Thanks Inner Space

Is it?

I think Plato knew more than what many 'modern' people are willing to admit. And the fact that Plato didnt have the scientific contexts like we have today just gives him more credit as a pioneering philosopher.

For an example Plato knew about the Quantum physics holograhic theory. It states what it is in a crude form when he wrote:

The universe is a single whole, comprised of many parts that are also wholes.

To me this is absolutely stunning.

Thats not science, it is philosophy, and again I must beg to differ. I am sure you know the scientific connections between; an object, light, the construction of the eye to receive the light, and the brain's role interpreting what the eye sees. If you choose to ignore the reality of all but the last operation, and base your belief system on this, then it is understandable that people have difficulty following, let alone accepting that belief system. I had hoped you could supply a more scientific rationale, for what is quite an interesting proposition.

Science, Science, SCIENCE!!! It has philosophical implications that's all.



The eye doesnt see. The visual cortex in the brain sees. The brain sees because of light but the light and the object which the light bounces off are still only electrical signals int he brain. The electrical signals are images of electrical signals that are translated into the 3-d holographic universe we experience.

The the sky which is limitless is all viewed in a few cubic centermetres of the visual cortex. Also another interesting science fact is that while we view light and the objects in the brain, the brain itself is insulated from light!@! Oh the paradox!



Actually I have been getting some great positive responses.




HAHAHAHAHA what you forget is that science is only a means of discerning the true from the false. Modern mainstream science only experiments and observes as systematically as it can the reality of the five senses in order to find out the fundamental principles involved of that reality.

Philosophy asks what should be considered true in the first place. Science may back their claims with "proof" but proof in order to be proof must be proof to a certain system of logic that requires certain proof to back it up. Who determines what should be right logic in the first place that certain proof is acceptable?


Science has done many wonderful things but it has limitations because it cannot observe things that transcend the fives senses i.e consciousness.

What do you expect science to say in the face of information which it cannot move from, like the fact that reality is only perceptions in the brain and that the brain itself is only a perception to something it (science) cannot identify because it cant penetrate past the perceptions it knows cant be relied on as absolute proof?????

Hence philosophy and religion come in. People need to make decisions based on what their intuition and heart tell them. As Kahlil Gibran pointed out:

When you reach the end of what you should know, you will be at the beginning of what you should sense.

Mr walker you have to understand that philosophy cannot be excluded when it comes to understanding reality. Philosophy is required because it questions and strives to find out not only how reality works but also what it means to us to know how it works on not just a physical level but on a psychological and spiritual level.

While science may point out that reality is in fact one, philosophy will point out that this will help people cultivate better ethics and find inner happiness because it points the way of knowing their quantum identity (which the ancients have known for thousands of years any way).

Also we must remember to that science cannot physically extract consciousness and examine it like it can a brain or piece of wood. Because consciousness is required to see but yet cant be seen (and so cannot be localized in the brain) it is an act of faith either way to believe that it is the soul that can exist regardless of the physical or that it is a product of the physical brain.

It comes down to individuals making personal choices and shaping their own belief systems based on information coming from science, philosophy and religion. I myself believe they all have something of value and that they really in fact compliment each other.

Philosophy/religion offers purpose and meaning while science is a tool for discovering phenomena that will affirm it. If the science facts fail to measure up to the religion/philosophy it can mean that one must change their philosophic/religious beliefs in correspondence to those facts. But this is a good thing because it often means the expansion and added depth to one's outlook on reality.

Although personally as much as I appreciate science I value intuition above everything else.

Execellent post Brave...

Your comment about intuition does make people feel uncomfortable, but I believe there is a lot of truth in what your saying. Spiritual books/guildlines are only pointers, and are necessary for growth, but when you can trust your most inner truth, you can safely lean on your intuition.

Great read this morning Brave.

Thanks and it means so much more when it comes from an attractive woman as yourself.

For someone who is into substance, and supposedly not shadows...well, you are a hard one to figure out.

Thanks BNW, for responding politely, and in detail, to what i felt was a rather terse post from myself. Apart from anything else i was running out of time, and answers to you need to be both carefully thought out, and detailed. Your proposition, while as valuable/acceptable as any other as a belief system, does not make any sense scientifically, unless you accept the philosophical basis first and then base your understanding/interpretation of science on that philosophical belief.


