime and have known since my earliest child-hood memories. Did this mean it was easy to remember? No, but in remembering it created a very nice overview of many lifetimes both human and other which suggest I've gone the rounds throughout time/space as a participant in the Earth Life game.

My current self has seen the death and rebirth process enough to know there is a continuity of being between lifetimes. And not from the perspective of some book, rather from experience.

That said, understanding the self and what that is, is critical in understanding what Reality is. Lots of practitioners of consciousness or researchers of consciousness focus entirely on consciousness as being the caveat of existence when the self is in essence the true reality.

The self can be both conscious and unconscious, but consciousness cannot exist without the self. It is a fundamental part of the big picture.

Originally posted by Michael CecilOn the whole, however, a very good effort; there being a number of issues that I was unable to address at this time, although I hope the conversation continues.

Thanks Mi cha el

It is always nice to exchange ideas in forum.

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by YouAreDreaming

 

We cannot walk past the walls as if they doesn't exist - we may not be aware of the wall, but we still cannot go through it. But some other things can pass the wall as if it wouldn't exist.

Yet to a neutrino, that wall, the earth and all matter may as well not exist.

Yes, I was referring to such things as neutrinos.

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
For me, objective/subjective are a dualism of a greater system of "Reality". That all there is, is "Reality" and nothing else.

That is what I suspect also. Ultimately there is just one reality, only how we interpret (dream?) it may be different.

Maybe understanding the fact we all live in our distinct interpretations of existence is a step towards wisdom.

-v

Originally posted by RayTheWizardLiotta
What are your thoughts on the stuff David Icke says on how there are different frequencies and we are experiencing a certain frequency that creates what we experience. I saw this video where a sound frequency was able to create energy which got my imagination going on how maybe are universe uses sound as a source to create everything in it. Also what do you think happens to us when we die? Just curious as what you believe because I would like to hear your take as you seem more knowledgeable than anyone I know on this kind of stuff.

I've never read any of David's books however have seen videos and heard him talk about his ideas on radio. When we deal with any system, like sound, harmonics and frequencies... all the interactions of these systems are part of a well-defined set of rules. However, I have come to know all sound, light, vibration et al as thought-forms. A sophisticated programming language of the Universe so to speak.

I touch on that when discussion wave-function collapse and how the observer objectifies particle reality through measurement and to further embellish the idea, the rendering of perceived reality. We can take metaphors of computer, data and rendering to explain how matter and energy appear as these complete systems.

However, like any virtual reality we are simply addressing the final product of a rendered experience, so the matter/energy relationship is one of information processing and computation describing objects from ideas. We see matter and energy and define how they act based on our observations of the final product.

What we don't see is the underlying thoughts and intelligence that constructed the mechanics of reality in the first place to behave as such. This is not a randomly generated Universe we exist in; it appears to be, but there is intelligence underlying every detail as to how it looks/feels and functions.

Dreams share in this creative process as a reminder and demonstration of the power of organized thought, and how thought can form and create a vivid experience of reality. When we dream, we often do not think we are even dreaming. And while in the dream, we think the dream is reality. This shows simply how powerful our thoughts are. To break free of a dream; one must preform what is called a "Reality Check" to assert logic and reason that the dream is in fact a dream.

Scale such a dream astronomically into a full-scale Virtual Reality simulation like this one with a strictly define set of rules... how would you know if it was a dream or not? You are conditioned and programmed to believe that it is entirely something else. A physical world full of atoms and molecules. A world that obeys the laws of Thermal Dynamics... yet when you collapse into sleep, you forfeit one focus state for another focus state that now entertains an abstraction called dreaming.

When in the myriad of dreams that one has, you start to see a few come true. This underlying mechanic of virtual reality and organized thought starts to present itself. A crack in the matrix of materialism so to speak.

Now for the whole death problem. It's not as bad as you think. We existed before we became human and death really is just the end of what being human really means. Again, our belief-system suggests we live once, and we die and that is it. However, the fact is we have always existed, and thanks to how we compartmentalize ourself within this massive system or reality, we can shut-down and lock-out prior memories and past-life memories.

