The Truth Concerning What Humans Worship As God

Ugh...I'm not going to lie. I skipped 5...7...maybe 12 pages or so. Take it for what it is...as I am a simpleton...But what I think you are attempting to tell me is this....when I die, my brain will create a celestial "warmness" to let me better deal with my mortality?

If I skipped over the "cliff notes", I apologize. I just didn't have the energy to read 19 pages

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


Due.

Just trying to help.

A stunning collection of useless self-defeating logic. And I thought I was a neurotic over analyst
Have a good day.

Originally posted by NorEaster
If what we know of existence was initiated by an intelligent mind, then that mind does not, and cannot, physically exists within the confines of that which it initiated.

It cannot be fully within the space he created, but a cross section of him can and that cross section within the 3d space we live in looks similar to us.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Therefore, the wondrous light that awaits the faithful, with love and acceptance, is not the One who may or may not have willed us into existence.

I don't agree, because this can be his image in a different space then we are now in.

Another theory:
The following ignores time. If God is a 6 dimensional being with total power over the lower 5 dimensions (to him a canvas on a finite 5 dimensional wall in his space), let then the angels/demons/spirits be 5 dimensional creatures with lesser powers. And within 4 dimensional space are created at least 4 distinct 3d worlds with transitional space between them: heaven, hell, purgatory and the universe.
Possibly I need to juggle a bit with the dimensions, because I'm not happy how the soul fits in here.

I sure would like to hear how the OP would fit free will into all of this.

It's not about lost translation, delusions or misinterpretations within the Information Continuum.

We CHOOSE what we want to know even when we have all of the information laid out in front of us.

If it wasn't a matter of choice, we wouldn't keep making the same mistakes over and over again as individuals or as a people. We just keep hoping that when we put ourselves in the same bad situations over and over that we'll experience a different outcome. We know what we should do and we choose not to do it anyway based on our own selfish wants.

Same with God. We choose to believe or we don't based on our own free will, wants and desires.

Do we really perceive information differently? Or do we just choose, seek out and twist information enough to make it fit within what we want to believe based on selfishness, pride and ego? I bet the latter happens more than the former.

Originally posted by Buford2
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

What is your thoughts on the ringing of the ears? You said the sound comes from the mind and I agree since it is what creates our world.

What do you think is causing this ringing? Energy being released?

Peace to you.

Frequencies coming from the planet, being picked up by your pineal gland, your enternal antenna.

It is kNot tinnitus for that's a constant ringing. The ringing peeps are currently expeiencing comes and goes and sometimes is so loud, you can't even think straight.

I also believe each of us pick up on different frequencies so while one person's 'ears' may be deafening, another may kNot hear it but the following day, it can be the other way around.

Each and every one of us are walking antennas and we each pick up on different signals but the majority of the signals we are picking up are coming from the earth, kNot from HAARP or a satellite beaming the message to us or even a spaceship.

What the signals mean, I haven't a clue but when my 'ears' are singing loudly, I pay closer attention to what's goin on around me but I still haven't figured out the purpose behind it. I can postulate possibilities but I'd rather kNot.

Ribbit

Isn't infinite beingness right here now?

What's with all the layers and structuring?

Originally posted by NorEaster

yes, I've lost my concern for Toad and his fun with werds and such.

You just made my day and my Xmas List.

You sir are a Scrooge and I sir, your Ghost of Christmas's to come.

Now you'll never get rid of me.

Ribbit

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

Due.

Just trying to help.

I'm always due to do the dew!

That's a toad for ya!

Ribbit

reply to post by NewAgeMan

What's with all the layers and structuring?

Standard Western emanationism stemming from Plato's telling of Socrates' Allegory of The Cave which can be found in The Republic, by Plato.

www.gutenberg.org...

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Rant aside I agree with the idea that "a unit of causation" (I'll refer to it as a "causon") is capable of generating a self compounding and complexifying emergent structure. What you skip however in your book is *how* this happens. You should probably read something like Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science," to provide a more rigorous model using something like rule-110 to back up your assertion that something like this is even possible. Actually, in general, you should probably attempt to reference other works. Your complete lack of a bibliography probably explains why your work is largely ignored. Working in complete isolation means you reinvent ideas and terminology that others have already worked out and explored.