For example in your scenario why would people/consciousness see and interpret objects almost universally in the same way. To illustrate. A very young child apparently sees an object in its road and stops.

The child's father asks, "why did you stop?"

The child responds, "cos somfing is in my way"

The parent looks, and low and behold he also sees an object in the child's road. It appears to him to be a turtle, but he says to the child, "Oh yes i see it . It is a rock"

Later the kid sees a turtle at play school and says, 'look a rock, one of them got in my way the other day" All the other kids say, "No, you dummy, (they have not yet been taught anti bullying and harrasment strategies) Its a turtle. Look it's green, got 4 legs and moves, albeit slowly"

Suddenly the object has new definition and meaning to the child. He also learns what the colour green is, what legs are, and that a turtle normally has four. (possibly even the meaning of the word albeit)

He goes home and asks, "Dad why did you set me up like that?"

What is dad going to say? "Well, my brain visually interpreted it as a rock." Of course not.

Did dad see something different to the child?

No.

Did dad not know what the turtle was?

Perhaps.

The point is that when we all see the same thing, this is a universal or objective reality.


Our minds may interpret it differently, or we may see it in different ways, according to our cultural perspectives. However as the child or a group is acclimatised to cultural norms and references, not only do we see the same thing but we describe it in common symbols and with additional cultural knowledge which we can cross reference to other objects.

For example, a turtle normally runs slower than a rabbit.

Thus a funny and educative story can be written about a turtle/tortoise which wins a race with a rabbit/hare.

This is where the power of our self aware consciousness comes in.

If objects did not have an objective reality none of the above would be possible.

Unless of course you choose to believe, that there is only one consciousness, which slowly doles out increasing knowledge and independence to some- how individually self aware, but limited parts of itself. Otherwise the child and the parent would have the same inherent perception, knowledge, and understanding, of what appears to be a turtle and what appears to be a rock, from the time they achieved self aware consciousness.

Think of the implications if this were true.

None of those implications exist therefore it very very likely is not true.



If, for example this was literally true, then we would all be able to see without eyes. I appreciate that damage to the brain may cause blindness, but as i said earlier this is only the last stage of the process of sight. If your propsition was true, then indeed we would be able to see without the organs we call eyes. As we cannot, it is another piece of evidence to refute the idea of independent consciosness, and support the premise that consciousness requires both an organic processor (the brain) and a physical data collector (the body) Take away either of these and consciousness is not possible.

I repeat an earlier observation, whether or not this is productive, it is certainly fun.

Is that so?



It is now.

On a separate note, i think i also have to disagree about relying on philosophy and intuition. Recognising the danger of sounding like Supra, these really are only constructs, like ethics, which are dependent on individual and group values and mores.

There is, thus, some danger in relying on them for rational decision making, although their existence and our ability to use them, does add an extra dimension to our existence, which other known species do not have. However, one only has to look at the construction of and the differences between; individual, group and so called universal ethics, values, and philosophical viewpoints, to see that while useful tools, they should not form the basis of our decision making, in themselves.

All the available evidence would suggest so, given the exception that intelligence may form with other types of processors and data collectors. For example; Artificial consciousness; or a form of consciousness so different to ours that we might think of it as god, but even god would require both some way to accumulate data, and to process it, for god to be conscious.

Perhaps, if we are referring to the 3rd dimension. Mr. Walker, you posts are really informative, but the essence of consciousness is not recognized by you. Because of that, it is impossible for you to comprehend.

Just before I get stuck into your other post, what do you think of the famous scientst Albert Einstein and these views of his (and trust me these quotes are not taken out of context ):

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."


"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

This is the big one:



You ready?????


"I didn't arrive at my understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe through my rational mind."

Philosophical constructs? Of course they are. The question is: What isn't a 'construct'. The answer: (dare I say it)....nothing. Yes, even 'nothing' is a construct.

No part of the anatomy sees. An organism sees.

So we are all conscious of a collective reality? It doesnt mean that the reality exists outside of consciousness. Also the boy and the father can only know of each others existence through their consciousness........

Also you and me can be looking at the same rock and one of us can be hypnotized that it is a turtle. Who then is seeing the "real" reality? If the objective reality was solid and absolute then no could ever be hypnotized into seeing anything other that what is there because consciousness (which is also considered objective from your point of view) would only be capable of corresponding with an objective universe because in your view external things cannot be altered by subjectivity.



