It isn't ONE Self it is Self that is all there is ..

[quote=God-Like]

Originally Posted by ketzer

[color="DarkRed"][indent]

So when a ball hits you on the back of your head and you feel the impact then how can the ball not be foundationally on a similar wavelength of vibration as the head that it hits .

What I mean is, we have to have the same wavelength of vibration don't we in order for the ball the actually impact on the head .

Individual perception has to be involved for the ball to actually effect oneself .

If it doesn't materially exist using your words when not perceived then it cannot make an impact .

I have an understanding that nothing is solid per se even though there is the vibration felt of solidity but a snipers bullet that hits you between the eyes isn't seen but it still ends your physical life experience .

Who creates a bullet that flies through the air that isn't seen or perceived until it hits you?

I find science interesting but from one perspective the scientists that come out with these experiments from a non duality point of view aren't even here and are part of the dream are they not ..

When we talk about consciousness, no one knows what it actually is, partly because it's a man made concept and partly because the essence of what we are can only be mindfully approached and concluded ..

As just said to Falling leaves and MG lets do an experiment now and create something in front of you that doesn't exist until you perceive it ..

Lets all try and create a chimpanzee 'now' that doesn't actually exist now .

You see it's all well and good suggesting that the moon is created when perceived because we all know of the moon ..

Lets try and perceive something into reality that no one knows of ..

This is an experiment that will show you that this type of experiment only works on something that is objectively there in the first place .

Otherwise you could create a pink elephant now through perceiving one .

I bet you can't perceive a pink elephant through creating it through perceiving one .


x daz x

Well Mr Lee, I do not fault you for struggling with such a silly idea such as matter that only exists as such when one is “looking”. Even Albert Einstein was quite uncomfortable with the idea at first and incredulously objected.

“Do you really believe that the moon isn’t there when nobody looks?” ― Albert Einstein

I don’t recall mentioning vibration, but since you bring it up, frequency does seem to be a potentially fundamental part of our construction of reality. The infinity of quantum states of a universe, any of which could potentially become our next present moment reality, would seem to be contained in the form of a standing probability wave function. A wave of probabilities perhaps standing upon the surface of an ocean known as the quantum field, an ocean in a space called Hilbert space. But I do not know that any two forms within that ocean must have the same frequency of vibration in order to interact. As far as I know, constructive or destructive interference can occur between two waves irrespective of frequency or wavelength. That said, the reason things resist each other has to do with the Pauli exclusion principle. That is to say the ball impacts the head instead of passing through because to pass through, it’s electrons would have to at least temporarily occupy the same quantum state as the electrons in the head, and that is a quanum no no. It is however, interesting to think that perhaps we “collapse” that probability wave, into our present here and now, our own quantum state of our entangled universe, through achieving a frequency within that resonates with a frequency of the field that encodes the information for that present moment we wish to experience. However, that does not mean to me that every portion of that reality would have that same frequency. Perhaps the frequency of that overall reality is a carrier frequency for the many other frequencies of the forms it has encoded within it. Kind of like how any form can be represented by a fourier series of sine waves of various frequencies and amplitudes. So, I don’t know that the same wavelength is a necessary condition, however if you have a theory or evidence to offer I would be interested to hear it.

No, if a ball, or bullet, or any other object is not perceived, then it cannot make an impact. Yet an impact can be perceived. We may never perceive what makes the impact, or we may create and perceive a past chain of events to explain that impact, the most probable of which we may decide to be an object flying through the air and striking us, and to that chain of events, we may assign to that which we shall perceive as the past, though we just created it in the present moment. And if we then perceive our reality spinning around us 180 degrees, we may see a ball falling to the ground.
Same with that bullet. In fact I may never perceive the bullet or its striking me between the eyes. I may simply find my reality altered as I jump through hyperspace in the block universe to another completely different experience. Yet you, if your perception or consciousness was entangled with mine in that old reality, you must, for the sake of continuity, unless you want to end that reality as well, you must come up with a plausible chain of events to explain why I am no longer there as a part of that part of the reality matrix. Perhaps you will perceive both that bullet flying through the air and it’s striking me between the eyes. You may say, “Poor ketzer, he has been shot to death.” (or maybe you would say he had it coming, IDK) but in truth, only your creation of ketzer has been killed, my consciousness has just moved on to a different reality experience and left you and your ketzer behind….which might explain why you feel ketzer had it coming.

I create the scientists and the theories they propose within my own consciousness based on the information I receive (or maybe I create that information as well, IDK for sure). They are part of my dream, whether they exist beyond it, or you for that matter, I cannot say for sure. I do like to think that others do exist beyond myself, solipsism is a rather lonely thought, IMO. If so, then they must be plugged into the same matrix of reality information as I, downloading a similar stream of information, and uploading information back into it, information that eventually reaches me, that I can use to create them within myself in a way that is mostly consistent with the way they create themselves. In that way perhaps, though I create them within myself, the information with which I do so has some degree of independent existence and hence, in some sense, so do they, and vice versa with myself to them. Much less lonely that way. But then Descartes’ Evil Demon always lurks in the shadows and I can never know for certain whether he owns me or not.

