#0 · Jul 15, 2005, 08:37 · MisterJingo
Firstly, we all carry around the same consciousness. I don't necessarily mean that this has to be a shared consciousness(one/source) etc but if we take consciousness to be the product of the physical brain, then the same mechanism in each of our brains produces self awareness and consciousness the same way. Personality differences arise through direct experience shaping our belief systems and ego.
Secondly, I'm going to look at this from the viewpoint that only physical exists, i.e. we are just the product of a physical brain and nothing more.
If the physical brain is complex enough to produce self awareness or at least the illusion of self awareness, and allows us to construct this physical reality we perceive around us, is it such a large step to assume that the same brain can create other locales below the level of our current focus (those being the astral, mental, of F1,2,3,4 etc)?
One proof that we can give to being more than a physical brain is the ability to remote view, or project and to a remote location and successfully perceive knowledge outside our current location.
In a deterministic universe, everything is predestined. If we each share this consciousness, is it not possible that the information we receive is already within us? i.e. we simply filter through our brains knowledge and retrieve this information, rather than travelling to a remote location?
Another proof of being more than the physical is the ability to meet someone remotely in the astral and booth have similar experiences. Yet, in a predetermined universe whatever neurological function relates to knowledge of that meeting would exist within all of us.
I guess it comes down to, that if we are all the exact same consciousness, spawned from the same physical brains (in different bodies) then isn't it possible that each of our brains contain the same areas of knowledge and knows through the way we are wired. So 2 people meeting in the astral, could really be 2 people accessing the area of brain function relating to this experience?)
What I'm trying to get my head around is the possibility that the universe as we know it is a brain construct, and so all experience is already stored. I'm also trying to grasp that idea that even mundane reality interactions, such as talking to friends or watching TV, is but an energy exchange of some kind, or perhaps brain function, that our brain actually perceives as the aforementioned. That is, things are very different from what we actually perceive.
I know there are a lot of holes in the above, and even the possibility of such a thing being true can be quite scary, but I'm a firm believer that we should walk all avenues of thought. To exist in a world where we only look at knowledge which pleases us (shunning or ridiculing knowledge which threatens our current reality view), surely leads to a warping of any possible truths we might find. As we are seeing truth through only a self filtered belief system/ego and potentially only seeing what we would like to see.
If presented with the above ideas (I hope I articulated myself sufficiently to at least get the idea across) how would you personally disprove them , or integrate them?
#1 · Jul 15, 2005, 08:44 · MisterJingo
The one hurled in a deterministic universe was that information was lost in black holes, now it seems string theory has provided a solution to this problem. Black holes actually store the information lost to them, and through entropy, that information could be passed back into the universe.
#2 · Jul 15, 2005, 16:01 · vanos
Quote from: MisterJingo I should state assumptions.You know what they say about assumptions?
Quote from: MisterJingoI very much agree. I never liked the idea of a black hole, but apparently they do exist and I have come to accept it in time...
and even ideas we do not like should be studied to see if they contain any truth.
Quote from: MisterJingoI hate this idea, but okay...
In a deterministic universe, everything is predestined.
Quote from: MisterJingoThis can never be proven or disproven to somebody who is assuming reality as being only physical and nothing else... so it is kind of pointless really.
I guess it comes down to, that if we are all the exact same consciousness, spawned from the same physical brains (in different bodies) then isn't it possible that each of our brains contain the same areas of knowledge and knows through the way we are wired. So 2 people meeting in the astral, could really be 2 people accessing the area of brain function relating to this experience?)
Quote from: MisterJingoThe old brain-in-a-jar idea. Again, there is no way for a brain-in-a-jar to prove to itself that there exist a reality beyond the experiences it creates in its own mind.
What I'm trying to get my head around is the possibility that the universe as we know it is a brain construct
Quote from: MisterJingoI do think that outside of our physical linear timeframe, all probable experiences exist (or are stored then) in some way.
and so all experience is already stored.
Quote from: MisterJingoThere is no reality, there is only perception. A vague statement, I know...