But from the point of view of consciousness all the other people with their cultures and their conscious lives are viewed soley in that persons consciousness and cannot be proven to have a separate individual existence. No awareness equals no world because we cant be aware that a world exists and so we cant be sure if it is there or not.



And if there were no subjects to perceive this "objective" reality then how could know it existed? Here is a quote from a scientist Carl Jung to illustrate what I mean:

Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no world, for the world exists for us only in so far as it is consciously reflected by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being.



No this would imply two consciousnesses. If the universe was one consciousness (which I believe so) then there wouldnt be two separate things like child and parent there would be just consciousness (all things are energy and that energy which is the sum of all things is consciousness/awareness). Also quantum physics has proven that all particles are interconnected and that different objects of matter are in fact not separate like they seem but intrinsically connected. It is called Bell's theorem.



How do we know this? Science cant even prove that consciousness comes from the brain let alone what all the fundamental principlesof it are.



This science has not proven. Also could you tell me what consciousness looks like? And it is a shame you cant accept the simple scientific fact that all the senses we experience are indeed not of an outside world but of electrical signals within the vortexes of the brain.

We are so familiar with seeing, that it takes a leap of imaginaton to realise that there are problems to be solved. But consider it. We are given tiny distorted upside-down images in the eyes, and we see separate solid objects in surounding space. From the patterns of simulation on the retinas we perceive the world of objects, and this is nothing short of a miracle.

---- R.L. Gregory



I agree

Just google it up and you will see its a myth
here some sites for you to read up

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/pdf/tenper.pdf

"There is no scientific evidence to suggest that we use only 10% of our brain"

This argument really just supports the point i was making. ONLY when our perception of objective reality is altered eg, by hypnotism, drugs, or mental "illness" do we fail to see the objective reality. This indicates a failing in the final process of sight (the mind's manipulation of the available data,) rather than a lack of objective reality.

If there was no objective reality, our consciousness would simply create its own, which would either have to be different for each unit of the consciousness (each human), or would be universal for all, without exception, if it was a group consciousness. Thus only an independent reality, viewed pretty much the same by all, but then interpreted by an individual organic consciousness,allows for scenarios like someone being drugged, or hypnotised, to see other than what is really there.

Correct, otherwise we could all be going around altering the nature of reality. However, and it is a big however, the appearance/our perception of anything can be altered by many things, including subjectivity.

For example, when a two metre column of bright light appears before me, lighting up the darkness for metres around, not only may my mind make culturally -attuned jumps as to its nature, my mind may also interpret and store in my memory something slightly different from the physical actuality which appeared before me.

In fact such an appearance would normally be considered an hallucination, where for some reason the brain creates an image indistinguishable to reality for the observer. Only when such an "hallucination" has observable and measurable effects on the real world, can we begin to argue that it may be as yet inexplicable manipulation of that reality Ie if the hallucination takes away a physical addiction, or places a real object where none existed before, then logic dictates that is not in fact an hallucination, but something else.

This is only part of the "accepted scientific fact." What you refuse to accept is that these electrical impulses are demonstrably the result of stimuli/data from an "outside" source.
The scientific demonstration and understanding of this is just as complete as our understanding of the electrical and bio-organic, relationship between the receipt of stimuli, and the construction of mental images, memory and other constructs of the brain.

In fact scientists are now at the point where they can remove selected memories from the brain, and on the verge of being able to both recreate lost memories, and implant false memories. To do so, however, requires the input of external data from outside the brain, even if this is in the form of electrical or biological stimuli.

That is why sense deprivation is so effective. Experiments have shown that when deprived of external stimuli from the 'Real" world, our consciousness quickly breaks down, to what is commonly called insanity. Why on earth should our consciousness react this way, if it was able to exist independently of external data. The sort of consciousness you posit has no logical reason to react in this way. It could simply maintain its sanity through the creation/ maintenance of its world view.

The best that could be suggested is that the consciousness is prepared to go insane rather than allow us to see its true nature.

Illogical, captain.

I am sure you did not take these out of context, although it is hard to comment on them withou a knowledge of the context he wrote them in.

To address the first last. As i said, our self aware consciousness gives us many advantages. One of these is the ability to process data intuitively or subconsciously as well as consciously and rationally. It does not suprise me at all that any great thinker would make significant intuitive leaps, be it in maths, science or art/music.