Consciousness can certainly be mindfully approached, but I don’t know that it can be so concluded. Perhaps consciousness cannot be fully known because it is a system "I" am within, and so if Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is correct, then perhaps we cannot never completely know the system from that vantage point. I don’t know for sure as all I know is I seem to be existing within a state of consciousness, the complete understanding of which continues to elude me.

As to this line of attack that goes, if you can perceive things into existence, then create me a pink elephant, or a chimpanzee, or a hot fudge Sunday, there are a couple misunderstandings going on here. First, I cannot create anything in your reality, only you can do that. Even if I did create a hot fudge Sunday in my reality, there is no reason to think you would experience it unless you decided that I can do this and obligingly created it in yours as well. Then our respective realities would both reflect that ‘reality’ of that Sunday. Again, back to Neo and Morpheus and their respective data streams. If I jump from a building and fly away in my reality, you may not accept this in yours, and you may see me fall to my death instead, and hence our realities must diverge. You may say, "That idiot Ketzer! He just jumped to his death!", and see me splattered upon the ground. Yet in my reality, I am flying away as you stand on the roof with your mouth agape. Remember that we create everything within our respective realities including our experiences of each other. We decide what they can and cannot do, and if they violate our rules, then we must either accept that they can work such miracles, or sever any information connections that may be present and write them out of our reality.

Second, I differentiate between self, and that characterization of self that self creates and views its created reality through. That mind, body, and ego, with its thoughts and feelings, is a created protagonist that self uses to gain a first person point of view from which it views its created reality as if all that other creation is not in fact also self. Of course, all of it is self, but not all of the information used to create it may be coming from self. Yet to view and understand that experience of that information as something independent from self, it may need to experience that which is created from that information, as not being self. This illusory experience of self and non-self, of subject and object, is part of the experience of life. Such a view point is necessarily limited in its power over that creation so as to maintain that illusion of not self. If self/soul/consciousness (?) were to go around creating anything it wants willy nilly out of thin air, that illusion of the life experience will be broken. Then perhaps self would realize it is all really just me, and think what is the point of this, and abandon that view point it has created. If self is connected in that created experience of a reality with others who really are not self, then they would have to deal with that loss as well. If one wishes to co-create a common reality with others, then one must follow the common agreed upon rules, or be ejected from the game, either by oneself, or by the others. In fiction writing, this sort of willy nilly unexpected miracle creation is a big no no, as it jars the reader, as if throwing cold water onto their face, it breaks their suspension of disbelief, pulling their focused awareness away from the story, and fundamentally altering their experience of it. This suspension of disbelief is essential to the full experience of the story. Self stays within the limitations and parameters of the character through which it experiences a reality as those limitations are an inseparable aspect of that reality perspective. Even if self can give that character magic powers, it cannot do so without fundamentally changing the nature of self's experience of it, and risk losing its information connection to others...if they exist. Self can experience life as man, or perhaps, since self is self creating its own reality, it can experience it as God, but it cannot experience life as both man and God at the same time, even though that is essentially, in a certain sense, what is going on.

The crux of the whole moon is not there when we are not looking is not really about the moon or visually looking to see it. It is a metaphor for one metaphysical hypothesis that is proposed to make rational sense of the seemingly bizarre and impossible effects and phenomena of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Bizarre and seemingly impossible effects that have nevertheless consistently held up when experiments could be devised to test them, and many of which now underpin the technology that you use every day, including the laptops that we type our posts from. The hypothesis that physical material reality does not exist as such. That our reality is not underlain by matter, or perhaps even by energy. Instead there is only the perception of the ideas of space, time, and matter, and the mathematical rules that dictate how those ideas exist as ideas, interact and transform. Perhaps when we both hold those same ideas in common, within our minds, and agree to inform each other and follow those rules as we interact with those ideas, then we can create and sustain a common experience of reality, even though that experience is built and maintained individually. Now, if physical reality is built only on the perception of the idea of things, then if one does not hold the idea of the moon in one’s perception, then the moon, as a moon, does not exist, at least for that perceiver, until again the idea comes to mind. How the moon persists eternally, is not as a physical moon, but rather as a mathematical function that represents the respective probabilities of how and where that moon might become one representation of a real moon once again, in the awareness of a conscious observer as it solves “collapses” that wave function equation for itself, and once again creates the physical illusion of a moon, within its own perception. A mathematical quantum wave function describing the probabilities of the infinite possibilities from which the present moment here and now could be created and recreated. A standing wave eternally oscillating on a sea we might think of as the quantum field.

“There is no place in this new kind of physics (Quantum Physics) both for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality.” Albert Einstein

So it would seem perhaps that even Albert warmed up to the idea somewhat in the end.

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by God-Like

I totally get you MG regarding not over thinking these things through .. You have opened up a can of worms here though in regards to thinking and thought . Another long winded convo I had elsewhere lol .

What I mean is that you can sit with a loved one in silence but you are on another level aware of your surroundings . You have already analysed and concluded that all is well on one level .. this is why one can be silent because if a masked gunman entered your house you would react accordingly .. You would instantly know that all things are not well .. You don't have to over think the situation because there is a thought that always exists of the mind of self in reflection of everything else .





For sure enjoying the view has it's own place in the grand scheme of things and most folk most of the time don't think that they are creating the view simply by perceiving it, I think many do however come to a point to try and understand the mechanics behind the scenes . Even the masters write books about the nature of self and reality lol ..

I find the mechanics of reality and life interesting, perhaps it's the gemini-mercury aspect in my chart that is to blame for that or perhaps the spirit influences that I have


x daz x

I understand your point of being relaxed because no threat is detected.
There is also just being in that moment of relaxation without thinking about whether a threat is present. In that moment the mind is not distracted by all that stuff.

Not that thoughts were not present at first, just the mind quiets down. If even for a moment.

Sure something or someone could come along and disturb it. Then take it from there.

Just the way it comes for me.

Yes, life is full of wonder and is interesting for me to explore the mechanics of it.

Other times it is nice to just chill and not think about it.

Everyone has his/her way of being.

Btw: You do have spirit influences. Your presence.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by ketzer

When a car hits an unconscious deaf person from behind the person didn't perceive the car or the person driving the car ..Things effect us from a far, I for one can feel the energy from a full moon without perceiving it ...How can a peep feel the influence of something that doesn't exist?

If I can create a moon and perceive it, can I not create a perception of energy instead? The deaf person feels the hit, but does that mean the car must have existed prior to that experience? Perhaps the deaf person finds the car and person is the most probable past to explain the circumstances of the perception of being hit in the present moment here and now.

You say you feel the pull of gravity from the energy of the moon. But I say I have plugged my computer into the socket in the back of your neck and I am feeding your brain the information to make it seem like you are feeling that moon. If you look to see that moon, then I shall feed you the information to create it in a way in which it has always been there.

Do we feel effects from afar? Even the hard core materialist must admit that what we feel is what the brain creates within itself. In there is the only “place” we can feel anything. How far is it from one point to another in the mind.? Peeps will object to the notion of ‘spooky action at a distance’ because it seems some sort of signal must be traveling faster than the speed of light, perhaps even infinitely fast. But velocity is distance divided by time, what if there really is no distance to be traveled.

.

But you can't create a moon ... you don't even know if the moon is creating you in order for you to perceive it .. to then think that you can create it

This is why I keep suggesting to you that you need to realise what you are in relation to all things .

When you know that all things are what you are fundamentally and all self aspects are consciously aware then each self aspect known as an individual part of the whole exists unto itself as that part of the whole .

You not knowing if another self part of the whole is consciously aware or not or has the potential to create your existence of form that can be perceived is the spanner in your whole premise ..

This is why I keep saying that you need a foundation to begin with that reflects what you are in relation to everything else .

You don't know what you are is in relation to everything else and this is why the foundation is built upon an uncertainty .

You imply that you are creating within your own consciousness, but you don't know if the same is being said by another ..

In wholeness you can't really have individual creators that create other individual creators . It doesn't work like that .

This is why there is an objectified individual present in the first instance that can perceive .

x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Moonglow

I understand your point of being relaxed because no threat is detected.
There is also just being in that moment of relaxation without thinking about whether a threat is present. In that moment the mind is not distracted by all that stuff.

Not that thoughts were not present at first, just the mind quiets down. If even for a moment.

Sure something or someone could come along and disturb it. Then take it from there.

Just the way it comes for me.

Yes, life is full of wonder and is interesting for me to explore the mechanics of it.

Other times it is nice to just chill and not think about it.

Everyone has his/her way of being.

Btw: You do have spirit influences. Your presence.

For sure and one will not be thinking of a threat because the self awareness doesn't detect anything .

There is always awareness of our environment in these instances and this awareness doesn't encompass an overly thinking process that all is well .

You can sit by a tree doing cloud gazing and not be overly thinking about the situation and one can be focused on the shape of the clouds or one can not pay too much attention also ..

So many levels to this as we both know that is why there can be awareness of I AM in deep states of mind and no awareness of anything else ..

Sitting with a partner reading a book or watching a bit of t.v. in silence not feeling the need or the urge to chat is another level of awareness of I AM, the partner, the environment, and of the birds chirping in the background etc etc .

This is why it is interesting when peeps speak about not thinking when there is clearly a thought process still going on behind the scenes ..

It really does depend on the levels of silence in the moment so to speak doesn't it .


x daz x

[God-Like]

[quote=ketzer]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Well Mr Lee, I do not fault you for struggling with such a silly idea such as matter that only exists as such when one is “looking”. Even Albert Einstein was quite uncomfortable with the idea at first and incredulously objected.

“Do you really believe that the moon isn’t there when nobody looks?” ― Albert Einstein

I don’t recall mentioning vibration, but since you bring it up, frequency does seem to be a potentially fundamental part of our construction of reality. The infinity of quantum states of a universe, any of which could potentially become our next present moment reality, would seem to be contained in the form of a standing probability wave function. A wave of probabilities perhaps standing upon the surface of an ocean known as the quantum field, an ocean in a space called Hilbert space. But I do not know that any two forms within that ocean must have the same frequency of vibration in order to interact. As far as I know, constructive or destructive interference can occur between two waves irrespective of frequency or wavelength. That said, the reason things resist each other has to do with the Pauli exclusion principle. That is to say the ball impacts the head instead of passing through because to pass through, it’s electrons would have to at least temporarily occupy the same quantum state as the electrons in the head, and that is a quanum no no. It is however, interesting to think that perhaps we “collapse” that probability wave, into our present here and now, our own quantum state of our entangled universe, through achieving a frequency within that resonates with a frequency of the field that encodes the information for that present moment we wish to experience. However, that does not mean to me that every portion of that reality would have that same frequency. Perhaps the frequency of that overall reality is a carrier frequency for the many other frequencies of the forms it has encoded within it. Kind of like how any form can be represented by a fourier series of sine waves of various frequencies and amplitudes. So, I don’t know that the same wavelength is a necessary condition, however if you have a theory or evidence to offer I would be interested to hear it.

No, if a ball, or bullet, or any other object is not perceived, then it cannot make an impact. Yet an impact can be perceived. We may never perceive what makes the impact, or we may create and perceive a past chain of events to explain that impact, the most probable of which we may decide to be an object flying through the air and striking us, and to that chain of events, we may assign to that which we shall perceive as the past, though we just created it in the present moment. And if we then perceive our reality spinning around us 180 degrees, we may see a ball falling to the ground.
Same with that bullet. In fact I may never perceive the bullet or its striking me between the eyes. I may simply find my reality altered as I jump through hyperspace in the block universe to another completely different experience. Yet you, if your perception or consciousness was entangled with mine in that old reality, you must, for the sake of continuity, unless you want to end that reality as well, you must come up with a plausible chain of events to explain why I am no longer there as a part of that part of the reality matrix. Perhaps you will perceive both that bullet flying through the air and it’s striking me between the eyes. You may say, “Poor ketzer, he has been shot to death.” (or maybe you would say he had it coming, IDK) but in truth, only your creation of ketzer has been killed, my consciousness has just moved on to a different reality experience and left you and your ketzer behind….which might explain why you feel ketzer had it coming.

I create the scientists and the theories they propose within my own consciousness based on the information I receive (or maybe I create that information as well, IDK for sure). They are part of my dream, whether they exist beyond it, or you for that matter, I cannot say for sure. I do like to think that others do exist beyond myself, solipsism is a rather lonely thought, IMO. If so, then they must be plugged into the same matrix of reality information as I, downloading a similar stream of information, and uploading information back into it, information that eventually reaches me, that I can use to create them within myself in a way that is mostly consistent with the way they create themselves. In that way perhaps, though I create them within myself, the information with which I do so has some degree of independent existence and hence, in some sense, so do they, and vice versa with myself to them. Much less lonely that way. But then Descartes’ Evil Demon always lurks in the shadows and I can never know for certain whether he owns me or not.

Consciousness can certainly be mindfully approached, but I don’t know that it can be so concluded. Perhaps consciousness cannot be fully known because it is a system "I" am within, and so if Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is correct, then perhaps we cannot never completely know the system from that vantage point. I don’t know for sure as all I know is I seem to be existing within a state of consciousness, the complete understanding of which continues to elude me.

As to this line of attack that goes, if you can perceive things into existence, then create me a pink elephant, or a chimpanzee, or a hot fudge Sunday, there are a couple misunderstandings going on here. First, I cannot create anything in your reality, only you can do that. Even if I did create a hot fudge Sunday in my reality, there is no reason to think you would experience it unless you decided that I can do this and obligingly created it in yours as well. Then our respective realities would both reflect that ‘reality’ of that Sunday. Again, back to Neo and Morpheus and their respective data streams. If I jump from a building and fly away in my reality, you may not accept this in yours, and you may see me fall to my death instead, and hence our realities must diverge. You may say, "That idiot Ketzer! He just jumped to his death!", and see me splattered upon the ground. Yet in my reality, I am flying away as you stand on the roof with your mouth agape. Remember that we create everything within our respective realities including our experiences of each other. We decide what they can and cannot do, and if they violate our rules, then we must either accept that they can work such miracles, or sever any information connections that may be present and write them out of our reality.

Second, I differentiate between self, and that characterization of self that self creates and views its created reality through. That mind, body, and ego, with its thoughts and feelings, is a created protagonist that self uses to gain a first person point of view from which it views its created reality as if all that other creation is not in fact also self. Of course, all of it is self, but not all of the information used to create it may be coming from self. Yet to view and understand that experience of that information as something independent from self, it may need to experience that which is created from that information, as not being self. This illusory experience of self and non-self, of subject and object, is part of the experience of life. Such a view point is necessarily limited in its power over that creation so as to maintain that illusion of not self. If self/soul/consciousness (?) were to go around creating anything it wants willy nilly out of thin air, that illusion of the life experience will be broken. Then perhaps self would realize it is all really just me, and think what is the point of this, and abandon that view point it has created. If self is connected in that created experience of a reality with others who really are not self, then they would have to deal with that loss as well. If one wishes to co-create a common reality with others, then one must follow the common agreed upon rules, or be ejected from the game, either by oneself, or by the others. In fiction writing, this sort of willy nilly unexpected miracle creation is a big no no, as it jars the reader, as if throwing cold water onto their face, it breaks their suspension of disbelief, pulling their focused awareness away from the story, and fundamentally altering their experience of it. This suspension of disbelief is essential to the full experience of the story. Self stays within the limitations and parameters of the character through which it experiences a reality as those limitations are an inseparable aspect of that reality perspective. Even if self can give that character magic powers, it cannot do so without fundamentally changing the nature of self's experience of it, and risk losing its information connection to others...if they exist. Self can experience life as man, or perhaps, since self is self creating its own reality, it can experience it as God, but it cannot experience life as both man and God at the same time, even though that is essentially, in a certain sense, what is going on.

The crux of the whole moon is not there when we are not looking is not really about the moon or visually looking to see it. It is a metaphor for one metaphysical hypothesis that is proposed to make rational sense of the seemingly bizarre and impossible effects and phenomena of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Bizarre and seemingly impossible effects that have nevertheless consistently held up when experiments could be devised to test them, and many of which now underpin the technology that you use every day, including the laptops that we type our posts from. The hypothesis that physical material reality does not exist as such. That our reality is not underlain by matter, or perhaps even by energy. Instead there is only the perception of the ideas of space, time, and matter, and the mathematical rules that dictate how those ideas exist as ideas, interact and transform. Perhaps when we both hold those same ideas in common, within our minds, and agree to inform each other and follow those rules as we interact with those ideas, then we can create and sustain a common experience of reality, even though that experience is built and maintained individually. Now, if physical reality is built only on the perception of the idea of things, then if one does not hold the idea of the moon in one’s perception, then the moon, as a moon, does not exist, at least for that perceiver, until again the idea comes to mind. How the moon persists eternally, is not as a physical moon, but rather as a mathematical function that represents the respective probabilities of how and where that moon might become one representation of a real moon once again, in the awareness of a conscious observer as it solves “collapses” that wave function equation for itself, and once again creates the physical illusion of a moon, within its own perception. A mathematical quantum wave function describing the probabilities of the infinite possibilities from which the present moment here and now could be created and recreated. A standing wave eternally oscillating on a sea we might think of as the quantum field.

“There is no place in this new kind of physics (Quantum Physics) both for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality.” Albert Einstein

So it would seem perhaps that even Albert warmed up to the idea somewhat in the end.

Boy o boy what a long post

Again, lets get down to basic foundations here .

You speak about all these theories that relate to scientists (scientists) that are not Self realised .

Scientists that don't actually exist as individuals that are potentially created into being by the perception of you .

Going back to the dream analogy from the other thread, we have potentially no one here as an individual and their form is somehow created by the perceptional thought of someone else whom isn't actually here either . There has to be a point of conscious perception present that is objectified as actually being present .

The actual theory that incorporates quantum physics is potentially just a dreamed up idea from no one that is here .

You relate to these energies and waves as if they are objectively here .. You can't say the universe isn't an objective universe and the tree isn't objectively here and then speak about scientists and quantum physics and there being a you that can own their own consciousness .

Again, this is why we need the foundations straight to begin with .

All this science talk and all these theories don't mean anything and cannot represent reality as it is, when there is no objective reality to begin with ..

There is no objective theory that exists that can explain that there is no objectivity .

All these types of foundations end up negating the very same premise .

I appreciate the in-depth reply ketz, but it doesn't matter how in-depth it is when the foundations don't support the theory .

Do you see what I mean regarding this?

Your in-depth reply didn't even explain why you can't create a pink elephant or something that doesn't currently exist that is known 'now' ..

If you can supposedly create a moon, then you can create anything.. You make the moon look like a Jaffa cake one night and like a frisbee the next, or like Homer's face ..

It's mighty convenient that the moon seems similar to all ..

It makes no sense to me and perhaps I just don't understand the science behind it when you say there is no impact when you can't see a bullet splatter your brains against the wall .

It either makes an impact or it doesn't, your brains are either splattered against the wall or they are not .

