http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...rse&pl=true


If you dare watch this clip then be prepared. This is valid science here that I have noticed many people reject out of hand because it is so mind expanding.

IGNORE THE PART ABOUT ALLAH AT THE END OF THE VIDEO. IT IS THE SCIENCE PART AT THE BEGINNING THAT IS QUITE AWE-INSPIRING.


Science minded people as well as indoctrinated religious people often cannot accept the science knowledge here presented in this clip when I have presented it to them here on unexplained mysteries. I thought I would show it here with computer graphics and for others to see for themselves.

To me the information presented has much philosophical implication. Science like the old eastern philosophers have to admit that reality "is all in the mind".And that there is no proven difference between the waking world and dream world.

I'd like to hear comments on what others think.

Thank you

P.S The muslim propaganda isnt mentioned until after twenty minutes. The clip goes for twenty four minutes in all. The first twenty minutes is the valid science.


P.S.S Just so you all know, I am not an exclusive muslim (i believe in everything therefore cannot be contained by a particular convention of thought religious or otherwise) so you dont have to think i am trying to push religious beliefs. Let me say again that it is the science I am keen on here.

Yeah cool vid, hopefully it will show people that all that they experience is within, but we experience it because of everything without that is because of everything within the without


In mentally separating a body from the changeable environment in which it moves, what we really do is to extricate a group of sensations on which our thoughts are fastened and which is of relatively greater stability than the others, from the stream of all our sensations...

Suppose we were to attribute to nature the property of producing like effects in like circumstances; just these like circumstances we should not know how to find. Nature exists once only. Our schematic mental imitation alone produces like events. ~ Ernst Mach


Good thread Brave

Interesting. Following the logic of this video, we have no brain. We can't see, hear, smell, taste, or feel our brain, and even if we were to see someone else's brain, we would only be "seeing" the images generated by interpreting electrical impulses... by a brain we can't feel, so there really is no such thing as a brain. So, since things really only exist in our brain and even our brain is only something we perceive through the sight and touch that are really only interpretations, there is nothing perceiving nothing.

The oppinion that the world was round was once considered to be heresy.

The valid science actually cut out when they started talking about the soul.

Up until then, it seemed okay.

So let me get this straight you all are figments of my imagination ?

Life just as in "The Matrix" ?


Or I really don't exist as you read this ?

I'm con-fused

Its just as the video says...everything you experience is just a recording, it is not the "live set" so to speak

The map is not the territory ~ Alfred Korzybski


EDIT: the map being all that we percieve through our senses and the territory being reality which is consciousness for we would percieve nothing at all if we did not have this.

As I see it, there are three possibilities:

1. Everything you experience, including everyone else around you is just a simulation. (Descarte's Evil Genius)
2. Everyone is experiencing the same simulation. (Matrix Theory)
3. The real world exists and everyone experiences it. (Reality)

Most people tend to opt for 3.

I agree with number 3 aswell Tiggs, what i think is being dealt with here is the true nature of this reality, what we percieve of our experiences are just a recording of this reality...it is the map, but not the territory as it were. All i know is that without consciousness i would not even experience the illusion of this percieved reality and on that note i feel that consciousness is our true reality.

It's true that we experience the world via electrical signals coming from our senses.

The assumptions that the video makes are in no way scientific, though. They are conspiracy theories. And the "non-existence of the brain" part, is absolutely ridiculous and against any good science.

Science shows us that there is a world beyond ourselves and it is material and real.

Trippy aye! You worded it well though. Im glad you watched it.

I'd prefer it if they used the term "consciousness" or "awareness".

What assumptions are they?





How so?


No it is science. The brain is just an interpretation of consciousness. How can science prove otherwise????????



No it doesnt. Science shows us that reality is in the brain and the brain is just a perception of consciousness.

I go for 2 and 3.

2: We are in an illusion

3: The real world exists as consciousness however I can see why we would percieve it as possibility 1 for the very suffering we have to endure from it (the matrix that is). Real reality in my view is when we identify with awareness and not the things we are aware of.

I dont adam & eve it...brave you never let go....if all the other threads you have made that consist a lot of jumba with the key word - consciousness...you will be sure to debate the bit out with others and when your thread sinks and you have gotten nowere fast...up you come with another thread with the same princible

In a way, and since you love to link everything with religion...........well i see this as you trying to convert others into your way of thinking, hence the several threads all on the same old thing

Your threads remind me of those darn rap artists with their music videos...all rappin to the same beat only using different words....over and over again

and the sec this thread flops...you will build another like it only word it differently but you can be sure that you will be debating - consciousness in there too

You are better off blogging the entire thing

What do you want me to say, brave?

