Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Arpee

A theory of everything "space" and "all"

78 posts in this topic

You've only ignored and drummed on about your little "theory".

I'll make it more simple for you; a brain forms thoughts based on information it possesses, as this "mind" doesn't do anything but observe, the brain can not receive information from this "mind". Conclusion, the brain must observe and collect its own information.

Do what you usually do and ignore this glaring problem.

It doesn't need to "receive" information from this mind because the brain (as all physical existence) is an EXTENSION over it. How many times will you ask the same question?

All observation is done through the mind - and all the mind does is observe - but that does not mean that physical reality is only observing - no, it observes from the mind but the PHYSICAL will DO here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't need to "receive" information from this mind because the brain (as all physical existence) is an EXTENSION over it. How many times will you ask the same question?

All observation is done through the mind - and all the mind does is observe - but that does not mean that physical reality is only observing - no, it observes from the mind but the PHYSICAL will DO here.

How many times must you contradict yourself? You said the mind doesn't do ANYTHING. If the brain does not receive information from the mind, it must get the observations from else where.

So really you've got a BS "theory" that falls flat when addressing the brain's awareness, in fact it just completely denies it. Neuroscience alone refutes your "theory".

BTW Please look up the definition of observation, by definition we/our brains observe. It's really annoying when someone invents their own uneducated meanings.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times must you contradict yourself? You said the mind doesn't do ANYTHING. If the brain does not receive information from the mind, it must get the observations from else where.

I did not contradict myself, you just didn't understand. The mind (awareness/observation) is connected to all things physical since the physical reality is an EXTENSION of it. So, the brain, the human, the animal, and all others are connected to this mind/awareness. There is no other place "to go" for observations. Only the mind observes but all things are connected to it.

by definition we/our brains observe.

The brain is connected to the mind and the mind is the source of all observation, physical reality is just an extension of it.

It's really annoying when someone invents their own uneducated meanings.

This is why I use alternative words such as "observation", "awareness" , "consciousness" to make sure people grasp the meaning of the idea I am trying to convey. If that "annoys" you - that is a personal problem - not mine. I am just hear to convey the message and if the message is understood I have done my part in this communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why I use alternative words such as "observation", "awareness" , "consciousness" to make sure people grasp the meaning of the idea I am trying to convey. If that "annoys" you - that is a personal problem - not mine. I am just hear to convey the message and if the message is understood I have done my part in this communication.

Those words are already defined, thankyou. You're making up your own definitions, then accusing me of not understanding because you refuse to use the correct meanings. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those words are already defined, thankyou. You're making up your own definitions, then accusing me of not understanding because you refuse to use the correct meanings.

So, are you saying you do not know what it means to be "aware" of something? I just used different words to help capture the meaning, but all of the words are by their general definition.

"observation of", "conscious of", "aware of" - these are all pretty similar words. What seems to be the confusion? If you let me know I can further explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im still a bit lost. if you believe in reincarnation then does this mean the "light-body" or "my spirit" energy can reincarnate? and i dont understand how observation without memory can be aware of itself or anything else if it cant remember itself. observation / mind would just be a camera / eyeball. i believe awareness cannot exist without memory. and since when did mind / observation aquire the second aspect of awareness? this whole time i thought it incapable of awareness or any other form of intelligence because it was only capable of observation and nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, are you saying you do not know what it means to be "aware" of something? I just used different words to help capture the meaning, but all of the words are by their general definition.

"observation of", "conscious of", "aware of" - these are all pretty similar words. What seems to be the confusion? If you let me know I can further explain.

No, I'm saying YOU don't; for instance the brain observes, it is aware, it collects sensory information. Now you can pretend and deny all you like, in the end the definition still applies and you're only fooling yourself.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/observation?s=t

Evidence shows the brain observes, makes observations. To deny this (both the definition and evidence) is asinine.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rlyeh, I can "pretend" or "deny", do you know what these words imply? These words suggest that I do not know the truth that I do, that I am not aware of how this works. The word "deny" is even worse, it makes it seem as though I am trying to "lie" to myself to make myself feel better about a so-called "harsh" reality.

There is no reason to "deny" reality by "pretending" that there is one mind, what would be the advantage of admitting that there is no individuality at the source of all there is? It would be much more comforting to lie and say that there is all of these collections of minds as individuals, that lie would be more comforting and probably more people would believe it, but that is not what I am interested in. I am interested in truth, and from what I see, there is no difference between "your" awareness and "my" awareness, it is just awareness, it is the mind that thinks thoughts of "I am this" or "I prefer that". The awareness itself, the being-ness, the so-called nothingness, how can you call such a impersonal thing individualistic?