Your physical life ends or it doesn't .

When it does you are no longer experiencing a physical life .. You personally cannot create a persons physical body when they have passed over into the world of spirit .

This is science talk that I do understand lol . You can't pick and choose what it is you can create and what you can't in these instances .

You are either a conscious creating perceiver or you are not . If time and space and all that jazz is illusory or dreamy then there are no conditions that actually apply .

That would reflect an objective reality that actually exists that reflects conditions applied to it ..




x daz x

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by God-Like

For sure and one will not be thinking of a threat because the self awareness doesn't detect anything .

There is always awareness of our environment in these instances and this awareness doesn't encompass an overly thinking process that all is well .

You can sit by a tree doing cloud gazing and not be overly thinking about the situation and one can be focused on the shape of the clouds or one can not pay too much attention also ..

So many levels to this as we both know that is why there can be awareness of I AM in deep states of mind and no awareness of anything else ..

Sitting with a partner reading a book or watching a bit of t.v. in silence not feeling the need or the urge to chat is another level of awareness of I AM, the partner, the environment, and of the birds chirping in the background etc etc .

This is why it is interesting when peeps speak about not thinking when there is clearly a thought process still going on behind the scenes ..

It really does depend on the levels of silence in the moment so to speak doesn't it .


x daz x

Hey daz,

Would say it does depend on the level of silence. Mostly with in oneself. Comfortable with myself leads to being more comfortable with others.

It is not that thoughts don't come, more like not holding onto the thoughts longer then necessary. Atleast for me. Just allowing what may come to come and let it pass, as best can be done in the moment. Not perfect at it, atleast aware enough to catch myself at times.

Being aware of ones environment is necessary for survival, at a basic level.
It can also bring focus to the mind to notice what otherwise may be overlooked if rushing around. Can bring a deeper connection.

For me, life is an on going experience. This makes it interesting.

Yes, being aware of life unfolding is to be aware of Spirit shining and my being with life. Has me aware I exist and what this has brought, is bringing, and what may come. Adjust as needed. A deeper relationship seems to form .

A time and place for everything. Including this little self, what is also being, and silence.

Does change the thinking and general feeling of the self and view upon life.

[quote=God-Like]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Boy o boy what a long post

Again, lets get down to basic foundations here .

You speak about all these theories that relate to scientists (scientists) that are not Self realised .

Scientists that don't actually exist as individuals that are potentially created into being by the perception of you .

Going back to the dream analogy from the other thread, we have potentially no one here as an individual and their form is somehow created by the perceptional thought of someone else whom isn't actually here either . There has to be a point of conscious perception present that is objectified as actually being present .

The actual theory that incorporates quantum physics is potentially just a dreamed up idea from no one that is here .

You relate to these energies and waves as if they are objectively here .. You can't say the universe isn't an objective universe and the tree isn't objectively here and then speak about scientists and quantum physics and there being a you that can own their own consciousness .

Again, this is why we need the foundations straight to begin with .

All this science talk and all these theories don't mean anything and cannot represent reality as it is, when there is no objective reality to begin with ..

There is no objective theory that exists that can explain that there is no objectivity .

All these types of foundations end up negating the very same premise .

I appreciate the in-depth reply ketz, but it doesn't matter how in-depth it is when the foundations don't support the theory .

Do you see what I mean regarding this?

Your in-depth reply didn't even explain why you can't create a pink elephant or something that doesn't currently exist that is known 'now' ..

If you can supposedly create a moon, then you can create anything.. You make the moon look like a Jaffa cake one night and like a frisbee the next, or like Homer's face ..

It's mighty convenient that the moon seems similar to all ..

It makes no sense to me and perhaps I just don't understand the science behind it when you say there is no impact when you can't see a bullet splatter your brains against the wall .

It either makes an impact or it doesn't, your brains are either splattered against the wall or they are not .

Your physical life ends or it doesn't .

When it does you are no longer experiencing a physical life .. You personally cannot create a persons physical body when they have passed over into the world of spirit .

This is science talk that I do understand lol . You can't pick and choose what it is you can create and what you can't in these instances .

You are either a conscious creating perceiver or you are not . If time and space and all that jazz is illusory or dreamy then there are no conditions that actually apply .

That would reflect an objective reality that actually exists that reflects conditions applied to it ..




x daz x

Yes, it was rather long, I believe I broke a personal record with that last post. However, a statement like the moon is not there when we are not looking, is not something that can be supported in a few sentences. It is really a euphemism for a much larger, more complex, and more subtle underlying philosophical concept and the science that points to its potential value to explain reality.

You want foundations, but there is only one solid foundation, “I am”. That, as far as I can tell, is the only one that can stand up to Descartes’ evil demon. And all it says is that I exist, not even what I am, only that I am. From there, everything else can be called into question. Before you run off here, it is important to note that saying we can’t know something is not the same as saying it is not so. Important distinction as we must at the very least assume each other to be ‘real’ else concede that we are having a discussion with ourselves.

Even the foundations that science provides us are just foundations of consent. In the end we cannot even know if our fellow consenters are not just ourselves in disguise. But whether I am to discuss and debate with myself, or with you, I or we, might as well set some rules and discuss in an orderly way, and I/we can call those rules our ‘scientific method’.

Yes, we can resort to using mystical sounding language and that is not wrong, most things do remain shrouded in the mystery, perhaps even all things, save the knowledge of my existence..for me. Yet as a foundation, mystical talk alone provides even less for us both to stand on, we may both agree to stand on a cloud, but it does not make it any better a foundation then the thin air in which it floats, and with our feet covered in the mist, who can say if we stand on the same level.

We can go in another direction and insist that we can only talk about what our eyes can see, and everything must be proven to them in the moment, “show me”. For everyday living, this is a pragmatic approach to take, but for discussion on what may be beyond the horizon of what we know to be, it has no utility.

I don’t say the scientists don’t have an independent existence, only that I cannot know this for sure. Actually I do think (think not know) that other conscious beings do exist independently, and that they create realities of their own. Yet obviously, if we are interacting, sharing what seems like a common objective experience of reality, then there must be information exchange, and common rules of creation. This is why I gave you the matrix metaphor. I don’t know how familiar you are with that movie, but if the matrix does not seem real, or not quite right, then the participants will wake up. One rule to all who “share a dreamscape” may be that no one is allowed to make things pop into existence out of nowhere, another rule that moons shall look like this and act like that. To play together in this virtual reality game, one must play by the rules.

What science is then discovering is the mathematical algorithms, the rules, that define our matrix like virtual reality. What science has been discovering lately, is that math is not just a nice way to describe physical reality, but that physical reality is built upon the math. The mathematical predictions of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics when first made were so absurd that even many of the scientists who made them did not believe they reflected reality. Yet time and time again, we see once an experiment can be devised (often only decades later), that sure enough, that is how it works. Now science seems to tell us that things do pop into reality from seemingly nothing. An entire universe seems to just big bang itself into existence from nothing. Particles just materialize in quantum mechanical experiments when we decide to observe them, or even just could observe them. From what independent objective pre-existing ‘physical’ reality do these things come from? Perhase, they don’t. Perhaps they only seem to do so because the ‘matrix’ tells us they did, and so obligingly the ‘players’ create them in their virtual reality worlds.

Even just using regular highschool level science, we can say with certainty, that you have never ‘seen’ the moon. Nobody can experience anything directly ‘as it is’, only how they perceive it to be within their brain/mind. You see your imagination of a moon that your brain creates, supposedly based on patterns of optic nerves firing or not firing. But again, nobody has ever seen a brain or an optic nerve directly either. It is the same with everything in your experience, all of it has been in your imagination, your brain's perception of what the data means. We have always assumed that our imaginations are based on some sort of objective reality that “we are within” that is being observed or sensed, and that reality is independent of the observer. Yet many of the implications of scientific discoveries over the last 100 years give reason to call all of that into question.

It is not just convenient that the moon seems similar to all (although we don’t really know what anything really looks like inside another's brain). It could be a sign of solipsism, but like I explained, it could also be a sign that our separate realities are entangled and evolving along parallel paths. If dumbo the elephant was appearing on everyone's TV set at the same time, we do not say that dumbo must therefore be real. Everyone’s TV was receiving a similar information signal from which their TVs were rendering a similar dumbo on their respective screens. If someone changes the channel dumbo disappears, yet we do not insist that dumbo must still be somewhere in their TV because when we change the channel back there is dumbo again. While the TVs are tuned into that information signal, a real image of dumbo appears on the screen because the TV is creating it. When the channel is changed, the image of dumbo no longer exists on that TV. It is very possible, the TV show in our minds works in a similar way, or perhaps more like an online virtual reality video game.

The last three paragraphs I gave you were in fact an explanation of why if we do create reality through perception, one might not see people willy nilly creating objects (such as pink elephants). I am wondering if you found the post two long and did not actually read it. Anyway, the theory is more or less based on a kind of philosophical idealism trying to incorporate the implications of those sciences I discussed vs. what you seem to be advocating for which sounds more like a flavor of material realism. I won’t bother to go back over all of that again as these posts are already way too long. Philosophical idealism has been a bit of an obscure theory for most of its history as it does fly in the face of the common perception of everyday reality. However, the implications of the last 100 years of science have been pointing more and more to reality as being closer to some form of Idealism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

If you would rather stick with how things appear outwardly to you, common perception or common sense, I don’t think that is wrong or harmful, it is just another way to experience life. One need not open the hood to go for a ride in the country. Even when most individuals cite “science”, it is most often the Newtonian based science that is/was typically taught to most highschool students and non-physics majors in college. Such science is fine for most applications, and much more intuitive than the quantum physics and general relativity that has taken over in the last 100 years. However, to understand why the theories I am talking about might actually pose a better explanation of how our reality is constructed, one does need to have some cursory knowledge of those scientific and philosophical underpinnings, or at least have a mind open to them. Failing that, I expect we will just end up stuck in the “make me a pink elephant right now ” loop. Which as I discussed in my previous post, is misunderstanding the flavor of idealism that asserts that perception actually creates reality. Which is too bad, because the possible implications and interpretations of those theories are really rather fascinating to contemplate. That said, if one is to insist they are false or just silly nonsense, one should have some knowledge of them first.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Hey daz,

Would say it does depend on the level of silence. Mostly with in oneself. Comfortable with myself leads to being more comfortable with others.

It is not that thoughts don't come, more like not holding onto the thoughts longer then necessary. Atleast for me. Just allowing what may come to come and let it pass, as best can be done in the moment. Not perfect at it, atleast aware enough to catch myself at times.

Being aware of ones environment is necessary for survival, at a basic level.
It can also bring focus to the mind to notice what otherwise may be overlooked if rushing around. Can bring a deeper connection.

For me, life is an on going experience. This makes it interesting.

Yes, being aware of life unfolding is to be aware of Spirit shining and my being with life. Has me aware I exist and what this has brought, is bringing, and what may come. Adjust as needed. A deeper relationship seems to form .

A time and place for everything. Including this little self, what is also being, and silence.

Does change the thinking and general feeling of the self and view upon life.

Yepper's and this was what I was pointing too in regards to entertaining thought that doesn't constitute an overly thinking process or even just thoughtful awareness of oneself and the environment as being how it is .. without constant thoughts coming and going ..

You can't separate thought from self awareness which doesn't go down well for some ..


x daz x

[God-Like]

[quote=ketzer]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Yes, it was rather long, I believe I broke a personal record with that last post. However, a statement like the moon is not there when we are not looking, is not something that can be supported in a few sentences. It is really a euphemism for a much larger, more complex, and more subtle underlying philosophical concept and the science that points to its potential value to explain reality.

You want foundations, but there is only one solid foundation, “I am”. That, as far as I can tell, is the only one that can stand up to Descartes’ evil demon. And all it says is that I exist, not even what I am, only that I am. From there, everything else can be called into question. Before you run off here, it is important to note that saying we can’t know something is not the same as saying it is not so. Important distinction as we must at the very least assume each other to be ‘real’ else concede that we are having a discussion with ourselves.
.

I understand the need to explain in depth as it's a big subject but like said the foundation needs to be straight and sound . If your foundation is built upon I AM then to suggest theories like you have doesn't relate to the I AM foundation directly .

We have like said, the potential for these scientific premises to be made from creative self aspects of oneself that are no more than a shadow that cannot actually know anything or realise anything . That is why when you said you don't know if the moon is a conscious perceiver I had to point that out . You may have ideas about things but the foundation of creating the moon was built from a foundation that didn't encompass the moon as an equal part of the whole .

It's no better than looking into a hall of mirrors not knowing what is real or what is a reflection .

That's all I wanted to point out really in this regard .. All descriptors used to explain our reality be it a matrix type of reality or something else is pointless from this foundational premise .

The foundation of I AM is a worthy one but I AM as a foundation needs to be realised in relation to everything else .. otherwise you only have half a story .

That half a story that has a reality built upon .


x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Even just using regular highschool level science, we can say with certainty, that you have never ‘seen’ the moon. Nobody can experience anything directly ‘as it is’, only how they perceive it to be within their brain/mind. You see your imagination of a moon that your brain creates, supposedly based on patterns of optic nerves firing or not firing. But again, nobody has ever seen a brain or an optic nerve directly either. It is the same with everything in your experience, all of it has been in your imagination, your brain's perception of what the data means. We have always assumed that our imaginations are based on some sort of objective reality that “we are within” that is being observed or sensed, and that reality is independent of the observer. Yet many of the implications of scientific discoveries over the last 100 years give reason to call all of that into question.

It doesn't matter how we see things, it's about how certain things come to be .

The debate evolves and revolves around you creating the moon and it's no longer there when you look away .

The way we perceive the moon is irrelevant .

Spirit or non physical beings still see the moon when occupying 3rd dimensional space . They have no physical brain or attributes but can still see the moon similar to when they had physical attributes .

This means that what is perceived has a constant that reflects the dimensional space that it occupies .

I mentioned to you about the consciousness that you say you owned that emphasises an objective self that can own their own consciousness where on the other hand you refuted that the moon could be objectified as a moon that is there .

The foundation of I AM has to be objectified as being present just as the moon is .

We can't pick and choose what is actually present and what isn't when we refute an objectified universe .

Something is either here as it is or it isn't .

What one wants to make of what is here is another matter .

The foundation of I AM is either actual or it isn't . A dream or an illusion or not a dream or an illusion . etc etc .

I get this a lot where peeps start to cross platforms ..


x daz x