GENIUS FORUMS

We don't need our entire body, or brain to break away from nature. We can't control a lot of what we do. Like hunger, thirst. Emotions we can slowly alter over many years. Like we can alter just 0.0000001 digit every so often, and we can do this with sentience. And therefore free of nature. Our brain is not our sentience by the way. Our brain is part of nature. We observe our particles to spin the gates, to gate the electrons in the right directions, to get our brain to do something.... I would presume. The idea works for me anyway.

Pincho,
I find the lack of range of my mind quite a good indicator here. Honestly -- who am "I"? I don't even control my body. I control a very small portion of my body; most of it, the most important parts, function subconsciously.

I picture my consciousness as a tool of my body. My body wants a wider range of decisions in certain things. My conscious actions are less efficient than my subconscious ones but man has evolved so well that he doesn't have much need for optimal efficiency at this point, otherwise "I" probably wouldn't be here!

And regardless of what reasoning I do in my consciousness my body doesn't care if I find absolute truths or reach enlightenment. All it wants from me is decisions. If we succeed at tasks like finding a mate our genes will be passed on. But even if they aren't we won't care since efficiency is not required by humanity at this stage.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Dan,

Because emotions arise out of the delusional belief in an inherently existing self. Without such a belief there's no place for emotions to find cause or reason (other than lingering mental habits which manifest as a subtle form of dissonance).

Many people don't believe they have an inherently existing "soul" or "self" and still have emotions.

What, 99% of Buddhists you mean? Anyway, I'm not interested in what such people merely "believe"; I'm interested in what people know and have incorporated into their entire consciousness. Emotions arising in the face of such an understanding can only be attributed to dissonance or lingering neural networks.

I don't understand why something must be inherently existing to love it, or why one must be inherently existing to love whereas thinking, for example, is excluded from this.

Where is the benefit of loving to an egoless being? What do you think "love" is?

Yes,cognitive dissonance does seem to explain quite alot.

Dan,

Where is the benefit of loving to an egoless being? What do you think "love" is?

These days many people treat love as a way to have fun with each other while they are living here on planet earth for whatever reason they are here.

Neil Melnyk wrote:Pincho,
I find the lack of range of my mind quite a good indicator here. Honestly -- who am "I"? I don't even control my body. I control a very small portion of my body; most of it, the most important parts, function subconsciously.

I picture my consciousness as a tool of my body. My body wants a wider range of decisions in certain things. My conscious actions are less efficient than my subconscious ones but man has evolved so well that he doesn't have much need for optimal efficiency at this point, otherwise "I" probably wouldn't be here!

And regardless of what reasoning I do in my consciousness my body doesn't care if I find absolute truths or reach enlightenment. All it wants from me is decisions. If we succeed at tasks like finding a mate our genes will be passed on. But even if they aren't we won't care since efficiency is not required by humanity at this stage.

I sentiently made you say that. My own sentience was a cause, and your post was the effect. Even if you were a robot, you just did something that broke you free of nature, because my sentience caused the reply.

I was not part of your brain, and I know that my sentience is free from my physical brain, it could even be on the other side of the universe, it makes no difference. We can spin particles accross the universe already.

I sentiently made you say that. My own sentience was a cause, and your post was the effect. Even if you were a robot, you just did something that broke you free of nature, because my sentience caused the reply.

This is so mixed up. Your own sentience [namely a certain pattern of existence, entirely initiated by other than that pattern of existence as such pattern was non-existent at the time, and then once existent, entirely subservient to the structure of that pattern of existence relative to external patterns of existence, the environment] certainly was a cause - but none of this is in any way breaking free of nature.

I was not part of your brain, and I know that my sentience is free from my physical brain, it could even be on the other side of the universe, it makes no difference. We can spin particles accross the universe already.

Lol, totally false. There is no possible way in which your sentience could possibly in any way be free from your brain.
You need to become godless before you can progress. First make yourself your own god, after all your God can only reside in your own sentience, so you already own such a God, then start to examine this self-god, and you may see what you and everything else is or is not.