The truth is that 90% of that book (and apparently the only stuff you noticed) is quick background overview to prove that I've done the work required to reach forward to make the actual claim that is the point of the damn thing. It's pretty funny that you can get all swamped with the minutia without even noticing the point of it all. Fact is that I don't claim to have discovered causation, or basic logic, or any of what seems to be driving you to distraction. It's background for the reader, and nothing more. The claim involves debunking the foolishness that particle physicists have been wasting their time with, the idiocy that spiritualists have been wasting all our time with, and the fact that if we keep working with the basics that traditional science, theology and philosophy have provided, we'll never do any more than strand ourselves within this blind alley that I work hard to ignore as I do what I can to be intelligible.

As for your idea about the "The Epitome Circumstantial" or TEC. I completely disagree with this part. You completely anthropomorphize atomic inert aspects of reality. For example on page 119, "The [causons] only hope for permanent existence is to create its own version of permanent concrete existence that will -- like each matrix organizational whole since the dawn of [causal] existence itself -- enables the identity of all the [causal] units that gathered to create it survive beyond the instant. This genius of sheer will to exist, that eventually resulted in the amazing elemental complexities that we find in even the most basic building blocks of physical mass, inevitably drives the [causon] to a point where a true and conscious capacity for information generation -- achieved by an organized matrix structure of causal trajectory -- becomes a fact of reality." The fact is there is no "will" in atomic or high energy particles. They're not fighting for survival. They merely exist and react with one another.

I know that they aren't "fighting for survival". Seriously. You aren't accomplishing anything by misunderstanding the effort I'm engaged in. The book itself thumbnails basic premises in service of placing the primary assertions within a tangible context. You seem to be struggling with delineating the signature items from the supporting presentation structure.

The emergence of the TEC is basically the same thing as saying the emergence of self-directed consciousness (albeit primitive).

That's actually not even close to what TEC is. Seriously. If you have actually read the book, you didn't understand it. I'm sorry, but your attempts to define what I present in that book are failing miserably. Hell, you haven't even dealt with the real point of why I wrote the book, and it's not as if that one primary assertion is vague or inconsequential.

While, yes, this happened, your book doesn't really provide any insights as to how or why or when this occurred and under what circumstances. A lot of what's in the book is just new phrases to redefine old concepts. It would be a lot better if you attempted to try to use a computational terminology like operator (Circumstantial) and operand (Concrete) since you're trying to present larger truths in terms of what you ultimately see deriving from a logical structure.

Okay, so you just proved to me that you've done nothing but skim the Amazon "Look Inside This Book" feature. You have no idea what that book is actually about, do you? Go back and try again. You got lost in the small inconsequential stuff. The big stuff never even caught your brief attention.

Originally posted by Deetermined
I sure would like to hear how the OP would fit free will into all of this.

It's not about lost translation, delusions or misinterpretations within the Information Continuum.

We CHOOSE what we want to know even when we have all of the information laid out in front of us.

If it wasn't a matter of choice, we wouldn't keep making the same mistakes over and over again as individuals or as a people. We just keep hoping that when we put ourselves in the same bad situations over and over that we'll experience a different outcome. We know what we should do and we choose not to do it anyway based on our own selfish wants.

Same with God. We choose to believe or we don't based on our own free will, wants and desires.

Do we really perceive information differently? Or do we just choose, seek out and twist information enough to make it fit within what we want to believe based on selfishness, pride and ego? I bet the latter happens more than the former.

edit on 27-10-2011 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)

Human intellect is the only existent anything that is capable of complete subjectivity. Period. The effort to develop the inimitable identity of each human being (being the intellect collective that each human being is) is the same survival effort that every existential development is - in one manner or another - engaged in. What you describe is the literal 2nd stage gestation of the human being. Yes, that sounds cryptic, but it takes a hell of a lot to adequately detail the specifics involved, let alone the mountains of information it takes to prove what I've just stated.

