What is your problem with "matter" ?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Yes, but I didn't really mean it like that I guess. That is too simplified of a statement. Here is some information on morphic fields:

“Morphic field” is a term introduced by Rupert Sheldrake. He proposes that there is a field within and around a morphic unit which organizes its characteristic structure and pattern of activity. According to this concept, the morphic field underlies the formation and behavior of holons and morphic units, and can be set up by the repetition of similar acts or thoughts.

The hypothesis is that a particular form belonging to a certain group which has already established its (collective) morphic field, will tune into that morphic field. The particular form will read the collective information through the process of morphic resonance, using it to guide its own development. This development of the particular form will then provide, again through morphic resonance, a feedback to the morphic field of that group, thus strengthening it with its own experience resulting in new information being added (i.e. stored in the database). Sheldrake regards the morphic fields as a universal database for both organic (living) and abstract (mental) forms.

blackbearenergetics.com...

I'm still researching this idea, it is a fairly large and expansive idea. It seems like a necessary piece to the puzzle though. It could be a bridge between consciousness and physical manifestation, as in morphic fields being the organizing principle through which consciousness creates. Still looking into it.


Here is a paper wrote by Rupert Sheldrake. It explains it in more depth. noetic.org...

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rwfresh

 

can anything ever exist that would fit under your definition of the word... "real"?

Yes. That which is actual. Reality.

are you saying a persons delusions are more real then what a person actually objectively is?
or just that too that person their delusions are all thats real?

No not at all. On the contrary. What a person actually is is the only real thing about them.

you understand that science is the attempt to remove the subjective delusions, and replace it with a more perfect map of reality as it actually is,,,

I think the possibility of removing subjectivity from knowing is delusional. And i don't think real seekers attempt to do this. Be it science or whatever label we might give to studies of Reality that fall outside of our definition of science. But i love real science. and real scientists are experiencing truths directly because they are driven to understand the truth of reality.

do you suggest this is futile and we should all just do nothing but live in or delusional imaginations?

I suggest you find out for yourself and do not follow ANY objective authority on what delusions you may or may not believe in. And i suggest ANY formalized ideology never promote anything but subjective experiential conclusions on what is real and what is not. Because in the context of REALITY no one can give you the truth.

or do you see anything worthy or admirable in what science has done and what it attempts to do?

I love science. love it. Real science. But i think that in society a religion of science has evolved that is expressing domination over personal liberation and it is a product of a number of misunderstandings on what has been discovered.

Understanding the nature and actuality of the different kinds of material "illusion" that makes up reality,, what the illusion is composed of,, its parts and how they effect each other,,

I find it interesting and it happens without effort. What i find more interesting is the direct experience of Reality itself. I don't think the material universe is reality but rather a by-product of it. Which is why we consistently conclude matter has no substance. We have a problem with language and concepts. We cannot negate the underlying not objectively observable Reality because we are so transfixed on controlling the observable illusion.

I would much rather live in an illusion where everyone had a direct relationship with reality, rather than one where some consensus authority declared what is real and attempted control or authority over the actual experience. I'm not saying you are personally doing this. But socially... the world is rotting to the core because we do not accept that we are in control or have any responsibility over it. The religion of science wants to declare us automatons, simple computers subject to an initial cause we are not privy to. And people are buying into it. In the context of Reality it makes no difference. But here in the illusions it makes for a real hell on earth for those separated from Reality. Lack of truth is the cause of suffering. Truth cannot and will not be delivered through external proof.

Peace!

Originally posted by openlocks
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Yes, but I didn't really mean it like that I guess. That is too simplified of a statement. Here is some information on morphic fields:

“Morphic field” is a term introduced by Rupert Sheldrake. He proposes that there is a field within and around a morphic unit which organizes its characteristic structure and pattern of activity. According to this concept, the morphic field underlies the formation and behavior of holons and morphic units, and can be set up by the repetition of similar acts or thoughts.

The hypothesis is that a particular form belonging to a certain group which has already established its (collective) morphic field, will tune into that morphic field. The particular form will read the collective information through the process of morphic resonance, using it to guide its own development. This development of the particular form will then provide, again through morphic resonance, a feedback to the morphic field of that group, thus strengthening it with its own experience resulting in new information being added (i.e. stored in the database). Sheldrake regards the morphic fields as a universal database for both organic (living) and abstract (mental) forms.

blackbearenergetics.com...