What we cannot do, is forever abandon them because they like everything else, are a part of us and who we are as a being. However, in knowing all of them, it could interfere with the current life experience removing certain meaning from the experience.

We are a consciousness experiencing what it is to be human, not a human experiencing what it is to be conscious.

The good news, death is a new beginning and there is no end... at least not one that I can see.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Nope, I'll disagree with you. We are most definitely living in a universe of matter and energy, as we have quite consistent evidence that both predate thoughts and consciousness and would continue to exist without the two.

Yes, matter and energy exist. We measure thought and consciousness by the value of a human life; and not much beyond it. Again, science will only know what it can measure. When it cannot measure, it will deny. That is the nature of critical thinking.

Matter and energy also exhibit information. From the perspective of human cognition, it is the information that we interpret that gives us our perception of matter and energy. The information that matter and energy represents may very well be product of information processing, or virtual reality.

A matrix where we exist in a computer simulation. These ideas are entertained by digital physicists and have mathematical proofs that suggest virtual reality is a stronger and more valid theory then say, the big bang. The math supports it where it cannot support many of the contradictions with relativity and quantum mechanics. That is fact.

You could very well be existing in a virtual reality as an avatar and all the matter/energy is simply programmatic physics of a rule-set. It is a theory that becomes very hard to disprove when approached by the supporting theories around existing in a virtual reality. The argument gets very paradoxical.

Originally posted by v01i0
That is what I suspect also. Ultimately there is just one reality, only how we interpret (dream?) it may be different.

Maybe understanding the fact we all live in our distinct interpretations of existence is a step towards wisdom.

-v

I agree whole-heartidly. What I have come to understand is we exist in a mis-informed state and adopt powerful belief-systems where at times we must think past the current paradigms. The gift is, we exist. It is how we exist and what we do with existence that becomes our plight.

From what I have experienced, there is a great opportunity with existence to do great things. I do believe I am striving to do just that, at least that is my intention.

One of the gifts I enjoy is being able to see far beyond the physical belief-system and see a larger more robust reality system that suggests an infinite Universe of possibility and wonders. Much more satisfactory then the horrific fears of nihilistic materialism.

reply to post by YouAreDreaming


There's actually a webcomic that recently dealt with the subject of this...

Ideally, a virtual simulation would have the simplest rules of physics possible to sustain a realistic world. A world where the unnecessary laws of physics are trimmed away.

We live in a universe that actually has unnecessary bits and pieces in physics. The weak force is one of the fundamental forces of the universe and is something that the universe could easily exist without.

Why would a simulation of reality include laws of physics that are unnecessary to the simulation?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by YouAreDreaming

 

There's actually a webcomic that recently dealt with the subject of this...

Ideally, a virtual simulation would have the simplest rules of physics possible to sustain a realistic world. A world where the unnecessary laws of physics are trimmed away.

We live in a universe that actually has unnecessary bits and pieces in physics. The weak force is one of the fundamental forces of the universe and is something that the universe could easily exist without.

Why would a simulation of reality include laws of physics that are unnecessary to the simulation?

Is this argument not making a big assumption? If an intelligence ( namely you/me/everyone ) agreed to organize a reality to participate in (suggesting we have such ability pre-human ) so we design and build out the system; then lock-n-load into our character and play out the intended experience.

Then all the laws, physics and assumptions were quite genuinely part of the intended virtual reality simulation. Arguments for a designer universe comes in the form of how it entertains us.

Think about all the stimulation we get when we are here that simply don't fit within a randomly generated atomic world. The Big-Bang Universe is a violent one, full of explosive energy, plasma and extremes; yet despite these extremes life magically just springs up, has intelligence and self-awarenes with deep introspective awareness and a list of quirks, habits and needs.

The world which should cater to what exists most... matter and energy actually caters to life and invokes our sense of beauty, sense of wonderment. We as humans experience joy, happiness and love. All of which are chemically reduced to primal impulses in the body; yet flowers smell wonderful and look beautiful; yet a stinkhorn mushroom contrasts the beauty with foul smells. We seek entertainment in our food to make it taste good and create art and all sorts of things in this world just fit the creative and artistic demands of our existence.

This physical system doesn't require any of that to just be matter and energy... so why does it exist as it does?

