The Truth About Matter and the Material World

Originally posted by rwfresh

When people practice experiencing what is Real through meditation or quietness etc. that is great and can lead to absolutely amazing experiences of subjective objectivity beyond anything i can or will ever imagine.

Okay, that does it. "Subjective objectivity"? Yeah, right.

You're just goofing on the whole subject. I suspected this when you started tossing around the New Age cliches. That little spin around nonsequitor sealed it for me.

What is it with you guys? Do you enjoy making fun of philosophy and metaphysics? I mean, I can see the humor in it at times, and some of the zany sh*t that gets posted in this forum is pretty loaded with ballbust potential, but for Chrissakes, the concept that particle matter isn't solid, but is human perception of contextually isolated matrix configurations of orbital and linear trajectories of organized activity isn't goofball navel gazing bullsh*t. It's actually really well defended by its own internal logic and its direct association and application relative to everything that has been thoroughly vetted as reliable and consistently dependable by centuries of ongoing verification.

Hell, it's miles more valid that the horsesh*t that you've been ballbusting with here. Especially that last attempt at esoteric elitism. Subjective objectivity? That's where you outed yourself.

Oh, and groovy avatar too. Very....whatever.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by rwfresh

 

What is real is not an experience. It is not some 'thing' that comes and goes. When the real is known there is real peace and joy (words cannot begin to describe what it is).

edit on 30-3-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Sure.. It isn't something that comes and goes. So if something comes and goes that is not it.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by rwfresh

When people practice experiencing what is Real through meditation or quietness etc. that is great and can lead to absolutely amazing experiences of subjective objectivity beyond anything i can or will ever imagine.

Okay, that does it. "Subjective objectivity"? Yeah, right.

You're just goofing on the whole subject. I suspected this when you started tossing around the New Age cliches. That little spin around nonsequitor sealed it for me.

What is it with you guys? Do you enjoy making fun of philosophy and metaphysics? I mean, I can see the humor in it at times, and some of the zany sh*t that gets posted in this forum is pretty loaded with ballbust potential, but for Chrissakes, the concept that particle matter isn't solid, but is human perception of contextually isolated matrix configurations of orbital and linear trajectories of organized activity isn't goofball navel gazing bullsh*t. It's actually really well defended by its own internal logic and its direct association and application relative to everything that has been thoroughly vetted as reliable and consistently dependable by centuries of ongoing verification.

Hell, it's miles more valid that the horsesh*t that you've been ballbusting with here. Especially that last attempt at esoteric elitism. Subjective objectivity?

That's where you outed yourself.

Oh, and groovy avatar too. Very....whatever.

edit on 3/30/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

"the concept that particle matter isn't solid, but is human perception of contextually isolated matrix configurations of orbital and linear trajectories of organized activity isn't goofball navel gazing bullsh*t."

Umm.. yeah.

Any attempt to belittle your ideas is completely pointless because you might mistaken my attempts for defensiveness or self-importance. I don't believe what i am saying has anymore substance than what you are saying. But that isn't saying much about what you are saying because you know what i think about my own musings. Should be clear. Just wondered about your use of the word "Reality". I'm sorry i didn't keep the thread framed in your specific delusion thereby sharing in the epiphany you've had. My bad. Just call me a dummy and forget about it.

Peace!

Originally posted by libertytoall

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Grifter81
So do you think us humans are the be all and end all? Are we existance?

No. I don't believe that I suggested it either. We are the ones who define things for ourselves. We translate what we perceive for each other. We invented the concept of the particle as being solid material, so we smash particles to find out what they're made of. Particles are matrixed event trajectories, and all material existence is composed of particles. Pretty simple actually.

This is sort of true but reality is actually like a data stream.

Reality is perceived by our sensing devices (ears, eyes, nose, mouth, skin) and translated by our brains relative to how it compares to what we've established within our own "memory cloud" (for lack of a better word to delineate this specific residual information from other, unassociated residual information masses) that is similar. That said, reality itself is what is actually occurring from instant to instant (in sync with the environmental URC, of course), the residual information that has gathered as a result of all that's ever occurred (at that same rate, of course), and all the isolated masses of dynamic response and perception information that have gathered at the same URC (or in-sync with it, as with the other stuff I listed here) to establish all that shares the same substructural commonality - in this case, URC synchronization.

You kids like to go crazy with the Jack Handy deep thoughts around here, but every now and then, it's good to pull this barge back to the center line so that no one runs us into a ditch.

Our five senses are bombarded with digital signals which are then translated by our brains into visuals, tastes, smells, feels, etc.. But the original data was not created inside your own head, it was fed to you from an outside source. All of our human experience including matter originates in a digital coded signal which our minds translate into physical reality.