That is, things are very different from what we actually perceive.
Quote from: MisterJingoIt is scary to think that ALL my perceptions regarding OBE's and AP's being non-physical experiences, are all wrong.
I know there are a lot of holes in the above, and even the possibility of such a thing being true can be quite scary,
Quote from: MisterJingoWhat truth? There is only perception for us. Truth can not be found here.
As we are seeing truth through only a self filtered belief system/ego and potentially only seeing what we would like to see.
Quote from: MisterJingoAs lame as it sounds, the "reality" is that I cannot disprove them to you, only to myself. In my own limited perceptions I have come to believe I am part of something that is more than merely physical.
how would you personally disprove them , or integrate them?
Interesting.
#3 · Jul 15, 2005, 17:05 · vanos
Quote from: MisterJingo A quick aside: Before someone quotes quantum physics as proof that determinism doesn't exist, and hence the rest of the idea falls down, read up on black hole entropy.Why do they call it "information" anyway? I mean, the stuff that supposedly leaks from a black hole surely has no resemblance to the stuff that was crammed into it in the first place. Its pure radiation. Radiation is not information. It would be generous to call it "data", nevermind "information".
The one hurled in a deterministic universe was that information was lost in black holes, now it seems string theory has provided a solution to this problem. Black holes actually store the information lost to them, and through entropy, that information could be passed back into the universe.
Anyway, just a thought. Symantics schmantics.
#4 · Jul 15, 2005, 18:24 · MisterJingo
Quote from: vanosAssumptions were stated to give an indication of a starting point of my reasoning. As I was reasoning on a purely physical level, I used scientificQuote from: MisterJingo I should state assumptions.You know what they say about assumptions?
method to start.
Quote from: vanosI'm not saying I enjoy the idea either, but I can't discount it's possible validity.Quote from: MisterJingoI hate this idea, but okay...
In a deterministic universe, everything is predestined.
Quote from: vanosI wouldn't say it is pointless. Regardless if you like it or not, we were born onto this physical plane. This whole line of reasoning is to determine if there is only physical or something more.Quote from: MisterJingoThis can never be proven or disproven to somebody who is assuming reality as being only physical and nothing else... so it is kind of pointless really.
I guess it comes down to, that if we are all the exact same consciousness, spawned from the same physical brains (in different bodies) then isn't it possible that each of our brains contain the same areas of knowledge and knows through the way we are wired. So 2 people meeting in the astral, could really be 2 people accessing the area of brain function relating to this experience?)
Quote from: vanosWe don't know that there is no way. I can't state any ways right now, which is part of a reason for this post.Quote from: MisterJingoThe old brain-in-a-jar idea. Again, there is no way for a brain-in-a-jar to prove to itself that there exist a reality beyond the experiences it creates in its own mind.
What I'm trying to get my head around is the possibility that the universe as we know it is a brain construct
Quote from: vanosI'd say reality is an interpretation of perception. I would also say that there is a a lot more than just perception (which is a possible human mind construct).Quote from: MisterJingoThere is no reality, there is only perception. A vague statement, I know...
That is, things are very different from what we actually perceive.
Quote from: vanosI agree. I feel the same way too.Quote from: MisterJingoIt is scary to think that ALL my perceptions regarding OBE's and AP's being non-physical experiences, are all wrong.
I know there are a lot of holes in the above, and even the possibility of such a thing being true can be quite scary,
Quote from: vanosPerhaps I mis-used the word truth. By this I mean if there is any greater meaning to anything, only allowing yourself to absorb part of it (blocking other 'perception' because you do not like it's implications) is not allowing you to see everything. Literally you see what you want (caught in illusion?)Quote from: MisterJingoWhat truth? There is only perception for us. Truth can not be found here.
As we are seeing truth through only a self filtered belief system/ego and potentially only seeing what we would like to see.
Quote from: vanosHow can you disprove them to yourself? You have stated throughout your answers that such a thing cannot be proved or even disproven. So you either lied or your proof exists purely of belief?Quote from: MisterJingoAs lame as it sounds, the "reality" is that I cannot disprove them to you, only to myself. In my own limited perceptions I have come to believe I am part of something that is more than merely physical.
how would you personally disprove them , or integrate them?
Interesting.
#5 · Jul 15, 2005, 18:31 · MisterJingo
Quote from: vanosIt's called information as the atoms/particles which were consumed by it would have contained such information as velocity, spin, charge etc.Quote from: MisterJingo A quick aside: Before someone quotes quantum physics as proof that determinism doesn't exist, and hence the rest of the idea falls down, read up on black hole entropy.Why do they call it "information" anyway? I mean, the stuff that supposedly leaks from a black hole surely has no resemblance to the stuff that was crammed into it in the first place. Its pure radiation. Radiation is not information. It would be generous to call it "data", nevermind "information".
The one hurled in a deterministic universe was that information was lost in black holes, now it seems string theory has provided a solution to this problem. Black holes actually store the information lost to them, and through entropy, that information could be passed back into the universe.
The blackholes literally comsumed energy which couldn't be accounted for, and hence things could not be determined as information was missing. Even if that information is returned in another form, it balances the books, and allows for the possibility of predetermination.
Regarding your previous post:
Quote from: vanosIf such a thing really exists, then everything is predetermined!
I do think that outside of our physical linear timeframe, all probable experiences exist (or are stored then) in some way.
#6 · Jul 15, 2005, 19:45 · vanos
When does perception become Truth?
At focus 4?
We can argue to death the possibility that your physcial brain could be making EVERYTHING up. Including AP's and OBE's that you would swear were perfectly lucid and non-physical and true and everything. I simply can't see a way beyond this event horizon while one is still focused in the physical. If there is, I would love to know it.
It is classic brain-in-a-jar. The brain only has its perceptions as its reality.
Either your conciousness is just a physical brain composed of electrical impulses OR it is more than that.
I believe it is more, based on what I have experienced, not because I liked the idea and chose to believe it at that instant. I would like to believe that I know this to be true. (If that makes sense).
All I can say for sure is that when I am Out Of Body, I have a definate sense of being part of something far more than a fleshy bag of blood and bones.
I give up.
#7 · Jul 15, 2005, 19:58 · MisterJingo
My experience to date leads me to believe there is a lot more than the physical (and that the physical is a belief system on the spectrum of consciousness), but I had the thought of my original post on a walk this morning and it did worry me
I just don't like to think that I'm accepting things blindly, or because alternatives are scary. I also like to pull everything apart (figuratively speaking of course).
I perhaps think too much of such maters (or perhaps think too much using a logic formed and contained to the phsycial) and am looking for answers which make sence to a physical perception.
#8 · Jul 15, 2005, 21:35 · Stillwater
Now you were on the subject of the brain-in-jar paradigm, which is another form of the Plato's Allegory of the Cave - we cannot be certain that what is relayed to us by our senses reflects the truth of what IS . In this view, one sees difficulty in proving anything- how can one say that the volume of figure X is 100 cm-cubed, if one cannot with certainty say that when they made the measurements that led them to this conclusion, they were not receiveing this information from an outside controling force? This idea makes it very obvious that our logical proofs are based on definitions, and that our definitions are based on assumptions- assumptions which can never be prooven. So I "know" that this figure has a volume of 100 cm-cubed, given that I assume my measurements to be "genuine." But there is more to the simple paradigm of uncertainty- consider it in terms of a dichotomy of interpretations- a form of logical induction if you will ( induction seeks to prove a general premise, such as "all integers are numbers", by proving every specific case that the general statement could apply to- in the example, one would have to prove than any integer has the properties of a "number"); the two interpretations are that we are free from controling influences of outside forces, and what we see can be taken as fact- in this case, whatever we can prove logically, truly is, and if we find a way to "prove" the metaphysical, than to a fair degree, we can be certain of its existence; the other case is that the brain-in-jar assumption is indeed correct, and that we are controlled by outside forces; the hole in this argument is that it would not be conceivably possible to be fed information unless one of two things were true- there was a greater consciousness, which, in effect, would render the argument uneccessary, or we were being controlled by a consciousness similar to what we believe or selves to be. Now the interesting thing about this half of the brain-in jar- area of the of the discussion is this: since the world in which we are manipulated is similar to the one in which we perceive orselves to be, we can apply the same logical arguements in it that we would use to prove metaphysics here- the only small problem we would have is the inability of obtaining data of any sort.
So in essence, this line of reasoning allows us to attempt to prove metaphysics short of two problems: the inability to gain data if we are inside a world controlled by another, and fraud, which is similar to the world-in-a-world, brain-in-jar arguement, except tthat the infomation comes from the same world.
Although this line of reasoning may have flaws (as the ideas of Kant and Descartes did), it is fairly circumspect, with the main assumption of the dichotomic view of the world, with no third interpretation.
What do either of you think of this?
#9 · Jul 15, 2005, 21:51 · Ben K
Think of a spectrum. On one side is objective, on the other subjective. Our brain is what lets us have objective knowing of things. Anything you can touch, see, etc. is an objective thing. A tree in your mind, while subjective in nature, is still an objective knowing of "tree".
Now, youve probably heard of Platos Cave. Think of the shadows on the wall of the cave as the objective knowing of reality. The puppets are subjective knowing, which we as humans have a hard time comprehending unless you experience F4. All other focus states before F4 are "objective" in a way that they deal with objects you can see, touch, etc. F4 is the first step towards a truly subjective reality.
I like to think of the objective actions as the prettier side of the deal. Much like the Matrix was a prettier version of the scrolling green symbols.
Quote I do think that outside of our physical linear timeframe, all probable experiences exist (or are stored then) in some way.No, outside of physical reality, there is no time so it is impossible for reality to be predetermined. Rather, think of reality as channeled. You are born with every concept, idea, etc lodged within your F2oC. Your job as an living human is to bring these concepts forth into your physical life so you can explore life. So the purpose of life, you could say, is to live.
If such a thing really exists, then everything is predetermined!
Hope I helped,
Ben
#10 · Jul 15, 2005, 23:28 · Stillwater
Quote You are both right and wrong.we understand completely what you are saying, but on the other hand, this is bascially the model of metaphysics- we are in the business of proving, or trying to prove the validity of the model, not to understand it. It is easy to prove something with the thing itself as an assumption to getting you there, but the big flaw is that you were only able to prove the thing because you assumed it to be true to begin with. This model has gotten us places, but a spiritualist should understand the idea of progress- isn't that what we are all about? To progress, we must proceed without assumptions: that is the task here.
Think of a spectrum. On one side is objective, on the other subjective. Our brain is what lets us have objective knowing of things. Anything you can touch, see, etc. is an objective thing. A tree in your mind, while subjective in nature, is still an objective knowing of "tree".
Now, youve probably heard of Platos Cave. Think of the shadows on the wall of the cave as the objective knowing of reality. The puppets are subjective knowing, which we as humans have a hard time comprehending unless you experience F4. All other focus states before F4 are "objective" in a way that they deal with objects you can see, touch, etc. F4 is the first step towards a truly subjective reality.
I like to think of the objective actions as the prettier side of the deal. Much like the Matrix was a prettier version of the scrolling green symbols
Thanks for the input, and take care!
#11 · Jul 16, 2005, 19:30 · Ben K
Quote from: StillwaterBut you realize the physical world fits the mental, not the other way around? We create the proof itself, not just the argument. The only problem is getting others to accept the reality you have provided. Frank talked about it once, i cant find the post though.Quote You are both right and wrong.we understand completely what you are saying, but on the other hand, this is bascially the model of metaphysics- we are in the business of proving, or trying to prove the validity of the model, not to understand it. It is easy to prove something with the thing itself as an assumption to getting you there, but the big flaw is that you were only able to prove the thing because you assumed it to be true to begin with. This model has gotten us places, but a spiritualist should understand the idea of progress- isn't that what we are all about? To progress, we must proceed without assumptions: that is the task here.