Yes, the brain observes in the same since that you do (and all life does), I never "denied" this. What I did say is that this "awareness" is the basis of all reality - so yes, the brain and all things are connected to it, and from this awareness, from this observation, the brain does react.

Here is another metaphor to hopefully explain this in a clearer way:

You are watching a movie, the camera that records this "movie" is the mind being aware of reality, however, the brain (you in the chair watching the movie) can choose to react by feeling certain emotions.

While the brain does nothing but observe, the brain can react from such observations as all things can. This is why I repeatedly said that Mind (awareness/Observation) is at the basis of all reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rlyeh, I can "pretend" or "deny", do you know what these words imply? These words suggest that I do not know the truth that I do, that I am not aware of how this works. The word "deny" is even worse, it makes it seem as though I am trying to "lie" to myself to make myself feel better about a so-called "harsh" reality.

Lol. If I didn't know what they meant, I wouldn't have used them.

Considering your rejection of the workings of the brain, "deny" and "pretend" are accurate descriptions.

Yes, the brain observes in the same since that you do (and all life does), I never "denied" this. What I did say is that this "awareness" is the basis of all reality - so yes, the brain and all things are connected to it, and from this awareness, from this observation, the brain does react.

The brain does not "observe", you do not "observe", there is only one observer and physical reality is what is being "seen"

Clearly you're making up your own definitions.

Here is another metaphor to hopefully explain this in a clearer way:

You are watching a movie, the camera that records this "movie" is the mind being aware of reality, however, the brain (you in the chair watching the movie) can choose to react by feeling certain emotions.

By definition the mind includes cognitive faculties like choice and thought.
While the brain does nothing but observe, the brain can react from such observations as all things can. This is why I repeatedly said that Mind (awareness/Observation) is at the basis of all reality.

While I've repeatedly shown your definitions are inconsistent. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. This physical reality is an EXTENSION of mind. The brain is not the one doing the actual observing though. It is the one that creates the action (of thought or moves the body).

You do not observe either, the mind observes through you. There is only one mind. The mind is also observing through the brain and everything, but the physical brain itself does not "observe"; you do not "observe" the mind is observing through you.

I see you have met Rlyeh lol

He wont listen no matter what you tell him as I'm sure youre begnning to notice. I have told him how colour works in the past and he was unable to accept it and even denied the Wiki link he was given. He even denied psychology links from a professor on mental perception -

1. Colour is not a property of photons.

2. Photons come in wavelengths not colours.

3. Gamma waves have a short wavelength, radio waves a long one and light in the visable spectum is somewhere in the middle.

4. Your retina has cells that detect specific wavelengths in the visable spectrum.

5. When they do they send electrical signals to the brain along the optic nerve.

6. Your brain interupts those electrical signals as colour to create your visual experience.

7. Colour is mind.

8. As colour isnt experienced inside your head but around you, your mind exists outside of your skull.

9. In fact, if he bothered to do research, everything including atoms and his body are mental perceptions (With no information particles dont exist - Quantum Mechanics).

10. Reality and mind are the same thing.

11. Therefore your mind is reality.

Edited by Mr Right Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Right Wing tends to forget how many times others (myself included) have corrected his misunderstandings of things like color, in fact a number of times he's shown he can't read this own links.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=218961

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=228754entry4329712

If you need someone to agree with pseudoscience and outdated concepts (he apparently suffers castration anxiety), you need look no further.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know from how did the OP come up with his hypothesis or conjecture or what ever it is. Where is the evidence that demonstrates that it is the correct description of what it describes?

I can create various scenarios of the nature of Reality within my imagination, but I realize they are all fictions unless I can prove their validity with empirical evidence. Just stating some personal conjecture is true without the support of data confirming its accuracy is an act of faith based on the authority of the unproven conjecture itself.

This may be accepted as philosophical inquiry, but when it is represented as actual fact, the presentation looses its integrity as an honest attempt at an interpretation of the nature of the reality we experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. If I didn't know what they meant, I wouldn't have used them.

Considering your rejection of the workings of the brain, "deny" and "pretend" are accurate descriptions.

You say I "reject" the workings of the brain as if man's understanding of it is 100% fact. This is like saying a scientist is "pretending" or "denying" reality by saying that the earth isn't flat. Sometimes as new understandings are made, we need to 'reject' older understandings for truth.