The world literally shapes itself into an array of experiences across a broad spectrum that for the most part can simply be what one would expect from a world that some intelligent and creative game programmer would ... program.

It all becomes paradoxical as I said, it's the nature of Reality to be both physical and idealistic, we exist in dualism in it's entirety. Where you look at the material sciences for all the answers (which in turn become more theories and ideas) I look past that into the more introspective and cognitive realms of dreams, non-linear cognition and alternative systems of reality found in lucid dreaming, or out-of-body experiences; all very real to me. Yet probably totally improbable to you. The Subjective Paradox 101.

The good news is, there is more then just physical matter reality and I find that to be quite fantastic.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Nope, I'll disagree with you. We are most definitely living in a universe of matter and energy, as we have quite consistent evidence that both predate thoughts and consciousness and would continue to exist without the two.

mmm.. could you share some of this evidence with me plz..
How my reality is:... everything it conscience energy.. All other energies are derived from this. We defne are create aqnd co-create this reality around us. All of it. Even the solid wall i belief i cannot walk through. Science is a magic and scientist a shaman. Creating this reality as we move through. The science we use today would not have worked a few hundred years ago. The rock on the ground that you pick up and breaks creates a pattern that never existed before the rock was broken open.
You dont need any science to know this stuff.. Science lets you down, It has an achiles heal and that is the only thing you truly know that exists is your sense of self. Your conscience and the only thing that we can observe and science cannot prove to exist is you conscience.
So trust your experience above all else its all you have..
and this world is nothing but your magic
and this universe nothing but your mirror...x

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
First of all, a quite exhaustive summary of the current published understanding of the issue of consciousness:

There is always a need to start somewhere.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Those involved in writing what they refer to as a "science of consciousness" are concerned almost exclusively with the consciousness of the 'thinker'--that is, the consciousness in which the arrow of time goes ONLY in forward direction. Publications on the "science of consciousness" characteristically refuse to publish anything that seriously, rather than merely trivially, suggests a bi-directionality to the "arrow of time".

Which is unfortunate, as time is merely a product to facilitate a vector within an already existing field of information. The information exists but in order to serialize it, time must flow in one direction.

Unfortunately, it is much more serious than this. The "scientists of consciousness", just like the theologians, are preserving their turf through censorship of opposing research. This is what happens when what is at stake is an entire paradigm.

For any official journal of consciousness studies to publish a discussion at length of the reality of a third dimension of consciousness would be like expecting a journal on the Ptolemaic description of the universe accepting for publication the observations of Copernicus or Galileo. Ain't gonna happen.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Now, here is where you have introduced a very serious problem.

If "you", "me" and "everything" is "part" of this Unified Field of Consciousness, then "you" and "me" do not exist at all.

I think you are jumping to a conclusion. We do exist, temporal and individualized yet still a part of a larger interconnected system. It's like saying, the atom is not me, yet it's a part of me and the cell is not me, but a part of me. Where "me" scales up in the system is relative to a group-consciousness within a fractal mosaic of self-awareness. The awareness of self is compartmentalized into our individuality but still a fractional node within a larger system of consciousness.

At the level of thought alone, I would probably agree with these thoughts. In fact, a few years ago I may very well have written something more or less identical to what you say here. But what you are attempting to do is bridge the dimensions of consciousness by the thoughts of the 'thinker'. Are those thoughts accurate? Well, as far as they go. But they really don't have any direct relationship to the reality of the incommensurability of those three dimensions of consciousness. In other words, those differences cannot be 'finnesed' by thought. All of this is an attempt to enthrone the consciousness of the 'thinker' as some kind of 'inertial frame of reference' for the 'objective' and scientific description of the physical reality. But it isn't. Everything that it observes and understands occurs within a very narrow dimension of consciousness completely dissimilar to psychosis (which is the negative aspect of the consciousness of the "self") as well as the "observing consciousness", which is a completely different dimension altogether.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
In other words, there is quite a difference between saying that a person can receive information from a third dimension of consciousness in which time does not exist and space is quite different than it is generally assumed to be; and, on the other hand, claiming that one IS that consciousness. As long as a person is alive, there is a consciousness of a "self" and a consciousness of a 'thinker'. The difficulty is in understanding that, 'prior' and 'behind' these dimensions of consciousness there is what the Buddhists refer to as a non-dualistic "observing consciousness".

