It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I seek truth yet it remains hidden..going bananas looking for the right religion (Help me)....

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Oh and I claim to be a man of God, not a Christian however I believe with all my heart, soul, and mind that the christian bible is the one for me. Glory be to God, Amen




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



Well fine, let's elaborate on the example and say hypothetically that we've invented A.I. Now the cat in question can travel and act in its virtual world as well as follow instincts through its A.I. Let's also say that we have given it logical reasoning ability and the ability to think for itself. Would you consider that cat a real cat?

A.I. will still lack consciousness, intuition, the ability to Love, an emotional center. If you dig up all the ancient Taoist, Buddhist, Yogic texts, they show how Consciousness arises fro the heart center, and into the brain upon the body waking in the morning. The Heart and the gut, actually have brain based neuron centers within them..... the human being is a lot more complex then most realize. What the ancients have discovered & written about 100'2/1000's of years ago, is just recently starting to be discovered.

No, the A.I. cat, even with instincts, logic, reason, would still not be the same as an actual cat or what we have here.



In response to: "There's nothing wrong with subjectivity. It is a real and true thing, part of reality and part of how reality is experienced. What I am saying, is that each person's subjectivity arises from a Universal Source that can be accessed & experienced."

You think so? Ask a blind man to describe a building or a deaf person to describe music. I'd bet their descriptions would vary greatly from what you or I would describe.

What I am saying, is that the blind man's subjective experience of being blind, is true. HE can still eventually describe the building by feeling it inside and out. And a deaf person can describe music by feeling the vibrations. The descriptions will be limited, but the fact is, they still experience reality subjectively. You would be hard pressed to find anyone agree that there is no such thing as subjectivity, unless you roll with hard core philosophers.


Then it is up for debate. If there exists a possibility of something not being true then there is ALWAYS room for debate.

Sure, you can debate anything for as long as you want. But you can still purchase a ticket and experience the Sunrise in Australia, instead of merely debating whether there is a sunrise and an Australia.


I think you know what I meant by god. Notice I haven't been capitalizing the g, I'm using the word as a descriptor. But if that word makes you uneasy, I can always switch to source, infinite, divine, or whatever you prefer. In my eyes they are all the same thing and even then, I could care less what we call it. If you wanted me to, I'd call it an icicle. It's not like the descriptors we give this "thing" do it justice on describing what it really is (if it exists).

Sure...I got ya.....understood


In the face of experience, you have to show that the million dollars exists in the first place for me to experience it.

In the face of experience, you have to show me that you read this sentence. Prove to me that you experience reality subjectively.


At least we know for a fact that we can discuss the idea of winning the million dollars, but if the money never existed in the first place, we can never experience it. Heck maybe all that existed was 250,000 dollars. The experience of winning 250 grand could be like winning a million dollars, but we both know its not the same because the buying power is a quarter lower.

I'm sure you have had experiences in your life you wanted to share with others, and then realizing the futility of words, simply expressed, "you just had to be there to really know." Same deal. All you have at the end is your description, and you can never again recreate all those circumstances and details that happened on that day, in that experience. Same deal


Yes I know, and I was showing the failings of that view. I can just as easily change the view and those universal traits stop being universal.

How can you change the "subjectively experienced by humans", universal traits of the sun? That would be a tough deal without reverting to a change in perspective such as, "Jupiter experiences the sun differently."


Well that goes without saying. But I'm saying that with humans' processing power and awareness of the universe, that absolute truth is unknowable to us.

That's putting limits & confines & rules on something that may not have any. Perhaps human Awareness itself, is inherently linked to this Absolute Truth.


Even if you did happen to stumble upon it, you could never know if you were 100% correct or not.

Then also we can say, we can't ever know anything, and everything we think we know, we really don't.

What is the definition of knowing for sure and can anything me known for sure then?


That is true, but would we be able to comprehend it if we were to witness it?

Perhaps experience yes, but not necessarily comprehend.

I can experience the sun, but I cannot comprehend its magnitude, power, internal force & heat on its surface.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Rtardx
 


none of earth spiritual belief systems has it right, that's for sure...



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Rtardx
 



There were three people looking for the meaning of life and god, one went insane, one became an atheist, and one found god.

edit on 123131p://bWednesday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Rtardx
I fear eternal damnation basically.


That simply doesn't exist. "Eternal" was a mistranslation of a greek word meaning, "pertaining to age". And I have a christian friend who used logic to show me that if God created souls, and he knows everything, then he knows that creating souls but banishing them in eternal damnation would be useless - might as well never create these souls in the first place. There's a movement, even inside Christianity, which believes that even thought God might punish some souls, he won't do it eternally and that in fact, it's not as much as a punishment but more of a purification so that all souls are, ultimately, reconciled with God in the End.