For the same reason and particularly if an innate intuitive thinker, einstein might well feel that intuition was the most valuable tool available to him. You also have to keep in mind Einsteins intelligence,scientific knowledge base and other skills. While i have few qualms about him acting intuitively, I cannot same the same for say Charles manson.


I don't know enough about Einstein or the context to comment accurately on the first quote. He could well be talking about perception, and it is true, that in the ways i have discussed before, we can be living in an illusion, if we are not able to percieve or respond to reality effectively. I can imagine him saying this in regard to older scientists trapped in their long held version of reality, and refusing to accept einstein's new and controversial (at that time) theories.

I'm not a Christian but I love this quote. It makes alot of sense as well. Who's to say we aren't missing any senses that would allow us to see more of the universe. Who's to say that the senses we know of on planet earth(Humans' and other life forms') are the only ones that exist, and that we as humans have enough senses to see 100% of existence?



That is because we all use the same organ to interprate what we see. So it's actually a "universal"(Universal as in every human) subjective reality. WE all see it the same, but is that REALLY what it looks like?

Fair comment, an animal or insect which saw in infra red, or through multiple faceted eyes, would see it differently. Even a colour blind person would see it differently. But for all intents and purposes. our objective reality is what we consistently see as a species or what the instruments we have constructed to our human specifications, can measure and observe. This does not support the argument that NO objective reality exists, other than that created by consciousness.

But why is it that the person under hypnotic influence is seeing the wrong objective world? How can we bench mark what is the real objective world and what isnt when we only subjective percpetions to go by? We can never see the actual objective world because we only view the version interpreted by the subject.



How do we know that consciousness hasnt created an objective reality now? How the hell would we be able to tell the difference? And if there was was no objective reality why would consciousness have to create one of its own?????? What is it about an "objective" universe that consciousness is dependent on its existence?????

A truly objective world, totaly devoid of all subjectivity, would--- for that very reason---be unobservable. ---Werner Heisennberg, Nobel Laureate in physics.

This is where you and me differ. You believe that there is already an objective world and that exists regardless of consciousness/observer or not. I believe that the objective world only exists in conjunction with an observer and that it is impossible to prove otherwise.



No you are wrong here. Only an independent reality, viewed pretty much the same by all, but then interpreted by an individual organic consciousness allows for such scenarios for certain people.

Again how do we benchmark what is and what isnt real? Science has discovered that all reality is viewed in the brain and that the brain itself is only known because of consciousness. It is because of consciousness that we know we have a brain and that there is an objective universe that can be observed.

To quote Albert Einstein (Allah bless him):

We must remember that we do not observe nature as it actually exists, but nature exposed to our methods of perception (ways of seeing). The theories determine what we can or cannot observe.

And to quote quantum physicist Irwin Schrodinger:

Everyman's world picture is and always remains a construct of his mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence.


Hence it is an act of faith either way to believe whether a real objective universe exists or not.

And we do every day with our thoughts. Also since what we see and what we think are one and the same (as proven scientifically) doesnt that make reality what we think it is? If we focus what we think hard enough what we think actually manifests.

Here is some writing from the book "Holographic universe" by Michael Talbot:

In her addition to her stigmata, Neutmann also displayed inedia, the supernormal ability to live without food. Her inedia began in 1923 when she "trandsferred" the throat disease of a young priest to her own body and susisted soley on liquids for several years. Then, in 1927, she gave up both food and water entirely.
When local bishop in Regensburg first learned of Neumann's fast, he sent a commission into her home to investigate. From July 14, 1927, to July 29, 1927, and under the supervision of a medical doctor named Seidl, four Franciscan nursing sisters scrutinized her every move. They watched her day and night, and the water she used for washing and rinsing her mouth was carefully measured and weighed. The sisters discovered several unusual things about Neumann. She never went to the bathroom(even after a period of six weeks she only had one bowel movement, and the excretement, examined by a Dr. Reismanns, contained only a small amount of mucus and bile, but no traces of food).

She also showed no signs of dehydration, even though the average human expels about four hundred grams (fourteen ounces) of water daily in the air he or she exhales, and a like amount through the pores. And her weight remained constant; although she lost nearly nine pounds (in blood) during the weekly opening of her stigmata, her weight returned to normal within a day or two later.