Yes. Well, except for the part about our minds translating digital codes into actual reality. That part's not accurate. Our brains translate this information (it's not digital per se, but it is similarly based on set logic and the extremely simple yes/no concept that digital information coding uses) but it's translated into human perception, which is not at all reality or even an accurate translation of reality.

Reality has nothing at all to do with the experience of translating reality. Consciousness is the experience of translating reality, Perception is what comes of that translation, and the brain's residual information "memory cloud" is what it uses to translate what the body's sensors send - as information - to the brain for that translation. When the brain finally dies, that "memory cloud" remains as environmental residual information - no longer contextually associated with a living brain - and continues as part of the full contextual environment's Informational Continuum, along with all other residual information. In the end, the only thing that persists as real and tangible is information - both the residual Informational Continuum, and the the countless dynamic information wholes that have emerged as a result of all those corporeal brains (human and otherwise) doing what it is that they're designed to do.

All that information is the whole of persistent and permanent Reality. Units of activity continue (at the environment's URC, of course) and fact clusters emerge as a result of every single one of them, so there's plenty of ongoing development to keep things fresh. The truth is that all the mysticism and superposition nonsense that's claimed here and in other places where thinker exchange ideas can't come anywhere near Reality for startling innovation and full-on miraculous achievement. All that flighty, nebulous stuff ends up coming across kind of childish in comparison to what's real if you line it up and factor each of them all the way out to their logical extremes.

The extremely simple event/information structure fares really well when you do the same to it. It gets amazingly complicated and much more enormous than you might think, but it never collapses under the weight of its own bloated convolutions. It always stays clean. That's important to note, since this kind of theory - given the nature of what it's describing - has to stay clean when extrapolated to the extreme. In Reality, there aren't any established limitations on how far it can be extrapolated or factored out from the center, so it has to have its own inherent structural clarity.

Originally posted by rwfresh

Any attempt to belittle your ideas is completely pointless because you might mistaken my attempts for defensiveness or self-importance. I don't believe what i am saying has anymore substance than what you are saying. But that isn't saying much about what you are saying because you know what i think about my own musings. Should be clear. Just wondered about your use of the word "Reality". I'm sorry i didn't keep the thread framed in your specific delusion thereby sharing in the epiphany you've had. My bad. Just call me a dummy and forget about it.

Peace!

Here, this post has my definition of the term Reality in it. I was writing it as you were posting yours here.


reply to post by NorEaster


Reality is actually really easy to define if you don't purposely try to confuse the issue.

reply to post by NorEaster

Perception tells us we're material, but we're not. We're activity that's in perfect sync with the rate of our own perception generation

I would say the "activity" (I'm assuming you mean atomic activity) is happening at a much faster rate than our "perception generation". It's like watching a TV, the frames per second is faster than the rate at which our eyes detect change, therefore we a see a smooth "solid" picture instead of flashing pictures/frames, just as the "activity" of matter on the atomic scale is much too fast to be perceived, it appears solid. If it were exactly in sync with our vision some weird things would probably happen with the picture. I'm not sure why you think it all must be in perfect sync... or am I just completely misunderstanding your theory?

reality is simply the relation between positive and superiority, while meaning the truth being freedom so both

freedom is always positive bc superior to zero while zero is a reference of not positive without being negative, but also freedom can move as superior to what is else while understanding it so as an add to

reality become more and more existing when positive freedom and freedom superiority become right abstractions possible use at any objective situation, then truth become the reality of the relation between positive and superiority of freedom which would make a new freedom existing fact as true

if i extrapolate right, i would say that is why we have that gender result in leaving existence free without any true conscious right moves

when positive superiority as abstraction of reality became free as another fact, then positive is superiority and superior is positivity, which is not true and open gates to evil and abuse of truth and its rights, but reality still facts became that

so that is the essence of having males powers representing objective energy constancies of superior is positivity
and females senses representing individual constant energy of positive is superiority

while positive is superior or superior is positive only when it is true

positive is superior only if it is an object absolute thing free add to absolute truth superiority, which is like truth becoming absolutely existing facts

superior is positive also only when truth become absolute existing facts, so the superior is not alone then necessary true to b same objectively in certain points then positive

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
I'm not sure why you think it all must be in perfect sync... or am I just completely misunderstanding your theory?

edit on 30-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

The theory isn't involving activity at the atomic or subatomic level. It's about activity as the substructure of all material existence itself. If you reread the thread here, it might become a bit more clear to you. Especially the opening post. I specifically crafted that post to answer this question so that I could just link to it when I'm asked to define the theory in future threads. Just to make it easier for me, I guess.