Yet, everything comes from that one consciousness.

Well, if what you mean by "comes from" is that the 3-dimensional 'curved' space consciousness "comes from" the 2-dimensional 'flat' space consciousness by means of the 'movement' of self-reflection, I would agree. But, once that differentiation occurs, time cannot simply be set in reverse to a 'time' of the de-differentiation of the 3 dimensions of consciousness. The egg cannot be unboiled.

However, that "one" has long since evolved into many. This is representative in our cellular metaphor, how one becomes many. It is how through duplication and replication that many emerged from oneness. Will we ever return to this origin?

Well, this is, in fact, what happens with the Revelation of the Memory of Creation (Genesis 2:7), of which there is something similar in Buddhism.

That seems to be a long abandoned dream in favor of the now established ebb and flow of creative processes and reality generation by the now evolving system.

Well, of course. That is what the published research says because anyone who says anything different cannot be published. It is too threatening to the paradigm based upon the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

Originally posted by Michael CecilDo you actually 'think' that the consciousness of a man is in any way similar to the consciousness of a woman, and vice versa? Men and women have fundamentally different, but complementary, experiences of reality.

We should try to avoid calling consciousness the personalty that becomes a man or woman.

You can't simply use the term "consciousness" willy-nilly without saying what kind of consciousness you are talking about. There is a consciousness of a "self" which exists as a 'space' of consciouness--that 'space' is, of course, identical in men and women--but all other aspects of that "self" are fundamentally different in men and women as a result of hormones, physiology, anatomy etc. etc. But all of that is still of the "self".

The self takes on personality experiences as part of the role-play but the underlying self is always the same self. When we die, we shed this personality, and like a page in a book, we move on to the next page. Different page, but the underlying self is the same.

Your language is simply not precise enough for my taste. A "self" has certain experiences about the time in which it lives, certain sensations and perceptions, certain emotional responses to different experiences; all of these things comprise a "self". It is simply not possible for the "self" that lived a life several hundreds of years ago to be the same "self" that lives today. The spatiality of the consciousness is the same, but every other experience is an experience of a "self" which must necessarily be different. In any case, the assertion that the "self" is the same is a thought by a 'thinker' attempting to bridge the distance between those dimensions of consciousness.

Having come from a previous life into this lifetime, I know all to well what it means to become someone else from something else.

I got no problem with this at all, having had similar experiences. But, out of those experiences, I have understood that only the 'space' in which the consciousness of that previous "self" existed is the same. The "self" that I am in this life is in too many ways to count, completely different than those previous "selves".

My current self has seen the death and rebirth process enough to know there is a continuity of being between lifetimes. And not from the perspective of some book, rather from experience.

Well, of course. But it is still up to the consciousness of the 'thinker' to establish or describe what "that continiuity of being" really consists of; which becomes a problem because the assertion of temporal continuity is the very structure of the consciousness of the 'thinker' in the first place. So, obviously, it is going to "observe" precisely what it is required to observe to preserve its own existence.

That said, understanding the self and what that is, is critical in understanding what Reality is. Lots of practitioners of consciousness or researchers of consciousness focus entirely on consciousness as being the caveat of existence when the self is in essence the true reality.

OK. Good. A point we can investigate further.

Yes, it is crucial to understand the "self" and from where the "self" originates.

What do you say?

Where does the "self" originate?

And how is that determined?

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Unfortunately, it is much more serious than this. The "scientists of consciousness", just like the theologians, are preserving their turf through censorship of opposing research. This is what happens when what is at stake is an entire paradigm.

For any official journal of consciousness studies to publish a discussion at length of the reality of a third dimension of consciousness would be like expecting a journal on the Ptolemaic description of the universe accepting for publication the observations of Copernicus or Galileo. Ain't gonna happen.