At the end of the inquiry Dr. Seidl and the sisters were completely convinced that Neumann had not eaten or drunk a thing for the entire fourteen days. The test seems conclusive, for a while the human body can survive two weeks without food, it can rarely half that time without water. Yet this was nothing for Neumann; she did not eat or drink a thing for the next thirty five years. So it appears she was not only materializing the enormous amount of blood necessary to perpetuate her stigmata, but also regularly materializing the water and nutrients she needed to stay alive and in good health. Inedia is not unique to Neumann.

In the The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism, Thurston gives several examples of stigmatists who went for years without eating or drinking.

Also even quantam physicist David Bohm believes all reality is thought. As the Holographic universe says:

In private conversation Bohm admits to believing that the universe is all "thought" and reality exists only in what we think, but again he prefers not to speculate about miraculous occurences.

Thank God for open minded physicists liek David Bohm




You cannot prove that anything exists unless there is a subject to prove it!@!@!



But whether you remember something different or the actual event they are both mere thoughts created by your perceptions/mind.



All reality exists in the brain anyway (as shown by science) so what are the fundamental differences between what is thought to be real and a hallucination.


You havnt been able to answer me what constitutes for logic in the first place and why.

Exactly so. Mr walker cannot see that what we see and what we think are both constructs of the mind.

BUT THE OUTSIDE SOURCE THAT WE SEE OR OBSERVE ARE ALSO ONLY PERCEPTIONS. WE CANNOT PROVE THAT THEY COME FROM AN OUTSIDE SOURCE BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE OUR PERCEPTIONS TO GO BY WHEN MEASURING THE OUTSIDE WORLD.



And this means what? Just because scientists can manipulate memory it doesnt mean that they can show an objective universe past their sense perceptions.

Also memory isnt consciousness/aware. They are two (on a less abstract level) different things. The memory is a set of perceptions that supposedly happened in the past and the consciousness is the awareness that makes us aware of their existence.



Science has shown that the external data is actually all subjective.



Ahhhhhhhhhhhh see this is where you put your foot into it. The way we react may be considered "insane". However the awareness doesnt change.....the awareness may be aware of different things due to deprivation of sleep, food etc but the awareness itself remains indifferent and is just aware.



Again consciousness doesnt go insane and nor is it sane. Consciousness is just consciousness and is conscious of sanity or insantiy. Whether sane or insane there is awareness of....... the "of" could be of someone sane or insane....or it may be aware of africa or china......but the awareness in it self remains the same.

Only in deep sleep does it change or become unconscious........but in unconsciousness there is no sense of "I" or a sense of the world. In fact we come closest to experiencing what could be called nothing...but it is still something.


You need to open your mind more. Get out of your conventionality box

But you forget that it is only because of consciousness that we can witness an objective world. The objective world only exists while we are conscious of it. To quote M.L.von Franz :

Indeed, we must never forget that for us outer reality exists only in so far as we perceive it consciously, and that we cannot prove that it exists in and by itself.


Either way it is an act of faith to believe in one or the other.

The consciousness that views itself as an organism sees.

Exacty

Thanks. Just wanted to see what you thought here that is all.

That's not my arguement though. I was just wondering... what if the universe isn't actually how we see it. What's really going on/what does it look like outside of our brain's interpratation of the data it is getting. Say you were to create a universe. Then you'd have to create beings who live on it, and give them a way to "experience" and "see" the universe. If you would give them different senses than you, they'd have a different way of seeing that universe, they wouldn't see the universe how it actually is(Assuming the way you experience it is the "true" way; I mean, you are the creater).

Nicely put. The scary thing is (if it be scary) is that what you have just said here could very well be possible. How would we ever know either way? It is like the movie the matrix, they were plugged into it and were receiving data which made them think they were experiencing a "normal" reality. However it wasnt until after that were unplugged that they knew otherwise........

However, how could they be sure that after being unplugged from the matrix that they still wernt in another matrix of some sort?

How do we determine what is real?

People cling to the forms that they sense in the physical realm and comfort themselves by saying it is real. It is a scary notion for many that reality may just not be what it seems.