I'm still researching this idea, it is a fairly large and expansive idea. It seems like a necessary piece to the puzzle though. It could be a bridge between consciousness and physical manifestation, as in morphic fields being the organizing principle through which consciousness creates. Still looking into it.

edit on 24-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)

Here is a paper wrote by Rupert Sheldrake. It explains it in more depth. noetic.org...

edit on 24-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)

I admire Rupert Sheldrake's effort to communicate an existing proposition and idea using modern scientific nomenclature.. in the face of ridicule by his peers. Good demonstration of the bureaucratic good old boy culture of science.

I've extended an apology for misusing the word "consciousness" as it relates to modern scientific study. It was in a previous message. It appears you are also misusing it. Consciousness is the label used by scientists in the field to describe the continuous thought stream. Which has little to do with the true self which i was discussing. The morphic fields proposed can be experienced directly. The underlying cause of your physicality can also be experienced directly. That is all i ever meant to suggest.

reply to post by rwfresh

I admire Rupert Sheldrake's effort to communicate an existing proposition and idea using modern scientific nomenclature.. in the face of ridicule by his peers. Good demonstration of the bureaucratic good old boy culture of science. I've extended an apology for misusing the word "consciousness" as it relates to modern scientific study. It was in a previous message. It appears you are also misusing it. Consciousness is the label used by scientists in the field to describe the continuous thought stream. Which has little to do with the true self which i was discussing. The morphic fields proposed can be experienced directly. The underlying cause of your physicality can also be experienced directly. That is all i ever meant to suggest.

Yes, you have to admire anyone who stands up against the machine, as long as they have a good cause at least. Scientists like Richard Dawkins and Craig Venter, are blights upon the science community in many ways. On one hand they are brilliant men who have realized some profound things, and they can articulate these findings extremely well. On the other hand they are part of a growing cult which you have called, correctly I might add, "The Religion of Science". I am no fan of Deepak Chopra's or some of these other pseudo-scientists who try to prove some wild idea by using terrible data sets and inaccurate models of testing and then go around selling millions of books and confusing everybody. But I definitely can appreciate people like Rupert Sheldrake who can push the boundaries of conventional science, and use credible methods of research to do so.

As far as this word "consciousness", modern science doesn't really have a solid definition of it. In fact, it is quite a messy word and is used by different areas of science in different ways. I believe the continuous thought stream definition began in Buddhism and then was later adopted by famous psychologist William James. Now it is mainly found in the area of Philosophy of the Mind, where they equate consciousness to the mind and vice-versa. Most psychologists and neuroscientists don't use this definition. One operational definition used by neuroscientists is: "consciousness is the sum of the neural electrical discharges occurring throughout the nervous system of a being at any given instant". This definition can be used to measure consciousness by measuring neuronal activity. Probably the most common definition used is just simple awareness. If a subject is aware they are considered conscious, if they are not aware of anything they are considered unconscious.

Ultimately, I would like to never use this word again.

As for being able to experience morphic fields, I don't know how that could be possible. I am not even sure if morphic field theory is stable, it seems like a great idea though and intuitively makes sense, but that is nothing to base beliefs upon. Got to keep looking into it.

Originally posted by openlocks
reply to post by rwfresh

 

I admire Rupert Sheldrake's effort to communicate an existing proposition and idea using modern scientific nomenclature.. in the face of ridicule by his peers. Good demonstration of the bureaucratic good old boy culture of science. I've extended an apology for misusing the word "consciousness" as it relates to modern scientific study. It was in a previous message. It appears you are also misusing it. Consciousness is the label used by scientists in the field to describe the continuous thought stream. Which has little to do with the true self which i was discussing. The morphic fields proposed can be experienced directly. The underlying cause of your physicality can also be experienced directly. That is all i ever meant to suggest.

Yes, you have to admire anyone who stands up against the machine, as long as they have a good cause at least.

As far as this word "consciousness", modern science doesn't really have a solid definition of it. In fact, it is quite a messy word and is used by different areas of science in different ways. I believe the continuous thought stream definition began in Buddhism and then was later adopted by famous psychologist William James. Now it is mainly found in the area of Philosophy of the Mind, where they equate consciousness to the mind and vice-versa. Most psychologists and neuroscientists don't use this definition. One operational definition used by neuroscientists is: "consciousness is the sum of the neural electrical discharges occurring throughout the nervous system of a being at any given instant". This definition can be used to measure consciousness by measuring neuronal activity. Probably the most common definition used is just simple awareness. If a subject is aware they are considered conscious, if they are not aware of anything they are considered unconscious.

Ultimately, I would like to never use this word again.

haha yeah.. I would like to not have to spell it again.

As for being able to experience morphic fields, I don't know how that could be possible. I am not even sure if morphic field theory is stable, it seems like a great idea though and intuitively makes sense, but that is nothing to base beliefs upon. Got to keep looking into it.

Right, i just mean to say that the underlying cause can be experienced directly. I totally understand this is arguable. And i understand that without believing it is possible one would never attempt to identify it. I wouldn't suggest blind belief in the ability to do this, but i would suggest that being able to identify the experience is useful. We have lots of reference material on how to do this and what it is. not suggesting it is empirical proof... unless the entire body of study and it's assumptions are accepted.

If someone were to provide a proof that an underlying pattern or field was the pre-existent cause of our being it would still be up to us to experience the truth of it. Simply hearing it was true would not verify it. That is the sum total of what i am suggesting. Hope this makes for acceptable sense Peace!

reply to post by rwfresh

Right, i just mean to say that the underlying cause can be experienced directly. I totally understand this is arguable. And i understand that without believing it is possible one would never attempt to identify it. I wouldn't suggest blind belief in the ability to do this, but i would suggest that being able to identify the experience is useful. We have lots of reference material on how to do this and what it is. not suggesting it is empirical proof... unless the entire body of study and it's assumptions are accepted. If someone were to provide a proof that an underlying pattern or field was the pre-existent cause of our being it would still be up to us to experience the truth of it. Simply hearing it was true would not verify it. That is the sum total of what i am suggesting. Hope this makes for acceptable sense Peace!

In one sense, all that matters is our experience of life. So whether or not morphic fields exist doesn't really change our experience in this moment. But that knowledge could very well change our experience in the future through changing our understanding of reality and thus how we interact with each other and the world in general. This is true for all scientific knowledge though.

Now, if I am in tune with an experience so fundamentally relaxing and satisfying, like the one I assume you are speaking of, then maybe none of this matters. But you see, very few people can get into that mode. Even in Buddhist countries, where the things you speak of are cultural dogma (everyone just accepts it because of cultural influence), very few people there can actually feel what the Buddha or you are saying. So science is a way of slowly bringing man's understanding to a more holistic point. Just saying there is this experience of an underlying reality that no one can find right now through outward observation, doesn't encourage most people to sit down and meditate or inquire into who they truly are. Most people don't do that until there is really no other option. So science is a way of universalizing the truth of this experience in many ways. At least that is how I see it.

Peace.

Originally posted by openlocks
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Yes, you have to admire anyone who stands up against the machine, as long as they have a good cause at least. Scientists like Richard Dawkins and Craig Venter, are blights upon the science community in many ways. On one hand they are brilliant men who have realized some profound things, and they can articulate these findings extremely well. On the other hand they are part of a growing cult which you have called, correctly I might add, "The Religion of Science". I am no fan of Deepak Chopra's or some of these other pseudo-scientists who try to prove some wild idea by using terrible data sets and inaccurate models of testing and then go around selling millions of books and confusing everybody. But I definitely can appreciate people like Rupert Sheldrake who can push the boundaries of conventional science, and use credible methods of research to do so.

Sorry almost missed this. I totally agree with you. Anyone, whether scientist or "spiritualist" that isn't promoting direct experience of the truth is really just trying to sell their own assumptions. Everyone should be encouraged and inspired to accept their own ability to discern truth. The opposite is the fruit of an underlying misunderstanding and leads to the delusional authority of domination. "You are wrong! Believe what i say is true or die".

Originally posted by openlocks
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Right, i just mean to say that the underlying cause can be experienced directly. I totally understand this is arguable. And i understand that without believing it is possible one would never attempt to identify it. I wouldn't suggest blind belief in the ability to do this, but i would suggest that being able to identify the experience is useful. We have lots of reference material on how to do this and what it is. not suggesting it is empirical proof... unless the entire body of study and it's assumptions are accepted. If someone were to provide a proof that an underlying pattern or field was the pre-existent cause of our being it would still be up to us to experience the truth of it. Simply hearing it was true would not verify it. That is the sum total of what i am suggesting. Hope this makes for acceptable sense Peace!

In one sense, all that matters is our experience of life. So whether or not morphic fields exist doesn't really change our experience in this moment. But that knowledge could very well change our experience in the future through changing our understanding of reality and thus how we interact with each other and the world in general. This is true for all scientific knowledge though.

Now, if I am in tune with an experience so fundamentally relaxing and satisfying, like the one I assume you are speaking of, then maybe none of this matters. But you see, very few people can get into that mode. Even in Buddhist countries, where the things you speak of are cultural dogma (everyone just accepts it because of cultural influence), very few people there can actually feel what the Buddha or you are saying. So science is a way of slowly bringing man's understanding to a more holistic point. Just saying there is this experience of an underlying reality that no one can find right now through outward observation, doesn't encourage most people to sit down and meditate or inquire into who they truly are. Most people don't do that until there is really no other option. So science is a way of universalizing the truth of this experience in many ways. At least that is how I see it.

Peace.

I fully agree with you. I hope that is what all scientists are working towards. The experience of truth has a direct impact. No doubt. That is why we seek it. We know the effect and we know it's "good". We want it at whatever cost.. And we should want it for everyone because we are not separate from one another. Whether we identify our oneness through morphic fields or some other underlying cause.

"Just saying there is this experience of an underlying reality that no one can find right now through outward observation, doesn't encourage most people to sit down and meditate or inquire into who they truly are."

Yes but saying there is an underlying Reality that CAN be experienced right now is all the encouraging we can do. We shouldn't suggest that humanity need wait for a Messiah OR scientific proof to do this. There IS an experience to be had that is profound and available. It's our responsibility to discern and experience truth. It doesn't come from anywhere else. It is without language or nomenclature. The effect of the experience is a good one. Good for everyone. It fosters discernment which is good for science. Although we have the ability to discount the direct experience of Reality as being delusional i think it flies in the face of 1000's of years of documented research. Not suggesting you are personally discounting it.

There is a strong likelihood the human race is on the verge of becoming extinct. I don't want to admit that this is part of a deeper evolutionary cycle.. but the evidence keeps pointing to that. If we do kill ourselves off it's likely it could have been avoided. We have to accept the underlying cause of our self-destruction. What dominant thinking is causing us to be so oblivious to the apparent death wish? I would suggest it is an ignorant refusal to accept an underlying quality of connectedness. And our death wish is an attempt to prove once and for all Reality exists without us.

Originally posted by gosseyn
What is your problem with "matter" ?

What is the matter with matter you ask?

It is beneath me.

That's all.

reply to post by rwfresh

Yes but saying there is an underlying Reality that CAN be experienced right now is all the encouraging we can do. We shouldn't suggest that humanity need wait for a Messiah OR scientific proof to do this. There IS an experience to be had that is profound and available.

And that has been done. Buddha came, Jesus came, and thousands of others have came and said, "look, there is something else here other then what we have been led to believe". Less than 1% of the something like 15 Billion people to have ever lived on earth have sought out what these wise men found. Instead they ARE waiting for the Messiah or scientific proof, and since I really am not a believer in a Messiah, the only other logical conclusion is to attempt to contribute to science. IMO.

There is a strong likelihood the human race is on the verge of becoming extinct. I don't want to admit that this is part of a deeper evolutionary cycle.. but the evidence keeps pointing to that. If we do kill ourselves off it's likely it could have been avoided. We have to accept the underlying cause of our self-destruction. What dominant thinking is causing us to be so oblivious to the apparent death wish? I would suggest it is an ignorant refusal to accept an underlying quality of connectedness. And our death wish is an attempt to prove once and for all Reality exists without us.

I agree 100%. You said it as good as anyone. My fear really isn't that humans will become extinct though. That is guaranteed, at some point it will happen. My real worries are about peoples suffering right now and in the near future, and of course all the other life forms around us that are being directly and indirectly effected by our reckless and wasteful behavior. We are something like a cancer right now on earth. If we cause earth to become sick beyond the point of return, and it dies far sooner than it would of without us, then who knows what kind of impact that will have on the entire solar system, or maybe even universe?

reply to post by gosseyn


Did you read my post on page 4 for you? What is your answer? Matter alone doesn't answer the big question. There is something beyond the realm of cause and effect, aka "free will".

reply to post by openlocks


I gave you a star, but I have a question:

So let us quickly recap.
Consciousness is at the root of all experience. It exists before any experience arises, ...