You sum it up as it is. There is a fear of shifting the paradigm because what so many have believed to be so true, is actually quite false and incompatible with the true nature of Reality. The other problem is humans do indeed exhibit an intellectual ego that can get in the way creating a mis-informed bias.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
At the level of thought alone, I would probably agree with these thoughts. In fact, a few years ago I may very well have written something more or less identical to what you say here. But what you are attempting to do is bridge the dimensions of consciousness by the thoughts of the 'thinker'. Are those thoughts accurate? Well, as far as they go. But they really don't have any direct relationship to the reality of the incommensurability of those three dimensions of consciousness. In other words, those differences cannot be 'finnesed' by thought. All of this is an attempt to enthrone the consciousness of the 'thinker' as some kind of 'inertial frame of reference' for the 'objective' and scientific description of the physical reality. But it isn't. Everything that it observes and understands occurs within a very narrow dimension of consciousness completely dissimilar to psychosis (which is the negative aspect of the consciousness of the "self") as well as the "observing consciousness", which is a completely different dimension altogether.

I do agree that our "consciousness" is not just bound into the 3rd dimension of time/space, and it is important for us to realize that this is a non-linear, non-locality which in effect could be a singularity or a "point" of reference for the self. We have different locals by which we operate as consciousness and we do indeed project from a non-physical reality into this one.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Well, if what you mean by "comes from" is that the 3-dimensional 'curved' space consciousness "comes from" the 2-dimensional 'flat' space consciousness by means of the 'movement' of self-reflection, I would agree. But, once that differentiation occurs, time cannot simply be set in reverse to a 'time' of the de-differentiation of the 3 dimensions of consciousness. The egg cannot be unboiled.

No the egg may not be unboiled, but that doesn't mean a system like Earth and human experience doesn't exist in an all encompassing probability field that has trillions and trillions of probability iterations allowing for the self to slip into and out of experiences independent of time/space chronological order.

This also creates the sense of pre-determination because this reality system was so intimately detailed and planned out for the purpose that it serves us. In the scale of something that always exists and is absolute, we cannot begging to set what it must be like to exist beyond time/space, a concept that is not observable from within this focus state. However exists for what is an absolute.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Well, this is, in fact, what happens with the Revelation of the Memory of Creation (Genesis 2:7), of which there is something similar in Buddhism.

In how I see it, if we have a beginning it was nothing more then a sea of self that over time evolved into more complex patterns of self creating a multiplicity as a result of this evolution.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
You can't simply use the term "consciousness" willy-nilly without saying what kind of consciousness you are talking about. There is a consciousness of a "self" which exists as a 'space' of consciouness--that 'space' is, of course, identical in men and women--but all other aspects of that "self" are fundamentally different in men and women as a result of hormones, physiology, anatomy etc. etc. But all of that is still of the "self".

This stumbling block in our discussion is also due to how we both have a subjective interpretation of language where certain verbal symbols have different meaning potentially in how we perceive the verbal exchange. I agree that we cannot use consciousness willy-nilly; as consciousness really is just self-awarness or an awareness of self. It is not what the self is at all. Just what the self uses to realize itself in terms of existence.

When I say the glove changes hands for the self between lifetimes, this doesn't mean the self doesn't grow and evolve from such experiences, however the underlying self will simply still be "you". That is what stays relative in all of this. Hopefully that provides clarification.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

That said, understanding the self and what that is, is critical in understanding what Reality is. Lots of practitioners of consciousness or researchers of consciousness focus entirely on consciousness as being the caveat of existence when the self is in essence the true reality.

OK. Good. A point we can investigate further.

Yes, it is crucial to understand the "self" and from where the "self" originates.

What do you say?

Where does the "self" originate?

And how is that determined?

Mi cha el

edit on 18-11-2010 by Michael Cecil because: clarification

There is no question, the understanding of the self is a core fundamental requirement of understanding everything as it is the root of all existence.

As for it's origins, it certainly is not this physical objective universe; this is merely a stage that the self has propped up for the purpose of experiences. Yet I can only conclude that it is effectively everything and anything that has or will ever exist.

It seems to be without beginning or end and due to the astronomical scale I can only speculate and theorize as to how it came to be as one of chance; it either could have existed or could not. Considering that we do in fact exist; chance was in favour of the self.

Words like eternal, unending, absolute, infinite, improbable, dreamer, thinker, architect, god, reality, existence all seem to help describe something so insurmountably huge as the self.