If you've been reading this thread, then you know that I've published what I believe is the entire explanation, and the proof required to successfully defend the whole theory. That's all I'm going to say about that, since it seems clear that battling over semantics and terminology on a mesageboard isn't a productive way to spend my time and energy. If you can't determine my point of view through what's readily available to you on this board (a ppst search will give you literally everything concerning human intellect and consciousness) then you're not really interested in learning what I think about that or anything else.

Originally posted by NorEaster
The claim involves debunking the foolishness that particle physicists have been wasting their time with, the idiocy that spiritualists have been wasting all our time with, and the fact that if we keep working with the basics that traditional science, theology and philosophy have provided, we'll never do any more than strand ourselves within this blind alley that I work hard to ignore as I do what I can to be intelligible.

You cannot ignore anything. For to ignore, is to close one's mind, which is what you've done.

You have to look at everything, then wade through all of it to find the truth.

I personally think science is made up of a bunch of educated fools but I constantly read what they have to say, then if it is right, I'll agree with it and if their conclusion isn't right, I figure out what is right but usually something that's said is right and it's useful.

Even an idiot can get something right but a fool will believe anything.

Ribbit

Originally posted by NorEaster

You would still be a unique entity, but you would not be the identified whole that you built if you could physically accept that information. Not anymore. You'd be a product of your life and the sudden direct influx of someone else's information. The issue wouldn't be the information, the issue would be the contextual composition of the information itself, and the logical clash that this composition would encounter when shoehorned into the contextual whole you've created of yourself. There are strict logical protocols involved when massing information, and while your brain was still alive, it configured your own inimitable translations of all data that you perceived. This translated information belongs to you, and carries your "identity signature" within itself, in much the same sense that each cell in your body carries your DNA signature. Identity is THE primordial survival imperative expression, and each bit of you (corporeal and informational) carries your unique identity signature. For the Post-corporeal Human, that signature is (my own term, of course) the Primary Expression. It is the literal contextual composition that defines you as unique among all other existential wholes, and it can't change once the corporeal brain has finished creating it.

If our souls are part of the part of the whole, then could one merely assume that the soul already possesses this knowledge and it is merely forgotten through the process of physical incarnation, in the same way the a single cell carries all the DNA information (as in your analogy) but only performs quite a narrow function when the body is viewed as a whole. Possessing knowledge and understanding it fully in terms (I think) of your Primary expression are two different things. Possibly through different incarnations both on the physical and other planes one progresses eventually to a full understanding and eventually when this is reached once again becomes ‘One’ again. This is how I believe non-corporeal entities can exist as separate from the whole.

I will have to re-read your posts before I gain a fuller understanding of what your view on God is, so if it appears I’ve missed something then it’s probably because I have. I get it to a point then I keep losing it again while looking up word in the dictionary

The Primary Expression is also why you won't ever return to live out another life as a corporeal human being. The injecting of contradictory identity into what already been established by way of the corporeal development process (a literal 2nd stage of human gestation) is simply not possible and only the unfettered subjective nature of human intellect is even capable of inventing such a notion. I have discovered why people believe in reincarnation, and why they believe that evidence exists to prove it, but it's a mistranslation of that evidence.

Going on from what I said above if we have the knowledge but not yet the understanding then I do not see issue with injecting a non-corporeal identity into an empty physical shell.

I also know that conscious awareness is a uniquely human property, and even the most epitomical intellectual expression - at its elemental core - is human regardless of the ultimate configuration. That spirit guide, if it can reason, is human, and since it is, it was corporeal at one point - regardless of what that means relative to its own specific situation

I more or less agree as a realise your definition of what is human is quite loose

Concerning my ability to write, I agree that it's a problem, and what's really odd is that my other work - I am a writer, and have finished 5 books - is very different than what comes out of my keyboard when I work on this subject

If this is the case then maybe I will buy your book then…..