You're in complete denial of what science is and what reality is.

If everything was an illusion, science would have no reason to study the natural world. Science tries to explain how the brain works. You say the brain isn't real. Science talks about light and the different kinds of light, some we can perceive and some we can't. You say light is just an illusion. Science will virulently deny the existence of a soul or spiritual entity, you will tote it as fact. Science will tell us what we can and can't do, and shows the ability of humans with applied thinking. You believe you can do anything, even though you can't.

Don't even try to act for a second like you're being scientific here. Your rhetoric is old and unimpressive. You impose your fringe beliefs on people as fact.. and there's absolutely nothing scientific about that.

Very true

Did you even watch the video?

How? Science itself cannot prove an independent objective world. The video showed that.

Tell me, can science prove that reality is isnt just electrical signals in the brain? Remember that the brain too is a signal of itself via our perceptions.

How am I in denial of science here? I put the video up for people to see for themselves that science has to admit that reality (as far as it can prove ) is all in the mind.

Whether one thinks reality is an llusion or whatever is for them to decide.



The point is that we cant prove whether it is an illuson or not. Science is forced to take a philosophic path. It can study the natural world but it cant say whether the natural world has an existence independent of consciousness/mind.



I learnt from science that science discovered that the brain is just a reflection of the perceptions and that the perceptions is what reflects reality and hence we cant tell what is beyond those perceptions to say if there is something real (objective) or not.




Light exists. I never said it doesnt. However we cant prove that light exists beyond our perception of it. When I say it is illusion I mean that it doesnt have an independent objective existence. Science itself admits it cannot prove that there is a "real" objective world outside of our brain/perceptions.

Watch the video if you dont believe me.


Hence science admits its own limitations. It comes down to faith.

Science cannot prove an independent objective universe.

Science cannot prove that there isnt one.

It is an act of faith to choose either.



I am being scientific. Science itself admits that it cannot prove an independent universe separate from our perceptions. If you dont believe me watch the video.



I dont "impose". I state my beliefs and then debate their validity. In this case I have used valid science to prove my point.

I believe the scientists when they say that they cannot prove that reality exists by and in itself without an observer, you on the other hand believe it is some conspiracy.

Scientific proof of an independent reality can never be obtained, it is true. However all the proof one needs of this independent reality is one's interaction with it. The experience of this reality can only be gained through the interaction with it. If reality did not exist, or was vastly different from our experience of it, then why do we experience what we do?

Reality is evident from the experience of self. You do not need science to determine that, just the ability to think rationally and without clouding your mind with belief.

Welcome back man.

The question is though: are we interacting with an independent reality or with mental constructs?

Science says contructs but what we cannot prove is whether the constructs represent another copy "out there"



Great philosophical question. It is an open question which people have been trying to answer for thousands of years.



But since everything is an idea in the mind everything is "belief" including rationality.

Cheers, brave. An enforced absence and a very unwelcome one. It's good to be back

If everything is in the mind how did the experiences we have develop? What was their initiator?

The premise of no independent reality does not take into account how experience is gained. Something must have triggered these and the only reasonable explanation is that the trigger is our interaction with the reality surrounding us.

Yes, we can imagine things without experiencing them. Fantasy and imagination are a part of our being. However, the experience of experience is still required to have even imagination of things. So, what was this experience? How did we gain it?

What do you mean?



I agree. However interaction with a reality doesnt make it an independent objective reality. It can easily be considered and illusion interacting with illusion.



Imagination is experience. And as science has pointed out, a chair in our kitchen is just as much imagination as a dragon is a day dream. We see it all in the same visual cortex.

What is this experience? I dont know. I have my beliefs but it comes down to faith for everyone. Like formalized religion, science cannot give us absolutes for the deep meaningful questions. It comes down trusting our own intuition.

Brave,

Here's what I mean by experience.

Take your kitchen chair. How do you know it's a chair? What has defined its 'chairness' for you? You experience the chair by sitting in it but, if it doesn't in actuality exist, how did the mind initiate the concept of chair? What was the precursor experience that provoked this?

A reasonable explanation is that the chair exists independently of your existence and you experience this existence of the chair through your interaction with it. So you now have experienced a chair.