Jamesh wrote:

I sentiently made you say that. My own sentience was a cause, and your post was the effect. Even if you were a robot, you just did something that broke you free of nature, because my sentience caused the reply.

This is so mixed up. Your own sentience [namely a certain pattern of existence, entirely initiated by other than that pattern of existence as such pattern was non-existent at the time, and then once existent, entirely subservient to the structure of that pattern of existence relative to external patterns of existence, the environment] certainly was a cause - but none of this is in any way breaking free of nature.

I was not part of your brain, and I know that my sentience is free from my physical brain, it could even be on the other side of the universe, it makes no difference. We can spin particles accross the universe already.

Lol, totally false. There is no possible way in which your sentience could possibly in any way be free from your brain.
You need to become godless before you can progress. First make yourself your own god, after all your God can only reside in your own sentience, so you already own such a God, then start to examine this self-god, and you may see what you and everything else is or is not.

My thread proves that we can sentiently operate things outside of our brain. Therefore our sentience can be outside our brain to operate it. For example. these particles could be used to turn on a light just by observing them. And they are not within our brain. Put the particles in a Cat's brain as another example, and we could make the cat do something... Once we understand the cat's brain in the future.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3494

Do you see how sentience can just travel through space now?

My thread proves that we can sentiently operate things outside of our brain. Therefore our sentience can be outside our brain to operate it. For example. these particles could be used to turn on a light just by observing them. And they are not within our brain. Put the particles in a Cat's brain as another example, and we could make the cat do something... Once we understand the cat's brain in the future.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3494

Do you see how sentience can just travel through space now?

You are imaging falsities. That thread proves nothing - well except that you are imagining falsities :).

Mind you, I remain uncertain about certain ESP outcomes. For example, I'm not convinced that all body language is sight/smell/hearing based.

This is not to in any way indicate that I beleive in anything supernatural, everything is tied directly to the physical world.
I just think it is possible that the magnetic side of the brains functioning, has not been fully investigated and assessed as yet. All we know is that electro-magnetism is a causal kinship, and the brain uses both. Magnetism is a more distinct wavelike entity, so therefore it is possible the brain has developed some magnetic sense, that could in very rare circumstances, also be used as an external tool at a distance.

Somewhere in our pre-human evolutionary life, we would DEFINITELY have used eletromagnetism as a tool*, which has since superceded by more recently evolved tools like sight, then like our tailbone remmant or the pineal gland, there may still be a little of that tool remaining.

*bacteria must use something like this, and our lifeline leads back to such simple creatures.

That I say something is possible should not be implied that I think it most probable.

You are imaging falsities. That thread proves nothing - well except that you are imagining falsities :).

Mind you, I remain uncertain about certain ESP outcomes. For example, I'm not convinced that all body language is sight/smell/hearing based.

This is not to in any way indicate that I beleive in anything supernatural, everything is tied directly to the physical world.
I just think it is possible that the magnetic side of the brains functioning, has not been fully investigated and assessed as yet. All we know is that electro-magnetism is a causal kinship, and the brain uses both. Magnetism is a more distinct wavelike entity, so therefore it is possible the brain has developed some magnetic sense, that could in very rare circumstances, also be used as an external tool at a distance.

Somewhere in our pre-human evolutionary life, we would DEFINITELY have used eletromagnetism as a tool*, which has since superceded by more recently evolved tools like sight, then like our tailbone remmant or the pineal gland, there may still be a little of that tool remaining.

*bacteria must use something like this, and our lifeline leads back to such simple creatures.

That I say something is possible should not be implied that I think it most probable.

Magnetism is not instant, and cannot travel to the other side of the universe in an instant. These particles can pass a message to the other side of the universe in an instant. Way faster than light. In fact, no time passes at all. Because they use sentience that does not obey the speed of nature.

Anyway, magnetism is a wave.

Pincho

(Everything lacks inherent existence) Please explain

Well, I could try, but I would first like to know your definition of ‘particle’ as you conceive of it.

