Reality... Am I the only one?

[hroom]

Hey all ,

So here's a thought, What if " I " am the only real person in the world and God is projecting everything around me so he can test me being human ? ...I mean it's an interesting thought ..I am not reffering to ME specificaly, but to anyone who might ask this question .... just think ... what if YOU are the only one real and God is projecting everything around YOU just to test you ? ..any ideas ? ..

Question: 'Lets say I think that I am the only one real around and I think everyone is just a projection - illusion - (no offence) ...how could you prove me wrong?"

[Planet_Jeroen]

Heh... well me posting could mean 2 things. Either your theory is false, or I'm God. Prove me wrong :lol:

[kjpou1]

hroom

Interesting question and nope can not prove you wrong but no offense hroom ...


Heh... well me posting could mean 2 things. Either your theory is false, or I'm God. Prove me wrong

.... almost fell out of my chair with the response Jeroen. Still laughing actually as this just made my day.

Kenneth

[Ascendant]

Hroom, what you've got there is one of the oldest philosophical dilemmas of all time. The answer is: you can't be proved wrong. There is no way to know whether another person is conscious. There is no way to tell if you are living in a simulation. So... you can either give up and do nothing, hoping the simulation will end (oh, and it will, trust me), or you can just do whatever you want, believing that the consequences don't matter, or you can believe that it's real and act accordingly. Up to you.

[Celeborn]

One of the greatest philosophers of all time, Rene Descartes, wrote on this very subject long, long ago, in his book Meditations on First Philosophy .

If you really are interested in seeing a man truly tread deep down the twisted path of this particular possibility, I recommend sitting down and reading it. Whether you agree with the mans conclusions or not, how he gets us there is one hell of a ride. (hyperbolic meditation is awesome :D)

But in the end, even if it is just you and God...or me and God...in the end it does not really matter at all.

Ascendant wrote:

So... you can either give up and do nothing, hoping the simulation will end (oh, and it will, trust me), or you can just do whatever you want, believing that the consequences don't matter, or you can believe that it's real and act accordingly.

Actually he cannot take either of those first two routes, because if he stops playing the game, even if he knows it is illusion, he has just failed the test.
Because in the end, whether we like to admit it or not, we are social creatures, and it is through our interactions with others that we define ourselves. Even those who go live in caves to meditate alone, are making a clear statement to society as a member of society. It is a distinction of self vs. other, which could not be made without the other.

So...take away the illusion, the maya, the matrix, and you take away yourSELF. And while this was and is the goal for some astetics, I personally believe that the best goal of any spiritual practice is to learn how to better live in the world and harmoniously interact with those around us. And whether the theory is true or not, knowing this on a conceptual level is not going to get you any closer to spiritual truth or fulfillment.

[sterlingindigo]

Interesting thought, hroom. I remember entertaining the idea myself before but I didn't give as much energy to it as I maybe should have. It is intriguing nonetheless.

Here are a couple of my rather simple ideas about it so far:

It is good to take time to consider the universal magnitude and the multi-level orchestration of the One True Creators' infinite love just for you (your verticle relationship).

It is also good to keep this firmly in mind in all of your dealings with the various 'projections' of that Creation (your horizontal relationship).

It can be true for you alone and for everyone else, even those still asleep to these ideas. A very good thought indeed, hroom. Thank you for offering it.

Hey all ,

So here's a thought, What if " I " am the only real person in the world and God is projecting everything around me so he can test me being human ? ...I mean it's an interesting thought ..I am not reffering to ME specificaly, but to anyone who might ask this question .... just think ... what if YOU are the only one real and God is projecting everything around YOU just to test you ? ..any ideas ? ..

Question: 'Lets say I think that I am the only one real around and I think everyone is just a projection - illusion - (no offence) ...how could you prove me wrong?"
The idea expressed in this question is known to philosophers as Solipsism (http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm) (http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm).

The big problem with Solipsism is that no sane person believes it. One may, of course, play games, challenging other people to prove that they exist. But the real question is whether one can walk through walls, leap tall buildings at a single bound, fly like a bird, etc. without hurting oneself.

[Quantitativefool]

Did this post like change or something...because I responded in one with the same first few statements...I'm so confused....

-Stu

[sash]

Quantitativefool: I think there was another post under Healing, it must have been deleted because it was made redundant under this thread.

I'm reluctant to post about this because it has no relation to this forum subject at all, and also has a limited relation to the subject matter of this website, although I think it might still be appropriate under another forum so I will comment since philosophy does interest me.
This question basically stems from philosophies linked with Solipsism and Relativism, and I'm sure a few others, since in its nature it is quite a philosophical problem.

IMHO on an existence level this specific problem can almost be proved wrong. The fact the the world functions in the way it does, with such complexity almost brings a strong enough argument against there being only one essence (person) and the rest being a simulation.
Another reason could be the fact that people have replied to this post, or that other people question this as well. In other words, how does this go to say that You are not the simulation and someone else is a genuine essence?
I think intuitively we can deduct that we each have an essence that is individual to ourselves. Whether this is true or not I completely agree with Celeborn's statement "whether the theory is true or not, knowing this on a conceptual level is not going to get you any closer to spiritual truth or fulfillment".
So where does the conception against the idea of knowing otherwise through intuition arise? For me it is the feeling of not being understood by the world. The feeling often washes over that no-one can related to you on such a level . . that no-one can know what it is like to be you. Perhaps this is what triggers this dilemma.

Having said that this thoery is not probable on the level of existence and how the earth is perceived in general, I do believe that is does hold true in a deeper sense. If you aren't "the only one" then it sometimes causes more philosophical problems than if you are! I would question whether we are not the same consciousness at the core, so in this sense the idea would prove valid.
Another major problem I see arising from this issue is the identification people have with themselves. I assumed until now that most people have been through this certain stage as a process of growth, but now I'm not so sure.
For me it occurred a while ago and is still developing now. I think the amount of introspective consciousness I had at the time reached a certain threshold and upon reaching that I changed how I identify with things. I would relate things to myself much less often and view things from a higher level. In other words trying to stop identifying with mySelf and start identifying with the universe instead.
Through this process I have found moments while talking to people where for a subtle second or two the lines between us would blur and their core being became evident and I identified with in a direct sense. In these moments I noticed that their core being was my core being, or vica versa - or it was just one being.
Rather than feeling a distaste for this type of identification as I would expect it was actually more a feeling of deep contentment. These moments incline me to perceive the essence of each person as the same core essence. If the least this conception does is solve my problems on postmodernism and relativism for the time being then it suits me. It has certainly brought me a strong sense of inner peace to accept the world in this way.


Warm Regards,
Sasha

Because in the end, whether we like to admit it or not, we are social creatures, and it is through our interactions with others that we define ourselves. Even those who go live in caves to meditate alone, are making a clear statement to society as a member of society. It is a distinction of self vs. other, which could not be made without the other.

So...take away the illusion, the maya, the matrix, and you take away yourSELF. And while this was and is the goal for some astetics, I personally believe that the best goal of any spiritual practice is to learn how to better live in the world and harmoniously interact with those around us. And whether the theory is true or not, knowing this on a conceptual level is not going to get you any closer to spiritual truth or fulfillment.
Amen! Never was a truer statement made. We are social creatures. In the few cases in which men have managed to survive without ever having had the benefits of at least one other man's company never develop intellectually to be able to ask the sort of questions which hroom has, in fact asked.

And for most men the company of others with whom he can share his life is essential to his moral and spiritual growth. So we should thank God for those others, no matter how much we may otherwise like to be alone.

In other words, how does this go to say that You are not the simulation and someone else is a genuine essence?

"Once upon a time, I, Chuang Tsu, dreamed I was a butterfly flying happily here and there, enjoying life without knowing who I was. Suddenly I woke up and I was indeed Chuang Tsu. Did Chuang Tsu dream he was a butterfly, or did the butterfly dream he was Chuang Tsu? There must be some distinction between Chuang Tsu and the butterfly. This is a case of transformation."

http://www3.telus.net/arktos/dream/bfly.html

[Quantitativefool]

Wow Sophroniscus,

That quote you put there was wonderful. It can even tie into the alchemical processes of the soul and to the very nature of our will and soul.

-Stu

Wow Sophroniscus,

That quote you put there was wonderful. It can even tie into the alchemical processes of the soul and to the very nature of our will and soul.

-Stu
Well, there is some doubt whether this whole subject line is within the scope of this forum. But I say, if all we have are lemons then we ought to make lemonade...

[enoch]

kinda like the 'brains in vats' theory.

[Akashic_Librarian]

A bit of matrix theory going on here!!

[Tom]

The way I hear it described in Kriya Yoga is that some people experience themselves as being in their own body and in everyone else's body also at the same time. Swami Kriyananda mentions an incident when his teacher Paramhansa Yogananda told someone that he had a sour taste in his mouth. When asked how he knew, he answered that he was in his own body and that of the person who was currently experiencing the sour taste. Naturally, if I'd been there, I'd have asked the guy with the sour taste in his mouth to go brush his teeth.

[hroom]

:idea: Hi again ppl, what do you advice me to do? How to overcome this problem?? I am going on a psychic doctor this week, but I it will be nice if you give some advices or proofs of that problem - how to live normal again?

[sash]

Are you asking for help to solve a philosophical problem that is uneasy on your mind? If this is what you are asking then you must go around the mind, because the solution cannot be found from thinking about it.

Find the silence in meditation that leads to understanding which transcends a rational solution.

I'm not too sure though about if this is what you mean, or if there is something else stopping you from "living normally", if so it is best to elaborate on what the exact problem is.


Warm Regards,
Sasha

A bit of matrix theory going on here!!
Well, I don't know. I studied Mathematics in college, but never particularly bothered about matrix theory. In any event, I don't follow the analogy.

[Tom]

Sounds like a movie reference to me.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/

I prefer "They Live" after the two sequels to "The Matrix" came out and ruined it for me.

[sash]

For anyone who is interested in reading the Matrix "Brain In a Vat" theory and other Matrix philosophies they are all available from the official website (whatisthematrix.com... (http://www.whatisthematrix.com))


Warm Regards
Sasha

[Chris]

This question is age old. Look up solipsism as almost anything you ever wanted to know on this problem will be found there.
Generally one decides it can't prove such a thing either way, so why not believe that all the other minds you meet are real and not a creation of your own mind/Gods mind.
One can go the other way and believe you are the only awarness and the rest is a creation/illusion. But if you are wrong and do something 'bad' then you might still have to face the ruleset of the illusion (ie prison).

Hroom,


but to anyone who might ask this question .... just think ...



I sympathise entirely with your dilemma but when we are questioning figures of speech, and I don't mean to teach you to suck eggs here, try speaking metaphorically so that you become more 'adept at practice'. Metaphors can be a really smart linguistic tool. Of course, at some level, you already knew that didn't you?

This question is age old. Look up solipsism as almost anything you ever wanted to know on this problem will be found there.
Generally one decides it can't prove such a thing either way, so why not believe that all the other minds you meet are real and not a creation of your own mind/Gods mind.
One can go the other way and believe you are the only awarness and the rest is a creation/illusion. But if you are wrong and do something 'bad' then you might still have to face the ruleset of the illusion (ie prison).
Being alone is, itself, a sort of prison. Perhaps some might say it is better to be in a prison made of cinder blocks and iron bars than one made by one's own mind?

[Chris]

This question is age old. Look up solipsism as almost anything you ever wanted to know on this problem will be found there.
Generally one decides it can't prove such a thing either way, so why not believe that all the other minds you meet are real and not a creation of your own mind/Gods mind.
One can go the other way and believe you are the only awarness and the rest is a creation/illusion. But if you are wrong and do something 'bad' then you might still have to face the ruleset of the illusion (ie prison).
Being alone is, itself, a sort of prison. Perhaps some might say it is better to be in a prison made of cinder blocks and iron bars than one made by one's own mind?

But in truth, even if other minds exist, we are forever alone. To quote Aldous Huxley, who puts this very elegantly:



We live together, we act on, and react to, one another; but always and in all circumstances we are by ourselves. The martyrs go hand in hand into the arena; they are crucified alone. Embraced, the lovers desperately try to fuse their insulated ecstasies into a single self-transcendence; in vain. By its very nature every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in solitude. Sensations, feelings, insights, fancies—all these are private and, except through symbols and at second hand, incommunicable. We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation, every human group is a society of island universes.
Most island universes are sufficiently like one another to Permit of inferential understanding or even of mutual empathy or "feeling into." Thus, remembering our own bereavements and humiliations, we can condole with others in analogous circumstances, can put ourselves (always, of course, in a slightly Pickwickian sense) in their places. But in certain cases communication between universes is incomplete or even nonexistent. The mind is its own place, and the Places inhabited by the insane and the exceptionally gifted are so different from the places where ordinary men and women live, that there is little or no common ground of memory to serve as a basis for understanding or fellow feeling. Words are uttered, but fail to enlighten. The things and events to which the symbols refer belong to mutually exclusive realms of experience.



Which is in essence saying that our brain/mind creates our entire reality based upon sensory input. We existed within a mind construct (which we perceive to be external). Everything we ever see, touch, taste, or experience is but a simulation created internally based on perceived ‘external’ input.
So whenever we touch others, we actually touch our minds interpretation of that touch, the same with all sensory perception.
So at the core of it, we are forever imprisoned within our minds.

Being alone is, itself, a sort of prison. Perhaps some might say it is better to be in a prison made of cinder blocks and iron bars than one made by one's own mind?

But in truth, even if other minds exist, we are forever alone. To quote Aldous Huxley, who puts this very elegantly:


We live together, we act on, and react to, one another; but always and in all circumstances we are by ourselves. The martyrs go hand in hand into the arena; they are crucified alone. Embraced, the lovers desperately try to fuse their insulated ecstasies into a single self-transcendence; in vain. By its very nature every embodied spirit is doomed to suffer and enjoy in solitude. Sensations, feelings, insights, fancies—all these are private and, except through symbols and at second hand, incommunicable. We can pool information about experiences, but never the experiences themselves. From family to nation, every human group is a society of island universes.
Most island universes are sufficiently like one another to Permit of inferential understanding or even of mutual empathy or "feeling into." Thus, remembering our own bereavements and humiliations, we can condole with others in analogous circumstances, can put ourselves (always, of course, in a slightly Pickwickian sense) in their places. But in certain cases communication between universes is incomplete or even nonexistent. The mind is its own place, and the Places inhabited by the insane and the exceptionally gifted are so different from the places where ordinary men and women live, that there is little or no common ground of memory to serve as a basis for understanding or fellow feeling. Words are uttered, but fail to enlighten. The things and events to which the symbols refer belong to mutually exclusive realms of experience.

Which is in essence saying that our brain/mind creates our entire reality based upon sensory input. We existed within a mind construct (which we perceive to be external). Everything we ever see, touch, taste, or experience is but a simulation created internally based on perceived ‘external’ input.
So whenever we touch others, we actually touch our minds interpretation of that touch, the same with all sensory perception.
So at the core of it, we are forever imprisoned within our minds.

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of they friends's or of thine own were.

Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
In my humble opinion, Aldous Huxley is not much of an authority...

But there is some truth to what he wrote -- if one bases one's life on words. But there is so much more to life than words. Pictures and the body unite us all. Can I prove this? More words... Can you disprove it?

The great difference between Aristotle and Socrates is that Aristotle used mere words, while Socrates used the power of community: Aristotle wrote monologs. Plato, Socrates' disciple, wrote dialogs.

Personally, I tend to favor Socrates' approach.

It was Jesus' approach, as well...

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife;
And the two will become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one.
Mark 10:7-8

[Chris]

In my humble opinion, Aldous Huxley is not much of an authority...

But there is some truth to what he wrote -- if one bases one's life on words. But there is so much more to life than words. Pictures and the body unite us all. Can I prove this? More words... Can you disprove it?

The great difference between Aristotle and Socrates is that Aristotle used mere words, while Socrates used the power of community: Aristotle wrote monologs. Plato, Socrates' disciple, wrote dialogs.

Personally, I tend to favor Socrates' approach.

It was Jesus' approach, as well...

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife;
And the two will become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one.
Mark 10:7-8

I quote Huxley as his words are of a poetic slant which transcends their syntactic meaning – I would say he has more authority then most – the quote was taken from his ‘Doors of perception’, gleaned from a mystical experienced brought about by the sacrament mescaline.

I disagree that pictures or body unite us. Perhaps as a community, but that is impersonal – it’s an external bond, any internal manifestations of that are private and can never be shared ‘as-is’. We can try and share the experience through words, or art, or even song. But these things will be filtered through an individuals belief systems, ego, and accumulated experiences to date. The end product would be very different from the intended product.
There was an interesting study recently regarding pictures. Its focus was the difference between the western and eastern mind set and perception. It turns out that westerners focus on 1 area of the picture, whereas easterners focus on the whole picture. For example a picture of a man in the forest, westerners studied the man, whereas easterners studied the surrounding forest – paying little attention to the man. We can also never be certain that we each perceive the same colour. We might interpret certain frequencies of light with a certain colour, we each learn this and attach a name to it, but we can never be certain that each of us sees the exact same hue. I am not talking about colour blindness here :) If one looks through the left and right eyes, we notice that one eye favours red hues and the other blue hues (or what we perceive to be blue or red). These things change the way a person would perceive a picture to be – so they would translate it different to another.

My original point was, that sensory organs take information to the brain. They never transmit information. When we look into the distance, our eyes suck in photons, pulses reach the brain and we experience the scene in a mind construct. We never see those distant mountains, we see our brains interpretation.
There are also many interesting studies regarding how eyes perceive very little of the world. They can see basic forms and shapes – not enough to create the world we perceive. Our view of reality is very heavily filtered by the brain. Like colour. If we focus on an object, only the object is in colour – the peripheral information is actually perceived in intensity (not colour tone) – yet after brain filtering we see our whole visual field as coloured.

What I’m getting at is we literally do live in our mind ‘reflected outwards’. Sentiments such as a wife and husband becoming one soul are poetic, but on this plane of existence it’s an impossibility. If you don’t agree with this, I’d be interested to know how one could experience anything which hasn’t first been interpreted by mind and brain.
My fingers on the keyboard typing this, nerve ends fire and send information to the brain. I feel this reaction, not the key. I type on mind generated keys, forever separated from whatever their 'external' manifestation might be (keys, interference patterns - who knows?). I trail my fingers up my lovers arm - however close we feel - however powerful the emotions beating in my breast - they are forever mine and mine alone. I can attempt to convey these fealings , and hopefully her belief system (ego, experience to date) is sufficiently similar to allow an acceptable translation - but the experience itself can never be anything other than mine.

In my humble opinion, Aldous Huxley is not much of an authority...

But there is some truth to what he wrote -- if one bases one's life on words. But there is so much more to life than words. Pictures and the body unite us all. Can I prove this? More words... Can you disprove it?

The great difference between Aristotle and Socrates is that Aristotle used mere words, while Socrates used the power of community: Aristotle wrote monologs. Plato, Socrates' disciple, wrote dialogs.

Personally, I tend to favor Socrates' approach.

It was Jesus' approach, as well...

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife;
And the two will become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one.
Mark 10:7-8

I quote Huxley as his words are of a poetic slant which transcends their syntactic meaning – I would say he has more authority then most – the quote was taken from his ‘Doors of perception’, gleaned from a mystical experienced brought about by the sacrament mescaline.

I disagree that pictures or body unite us. Perhaps as a community, but that is impersonal – it’s an external bond, any internal manifestations of that are private and can never be shared ‘as-is’. We can try and share the experience through words, or art, or even song. But these things will be filtered through an individuals belief systems, ego, and accumulated experiences to date. The end product would be very different from the intended product.
There was an interesting study recently regarding pictures. Its focus was the difference between the western and eastern mind set and perception. It turns out that westerners focus on 1 area of the picture, whereas easterners focus on the whole picture. For example a picture of a man in the forest, westerners studied the man, whereas easterners studied the surrounding forest – paying little attention to the man. We can also never be certain that we each perceive the same colour. We might interpret certain frequencies of light with a certain colour, we each learn this and attach a name to it, but we can never be certain that each of us sees the exact same hue. I am not talking about colour blindness here :) If one looks through the left and right eyes, we notice that one eye favours red hues and the other blue hues (or what we perceive to be blue or red). These things change the way a person would perceive a picture to be – so they would translate it different to another.

My original point was, that sensory organs take information to the brain. They never transmit information. When we look into the distance, our eyes suck in photons, pulses reach the brain and we experience the scene in a mind construct. We never see those distant mountains, we see our brains interpretation.
There are also many interesting studies regarding how eyes perceive very little of the world. They can see basic forms and shapes – not enough to create the world we perceive. Our view of reality is very heavily filtered by the brain. Like colour. If we focus on an object, only the object is in colour – the peripheral information is actually perceived in intensity (not colour tone) – yet after brain filtering we see our whole visual field as coloured.

What I’m getting at is we literally do live in our mind ‘reflected outwards’. Sentiments such as a wife and husband becoming one soul are poetic, but on this plane of existence it’s an impossibility. If you don’t agree with this, I’d be interested to know how one could experience anything which hasn’t first been interpreted by mind and brain.
My fingers on the keyboard typing this, nerve ends fire and send information to the brain. I feel this reaction, not the key. I type on mind generated keys, forever separated from whatever their 'external' manifestation might be (keys, interference patterns - who knows?). I trail my fingers up my lovers arm - however close we feel - however powerful the emotions beating in my breast - they are forever mine and mine alone. I can attempt to convey these fealings , and hopefully her belief system (ego, experience to date) is sufficiently similar to allow an acceptable translation - but the experience itself can never be anything other than mine.
It must be nice to have attained such certainty. In my humble opinion, however, the mind is fundamentally undefinable. Indeed, I must confess that I do not know what matter is, or my body, or time or space. What I know -- or pretend to know -- is always at a higher level of abstraction, and rarely approaches what I would consider to be elementary.

But it is good to know that you and Mr. Huxley have attained such certainty.

For my part, I shall continue to plod on in uncertainty and darkness...


There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Chris]

It must be nice to have attained such certainty. In my humble opinion, however, the mind is fundamentally undefinable. Indeed, I must confess that I do not know what matter is, or my body, or time or space. What I know -- or pretend to know -- is always at a higher level of abstraction, and rarely approaches what I would consider to be elementary.

But it is good to know that you and Mr. Huxley have attained such certainty.



And nowhere in my previous post or the quote of Huxley have matter, body, time or space been defined. How brain/mind received information of what we consider to be external physical reality was stated, and how that information has been shown by science to be minimal at best (not the detailed reality we perceive), and how the brain generates our reality perception based on this input was written – nothing more.
It’s known that mind cannot distinguish between imagination and external reality – interesting scientific papers detail how a group gained significant muscle mass through the act of visualisation of weight lifting alone. A control group who did nothing gained no muscle mass and another group who weight lifted gained most mass. This and many other experiments backup the view of reality being mind generated.
Do you disagree that sensory organs only receive information, or do you perceive the eyes to project photons which paint the external world? If we cannot be certain of the most rudimentary logical deductions backed up by empirical evidence – we might as well stop all learning right now.
Abstract knowledge, by definition can be no more than belief system. Abstractions hold no more insight than what they are given – and even that insight is ambiguous.

It should also be said that the phasing model of ap is built upon these ideas. Physical reality being just a focus state on the spectrum of consciousness.

So whenever we touch others, we actually touch our minds interpretation of that touch, the same with all sensory perception.
The statement is illogical. You seems to be using the word touch ambiguously. Perhaps a better way to say what you have in mind is...


Further, whatever is received into "a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver and not of the received." But whatever is seen is, in a way, received into the seer.
and "the same with all sensory perception..."

And nowhere in my previous post or the quote of Huxley have matter, body, time or space been defined. How brain/mind received information of what we consider to be external physical reality was stated, and how that information has been shown by science to be minimal at best (not the detailed reality we perceive), and how the brain generates our reality perception based on this input was written – nothing more.
It’s known that mind cannot distinguish between imagination and external reality – interesting scientific papers detail how a group gained significant muscle mass through the act of visualisation of weight lifting alone. A control group who did nothing gained no muscle mass and another group who weight lifted gained most mass. This and many other experiments backup the view of reality being mind generated.
Do you disagree that sensory organs only receive information, or do you perceive the eyes to project photons which paint the external world? If we cannot be certain of the most rudimentary logical deductions backed up by empirical evidence – we might as well stop all learning right now.
Abstract knowledge, by definition can be no more than belief system. Abstractions hold no more insight than what they are given – and even that insight is ambiguous.

It should also be said that the phasing model of ap is built upon these ideas. Physical reality being just a focus state on the spectrum of consciousness.

I know you haven't defined your terms. I thought that is what I said.[/*:m:3jn328tg]
You say, "It’s known that mind cannot distinguish between imagination and external reality..." But I do it all the time! For example, I can imagine reaching over to pick up an imaginary coffee cup, without actually doing so. Perhaps you are using some terms ambiguously?[/*:m:3jn328tg]
Furthermore, the example given would seem to indicate that the body may not distinguish between imagination and experience.[/*:m:3jn328tg]
Sensory organs do what they do. My hand, for example, is a sensory organ. But I use it for other purposes, as well.[/*:m:3jn328tg]
You write... "Abstract knowledge, by definition can be no more than belief system." By definition abstract knowledge is knowledge drawn from abstraction. For example, a child sees a variety of objects. He discovers that such sensory phantasms can be divided into categories: animal, vegetable, mineral... I would not call such knowledge a belief. To be a belief one must add a predicate. For example, many have accepted as belief that all swans are white.[/*:m:3jn328tg]
Please forgive my being tedious. But in philosophy one must be very careful, lest one be drawn into absolute statements where only relative ones are appropriate.

By the way... I suspect that Huxley may have used too much sacramental mescaline. 8) If so, it might have affected his judgment.

[Chris]

So whenever we touch others, we actually touch our minds interpretation of that touch, the same with all sensory perception.
The statement is illogical. You seems to be using the word touch ambiguously. Perhaps a better way to say what you have in mind is...

Further, whatever is received into "a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver and not of the received." But whatever is seen is, in a way, received into the seer.
and "the same with all sensory perception..."


The ambiguousness of the statement was due to my choice of words. What I mean is if we chose to interact with something we perceive to be ‘external’ (reality) using tactile sensory organs (touch) – the perception of touch is actually the firing of nerve ends (at the point of contact) sending a raw information along its length to the brain.
This information has no reality/meaning other than what the brain gives it – an example apparent in the medical condition called synesthesia (this condition mixes up sensory information for sufferers, so some can ‘feel’ in a tactile sence ‘taste’, or see words and sound in their visual field). Other experiments of simple nerve induction can break away the boundaries of the body, so one can seemingly feel pain in mid air outside of the perceived body. This pain does not exist in mid air - it's simply the brains model of external reality breaking down slightly.
This raw information is then processed by the brain into what the conscious awareness (us) perceives as ‘touch’. Our awareness knows the brain generated interpretation of the attempt to touch external reality, rather than the raw nerve firing which triggered it. But even the raw nerve firing is not the thing we touched - it is a reaction to it. So even at the most basic level of sensory perception generation - we never really interact with the object we attempt to.
This is the case with all sensory perception.
If I touch, taste, hear, smell and see a solid lucid dream environment – that does not mean that environment has an existence outside of brain/mind just by the nature of me experiencing it.

Sensory perceptions have no existence outside of those generated by the brain/mind – this can be seen in cases of people born blind or deaf – such concepts as sight or sound are beyond them.




And nowhere in my previous post or the quote of Huxley have matter, body, time or space been defined. How brain/mind received information of what we consider to be external physical reality was stated, and how that information has been shown by science to be minimal at best (not the detailed reality we perceive), and how the brain generates our reality perception based on this input was written – nothing more.
It’s known that mind cannot distinguish between imagination and external reality – interesting scientific papers detail how a group gained significant muscle mass through the act of visualisation of weight lifting alone. A control group who did nothing gained no muscle mass and another group who weight lifted gained most mass. This and many other experiments backup the view of reality being mind generated.
Do you disagree that sensory organs only receive information, or do you perceive the eyes to project photons which paint the external world? If we cannot be certain of the most rudimentary logical deductions backed up by empirical evidence – we might as well stop all learning right now.
Abstract knowledge, by definition can be no more than belief system. Abstractions hold no more insight than what they are given – and even that insight is ambiguous.

It should also be said that the phasing model of ap is built upon these ideas. Physical reality being just a focus state on the spectrum of consciousness.

I know you haven't defined your terms. I thought that is what I said.[/*:m:3i53bcja]
You say, "It’s known that mind cannot distinguish between imagination and external reality..." But I do it all the time! For example, I can imagine reaching over to pick up an imaginary coffee cup, without actually doing so. Perhaps you are using some terms ambiguously?


There is a difference between a sentient awareness controlling action based upon a lifetime of learnt response (distinguishing between internal and external reality) and base generation of perception from electronic impulses triggered by sensory organs. As you notice you said ‘I do that [all of the time]’ not ‘my mind/brain does that [all of the time]’.

There are cases of sentient awareness being able to interact with objects which do not exist in physical reality. Anticholergenics (http://wikipedia.lotsofinformation.com/wiki/index.php?title=Datura) are chemical compounds which can make a user see fully 3d interactive hallucinations in external reality. They can smoke imaginary cigarettes, drink imaginary drinks – actually experiencing the entire group of sensations one would experience if a drink was really consumed, have detailed conversations with people who are really not there. They are very dangerous substances (before people get ideas).
These chemicals show that even on the sentient awareness level one can have their external reality model completely fooled. They also show that our perception of external reality does not have to match what actually might be there - it only matches what our brain generates.




[/*:m:3i53bcja]
Furthermore, the example given would seem to indicate that the body may not distinguish between imagination and experience.


I would disagree with that inference; the body is controlled by brain/mind, and so on its own it knows nothing but what the brain/mind informs it of(within the boundaries of its mode of operation).



[/*:m:3i53bcja]
Sensory organs do what they do. My hand, for example, is a sensory organ. But I use it for other purposes, as well.


But if you did not have any form of sensory organs, your hand would be useless as you would never even know if you moved it or not – let alone carried out your desired intention.


[/*:m:3i53bcja]
You write... "Abstract knowledge, by definition can be no more than belief system." By definition abstract knowledge is knowledge drawn from abstraction. For example, a child sees a variety of objects. He discovers that such sensory phantasms can be divided into categories: animal, vegetable, mineral... I would not call such knowledge a belief. To be a belief one must add a predicate. For example, many have accepted as belief that all swans are white.[/*:m:3i53bcja]
Please forgive my being tedious. But in philosophy one must be very careful, lest one be drawn into absolute statements where only relative ones are appropriate.


A belief system can be shared by more than one human. The categorisation of objects into seemingly related groups has no meaning outside that of human society (and only parts of human society which have learnt such categorisation), such categorisation are based entirely upon human perception and logic. For example – if humans had a narrow sense of visual perception – on par with a dog perhaps (seeing no colour only intensity of light) then It would be arguable that all swans are white. They only seem to be due to the current nature of our brains visual interpretation and the range of light frequencies (and intensities) that our eye organs can generate. I guess an argument could be made that a swams feathers absorbs wavelengths between x micron and x micron - and so classify it as such a colour (wavelength range).



By the way... I suspect that Huxley may have used too much sacramental mescaline. 8) If so, it might have affected his judgment.

That might be the case – who can say ;)

So whenever we touch others, we actually touch our minds interpretation of that touch, the same with all sensory perception.
The statement is illogical. You seems to be using the word touch ambiguously. Perhaps a better way to say what you have in mind is...

Further, whatever is received into "a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver and not of the received." But whatever is seen is, in a way, received into the seer.
and "the same with all sensory perception..."


The ambiguousness of the statement was due to my choice of words. What I mean is if we chose to interact with something we perceive to be ‘external’ (reality) using tactile sensory organs (touch) – the perception of touch is actually the firing of nerve ends (at the point of contact) sending a raw information along its length to the brain.

So is the feeling in the hand which touches or in the brain to which that information is conveyed? You say it is in the hand, the "the point of contact." Others would say it is in the brain. Others would say that it is a mere quality belonging to certain acts.


This information has no reality/meaning other than what the brain gives it – an example apparent in the medical condition called synesthesia (this condition mixes up sensory information for sufferers, so some can ‘feel’ in a tactile sence ‘taste’, or see words and sound in their visual field).

I am familiar with the concept. Unfortunately, you are simply assuming what you claim to prove. Certainly some cases of synesthesia may be caused by physical disabilities. But it seems to overstate the empirical evidence to claim that all are.


Other experiments of simple nerve induction can break away the boundaries of the body, so one can seemingly feel pain in mid air outside of the perceived body. This pain does not exist in mid air - it's simply the brains model of external reality breaking down slightly.
Again, you are assuming what you claim to prove. Until we can agree on a common understanding the properties of mind, body and space, you will have no ground on which to build a proof. How can one prove that the mind is either present or absent in the space outside one's body until we agree on what the mind is? -- what space is? -- what the body is?


This raw information is then processed by the brain into what the conscious awareness (us) perceives as ‘touch’. Our awareness knows the brain generated interpretation of the attempt to touch external reality, rather than the raw nerve firing which triggered it. But even the raw nerve firing is not the thing we touched - it is a reaction to it. So even at the most basic level of sensory perception generation - we never really interact with the object we attempt to.

Poppycock! You may not interact with anything, but I do constantly, sitting on a chair, breathing, pressing keys on my computer keyboard, rereading and editing what I have written, etc. etc. etc. What kind of science do they teach now days, anyway? What kind of logic? You need to think clearly if you are going to make sense to anyone else!


This is the case with all sensory perception.
If I touch, taste, hear, smell and see a solid lucid dream environment – that does not mean that environment has an existence outside of brain/mind just by the nature of me experiencing it.
What is a "brain/mind?" As I see it, the brain is part of the body; the mind is a habitual potency for a certain kind of activity. In particular, it is the habitual potency for intellectual activity (or thought). Which is it, body or mind?


Sensory perceptions have no existence outside of those generated by the brain/mind – this can be seen in cases of people born blind or deaf – such concepts as sight or sound are beyond them.


It is clear that the body does play a part in cognition. Aristotle noted as much. In more recent years, the part which the brain has in cognition has been deeply explored.

True science tends to be very modest in regard to such claims, stating no more than the evidence suggests. You, on the other hand, seem to be enamored of these grandiose statements of absolutes.

As to people who are deaf or blind... It is hard to say whether they can have such concepts or not. Certainly some people who have gone blind have experienced synesthetic vision produced by hearing or touch -- just as people who have had an arm or a leg amputated may continue to feel the missing limb. I see no reason arbitrarily to deny that people born blind or deaf may have synesthetic vision or hearing. The mere fact that they may not acknowledge such an experience for what it is does not disprove its existence. A likely explanation for their silence is that they had no way to learn the significance of such experiences.




I know you haven't defined your terms. I thought that is what I said.[/*:m:24o8jof0]
You say, "It’s known that mind cannot distinguish between imagination and external reality..." But I do it all the time! For example, I can imagine reaching over to pick up an imaginary coffee cup, without actually doing so. Perhaps you are using some terms ambiguously?[/*:m:24o8jof0]

There is a difference between a sentient awareness controlling action based upon a lifetime of learnt response (distinguishing between internal and external reality) and base generation of perception from electronic impulses triggered by sensory organs. As you notice you said ‘I do that [all of the time]’ not ‘my mind/brain does that [all of the time]’.

I am the one who acts. The mind is a habitual potency for intellectual action (or thought). The brain is part of my body. I use it, just as I use my hand or my stomach. In particular, the brain seems to be important for producing certain hormones, and in exercising controls over other parts of my body.

There are cases of sentient awareness being able to interact with objects which do not exist in physical reality. Anticholergenics (http://wikipedia.lotsofinformation.com/wiki/index.php?title=Datura) are chemical compounds which can make a user see fully 3d interactive hallucinations in external reality. They can smoke imaginary cigarettes, drink imaginary drinks – actually experiencing the entire group of sensations one would experience if a drink was really consumed, have detailed conversations with people who are really not there. They are very dangerous substances (before people get ideas).
These chemicals show that even on the sentient awareness level one can have their external reality model completely fooled. They also show that our perception of external reality does not have to match what actually might be there - it only matches what our brain generates.
There are many things which interfere with the control functions of the brain. Hitting someone on the head has been known to have extraordinary effects. But again, you are just assuming what you claim to prove.

(For what it is worth, that web page you linked to is very, very poorly formatted.)


Furthermore, the example given would seem to indicate that the body may not distinguish between imagination and experience.
I would disagree with that inference; the body is controlled by brain/mind, and so on its own it knows nothing but what the brain/mind informs it of(within the boundaries of its mode of operation).


Last time I checked, the brain was part of the body.



Sensory organs do what they do. My hand, for example, is a sensory organ. But I use it for other purposes, as well.
But if you did not have any form of sensory organs, your hand would be useless as you would never even know if you moved it or not – let alone carried out your desired intention.

I do not believe I ever denied the existence of sense organs. In fact, I thought I said that the hand is such an organ.


You write... "Abstract knowledge, by definition can be no more than belief system." By definition abstract knowledge is knowledge drawn from abstraction. For example, a child sees a variety of objects. He discovers that such sensory phantasms can be divided into categories: animal, vegetable, mineral... I would not call such knowledge a belief. To be a belief one must add a predicate. For example, many have accepted as belief that all swans are white.

Please forgive my being tedious. But in philosophy one must be very careful, lest one be drawn into absolute statements where only relative ones are appropriate.


A belief system can be shared by more than one human. The categorisation of objects into seemingly related groups has no meaning outside that of human society (and only parts of human society which have learnt such categorisation), such categorisation are based entirely upon human perception and logic. For example – if humans had a narrow sense of visual perception – on par with a dog perhaps (seeing no colour only intensity of light) then It would be arguable that all swans are white. They only seem to be due to the current nature of our brains visual interpretation and the range of light frequencies (and intensities) that our eye organs can generate. I guess an argument could be made that a swams feathers absorbs wavelengths between x micron and x micron - and so classify it as such a colour (wavelength range).

Now you switch from beliefs to belief systems, something I hadn't mentioned.

Categories certainly would exist even without my existence or that of any man. Dogs and cats have categorized things well enough to have developed specific behavior patterns toward each other. And so it is with all animals.

But even inanimate matter acts according to fixed categories. Thus electrons tend to be attracted to protons, without any man having to tell them what to do.

Further, whatever is received into "a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver and not of the received." But whatever is seen is, in a way, received into the seer.

[Chris]

So is the feeling in the hand which touches or in the brain to which that information is conveyed? You say it is in the hand, the "the point of contact." Others would say it is in the brain. Others would say that it is a mere quality belonging to certain acts.


I thought I made it clear that the feeling was generated in the brain by the activity of nerve cells in the hand. The only way we know the hand has touched anything is because the brain processes the data of the touch – and we feel that ‘touch’ in the brain.



I am familiar with the concept. Unfortunately, you are simply assuming what you claim to prove. Certainly some cases of synesthesia may be caused by physical disabilities. But it seems to overstate the empirical evidence to claim that all are.


My use of synesthesia was to show how perception of external reality is affected by the brain.


you are assuming what you claim to prove. Until we can agree on a common understanding the properties of mind, body and space, you will have no ground on which to build a proof. How can one prove that the mind is either present or absent in the space outside one's body until we agree on what the mind is? -- what space is? -- what the body is?




Poppycock! You may not interact with anything, but I do constantly, sitting on a chair, breathing, pressing keys on my computer keyboard, rereading and editing what I have written, etc. etc. etc. What kind of science do they teach now days, anyway? What kind of logic? You need to think clearly if you are going to make sense to anyone else!


I think you are missing my point. The basis of my claim was that the external physical reality which we perceive and interact with is perceived internally. I am not claiming that external reality *only* exists within the brain – but we perceive it through data generated by the brain. I can fully appreciated in this physical universe there seems to be a shared physical reality between separate beings – but that reality is interpreted and presented to an ‘observer’ by the brain through the use of sensory data.
What this means is that yes you can interact with ‘external’ objects, but that interaction is experienced second hand – you experience the results and interactions in the internal generated perception of sensory data.
Such as if I wanted to move a cup:
To perceive the cup visually photons which have bounced off the cup hit the rods and cones on my retina, this generates electrical pulses which travel along the nerve to the vision centre of the brain. These signals are used to create the vision of the cup – i.e. you see the cup in your brain.
To move the cup, pulses are transmitted from the brain to the arm and hand muscles, the hand moves in the desired direction and grasps the cup. Nerves on the hand transmit pulses to the brain which generates the perception of holding the cup (and various qualities like its texture, temperature etc) in the brain. While your hand is holding the cup in reality – you experience these sensations generated by sensory data in the brain.
Do you dispute any of the above?
All sensory data is processed and experienced in the brain (is what I have been saying all along). This is basic biology.



What is a "brain/mind?" As I see it, the brain is part of the body; the mind is a habitual potency for a certain kind of activity. In particular, it is the habitual potency for intellectual activity (or thought). Which is it, body or mind?

I agree with the above. I should perhaps admit I meant brain in previous posts, but due to past experience and consequent arguments on OBE boards regarding mind and brain, I used the term ‘brain/mind’ as I had no idea where you stand on the subject.



It is clear that the body does play a part in cognition. Aristotle noted as much. In more recent years, the part which the brain has in cognition has been deeply explored.

True science tends to be very modest in regard to such claims, stating no more than the evidence suggests. You, on the other hand, seem to be enamored of these grandiose statements of absolutes.

As to people who are deaf or blind... It is hard to say whether they can have such concepts or not. Certainly some people who have gone blind have experienced synesthetic vision produced by hearing or touch -- just as people who have had an arm or a leg amputated may continue to feel the missing limb. I see no reason arbitrarily to deny that people born blind or deaf may have synesthetic vision or hearing. The mere fact that they may not acknowledge such an experience for what it is does not disprove its existence. A likely explanation for their silence is that they had no way to learn the significance of such experiences.


Please show which grandiose claims of absolutes I have used. I have quoted nothing which isn’t already in the scientific domain – perhaps you misinterpreted my intentions which lead to this assumption.
My assumption of blind since birth people having no concept of visual data was based on research. One piece of research found the visual cortex in people blind from birth was reassigned to processing verbal data. Interestingly, people who went blind after birth (so the visual cortex formed somewhat) were outperformed in verbal communication tests by blind since birth people who had a greater area of brain given over to such tasks.
I have also had a lot of contact with deaf and blind people, and conversations with blind/deaf since birth lead to my previous assumptions. I fully admit that this is purely circumstantial.




I am the one who acts. The mind is a habitual potency for intellectual action (or thought). The brain is part of my body. I use it, just as I use my hand or my stomach. In particular, the brain seems to be important for producing certain hormones, and in exercising controls over other parts of my body.


I have never claimed you were not the one who acts, but each act is processed by the brain, and the result of that action is also processed by the brain. That was my original meaning.



(For what it is worth, that web page you linked to is very, very poorly formatted.)


Agreed. I was in a rush when writing my previous post. A google search of Datura will provide all the information you could need.



[quote:3esn4ksp]
Furthermore, the example given would seem to indicate that the body may not distinguish between imagination and experience.

Last time I checked, the brain was part of the body.
[/quote:3esn4ksp]

And that is just arguing semantics. Body is completely controlled through brain – so your ascertation that body might not be able to distinguish between imagination and experiences made no sense (unless you claim the body processes information independently of the brain). I was just clearing that up.



Now you switch from beliefs to belief systems, something I hadn't mentioned.

Categories certainly would exist even without my existence or that of any man. Dogs and cats have categorized things well enough to have developed specific behavior patterns toward each other. And so it is with all animals.

But even inanimate matter acts according to fixed categories. Thus electrons tend to be attracted to protons, without any man having to tell them what to do.


A belief system is simply a number of beliefs. Such as a category is a number of objects or references.
A category is a structure which usually contains objects that logic dictates have sufficient similarity to be placed at a certain position in a hierarchy or list in regards to other objects. It has no control over the objects it contains (apart from organising them). Electrons might be attracted to protons through the action of the electromagnetic force but that does automatically create a category (without man to catagorise, by what and where would the category be stored?)
The example you give actually backs up my point, that is “dogs and cats have categorised” i.e. the categories are generated by the dogs and cats – they have no reality outside of that.
A great example of this is research done on the Mundurukú tribe (from central Brazil) which found they can only conceive of the numbers 1 to 5, anything above 5 was categorised as a ‘handful’ (be it 6,7,8, or 100). Such a basic category such as numbers is not even universal.


If needed I’ll quote any sources of scientific data I have written about.

So is the feeling in the hand which touches or in the brain to which that information is conveyed? You say it is in the hand, the "the point of contact." Others would say it is in the brain. Others would say that it is a mere quality belonging to certain acts.


I thought I made it clear that the feeling was generated in the brain by the activity of nerve cells in the hand. The only way we know the hand has touched anything is because the brain processes the data of the touch – and we feel that ‘touch’ in the brain.
According to your own principles, I cannot read your mind... (I would agree, but not for the same reason -- I imagine -- that you believe it.) As such, I have to take what you wrote as literally what you meant -- even when it seems to contradict something else you wrote. For men often do contradict themselves. Thus you cannot make yourself clear as long as you contradict yourself.

Going back to your response... I would argue that the feeling you refer to is in the mind, not the brain. That is to say, it is intellectual, not material. For as...
Further, whatever is received into "a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver and not of the received." But whatever is seen is, in a way, received into the seer.

and "the same with all sensory perception..." Thus the feeling of touch is received intellectually. For the mind is intellectual.



I am familiar with the concept. Unfortunately, you are simply assuming what you claim to prove. Certainly some cases of synesthesia may be caused by physical disabilities. But it seems to overstate the empirical evidence to claim that all are.


My use of synesthesia was to show how perception of external reality is affected by the brain.
What synesthesia shows is that men are often mistaken. It doesn't particularly show how such mistakes occur.



you are assuming what you claim to prove. Until we can agree on a common understanding the properties of mind, body and space, you will have no ground on which to build a proof. How can one prove that the mind is either present or absent in the space outside one's body until we agree on what the mind is? -- what space is? -- what the body is?




Poppycock! You may not interact with anything, but I do constantly, sitting on a chair, breathing, pressing keys on my computer keyboard, rereading and editing what I have written, etc. etc. etc. What kind of science do they teach now days, anyway? What kind of logic? You need to think clearly if you are going to make sense to anyone else!


I think you are missing my point. The basis of my claim was that the external physical reality which we perceive and interact with is perceived internally. I am not claiming that external reality *only* exists within the brain – but we perceive it through data generated by the brain. I can fully appreciated in this physical universe there seems to be a shared physical reality between separate beings – but that reality is interpreted and presented to an ‘observer’ by the brain through the use of sensory data.
What this means is that yes you can interact with ‘external’ objects, but that interaction is experienced second hand – you experience the results and interactions in the internal generated perception of sensory data.
Such as if I wanted to move a cup:
To perceive the cup visually photons which have bounced off the cup hit the rods and cones on my retina, this generates electrical pulses which travel along the nerve to the vision centre of the brain. These signals are used to create the vision of the cup – i.e. you see the cup in your brain.
To move the cup, pulses are transmitted from the brain to the arm and hand muscles, the hand moves in the desired direction and grasps the cup. Nerves on the hand transmit pulses to the brain which generates the perception of holding the cup (and various qualities like its texture, temperature etc) in the brain. While your hand is holding the cup in reality – you experience these sensations generated by sensory data in the brain.
Do you dispute any of the above?
All sensory data is processed and experienced in the brain (is what I have been saying all along). This is basic biology.

I have never seen a cup in my brain. Sight is intellectual, not physical, as I have shown. This is basic logic!




What is a "brain/mind?" As I see it, the brain is part of the body; the mind is a habitual potency for a certain kind of activity. In particular, it is the habitual potency for intellectual activity (or thought). Which is it, body or mind?

I agree with the above. I should perhaps admit I meant brain in previous posts, but due to past experience and consequent arguments on OBE boards regarding mind and brain, I used the term ‘brain/mind’ as I had no idea where you stand on the subject.
Fantastic! We agree on something, at least.




It is clear that the body does play a part in cognition. Aristotle noted as much. In more recent years, the part which the brain has in cognition has been deeply explored.

True science tends to be very modest in regard to such claims, stating no more than the evidence suggests. You, on the other hand, seem to be enamored of these grandiose statements of absolutes.

As to people who are deaf or blind... It is hard to say whether they can have such concepts or not. Certainly some people who have gone blind have experienced synesthetic vision produced by hearing or touch -- just as people who have had an arm or a leg amputated may continue to feel the missing limb. I see no reason arbitrarily to deny that people born blind or deaf may have synesthetic vision or hearing. The mere fact that they may not acknowledge such an experience for what it is does not disprove its existence. A likely explanation for their silence is that they had no way to learn the significance of such experiences.


Please show which grandiose claims of absolutes I have used. I have quoted nothing which isn’t already in the scientific domain – perhaps you misinterpreted my intentions which lead to this assumption.
I only meant to refer to your absolute denial of simple logic, as absolute statements of fact.



My assumption of blind since birth people having no concept of visual data was based on research. One piece of research found the visual cortex in people blind from birth was reassigned to processing verbal data. Interestingly, people who went blind after birth (so the visual cortex formed somewhat) were outperformed in verbal communication tests by blind since birth people who had a greater area of brain given over to such tasks.
I have also had a lot of contact with deaf and blind people, and conversations with blind/deaf since birth lead to my previous assumptions. I fully admit that this is purely circumstantial.

I am simply pointing out the possibility of synesthetic vision in a blind person -- or synesthetic hearing in a deaf person.

I have limited experience of blind people. I have however, spent many hours using sign language with a deaf friend...




I am the one who acts. The mind is a habitual potency for intellectual action (or thought). The brain is part of my body. I use it, just as I use my hand or my stomach. In particular, the brain seems to be important for producing certain hormones, and in exercising controls over other parts of my body.


I have never claimed you were not the one who acts, but each act is processed by the brain, and the result of that action is also processed by the brain. That was my original meaning.

My brain acts in the sense that a part of me may participate in my act. Thus when I pick up a coffee cup it is I who acts. My hand, however, participates in my act. And so it is with the brain, as well.


I would disagree with that inference; the body is controlled by brain/mind, and so on its own it knows nothing but what the brain/mind informs it of(within the boundaries of its mode of operation).


Last time I checked, the brain was part of the body.


And that is just arguing semantics. Body is completely controlled through brain – so your ascertation that body might not be able to distinguish between imagination and experiences made no sense (unless you claim the body processes information independently of the brain). I was just clearing that up.

I control my body. When I act, my body and all of its parts including the brain participate in that act.




Now you switch from beliefs to belief systems, something I hadn't mentioned.

Categories certainly would exist even without my existence or that of any man. Dogs and cats have categorized things well enough to have developed specific behavior patterns toward each other. And so it is with all animals.

But even inanimate matter acts according to fixed categories. Thus electrons tend to be attracted to protons, without any man having to tell them what to do.


A belief system is simply a number of beliefs. Such as a category is a number of objects or references.
A category is a structure which usually contains objects that logic dictates have sufficient similarity to be placed at a certain position in a hierarchy or list in regards to other objects. It has no control over the objects it contains (apart from organising them). Electrons might be attracted to protons through the action of the electromagnetic force but that does automatically create a category (without man to catagorise, by what and where would the category be stored?)
The example you give actually backs up my point, that is “dogs and cats have categorised” i.e. the categories are generated by the dogs and cats – they have no reality outside of that.
A great example of this is research done on the Mundurukú tribe (from central Brazil) which found they can only conceive of the numbers 1 to 5, anything above 5 was categorised as a ‘handful’ (be it 6,7,8, or 100). Such a basic category such as numbers is not even universal.

Categories have no structure...

Electrons are a category. They do not create one. Categories exist intellectually. There is no need for them to be stored anywhere, for they are not matter. In a similar way, cats and dogs are categories. The do not create categories -- they merely recognize them.

If you line up ten Mundurukú, there will be ten of them regardless of whether they can enumerate themselves. Thus, they too prove my point, which is that thought is intellectual, not physical.


If needed I’ll quote any sources of scientific data I have written about.

There is no need to produce citations. If a need comes up, I will ask.

In my humble opinion, I think the basic difference between us is that you are seem to recognize only the efficient cause of being, while I recognize all four causes.

[Chris]

Going back to your response... I would argue that the feeling you refer to is in the mind, not the brain. That is to say, it is intellectual, not material. For as...


I disagree with this. The mind might conceptualise such a thing, or add meaning to it, but the origin of touch is purely on the brain level. Pain, which is a form of tactile sensation can be felt by a new born which at the moment of birth has no intellect (intellect being formed over time based upon experience). So this seems to suggest touch is felt/interpreted at the brain level. Some argue now that even foetuses above a certain age threshold can feel pain – will you argue that foetuses have a noticeable mind and intellect?



and "the same with all sensory perception..." Thus the feeling of touch is received intellectually. For the mind is intellectual.


Please state what you mean by intellectual – because if you maintain touch is received intellectually, that means every animal with a nervous system, down to the smallest fly and below (I’m not sure personally what animal/object contains the smallest nervous system) has the ability to intellectualise else it would not react to recieved sensory perceptions.



I have never seen a cup in my brain. Sight is intellectual, not physical, as I have shown. This is basic logic!


You have not shown this at all. Let’s take a dictionary definition of intellect:



in•tel•lect ( n tl- kt )
n.
1.
a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. See Synonyms at mind.
2. A person of great intellectual ability.


Are you seriously saying only biological beings with the ability to think abstractly or profoundly, and have the capacity for knowledge and understanding can see? With such a statement, you either say every animal with sight organs (right down to the amoeba level) has the ability to intellectualise – or such a statement is wrong, and sight (along with every sensory perception) is experienced on a purely brain level first.
http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/pain.html
I certainly know that when I take painkillers, which do nothing more then act on certain receptor of the nervous system (not on an intellectual level of the mind!), they do cure the pain.

Another example.


even people in a persistent vegetative state are able to make complex responses to painful stimuli. They can cry out or screw up their faces without ever being conscious of their surroundings.
Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3673
So a human with no intellectual capability still experiences sensory perception? It definitely seems to suggest so.



Electrons are a category. They do not create one. Categories exist intellectually. There is no need for them to be stored anywhere, for they are not matter. In a similar way, cats and dogs are categories. The do not create categories -- they merely recognize them.

If you line up ten Mundurukú, there will be ten of them regardless of whether they can enumerate themselves. Thus, they too prove my point, which is that thought is intellectual, not physical.


This is what I was originally saying! That is abstraction has no reality outside of the mind – it is a purely subjective entity. I think we are getting our wires crossed in some places here ;)



In my humble opinion, I think the basic difference between us is that you are seem to recognize only the efficient cause of being, while I recognize all four causes.


Out of curiosity, what would you say the four causes are?

Going back to your response... I would argue that the feeling you refer to is in the mind, not the brain. That is to say, it is intellectual, not material. For as...



I disagree with this. The mind might conceptualise such a thing, or add meaning to it, but the origin of touch is purely on the brain level. Pain, which is a form of tactile sensation can be felt by a new born which at the moment of birth has no intellect (intellect being formed over time based upon experience). So this seems to suggest touch is felt/interpreted at the brain level. Some argue now that even foetuses above a certain age threshold can feel pain – will you argue that foetuses have a noticeable mind and intellect?
I do not particularly distinguish between the intellectual soul and the sensitive soul. I do distinguish between sense and logos. They are different transcendental predicates.

As Aristotle noted, even animals have a sort of prudence. Modern Science has generally confirmed this. Studies with animals have shown little fundamental difference between their minds and human minds.

The difference between different animals is in the degree to which imagination is active. Dogs have little. Men have much. Even among men there are times when imagination is inactive. For example, when a man is deeply asleep. But since we have defined the mind to be a habitual potency, we must acknowledge it even when he is deeply asleep. It is much same in a foetus -- the imagination is undeveloped.




and "the same with all sensory perception..." Thus the feeling of touch is received intellectually. For the mind is intellectual.


Please state what you mean by intellectual – because if you maintain touch is received intellectually, that means every animal with a nervous system, down to the smallest fly and below (I’m not sure personally what animal/object contains the smallest nervous system) has the ability to intellectualise else it would not react to recieved sensory perceptions.


Nothing fancy... I simply meant that sense objects are received into the mind. It's fairly obvious if you think about it. One can think about sense objects only because the mind perceives them.



I have never seen a cup in my brain. Sight is intellectual, not physical, as I have shown. This is basic logic!


You have not shown this at all. Let’s take a dictionary definition of intellect:



in•tel•lect ( n tl- kt )
n.
1.
a. The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and understanding.
b. The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. See Synonyms at mind.
2. A person of great intellectual ability.


Are you seriously saying only biological beings with the ability to think abstractly or profoundly, and have the capacity for knowledge and understanding can see? With such a statement, you either say every animal with sight organs (right down to the amoeba level) has the ability to intellectualise – or such a statement is wrong, and sight (along with every sensory perception) is experienced on a purely brain level first.
http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/pain.html
I certainly know that when I take painkillers, which do nothing more then act on certain receptor of the nervous system (not on an intellectual level of the mind!), they do cure the pain.

Another example.

What I meant is that there is not room inside my skull for there to be a coffee cup in there, as you had indicated. I think it would kill one if somehow a coffee cup became embedded in his brain. How would it get in there without cracking his skull?



even people in a persistent vegetative state are able to make complex responses to painful stimuli. They can cry out or screw up their faces without ever being conscious of their surroundings.
Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3673
So a human with no intellectual capability still experiences sensory perception? It definitely seems to suggest so.
I suspect that such a person's imagination would not function normally in such circumstances.




Electrons are a category. They do not create one. Categories exist intellectually. There is no need for them to be stored anywhere, for they are not matter. In a similar way, cats and dogs are categories. The do not create categories -- they merely recognize them.

If you line up ten Mundurukú, there will be ten of them regardless of whether they can enumerate themselves. Thus, they too prove my point, which is that thought is intellectual, not physical.


This is what I was originally saying! That is abstraction has no reality outside of the mind – it is a purely subjective entity. I think we are getting our wires crossed in some places here ;)
I have no idea how you could get that from what I said. Clearly the abstract number 10 exists regardless of whether a Mundurukú recognizes it. The same would be true if one put ten babies in a room. There would be exactly ten of them regardless of the fact that they cannot count.




In my humble opinion, I think the basic difference between us is that you are seem to recognize only the efficient cause of being, while I recognize all four causes.


Out of curiosity, what would you say the four causes are?

I have written of that elsewhere...

http://forums.astraldynamics.com/viewtopic.php?t=1322

:idea: Hi again ppl, what do you advice me to do? How to overcome this problem?? I am going on a psychic doctor this week, but I it will be nice if you give some advices or proofs of that problem - how to live normal again?
It looks like the dialog between Chris and myself has come to a stopping point. I am not sure that we have said anything of any value in solving your problem.

As I see it, one reason for our apparent failure is that we were working with a small part of the big picture -- dealing only with words. And, as I said, before, words often tend to separate -- exactly the thing you don't need -- while pictures and the body tend to unite.

As a father, I have to ask myself, whether it makes sense to suppose that my children are a figment of the imagination. I think not. Fatherhood, coming from the body, certainly gives one an anchor in such matters.

At times, one must simply suffer through the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Suffering, too, is of the body. I believe Dostoyevski wrote, "suffering is the beginning of consciousness." (If he didn't, he should have.) The good thing about suffering is that suffering will pass.

I think you should ignore the words, swirling around and concentrate on activity (which, of course, is of the body). If you must think, think as much as you can in terms of pictures. That may be difficult, of course. We are often so bogged down in words.

Here is a good exercise... Every night, take a picture and write down ten things about it. That can be harder than it sounds. The mind can only keep five or six things together at the same time. Pictures, on the other hand, can present one with thousands of different things. Yet the mind will only let us see five or six of them.

And, of course, find yourself a good friend. One friend can save one in times of difficulty. If you can, find one of the opposite sex... (Sex, of course, is from the body.) Your body is your friend. It will never lie to you. But you need to know how to listen to what it says...

At times, one must simply suffer through the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Suffering, too, is of the body. I believe Dostoyevski wrote, "suffering is the beginning of consciousness." (If he didn't, he should have.) The good thing about suffering is that suffering will pass.
I found the quote: "Why, suffering is the sole origin of consciousness." It comes from Notes from the Underground.

http://www.ccel.org/d/dostoevsky/underground/underground11.txt

One other thing...

Your body is your friend. It will never lie to you. But you need to know how to listen to what it says...
It might help to spend a few minutes every day doing some rhythmic movement. Call it dancing if you like. Put on some music and move to the rhythm. Five minutes a day should be enough...

Hey all ,

So here's a thought, What if " I " am the only real person in the world and God is projecting everything around me so he can test me being human ? ...I mean it's an interesting thought ..I am not reffering to ME specificaly, but to anyone who might ask this question .... just think ... what if YOU are the only one real and God is projecting everything around YOU just to test you ? ..any ideas ? ..

Question: 'Lets say I think that I am the only one real around and I think everyone is just a projection - illusion - (no offence) ...how could you prove me wrong?"

Well this is a very long thread and I am not into reading the whole thing, but I do want to comment on this and to give my opinion.

I think it is interesting that you would ask this because I once had a theory that we are all dreaming and that these lives we have are our dream lives and the characters around us including our own bodies are dream bodies. It is not at all impossible for this to be true. The existence of one thing never negates the existence of something else, thus anything is possible. Anything is possible.

Hey all ,

So here's a thought, What if " I " am the only real person in the world and God is projecting everything around me so he can test me being human ? ...I mean it's an interesting thought ..I am not reffering to ME specificaly, but to anyone who might ask this question .... just think ... what if YOU are the only one real and God is projecting everything around YOU just to test you ? ..any ideas ? ..

Question: 'Lets say I think that I am the only one real around and I think everyone is just a projection - illusion - (no offence) ...how could you prove me wrong?"

Well this is a very long thread and I am not into reading the whole thing, but I do want to comment on this and to give my opinion.

I think it is interesting that you would ask this because I once had a theory that we are all dreaming and that these lives we have are our dream lives and the characters around us including our own bodies are dream bodies. It is not at all impossible for this to be true. The existence of one thing never negates the existence of something else, thus anything is possible. Anything is possible.
The idea expressed in this question is known to philosophers as Solipsism (http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm).

The big problem with Solipsism is that no sane person believes it. One may, of course, play games, challenging other people to prove that they exist. But the real question is whether one can walk through walls, leap tall buildings at a single bound, fly like a bird, etc. without hurting oneself.

[Akorah]

Sorry to join in so late.. but i think you guys need to put your guns away.. I think we have already established the fact that this will never be proven. So perhaps we can get back onto the philosophical side of the theory i.e. the purpose of all this, and what exactly is all this - if it is all one mind/one god - what are the mechanics behind it? how exactly does it function/operate? to what end?

I only recently found out this is known as Silopsism... I have experienced this peusdo-matrix concept several times now on a personal first-hand experience level, on about 5-6 separate occasions. The more attention I place on it.. the more likely it seems true, the more coincidences/synchronicities occur, the more rules i am able to bend/break, and subsequently.. the more insane and unwell I become. I believe I know a few ways to break the entire system down.. but doing so would result in non-existence as someone mentioned earlier.. losing yourSELF. The only way about it is to go back to ignorance, or at least half way back to ignorance - knowing it as a truth - but continuing on for the sake of more knowledge and experience in order to evolve or perhaps become more wholesome, or at the very least try and live a life that you are happy with so that you are not so bothered by it. I have several theories on the mechanics/operation/construct.. one in particular which is quite unique and thought-provoking but I am somewhat reluctant to post it (for reasons i will explain later).

It can be quite depressive to experience Silopsism first-hand and if you openly admit to it.. or rather ask others if they are real, you will be locked up in the looney bin for some time (believe me I know..) and it makes you wonder if these 'people' who are in mental hospitals, if perhaps some of them aren't insane but have tapped into this knowing, and the drugs are a good way of shutting them up basically because continuing on the path is a self-induced death sentence (and i'm not talking about committing suicide here). It's also interesting to note that many mental patients claim the same things "I can hear voices.." or "i get messages through the TV/Radio" and in fact, on the generic assessment form those are 2 of the most commonly asked questions by doctors "are you hearing any voices?" and also "have you been getting any messages from the TV/Radio?". Now, when I experience this concept of Silopsism.. it's as though everyone who isn't me, can read my thoughts/feelings/intentions but although they dont show it in an easily understandable way, they do show it symbolically. At any given moment when I am around people or the TV, I can become more aware of my internal thoughts/feelings and notice that they are being represented back to me through these mediums in a symbolic fashion, and the way to recognising this, is to interpret it all as relating to you personally and figuratively in accordance with what you are currently thinking/feeling in any present moment.

It really is an interesting dilemma that will in all likelihood never be solved - and if it was that could possibly lead to the end of existence anyway (which is why earlier i said i was reluctant to share my working theory). It is also quite a complex theory and I would expect no less for the answer to the big question of "what is this place and why am i here?". A very interesting thought however.. is what if there are multiples of these constructs of mind... i.e. multidimensionality each one existing within its own 'simulation' but all interconnected on an unconscious level (or better yet.. through the internet!). Perhaps the people I see are creations of my mind, but how do i know the posts I read on this forum aren't other minds trapped in their own reality? But as Celeborn pointed out.. at the end of the day even if it is just you and God...or me and God...and everything is as one.. in the end it does not really matter at all.

[Korpo]

I only recently found out this is known as Silopsism... I have experienced this peusdo-matrix concept several times now on a personal first-hand experience level, on about 5-6 separate occasions. The more attention I place on it.. the more likely it seems true, the more coincidences/synchronicities occur, the more rules i am able to bend/break, and subsequently.. the more insane and unwell I become. I believe I know a few ways to break the entire system down.. but doing so would result in non-existence as someone mentioned earlier.. losing yourSELF.

You have glimpsed what you have perceived as higher truth or reality, and your first thought is breaking it? With high likeliness the problem is not how creation is structured, but the negative mindset you are applying it. You perceive your self as very important, but is retaining the self the only valid reason to continue creation? Instead of thinking of bending, breaking and non-existance you might want to consider creating, restoring and healing.


It really is an interesting dilemma that will in all likelihood never be solved - and if it was that could possibly lead to the end of existence anyway (which is why earlier i said i was reluctant to share my working theory).


Again, the negativity. You perceive it from a perspective of destruction, pointlessness, etc. Why?


It is also quite a complex theory and I would expect no less for the answer to the big question of "what is this place and why am i here?". A very interesting thought however.. is what if there are multiples of these constructs of mind... i.e. multidimensionality each one existing within its own 'simulation' but all interconnected on an unconscious level (or better yet.. through the internet!). Perhaps the people I see are creations of my mind, but how do i know the posts I read on this forum aren't other minds trapped in their own reality? But as Celeborn pointed out.. at the end of the day even if it is just you and God...or me and God...and everything is as one.. in the end it does not really matter at all.

Quite to the contrary. Acknowledging the duality of you and the Source is creating just further problems. You are divine, here and now. You have creative powers. Unleashing creative powers requires to remove the limitations of the mind, and while a lot of people would think it to be a good idea, they would not agree that what they perceive as self, ego or personality is attached to negativity and recreating or repeating instead of spontaneously, openly and positively creating in the Now.

The False Self would rather destroy others than give something up, giving birth to greed, perversion and all the other negative tendencies. Embracing the fact that we are all one, connected, only on the surface apart is necessary to create for the benefit of others, to benefit their reality, and to grow into the role of a co-creating being helping the evolution of thw whole. This is the True Self.

Ignorance is only bliss for the False Self. But the False Self is never really at rest, never really content, never fully in tune with creation. The False Self is pain, suffering. But no one created it but you. It is your reaction to reality. You now have the chance to remove it, bit by bit, and carefully regain the spirit beyond the False Self, reattaining the True Self and becoming a mature co-creator of this Universe and maybe beyond. Who knows?

Despair is common in facing what seems to be an overwhelming task. But small steps carry a long way. Start with yourself. Uncover more of your self. Restore the free flow of emotions, free yourself from negativity, become mature. Be open to what the powers of creation offer you to make a better world around you. Change your destiny by focussing your intention on creating positivity and let it free you.

Oliver

[Korpo]

From the site you quoted yourself in another thread:


The key, for the individuals forming a Creation and ultimately for the totality of that Creation as their Collective Unconscious (Creator), to being offered a higher-level Matrix that incorporates much more freedom of action and thought-manifestations (Creative Powers), is to be willing to let go of their sense of egotistic desires (Ego) and care more about the evolution of Creation than about their individual realities. To show forth that behavior pattern of caring for the perceived "other" - no matter how perceivably evolved or not - above and beyond caring for one's self. For the "other" is none but your self.(http://www.probablefuture.com/matrix.htm)

I think this is very valid reasoning and explains what we can do instead of thinking about destruction. Creating the better reality within us to make it a better reality for all of us.

And even better:


To understand, integrate and learn that one's Universe is within one's self and that if you really understand the tremendous power that your individual and common thoughts have in manifesting reality, you then have power over all your reality and can manifest all your desires. If you reach the state of the total absence of fear by believing with full faith and experiencing that you are ultimately the Original One Mind, you automatically erase from your reality all fearful situations.(http://www.probablefuture.com/matrix.htm)

To overcome fear is to overcome negativity within you is to overcome negative reality is to be free. There you have it. :D

Nothing is so limiting as fear IMO. Freedom of fear allows the spirit to shine. Fear manifests as separation, depression, attachment. Absence of fear allows love, spirit, presence, acceptance.

I'd recommend the later chapter of "Quiet Your Mind" about this. It has excellent facts about the fear-love continuum. Truly inspiring.

Take good care,
Oliver

[Akorah]

Thanks Korpo.. I seem to be stuck in a rut :/

I was in a very destructive phase/mood yesterday because I was becoming aware of the possibility of there being nothing but myself.. now I would be quite happy and content with that (in fact I love solitude) if it weren't for my negative internal thoughts/past memories being manifest through others. For example, at work I constantly try to quiet my mind and all internal actions so that they are not manifesting around me.. If a non-enjoyable past memory or something else that is unpleasant surfaces for one reason or another.. perhaps my mind is just wandering.. I will notice my work colleagues talking about it in a mocking kind of way.. basically laughing at me about it - and that is where this negativity spawns from. I will hear them talking to each other about something, and similar to the way you would flirt with a girl using sexual innuendo, they will be talking to each other about the subject matter of my thought with an innuendo towards me and with any given conversation (whether i'm part of that conversation or not) they can all be linked directly to whats going on inside my mind at each present moment - but these conversations are always carried out in a mocking kind of manner, like they are secretively making fun of me.

You have provided a solution that I will try to pursue.. to always remain in a positive state.. but something else I have found is that everything always balances out so if I try to remain in a positive state.. and manage to do so for a long time, then I will end up remaining in a negative state afterwards for the same duration of time. It seems that the only way to counter this would be to remain neutral all the time.. to try not to feel, think, love or hate. And now I'm back to where I started with this destructive negativity.. I would appreciate your input on this :)

[Korpo]

Akorah,

What you describe about the mockery - that *could* be synchronicity. The world reacting to your mind and vice versa.

I currently like the idea of interlinking minds creating our reality. In a certain sense I *am* alone in my world, but at the same time I am not. The others are real, but their reality is not necessarily mine, only a mirror of mine. And when I change mine, when I become creator within my reality, I can start to change theirs, too. Just an idea. :)

About the balance thing - I don't think it works that way, at least not exactly. I saw positivity - the love way, accepting love as your guidance - once described as becoming whole, by restoring yourself being part of the whole and accepting spirit. Negativity separates from the whole. This does not need to be balanced, as we all can attain it at the same time. That's the positive message of creation - when you combine the power of creation with the positive, it is infinite.

Yin and Yang are a concept of dual complements - they need each other. But the striving towards self- and world improvement does not need the negative. Negativity is a crust that layers itself on top of the positive that already exists. It is not equal to it, not a complement, and so there is no balance.

Like many people fear deep self-knowledge because they fear that they ultimately arrive at an end-point and see they're no good. They perceive negativity and the underlying positivity as two sides of a medal and think they might be among the ones that are at the core bad. But when you go back to the core you were created with innate enlightenment, the core is good, the fear is baseless.

The mockery of your co-workers *might* be influenced by negative thought. I was very negative and depressed as teenager and like a small black cloud over your head it attracts similar things to you. Your emotional field interacts with others and influences them, and they react to you. With increasing (self-)awareness I believe this effect becomes stronger, whether in manifesting or in relating to others.

I'm not too sure about this, but I think I experience this right now, too, that my increased awareness requires more responsibility because I influence outcome now stronger. When I am feeling unwhole or downright negative, things that went smooth start to fail again. Unexpected hurdles mount. This makes finding core states of inner peace, love and presence so important, as the bigger awareness should be used positively.

I'm evaluating a really good book right now that might help with this - "Core Transformation". It aims at bringing the core states of being back into your life to align subconscious splinter selves with your conscious self and getting control of habitual action, thought and emotion. It is very inspiring.

Take good care,
Oliver

[Akorah]

Thanks Oliver you are a life saver :)

I am starting to see now that this silopsism is actually quite flawed, although it does have some truth to it. I have come to the conclusion that my mind isn't the only thing.. but like you said.. I am just one part of many parts of a bigger whole. And when I am in that disconnected state then it should be no surprise that I perceive a disconnected reality. I agree with what you just said about the balancing act, and also for me moral values namely kindness is something I KNOW with 100% certainty is a core state.

Robert Bruce said something before dealing with psychic self-defense which was to double-check your beliefs and only believe the ones that ring true to you through your own personal experience.. somehow i don't think this works too well for me, but reverting back to the core states within my spirit - kindness, honesty, love, forgiveness, acceptance.. does so i shall stick with that. I have probably been opening up too many doors lately in the area of psychic development which has brought on these unwanted troubles. I know what needs to be done now.. I need to set that aside and focus more on the physical side of life, and not allow myself to be caught up in the madness of trying to define reality.

Thanks again for your help, much appreciated :wink:

[Korpo]

You're welcome. :D

Many spiritual teachers, especially the Buddha, have taught first to attain loving-kindness, and then enlightenment. Maybe enlightenment, totally free perception, removal of the veil is not bearable easily to a mind who does not rest safely and soundly in a firm state of love and being? It might just be so.

Take good care,
Oliver

[Triot]

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x316/triot_photos/SpinningLady.gif

Neither right or left, content on a mono flat surface shifting. :wink:

[Jake]

I am here and so are you... if i find out that thats not true then, oh well...
its simple... If 'God' ever came to this place in the flesh,,, then it is us,,, and "HERE WE ARE"...

[al.luciddreamer]

I remember talking with my brother when I was six and he was five, and we were in the back of the car with all the groceries, with my mom driving. I can't remember if he or I said, "What if everything is a movie and I'M the only one watching?" I wonder if a lot of kids have these thoughts, because it came up completely spontaneously with my brother and I (this was back in 1960, so I hadn't seen any science fiction yet!).

[ButterflyWoman]

Triot, I'm afraid I don't get the point of your strangely spinning silhouetted Posette (that's the name of that particular 3D model ;)). What does it symbolise? (It's probably really obvious, but I'm feeling a bit thick today for some reason.)

[RyanParis]

LOL, I can assure you, we exist too and are looking through our certain bodies eyes, just as much as you are.

And no one really knows where existence around us came from, it could all be God's dream.

[CFTraveler]

Triot, I'm afraid I don't get the point of your strangely spinning silhouetted Posette (that's the name of that particular 3D model ;)). What does it symbolise? (It's probably really obvious, but I'm feeling a bit thick today for some reason.) It's from a thread that seeks to find out if you're left brained or right brain-dominant, and it depends on how you see it spinning. Clockwise is left brained (I think) and Counterclockwise is the opposite. If you can reverse the perceived mode of spinning, then you are more 'flexible'. Something like that. My son, who is left handed and I, who am right handed, both saw it as clockwise at first, and I was able to reverse it back and forth a few times, he was only able to reverse it twice.
I don't know what it means but it kept him occupied for a while. :D

[Korpo]

HOLY CRAP! (Pardon my French ;))

I looked at it, realised it was an optical illusion and how it was made, that it just turns back and forth and does not a full "real turn", and it reversed! :shock:

If I look at the movement of the lower foot predominantly, I can "reverse" it on any spin. That was fun! :D

Oliver

[CFTraveler]

You can use it as an avatar and then hypnotize people to do what you want-"You are under my power".....and you can take over the world! (Sorry, I've been watching "Pinky and the Brain") now go back to your topic, whatever it was....

[Korpo]

ARGH! You reminded me of that song....

:D

Oliver

[Akorah]

hmm.. that animation is pretty trippy.. I had a look at it using a GIF animating program and the spinning model is not completely flat the entire time, they made the person gradually tilt at an angle, then when the animation reaches its return point, the angle is back to normal and that is when you are able to mentally switch which way you perceive it. Its very strange because I noticed when she is spinning clockwise she has her right leg out guiding the movement, but when spinning anti-clockwise she appears to have her left leg out guiding the movement instead. The program I used to look at it more closely isn't the best.. I have a hinkering that this isn't an optical illusion at all but rather if you wait long enough it will switch regardless? I still dont understand what the optical illusion has to do with explaining reality.. were you perhaps suggesting that its all a matter of perception? ;)

Anyway, getting back on topic..
I have often wondered if my life is like that of Jim Carrey in "The Truman Show" which I've recently found out is a belief known as Solipsism. I've also recently found this to be untrue, that others ARE conscious and they ARE NOT just a creation of my mind.. I have no way of proving this but rather I know it to be true as a feeling from within.. it's also that authenticity of interactions where you encounter that spark of connection amongst 2 conscious beings.. What I think is more accurate is that everything is mind/spirit, but it has broken itself into smaller individual parts so those parts can co-operate and work with each other to evolve from itself.

Anyway, thats just my point of view.. I find that with most things they can be described incredibly simply or incredibly complex.. For example.. "Its a nice day today" could also be described as "The temperature is 30 degrees celius, with moderate humidity, a high pressure system with sparse cloud coverage, little moisture in the air, etc, etc.". So When it comes to describing reality you may as well say "God knows.. I'll find out when I'm dead" because otherwise you end up talking about the many different layers, levels, components, parts, aspects, etc. which is all good and dandy but in essence it's the same thing as saying "reality is that which I am experiencing at this present moment".

[ButterflyWoman]

Clockwise is left brained (I think) and Counterclockwise is the opposite. If you can reverse the perceived mode of spinning, then you are more 'flexible'. Something like that. My son, who is left handed and I, who am right handed, both saw it as clockwise at first, and I was able to reverse it back and forth a few times, he was only able to reverse it twice.
I don't know what it means but it kept him occupied for a while. :D

Wow, that's really cool! Today, I see it going clockwise, but I'm SURE that the last time I looked at it, it was going counterclockwise. Fascinating.

[Jajon]

Hey all ,

So here's a thought, What if " I " am the only real person in the world and God is projecting everything around me so he can test me being human ? ...I mean it's an interesting thought ..I am not reffering to ME specificaly, but to anyone who might ask this question .... just think ... what if YOU are the only one real and God is projecting everything around YOU just to test you ? ..any ideas ? ..

Question: 'Lets say I think that I am the only one real around and I think everyone is just a projection - illusion - (no offence) ...how could you prove me wrong?"
I used to have that feeting sometimes as a kid! It's known as subjective reality. It's illustrated by the question: if you and another person knew how to manifest in reality like applying "the secret" and were both intending to get the same job, who would get the job? The answer is you because in your reality you are the only 'real' person, everyone else is a projection of yourself. It's possible that you "both" got the job in alternate realities and you chose the reality where "you" got the job. What matters is that your highest self is God. The things you love in others are things you love in yourself. The opposite is true. Reality also bends around your beliefs, which is easier to notice in finer realms like the astral, it just takes longer in the physical due to density. You are the centre of the universe and theoreticaly you can change the entire world around you. Faith can move mountains as they say.