Think of a spectrum. On one side is objective, on the other subjective. Our brain is what lets us have objective knowing of things. Anything you can touch, see, etc. is an objective thing. A tree in your mind, while subjective in nature, is still an objective knowing of "tree".
Now, youve probably heard of Platos Cave. Think of the shadows on the wall of the cave as the objective knowing of reality. The puppets are subjective knowing, which we as humans have a hard time comprehending unless you experience F4. All other focus states before F4 are "objective" in a way that they deal with objects you can see, touch, etc. F4 is the first step towards a truly subjective reality.
I like to think of the objective actions as the prettier side of the deal. Much like the Matrix was a prettier version of the scrolling green symbols
Thanks for the input, and take care!
#12 · Jul 16, 2005, 20:25 · Frank
This is turning out to be an interesting discussion.
I prefer to think of the brain as an interface. Nothing in particular originates from it. It merely interfaces and converts a person's subjective consciousness into a form the physical body can use/comprehend/understand. Plus, it translates signals from the 5 physical senses the other way.
The main energetic interface is the energy centre at the crown. This has a directing effect on the other energy centres. Each energy centre "talks" both to the brain and directly to various cells in the body. But the brain is the main physical subjective/objective interface and, as I say, it's also bi-directional. That is also the reason why we have these energy centres in the first place, i.e. to interface the subjective with the objective. If we were truly were just a physical body in the sense of being an entirely self-contained biological machine, and consciousness was strictly a brain-created mechanism then no need for any interface between subjective and objective (in terms of energy).
Yours,
Frank
#13 · Jul 16, 2005, 20:52 · Stillwater
I think that I would be in total agreement with you- the only problem with your energy-centre proof is that you cannot be certain that they are ultra-physical in nature, rather than a mere construct created by bodily sensations; it wouds be incredibly difficult to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were really what we thought they were. For every level of proof you could put forth, a materialist could suggest an alternative explanation, albeit far-fetched and cynical.
But judging from your history of philosophical thought, I am interested to read what proofs you might bring to the table.
#14 · Jul 16, 2005, 23:41 · Frank
As I've said a number of times, one of the most frustrating things about this whole thing, for me, is I cannot actually prove any of it to any semblance of a scientific standard.
I am hoping that between all interested parties we can at least bring this topic into the 21st century, by clearing away this Dark Age legacy that forever seems to haunt this topic. Plus, we can at least get something down on paper, written in a way that makes logical sense. Given that this is the 21st century and all that.
Also, I am hoping that in a couple of years we will have a number of people here who have steadily worked through all the various stages and pitfalls to the extent where we will be able to come to some kind of common consensus as regards our experiences. Perhaps by then we will be able to report some kind of actual meeting within Primary Focus 3 of consciousness and develop some kind of objective proof of that fact. Perhaps not to the standard required of science in a strict sense, but more in an objectively held group-consensus sense.
Personally, I believe the wider reality will never actually be proved. As I've said before, for example, that unless you are some kind of engineering scientist no-one ever actually "proved" the existence of electricity before you used it. People simply switch on a light or plug the kettle in. It's there simply to use as you see fit. I think that is how knowledge of the Wider Reality will start to become. The more people have these experiences then the more people will start to accept them, and so the more people who will have them, and so on.
To my mind, it all boils down to getting this topic wrapped up in an air of public acceptability. People generally still think it's all very freaky and mystical, or on the other side of the coin they think it's dangerous. But the more we try to explain it in a sane and sensible fashion, then the more people will come to accept it, and the more they will want to give it a try.
Yours,
Frank
#15 · Jul 17, 2005, 09:50 · Stillwater
I am not sure if we will ever gain a "following" greater than what we currently have, as our current registration is dependant partially on larger social conditions, and the mystic ideas which seem to be the gateway-cult to these discussions, and which, ironcly enough, you have written your tirades against (and perhaps reasonably so).