GENIUS FORUMS

kind of taken out of context. by only placing my last thought disconnected from the previous statements above;

"to identify yourself as a human and nothing else is false. our bodies are made up of pure unconscious material, therefore, we are no different than the rock other than consciousness alone. Always keeping in mind that consciousness itself is unaware that itself exists. Truly there is nothing."

you've somewhat severed my thought as a whole, taken what was last said in total disregard to everything before, thus distorting the true reason of my point.

now, back on topic and directly to the main point of your response, take into consideration that it is out of this complete nothingness, that everything truly exists.

m4tt_666:

now, back on topic and directly to the main point of your response, take into consideration that it is out of this complete nothingness, that everything truly exists.

Carmel:
We arise out of a material universe, which is indeed "something". You didn't acknowledge this point, but merely repeated what you already said. You need to provide supporting reasoning for your statement.

material, by any definition is completely meaningless. we, as humans label this falsified boundary purely out of ignorant instinct for physical survival.

now, consider that thought with my previous statement, "it is out of this complete nothingness, that everything truly exists.".

and if you feel the need to re-read this post and actually give a serious attempt at comprehending my thoughts, by all means do not resist that urge. i want nothing more than to be able to communicate in the purest sense with any consciousness. i perceive myself not only as a physical human being, but simultaneously existent in the same sense, as a momentary thought.

i perceive myself not only as a physical human being, but simultaneously existent in the same sense, as a momentary thought.

Momentary being the operative word.

you again, miss the point. I am aware of motion. to think otherwise in the physical mindset would be ignorant, but only is that ignorance applicable to that mindset.

i am inviting you to think of these same things in your natural mental mindset. the same mindset that exists, beyond doubt but where the same sense of motion is equally insane to its practical mindset, thus dispelling it of the physical ignorance, ultimately existing as the same truth, occupying the same space thus the illusion of never being actually thought.


again, i really encourage all who want to read my posts seriously, to take the actual time to really let my ideas sink as they were your own. for that second, everything i am offering to you is true beyond doubt in that moment.

also keep in mind you foresee an infinite amount of moments that will succeed it, for this is fact due to the theory of memory. where this will do nothing more than simply free you from the feeling of my post being the truth beyond doubt anymore.

the truth is constantly eluding us from one moment to the next, what you believe to be true beyond all doubt to your own consciousness for any moment, is truth and truth alone.

m4tt_666:
material, by any definition is completely meaningless. we, as humans label this falsified boundary purely out of ignorant instinct for physical survival.

Carmel:
If you have any understanding of non duality, you can't deny any aspect of reality, including material reality.

m4tt_666:
now, consider that thought with my previous statement, "it is out of this complete nothingness, that everything truly exists.".

Carmel:
This is a statement of belief which isn't backed by any reasoning. It's meaningless, kazoo.

m4tt_666:
and if you feel the need to re-read this post and actually give a serious attempt at comprehending my thoughts, by all means do not resist that urge. i want nothing more than to be able to communicate in the purest sense with any consciousness. i perceive myself not only as a physical human being, but simultaneously existent in the same sense, as a momentary thought.

Carmel:
You need to communicate using logic so that others can understand why you reach the conclusions that you do. So far, you haven't effectively done so. All you're doing is tossing out some random, disjointed, nebulous ideas and ask that we contemplate them.

this only leads me to believe you are trapped within the physical capabilities of the physical mindset, labeling everything, even existence causing you to put a boundary on it, thus further deceiving yourself with false logic and reason of time, motion and distance.

when it is in fact these false possessions, everybody, even me who has only grasped the concept of pure truth, possesses within the humanity that sustains it.

it is inevitable, to say the least.

m4tt_666 wrote:thus further deceiving yourself with false logic and reason of time, motion and distance.

You haven't said why it is false. Yes, let's throw out the archaic notions of time , motion, and distance. Now that we have done so, what are we using instead? And what are we trying to do?

There I go, labeling everything again. It gets to be a habit.

The concept of unawareness is everything? This is your point?

When it comes to BS, prince is like a pig sniffing out truffles, as I think David Quinn pointed out somewhere in a recent thread. And prince has been rooting around your posts, m4tt_666. That tells me something.

i simply cannot convey every thought in enough comprehensible detail that has led me to get to this point of my thought process without being at the risk of sounding like i'm contradicting the very thing i said before it.

this is not what I've set out to do through the ultimate discovery of its inevitable failure.

instead i am giving you a rough draft, so to speak of the Universe and my perception of the way i think it to work. keeping in mind i am trying to convert a purely mental point by nature, and morph it into physical being by way of, typing, being bound to the English language, etc.

what I'm saying is because it's not my physical being that is truly experiencing this purely mental feeling, it has already become an unnecessary medium for which i am bound to thus i am therefore infinitely incapable of even perceiving the truth of which i have created within myself!

thought continues, and will always remain forever separate from the world it creates, and it is in that contrast where it is equally alike.

always keep in mind these are my thoughts on the subject, and that alone, I haven't even been able to take myself seriously for i have said, Ive only been contemplating the matter less than a week now and have already come to a sound conclusion. that can't possibly make any sense, can it?

m4tt_666:
this only leads me to believe you are trapped within the physical capabilities of the physical mindset, labeling everything, even existence causing you to put a boundary on it, thus further deceiving yourself with false logic and reason of time, motion and distance.

Carmel:
That's a faulty conclusion on your part and doesn't logically follow from what I said. You're "labeling" everything everytime you write here. All words are merely labels and symbols for something else.

m4tt_666:
when it is in fact these false possessions, everybody, even me who has only grasped the concept of pure truth, possesses within the humanity that sustains it.

it is inevitable, to say the least.

Carmel:
You've got it all figured out, eh? I don't think you actually read or try to comprehend what anyone else is writing, but by all means, blog on...

i admit to using labels as i have said in the description of how i perceive my form. i am therefore, infinitely bound to physical communications that are themselves flawed for they possess actual physicality.

i am more or less done posting on the main subject because i realize it is the ultimate truth that pure mental thought can only perceive the physical senses of anything, never being able to gain a sense of its pure mental self.

it is this mentality that only exists within us (as human beings), and therefore not at all due to the individual perception that our infinite differences lie, but we only have a finite way of describing it to one another through purely physical (and thereby meaningless) acts of communication.

i hope this makes any and all sense but accept the futility of such an attempt (appearing that i ended my view on a purely contradictory note, i know this is only due to the false perception of the physical that i have done so).

I would like to apologize to you, Carmel for I can see how my above statements appear disconnected and equally straightforward. I would also like to apologize for how I have been persistently ignoring your statements not to my direct choosing, merely caught up in the moment of what i was trying to express.

Cousinbasil:

This is neither science nor evidence.

Because?
You 'must' win the argument and appear smart?

Point by point:
1. Yes, the neuron either fires or it doesn't. This proves nothing.

Nothing huh?
If the synaptic gap captures a single bit of info, this tells us what?

2. "Thought is accumulating the data at faster than light-speed." It is well-known that the actual current in a wired electrical circuit does not propagate at light speed, and that in a neuronal circuit considerably slower than in a wired circuit. "All the information forms in an instant" is not true, no matter what you are trying to say. It doesn't even seem like it is forming in an instant in every occasion.

Electricity moves at the speed of light unless it meets resistance. The reason why the current is slowed and compressed is - hello - you are thinking.

How does thought accumulate all the data considered and how long does it take?

3. If thought is merely a stream of electrons, it obviously cannot move faster than light speed, since electrons cannot.

I did not say 'merely' electrons.You are simply unaware of the cutting edge science. RF waves have already transcended the speed of light carried along the data stream/wave shattering some of the Shannon equations. In fact, the photon has exceeded the speed of light by 1/3.

Electrons push the data stream.

Now my question. If you write the same sentence on a chalkboard, in sand, or on a computer - does the information change?

4. Electrons are indeed subject to gravity, albeit weakly so compared to their electromagnetic attractions. After all, photons are massless and they are subject to gravity.

Effected and 'subject to' are not the same word. The only way gravity could effect an electron is - if you have another electron. Electromagnetic forces and quantum
mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and subatomic particles. The gravitational force acting on an electron is so small that it is impossible to produce any observable effect, except perhaps in a black hole.

If you measure electromagnetic force, the magnitude of the force is F = qvB sin θ where θ is the angle < 180 degrees between the velocity and the magnetic field.

This means that the magnetic force charge moving parallel to the magnetic field is zero. How is it that the pole of a magnet is at a zero state at a 180 degree vector yet electromagnetic range is infinite? Do the math.

How is that possible to do the full equation for the total field without the null state? And there you have it, the null state of the field is where the pure math and the laws of physics begin to break down(within the very system of science itself). Meaning; your thought just impacted me, the internet, why - the whole kitten kabootle.

That is how the infinite field works known as the ONE consciousness.

5. "Most assuredly your thought (as well as every particle in your body) is in communication with every other particle in the universe" This is not evidence, Bof1, this is your hypothesis. It is not science, either. Even if what you said before it were true, which it is not, this would not follow. It is rather very much like New Age nonsense that doesn't even qualify as pseudo science. You seem to ignore some basic science. Matter cannot propagate faster than light. Some quantum effects seem to be instantaneous and occur remotely regardless of physical separation. However, this is not strictly propagation, and no information goes from one point to another. Strictly speaking, the current view is than it is precisely information which cannot travel at faster than light speed, this including the propagation of any kind of wave-field, or any kind of particle, massless or massive.

Nope - you are just not aware of the latest scientific models and experiments. And the ignorant point the finger and claim "I is smarter."

6. "Therefore - your consciousness contains the entire field known as THE UNIVERSE." This is admittedly a bit more tricky. From a philosophical perspective, specifically a philosophy adhering to that of an Idealist school, one might assert this. Briefly, anything that can be said about the universe, anything that can be known, really exists inside one's head, along with every other notion or thought, not "out there."

Does your head exist in your mind or does your mind exist in your head?
Same question for your brain.

But let's look at what you are actually saying. First, you preface this statement with the word "therefore" as if it follows from what you have just said, which it doesn't. This could be a good thing, since what you have just said is largely baseless and meaningless. Second, this is not a statement of any Idealist perspective of which I am aware.

Yuk yuk.

Of course it does not follow - cause you gotta win the argument - so how could it follow - impossible, cuz you might lose if it followed.

You see - real logic is about who is right, its never about what is right. Real truth is about how you appear, to yourself and others because appearances are everything. If you appear smart, it does not matter the details of facts and evidence. Although evidence and facts are stubborn things, they can be overcome by denial, ad homs, careful rewording, and the appearance of manufactured evidence.

But if all else fails - deny all the evidence and call the other guy "your just a big poopy pants" and viola - you win.

Hey, whoever said logic had to make sense?

You speak of my consciousness. I have asked you about yours. If my consciousness were identical with THE universe, yours would also be. Then logically, my consciousness would be identical with yours. But we seem to disagree - which would be impossible if our consciousnesses were one and the same. I have mentioned this objection, and you have not addressed it. It seems to me to be a reasonable objection. If you can clear it up, that would be helpful and go a long way to establishing your assertions.

Wow - Give me a second, I think I just heard an honest question.

Where does my consciousness appear, in your consciousness or outside of it?

My standpoint is fairly simple. I argue that there is a noumenal world, all the things-in-themselves, which we know through perception and through abstract conjecturing. It is in itself unknowable but through our consciousness, by which we know all things. But each person's consciousness differs from that of another. We argue the differences in our heads and appeal to mutual experiences - perceptions - of the noumenal world to settle those differences.

My questions: Since when can you have more than one consciousness?
When did you have an experience outside of your consciousness?
Have you ever experienced being my consciousness?

The singularity of the universe is not multiple consciousness, it is singular in experience, observation, and logic.

Your consciousness carries with it all of the dynamics of the 'ultimate or total' of the world. The more aware of our consciousness we become the more we are aware of our choices and thought and what they are founded upon and through. We begin to see that what we contemplate is universal and is inherent.

Some characteristics of infinite.
1 - Having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude.
2 - Being singular or nondualistic.
3 - Total and all-embracing.
4 - The unlimited expanse in which everything is located.
5 - In geophysical terms, an "infinite' dimension is one much greater than the footprint of the system, so that the system does not detect changes at the edges of the object.

My consciousness is not the universe, and neither is yours, and the two are not one and the same. You say the universe does not fit between one's ears, but then you go on to argue the opposite. You were right to say this, though. The universe I refer to with this term is "out there," which I understand bit by bit by mapping it to a mental transform "in here." No matter what you think, this is exactly what you and everyone else must do. There is no mystical, instantaneous connection between the out there and the in here, since there is no instantaneous connection even between every two things "in here."

Then riddle me this Batman, where does your awareness end and the universe begins?






Carmel:

Truly, there is something. The material universe is a prerequisite for your existence. Your body, mind and conciousness didn't arise in a vacuum of nothingness. Your subjective "reality" is inextricably linked to material "reality". To deny this would be to deny causality itself.

Something is being perceived is true.
What or who is doing this is the question.

On Rocks having memory; I have a different definition. I apologize in advance if this has already been mentioned but I was just skimming the responses so far. I feel that rocks don't have memory per say rather they record. Some might say that there is no difference; but, if you'll indulge me for a while. Rocks can record events onto and in their structure that can be interpreted by humans to map out a history. The rock in it self does nothing with this record. This is similar to a record that goes on a phonograph. The record cannot know or even care what music has been imprinted on it and it takes a phonograph to read the recorded music.

If one were to say that events are recorded onto a brain in a similar fashion; I would argue that most of our memories are imperfect and that the brain fills in blanks much of the time to make a seemingly complete recollection. Take any strong memory from your childhood. Capture in as much detail what transpired. What were you wearing? What were the other participants wearing? Did you notice rings? Bracelets? Necklaces? What color were the clothes? So on and so on. If you had a picture this would be very simple. " Look Uncle Pete has his St. Christopher medal on." The photograph is a record of the photons that hit the film at that exact moment. In most cases human memory is never as complete as a good recording medium.

Consciousness, in my opinion, does not extend past the brain. To equate consciousness to the universe seems as arrogant as man imagining gods that looked like themselves. My mind is locked in a meat prison. But, the human mind is amazing at simulating. For example during a dream no matter how real the people and situations seem; they exist within only a few pounds of matter. The people I dream about are hollow. Their voice might sound the same.... their touch..... their kiss. But, my mind doesn't waste time simulating a circulatory system, a lymphatic system, or even a brain for them. They are simulacrums. Only skin deep. It's a little disconcerting to say the lest. I can say " Imagine a goat standing on the roof of a car." This is easy for the brain to imagine. Was your goat black, white, or some other color? What model was the car? The brain takes presorted images and plays a game of photoshop with them; but, it does it at an incredibly fast rate ( though not at the speed of light; MRI's can track the electrochemical dance somewhat.)

Just because I can imagine something doesn't change reality. Nor does it change if I don't recognize it. Soldiers are often hit by bullets that they never realized were in motion until they feel the impact. Do trees make a sound if they fall in the forest and there is no one to hear it? Yes, because we have observed the physics of the interaction of a tree falling in the forest and it would, again, be arrogant to think that the universe revolves around the need to have man hear it just to produce noise.

m4tt_666:
I would like to apologize to you, Carmel for I can see how my above statements appear disconnected and equally straightforward. I would also like to apologize for how I have been persistently ignoring your statements not to my direct choosing, merely caught up in the moment of what i was trying to express.

Carmel:
Thank you. It's not a problem...I understand that the communication process can be cumbersome. I struggle with it too, sometimes. That's where logic comes into play. It helps to reads your own posts with fresh eyes, then ask yourself, would this make any sense to anyone else? If you're merely expressing your mental perceptions, impressions ungrounded by a logical foundation, then your posts won't likely have much impact upon the reader and could easily be dismissed as fleeting imaginings or religious delusions...

Carmel:

Truly, there is something. The material universe is a prerequisite for your existence. Your body, mind and conciousness didn't arise in a vacuum of nothingness. Your subjective "reality" is inextricably linked to material "reality". To deny this would be to deny causality itself.

cousinbasil:
Something is being perceived is true.
What or who is doing this is the question.

Carmel:
Are you proposing an answer or is this still an open ended question for you?

i see we continue to recycle information so allow me to refresh this topic by putting it in a form we can all have an easier time relating ideas to;

What has seemed to have happened and actively continues, as I see it in relation to the rapid growth of technology are these facts. The way we have begun to mediate thought has thoroughly taken its toll on every aspect humanity has created by way of cell phones, computers, television, etcetera. The way we continue to unconsciously train any upcoming birth of humanity through these constructed mediums in a way that we pair up a true sense of thought, with a completely disjointed and irrelevant action, thus offsetting the previous balance.

i invite you all to prove me wrong. :)

Does anyone give a rat's ass?

You're a pretentious twat.

well, happy birthday to me!

i also hope you are aware of the fact that you are spitting in my face for merely presenting you with a timeless creation of thought that i have bound to the appearance of physical language thus giving it a sense of creation.

for clarification, NOW I'm being pretentious.

What you are is a shitweasel.

your claims are just as baseless as mine, the only difference is at least I'm encouraging thought. i have not a clue what you expect to gain from such trivial attacks on my physical being, i can only conclude you are just as unaware as myself.

m4tt_666 wrote: The way we have begun to mediate thought has thoroughly taken its toll on every aspect humanity has created by way of cell phones, computers, television, etcetera.

Could you give an example of this, please? I'm sure I've misunderstood; but, are you saying that cell phones, computers, etc are detrimental to human thought or that mediated thought has been detrimental to tech?

the invention of such means of communication by humans, and the obvious misuse has somewhat put us in an altered state of senses.

We essentially are living in the constant past and its apparent most frighteningly of all through news media. instead of living in the moment of truth we are going the way of forever speculating on false scenarios of the future based off of a skewed sense of the past truth is what I'm trying to say.

Also note, that ultimate action, however viewed, lies in this collectively skewed thought process of humanity as a whole (think of the human population as one being for this thought).

again, my views are strictly based off of observation as i see it, nothing that, even i hold seriously and i hope in saying this i can stave off whatever future attacks on my personal credibility that may arise.