Focus is definitely the key...but also, keep in mind that some people are born with a larger-than-normal antenna and better reception than usual. Brave, I don't know if you are familiar with Ingo Swann, but his psychic gifts extend into remote viewing. He helped to develop a remote viewing program used by the American government and was widely regarded as one of the best remote viewers in the world. Swann once had allowed his brain to be monitored and analyzed. Swann was wired to an EEG machine, and was asked to use his skills to indentify items in a distant room. At the very moment that he was able to "see" the items remotely, his brain showed bursts of fast activity in the high beta and gamma range. Yeah!!! Those burst of activity occured primarily over the right occipital region, the portion of the brain relating to sight. According to the results of brainwave monitoring, Swann had entered a superconscious state, enabling him to receive information impossible to access during normal waking consciousness.

When he was examined by MRI...he also showed that he had an unusually large parietooccipital right-hemisphere lobe (sorry 'bout the occupational jargon), the portion of the brain involved with sensory and visual input. Both Swann, and many...many others have been graced with a greater capacity than normal to "see" beyond the limits of time, distance, and the five major senses. We haven't even begun to touch the surface on our understanding of the workings of our "reality".

Very interesting.

No need to be so tentative about it. The fact is that prevailing opinion in science today is that the matter and energy that science knows anything about comprises only around 4% of the observable universe. That is, we can only partially explain a very small amount of what we can see, and that's just speaking for what we can see. So we can say with virtual certainty that humans do not sense anywhere near 100% of existence. At this point in history, it's fair to say that human beings can hardly sense a damned thing about reality!

But to more generally address what is going on in the thread: Some here are saying that we observers actively participate in constructing reality, and others say that reality exists quite independent of us observers. What is abundantly clear to me is that both statements are true. We construct reality, and yet, what we construct is not completely arbitrary. Our signs may have some referent, and it may be possible to discover more or less what they really are and to say something meaningful about them. At the same time, the map is never, ever the territory. Words and concepts are never, ever the things they refer to, and our speech and understanding are thus always divorced from reality.

I seem to have contradicted myself here just as different posters are contradicting each other. As justification, I can only appeal to a truism. "The opposite of a trivial truth is a falsehood. The opposite of a great truth is another great truth."

I like that. Nice

Goes to show how little we know. Tis very Humbling. Also I think it is a reflcetion of man in general........ we are conscious of so little and are more at the mercy of the unkown/unconscious than we realize.



I think that it could be completely arbitrary if we only knew how to do so. I think various levels of the unconscious mind projects out reality and the conscious mind that we identify with observes it through the five senses (or/and others that we arnt conscious of?). Even so most of us think or believe that we cannot alter the world around us and so our mind/reality reflects that belief ( beliefs get rooted in the unconscious levels of the mind and influence the conscious mind and what it sees). Belief plays a powerful role because all reality is a costruct in the mind, meaning that all of reality is thought. Focus the thoughts intensely enough and the thought will manifest.

But when a thought manifests into reality we have to remember that the unconscious plays a part in shaping it. And I think we highly underestimate the power that conditioning and prejudices have over us in our childhood.

Here is a quote from one of the Dune novels by Frank Herbert. What it says rings true in my opinion:

At the quantum level our universe can be seen as an indeterminate place, predictable in a statistical way only when you employ large enough numbers. Between that universe and a relatively predictable one where the passage of a single planet can be timed to a picosecond, other forces come into play. For the in-between universe where we find our daily lives, that which you believe is a dominant force. Your beliefs order the unfolding of daily events. If enough of us believe, a new thing can be made to exist. Belief structure creates a filter through which chaos is sifted into order.

Analysis of the Tyrant,
the Taraza file: Bene Gesserit Archives

And here is a verse from the the ancient Hindu scripture "The Bhagavad Gita": Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is.

And here are some enlightening words into the nature of reality by Buddha:

All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think, we become.

Now we have science telling us that all reality is percieved in the brain and that the brain too is percieved by that dirty word in science........consciousness.

True religion is more or less about understanding on a direct level what consciousness is, and religion goes about discovering consciousness and its potential via consciousness itself.

Consciousness isnt physical and that is why science will never fully get a grasp on it. They can affect different states of consciousness by manipulating the brain etc but as for observing and localizing consciousness itself they are hopeless. Consciousness has a connection with the brain but doesnt owe its existence to it.



Very well put. But not only speech but thought also is divorced from reality for all thought is concept as well. And what we see and what we think as science has shown are one and the same. What we see and imagine visually are both viewed in the visual cortex.



