GENIUS FORUMS

Laird wrote:Sapius, there is such a lot for me to think about and respond to in your imaginative writing that it is going to take me some time to get back to you - I have to let it brew for a while. I want you to know though that I'm on the job and have made a solid start.

Please take your time, Laird. I agree, fine flavors are released with appropriate brewing time allowed. Where the brewing (abstract reflections) releases soul-satisfying flavors (conclusions) to blissfully experience.

[recovered post originally by Laird on Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:31 pm]

Sapius,

Sapius wrote:In short, self is the “feeling” between say two things interacting, felt by both of them by feeling the difference of each other

The sense in which you're using the word "feeling" seems to be that of awareness, so I agree with your characterisation of self as feeling. I'm still not convinced that self arises purely out of a sense of difference though - I've expressed my issues below the next quote.

Sapius wrote:The sense of self arises because there are two things interacting; one is ME, according to the dimension felt, and the other is not me

You talk about self as a feeling, but I can't see the relationship between difference and feeling. Perhaps you will elaborate on it a little. To explain what I already believe some more and to give your elaboration some direction: as I write a few quotes below, and as you seem to believe too, complexity has something to do with consciousness. So my guess is that you believe that the feeling of difference is somehow enhanced by complexity. If that's the case, then could you please focus your elaboration on describing which particular functions and aspects of complexity you believe to enhance the experience of differentiation as a feeling of self?

Sapius wrote:From what I said above, I hope I was able to explain that “awareness” is not possible without two interactive “things” being around, where the third “thing” is but the feeling felt by both; only that we can logically define such a “thing” as THING.

Hmm, I can see how you feel that way. On the other hand, you seem to believe in phenomena that require no explanation - e.g. eternal matter/energy. Why then are you so reluctant to accept the possibility that pure awareness can be another such phenomenon that simply exists without requirement for explanation?

Sapius wrote:After being able to experience meaningless things meaningfully, what more could a meaningless thing desire? I wonder…

How about: transcendent understanding, unending ecstacy and boundless creativity?

Sapius wrote:Yes, [awareness and understanding] are distinct concepts in our case because we are able to conceptualize them so, but such distinctions do not exist on other lower level dimensions, for a simple reason that they are not required, but however exist on their own level. A “thing” has to necessarily feel the difference between its felt self and the other thing, and vice versa, and the “understanding” of THAT comes to a thing when certain complexity as a thing is crossed - us.

I think that I now understand the way that you view consciousness at different dimensionalities, but you wrote nothing there that convinces me that at our dimensional level differentiation is required for awareness as opposed to what I see as its primary role of understanding.

I prefer to view awareness not in terms of differentiation, but in terms of complexity. I admit that this is a slightly less explicative view than yours, but it feels to me that it's a more realistic focus. Don't get me wrong - I like the consistency of your approach, and I agree that differentiation has a lot of value to consciousness - I just can't (yet) view it as an ultimate explanation.

I also like to think, as you do, that we can view consciousness as a sliding scale, where for example an ant's consciousness is minimal compared to a mouse's, which is again but a shadow of human consciousness. I'm not quite as comfortable as you seem to be though to extend this scale to the realm of particles and to conclude that they have some degree of consciousness. I'm more comfortable to describe them as building blocks of consciousness.

Sapius wrote:Which is what “awareness” is itself, the difference KNOWN, and that is my point. And that difference known (experienced); is through sensing different sensations, comparably.

You seem to be saying that when the wind blows on my skin, I'm only aware of it because I'm simultaneously holding in my mind and constrasting against it the feeling of no wind on my skin. My response to you is that both of these feelings (wind vs no wind) are a result of complex processes that might have something to do with differentiation, but that are not wholly defined by it, and that exist regardless of (the difference between) one another.

Sapius wrote:BTW, experiences are retained data of different sensations after sensing such differences, and do not pre-exist. (or did I misunderstand your use of ‘pre-existing’ above?)

I think that you might have, however it was redundant so I accept partial responsibility for any misunderstanding.

Sapius wrote:Existence is already chopped-up, and we delude ourselves in thinking that our “mind” chops-it-up, whereas it is impossible for awareness (mind in our case) to arise without chopped-up things being around in the first place.

Agreed.

S: say I live in an absolutely White world, now you tell me what White is.

L: Then white is that thing that I experience through my eyes.

S: Hahahahaa…. right… but that doesn’t say anything about White though. How do you know it is WHITE?

L: Because that's what everyone else in this world calls it.

S: Hahahaaaa…. Are you really serious about where this is going?

I'm serious about not letting you lead me down the garden path. :-P

Sapius wrote:So you at least acknowledge that there is something else other than yourself that tells you that what you are looking at is white, and you believe him. Good.

Not only that, but I tell other something elses that what they are looking at is white, and they believe me. Isn't that how consensual reality works?

Sapius wrote:It is the continuity of a particular Identity in and of memory that maintains such identity until it dissipates, including a logically known sense of “I”.

Yes, that seems to be a reasonable assertion, but it doesn't really address what I was getting at: this deep sense of wonder at how I come to be inside of my "I", and not, for example, inside of yours.

Laird: I agree with you that memory plays a huge role in intelligent consciousness. I strongly doubt that I could function in my everyday life without memory. You might even be right that it's an integral part of awareness, but I'm not convinced of that. My reasoning is twofold: there might be such a thing as instantaneous awareness, and in an instant there is no memory; instantaneous/timeless memories (of feelings rather than of events) can be recollected, and once recollected there is no memory.

Sapius: I really don’t know how you are defining memory in the later part? Memory itself is but a process of recollecting stored data in a way. Could you please clarify ‘memory’ here?

I was using "memory" more to mean not the process of recollection but the storage of data. Perhaps the final six words of my quote would better have been written: "once recollected there is no dependency on memory". But I'm willing to consider the possibility that awareness in some sense "travels across" memories, so that the process of recollection is nothing more than "moving the marker of consciousness into the holding place of the stored experience". In that sense then, recollection would be dependent on memory. Or perhaps the process can be described as deeper memories "popping up" into shorter-term memory, and then consciousness residing in the short-term memory-bank.

Either way, my point remains: in the instant, there is awareness, and yet in the instant there is no process.

Laird: Are you saying that you've experienced astral travel?

Sapius: How does that really matter?

It matters that I haven't experienced it myself and that I don't know how much weight to accord to the various reports that I've read/heard of it. The more that people report it to me, the more confidence that I can have in its reality.

Regarding spirit living off its surroundings: your speculations are intriguing. I have several questions of the following quote though:

Sapius wrote:Imagine that the human body, brain included, is a powerhouse that creates an energy field called consciousness.

I can certainly imagine that, but what is it then that keeps this energy field tied to the human body that created it, given that it is capable of living off its surroundings? Is it some sort of sense of familiarity (fear of the unknown?) - or is it more that some sort of learning process has to occur for it to understand how to live off its surroundings rather than its creative body?

And what of death? Why should this energy field dissipate at death given that it, as you speculate, does not require a body for its existence? Do we all become ghosts at death?

Sapius wrote:Imaginative enough for you up until here?

Joyously, yes.

Sapius wrote:If, the above probability is accepted, then the factual existence of the Abrahamic God, Zeus, Vishnu, and the likes, seems very probable.

And of what formative body/brain was this God's consciousness forged? The all-encompassing material reality of the universe itself?

Sapius wrote:What do you think is responsible for building the pyramids for example; human limbs, or consciousness?

In the stronger sense of responsibility as wilfulness: consciousness alone; in the weaker sense of responsibility as merely a causative factor: also human limbs.

Sapius wrote:Consciousness is using the principle of causality through reasoning ... and creates a better and better thing through trails and errors

Indeed. And trials require energy, and errors are painful. Consciousness must be continually replenished, and suffering is unavoidable.

Sapius wrote:Mental evolution is still an on going process, just that at times, there may be “freaks” of nature phenomenon that slips over to a different dimension, however remaining in the same over all natural system of interactively resonant thing-to-thing awareness.

I gather that you mean a higher dimension, of which we are by default incognisant. How then might this higher dimensionality be experienced by those fortunate enough to achieve its awareness?

[recovered post originally by Sapius on Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:31 am]

Laird, before I respond to the rest of your post, I would like you to clear a certain point, which is pivotal to most of what we are discussing.

S: Existence is already chopped-up, and we delude ourselves in thinking that our “mind” chops-it-up, whereas it is impossible for awareness (mind in our case) to arise without chopped-up things being around in the first place.

L: Agreed.

What exactly are you agreeing to here?

Don't tell me you were high when you wrote this :D

[recovered post originally by Laird on Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:23 am]

S: Existence is already chopped-up, and we delude ourselves in thinking that our “mind” chops-it-up, whereas it is impossible for awareness (mind in our case) to arise without chopped-up things being around in the first place.

L: Agreed.

S: What exactly are you agreeing to here?

In particular, I reject the QRS belief that the mind is the sole cause of boundaries. I believe that there are boundaries in an external reality that our mind perceives through the transmission of those boundaries in sensory data.

Sapius wrote:Don't tell me you were high when you wrote this :D

At first I couldn't work out why you asked that, and then I realised that you probably perceived an inconsistency in my agreement with the second part of the quote. Yes, you are right - I should have limited my unconditional agreement to the first half of the quote, and for the second half I should have written something like "that seems like a plausible possibility to me, but not a necessarily true one".

As to whether I was high, well, my dad's visiting me right now: a guy's allowed to share a bottle of wine with his pa over dinner, no? And if he later stimulates his thinking with sugary caffeinated drinks, then I hope that he can be forgiven. However, I seem to recall that I wrote that particular word earlier in the day, when I was sober, or at least had not consumed much more than a couple of Cokes and a Red Bull.

[recovered post originally by David Quinn on Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:43 am]

Laird wrote:

Sapius: Existence is already chopped-up, and we delude ourselves in thinking that our “mind” chops-it-up, whereas it is impossible for awareness (mind in our case) to arise without chopped-up things being around in the first place.

L: Agreed.

S: What exactly are you agreeing to here?

L: In particular, I reject the QRS belief that the mind is the sole cause of boundaries. I believe that there are boundaries in an external reality that our mind perceives through the transmission of those boundaries in sensory data.

I doubt that anyone here would argue that the mind is solely responsible for the physical contrasts that we perceive through our senses. Clearly, it isn't. But that's a separate issue from boundaries.

As observers, we have to mentally determine whether a particular contrast should serve as a boundary between two "things" or not. Sometimes we determine that it should; other times not. It all depends on what our purpose is.

For example, a tree contains many physical contrasts within it - light and shade, texture, different functioning parts, etc. Sometimes, we ignore all these contrasts and treat the tree as an undivided whole. At other times, we focus on the contrasts and separate out parts of the tree into various "entities", such as leaf, twig, branch, trunk, etc. It all depends on what our purpose is in regards to the tree. But all throughout this process, the causal interactions within the tree are constantly occurring, making each part inseparable from the others. From the point of view of cause and effect, there are no boundaries at all.

When the Buddha stated profoundly that desire is the creator of all things, he was right on the mark.

Again, to affirm the truth that boundaries are mentally created and are not really "there" in Reality isn't the same as affirming that Reality is featureless, homogeneous sludge in which all contrasts are absent. It is important not to mix up the issues here.

[recovered post originally by wired86 on Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:31 pm]

Yes, it depends how we look at a tree...Explain it to me, please Mr. Quinn, I am trying to understand what your point was. I feel all you stated was, "it depends how we look at something or chose to look at something"

Difference in perspective: When one looks at a body of water, such as the sea, on a clear sunny day. One notices the water is blue, because the clear, liquid, reflects the blue sky.

Tell me, what do I not understand? What's the harm in trying to help a less advanced individual?

[recovered post originally by Laird on Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:00 pm]

David Quinn wrote:It is important not to mix up the issues here.

But the issues are mixed up by their very nature. Physical contrasts perceived through the senses are boundaries.

[recovered post originally by David Quinn on Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:22 pm]

Laird,

DQ: It is important not to mix up the issues here.

L: But the issues are mixed up by their very nature.

They're only mixed up in confused minds.

Physical contrasts perceived through the senses are boundaries.

This is only revealing how you are choosing to mentally project.

[recovered post originally by David Quinn on Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:24 pm]

Wired,

Yes, it depends how we look at a tree...Explain it to me, please Mr. Quinn, I am trying to understand what your point was. I feel all you stated was, "it depends how we look at something or chose to look at something"

My point is that all boundaries in Nature are mentally projected.

-

[recovered post originally by Faust13 on Fri Jul 06, 2007 4:11 pm]

David Quinn wrote:Wired,

Yes, it depends how we look at a tree...Explain it to me, please Mr. Quinn, I am trying to understand what your point was. I feel all you stated was, "it depends how we look at something or chose to look at something"

My point is that all boundaries in Nature are mentally projected.

-

soo is feminine "flowieness" also mentally projected and doesn't exist in reality?

[recovered post originally by Sapius on Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:16 am]

My apologies, Laird; I’ve been unusually busy and will get back in a few days at most. In the mean while…

L: Physical contrasts perceived through the senses are boundaries.

DQ: This is only revealing how you are choosing to mentally project.

Great news, Laird. After all, you do have a choice in mental projections at least :)

DQ: It is important not to mix up the issues here.

L: But the issues are mixed up by their very nature.

DQ: They're only mixed up in confused minds.

What exactly is the problem with that! David? Considering, if Nature causes HIM to be confused, then he is confused. Or don’t you already know that?

Don’t let it bother you. But wait.. If Nature causes you to bother, then you bother… How could I ever forget that! And if Nature causes me to respond, then I respond. None actually play a part in and of Nature I guess, nor are any of us, Natural or Naturally there either. So it stands to reason then, that Nature is confused, is bothered, or responds. Ah HA!

[recovered post originally by Sapius on Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:03 pm]

Laird,

S: that “awareness” is not possible without two interactive “things” being around, where the third “thing” is but the feeling felt by both; only that we can logically define such a “thing” as THING.

L: Hmm, I can see how you feel that way. On the other hand, you seem to believe in phenomena that require no explanation - e.g. eternal matter/energy.

The explanation is already there, but one has to look at it from the reverse so to speak. Once we understand that awareness is not possible without duality existing in the first place, it will be quite clear that an absolutely “pure” awareness” is not possible, hence a creator of duality is not possible. This logically conforms much more to dimensional experiences, than…

Why then are you so reluctant to accept the possibility that pure awareness can be another such phenomenon that simply exists without requirement for explanation?

…because I find that highly improbable. The word that does not make sense to me is “pure” in relation to ‘awareness’, which implies that it is a “thing” that has some absolute non-dual existence, while duality necessarily remains an ongoing active process to hold such a conclusion of non-dual purity, (or any other conclusion for that matter), in place or onboard supported interdependently in and of duality itself. Duality and awareness thereof are intrinsically interdependent which our dualistically dependent ego is not ready to accept, because of the wonderment involved. “Pure” in any Ultimate sense sans duality, breaks down the truth of the matter itself, namely that that too is upheld in and of duality, interdependently.

I think that I now understand the way that you view consciousness at different dimensionalities, but you wrote nothing there that convinces me that at our dimensional level differentiation is required for awareness as opposed to what I see as its primary role of understanding.

How can any ‘understanding’ occur without one being ‘aware’ of dimensionally dependant differentiations in the first place? Animals differentiate at a direct perceptual level, whereas we experience exactly the same from birth, until our intellectual capability has developed enough and we are able to define such differences, and then reason over them, and then come to any kind of understandings if at all. Awareness is already there from birth through sensing different things as DIFFERENT ‘things’; and “birth” means a thing adorning a dimensionally relative form that is held in place for a certain period of dimensionally detectable relativity until such detect-ability or relativity changes due to a things dynamic nature, in and of reactions; due to Will to be. Awareness simply changes in degrees, according to the dynamic nature of a thing-to-thing relativity, and such interdependency of things/awareness, could never ever have had a beginning in any sense of linier time. In other words, time does not apply to existence itself. So even saying that Existence always existed, is actually out of context, for it IS all the “time”, irrelevant of time as conceptualized.

I prefer to view awareness not in terms of differentiation, but in terms of complexity.

I’m not quite sure what you mean here. How complex do you think a thing needs to be for any sort of awareness to be? What kind or level of awareness are you talking about here? Is a quark not complex enough at its own dimensional interactive level?

In my view, the degree of awareness depends on the degree of comparable complexity of a thing, where a less complex thing necessarily has an “awareness” however, due to its coherent interactivity involved, and the sensing (awareness) of differentiations at their own dimensional relativity is necessary for either of them to begin with, irrelevant of their level of complexity.

I admit that this is a slightly less explicative view than yours, but it feels to me that it's a more realistic focus. Don't get me wrong - I like the consistency of your approach, and I agree that differentiation has a lot of value to consciousness - I just can't (yet) view it as an ultimate explanation.

Eventually, I believe that one is guided by ones own reasoning. Existence is like a giant jigsaw puzzle where each piece on its own does not make much sense, so one should simply hold a certain idea of that piece and move on to tackle another. Only once quite a few pieces begin to make some sense through logical connectivity, will the rest of the pieces fall in place.

I also like to think, as you do, that we can view consciousness as a sliding scale, where for example an ant's consciousness is minimal compared to a mouse's, which is again but a shadow of human consciousness. I'm not quite as comfortable as you seem to be though to extend this scale to the realm of particles and to conclude that they have some degree of consciousness. I'm more comfortable to describe them as building blocks of consciousness.

You are not entirely wrong to assume that they are the building blocks of OUR consciousness, but they are the building blocks of every other thing at the same time too. The only difference is, that dimensional thing-to-thing relativity restrains certain things to certain structures as dimensional relativity dictates. So a rock, due to its dimensional relativity has certain resistant strength as compared to a mango, but the particles that make each of them up are necessarily reactive to its environment, hence even a rock will melt if heated to a certain temperature, and a mango will rot under certain conditions. Now, it is not that the Rock is aware of its rock-ness, nor is the mango aware of its mango-ness, but their particles reacting in accordance to the particle-ness of those particular things cannot be possible if those particles were not “aware” (felt) their immediate environment. These same building blocks as different compound structures, bring forth building blocks of animate life; a thing that not only has the same basic particles in place, but now their reactivity has a centralized information gathering point through interconnectivity of information flow, hence, if you poke an amoeba in the ass, it will say jump as a whole; however, it doesn’t say or think; “what the fu*k!”, or question why, since its awareness is limited to simple reactions and actions depending on its particular needs. A rock simply cannot jump due to a dimensionally relative restriction, but will melt as dimensionally dictated, where its particles have to necessarily “feel” and react accordingly. Hence have a certain degree of “awareness”, “consciousness” as a Rock-particle, but not as a wholly reactive thing like an amoeba.

S: Which is what “awareness” is itself, the difference KNOWN, and that is my point. And that difference known (experienced); is through sensing different sensations, comparably.

L: You seem to be saying that when the wind blows on my skin, I'm only aware of it because I'm simultaneously holding in my mind and contrasting against it the feeling of no wind on my skin. My response to you is that both of these feelings (wind vs no wind) are a result of complex processes that might have something to do with differentiation, but that are not wholly defined by it, and that exist regardless of (the difference between) one another.

What exists without the difference involved? Different sensations exist regardless of the different between two sensations, or that wind exists without the difference of no-wind? Or that I am totally off track?

Not only that, but I tell other something elses that what they are looking at is white, and they believe me. Isn't that how consensual reality works?

Consensual reality? You are breaking the rules my friend. To begin with, according to the opening example, there is ONLY you and WHITE; then whom are you going to consult with?

S: It is the continuity of a particular Identity in and of memory that maintains such identity until it dissipates, including a logically known sense of “I”.

L: Yes, that seems to be a reasonable assertion, but it doesn't really address what I was getting at: this deep sense of wonder at how I come to be inside of my "I", and not, for example, inside of yours.

And I wonder what really makes you wonder? Let me guess if you don’t mind. That Consciousness is one big entity that resides in all different things, so how do I operate as “I”, you as “you”, Tom (the cat) as particularly “Tom”, and Jerry as particularly “Jerry”? Would that be correct?

I was using "memory" more to mean not the process of recollection but the storage of data. Perhaps the final six words of my quote would better have been written: "once recollected there is no dependency on memory". But I'm willing to consider the possibility that awareness in some sense "travels across" memories, so that the process of recollection is nothing more than "moving the marker of consciousness into the holding place of the stored experience". In that sense then, recollection would be dependent on memory. Or perhaps the process can be described as deeper memories "popping up" into shorter-term memory, and then consciousness residing in the short-term memory-bank.

Either way, my point remains: in the instant, there is awareness, and yet in the instant there is no process.

Yes, I can agree that IN the instant, there IS awareness, as in a timeless NOW, but I would say that it is the process itself that gives rise to that instant, otherwise we could not be AWARE of it as an instant to begin with.

You have worded it well as ‘awareness in some sense "travels across" memories’. However, as far as I can see, I find that aware-ness is the process of an instant-to-instant continuity in and of a recurring recollection of relative data where instances fly by; and an instant on its own, of course holds no process, but that would be more like a literal and absolute coma; so it is the whole damn dynamic process, on the tip of which, ‘aware-ness’ is felt and maintained as dimensionally allowed.

---------

It matters that I haven't experienced it myself and that I don't know how much weight to accord to the various reports that I've read/heard of it. The more that people report it to me, the more confidence that I can have in its reality.

Yes, I can see that, however, all I can say is keep your confidence high, and a really open mind. Explanations will necessarily be personal interpretations, and as I said earlier, a taste cannot be really explained.

Please keep in mind, all I will say below is only from my point of imagination, and has no real relevance to what you might have read/heard. However, I could always interpret what you have read/heard, if you care to mention it.

S: Imagine that the human body, brain included, is a powerhouse that creates an energy field called consciousness.

L: I can certainly imagine that, but what is it then that keeps this energy field tied to the human body that created it, given that it is capable of living off its surroundings?

The weakness of it; as in not reaching maturity in and of mental evolution.

What in my opinion is the real sustaining fuel of such an occurrence, is purely an absolute confidence in whatever one believes to be the TRUTH according to his own “reasoning”, be it even an utter blind faith in worshiping a rock; which develops while it houses a body that is surrounded by circumstantial environment, plus, it mostly depends on the total mental character it amasses through thought process as an individual.

Is it some sort of sense of familiarity (fear of the unknown?) - or is it more that some sort of learning process has to occur for it to understand how to live off its surroundings rather than its creative body?

Well, learning is involved as far a developing a mentality is concerned, but not that “it understands” how to live off its surroundings; that could simply happen once a certain strong level of confidence in and of mental character is achieved. It is rather fearlessness than the fear of the unknown.

And what of death? Why should this energy field dissipate at death given that it, as you speculate, does not require a body for its existence? Do we all become ghosts at death?

Not all ‘energy fields’ (lets just call it X for convenience sake) are developed enough to survive past that which it was supported by earlier, that is a body, which is but a dimensionally relative stronger structure that is able to support it in a more of a direct kind of support. Now imagine X is a thing that does not know how to swim, and for the first time the boat (body) beneath it sinks below, so depending on its strength that it may have developed to whatever extent when body dependent, it tries to grab at water and sinks. But some are strong enough to frantically hit the water and may survive a bit longer, but however sink; and yet others survive a bit longer than that, and so on. The time duration I’m talking about here is from a faction of a second to may be a few seconds for almost all, except a very rare few that may linger on for a few minutes.

(To answer your next quote below, I need to propose certain probabilities first, which is continuity in regard to the above question too)

Once the boat sinks, some X’s may have a form of a very mildly illuminated vague shaped translucent smoke, which dissipate almost immediately, and some are circular (a table tennis ball to a bowling ball size) in shape and could have a stronger illuminated presence, but dissipate however. There could also be no essential shape or form of different Xs, and no illumination at all; but simply a tiny faint flicker and kaput.

In cases where the X does survive a while after the support is gone, may look like a translucent and a wavy form of what its body looked like, because of its earlier held visual impressions that can dimensionally resonate, but is generally very weak in advanced type of logical thinking as it did earlier, and is kind of a broken record type of a repeated and limited thought process, and is unable to really focus on any particular thought or line of coherent thinking, and remains oblivious to or really concerned about anything in particular. Some that may be fractionally stronger due to their attachments to material things while being supported are able to marginally (seemingly) interact with “material” things that they cannot really hold on to, because of the inter-overlapping of different dimensions. It remains more like a habitual routine action as if the support is there, but they do not realize that the support has long gone.

S: If, the above probability is accepted, then the factual existence of the Abrahamic God, Zeus, Vishnu, and the likes, seems very probable.

L: And of what formative body/brain was this God's consciousness forged? The all-encompassing material reality of the universe itself?

No, not the all-encompassing material reality, but just a part of it.

Xs that survive for a longer period also necessarily dissipate some time or other because of the dynamic nature of existence that does not allow it to remain indefinitely; they collapse and dissipate; change form; loose a particular identity due to existences dynamic flux.

It does not matter what a parson has utter logical confidence in, or say strong belief in, (they are but the same thing in essence though), but how extremely strong the conviction IS, is the question. Further more, the type of mentality that such convictions create is the key to the survival of an X in my opinion. For example; Hitler’s X could survive much longer than Gandhi’s, because of their convictions in and of their background belief system. As in one believes that it is HE who is in control of ALL that he does or wants to do; the other believes it is Vishnu; (keep in mind, some strongly believe that it is "causality" that does it all) hence Gandhi’s mentality is very relaxed, which means his X is relaxed, and will dissipate rather abruptly. In this case, it is the strong concern about the things left undone, which becomes the strength of X.

Now for the theological or mythological Gods.

Imagine that any ancient Assyrian, Egyptian or Greek King or Queen, (depending of where the God propped up, because its primarily concerned would be his own people), who was really deeply concerned about the well being of his subjects, and at the same time had an above average intelligence to devise new moral and civil laws. Thinks that people are generally child like, naive, selfish, etc, etc., and need my guidance.

Now, if, such an X survives, and is able to communicate cross-dimensionally, then the best way for it to make child-like people adhere to rules is by portraying an unquestionable authority. For example; I am that I am. Shut up! And just listen! Otherwise, I can do things that will be impossible according to your known sense of logic (Physics). (Enter “miracles”).

So, it is no surprise that all Gods operated with a human sense of “justice”, or the basic human nature, for that X was once, but a human to begin with. You can leave the rest of the smoke built around as belief systems to human imaginations, which holds on to a self-satisfactory answer, achieved through creating illogical premises, because a human actually cannot stand the thought, ‘I don’t know’, so accepts (believes as a fact) any answer that fits his self-centered worldview.

If what I propose above is seen as a probability, then any and all religious or mythological Gods as they stand, or paranormal, “super-natural” phenomena, you name it… remain no mystery essentially, without actually considering such Gods as impossibilities; but a highly egotistical X, yes!

S: What do you think is responsible for building the pyramids for example; human limbs, or consciousness?

L: In the stronger sense of responsibility as willfulness (God?): consciousness alone; in the weaker sense of responsibility as merely a causative factor: also human limbs.

Willfulness IS the causative factor, imbedded in and of every iota of consciousness. (Matter/energy) And what do you think essentially moves limbs, muscles or the conscious will?

S: Mental evolution is still an on going process, just that at times, there may be “freaks” of nature phenomenon that slips over to a different dimension, however remaining in the same over all natural system of interactively resonant thing-to-thing awareness.

L: I gather that you mean a higher dimension, of which we are by default incognisant. How then might this higher dimensionality be experienced by those fortunate enough to achieve its awareness?

Firstly, I don’t consider it a “higher” dimension, but it seems to be so comparatively, since all are right here and NOW.

Secondly, there is no hard and fast rule to it, except what I think is a strong confident mental conviction to KNOW, which actually already exists in various degrees, where the focus of a particular X does not really matter. Hence, different people propose different methods towards achieving it, and may be possible through any of those, but to have faith in any one particular system would necessarily influence the X accordingly, because one starts out with believing in that particular system to begin with. A pure desire to Know the truth is the key as far as I can see, which may also trigger such an experience without the aid of externally induced influences, like drugs and intoxicants. I wouldn’t really know that though, however, I think they are not as strongly effective as say focused meditations, or the Whirling of a Sufi, the chants of Tibetan monks, Mantras of a Tantrik, or say the rhythmically focused drums of Shamans assisted with some type of intoxicant that may also trigger it. But I think a clear minded conscious focus holds back a much logically operational X, otherwise, it does not go beyond a vivid dream, within which, a person is not really capable of questioning his immediate experiences logically.

And finally, such an experience is as much unfortunate as is fortunate, because it involves extremities in and of logical as well as emotional attributes which is extremely intolerable, but not impossible, which finally rests in the balancing act like a tight rope walker who has but to shift a tiny bit to adjust, His focus then needs but a minimal shift to operate coherently, without the need of going to extremities in either directions, until such X-ness dissipates eventually however.

You see, once a person, who has glimpsed say a "frontal lobe seizure", due to drugs or whatever, starts believing through logical deduction that it is but just THAT, then his X relaxes, and may never be strong enough to move any further. It is ‘doubts' rasied in and of the age of reason that weakens and holds the X back, and an utterly honest logical conviction, or be it even an extremely strong blind faith, is that which strengths it; and most lack such convictions irrelevnt of logical or faith based.

BUT, at the same time, it is also the ‘kind’ of belief that weakens it, which has its own effects.

S: Imaginative enough for you up until here?
L: Joyously, yes.

What say you now? :D

I know this will raise many questions, but please allow me the time to respond. I'm a bit tied up as things stand.

Sapius,

I procrastinated so long over this reply that in the end I figured it was better to chop out much so that I could at least get some sort of reply to you, even if it was not the best reply. I hope that you're not disappointed at what I've left behind.

Laird: I prefer to view awareness not in terms of differentiation, but in terms of complexity.

Sapius: I’m not quite sure what you mean here. How complex do you think a thing needs to be for any sort of awareness to be?

Well I'm confident that an ant has a rudimentary awareness; and I'm moderately willing to entertain the possibility that a tree or plant does.

Sapius wrote:What kind or level of awareness are you talking about here?

The ability to know that one exists; in its ultimate form to be able to think the words "I exist" and to understand the meaning and implications of those words; in lesser forms the control of behaviour based on positive outcomes for oneself.

Sapius wrote:Is a quark not complex enough at its own dimensional interactive level?

There's no way that I can imagine a quark being able to conceive of itself as an existing entity. Moreover it does not have the required complexity to influence its own behaviour through awareness - it operates more blindly according to causality than truly aware bodies do. But I'm willing to entertain the possibility that awareness is some form of unexplainable (inherent) phenomenon that could inhabit particles like the quark.

Sapius wrote:Now, it is not that the Rock is aware of its rock-ness, nor is the mango aware of its mango-ness, but their particles reacting in accordance to the particle-ness of those particular things cannot be possible if those particles were not “aware” (felt) their immediate environment.

So what is the point of nerves if we can innately "feel" our immediate environment anyway?

S: Which is what “awareness” is itself, the difference KNOWN, and that is my point. And that difference known (experienced); is through sensing different sensations, comparably.

L: You seem to be saying that when the wind blows on my skin, I'm only aware of it because I'm simultaneously holding in my mind and contrasting against it the feeling of no wind on my skin. My response to you is that both of these feelings (wind vs no wind) are a result of complex processes that might have something to do with differentiation, but that are not wholly defined by it, and that exist regardless of (the difference between) one another.

S: What exists without the difference involved? Different sensations exist regardless of the different between two sensations, or that wind exists without the difference of no-wind? Or that I am totally off track?

I meant both but more so the former: that different sensations exist regardless of the difference between the two sensations. i.e. that even if I lived in a world where the wind always blew, so that I never knew what still air felt like, I would anyway be aware of the feeling of wind on my skin.

Laird: Not only that, but I tell other something elses that what they are looking at is white, and they believe me. Isn't that how consensual reality works?

Sapius: Consensual reality? You are breaking the rules my friend. To begin with, according to the opening example, there is ONLY you and WHITE; then whom are you going to consult with?

I plead ambiguous specification of the rules. You told me only that I could see nothing but white; I assumed that I could nevertheless hear and touch people and objects despite the all-whiteness of my vision.

S: It is the continuity of a particular Identity in and of memory that maintains such identity until it dissipates, including a logically known sense of “I”.

L: Yes, that seems to be a reasonable assertion, but it doesn't really address what I was getting at: this deep sense of wonder at how I come to be inside of my "I", and not, for example, inside of yours.

S: And I wonder what really makes you wonder? Let me guess if you don’t mind. That Consciousness is one big entity that resides in all different things, so how do I operate as “I”, you as “you”, Tom (the cat) as particularly “Tom”, and Jerry as particularly “Jerry”? Would that be correct?

That's one possibility but I'm more inclined to think of consciousness as lots of individual points, perhaps connected somehow. So part of my wonderment boils down to: how did my individual point of awareness come to be located where it is?

Sapius wrote:Some that may be fractionally stronger due to their attachments to material things while being supported are able to marginally (seemingly) interact with “material” things that they cannot really hold on to, because of the inter-overlapping of different dimensions. It remains more like a habitual routine action as if the support is there, but they do not realize that the support has long gone.

Sapius wrote:Now, if, such an X survives, and is able to communicate cross-dimensionally, then the best way for it to make child-like people adhere to rules is by portraying an unquestionable authority. For example; I am that I am. Shut up! And just listen! Otherwise, I can do things that will be impossible according to your known sense of logic (Physics). (Enter “miracles”).

In the first quote above you suggest that an X's interaction with material things is weak; in the second you suggest that ultimate interaction with material things by an X is possible (miracles). How is it that an energy field devoid of a body can do anything physical at all, let alone perform miracles?

Sapius wrote:If what I propose above is seen as a probability, then any and all religious or mythological Gods as they stand, or paranormal, “super-natural” phenomena, you name it… remain no mystery essentially, without actually considering such Gods as impossibilities; but a highly egotistical X, yes!

So the Abrahamic God is just some dead egotist... the Jehovah's Witnesses are going to love you for that one. :-P How then do you explain the creation myths - are these egotistical stories created by strong X-gods who want to bolster their power over the living? And how might an X appear to a living person - as a spirit form? Does a surviving X grow in power after learning to swim?

Sapius wrote:A pure desire to Know the truth is the key as far as I can see, which may also trigger such an experience without the aid of externally induced influences, like drugs and intoxicants.

And what of a desire to protect one's body from theft by a hostile unbodied X - do you place any merit in that desire, which might prevent one from wanting to leave in the first place?

S: Imaginative enough for you up until here?
L: Joyously, yes.
S: What say you now? :D

Like reading the next chapter of a book.

Laird,

I hope that you're not disappointed at what I've left behind.

Not at all; lengthy explanations are necessary at times. You can simply respond to the main points. If there is something relative, I can restate it any time. It seems you have gone through a lot of trouble recovering lost posts, and that too quite coherently.

Laird: I prefer to view awareness not in terms of differentiation, but in terms of complexity.

Sapius: I’m not quite sure what you mean here. How complex do you think a thing needs to be for any sort of awareness to be?

L: Well I'm confident that an ant has a rudimentary awareness; and I'm moderately willing to entertain the possibility that a tree or plant does.

Fair enough.

S: What kind or level of awareness are you talking about here?

L: The ability to know that one exists; in its ultimate form to be able to think the words "I exist" and to understand the meaning and implications of those words; in lesser forms the control of behavior based on positive outcomes for oneself.

Again, fair enough.

S: Is a quark not complex enough at its own dimensional interactive level?

L: There's no way that I can imagine a quark being able to conceive of itself as an existing entity. Moreover it does not have the required complexity to influence its own behaviour through awareness - it operates more blindly according to causality than truly aware bodies do. But I'm willing to entertain the possibility that awareness is some form of unexplainable (inherent) phenomenon that could inhabit particles like the quark.

Well, lets then just leave it at that for now. May be it will crop up when relatively necessary. But please keep in mind; I do recognize the difference between animate and inanimate things, as dimensionally experienced.

S: Now, it is not that the Rock is aware of its rock-ness, nor is the mango aware of its mango-ness, but their particles reacting in accordance to the particle-ness of those particular things cannot be possible if those particles were not “aware” (felt) their immediate environment.

L: So what is the point of nerves if we can innately "feel" our immediate environment anyway?

Well, you tell me. What does an evolved information-processing center achieve? Say from a few threads of chemically linked chains of molecules to a complex enough brain? Doesn’t that in any way help a thing face and survive a harsh and unforgiving environment? Or do you think that a complex enough brain was specifically developed to attain enlightenment?

The point being that evolution means finding better and better ways to sense environment as a matter of survival; more the information processing capacity a thing has, more the chances of its survival.

S: What exists without the difference involved? Different sensations exist regardless of the different between two sensations, or that wind exists without the difference of no-wind?

L: I meant both but more so the former: that different sensations exist regardless of the difference between the two sensations.

May be, but that necessarily needs something that senses them, be it a quark.

i.e. that even if I lived in a world where the wind always blew, so that I never knew what still air felt like, I would anyway be aware of the feeling of wind on my skin.

Well, not unless you have experienced no-wind. Lets say you feel it, but if it were absolutely constant you wouldn’t know it as wind then. Even within such a world, if there were no subtle changes in the flow and such changes were felt, one wouldn’t know it as wind, or even say some sort of pressure for that matter. You would be more like a fish in the depths of the sea feeling no pressure, as I do even beyond three meters. Have you ever tried a wind tunnel BTW?

That's one possibility but I'm more inclined to think of consciousness as lots of individual points, perhaps connected somehow. So part of my wonderment boils down to: how did my individual point of awareness come to be located where it is?

Because your particular consciousness does not preexist "you" in any way. It is but a matter of being generated as a thing to a thing interaction as dimensionally allowed. The level of such consciousness changes according to the things relatively in question, and although all may be a seamless flow, each individual thing has a unique individuality, in and of relativity.

---------

S: Some that may be fractionally stronger due to their attachments to material things while being supported are able to marginally (seemingly) interact with “material” things that they cannot really hold on to, because of the inter-overlapping of different dimensions. It remains more like a habitual routine action as if the support is there, but they do not realize that the support has long gone.

L: In the first (above) quote above you suggest that an X's interaction with material things is weak;

My lack of proper explanation I guess, but what I mean there is that there is no material interaction although an X is able to somehow generate a self-expressive-smoke-like-image, and may grasp at a cup and without being able to pick it up drinks from it. Without realizing that I haven’t picked up a cup or that am I drinking anything. It may do this repeatedly without realizing the folly of such actions. A close enough idea of what I am talking about has been taken to an imaginative mixture of extremes in a movie called ‘the others”. I think that’s the name, and if I’m not mistaken, Nicole Kidman is in that movie. If you find it, watch it carefully to the end.

in the second you suggest that ultimate interaction with material things by an X is possible (miracles). How is it that an energy field devoid of a body can do anything physical at all, let alone perform miracles?

And why not? Can’t you move a piece of iron with the magnetic field of a magnet? If you didn’t know how that works then it would be a miracle, or at least “magic” to say the least. May be even today you can still get away as a God performing it for a Yakatunga tribe. Please remember that X is not exactly a non-physical thing, but merely a different inter-dimensionally relative thing that possibly can interact with other dimensions.

So the Abrahamic God is just some dead egotist... the Jehovah's Witnesses are going to love you for that one. :-P

I had quite a few knocking my door, I offered them a coke, and sent them home knocking their heads. All of them said that they would get their superior-brother to talk to me, or that I should go to their center, neither ever happened.

How then do you explain the creation myths - are these egotistical stories created by strong X-gods who want to bolster their power over the living?

No, not all stories and myths were a direct result of Xs involvement. Human imagination needs but a speck to create a mountain of myths and beliefs. X’s intentions may well have been quite honorable, that is according to what it thought was best. For example, an enlightened person may consider harsh insults as an act of compassion in the name of truth.

And how might an X appear to a living person - as a spirit form?

Possible, because it can possibly express a form it remembers, including any imagined forms if any, which is but an impression in and of a (thing) collective particles held in place more loosely than what we dimensionally experience as physically-solid. And of course, don’t forget the burning bush form, pleeeease.

Does a surviving X grow in power after learning to swim?

It could but not necessarily, that is, if his physically attached life has had a strong influence. But the kind of “power” that I think you are thinking about is not what it generally longs for as a detached X. It is more of a desire in this world. That is more like an unbelievable amazement that leaves no desire of “power” over any thing at all. You know what, “swimming” is but a very weak example actually. Ah! You drink, right? So let me say that generally X is more like a totally drunk person who still has streaks of involuntary muscular activities out of habit, but not logically controlled actions, unless it has developed strong enough mental convictions earlier.

S: A pure desire to Know the truth is the key as far as I can see, which may also trigger such an experience without the aid of externally induced influences, like drugs and intoxicants.

L: And what of a desire to protect one's body from theft by a hostile unbodied X - do you place any merit in that desire, which might prevent one from wanting to leave in the first place?

Could you please reword that? May be an example would help.

However, it is not that easy for an unbodied- X to occupy a different body, for the reason I mentioned above. It is more in a perpetual drunken state generally, and is still quite weak even if it did have enough energy to lurk around a while, be that even for hundreds of years; time is not an issue or concern really, but eventually all do dissipate, change form, and with that the quality or nature of that thing changes accordingly.

In my above quote I am simply speaking from my experiences, and know that that is not the only way through which one may experience a strange phenomena; I did mention some other possible ways earlier. But I don’t understand how your desire to protect your own body from a hostile X will somehow strengthen your X. In my opinion it is a strong emotional desire in and of a strong belief, be that even in your own logical conclusions, that strengthens the X, or even a similar strong emotional conviction of believing that a tree is God, or say the hidden void, or Tao, or whatever really; what one strongly believes IN does not really matter, but the strong conviction does. It is the strong emotional conviction in what you belief to be a fact, (be it the most logically or illogically reached) that creates a strong enough mental-personality, which is the backbone of the X.

Like reading the next chapter of a book.

Enjoy! :D

(I might be a bit busy time to time, so please don’t mind delayed responses)

Sapius, please pardon the delay, I've been procrastinating again.

L: So what is the point of nerves if we can innately "feel" our immediate environment anyway?

S: Well, you tell me. What does an evolved information-processing center achieve? Say from a few threads of chemically linked chains of molecules to a complex enough brain? Doesn't that in any way help a thing face and survive a harsh and unforgiving environment? Or do you think that a complex enough brain was specifically developed to attain enlightenment?

Nerves are part of the process by which a conscious entity feels, yet you tell me that feeling is possible without them. I acknowledge your points that nerves and similar structures in the brain provide a huge survival advantage; I can't acknowledge though as a possibility that an entity can feel without things as relatively complex as nerves and an "evolved information-processing center" - unless that is, you are willing to entertain the possibility that awareness is innate - innate awareness could innately feel - which you have stated at least once that you are not willing to do.

Laird: i.e. that even if I lived in a world where the wind always blew, so that I never knew what still air felt like, I would anyway be aware of the feeling of wind on my skin.

Sapius: Well, not unless you have experienced no-wind. Lets say you feel it, but if it were absolutely constant you wouldn't know it as wind then.

The nature of wind is change - air particles in motion - so it seems a little dubious to apply "constant" to "wind"; I think though that part of your point with this whole differentiation business is that change is part of, or required for, awareness. Perhaps you are right about that but I'm not convinced. It does seem likely though - it seems that we cannot live without constantly replenishing our energy in the form of oxygen and food; neuroscience tells us that synapses fire, which requires replenishment of chemicals in the brain and implies that the brain is in a constant state of change.

Laird: That's one possibility but I'm more inclined to think of consciousness as lots of individual points, perhaps connected somehow. So part of my wonderment boils down to: how did my individual point of awareness come to be located where it is?

Sapius: Because your particular consciousness does not preexist "you" in any way. It is but a matter of being generated as a thing to a thing interaction as dimensionally allowed.

So it seems that you would argue something like "the question that you're wondering at is no different than asking how a particular atom happens to be located where it is". And if so, then I disagree with you: consciousness has a subjective component that (I believe) an atom does not have (you, on the other hand, seem to believe that an atom does have a subjective component). So I'll keep on wondering, if you please (and even if you don't! :-P).

---------

Laird: in the second you suggest that ultimate interaction with material things by an X is possible (miracles). How is it that an energy field devoid of a body can do anything physical at all, let alone perform miracles?

Sapius: And why not?

Well, I'm open to the possibility of miracles, but if a "drunk" X who doesn't even realise the pointlessness of eir repetitive attempts to interact with physical objects is capable of performing miracles, then how much more possible would it be for a sober you or I to perform those same miracles? And yet how often do we actually observe miracles in the world?

Or are you saying that an X gains capabilities once it leaves its housing body/brain?

And of course, don't forget the burning bush form, pleeeease.

Oh, and the pillar of smoke form!

S: A pure desire to Know the truth is the key as far as I can see, which may also trigger such an experience without the aid of externally induced influences, like drugs and intoxicants.

L: And what of a desire to protect one's body from theft by a hostile unbodied X - do you place any merit in that desire, which might prevent one from wanting to leave in the first place?

S: Could you please reword that?

What I mean is that a person who otherwise desires strongly to know the truth might be afraid that after leaving eir body ey would be unable to return to it because the body might be "stolen" by an unbodied X. This fear might prevent such a person from ever experiencing astral travel.

Laird wrote:To what extent do our thoughts and our needs affect reality?
What have you read that sheds light on this topic?

How Can I Control My Thoughts? (2 min video)
http://vod.kab.tv/vod/eng/perceiving%20 ... ts_mbr.wmv

Stopping a Train with your Thoughts (2min:45sec)
Creating one’s reality and free choice.
http://vod.kab.tv/vod/eng/talks/eng_t_r ... et_mbr.wmv

A course in Perception of Reality
Lesson 4
The power of thought
http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/kabbala ... esson4.htm


---
"Only a life lived for others is worth living" ~ Einstein http://www.kabbalah.info

Hmm, curiously mystical. It's like that saying of Jesus' - faith the size of a mustard seed can move a mountain: if you believe hard enough then you can stop a train. Are we to believe this faith? And yet some would say, believe not and you will only fulfill your own will, which doesn't disprove that faith has power. I don't know, BGen - I mean, some of the writing in that article just leaves me going "huh?" For example,

kabbalah.info wrote:It seems to us that this body, this flesh, exists. It does not exist. It is only your perception that it exists.

But if we perceive something, then that something must have a form of existence, surely? Isn't observation conclusive of existence? The only question after observation is the nature of existence, not the actuality of existence itself. Perhaps it's just the way that those sentences are phrased that leaves me skeptical. Perhaps the writer would be willing for me to reword it something like this: "The nature of the existence of this body is not what we commonly imagine it to be. It is not a physical reality, but rather it exists in a non-physical form that we have not yet imagined but that we can nevertheless perceive." Still, it's pretty wishy-washy if you ask me. The best that I can do to justify it is to conceptualise what the author means as something like the virtual reality world of the Matrix, where a body is produced by electrical impulses sent into the brain through connecting technology.

Also:

kabbalah.info wrote:The speed of thoughts is infinite.

So then why does it take me half an hour to decide what I'm going to have for dinner?

kabbalah.info wrote:The power of thought can penetrate matter without limitations. We can reach complete control of reality.

So where then are the gurus who have reached complete control of reality? Have you met any of them? I'm open-minded enough to consider the possibility that such people exist, but if they do, then why is there still so much suffering and pain in the world? Or is the writer merely claiming that humanity as a whole will reach complete control at some future point, but that such control does not yet exist? And if so, then from where does this knowledge come? Mysticism and faith... well, each to eir own and perhaps Kabbalah truly is The Way, but you have to exercise a lot of trust in other people's unsubstantiated teachings, don't you?

And another thing - what does Kabbalah say about evolution and genetics? Science seems to take the attitude that thought has evolved - does Kabbalah say that thought existed before man evolved? (I take no fixed position on this by the way)

Sapius, please pardon the delay, I've been procrastinating again.

Well, pardon my delay too, except that I was enjoying a trip :)

Nerves are part of the process by which a conscious entity feels, yet you tell me that feeling is possible without them.

No, I am not necessarily saying that. What I am saying is that there is a possibility the there may be things other than nerves that may be as or even more complex that we are not aware of because of our dimensional limitations, that make feelings possible.

I acknowledge your points that nerves and similar structures in the brain provide a huge survival advantage; I can't acknowledge though as a possibility that an entity can feel without things as relatively complex as nerves and an "evolved information-processing center" - unless that is, you are willing to entertain the possibility that awareness is innate - innate awareness could innately feel - which you have stated at least once that you are not willing to do.

All that I’m simply saying is that it takes two to tango; although it may seem to be an awareness held in and of ONE “thing”, since we seem to experience a “solid” body, which is so because of the dimension it is related to, as is that is, but is actually a cumulative structure reactive according to its thing-ness and tangos with other thing-ness, external as well as internal, because there is infinite thing-ness within any thing-ness in an infinite loop of interactive dimensions.

The nature of wind is change - air particles in motion - so it seems a little dubious to apply "constant" to "wind";

I agree.

I think though that part of your point with this whole differentiation business is that change is part of, or required for, awareness. Perhaps you are right about that but I'm not convinced.

Well, you are free to arrive at your conclusions when you arrive; there are no compulsions. One does operate individualistically you know, but yes, that is how I see it, and find it quite impossible otherwise.

It does seem likely though - it seems that we cannot live without constantly replenishing our energy in the form of oxygen and food; neuroscience tells us that synapses fire, which requires replenishment of chemicals in the brain and implies that the brain is in a constant state of change.

There can be absolutely nothing that is not in a constant state of change, except change itself.

So it seems that you would argue something like "the question that you're wondering at is no different than asking how a particular atom happens to be located where it is". And if so, then I disagree with you: consciousness has a subjective component that (I believe) an atom does not have (you, on the other hand, seem to believe that an atom does have a subjective component). So I'll keep on wondering, if you please (and even if you don't! :-P).

Well, I wouldn’t argue like that, but may be that it would be like asking ‘why are you - you, and I - I’? To which I can simply say that because you are not me, and I am not you, irrelevant of both being (individually) conscious things.

---------

Well, I'm open to the possibility of miracles, but if a "drunk" X who doesn't even realise the pointlessness of eir repetitive attempts to interact with physical objects is capable of performing miracles,

You are mixing two different things here. Most of the Xs are in a drunken type state and CANNOT interact with physical objects, but do act as if they can and are, because they have yet to realize that they do not correlate to the dimension they used to, but may never ever realize it at all.

Now, there are different levels of this drunkenness to different Xs, where some are sober enough to certain extent and can use some coherent logic as they used to, hence we have different types of paranormal phenomena. With different levels of soberness, comes different levels of interactive capabilities, and such capabilities depend on how that X lived its physical dimensional life. What made the strongest impression on its consciousness? Which depends on its overall developed mental personality.

then how much more possible would it be for a sober you or I to perform those same miracles? And yet how often do we actually observe miracles in the world?

But we are bound to a different dimension which is say a kindergarten in and of mental evolution, and when ripe enough, it jumps through to other dimensions, but not necessarily all Xs do, because just like physical evolution, it is that “survival of the fittest” that works, and the rest goes extinct. And I am simply using drunkenness/soberness as an analogy, not literally. So however sober or logical, or coherently clear my thinking may be, I am yet bound to a physical dimension, hence cannot do things that an X could do through and interactively from another dimension.

Take a look at THIS to get an idea of how inter-dimensional interaction may look like “miracles”.

Or are you saying that an X gains capabilities once it leaves its housing body/brain?

Of course, isn’t that obvious from what I have been saying? But it also looses some other capabilities. Capabilities are generally dimensional reliant, but there are possibilities that coherent capabilities can be supported in and of multi-dimensional interactions under certain conditions.

Oh, and the pillar of smoke form!

I think that was the pillar of fire, not smoke. That wouldn’t be impressive enough. :D

What I mean is that a person who otherwise desires strongly to know the truth might be afraid that after leaving eir body ey would be unable to return to it because the body might be "stolen" by an unbodied X. This fear might prevent such a person from ever experiencing astral travel.

No, there aren’t that many unbodied Xs around, and even lesser that may have a capability of jumping at the opportunity of jumping into a body. I already mentioned, hardly any are aware that they are unbodied to begin with. So that is not the real worry, however, the initial fear is of an unknown experience and the fear of not returning to your own body if things go wrong, which is a subconscious fear really, but quite difficult to get rid of.

Talking about X snatching a body; it may happen in very rare cases tough, but there are other reasons involved. What we know as reincarnation is a huge belief system developed around a very rare few actual X taking over a different body. This happens mostly because an X may have a very strong attachment to the material world – mentally of course; that is, it has a strong sense of responsibility towards some particular unfinished business, or an X that cares intensely about a particular person or feels strongly obligated, AND that too this thought has to necessarily be the very last and only though that the X is concerned with at the moment of death, which may trigger an automatic move towards a material body, say like a magnet being attracted to iron, and is attracted to the most weak X, say that of a child or a very underdeveloped carefree X. This occupation may happen for no particular reason too, but that is further extremely rare.

Another thing, in genuine cases, it does not and cannot throw out the current X, but it simply uses the physicality to express its own memories without touching the current ones memories, but it becomes quite confusing for the current X, for either memories keep fluctuating as stronger or weaker according to the fluctuating weaker or stronger temperaments of the Xs with their own fluctuating focus, and frustrations over the lack of same.

I didn’t know ‘The Elegant Universe’ was up on Youtube.
Take a look if you haven’t had a chance to see it.

Part 1 (1/5)

Part 1 (2/5)

Part 1 (3/5)

Part 1 (4/5)

Part 1 (5/5)

Part 2 (1/5)

Part 2 (2/5)

Part 2 (3/5)

Part 2 (4/5)

Part 2 (5/5)

Part 3 (1/5)

Part 3 (2/5)

Part 3 (3/5)

Part 3 (4/5)

Part 3 (5/5)

Ah! I found this one too. It is related to your topic.

Sapius wrote:I didn’t know ‘The Elegant Universe’ was up on Youtube.
Take a look if you haven’t had a chance to see it.

Argh! You're about a week too early - I've just ordered broadband. This seems interesting though and I look forward to watching it.

Laird: Nerves are part of the process by which a conscious entity feels, yet you tell me that feeling is possible without them.

Sapius: No, I am not necessarily saying that. What I am saying is that there is a possibility the there may be things other than nerves that may be as or even more complex that we are not aware of because of our dimensional limitations, that make feelings possible.

Earlier you wrote about rocks, mangoes and particles "feeling", which you equated with awareness. So it seems that you are implying that these things possess structures equally as complex as nerves that we simply aren't aware of yet. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

Sapius wrote:Well, I wouldn’t argue like that, but may be that it would be like asking ‘why are you - you, and I - I’? To which I can simply say that because you are not me, and I am not you, irrelevant of both being (individually) conscious things.

I've composed a little poem for you about this:

I find it extraordinary
That I am not you, and you are not me
And from what I can see
It's a real mystery.

"But it's simple" you write in this forum
"I'll say it w'out fuss or decorum"
"Now the reason it be"
"I'll share here with thee:"

"You have to remember old chap"
"Before you get into a flap"
"That I am one brother"
"And you quite another."

"So don't you get into a mess"
"Or end up in a state of distress"
"It's just that we're two"
"And with that make do."

But verily doth I protest
That's circular even at best
From which words we started
We have not yet parted.

And so I imagine a way
With which to impress and convey
The feelings with which I'm assailed
As reasoning seems to have failed:

It seems that there must be some chain -
A process by which to explain
How I'm in my brain,
And not yours (as is plain).

"But of course!" I can guess you'll respond
"Like the waves ripple out in a pond"
"Causality has us in tow"
"It's trivial - there's nothing to know."

But yet am I unsatisfied
And with thought is my brain being fried
Because: you and I are subjective
And we come from within a perspective.

So it's easy for me to conjecture
Without starting off on a lecture
That the essence of who we each are
Could be swapped like the seats of a car.

And without meaning to labour the point
Nor to seem like I'm smoking a joint
I feel that there's something more to it
Than just saying "there's causes: intuit".

And I guess that's where we'll have to leave it
'Cos our views are divergent - there's no way to cleave it
In closing I'll give you this thought
Are you, you, and I, I, 'cos we ought?

---------

Sapius wrote:Take a look at THIS to get an idea of how inter-dimensional interaction may look like “miracles”.

Well that was cute and entertaining. It seemed to be talking about dimensions differently than how you have been though. It talked of spatial dimensions whereas you have so far been talking about dimensionality as the level of size at which a thing operates. Perhaps you have a broad definition of "dimension" that allows for various different semantics though.

Laird: Oh, and the pillar of smoke form!

Sapius: I think that was the pillar of fire, not smoke. That wouldn’t be impressive enough. :D

Ah, it turns out that we're both right, except that my clouds smoke:

The Bible, New International Version, at Exodus 13:21 wrote:By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night.

Sapius wrote:What we know as reincarnation is a huge belief system developed around a very rare few actual X taking over a different body.

So you have an explanation for Christianity (X-as-God) and Hinduism (X-takes-new-body) - now try Buddhism. :-P What does the theory of X explain about enlightenment?

Sapius wrote:Another thing, in genuine cases, it does not and cannot throw out the current X, but it simply uses the physicality to express its own memories without touching the current ones memories, but it becomes quite confusing for the current X, for either memories keep fluctuating as stronger or weaker according to the fluctuating weaker or stronger temperaments of the Xs with their own fluctuating focus, and frustrations over the lack of same.

Perhaps leading to mental health problems? Multiple personality disorder?

Laird,

Earlier you wrote about rocks, mangoes and particles "feeling", which you equated with awareness. So it seems that you are implying that these things possess structures equally as complex as nerves that we simply aren't aware of yet. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

Well, in the sense that thay are comlex enough to work as Mango-particles or Nerve-particles, but as an over all structure, a nerve is more complex. As for structures that are more complex than a nerve, (which carry information to a centralized processing center), say for example information can be carried along radio waves too, so X may use some other more complex structure than nerves that can provide flow of information. Say some sort of electro-magnetically relayed information system.


Your wonderfully written poem seems to capture the essence of our total discussion. :)

In response to your last query…

And I guess that's where we'll have to leave it
'Cos our views are divergent - there's no way to cleave it
In closing I'll give you this thought
Are you, you, and I, I, 'cos we ought?

I offer these two lines;

If I were not I and you were not you,
One wouldn’t be one and two wouldn’t be two.

Well that was cute and entertaining. It seemed to be talking about dimensions differently than how you have been though. It talked of spatial dimensions whereas you have so far been talking about dimensionality as the level of size at which a thing operates. Perhaps you have a broad definition of "dimension" that allows for various different semantics though.

I am afraid that is the case, because we don’t have words that would describe dimensions beyond the four that we know of. So at times my use of ‘dimension’ may be different as per context, but that can be understood only if we are both aware of the context itself. Are you familiar with Michio Kaku? Make good use of your broadband and do a search at youtube. Many videos there.

So you have an explanation for Christianity (X-as-God) and Hinduism (X-takes-new-body) - now try Buddhism. :-P What does the theory of X explain about enlightenment?

Well, you will have to define enlightenment. :D

Perhaps leading to mental health problems? Multiple personality disorder?

May be, but actually they are a different issue that concern a single current X suffering from short-circuits in its current supportive system.

Enjoy your broadband until I get back in about ten days.

Various things have kept me from watching those videos but I finally finished viewing them. Very interesting stuff. Some of it seems quite far-fetched, like the idea of extra curled-up dimensions, branes and parallel universes, but it's intriguing to think that there's some mathematical modelling that supports it. Thanks for sending those links my way. Oh yes, Michio Kaku looks like quite an interesting chap - at your suggestion I hunted down a video of him through YouTube and it was worthwhile watching. I'll keep him in mind for the future.

I don't know whether our discussion has anywhere further to go, but it's been an enjoyable one - thanks for sharing your ideas and don't hesitate to add anything that you think has gone unsaid so far!

Oh, by the way, I've been having some pretty cool dreams recently. I had a lucid dream about two weeks ago where I confirmed that I saw in colour, not black-and-white, and that it was first-person. I did have a dream though a few weeks earlier where I noticed that for perhaps five seconds I moved from first-person perspective to third-person perspective. I have a checklist of things that I want to experiment with the next time that I have a lucid dream. The first one is to pinch myself and to see whether I feel pain. Next is to try to speak and to see whether I can hear myself and whether I sound normal. Then I want to check to see whether I am breathing as usual, and if so, whether I can simply stop without discomfort. Is there anything else that you would recommend I experiment with?

Hi Laird,

I had a lucid dream about two weeks ago where I confirmed that I saw in colour, not black-and-white, and that it was first-person.

In my experience colour is around thirty percent of the time, and the first or the third person perspective should be immediately reflected upon once awake, after a while this alertness becomes a norm, and in a third person perspective one is immediately aware that it is a dream. No need to pinch yourself, it does not really work actually. Let me know if it does.

The first one is to pinch myself and to see whether I feel pain. Next is to try to speak and to see whether I can hear myself and whether I sound normal.

Just like the pinch, the sound thing also does not always work. Most of the time one does not even actually “listen” to someone speak, but simply “hears” muffled thoughts in a sense, and the mind fills in the rest. Try remembering the actual words spoken by someone you think is speaking in the dream. You should experience that no words are actually spoken. The mind does the “speaking” for all, and you can’t actually ‘speak’ to any one, especially from the third perspective.

Then I want to check to see whether I am breathing as usual, and if so, whether I can simply stop without discomfort.

I think you better first master being fully aware of the difference between the first and the third person perspectives. Once a third person perspective, which is relatively easy to spot, is mastered, then try mastering being aware of the first person perspective while dreaming, which is much more difficult. Awareness of logical inconsistencies should be your guide to be "awake" in a first person perspective dream. At times, these perspectives keep interchanging within a single dream, and that too can be good indicators.

Is there anything else that you would recommend I experiment with?

I don’t know any particular method, or what might work for you, but a single-minded clear focus is essential in my opinion, and a really open mind, of course; but don't experiment with drugs :D