The brain does not "observe", you do not "observe", there is only one observer and physical reality is what is being "seen"

Clearly you're making up your own definitions.

Well here is the definition I am using "observe - Notice or perceive (something)". So whether you I am making up my own definitions or not is irrelevant. Now, I am telling you how I am using the word, so that the message can be properly conveyed.

By definition the mind includes cognitive faculties like choice and thought.

I've already told you how I defined the mind - by observation or awareness, and I already told you how I defined brain - the physical matter which is able to produce thought from response to stimuli (awareness from the mind which it is connected to as all things are). This is the way I am using these words. So, now you know the words I am using and the definitions I am using behind it. Problem solved. No need to consult a dictionary.

While I've repeatedly shown your definitions are inconsistent.

You are trying to debunk a theory based on the reinterpretation of words. That does not make any sense at all.

This is like you not believing in multi-verse theory just because a dictionary may define the universe as "everything that exists". Well, sometimes in theories people give different understandings of words to explain what they are talking about, so in multi-verse theory a universe may be defined as something like "a pocket of space-time" and there are numerous "universes" in this multi-verse.

I am redefining "mind" in order to explain this theory and to say it is "debunked" because of that, is silly.

Edited by Arpee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is much like biocentrism, the idea that everything can only exist because we're here to view it, and time/space don't actually exist. Interesting idea :3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is much like biocentrism, the idea that everything can only exist because we're here to view it, and time/space don't actually exist. Interesting idea :3

Not at all like bio-centrism. Humans or physical life forms do not need to exist at all and this mind will still be here. It is the basis behind all physical reality seeing through all - so in away all things are "living" (in a very loose sense of the word))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind is reality? .. what about before there was mind? Our minds anyway. Did the universe not form stars and solar systems, and stuff, without our knowledge and consent? I suspect so, because we can see the process continue.

I sort of like arpee's idea of some sort of all encompassing , all empowering mind. hmm, sounds familiar somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind is reality?

No, reality is the suit that mind is wearing, but there is only one mind giving the illusion of individual minds.

what about before there was mind?

What The Mind actually is was explained in the original post. It will answer your question.

Our minds anyway.

There is no "our" mind, just like there is no "my" space, space is space and that is it. People choose to put the word "my" or "your" on it as if it can actually be owned.

Did the universe not form stars and solar systems, and stuff, without our knowledge and consent? I suspect so, because we can see the process continue.

The mind is always in the present moment aware of now, now, and now... So the so-called "past" or "future" is irrelevant to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually believe this? Because while its a nice idea its more a philosophical viewpoint then a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here is the definition I am using "observe - Notice or perceive (something)". So whether you I am making up my own definitions or not is irrelevant. Now, I am telling you how I am using the word, so that the message can be properly conveyed.

Which the brain does, so you're rejecting scientific evidence.
You are trying to debunk a theory based on the reinterpretation of words. That does not make any sense at all.
Please don't call your garbage a theory; hell it's not even a hypothesis. A theory explains evidence, not denies it. What you've got is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which the brain does, so you're rejecting scientific evidence.

Please don't call your garbage a theory; hell it's not even a hypothesis. A theory explains evidence, not denies it. What you've got is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Ok, I am done debating with you. I will not keep answering the same questions to the same person. Now, you called this theory "garbage" just because you lack understanding. I wish you best and I hope that we can understand each other on other topics. Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arpee, can you comment on my Post #62? You have no obligation to do so, of course, but I think it would be helpful in this discussion if we knew how you came to your conclusions as stated in the OP.

This is in the Philosophy section, so I think empirical evidence for your thoughts are probably not needed, but maintaining that your ideas are the truth, I think some reasons for your dedication to your ideas could be offered.

Edited by StarMountainKid
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know from how did the OP come up with his hypothesis or conjecture or what ever it is. Where is the evidence that demonstrates that it is the correct description of what it describes?

Thoughts are created by neuron through bio-electric communication in the brain. The only thing "in-between" these communications is "space" which is how I got the idea that this "space" is the "mind" (the area that is "observing") this space. This isn't proof, this is just a theory.

I can create various scenarios of the nature of Reality within my imagination, but I realize they are all fictions unless I can prove their validity with empirical evidence. Just stating some personal conjecture is true without the support of data confirming its accuracy is an act of faith based on the authority of the unproven conjecture itself.