As for me I live in constant darkness, for I believe in nothing. I too became depressed. But then I realized that I also fear nothing. This makes my mind quite clear of any bias, and that's why I decided to investigate conspiracies and theories. Because you, and me, are a few of a kind - we are people who have the potential to go anywhere we like. All we have is choose where we'll go today. We can see the whole of the diamond... not just a facet of it.

"Be as wise as a snake, and be as pure as a dove".



edit on 5-3-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Look for the most happy people on the planet, then check what Religion they are and go with that. Gotta go with what is working.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Rtardx
 





I'm becoming depressed and slightly suicidal,


Do not despair, I had a similar journey and was never satisfied with the results.

For nothing worthy proving can be proven,
Nor yet disproven: wherefore thou be wise,

From ‘The Ancient Sage’
By Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809–1892)

IF thou would’st hear the Nameless, and wilt dive
Into the Temple-cave of thine own self,
There, brooding by the central altar, thou
May’st haply learn the Nameless hath a voice,
By which thou wilt abide, if thou be wise,
As if thou knewest, tho’ thou canst not know;
For Knowledge is the swallow on the lake
That sees and stirs the surface-shadow there
But never yet hath dipt into the abysm,
The Abysm of all Abysms, beneath, within
The blue of sky and sea, the green of earth,
And in the million-millionth of a grain
Which cleft and cleft again for evermore,
And ever vanishing, never vanishes,
To me, my son, more mystic than myself,
Or even than the Nameless is to me.
And when thou sendest thy free soul thro’ heaven,
Nor understandest bound nor boundlessness,
Thou seest the Nameless of the hundred names.
And if the Nameless should withdraw from all
Thy frailty counts most real, all thy world
Might vanish like thy shadow in the dark.

‘And since—from when this earth began—
The Nameless never came
Among us, never spake with man,
And never named the Name’—

Thou canst not prove the Nameless, O my son,
Nor canst thou prove the world thou movest in,
Thou canst not prove that thou art body alone,
Nor canst thou prove that thou art spirit alone,
Nor canst thou prove that thou art both in one:
Thou canst not prove thou art immortal, no
Nor yet that thou art mortal—nay my son,
Thou canst not prove that I, who speak with thee,
Am not thyself in converse with thyself,
For nothing worthy proving can be proven,
Nor yet disproven: wherefore thou be wise,
Cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt,
And cling to Faith beyond the forms of Faith
She reels not in the storm of warring words,
She brightens at the clash of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’,
She sees the Best that glimmers thro’ the Worst,
She feels the Sun is hid but for a night,
She spies the summer thro’ the winter bud,
She tastes the fruit before the blossom falls,
She hears the lark within the songless egg,
She finds the fountain where they wail’d ‘Mirage’!

This is where the story ends



edit on 113131p://bWednesday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

dominicus
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

A.I. will still lack consciousness, intuition, the ability to Love, an emotional center. If you dig up all the ancient Taoist, Buddhist, Yogic texts, they show how Consciousness arises fro the heart center, and into the brain upon the body waking in the morning. The Heart and the gut, actually have brain based neuron centers within them..... the human being is a lot more complex then most realize. What the ancients have discovered & written about 100'2/1000's of years ago, is just recently starting to be discovered.

No, the A.I. cat, even with instincts, logic, reason, would still not be the same as an actual cat or what we have here.


So how does all of that sit with you when discussing the reality is a simulation theory? If that theory turns out to be true, then WE are just A.I.'s existing in a computer, programmed to think and reason. So how can you say consciousness exists for us but not for an A.I. cat in one of our computers?



What I am saying, is that the blind man's subjective experience of being blind, is true. HE can still eventually describe the building by feeling it inside and out. And a deaf person can describe music by feeling the vibrations. The descriptions will be limited, but the fact is, they still experience reality subjectively. You would be hard pressed to find anyone agree that there is no such thing as subjectivity, unless you roll with hard core philosophers.


I never said subjectivity didn't exist. I was saying that due to subjectivity, we could never know who is correct or not.



Sure, you can debate anything for as long as you want. But you can still purchase a ticket and experience the Sunrise in Australia, instead of merely debating whether there is a sunrise and an Australia.


Yes, because we know that a landmass that we, humans, have named Australia exists on this planet, which experiences sunsets. Therefore we can logically go to that landmass and witness that event. HOWEVER we do NOT know that a god or supremely cosmic being exists. I can't just stroll down the block and go shoot the s# with god. So until that is the case, the concept of god or whatever you want to call it, can only exist in the realm of debate.



In the face of experience, you have to show me that you read this sentence. Prove to me that you experience reality subjectively.


First, this is impossible to do by myself. Everything I experience is my own personal experience, without anyone else I could never judge my experiences against another's and know what they think.

When you read a sentence, do you ever have to reread it once or twice so that you can understand it better? That same sentence could be read once by someone else and immediately be understood without rereading.

Another example is time. We know that time is relative. It is an established fact that time gets affected by gravity and velocity. We actually have to account for this with the internal clocks on our satellites every so often. Someone traveling in a jet is moving slower through time then someone standing on Earth. Someone standing on Jupiter would be going through time at a slower pace than someone standing on Venus.


I'm sure you have had experiences in your life you wanted to share with others, and then realizing the futility of words, simply expressed, "you just had to be there to really know." Same deal. All you have at the end is your description, and you can never again recreate all those circumstances and details that happened on that day, in that experience. Same deal


Oh I'm not trying to argue that what you experienced wasn't truly fantastic. For you. I'm just saying that you aren't leaving room for the possibility that there could be something MORE fantastic out there. You've already assigned this descriptor of god/infinite/singularity/what have you to it. If there existed a life form that is the size of the Milky Way galaxy and you came into close contact with it, would you be able to adequately describe it? Would you consider it god or infinite since you cannot see the edges of it?

For instance, going by the descriptions of the Greek Pantheon, I don't consider those beings as gods, even if they did exist. They certainly don't have the appropriate power needed to be a god. Sure they may be more powerful than a human and could annihilate any number of us with a wave of a hand, but why do they need to share power? Why are they subjected to human whims and desires? Why do they live on our planet? Obviously the answer to these questions lies with Greeks' limited knowledge of the world, or that they were something else entirely like aliens. But I'm not trying to steer the conversation in that direction.


How can you change the "subjectively experienced by humans", universal traits of the sun? That would be a tough deal without reverting to a change in perspective such as, "Jupiter experiences the sun differently."


Easy, have a human witness and experience Rigel. Rigel makes the sun look like an ice cube and a dark cave by comparison.


That's putting limits & confines & rules on something that may not have any. Perhaps human Awareness itself, is inherently linked to this Absolute Truth.


I guess that could be possible. But we certainly don't have the know how, technology, or tools to currently solve this riddle. I'd imagine that we won't have them for some time either (if ever).


Then also we can say, we can't ever know anything, and everything we think we know, we really don't.

What is the definition of knowing for sure and can anything me known for sure then?


I've already answered that question. Unless there is a MASSIVE paradigm shift in how humans process information we probably will never know anything for sure. There could always be an unknown variable lurking out in the cosmos that could change what we "know".


Perhaps experience yes, but not necessarily comprehend.

I can experience the sun, but I cannot comprehend its magnitude, power, internal force & heat on its surface.


Sure you can, here the numbers are listed on the Sun's wiki page:

Sun

Sure the numbers involved may be massive and hard to imagine, but there are plenty of visual aids you can use to understand what those numbers look like. That's all comprehending is. Being hard to comprehend != impossible to comprehend.

The difference between comprehending the Sun and god is that god is supposedly infinite or everything. In order to comprehend god, we have to be able to comprehend EVERYTHING. That is a much harder feet than comprehending a definite object like the Sun.
edit on 5-3-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   
To tell you a little bit more about how I came to know the truth(Jesus). First of all we only have one life to live that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When I was 16 I wanted to quit school simply because of how some people acted. It is also a proven fact that this Earth will not last infinitely. On the plus side I know with my entire being and existence that we will not have to physically die if Jesus comes back to get us before we die of natural causes or other. God knows you, he knows your true heart and for just the simple fact that your asking questions, such as I just want to know the truth god? why wont you just tell me? why do things have to be so complicated? Well the truth is they are not complicated but god has kept at least two things from man's comprehension. One he has saved for himself and no one not even Jesus knows it. That secret is revealed in the bible and it is that only God knows when he will send Jesus back. Will he send him back? Yes! god keeps his promises and there are many in the bible. The reason the bible may seem so confusing is because it was designed by God to reach the entire Earth and be a tool, a weapon, a resource for the knowledge of truth, life and so much more. In case your interested there is a book called Scripture Keys that has a quick reference for such things as depression, divorce, etc. Backing up a little bit I've discovered most of my knowledge(which belongs to God) from All genres of music. You must have Knowledge to know the truth. But you don't have to have knowledge to know Jesus who will tell you the truth. It is the same truth to you but you have your own story to write. Whether you choose to write the truth is up to you. I went through a long spiritual battle in which I used the weapon "Confusion" against all spiritual enemies in order to find truth for myself. This was a very dangerous task but I had the courage as long as God agreed to keep my mind(brain). It may sound ridiculous but it is the truth(Jesus) The point is that it is impossible, even for God to change the Truth. Now can I tell a little white lie if it means that someone will be saved. God did not lie, I lied for him so therefore he and Jesus are still perfect. Sorry I'm off topic a little but in the beginning there were only two things that existed. God and Jesus. God did not create Jesus nor vice versa. That is where you have to choose based on Jesus' Faith "not your own" that they have existed before time was created. The Trinity as in which I believe means that god and Jesus also contained within them The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit's main job is to comfort us and give us peace. He/She/it also gives us Joy, happiness fun. etc. Romans is where the holy spirit is described the most in the bible. You do not need to worry about which Bible you choose as long as you Bless it. Just simply say I bless this word of God. It's that simple because I have already agreed. Oh, The Holy Spirit also gives us confidence. Also I know that you are saved because I'm saved. For if you are not saved "Then you don't exist right now and neither do I" I'll explain later if you wish and Jesus hasn't come back yet, for Good I mean. Some people may laugh for various reasons. You referred to religion and some people try to disprove God because of Religion because the don't have an open mind or their mind is too wide open, or their mind is made up. Religion can mean different things. If you are looking for a simple answer of what is the truth, the truth is, That the truth will set you free. Free from all bondage, etc. Remember, you must get involved with positive influential people to grow and strengthen. GOD does not want your money! Period!!!!! A lot of Pentecostal Churches, Assemblies of God Churches, and Church of God churches believe in things in which require divine power from their God which means you must be babtised by The Holy Spirit because it would be considered a miracle. You may not even know it at the time. Such as the famous snake handlers! Use common sense. It was a scary thing for me at first which is why I've waited 33 years to start telling my story. Ask Jesus for his mind "The mind of Christ" and for me all I ask in return is prayer. Another addition to truth is it takes time to understand it. The most important thing to Remember is that we are saved By the Grace of God, through Jesus.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Rtardx
 



Rtardx
No, I will not resort to atheism. Not when i have had countless personal experiences with the law of attraction, astral projection, telekinesis, etc.


I don't know why you think atheists DON'T believe in the law of attraction, astral projection telekinesis, etc... There's only one thing atheists have in common - they don't believe in GOD. All that other stuff is up for grabs.

I don't know why people are in search of a religious label. Why name your beliefs? Why join an established "religion" if none fit?



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   

edit on 5-3-2014 by Richw007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



So how does all of that sit with you when discussing the reality is a simulation theory? If that theory turns out to be true, then WE are just A.I.'s existing in a computer, programmed to think and reason. So how can you say consciousness exists for us but not for an A.I. cat in one of our computers?

I actually agree that reality is a simulation, since all the ancient philosophical & spiritual paths like Buddhism, Taosim, Yoga, aspects of Hindusim, and various philosophical aspects of Christianity have all been echoing that we live in an illusion and can climb out of it to see/witness actual reality, via Enlightenment.

The way all these cultures/branches describe the nature of illusion, includes also the nature of reality and the real you that is prior to all illusion, including maps/blueprints on how to find/access this.

You are clearly conscious. Whether you believe so or not, after the body dies, consciousness continues in a bodiless state, and existed prior to being born in a body (at least I remember it to be so, among with a few others here on ATS). Consciousness interacting with physical reality relies on rules, limits, principles. That A.I. cat may not abide by those and therefore would not be conscious.

Some may argue that consciousness is infinite/universal/everywhere. But even then, the A.I. cat may have some semblance of consciousness, but nowhere near in the manner that a living cat has.


I never said subjectivity didn't exist. I was saying that due to subjectivity, we could never know who is correct or not.

So because of "subjectivity" we can't ever know or trust anything in the world knowledge base that is academia and all that it entails, science, philosophy, math, etc? Meaning everything is in limbo as a 50/50 chance?

We can know "correctly" that subjectivity Is, and exists. There's a start!!!!


Yes, because we know that a landmass that we, humans, have named Australia exists on this planet, which experiences sunsets. Therefore we can logically go to that landmass and witness that event. HOWEVER we do NOT know that a god or supremely cosmic being exists. I can't just stroll down the block and go shoot the s# with god. So until that is the case, the concept of god or whatever you want to call it, can only exist in the realm of debate.

Whoever does experience an Australian sunset, has to do so via the limits & constraints of subjectivity....something you just said, " I was saying that due to subjectivity, we could never know who is correct or not."

In that case, I can never know whether this landmass you refer to actually exists, or if logic actually exists.

Furthermore, you have the ability to think correct? Thinking is a subjective experience. Everyone thinks. You teach children how to think, children which when born don't know how to. They are taught how to use and experience a subjective faculty.

Same with Love. Another subjective experience. A person born on earth doesn't know Love, and then they meet someone, fall in Love, and experience Love for the first time.

Can we say, "we do NOT know that" Love or thinking exist? Or would this be limited to someone who has not loved, has not thought?

Same thing with God. Can be accessed, and experienced. Even though experience is confined to subjectivity, doesn't mean the experience and what is being experienced, isn't real.


First, this is impossible to do by myself. Everything I experience is my own personal experience, without anyone else I could never judge my experiences against another's and know what they think.

so in that same vein, you can judge your own experience of not experiencing God, against those who are experiencing God. Technically, both are right in their experience and non-experience of this Beingness. However, the non-experiencer has not traversed the steps that it takes to uncover this experience, while the experiencer has.

Plus, throughout history and in all cultures, including in todays world, there are experiencers that have been, and continue to describe this.


When you read a sentence, do you ever have to reread it once or twice so that you can understand it better? That same sentence could be read once by someone else and immediately be understood without rereading.

What I meant is, the very first time you read it, without any mention of re-reading. That first time you read it, the wind, clouds, dust, sun angle, everything was a certain way which can never be recreated again. It was subjective, and you can't prove it. IF you say you had a witness, that witness's testimony is confined also to their own subjectivity, which you said: "due to subjectivity, we could never know who is correct or not.?


Oh I'm not trying to argue that what you experienced wasn't truly fantastic. For you. I'm just saying that you aren't leaving room for the possibility that there could be something MORE fantastic out there.

Actually, I have no other choice than to be open to all possibilities, including MORE fantastic. However, accessing this MORE fantastic isn't being offered to me by academia, science, etc. Instead, its being mentioned by experiencers of it, that there is an eternal & infinite joy One can access within that is not relative & dependent on anything.


You've already assigned this descriptor of god/infinite/singularity/what have you to it. If there existed a life form that is the size of the Milky Way galaxy and you came into close contact with it, would you be able to adequately describe it? Would you consider it god or infinite since you cannot see the edges of it?

The experience is truly ineffable and my descriptions are needles in haystacks. They pale in comparison. I understand your take on perspective & size, however you don't understand my take on being prior to and transcending size. IF you can imagine a being that is everywhere & nowhere at once, with no possible definitions because all are transcended, then in that very nature of its own being, limits to size are an impossibility because that would be introducing limits and structure to the limitless and structureless.


Easy, have a human witness and experience Rigel. Rigel makes the sun look like an ice cube and a dark cave by comparison.

Yeah that would require a space ship and safe place/planet to witness this. I meant within the confines of being a human, living on earth, experiencing the sun. Rigel is not the sun, and you wouldnt be on the earth anymore to try & begin to fathom its magnitude.


I guess that could be possible. But we certainly don't have the know how, technology, or tools to currently solve this riddle. I'd imagine that we won't have them for some time either (if ever).

Certain individuals solve this riddle within themselves and access the answer.

For example, I have directly located and experienced the source of thought within myself. There is actually a focal point within the point, via a nerve channel which thought uses to arise upon waking. I'm guessing you haven't experienced this. Since this requires going within and exploring for hours, how much more may you be missing out on what is within you?



Sure you can, here the numbers are listed on the Sun's wiki page: Sun Sure the numbers involved may be massive and hard to imagine, but there are plenty of visual aids you can use to understand what those numbers look like. That's all comprehending is. Being hard to comprehend != impossible to comprehend.

Those visual aids & numbers are pointing at the sun, but they are not the sun. For me to comprehend would require an up close experience, entering into it, feeling it, experiencing the distance from earth. A direct experience of something is always better than mere descriptions.


The difference between comprehending the Sun and god is that god is supposedly infinite or everything. In order to comprehend god, we have to be able to comprehend EVERYTHING. That is a much harder feet than comprehending a definite object like the Sun.

I never said one can comprehend God, but I do say one can experience God. By its nature, God is incomprehensible since it transcends all the faculties that are required for comprehending.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Skyfloating
Look for the most happy people on the planet, then check what Religion they are and go with that. Gotta go with what is working.


So you're suggesting the OP should become a Mormon...

hmmm....




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Stormdancer777
reply to post by Rtardx
 



There were three people looking for the meaning of life and god, one went insane, one became and atheist, and one found god.

yep.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by solongandgoodnight
 


Which one was a man? :p



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Rtardx
 


First of all, don't drop out of school to seek truth. You can seek truth whilst you study. No guarantee you'll find it mind...

I'm a Catholic. Born (kinda) and raised as one. I hold many of it's values and practices close to heart. But do i believe it to be the ultimate truth? I can safely say, no.

It's a shame you feel this way. Just accept you'll never know the real truth of why we are here and whats to come. Just live comfortably in the knowledge that there IS something after this (i'm so sure..? yeah, i know.. whaaat) and if you're a truly good person who doesn't seek to hurt anyone or yourself... i think you'll be fine.

Enjoy life, it's what it's there for. Forget about what you THINK you "should" be doing and start doing what you FEEL you should be doing. Follow life along it's way and you'll find your calling. You'll never know the full truth in this life. But if you feel you do, then great. And pop back here to let us know.

Be happy. Be safe.. Be kind.... just live!
edit on 5-3-2014 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

dominicus
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

I actually agree that reality is a simulation, since all the ancient philosophical & spiritual paths like Buddhism, Taosim, Yoga, aspects of Hindusim, and various philosophical aspects of Christianity have all been echoing that we live in an illusion and can climb out of it to see/witness actual reality, via Enlightenment.

The way all these cultures/branches describe the nature of illusion, includes also the nature of reality and the real you that is prior to all illusion, including maps/blueprints on how to find/access this.


I don't understand how you can say that we are living in an illusion (which explicitly implies that it was created by something else) but can experience consciousness, but an A.I. cat living in a simulation that we created cannot experience consciousness.


You are clearly conscious. Whether you believe so or not, after the body dies, consciousness continues in a bodiless state, and existed prior to being born in a body (at least I remember it to be so, among with a few others here on ATS). Consciousness interacting with physical reality relies on rules, limits, principles. That A.I. cat may not abide by those and therefore would not be conscious.


I can tell you that I am alive and thinking. I cannot tell you if I am conscious or not. You said it yourself, humans don't understand consciousness, it may just be an illusion created by our minds to help us understand our surroundings.


Some may argue that consciousness is infinite/universal/everywhere. But even then, the A.I. cat may have some semblance of consciousness, but nowhere near in the manner that a living cat has.


Why? I really don't understand this reasoning. You don't think with enough technology and knowledge of how our universe works we couldn't create within a computer another simulation with an A.I. cat that is conscious?



So because of "subjectivity" we can't ever know or trust anything in the world knowledge base that is academia and all that it entails, science, philosophy, math, etc? Meaning everything is in limbo as a 50/50 chance?

We can know "correctly" that subjectivity Is, and exists. There's a start!!!!


This is why science doesn't deal in absolutes. Math would be one of the few things that isn't subjective, but only the abstract math you learn in math class without objects assigned to the numbers. 1 + 1 will always equal 2. When you start assigning numbers to physical objects is when the subjectivity happens. That is why science always gives error ranges after its figures.

Philosophy was a poor example by the way. Philosophy by its very nature is subjective since no two people seem to share the exact same philosophy.



Whoever does experience an Australian sunset, has to do so via the limits & constraints of subjectivity....something you just said, " I was saying that due to subjectivity, we could never know who is correct or not."

In that case, I can never know whether this landmass you refer to actually exists, or if logic actually exists.


True, you'd have to go there yourself to actually verify it.


Furthermore, you have the ability to think correct? Thinking is a subjective experience. Everyone thinks. You teach children how to think, children which when born don't know how to. They are taught how to use and experience a subjective faculty.


Whoa there, thinking isn't taught. Thinking is ingrained into all of us. A baby or child left to their own devices will figure things out. Part of a baby becoming a toddler then a child is it learning to walk then talk then explore and so on. Parents can guide their children to learn these things quicker, but they aren't teaching their children how to think.

But yes, thinking is a subjective experience. My thoughts on this thread are obviously different then your thoughts on this thread, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate.


Same with Love. Another subjective experience. A person born on earth doesn't know Love, and then they meet someone, fall in Love, and experience Love for the first time.

Can we say, "we do NOT know that" Love or thinking exist? Or would this be limited to someone who has not loved, has not thought?


I really cannot say on this. I've never experienced love. Or at least love between two lovers, not so much familiar love. Going by high divorce rates, domestic abuse, and other social problems, I could make a reasonable case that even some people who say they have experienced love, actually haven't experienced it yet (possibly what they are calling love, others would call mild infatuation).


Same thing with God. Can be accessed, and experienced. Even though experience is confined to subjectivity, doesn't mean the experience and what is being experienced, isn't real.


That's fine and all, but how do you know that what you are accessing is god? Like I said when discussing love, there could be a good argument made that many people who say they have experienced love in the past have actually been deluding themselves when they only felt a bit of sexual desire and infatuation. They don't find that out until much later when going through a terrible divorce though. They cannot tell that what they are feeling isn't love at the time.



so in that same vein, you can judge your own experience of not experiencing God, against those who are experiencing God. Technically, both are right in their experience and non-experience of this Beingness. However, the non-experiencer has not traversed the steps that it takes to uncover this experience, while the experiencer has.

Plus, throughout history and in all cultures, including in todays world, there are experiencers that have been, and continue to describe this.


But I'm not denying that these people experienced something. I'm just questioning that what they experienced was actually what they thought it was. The reason I keep bringing up size is because humans don't know the limits of their mind, the awesomeness of experiencing an infinite being may be the same awesomeness as experiencing a being the size of the Milky Way because in both cases we cannot perceive its limits.

Let's go a step further. What if the Milky Way itself is alive? What if, what you are experiencing is actually the essence of the Milky Way itself? The Milky Way is between 100,000 to 120,000 light years across. Can you comprehend that distance? I have trouble comprehending 1 light year, let alone 100,000 of them. I can certainly try though, 1 light year is about 6 trillion miles. So given the size of the Milky Way, if you were experiencing its essence vs experiencing the essence of the entire universe, could you tell the difference?



What I meant is, the very first time you read it, without any mention of re-reading. That first time you read it, the wind, clouds, dust, sun angle, everything was a certain way which can never be recreated again. It was subjective, and you can't prove it. IF you say you had a witness, that witness's testimony is confined also to their own subjectivity, which you said: "due to subjectivity, we could never know who is correct or not.?


Even the witness wouldn't be able to 100% confirm your account by the fact that they weren't standing exactly where you were standing, at the same height, and looking in the same direction.



Actually, I have no other choice than to be open to all possibilities, including MORE fantastic. However, accessing this MORE fantastic isn't being offered to me by academia, science, etc. Instead, its being mentioned by experiencers of it, that there is an eternal & infinite joy One can access within that is not relative & dependent on anything.


Well I never claimed that science or academia is perfect. They are after all lead by humans and humans as we know aren't infallible. I've also already told you that I approve of researching any and all topics no matter how silly. If at the very least we learn that what we are looking into isn't true, we have still learned something new.



The experience is truly ineffable and my descriptions are needles in haystacks. They pale in comparison. I understand your take on perspective & size, however you don't understand my take on being prior to and transcending size. IF you can imagine a being that is everywhere & nowhere at once, with no possible definitions because all are transcended, then in that very nature of its own being, limits to size are an impossibility because that would be introducing limits and structure to the limitless and structureless.


As a 3D being that may or may not travel through the 4D (call it time), I would never be able to imagine anything outside the dimensions I can access. Ever heard of the novel Flatland? It's about a 2D person (in this case a square) coming into contact with a 3D person (in this case a sphere) and how it can see and interpret this information. The book is actually a satire on Victorian culture, but is a great way to get an idea of how a lower dimension entity would see and understand a higher dimension entity. This example also helps bring up another observation, how do you know that what you experienced isn't just a being from a dimension MUCH higher than our own? Ever draw a 4d cube (or hypercube) and look at it? It hurts your head to try to comprehend how all the edges are connected.



Yeah that would require a space ship and safe place/planet to witness this. I meant within the confines of being a human, living on earth, experiencing the sun. Rigel is not the sun, and you wouldnt be on the earth anymore to try & begin to fathom its magnitude.


You are talking literal witnessing, I'm talking hypothetical witnessing. Let's assume that we don't need to stand on Earth to witness a star. Though I would like to point out that we certainly can witness Rigel on Earth. How else would we know about it?



Certain individuals solve this riddle within themselves and access the answer.

For example, I have directly located and experienced the source of thought within myself. There is actually a focal point within the point, via a nerve channel which thought uses to arise upon waking. I'm guessing you haven't experienced this. Since this requires going within and exploring for hours, how much more may you be missing out on what is within you?


Looking at all I'm missing out on in the universe, I'd say its not surprising that there is stuff I'm missing out on within myself.



Those visual aids & numbers are pointing at the sun, but they are not the sun. For me to comprehend would require an up close experience, entering into it, feeling it, experiencing the distance from earth. A direct experience of something is always better than mere descriptions.


Well as it stands, the only thing preventing you from doing that is your Earthly body. Which could never enter space and approach the sun, and if it did, you'd burn up before even reaching it (the corona is actually the hottest and brightest part of a star and its not even on the star). Though provided that you didn't die of asphyxiation while in space or burn up while approaching and being by the sun, how do you know you couldn't comprehend it?



I never said one can comprehend God, but I do say one can experience God. By its nature, God is incomprehensible since it transcends all the faculties that are required for comprehending.


Guess we are in agreement here.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 



I don't understand how you can say that we are living in an illusion (which explicitly implies that it was created by something else) but can experience consciousness, but an A.I. cat living in a simulation that we created cannot experience consciousness.

Consciousness is prior to illusion.

IF you study the ancient texts that discuss the philosophical implications of consciousness, it is like the spark of life that animates life, that spark enters & animates living things as they are born via some sets of rules & principles which are not inherent in AI Simulations.