I'm not sure about this statement. When an amoeba engulfs and then digests its food by phagocytosis does it do so consciously? No, its a reflex, but does the amoeba still experience the process? I may be splitting hairs, but not all experiences need to be conscious.

What is your take on that? Do we need a nervous system to experience consciousness?

reply to post by AllIsOne

I think the hieararchy of life and evolution represents an ascent of consciousness and of conscious impressions, from rock to vegetable, to animal, to human, and the human as a self-aware sentient being, as the most recent development in the longgg process of cosmic evolution, even though he may be last (most recent), is first, that is if the evolutionary process and life does not exist in isolation, but as a process intrinsic to the entire cosmological unity who's information is exchanged non-locally through the Zero Point Field or the radiance of the Akashic Field (same difference). Perhaps there's more to us than meets the eye..?

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by openlocks

 

I gave you a star, but I have a question:

So let us quickly recap.
Consciousness is at the root of all experience. It exists before any experience arises, ...

I'm not sure about this statement. When an amoeba engulfs and then digests its food by phagocytosis does it do so consciously? No, its a reflex, but does the amoeba still experience the process? I may be splitting hairs, but not all experiences need to be conscious.

What is your take on that? Do we need a nervous system to experience consciousness?

Well, a few posts back I went into some detail about all the different definitions of consciousness. It is really a mess. I assume here we are (or at least I was) using the term in its common stature of meaning consciously aware. In this sense, for me to realize I have experienced something I must first be conscious. Therefore consciousness precedes experience. I am not sure an amoeba is aware of its digestion process, we surely are not. These are unconscious processes that are happening.

I wouldn't necessarily equate the pumping of blood or digestion of food as an experience, unless of course I was somehow aware of the sensations of these things happening. I think we need to be careful of not automatically confusing animate processes with consciousness. I see many people saying that trees are conscious and worms are conscious and everything is conscious, but I really have no clue what they mean by consciousness then. This is why I am interested in Morphic fields right now. It seems like it could explain so much of what "universal consciousness" cannot.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
I'm not sure about this statement. When an amoeba engulfs and then digests its food by phagocytosis does it do so consciously? No, its a reflex, but does the amoeba still experience the process? I may be splitting hairs, but not all experiences need to be conscious.

What is your take on that? Do we need a nervous system to experience consciousness?

Pardon me for butting in but...

Only an amoeba knows what it is like to be an amoeba.

Perhaps it does consciously digest it's food.

Perhaps Stars are conscious of their being.

Perhaps this whole experience called life is one big consciousness relating to it's individual parts from the super large to the impossibly microscopic.

Exactly which part of you is doing the thinking and how much space does it fill?

reply to post by openlocks

I'm still researching this idea, it is a fairly large and expansive idea. It seems like a necessary piece to the puzzle though. It could be a bridge between consciousness and physical manifestation ...

Why is it a necessary piece of the puzzle? We once thought that the aether exists, luckily no scientist is arguing this anymore ...

reply to post by openlocks


Thanks for clarifying!

reply to post by Nooneimparticular


Lol ...

Perhaps there is a pink pig flying around the sun ... perhaps? It is possible, but not probable.

I'm suggesting that an entity needs a nervous system to be conscious. I don't see how a rock can be conscious, but I'm open to learn.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by Nooneimparticular

 

Lol ...

Perhaps there is a pink pig flying around the sun ... perhaps? It is possible, but not probable.

I'm suggesting that an entity needs a nervous system to be conscious. I don't see how a rock can be conscious, but I'm open to learn.

Pffft!

You ask for easy proofs.

You know that planet they call mars with a rover on it.

I call it "Pink Pig".


As for the rock, where is the rock?

reply to post by Nooneimparticular

Exactly which part of you is doing the thinking and how much space does it fill?

My wife is asking the same question sometimes ...

On a serious note: as we now know it's not just the brain. The intestine and heart are i.e. also involved in the "thinking" process. The feedback processes involving "thinking" are so complex that cutting your nails might actually influence your thought patterns.

So my answer for you would be: me, about 6'01 and 180 pounds