At the very least you challenge my grammatical skills which do not get much of a work out in today’s world. And thanks a lot for your response. As I mentioned I pretty young to this whole metaphysics thing and it refreshing to have a different perspective on things. Much more challenging than trying to scavenge small logical scraps from the dinner plate of new-age bs which abounds across the internet.

One final question. How does your concept of the Information Continuum stack up against the Hindu concept of the Akashic Records?

reply to post by 1littlewolf

One final question. How does your concept of the Information Continuum stack up against the Hindu concept of the Akashic Records?

Interesting question. I wondered about that myself when I saw this tidbit by NewAgeMan

The Akashic Record is fully informed in eternity, and is made of information, and has therefore had plenty of time to become self aware.

Kinda made me think that the "Akashic Records" are symbolic of NorEaster's "God/Informational Continuum/Residual.

reply to post by Netties Hermit


Yeah I too noticed that but I had been thinking about it since i read the initial post. NE's Information Continuum and my understanding of the Akashic records (which is fairly limited) is that it itself is not self aware. The metaphor I would use is that it merely an all-encompassing database on everything that has,is (and will) ever happen, nothing more nothing less.

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by NorEaster
reply to post by Americanist

 

Duly noted. Not sure what you're suggesting, but I've noted it nonetheless. The brain is not the mind, even though the brain physically generates the unit bursts of intellect that gather as the mind. Beyond that basic statement, I have nothing to say in response to what you've posted here. It simply doesn't apply to the subject at hand.

en.wikipedia.org...

Dissociative identity disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis and describes a condition in which a person displays multiple distinct identities (known as alters or parts), each with its own pattern of perceiving and interacting with the environment.

The concern I'm having... Within your thoughts there's no clear indication as to how "this" came about. Your dynamics are scattered with nothing to contain vast consciousness via your limited perception. Again, you're grasping at straws. These ornate offerings are being held by a far greater system you have absolutely no concept of.

You're also highly suspect lacking physics.

edit on 27-10-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)

What I'm trying to respond to in this one thread is extremely limited bits of a conceptual whole that - when I tried to address it in the most efficient and carefully compacted manner I could manage - required 134,000+ words to present as a basic sketch. I could've easily expanded the effort into another 200,000 words without beating any part of it to death.

If you really think that I'm fully addressing anything here, then I hope that this one statement helps you to better understand how completely impossible that would be. Even if you bought the book, you could easily lose the primary gist of what he book seeks to prove, since 90% of it restates what's already been established as mundane and commonplace observations, but does so within a freshly presented contextual framework that - if you're not careful to notice it - can slide right past you, causing you to think that all I'm doing is regurgitating worked over premises.

The true focus of the premise - AutoGenesisism - is the relationship between humanity and the author of the reality confine that we all share. That, and the true physical nature of both - as well as how each came into physical existence. The rest of it is describing how it all dovetails with what we already know to be true, and what we've mistakenly assumed to be true - and how we came about believing what many of us believe about both humanity and the naturally emerging physical manifestation that many cultures have embraced as God, The All, The Universal Consciousness, and a wide range of similarly described supreme entities. The background stuff was extremely encapsulated, since - as I did state early in the book ..

I have decided to only focus on the drive from nothing to the epitome expression of both forms of physical existence, since the truth of scattered redundancy is obvious and not particularly interesting. The well-documented impact of natural selection and the divergence of individual existential expression are also fodder for other examinations, since neither does more than create nuance within the journey as a whole. Exception has never proven the rule, and it won't this time either.

Frankly, physics and deep examination into the minutia of reality bores the hell out of me, and isn't where my focus is centered. Neither is syntax or universally pleasing terminology choices. Some of the critiques I've encountered since releasing this information have been very helpful, but most of it has been little more than the same kind of insecure pettiness that I used to deal with when I was a professional guitar slinger getting ragged on by bedroom guitar heroes (who only play along with their stereos). Let's just say that I feel right at home here sometimes.