If you have any questions after you've read to this point, then I'll be happy to see if I can further clarify what I'm suggesting here. Keep in mind that the proof (internal logical structure of the theory and its direct relevance when associated with what has already been well established as sound responsible interpretation of empirical and scientific indications) exists within a published book. and that it requires quite a bit of ancillary information to be established and proven before the proof concerning the unitary nature of material existence emerges whole and irrefutable, so if it's proof you're looking for, all I can really do is send you a link to where you can get that published material for yourself. This forum simply isn't a proper medium for that sort of presentation.

Originally posted by absolutely
if i extrapolate right, i would say that is why we have that gender result in leaving existence free without any true conscious right moves

when positive superiority as abstraction of reality became free as another fact, then positive is superiority and superior is positivity, which is not true and open gates to evil and abuse of truth and its rights, but reality still facts became that

so that is the essence of having males powers representing objective energy constancies of superior is positivity
and females senses representing individual constant energy of positive is superiority

while positive is superior or superior is positive only when it is true

positive is superior only if it is an object absolute thing free add to absolute truth superiority, which is like truth becoming absolutely existing facts

superior is positive also only when truth become absolute existing facts, so the superior is not alone then necessary true to b same objectively in certain points then positive

Can I ask you - and I'm trying to be respectful here - what your native language is.

Also, are you using an online translation software when you post? It seems like the software is not handling the translation as well as you might be thinking that it is. Again, I'm not trying to be an *sshole by asking this.

reply to post by NorEaster


would you say a big part of the theory is that what we are as humans with identity survives death in some way?

this is what you believe and would like to prove?, prove to assure your belief? in what way are you postulating it survives? do you think this is similar to the idea of a "spiritual essence", and that this is part of the recycling process of energy,, and this informational identity may even be responsible for helping create reality? creatively or autonomously, every speck and atom is a piece of the puzzle and picture of reality,,,

Originally posted by NorEaster
Can I ask you - and I'm trying to be respectful here - what your native language is.

Also, are you using an online translation software when you post? It seems like the software is not handling the translation as well as you might be thinking that it is. Again, I'm not trying to be an *sshole by asking this.

let me answer these deranged questions coming from evil religious slave guy using online translation software tuned on supernatural frequency to take power over rights

first, those direct agressions kind upon individual freedom rights, are clearly acts meaning to take advantage from knowing that one is never what he realize, in order to possess all what he does as well as reducing him to a thing possession out of everything

thinking that one care about that is showing the point, you are ridiculizing yourself since there is nothing there but u according to u when u deny else freedom existing fact behind its realisation
so the point is u, evil mean revealed out of ur hypocrisy willing to say reality of things freedom while it deny one free obvious right by attacking it
u prove having no perspective on anything existing as u dont have a right to exist urself

the question about native language confirm it all

what is native? u clearly mean that any is according to his objective condition as an individual

then, u really believe that all there is is a creator and individuals are limited to themselves conditions or to creator wills
then, all ur claims are proven being a lie before confirming point by point how it is absolutely false

my answer to this pervert question once for all

conditions and limits of ones has nothing to do with objective facts nor truth existence

that is how the most dumb and closed minds can say the most clever things, sights are not related to what one wants to see or mean to see
that is how too means and wills are clearly always subjective in absolute terms out of any mind

all my posts are about freedom value and freedom individuals rights, then my words are always free as a certainty wether through objective freedom or subjective free wills

while ur posts are seeking endlessly and desperatly to reach the minimal reality of a point in order to prove that freedom do not exist so that existence is only matters fact
that is why too u cant even use the word freedom by your own hands

when truth is freedom then any is free so there cant b but infinite freedom facts so reality is freedom reality in terms of truth freedom which exist too which explain the infinite dimension of anything and everything

n btw, superiority cannot be meant so meaning respect is impossible

bc superiority is truth as truth is value fact, so whoever mean smthg true or truth in objective terms must b superior too

that is how to me, there cant b true existence unless absolute superiors reality is free

keep grasping the shirt of what u think being the most superior one it seems that what u love to believe is saying smthg that will end as being real

reply to post by NorEaster


This may hone your skills a bit. As I mentioned earlier... Radiation/ light is a demodulator:


Does DNA Emit Light?


Our bridge to consciousness along with listening.

reply to post by Americanist


Consciousness = information

photons (and all particles) = event


If you take this extremely simple statement (above) and reread this entire thread with that translation, maybe you'll figure out what I'm trying to explain to you. It really is surprising to me that this basic notion is so completely incomprehensible for most people.