This is very true, but there are somethings about this theory that are fact but for some reason people choose to reject, such as:

Everything is made of energy - there is no "me" energy or "you" energy - it is all connected making up atoms and the physical world

Energy is always fluctuating - this "wavering movement" is what creates this reality (for each present moment)

"Clutter" and "solidness" is an illusion, everything is made up of atoms freely flowing about in space (and even 99.9% empty space in atoms)

The Past and The Future is just a thought happening in the brain in "THIS" current moment - another illusion

The brain chooses to "name" and split things up in "categories" when in reality - reality just exists (no "light" vs "dark"; "good" vs "evil")

So here are some things that are fact, With this it is safe to conclude that reality is just one "flow" of energy happening in this current moment and it is an ILLUSION/IMAGINATION of the human brain to split things up into categories and split reality into two pieces such as "good" or "bad" everything is just happening.

This may be accepted as philosophical inquiry, but when it is represented as actual fact, the presentation looses its integrity as an honest attempt at an interpretation of the nature of the reality we experience.

Not once did I say that "Mind is space is absolute fact" I am only responding in regards to the theory, but what is absolute fact is that reality is continuous unfolding of the present moment, and past and future is just "thought" about - not the real focus of reality - and all is connected as one since there is really no such thing as "separation" in the quantum world. Even so-called "emptiness/void" has energy - it is all connected. Unity is an absolute fact but it is difficult for the human brain to accept if it has been so busy labeling things and splitting up reality into two pieces. There is no such thing as possession - "my" or "yours" this is just a mental projection on reality - not something factual. There is no way to "examine" if someone owns something unless they tell you, even if they are holding that item, in reality it is just "a human holding an item" there is no such thing as possession in reality...

There are many illusions that the human brain can hold on to and most won't even realize that it is just an illusion.

In reality "land" is "land" and cannot be owned - only lived on - it is human agreement in their own delusional brain that agrees to these ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thanks for responding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mind is the observer, the mind is the thinker, the physical body is the bearer of sensation.

I thought the mind didnt think? I thought the brain does?

I agree that a thought is a electrical and all - but the brain only processes this - the brain didnt think it up.. the brain processes that thought that the mind observed, but what coursed the thought to arise into an electrial current?

An expereince maybe?

But I am agreeing to te fact we are all energy and there is no YOU or ME, I agree, we are all one - but this gift of consiousness has been given 'per say' and there is point in it all - I guess it depends on what path you follow.

Consiouness is the driver, the mind is the driver, the observer, ther doer and the doing.

But this is my thoughts, as you have pointed out you do not agree - which is fine. I like your idea here - it just lacks something for me.

Thanks for the topic.

Kind Regards,

Edited by The Id3al Experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. I'm seeing a lot "what ifs". I think philosophy is simply something one should not apply to actual science. These deep questions need to be taken from two points of views and left in those categories for what they are, one being the philosophical mind and one being the scientific mind. Facts vs Perception. Neuroscience has all the answers we seek basically. As black and white as neuroscience can be, it does delve into the gray. I do not see a straight-forward analogy to the universe or quantum world via neuroscience. The theory of everything would not include the mind. The mind or brain or whatever you wanna call it, would be considered an after-effect of the cause (creation).

The mind (consciousness) is still created from experience. The observer in us changes from originally, just viewing, to judging and perceiving and reacting accordingly. The past is still very much a reality in our consciousness, as it affects our present and future decisions . Without the past, we would not be able to perceive anything. We would have only our natural instincts to guide us. One could say the mind is merely the soul. However, this is all still very hypothetical and conjectural (as SMK pointed out). The mind/soul is a process of survival and therefore an effect. The benefit of having a thinking brain, is the fact that we can discuss these very complex problems or questions.

To me, the most fascinating thing to take away from any of this confusing subject, is entanglement. http://en.wikipedia....um_entanglement

I think a lot of what's going on in this thread can be simply explained in the above link. I did not read the whole thread, so sorry if it's already been mentioned. I feel as if we are all saying the same thing, lol. Talking in circles and riddles!!! LOVE IT!

The space between (thinking of a Dave Mathews song lol), is exactly what it describes, it is literal. Let's say you have a river with tributaries. The water will not be in the spaces between, it will only flow where it is designed to flow, there is no reason for it not to. Anything and everything is within these neurons, these inner-connecting webs. Perception is only an effect. The creation of thought is the cause. Memory is truly the poison for which our souls are trapped in.

edit: ehh stupid laptop errorsssss

Edited by Mentalcase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.