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

That said, understanding the self and what that is, is critical in understanding what Reality is. Lots of practitioners of consciousness or researchers of consciousness focus entirely on consciousness as being the caveat of existence when the self is in essence the true reality.

OK. Good. A point we can investigate further.

Yes, it is crucial to understand the "self" and from where the "self" originates.

What do you say?

Where does the "self" originate?

And how is that determined?

Mi cha el

edit on 18-11-2010 by Michael Cecil because: clarification

There is no question, the understanding of the self is a core fundamental requirement of understanding everything as it is the root of all existence. As for it's origins, it certainly is not this physical objective universe; this is merely a stage that the self has propped up for the purpose of experiences. Yet I can only conclude that it is effectively everything and anything that has or will ever exist.

Well, now we are getting into some quite serious disagreements. Which is good. At least it clarifies things.

All of your above statements consist of thoughts of a 'thinker'--in other words, they pre-suppose the existence of the consciousness of the 'thinker' itself. But the subject at issue here is the consciousness of the "self"; something which existed prior to the consciousness of the 'thinker'. What we are attempting to do is determine the origin of a consciousness which existed even before there was any such thing as a consciousness of the 'thinker' at all.

To expect the consciousness of the 'thinker' to have anything of relevance to say about this subject would be like asking someone to be an eyewitness to a murder who did not arrive at the scene of the murder until an hour after it had been committed. That person can explain the effects of the murder, but he or she cannot claim to have actually witnessed the murder. Or it would be like the claim that you witnessed your mother being born. In other words, the consciousness of the 'thinker' cannot go backwards in time to claim a knowledge of something which existed before it even existed. That is, the consciousness of the 'thinker' depends upon time going only in a forward direction.

It seems to be without beginning or end and due to the astronomical scale I can only speculate and theorize as to how it came to be as one of chance; it either could have existed or could not. Considering that we do in fact exist; chance was in favour of the self.

All of this, too, is nothing more than thought. You are describing the way the dead body is positioned on the side-walk but you did not witness the murder.

Of course the "self" has a beginning. Prior to the 'movement' of reflection or self-reflection, there is no awareness of anything at all. After the 'movement' of self-reflection the "self"is aware of its own existence as a "self". And it is at this point that it can be recognized that time goes both forwards and backwards simultaneously. That is, the 'movement' of reflection creates the "self" which then performs the 'movement' of self-reflection which then reflects upon itself thereby creating itself to perform the 'movement' of self-reflection itself, etc. etc. etc.

But, because the "self" has a beginning, it also has an end. The "self" ends whenever a person becomes completely immersed in any experience--to the loss of self-awareness. It is only upon reflection that the totality of experience/experiencer is actually differentiated into an experience and an experiencer of that experience.

Now, with regards to your assertion that the "self" is "effectively anthing and everything that ever has or will exist", all of that is thought in an effort to maintain the temporal continuity of the 'thinker'. Nothing more than thought inflation.

When your nervous system reflexes with the 'movement' of self-reflection--this is something over which there can be no conscious control--that reflex creates a 'space' of consciousness within which your "self" exists. Within that 'space' there is a "self" which has had certain childhood experiences, certain sensations and perceptions, pleasures and pains, joys and sorrows which pertain only to that particular nervous system. In other words, it is very sharply localized to your nervous system rather than mine or anyone else's. I am talking a grinding reality here; that my "self" is over here, your "self" is over there and there is no intersection between even these two "selves"; much less millions and billions upon billions of other "selves".

To the consciousness of the 'thinker', of course, none of this is particularly pleasurable. It would much rather hold to the thought that the "self" has always existed and always will exist.

Words like eternal, unending, absolute, infinite, improbable, dreamer, thinker, architect, god, reality, existence all seem to help describe something so insurmountably huge as the self.

But all of this is nothing more than the annihilation of the meaning of all words in the service of doing nothing more than preserving the consciousness of the "self".

Words are crucially important here. Rather than "eternal" or "infinite", my term would be non-temporal. And the concept of a 2-dimensional 'flat' space does, in fact, have support in certain areas of "science fiction physics".

Mi cha el