Extrapolating from this we can assume that our experience of the reality surrounding us is the self-evidence we need to prove the existence of this reality - and that it is as we experience.

So reality exists. It is as we experience it.

Why should the mind need a precursor?



Or that "chair" is simply a word we have given a construct of the mind. The chairness came from the mind labelling aspects of itself.



Why then is it that we have to see things in our brain instead of "out there"?



And as science has demonstrated we experience it as a construct of the mind.

brave,

The brain is the mirror/lens in which reality is reflected/translated into the neuro-electrical impulses recognisable to our perception. That we 'see' in the brain does not mean things exist in the brain. You may observe the other planets of the solar system through a telescope but they do not exist in that telescope.

You are confusing mind with reality. Mind is not reality but the effector of our interaction with it.

If you start to believe in some illusion concealing reality then you must realise that this paranoia cannot stop at this illusion, but must then continue to believing in the illusion of the illusion, and then the illusion of the illusion of the illusion and so on...



Because the experience has to come from somewhere. How did the concept of chair arise? If it is a creation of the mind, how did the mind know what 'chair' is to generate the experience?

But the telescope and all those planets are just electrical signals in the brain. How can we prove otherwise? Even the brain is an interpretation of itself and hence we cant even know whether the brain is from an objective reality. We dont see a chair but electrical signals.



No you are wrong. Science has proven that reality is in the brain and that the brain is just a perception made aware by consciousness.

The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ...
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists. (Erwin Schrodinger)

There is no barrier between mind and reality. What is the barrier?



Unless one has faith or beliefs otherwise. ... Hindus believe that reality is an illusion while thinking one is separate and that one can modify consciousness to realize reality as it is.

That is just a belief though. However to believe that relative reality is a construct of the mind doesnt imply the paranoia you said.



The experience comes from the mind and al of creation. The mind is infinite manifestation. Why should there have to be two? One reality for the mind to copy and re-create that reality?

How did the original reality that you assume the mind copies know what a chair is for our perception to reflect it?

No, we see a chair. That the brain uses neuro-electrical impulses as it's mode of communication between the senses and the mind is irrelevant to what our senses experience.



Really?

You state that science can't prove reality is independent then you state that science has proved reality is in the mind/brain? Perhaps you should review your own opinion.

I never stated anything about any barrier between mind and reality. That you use some irrelevant quote to introduce this into the debate is simply a device to obfuscate the discussion. If you wish to introduce a point then please do so. Don't imply a response to some non-existent point I made.



Perhaps paranoia is too strong a term. Delusion or psychosis is perhaps a better description of this belief in the illusion of reality. How does modifying one's consciousness make the reality then experienced any more valid than the one we experience unmodified?



There you go with this 'infinite' concept again. Why should this be so?

You have also completely misunderstood what I'm trying to say. I never said there were multiple realities and one was the originator of all our experiences. I said each experience must have some basis for the mind to recognise the meaning of them - what they define. If reality is some illusion, where did the basis for each experience of a thing originate?

Science has shown us that we dont see a chair but electrical signals. No electrical signals equals no chair. Or we can simply say that the chair has two aspects to it. Electrical signals as well as what the senses say.






Mind. Mind is different from brain (I say for discrimination reasons). Science cannot prove that reality and mind are separate.



You said I got mind and reality mixed up. The point of the quote is that mind and reality are one and the same.




Why? What if there is some truth to it?



You have to experience it to find out. however advance spiritual practices say that one slowly deatches from the "I" thought and then one realizes the true "I". You can only know whether or not it is true by experiencing it for yourself.

I admit that I havnt experienced it but it makes sense to my intuition hence why i have faith in it.

The paradox is that consciousness is already as it should be, we just have to realize it.




Because we have no reason so far to believe that the universe has limits.



The mind itself. I believe we create the meaning.



From the illusion itself. Or to be more abstract, from abstract consciousness. Everything has always been as it has eternally.

so we aren't in the matrix? *takes a big sigh of relief*

it's a pity that the video is unavailable. i love this stuff.

Personally i believe that when we think we are the body we are in the matrix. And when we have gone beyond thinking and just 'be' consciousness we are free which is bliss.

Did you watch the video? I checked and it is still viewable.

i agree although its funny even though i was warned by the video, i still got a VERY uneasy feeling after watching it.