Sapius wrote:Pincho

(Everything lacks inherent existence) Please explain

Well, I could try, but I would first like to know your definition of ‘particle’ as you conceive of it.

Well a particle is a clumping of Dark Matter, and energy to me.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Sapius wrote:Pincho

(Everything lacks inherent existence) Please explain

Well, I could try, but I would first like to know your definition of ‘particle’ as you conceive of it.

Well a particle is a clumping of Dark Matter, and energy to me.

Quite a bit of questions arise in there.

What is Dark “matter” and what is energy to begin with?

Quite a bit of questions arise in there.

What is Dark “matter” and what is energy to begin with?

Dark matter is an infinate linking, a 3 demensional chain of tiny storage boxes. Each box contains a ball, and the ball is trapped, and bouncing around in the box. thus jiggling the box. The ball does not have a zero state, it has a dual 0/1 state, and then states higher or lower than this.. Being as the jiggling box is connected to boxes all around it like a rubix cube, the jiggle is passed to the other boxes, which in turn gives the balls inside the other boxes a change of pace, or direction.

Dark Matter:

matter in the Universe which does not visibly radiate and is thus not (yet) observable. Cosmologists estimate that 90% of the mass of the universe is “dark” but the exact form of this matter is the subject of much debate.

Ignis Fatuus wrote:Dark Matter:

matter in the Universe which does not visibly radiate and is thus not (yet) observable. Cosmologists estimate that 90% of the mass of the universe is “dark” but the exact form of this matter is the subject of much debate.

It does radiate, not always visibly. I am going with my conception as applied above, because it results in the creation of the universe, and everything contained in it. Including gravity, and magnetism.

Pincho

Dark matter is an infinate linking, a 3 demensional chain of tiny storage boxes.

Is the dark matter something like glue? Facilitating the linking? If it is just the linking between the boxes, then why call it Dark matter? As if it has some material properties. Or does it?

So a particle is made up of or has two properties, Dark matter and energy; are they in any way dependent on each other, or does one of them create the other?

Each box contains a ball, and the ball is trapped, and bouncing around in the box. thus jiggling the box.

Let’s begin with how did the box come about? Surely you must have thought over that and have some idea. What is the layer of the box and the ball made up of?

The ball does not have a zero state, it has a dual 0/1 state, and then states higher or lower than this.. Being as the jiggling box is connected to boxes all around it like a rubix cube, the jiggle is passed to the other boxes, which in turn gives the balls inside the other boxes a change of pace, or direction.

Never mind the different states at once part for now, but over all you have said nothing less than a mechanistic causality then. Hence, existence may be balls jiggling within boxes connected by dark matter; so what could escape it? If something escapes this fundamental principle, then it stands to reason that it is not connected by the dark matter, so would that be possible? For example sentience?

Ignis Fatuus wrote:Dark Matter:

matter in the Universe which does not visibly radiate and is thus not (yet) observable. Cosmologists estimate that 90% of the mass of the universe is “dark” but the exact form of this matter is the subject of much debate.

Well, I believe we do detect certain effects but do not know what causes it, hence calling it "dark matter" may be justifiable, because we are in the dark about the matter, for now that is.

Pincho may be looking at it "philosophically", so lets see where it leads. No harm in intuitive thinking.

Sapius wrote:Pincho

Dark matter is an infinate linking, a 3 demensional chain of tiny storage boxes.

Is the dark matter something like glue? Facilitating the linking? If it is just the linking between the boxes, then why call it Dark matter? As if it has some material properties. Or does it?

So a particle is made up of or has two properties, Dark matter and energy; are they in any way dependent on each other, or does one of them create the other?

Each box contains a ball, and the ball is trapped, and bouncing around in the box. thus jiggling the box.

Let’s begin with how did the box come about? Surely you must have thought over that and have some idea. What is the layer of the box and the ball made up of?

The ball does not have a zero state, it has a dual 0/1 state, and then states higher or lower than this.. Being as the jiggling box is connected to boxes all around it like a rubix cube, the jiggle is passed to the other boxes, which in turn gives the balls inside the other boxes a change of pace, or direction.

Never mind the different states at once part for now, but over all you have said nothing less than a mechanistic causality then. Hence, existence may be balls jiggling within boxes connected by dark matter; so what could escape it? If something escapes this fundamental principle, then it stands to reason that it is not connected by the dark matter, so would that be possible? For example sentience?

I use the term dark matter because scientists are looking for this name. I am giving them, and you a clue as to what I am talking about. Somebody will rename it when they figure out what it is.

My boxes are just next to one another. Touching. Not sure if they are glued, or sliding around, or both at the same time through duality. Or a pair in seperate dimensions. But most of the time they need to be glued as you put it. Maybe surrounded by a larger bubble that holds them together until the bubble gets pushed to let them free, or pull them along with it, or drag, and replicate the pattern elsewhere.

The boxes are what nothing, and everything is. A box with no bounce is nothing, and a very shaky box can destroy you. A group of shaking boxes can form a layer that stops the information from getting to the other side, thus solid matter. A group of highly active fast shaking boxes can create a sun. With the shake degrading over a distance. A slow shake that is transmitted along a path can create gravity.

The boxes never came about. They are eternal, and infinate in all directions. The shake is what came about from the 0/1 state inside the box. They are not made up of anything, because to call something a thing, it has to be made from dark matter. All of our devices that search for a thing are searching for the second stage of dark matter, its vibration, but not its first stage.. the box. You can't see the box because it give no output. We can only measure output.

Sentience is what happens when the balls break their 0/1 dual state without the passage of information between two adjacent boxes. I have no idea how this happens. It could happen inside the box, or outside the box with a larger sphere than the ones inside the box. A larger sphere passing information between many boxes at once, thus travelling faster than the usual method might be one way to explain it, but the actual design of sentience is my next problem. Afterall I onle figured out how sentience works about 2 days ago. And that was to figure that is just breaks a 0/1 state.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:It means that no thing exists of itself (is its own cause). Another way to look at it is things being illusory because they have no true beginning or end. Where does your keyboard begin/end? It's impossible to demonstrate this beyond the inferential level of brute perception. The only answer is: where it appears to. But what is this appearance?

Is that it? Of course that is wrong. Sentience is its own cause. Sentience pushes the car, but nothing pushes sentience. Easy.

Yes, but what you are calling ‘sentience’ is clearly not a thing. Let me explain. Every ‘thing’ comprises a unique set of characteristic which are essential to that thing’s being ‘what it is’. These ‘essential characteristics” are individually called the ‘elements’ of the thing’ while collectively they are called it ‘essence’. Things then, being dependent upon other things (i.e., their elements) for their being, have only a relative (contingent) existence; arising, persisting and ceasing to exist in accordance with the coming together and interaction of their elements. That all things are composite in their essence is further evidence by the fact that the term, ‘thing’, has its origin in the Anglo Saxon notion of a ‘deliberative assembly’ or ‘gathering together’. Take the case of the ‘water molecule’ for example. The water molecule comes into being with the coming together of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, and persists only so long as these atoms (its elements) remain united in a single entity. Such an entity is said to be ‘illusory’ because it does not exist in-and-of-itself, but in the relationship between other things. It is similar to the optical illusion wherein two half vases are brought together in such a way as to create the appearance of a whole vase in the space between them.

That which you have called ‘sentience’ (or cognizant awareness), on the other hand, is not composite, and so is not dependent upon the coming together of any extrinsic causes, but is possessed of its own intrinsic causes. Consequently, it cannot rightfully be called a thing. Nevertheless, without that there existed this absolute entity, there could be no relative entities at all.

Yes, but what you are calling ‘sentience’ is clearly not a thing.

It can spin a particle through observation. So it is a thing. Because it is then part of the particle, and so has another part, even though it was originally a single entity.

Anyway, my way of understanding the English language is to call Sentience a thing. Because a thing is just something that has proof of existence.

Pincho,

I use the term dark matter because scientists are looking for this name. I am giving them, and you a clue as to what I am talking about. Somebody will rename it when they figure out what it is.

Scientists are looking for this ‘name’?? I think you mean looking for this elusive “thing”. However, since you seem to have figured it out, why don’t you name it?

My boxes are just next to one another. Touching. Not sure if they are glued, or sliding around, or both at the same time through duality.

I may understand you better if you attempted to take each question and answer it specifically, then may be I could have an over all comprehension. You will have to define each of the idea behind the use of words like say ‘duality’ for example here, so lets first understand your boxes.

And…

The boxes are what nothing, and everything is. A box with no bounce is nothing, and a very shaky box can destroy you.

Are you saying that a thing is a thing and not a thing at the same time? And if a box with no bounce is nothing, then how did you conceive of a ‘box’? Surely it is some-thing.

Unless and until I don’t understand what makes up the layer of the box and the balls, I won’t comprehend what they can create or destroy. So again, try answering each query specifically.

You replied to Jehu…

Jehu: Yes, but what you are calling ‘sentience’ is clearly not a thing.

Pincho: It can spin a particle through observation. So it is a thing.

So how is a ‘box’ nothing, even if it seemingly does nothing? It is a ‘thing’ by the virtue of it being a 'box'. No? Are you saying that there is a box but because nothing vibrates within, it is not a thing although it seemingly sits there?

Jehu, on a different level of though… if you don’t mind that is…

That which you have called ‘sentience’ (or cognizant awareness), on the other hand, is not composite, and so is not dependent upon the coming together of any extrinsic causes, but is possessed of its own intrinsic causes.

What do you really mean by ‘cognizant’?

Yes, but what you are calling ‘sentience’ is clearly not a thing. Let me explain. Every ‘thing’ comprises a unique set of characteristic which are essential to that thing’s being ‘what it is’. These ‘essential characteristics” are individually called the ‘elements’ of the thing’ while collectively they are called it ‘essence’.

Are you saying ‘sentience’ has no characteristics or essence?

Consequently, it cannot rightfully be called a thing. Nevertheless, without that there existed this absolute entity, there could be no relative entities at all.

In my opinion, then you could not call it an ‘entity’ either, for that makes it a thing. However, what you might be referring to is purely ‘awareness’ according to me, but that is necessarily dependant on things if awareness is to mean anything at all, irrelevant of how “illusory” ‘things’ may be considered. Hence aware-ness is dependant on thing-ness and vice versa, interdependently that is; that is all one can say in any absolute sense about existence, otherwise, it seems to be merely our wishful thinking that yearns to hold on to something Absolutely Absolute. Makes no sense to me really, because the thought of absolute-ness itself seems to be dependant on existence itself; that is, all that the thought is not.

Sapius wrote:Pincho,

Are you saying that a thing is a thing and not a thing at the same time? And if a box with no bounce is nothing, then how did you conceive of a ‘box’? Surely it is some-thing.

Unless and until I don’t understand what makes up the layer of the box and the balls, I won’t comprehend what they can create or destroy. So again, try answering each query specifically.

You replied to Jehu…

Jehu: Yes, but what you are calling ‘sentience’ is clearly not a thing.

Pincho: It can spin a particle through observation. So it is a thing.

So how is a ‘box’ nothing, even if it seemingly does nothing? It is a ‘thing’ by the virtue of it being a 'box'. No? Are you saying that there is a box but because nothing vibrates within, it is not a thing although it seemingly sits there?

Well the box is a box because if it were a sphere it would have spaces between it, and you can't have a space between the entity that is the deffinition of nothing, else you would have two deffinitions of nothing. There may be other shapes that work without spaces, but you should really pick the simplest shape, but I do actually prefer a shape like a hexagon because it makes better spheres, or bubbles.

The box is nothing because I am using the word nothing like the colour black in the dark, you say I can see nothing, but actually you can see black. The box is invisible to any equipment it is possible to build. All that represents dark matter is a shape with no spaces.

I feel really fucked up doing this....................But hey, I feel fucked up living.........:)