I know where you are coming from. I myself just admit that it is a paradox. If people dont want to admit paradox then they will never be able to further their self discovery of the universe and their relation to it. The universe cannot be summed up in a neat logical scienfitic package anymore than it can a religious formulae or belief system. It takes guts and intuition utilizing whatever your intuition tells you.

Science and religion are more or less tools for your intuition.

"The only real valuable thing is intuition." --Albert Einstein

The human voice can never reach the distance that is covered by the still small voice of conscience. ---Mahatma Gandhi

You have often heard me talk of a divine oracle or guide that comes to me. It is a kind of voice, that I first heard as a child. It always tells me what not to do, but never commands me to do anything. It is this voice that has, quite rightly, I feel, deterred me from becoming a politcian.

---Socrates

These three people were not known in history for being fools. Yet all three of them mention the high value of intuition which many scientists and even religious followers consider either non-existent or dangerous.

In my view, if you follow intuition all else falls into place.

life is the organization of the disorganized.
death is the disorganization of the organized.

as for what is "nothingness"?
it is void.
it is unimaginable, for nothing within itself has no existance.
it can be described by the word "void" perfectly.
no singularity, no multifacets.
it is zero point.

Yeah, but using the word "void" implys emptyness, there needs to be a container for emptyness to exist, just like nothing is the container for everything; space the planets and so on.

Another wicked thread here brave, follows on from the other one nicely ...i've missed a treat

hmm, what hasnt already been said?? *rubs chin*.....I suppose linguistically speaking a persons observeable bodily presence becomes nothing comparitively speaking, when death comes. Presence of mind contained within the brain becomes none to speak of for the observers, for the observable bodily presence is no more to transmit and contain it...

...but consciousness/awareness is without thought. Sleep/Meditation/Victims on life support show that although thought requires consciousness/awareness, consciousness/awareness does not require thought. So when these depart with death, pure consciousness remains....which is everything!

LOVE IT!!!!
nn23

If I have a box on my table and tell you to imagine something inside it you know there cant be nothingness inside it. This is because the inside of a box has volume and nothingness cant have volume.

Imagine heaven and how it can exist outthere somehow trancending your reality. Now ask yourself how can you imagine that heaven, even if its just your own creation, if the volume for it to exist in doesnt already exist?

Brave New Wold always thinking one step ahead of us all Well, I was very pleased to hear that there have been several people who have add odd occurences in which they have "died" and came back to life, and they have reported of going to a peaceful place with rolling meadows and a warm feeling, then the first people they see are their family and closest friends. It could have perhaps been their last thoughts before they "died", but I prefer to think otherwise.

A zero point and void is something. If nothing was nothing then it wouldnt be anything to name.

I've learnt something new here. Charming post

nothingness is emptyness.
i related that already.

void is the area between.
however, as i do think philosophically, there truely is no existance of "nothing" in an infinite Universe.

i theorize that living creation/energy is scaled in both directions, as infinitely large & small.

in this Universe planets are atoms.
every atom composes a new form of creation in the Universe.

i suggest the possibility we all live in a Universe that composes a large entity that lives upon a planet, which is an atom, ect.
that would be the Universe as ininitely large.

on the other extreme, i suggest that every atom, which is a planet, contains a form of humanity/life & they are composed of atoms, which in turn are planets, ect.
that explains infinitely small.

so in an Infinite Universe, there is not a considerable "nothingness" or "void" when all life is infinite.
the space between atoms could be "void" but truely, that emptyness composes a form of creation.
hence, creation doesn't exist without nothingness, making all as "one".

now what does this theory have to suggest about death?
dying returns our energy to this "emptyness" or "void" to later be reused.

energy cannot be destroyed.
so it is possible our energy is in the wind or within the ability for a plant to grow.
maybe energy is a main source, not possible to be seperated from.
maybe energy is free flowing, without form & tapped into a main flow,
& death is returning to the main source of all creation, the infinitey of sigularity.


oh philosophy, i adore thee.

Exactly. I myself believe that ultimately everything there is potential for is actual. How can we imagine something that doesnt exist? Well we cant hence everything we imagine exists.

I prefer to think otherwise too

Then it isnt nothing but something which very well could be nothing.



I agree



Holographic theory?



Ya I totally agree that everything is one.



Reused for what do you think?



Well if everything is one then how could anything be separate?


I love philosophy too.

Correct 100%
This is further backed up by quantum mechanics which shows we have lots of extra dimensions for these things to exist in.