Try imagining that you spent 5 years trying to understand the revolutionary ideas that were pouring into your head, and struggling to understand why none of it related to anything that you'd ever bothered with beforehand. Stuff that you actually had to learn AFTER you'd written it out (yes, it was that odd). The imagine taking those 5 years to find anyone with anything remotely similar to the central premise, and failing to, imagine spending 3 more years to invent a three stage presentation structure that cuts the book you'll have to write from 600 pages to under 400. Then, imagine discovering impossible (for you to even imagine) information as you're writing the final draft. Then imagine people editing you, as they completely misunderstand what it is you've worked so hard to give to them.

I tried and did the best I could. One guy can only do what one guy can do.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Please repost the link to your book in your signature if you would, thanks.

I'm sorry, but board rules are very specific concerning that sort of thing. I can only give it out via direct private message. This place would turn into Ebay if that rule didn't exist.

Originally posted by Frater210
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Wow, glad I found this thread before it exploded.

NorEaster, thanks for this thread. I am actually doing the work, at present, to engage with you over this and I was actually dying for a thread wherein I might test my chops.

Nice work. I will cut to the chase. Didn't Plotinus already handle where you are going with your premise when he wrote this?

thriceholy.net...

I'll look into it, but if Plotinus didn't claim that the author of this reality confine initiated it as a form of procreation (obviously asexual) in order to satisfy the primordial Survival imperative expression Identity (as is the case with all that exists as dynamic and initiative) pushing its own identity core beyond the confines of its holon parameters via a suite of bi-gender survival expressions; including association, identity, symbiosis, isolation, and a full leveraging of the tenets of The Hierarchy of Kind, then no, Plotinus didn't already handle where I'm going with my premise.

It seems that the background proof-focused overview is causing people a lot of difficulty. There's an old say - "When you're up to your ass in alligators, the hardest part of it all is remembering that your initial concern was draining the swamp." In the book, I try very hard to keep the reader focused and refocused on the premise itself, and even drastically thumbnail the ancillary proof items in an attempt to not have that be the derailing information. Some people misunderstand that to be incompleteness or intellectual laziness on my part. It's not. It's a deliberate effort to prevent that ancillary (and already established) information from hijacking the focus of the book.

Your floor plan seems to eschew a continuous emanation from The One, and seems to suggest you would like to segregate the floors.

I smell the whiff of a microcosmic demiurgos in your description of how The Intellect sees its reflection and finds itself to be God.

You lost me.

This miraculous ability of the PHC to utilize its subjective creativity is exemplified in all of your posts. So you got that goin' for ya.

Thanks. I think....

Dude, don't go. I have been dying to have fun with this stuff with someone that is into it too. You're stuff rocks. I see it as post-post-modern cyber-punk neo-platonism at the moment. Change my mind if necessary.

Cyber-punk Neo-platonism.

I like that. I don't know what it means, but it sounds like a video game thing. I should Google some of this stuff so I know what the hell you're talking about.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Frater210
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Wow, glad I found this thread before it exploded.

NorEaster, thanks for this thread. I am actually doing the work, at present, to engage with you over this and I was actually dying for a thread wherein I might test my chops.

Nice work. I will cut to the chase. Didn't Plotinus already handle where you are going with your premise when he wrote this?

thriceholy.net...

I'll look into it, but if Plotinus didn't claim that the author of this reality confine initiated it as a form of procreation (obviously asexual) in order to satisfy the primordial Survival imperative expression Identity (as is the case with all that exists as dynamic and initiative) pushing its own identity core beyond the confines of its holon parameters via a suite of bi-gender survival expressions; including association, identity, symbiosis, isolation, and a full leveraging of the tenets of The Hierarchy of Kind, then no, Plotinus didn't already handle where I'm going with my premise.

Question for ya NE . . .

With the bold and underlined portion above, am I correct in surmizing that you are referring to the lifeforms on this planet being the asexual procreation of said Author of the Universe?

If that is the case, what if the lifeforms on this planet are kNot of the Author's creation/design?

What if the lifeforms on this planet are the creation/design of the True Children of said Author, which aren't any of the lifeforms on this planet, and this is nothing more than an experiment to prove postulations said Children cannot prove otherwise?

Your theory doesn't take that into account and if said possibility proves to be the case, your theory falls apart.

Ribbit