I originally read it. The book in which I read it in said the same thing. The impression it leaves is strong because it is hard science facts and not some fantasy threat of hell or punishment from God.

What I love about this particular knowledge is that one is left with their own philosophical responsibilities.

What I love about it is the fact that modern science has been saying what eastern philosophy has been saying for thousands of years:

It's all in the mind.

Such a simple truth which so many people find hard to accept.

What a waste of time. That video is retarded!

How so?

Everything is an illusion? So, where do we go from here? So, now what?

Although the assumption that modern science is saying what Eastern philosophy has maintained for 'thousands of years' has been misrepresented.

In science 'observing' is a subjective experience. This does not mean that was is observed exists solely in the mind. What modern science states is that the translation of the objective experience of reality is carried out in a subjective manner, therefore we cannot 'prove' the experience in an objective way.

Eastern philosophy assumes reality exists in, or is generated by, the mind.

The difference between the two views may be subtle, but it is very important.

And this difference is a truth that many who believe in Eastern philosophy find hard to accept.

Hence we cannot prove that there is even an objective universe. But what they have proven is that the objective universe we think is "out there" can only be proven subjectively in perception.



Actually eastern philosophy assumes ultimately that everything is pure energy or God. That the universe though immanent in all things is also transcendent of them. That Reality transcends duality and hence transcends thought.



And at least science has to admit now that they cannot prove an independent objective universe. That to believe that one does exist is an act of faith.

Trust your own intuition.

Other good help is looking up the teachings of "Ramana Maharshi". Even Carl Gustov Jung admitted that he was a "modern prophet".

Spelt "Maharshi" wrong. Hence the edit.

huh?

Whose mind?

I just watched that video in the OP. It's very interesting and seems to support many of my ideas!

However!
Is the suggested separateness between "Soul" and "Allah" intended to make the whole concept easier for the dualistic mind to grasp? I wonder.

Pardon the double-post.

Ya I dont believe in that allah part. The video to me is good science for Islam propaganda. But the science isnt wrong.

That video is a contradiction onto itself.

First off, what we experience isn't an illusion, its a limited interpretation of what we are physically capable of perceiving through the use of our brain. What we perceive to happen is still happening through this limited perception, perfect perception might look different but what we pereive now is still a part of perfect perception, we haven't physically evolved for enough to perceive it so however.

I think we may have biologically reached evolution's limit, but through evolution we are able to realise such things that have been mentioned in the video (I agree with some, just not all) and through intelect we may be able physically evolve (or attempt to) ourselves through the use of "machines."

I'm fairly positive that my brain isn't currently situated inside a glass box somewhere being fed information by a computer. Why would whoever is outside the box want me in there? Why is my life not perfect if whoever is outside control the electrical input? What I perceive I believe is fairly substantial and I haven't come across any "glitches" so to speak so I must assume that whoever is controlling the stimuli to my brain has perfected it, to keep me in there for "research" purpouses or w/e would be completely pointless since perfection has allready, in that sense, been realised. Life is fairly boring if you really take a step back and look at it and I somehow doubt that whoever is outside would bother with "brain in glass box."

Anyways.. I could go on trying to explain myself but I'm fairly certain that anything else can be logically derived from what I've typed.

Hence science has come to a paradox!

The point is we cant prove it has an existence outside the brain.



How could yu prove otherwise?



Who knows, good question.



Good post!

Just thought this fitted nicely


"One of Bohm’s most startling assertions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really a kind of illusion, like a holographic image. Underlying it is a deeper order of existence, a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world…”, and (page 47): “The constant and flowing exchange between the two orders explains how particles, such as electron in the positronium atom, can shape-shift from one kind of particle to another…” “..It also explains how a quantum can manifest as either a particle or a wave…”, and (page 54): “For Pribram, this synthesis made him realize that the objective world does not exist, at least not in the way we are accustomed to believing. What is ‘out there’ is a vast ocean of waves and frequencies, and reality looks concrete to us only because our brains are able to take this holographic blur and convert it into sticks and stones and other familiar objects that make up our world…. , (page 55): “According to Pribram this does not mean that there aren’t china cups and grains of beach sand out there. It simply means that a china cup has two very different aspects to its reality. When it is filtered through the lens of our brain it manifests as a cup. But if we could get rid of our lenses, we’d experience it as an interference pattern. Which one is real and which is illusion? ‘Both are real to me’, says Pribram, ’or, if you want to say, neither of them are real'". ~ Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe