Connect with another being in a dream
Summerlander wrote: What kind of anti-scientific sophistry is this that makes the very tall claim indeed that consciousness is primary? What does that even mean? :D
Antiscientific? Even with human science which is turned from grace with all its materialism, there are prominent scientists who know the truth:
Von Neumann said that "consciousness, whatever it is, appears to be the only thing in physics that can ultimately cause this collapse or [Conscious] observation.“
Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.“
Wolfgang Pauli: "We do not assume any longer the detached observer, occurring in the idealizations of this classical type of theory, but an [Conscious] observer who by his indeterminable effects creates a new situation, theoretically described as a new state of the observed system.“
Martin Rees: "The [Conscious] universe could only come into existence if someone [Consciously] observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are [Consciously] aware of it.“
Summerlander wrote: Are you saying that what we call the physical world---with all its natural laws, cause-and-effect, order and entropy---is devoid of any reality and merely a collective mental illusion?
Pretty much. In Hinduism, there is such a concept as Maya, which is illusory material reality, compared to genuine spiritual with absolute existence.
Summerlander wrote: That's not really evidence that the existence of objective reality depends on conscious beings observing it
I have complete untransferable evidence of anomalies. In your framework, my claims are a hypothesis, in mine - it's a confirmed truth. Any claims that try to challenge memories of anomalies are based on what I call the Central Lie, which is clearly seen as false. That is a claim of godlessness and depreciation, any being with high-awareness intellect can see that's false. It's intuitively seen as false. Then even reason alone can prove the conscioussness primarity claim for me. Also, you can't comprehend God just thinking using material mind. You'd have to go beyond that.
Summerlander wrote: God complex alert: You wish to be majorly relevant and special in the origins of what surrounds you---the imagined 'Creator' itself!---when the reality you observe naturally flaunts a distensible age that overshadows your own by an average of 175 million anthropic factors! We know this through the analysis of Hubble's law, mass spectrometry and a mathematical extrapolation of isotopic decay.
Nope, I believe in God and that my soul is a particle of Him. And a part is equivalent to the whole. Soul is eternal in time and equivalent to the Source. That is the amazing truth everyone should accept, everyone is relevant and special.
Summerlander wrote: Newsflash: The universe tells us human life came much later in its actuating, expansive process. Your temporal awareness is ostensibly nothing but a flukey mote on the space-time fabric. It appears that we are insignificant carboniferous bods. I wouldn't be suprised if this reflection scares the egotistical likes of you. :mrgreen:
Lies don't scare me. I know that I am everything. And you are too, you just should appreciate yourself a bit more.
I've heard this before. Some individuals who claim such credentials are not scientists, they are crackpots. And it's a shame that some of the real ones you mention are often misunderstood or what they say is quoted out of context. Did you even know that Newton was into alchemy and assumed God took care of the parts he didn't understand regarding astrophysics? Until Laplace arrived in the scene ... and the 'divine gaps' vanished to be replaced by the laws of nature. Wake up, pal. :mrgreen:
For all the neophytes out there: the evigence strongly suggests consciousness---at least the anthropic kind which is powerful enough to intellectually appreciate the universe---arrived at the scene just a few millions of years ago. :D
The universe went through a hot phase shortly after the Big Bang which lasted a gazillion years and during which the formation of atoms was impossible until everything cooled down. Certainly no life at the time let alone consciousness. These didn't come until the stars finally formed to produce heaver elements such as carbon---the main ingredient of life.
Moral of the story: matter precedes consciousness. And it shows when a hundred and fifty years of neuroscience and neurology has taught us that every aspect about the mind can be expunged through brain damage or malfunction. If memory, sight, hearing, even understanding can be cerebrally compromised, how can people expect to see and recognise their deceased loved ones in some heavenly realm when their noggins have been completely destroyed at death?
And did someone say 'astral planes' here? Keep dreaming ... :D
For me, it is clear as day that God is as plausible as the Tooth Fairy ... And if such a god does exist he is answerable for all the misery he caused. With great power comes responsibility. What responsible father kills babies with tsunamis? Or allows it to happen? A sadist or a clumsy twat. :twisted:
Casuistic word of the day: Untransferable. :mrgreen:
Lies don't scare me. I know that I am everything. And you are too, you just should appreciate yourself a bit more.
I knew you were egotistical. Now I know you're narcissistic, too. My intuition worked. Mankind is twarted by a particular brand of unreason best described as pseudoscientific solipsism: 8-)
AmaraDreamer wrote: There can be untransferable evidence because conscioussness is primary to matter. I have full evidence but it's untransferable. Any claim that evidence has to be transferable is based on materialism which is false. Transferability is good but it is not required for knowledge. There is also evidence based on stream of subtle syncronicities, and I have to be believing in these gentle signs to get closer.
It is still the subconscious, just believe me on this. I even was able to train myself to somehow lucid dream without mental afflictions, which is a near impossible feat for most people. Dreaming without physical or mental disabilities however, has been claimed several times by blind and deaf people during traumatic situations, so the subconscious or the dream-state is fully capable of great self-helping and self-healing abilities. I was able to save myself from "disappearing" using dream healing. Also because the laws of math affect all universes including the dream world, that means the laws of probability can also affect it in ways that may appear supernatural, however, if low probability didn't happen every once in a while, you or I wouldn't exist.
Pretty much. In Hinduism, there is such a concept as Maya, which is illusory material reality, compared to genuine spiritual with absolute existence.
You do 3D Maya as well? I really enjoy that 3d animation program as well, isn't it the best? I just finished taking yet another Maya class (which I will take again to sharpen my animations later next year) Would you mind showing me some of your artwork? It's never a good idea to start a religious argument on here, because things always get very ugly. For several years on this forum, this is how every argument like that ends: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvDNZJCNwL8 (starting at 1:22). I just hope certain users never buy a machine gun if they end up going to Utah.
the uncertainty principle of etheorium
lucidé wrote: It is still the subconscious, just believe me on this.
No. Faith is power. It's like asking a religious person: "There may be no God, just believe me on this". Only through full faith we can achieve union. And there are full confirmations even in the knowledge sphere on this, and anomalies go beyond that and it would be delusional of me to not hold to the truth that I've discovered. It's like denying that the Moon orbits Earth.
Summerlander wrote: Moral of the story: matter precedes consciousness. And it shows when a hundred and fifty years of neuroscience and neurology has taught us that every aspect about the mind can be expunged through brain damage or malfunction. If memory, sight, hearing, even understanding can be cerebrally compromised, how can people expect to see and recognise their deceased loved ones in some heavenly realm when their noggins have been completely destroyed at death?
The time scale of your story is irrelevant. There were universes existing others than this one on time scales far beyond that and God created this universe like the others. And the brain is a tool for the soul to use. Including understanding, reason and intellect. There are things which show the effects of soul, but they get more subtle to notice because of the materialistic delusion humanity has. Conscioussness defines the very laws of reality so the humanity has locked itself in self-supporting materialist delusion. And for religious people, there is not enough devotion.
So, conscioussness precedes matter, God created everything, retrocausality exists, instant transmission exists, entropy can decrease with time, Earth science has fallen from grace, you've just locked yourself in a cage. You chose to demean yourself, but don't worry - Truth is coming. People living a lie are so engrossed in it that they lie even to themselves. Your view may be self sufficient, but it's just a bubble of denial you've locked yourself in. You view the world through a prism of lies. To choose between amazing truth and demeaning lie - you choose the second. I suggest you to throw away the garbage of your worldview and start from zero. Just believe me on this, you would not regret it. First thing - you are everything. This is not solipsism because others are also conscious and equivalent to the Absolute. Then go from there, your conscioussness is the only thing you can be sure of existing so you can't give up just meeting some limitations of this world, these limitations are self imposed by humanity. It's ok to go against the masses, it's not antiscientific because science doesn't contradict with idealism.
Conscioussness is capable of comprehending the truth directly and distinguishing between the illusion and the genuine directly. People having transcendent experiences use that capability of conscioussness to understand the truth. Materialists are locked in an illusion which proclaims truth as illusory and illusion as truth. Ironic, isn't it?
As for God and suffering problem, suffering happened because of free will. Free will was given to develop, mortals overcome the obstacles and choose the right path when there is a wrong choice and develop because of that. Humans locked themselves in a materialistic delusion and suffer because of this. So get out of it and unlock your potential. Everything good in you is already from God, because it's impossible to develop a consistent morality based on materialism, people who claim that go beyond it not even realizing it.
I feel like lucide is the only one talking sense here. :mrgreen:
No. Faith is power. It's like asking a religious person: "There may be no God, just believe me on this".
Faith is not a virtue. Faith is an overrated form of unreason. You don't put all your eggs in one basket without foundation. Only a madman would do that. They are so enamoured with their fantasies that they simply have to be true. Btw, the 'There may be no God, just believe me on this,' sounds more like an affirmation than a question. 8-)
Summerlander wrote: I feel like lucide is the only one talking sense here.
Talking sense... Knowledge of the Absolute is the true knowledge, and knowledge of the matter (illusory) is not true knowledge. So I am talking the most sense here, I gave a lot of truths in my previous message.
I would put everything on my beliefs. If doing something means death if they are false and awakening if they are true, I would do that. Because I 100% sure that they are true.
You gave piffle. :D
We live in a deterministic universe. It's the product of a cause-and-effect process which manifests what we see around us including ourselves. We are made of that matter. Therefore we are naturally moving along with it and thus our will is not free but determined by existent physical currents which greatly precedes your own existence. We don't know what the fuck this is but it certainly isn't some Yahweh that made it. The concept of gods is a product of mankind's infantile beginnings. It is very old and still lingers in the minds of sadomasochistic individuals who would rather lazily say 'God made it!' as an answer to everything instead of reasonably using mankind's best method of enquiry: science. 8-)
Summerlander wrote: You gave piffle. :D
Qualitatively higher types of intellect than material are required to understand what I said there. Or you are just afraid of the truth and choose to ignore it. Relax. If you think your worldview is so great then it wouldn't harm it to try to understand what I told up there? You were either just dismissing that because it contradicts your core views (I mean don't want to try to understand, don't try, but to think it's piffle because of that full dismissal is a kind of irrational behavior pretty common in materialists; I think it's because of ego's desire to feel superior... That's fake, and that is egoism. Just take the genuine truth that you are everything. You won't need the fake feelings of superiority then), or can't understand what I said because your intellect beyond the material is closed off.
I tell you a secret: all the materialism is piffle because it's just a pile of logical conclusions based on false premises.
Summerlander wrote: We live in a deterministic universe. It's the product of a cause-and-effect process which manifests what we see around us including ourselves. We are made of that matter. Therefore we are naturally moving along with it and thus our will is not free but determined by existent physical currents which greatly precedes your own existence. We don't know what the fuck this is but it certainly isn't some Yahweh that made it. The concept of gods is a product of mankind's infantile beginnings. It is very old and still lingers in the minds of sadomasochistic individuals who would rather lazily say 'God made it!' as an answer to everything instead of reasonably using mankind's best method of enquiry: science. 8-)
Quantum wave function collapse, heard of it? Scientists know that it's not a deterministic process. Most think it's random. But the fact is that there is nothing random, and all the wave function collapse is determined by free will of conscious beings. Of course, processes in atoms may be chaotic, like dice roll, but actions of beings and causality fully determined it. Quantum processes in the brain are organized and can be aided by free will, although for people who engross in the material free will is limited, they let the ego in the brain to choose for them. Want to be free - scrap materialism.
Gaining knowledge is one of the goals of life and God made the world with possibility of limitless cognition for beings. It is ignorant to use religion to close the gaps, but that doesn't invalidate religion one bit. Religion there is to show the Truth, it's just with time humans distorted some of its meaning.
This is ironic that materialistic thinking claims to be all for knowledge, but instead the very such thinking limits the laws of nature, closing off the possibilities of knowledge. Conscioussness defines reality, and if people think limitedly, the world around them is also limited, and that is not just perception, that is causal relation. Want scientific breakthroughs - scrap the materialism.
Me? Afraid of the truth? Moi? I usually tend to say I'd rather a cold, harsh truth than a consoling lie. And lies are a big no-no in ethics and moral philosophy. But the main reason for adhering to the truth is so that we can tackle it with all the challenges that reality brings to the table. Only by studying the nature of reality can we ever hope to improve our condition. Understanding what we observe and never claiming more than what we really know is what science and scepticism aims at. Always trust a method that even attempts to falsify its theories which were empirically devised in the first place. What better way of inquisition could one expect? Science is the way. Religion poisons everything. 8-)
By the way, seen the latest breakthrough in physics which turns quantum indeterminacy on its head? And ever heard of superdeterminism? :ugeek:
Amaradreamer is too far down the pipe of self-delusion and confirmation bias. :mrgreen:
Summerlander wrote: Me? Afraid of the truth? Moi? I usually tend to say I'd rather a cold, harsh truth than a consoling lie. And lies are a big no-no in ethics and moral philosophy. But the main reason for adhering to the truth is so that we can tackle it with all the challenges that reality brings to the table. Only by studying the nature of reality can we ever hope to improve our condition.
The highest truth is eternity and infinite possibilities. And any truth describing the current situation is about seeing it clearly and how to resolve it, it's not "harsh truth", such thing doesn't exist. All the problems only derive from being binded by illusions, and nothing more. Conscioussness is limitless. You are eternal.
You are afraid of being proven wrong... Or maybe of getting out of that illusional comfort zone of dark world with "harsh truths". Because from your words earlier you despise those who believe in amazingness, and you're afraid to become the thing you despise. The solution: throw the lies away, don't despise them.
Summerlander wrote: Understanding what we observe and never claiming more than what we really know is what science and scepticism aims at.
That's true but that doesn't confirm materialism one bit.
Summerlander wrote: Always trust a method that even attempts to falsify its theories which were empirically devised in the first place. What better way of inquisition could one expect? Science is the way. Religion poisons everything. 8-)
Scientific method is one of the methods of gaining knowledge, and is certainly one of the most powerful. Knowledge based on reproducable results and which is tested is higher quality than one based on single observations of different kinds of phenomena. However that doesn't mean you can't base your knowledge on observations, because conscioussness is also able to recognize the truth directly.
And for religious teachings, a developed conscioussness is able to recognize the them as the truth because it's able to distinguish truths from lies. And the knowledge and faith in God is fundamental, it's just ignorance that clouds the judgement and makes people disbelieve.
Summerlander wrote: By the way, seen the latest breakthrough in physics which turns quantum indeterminacy on its head? And ever heard of superdeterminism?
That's not a breakthrough. Superdeterminism is false.
Summerlander wrote: Amaradreamer is too far down the pipe of self-delusion and confirmation bias. :mrgreen:
Confirmation bias, self-delusion... Pretty much describes where materialists lie. Also, universe itself provides them confirmations to their worldview because they attract them by their distorted perception. So the bubble closes.
Have you ever thought that maybe it's your 'bubble' that's closing? :)
About God ... :mrgreen:
Perhaps you should read---and educate yourself in the process---one of my anti-theological theses found in the Dream Science section. Here's an excerpt:
'There is no God. The one you read about in ancient scriptures is man-made. People can protest all they like about my bold statement and even add that I can’t disprove God. But the onus is on the believer to prove or demonstrate the veracity of what he claims to believe in. Any Joe can claim flying pigs exist. Likewise, the belief that a supernatural being wants his followers to wage a holy war against infidels should be ridiculed. Religion, it seems, is a shogunate with a profound bogus licence and no justification for its existence apart from the excuse of its effectiveness as a tool to control and perilously manipulate minds.
'This argument, of course, does not make its sermons true. Some religious people have asked me how can I be good without God. Well, I tell them that goodness should nobly come from the individual. One should not have to fear a god or crave heavenly reward in order to be good. In “Age of Reason,” Thomas Paine eloquently indicates how immoral it is to lie to yourself about an idea that if believed can bring comfort and in the minds of some it is an excuse for personal gain and the perpetration of crime. The book underlines how taboo it is to have an open discussion about religion. Have we learnt nothing since then when we tolerate a religion that is used as an excuse to kill non-believers in this day and age? Didn’t 9/11 make enough of an impact in our modern times? Or 7/7? Or the public murder of Lee Rigby while his killers chanted, “God is great!” What about the massacre of innocent civilians at a Kenyan shopping centre by the Islamist group Al-Shabaab? Men, women, and children were murdered for not being Muslim, for being unable to recite from the Quran, or for not knowing the name of prophet Muhammad’s mother. (If you don’t know, it’s Aminah bint Wahb - it could save your life!)
'Meanwhile, in Derby, England, multicultural tensions arose as Muslim school Al-Madinah came under investigation for forcing non-Muslim female staff to wear the hijab, for replacing lessons with prayers (causing the children’s education to suffer as a result), and for enforcing the segregation of boys and girls. And it didn’t stop there as boys were granted privileges over girls and the word “pig” was banned. Where is equality and freedom of expression? By contrast, mathematician Bertrand Russell did not need God, nor the belief in free will, to express his pacifism during the Great War. Professor A. C. Grayling, as an atheist, can still promote a kind of secular humanism that includes moral precepts far superior to God’s Ten Commandments and religion’s garbled amorality. The structure of this world speaks for itself as a reflection of the absence of an intelligent, almighty architect.
'The old Epicurean reasoning exposes the fact that no theodicy in the world can vindicate a good god in the face of evil. The concept of God, as a belief, has proved to be one of the hardest to let go of. But one only needs to assess the character of God in the world’s monotheisms to realise how improbable and incompatible it is with what happens in reality. As I said before, the evolution of the universe is so slow and careless that the Almighty would also have to be lazy and not much of an architect. Scientists can conceive of a far better universe and yet what we get in terms of its conditions is below slum. Today, DNA sequencing paints a mediocre picture of our species. Nature has the potential to stumble upon superhumans and geniuses, far better than the ones we’ve had, exceeding at everything - yet, what we get so far is mediocre Homo Sapiens. Poor quality is what we see which further evidences the accumulation of cosmic junk.
'Does this godlessness justify misbehaviour and cause good people to want to be bad? Of course not. The writer and humorist Mark Twain, who happened to be an intelligent and witty gentlemen fond of science and technology, was all for social equality and mingled with rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment and atheists who wanted to abolish the slave trade (at the time) because it violated the rights of man. Twain once said: “It isn’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” I don’t know if the laws of man, if open to refinement, are enough to deal with the wicked, unscrupulous, and inhumane, but, we are certainly better off without the religious façade. When it comes to laws in a secular society, you are given the benefit of the doubt until you display your misdemeanour and face the consequences. With religion, you are deemed bad without its tenets even if you are innocent, and must seek salvation or face damnation (and the concept of eternity often goes with this). And although punishment is part of government legislation, it is not as prominent, or as emphasised, as in religion. Secular laws will not say, “You will burn in hell for all time,” or, “May God have mercy on your soul,” or “You will be reborn to pay your karmic debt.”
'Personally, I think punishment is not justified when humans don’t really possess free will. But since we are not as advanced in genetics as one would hope to be in order to eradicate unwanted behavioural urges, we’ll just have to make do with what we currently have. The point is, while religion (mostly) claims to know that we have souls with free will and therefore deserving of punishment, science opens the door to new possibilities. Imagine a future where humans are genetically modified to be reasonable and more empathetic to the point where crime and punishment are things of the past. Imagine a future generation looking at the annals of mankind and regarding our current civilisation as barbaric in its methods. Imagine revenge and punishment being considered completely immoral. In our age we are yet to see the first step towards such goal. The first step would perhaps be the establishment of an enlightened utopia of secular humanism. A society that adopted the teachings of the Enlightenment movement. This is yet to happen. Instead, what we see so far in the world is leaders who either try to accommodate everyone in the hope of winning votes, or you get despotism.
'Buddhism may have its valid philosophical points but it isn’t impervious to criticism. I dislike the word “karma.” It doesn’t exist in the way that is implied in Buddhism and popular mysticism. The idea of it almost alludes to a judgemental agent behind the course of events, people’s actions and their intentions. If a soldier kills the enemy’s child, either accidentally or purposefully, it does not mean that later something similar will happen to his, or that something bad will happen to him which relates to that particular misdeed for that matter. There is cause and effect in the Newtonian sense but that does not compare with the cockeyed religious idea. Buddhism, to me, becomes a sordid affair when it potentially creates a legion of zombies, or zombie wannabes. Like other religions, it starts off with the assumption that human beings are naturally bad and need salvation. It conveys this in a subtle way by romanticising the idea: We suffer with our egos but the “Buddha nature” can radiate from within us if we allow it to. That is our true nature, they say, therefore we live in a false, delusional state. The ego is something that deserves eradication and the goal has to be Buddha nature. I disagree. You make up your own goals and do what you like. A man trying to convince another that this one is not truly happy is never a good sign.
'Meditation can be a beneficial tool to some (and indeed it can reduce stress) and it is true that the less we look at the world based on our likes and dislikes, the happier we’ll be, but some take this great philosophy to extremes. It should be used as a tool when necessary (and if the individual wishes to do so) and I’ll add that there is no lord Mara shackling you to rebirth and no punishment or karmic debt. And while you don’t have to be religious to practice meditation, usually, those who pursue it have a desire to improve themselves (clearly a self-involved or egocentric move) and this is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but it stinks when it is claimed to be done altruistically. One must also be careful in claiming that meditation alone is responsible for profound behavioural changes whilst omitting external matters or even the enticement of a delusion of enlightenment. How much of the meditator’s new behaviour is a façade? Does it truly come naturally or are they constantly, and in some cases unsuspectingly, conscientious? Subjectively, the person may feel selfless, more compassionate, and feel oneself to have better overall conduct, but, in reality, he may come across as arrogant or holier-than-thou to others. He may even feel that the negative feedback from others stems from envy as he regards himself to be closer to enlightenment, nirvana, or even as a holy man.
'Nothing is (and I really dislike this word) “holy.” I’d rather say “wholly” or “complete,” but, even such words, despite being somewhat free of religious connotations, must be carefully applied. They imply a limit that one cannot go beyond and this alone is a recipe for disaster as people can have bad judgements about what is good, bad, sufficient or insufficient. In our mediocre mammalian condition we are not in a position to make such tall claims. Buddhism is another religion that has been exploited in a number of ways and gives certain narcissistic individuals the excuse to exercise their pharisaism. It has its extremists and its moderates and has also been used as an excuse for warfare. It is hypocritical to say Islamic moderation insidiously provides fertile ground for dangerous fanaticism whilst holding a different stance on Buddhism. What might be attractive now may not be so later. This is particularly true about Buddhism once we notice how its practice has evolved to include esoteric beliefs and schismatic sects. There is some truth in Buddhist philosophy, in particular when it teaches us that desire creates attachment and this leads to suffering when loss is experienced. But this should be counterbalanced with a little Epicureanism in order to preserve our humanity and still make the most of being alive.
'In a nutshell, you can live according to the following philosophy and not be a Buddhist: Don’t have high expectations but if the good stuff presents itself, take it! And enjoy it! As far as we know, we only live once. So, live! Meditation is a tool with which individuals may acquire different perspectives if they wish to explore and perhaps expand their minds. The transcendental part of meditation is a bit misguided, or the adjective is a bit of a misnomer. You are really only accessing certain perspectives which are already innate or within your potential, even though some experiences may appear to be transcendental. The illusion of transcendence is created by the novelty of such experiences coming to the fore. Then, the aftermath brings excitement which prompts the meditator to think highly of the encountered mental state. As we cherish the insights we may assign great importance to them, often undeservedly, as the mind will further adorn the memory of the experience for the sake of beauty.
'Some interpret their meditative states in such a way as to think of them as profound revelations of objective reality or that there is objectively more to life than what materialism proposes. Such types allow all manner of delusional thinking to overwhelm them as they believe that their apparent epiphanies somehow support or make room for their fanciful or biased misinterpretations. We are used to having all the lights on in our (mental) home, but, all of a sudden, and for the first time (or rarely), we only have one of them on. This causes us to really pay attention to the clarity as the rest has suddenly disappeared into obscurity. Rene Descartes got it wrong when he said: “I think, therefore I am.” What he really should have said is this: “I think I am.” And that’s the problem, isn’t it? The minute our evolution stumbled upon a gestalt of higher-order intentionalities and language, the illusion inevitably arose and was strengthened overtime. Hence, the awareness of self concept. As counterintuitive as this sounds, we are self-aware animate objects (most of the time). Maybe I’m being too pedantic about Descartes’ axiom but I would like to be precise and clear about the fact that I am referring to our thinking ability in the context of semantics. I exclude the word “therefore” to rule out his conclusive dualism and to make the following point: The self or self-awareness may have arisen as an illusion when we inevitably stumbled upon the thought, “I am.”
'In a mental system that was growing complex and by the bye generating new concepts against old ones, conceiving not only synonyms but antonyms too, the developing imagination and the sense required for survival inevitably led to a sense of self because the concept can simply be formulated. Hence, the birth of such user illusion and the reinforcement of consciousness. So, literally, “I think I am.” In this phrase, the first “I” identifies with the physical body, and, therefore, refers to the primacy of matter; the second “I” identifies with the sense of self which is illusory and an epiphenomenon.
'This brings me back to the argument against the existence of God. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He could make us all-knowing like Him in a fraction of a second. Yet, He apparently sends us to the slow and arduous school of earth realm. (Already, the Christian Tribulation concept - a period of hardship living to strengthen the soul prior to Christ’s return - appears ludicrous.) Some of us have relatively short lives. Stillborns don’t even make it to the world outside the womb and thus have no time to learn. If one assumes their premature death is a learning process in itself one should know that they are not even conscious for this nor would they have the capability of comprehending their situation if they could. Scientists tell us that, in “The Matrix,” the scene where Neo instantly downloads Kung Fu knowledge is possible in principle, though a lot of work needs to be done. Likewise, the “Total Recall” scenario, where memories, fantasies, and identities can be embedded in your brain. Science has the potential to make fundamental changes in individuals instantly. A skilled hypnotist can potentially put you in a trance and temporarily make you forget who you are. (All with the power of suggestion alone.) And yet, the Almighty is powerless to download supreme wisdom into your meagre soul.
'Moreover, in His chauvinistic and bellicose nature, He is unable to prevent us from having certain thoughts He deems criminal (according to scripture). How can an all-merciful god be so judgemental to his “children” when these never even had a choice in how they are made, how they are made to feel (remember, He is omnipresent), and what happens upon them? He can’t even be compared to us earthly parents when we punish our children for their infractions. We are not omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. In “Spiderman” the following axiom was uttered: “With great power comes great responsibility.” God, who should be responsible for everything, appears to be capricious and evasive. He is so infinitely good and merciful (using sarcasm in case the reader misses it) that He’d rather smite His delinquents than magically fix them out of the kindness of His divine heart. It seems He is absolutely powerless (!), or unwilling, to make His bad seeds see the light. Instead, second-hand revelations are spread through public figures who incite war, hatred, and appear destined to be exalted on unconfirmed merit.'
~http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=15030
Think before you speak, amigo! 8-)
Free will exists, or nobody would have registered in these forums. If free will didn't exist, we would all lay around and crap on ourselves until we starved to death.
^^Fallacious ignorance ... :D
Because you would want to crap yourself, yeah? Or is there a strong urge to go to the loo which compels you to move? Try staying still forever and see how long you last! That would be a difficult decision and arguably an act within non-action. Try harder with your noggin, pal ... :mrgreen:
We are here because we have either stumbled upon lucid dreaming or we heard of it and are, needless to say, interested in the subject. Some never heard of it or don't have the slightest interest. We don't pick what we like and dislike just as we don't pick our moods---or we'd simply switch to being happy all the time (which clearly isn't the case).
This is more evidence of matter, the brain, generating and influencing the mind. We don't pick our urges either, such as the urge to go for a shit at an inappropriate time---like in the middle of an important business presentation. :twisted:
You sir, are mistaking determinism for fatalism. Two different things. In a world of cause-and-effect, the concept of free will is absurd. Check out Benjamin et al experiments where relevant cortical areas of the brain activate way before a person becomes aware of having apparently decided to move a limb. The unconscious cogwheels move first before the action reaches consciousness---the witness that tends to claim authorship for everything that happens in it! Here ... have a gander and open your eyes:
http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15086
You have either completely ignored my last post or its content just went over your head. You could ask me questions if you like and I may be able to break it down for you so that you can better digest it. Like tough truth nuggets, y'know! :ugeek:
How many kids have I taught this lesson to online? I've lost count. You either take heed and learn or you remain ignorant! 8-)
Stop sucking up to Amaradreamer's bahookie and learn to think for yourself based on established facts and reason rather than false ideals that pander to your ego. It isn't a good sign when someone starts saying 'I am everything!' or 'I am eternal and I create reality!' and 'I will never abandon my beliefs!' Such people will never accept new discoveries that might suggest a contradiction against their world view.
If there's anyone afraid of being proved wrong here it is Amaradreamer. Don't be that guy/girl. You could be better than that. A true scientist is never afraid to put his theories to the test knowing there is a chance their wrong. A scientist merely wants to embrace and understand reality. Science seeks truth. :geek:
Free will has always been free and each individual is responsible for their own choices. You may use your free will to believe anything you wish.
It's not about belief in my case, my friend. It's about being sceptical of people who claim to have subjectively received 'revelations'. And it's about discerning what's really true as far as we can tell. It's not about dogmas, it's about being prepared to undergo a paradigm shift if an aspect of reality presents a questionable picture. 8-)
If you had been born in Saudi Arabia you might have been a Wahhabi. :mrgreen:
You don't pick your genome, your gender, your race, your upbringing, and who you meet in life. You form memories and concepts based on what you are exposed to. You deal with the card your given and you aim to make the best of it within the rules of the game which you did not write. Your aim is the instinct for survival and preservation because you have no choice.
No free will can be found in all the facts I've stated. Only predetermined will. This isn't free will. Check out my link about free will above. Honestly ... :roll:
If your PC or phone crashed before my first post here you wouldn't have the choice to engage me in conversation. It wouldn't be available to you. You are merely reacting to your environment based on your urges (which originate in the brain that you do not control).
Try meditation and you'll see that thoughts will tend to come to you unsummoned. Focus on the breath and you'll see how your mind will tend to deviate from what you set out to do. Suddenly you find yourself chasing narratives and may wake up to realise that you should be focusing on the breath. You are not really in charge; the world is. And when your focus improves, it doesn't mean it's free will either, but merely an acquired habitual behaviour which differs slightly from your mindless default mode.
Practise mindfulness. :idea:
AmaraDreamer wrote:
And there are full confirmations even in the knowledge sphere on this, and anomalies go beyond that and it would be delusional of me to not hold to the truth that I've discovered. It's like denying that the Moon orbits Earth.
Gravity is what causes the moon to orbit around the earth and the earth orbit around the sun. Many people know not to argue about religion in public, because it starts fights. I really rather not fight about it either.
This is more evidence of matter, the brain, generating and influencing the mind. We don't pick our urges either, such as the urge to go for a #@$@ at an inappropriate time---like in the middle of an important business presentation.
And I am sure you couldn't resist the urge to do this in "certain places" or on certain people's graves. So how many times have you taken a @#$@ or even whizzed on certain people's graves?
Summerlander wrote: It's not about belief in my case, my friend. It's about being sceptical of people who claim to have subjectively received 'revelations'. And it's about discerning what's really true as far as we can tell. It's not about dogmas, it's about being prepared to undergo a paradigm shift if an aspect of reality presents a questionable picture. 8-)
"Discerning what's really true" - I understand about this problem. And for that matter, conscioussness with developed awareness is able to directly distinguish true experiences from illusory. You can't know what is going on in person's mind, so it's understandable that you doubt. But that doesn't disprove these people's experiences. Because they know that these experiences are the truth. For them, it is knowledge, for you, it is not. That is what I call untransferable.
Summerlander wrote: We don't pick what we like and dislike just as we don't pick our moods---or we'd simply switch to being happy all the time (which clearly isn't the case).
This is more evidence of matter, the brain, generating and influencing the mind. We don't pick our urges either, such as the urge to go for a shit at an inappropriate time---like in the middle of an important business presentation. :twisted:
You sir, are mistaking determinism for fatalism. Two different things. In a world of cause-and-effect, the concept of free will is absurd. Check out Benjamin et al experiments where relevant cortical areas of the brain activate way before a person becomes aware of having apparently decided to move a limb. The unconscious cogwheels move first before the action reaches consciousness---the witness that tends to claim authorship for everything that happens in it! Here ... have a gander and open your eyes:
Brain generates mind, but not conscioussness. In this civilization, most people are acting upon the guidance of the mind which is generated by the brain and that's why only limitedly use their free will. The scientist who did the experiments himself said that they don't refute free will. What should be is that mind is used as a tool and person doesn't succumb to its urges.
Summerlander wrote: Try meditation and you'll see that thoughts will tend to come to you unsummoned. Focus on the breath and you'll see how your mind will tend to deviate from what you set out to do. Suddenly you find yourself chasing narratives and may wake up to realise that you should be focusing on the breath. You are not really in charge; the world is. And when your focus improves, it doesn't mean it's free will either, but merely an acquired habitual behaviour which differs slightly from your mindless default mode.
Practise mindfulness. :idea:
Mindfullness basically allows people to get control over their mind. It deviates, but then it gets under control. Free will does it. I would advice to continue practicing it and try to find something indescribable within the silence. And use that desire for new knowledge to not trivialize it but try to view that from neutral viewpoint. Maybe you may achieve breakthrough and paradigm shift. A still mind is able to detach from existing worldview and see the truth.
Summerlander wrote: If there's anyone afraid of being proved wrong here it is Amaradreamer. Don't be that guy/girl. You could be better than that. A true scientist is never afraid to put his theories to the test knowing there is a chance their wrong. A scientist merely wants to embrace and understand reality. Science seeks truth. :geek:
I am not afraid of that, because I am right in my core beliefs. Some parts of my belief may be proven wrong though, but the core about primarity of conscioussness is for sure the absolute truth. Scientific method is not the only method of getting knowledge but it's certainly one of the most powerful. Sometimes there could be observations which are not reproducible. My theories so far haven't been proven wrong, they only work for my development and has been confirmed many times genuinely without bias.
So I suggest you to listen to the silence when you practice mindfullness, there is a chance you may find something there. I thank you for the conversation, it made me improve my beliefs. Good luck.
I am a bioluminescent ganglion in an electric field in an magnetic field. I am a being of light with a soul at heavens door. I am a mind and body matrix on a dimensional plane. I am a fucking animal trying to survive.
Reaching out to others seems to be a natural action and i for one, am not immune.
Let me ask ya'll. What does this statement mean to you? Matters matter in the place of no matter.