Light can't be information if it is photon particles. It's that simple.

Brains configure information that is designed to translate DNA directives dynamically in direct response to internal and external threats and advantages as they appear from moment to moment. That configured information literally acts to manage the corporeal whole at a level that DNA simply cannot (being the relatively static residual information that DNA is - precursor management, creating defaults as opposed to directly addressing survival issues as they appear). The brain configured information is dynamic (it acts to direct the body's specific initiations and responses) and in the case of the human brain, those initiations and responses include intellectual initiations and responses (planning, emoting, ruminating, examining) as well as the more visceral initiations and responses (fighting, flighting, f*cking, feeding).

This dynamic information is - essentially - a hybrid of the event (material existence) and information, but it's only event-centric in the way that it behaves (it's not passive, and it possesses a survival imperative expression). Its physical structure is not material. It's information. You can call it spiritual if it makes you feel more comfortable (I don't care) but at least don't suggest that it's material (like a photon particle or something like that) because that's not true and the whole "human beings are light" confusion gets promoted as plausible as yet another Internet source shows up on a server making that claim.

Yes, this is not what the scientific traditionalists believe, but scientific traditionalists don't address much of anything beyond the specifics of whichever tiny segment of reality they've decided to specialize in. This causes them to develop severe myopia when it comes to clashes between their own well-established assertions and those of scientific traditionalists who've carved out seemingly unrelated niches for themselves. Then, as careers become defined by how well one works and plays with others within one's specific field of science, the deliberate isolations become more and more profound, and the clashes are pushed further and further from the mainstream of thought.

Then, something like Quantum Mechanics shows up and sends all the nontraditional thinkers over the edge with claims that "reality doesn't really exist" or "human consciousness creates reality as the observer observes what it creates as it observes", and the lay person stands there and wonders what the hell is going on. Meanwhile, even as the wizards of voodoo metaphysics declare that "Time is an illusion and a fraud perpetrated by the world's elite as a slave tool" the days, months, and years grind on and everyone gets older trying to ignore the fact that reality does exist, time does grind on, and that no one's consciousness is having any impact on what exists as real, unless they are willing to accept the idea that what they actually want is to struggle for everything they get, to age mercilessly, and to ultimately lose everyone and everything they love before finally being stripped of everything by death in the end.

Hell, you'd think that as the evidence piles up, people would reject the stuff that's proven to not be true, but instead, they scramble to invent ways that they can defend those lies by making people feel as if they personally failed as a result of their own lack of faith, enlightenment, spiritual progression, or whatever else can be dreamed up as a reasonable excuse that sets the burden on the person and not on the "truth" itself.

Hell, I don't care. I'll just keep trying to put the information out there. It doesn't affect me if anyone ever figures any of this out or not. As long as I put it out there, my requirement is fulfilled.

reply to post by NorEaster


Can you separate yourself from the event? Or are you and the event one process, one thing?

Is it just your opinion that consciousness=information? Or is it someone elses theory?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Can you separate yourself from the event? Or are you and the event one process, one thing?

As an eternal human being (the mind) I am separated from the event that brought that bit of me into existence. This is due to the fact that when the event itself occurred (the actual configuration that the brain achieved was launched into the Intellect - hybrid event/information - trajectory itself) that event ceased to physically exist, as is the case with all events. Each "now" event brings more bits of me into physical existence, until my brain ceases to exist as a functioning information configuration survival "tool".

The hybrid (which is what the mind is) persists, as is the case with all information. Since the human version of the hybrid is self aware, the human mind experiences that persistent physical existence. We refer to that experience as consciousness, as eternal life.

reply to post by NorEaster


The event which is happening presently, not an event that may or may not have happened but this one that is occuring now. Can you be separate from 'this' event?

You talk about somewhere, somewhen else. If you are going to investigate something it must be present.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

The event which is happening presently, not an event that may or may not have happened but this one that is occuring now. Can you be separate from 'this' event?

You talk about somewhere, somewhen else. If you are going to investigate something it must be present.

edit on 3-4-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Please reread the reply I just posted. I just edited it for further clarity. Thanks.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster

 

You talk about somewhere, somewhen else. If you are going to investigate something it must be present.

edit on 3-4-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

My brain examines it (directed by my mind's influence on my brain. of course) via the residual "memory cloud" which I explain about earlier in this thread. Perception is subjective, and this "memory cloud" is a factual representation of my own subjective perception's creation as the event process that it was. Memory is always sketchy, and reexamination of memory is even sketchier that initial memory.


*note* I'll check back later for any further questions or clarifications.