Considering science doesn't even know what consciousness is, let alone how to manipulate it fully, how do you expect to create a conscious AI Simulation, without knowing what consciousness is? Its like trying to paint a replication of the mona lisa without ever seeing the painting or ever getting access to it.


I can tell you that I am alive and thinking. I cannot tell you if I am conscious or not. You said it yourself, humans don't understand consciousness, it may just be an illusion created by our minds to help us understand our surroundings.

That's your experience & perspective. Mine is that I remember myself as conscious prior to being born in a body, am currently consciousness operating a body, and will be again one day conscious free'd from the physical body when it dies. The remembrance and the current are direct knowledge & experience, which has been confirmed by others I have come across. So who is right?


Why? I really don't understand this reasoning. You don't think with enough technology and knowledge of how our universe works we couldn't create within a computer another simulation with an A.I. cat that is conscious?

If your wife asks you for a child, are you going to get or pregnant, or are you going to create a child in an AI Simulation that she can check in on and care for through a computer screen?

Creating AI Simulation with consciousness is impossible currently.

A human being has blood, nervous systems, meridians if you ask the asian philosophies, a heart, a gut, intuition, all of it working in tandem to create a conscious living being. Considering science or programmers do not fully comprehend how all these systems work together for Consciousness to integrate, what makes you think that with current level technology, they can create a cat, and instantly it will be conscious or self conscious?


This is why science doesn't deal in absolutes.

Yeah, well absolutes may exist, and because science limits itself with rules & regulations they may miss out on areas where they should be looking in the first place


Math would be one of the few things that isn't subjective, but only the abstract math you learn in math class without objects assigned to the numbers. That is why science always gives error ranges after its figures.

Math is subjective. One person subjectively discovered or invented it. The next came along and subjectively added to it. Each person who does math, does so subjectively. Its an agreed upon subjectivity.

And yet who knows, there may my a real absolute math that destroys and puts to shame the current system we have.

Furthermore, I have a theory that Mathematician Georg Cantor, purveyor of Infinite Math, is actually proving the existence of an Absolute infinite Beingness through his work. But that's a whole other thread.


1 + 1 will always equal 2. When you start assigning numbers to physical objects is when the subjectivity happens.

Even if you don't assign number to physical objects, it remains subjectively conceptual


Philosophy was a poor example by the way. Philosophy by its very nature is subjective since no two people seem to share the exact same philosophy.

Actually there are tons of people that share the same philosophies.


Whoa there, thinking isn't taught. Thinking is ingrained into all of us. A baby or child left to their own devices will figure things out. Part of a baby becoming a toddler then a child is it learning to walk then talk then explore and so on. Parents can guide their children to learn these things quicker, but they aren't teaching their children how to think.

They are being taught how to think. They see their father and are taught that the word and thought "father" is referring to this male in front of them. Likewise the word "mother" for the female, "ball" for the round object, "tree" for that green weird looking thing coming out of the ground outside.

Reality itself is without labels and thoughts. Children are taught how to superimpose thoughts/labels that everyone is agreeing on, over a naked reality.


I really cannot say on this. I've never experienced love. Or at least love between two lovers, not so much familiar love. Going by high divorce rates, domestic abuse, and other social problems, I could make a reasonable case that even some people who say they have experienced love, actually haven't experienced it yet (possibly what they are calling love, others would call mild infatuation).

My point is, Love is an actual thing, a direct experience of something that is intangible, but nevertheless real.

Thinking is intangible, subjective, nevertheless, thinking happens.

God is intangible, experienced subjectively, nevertheless real


Like I said when discussing love, there could be a good argument made that many people who say they have experienced love in the past have actually been deluding themselves when they only felt a bit of sexual desire and infatuation. They don't find that out until much later when going through a terrible divorce though. They cannot tell that what they are feeling isn't love at the time.

Sure that is the case in Love. It has a start, a middle, and an end because people do fall out of Love, it happened to me as well. There are also degrees to Love. The woman I loved, I purposefully wanted to experience what the limits of Love are to the most extreme levels, while she only reciprocated X amount. In that case I held mine back as well, and everything disintegrated.

But when I was in Love, I knew it without a doubt. Everyone that new me, could tell I was. Just like when your in the rain without an umbrella, and get soaked, you know your soaked.


That's fine and all, but how do you know that what you are accessing is god?

Because its similar to knowing that you're soaked, when you're soaked, or in love when your in love. There is an aspect of direct knowing, just like you know you are. No whatever that "Are" is, can certainly be debated....but there is an aspect of knowing that breathing, seeing, living, reality, existence are all happening.


I'm just questioning that what they experienced was actually what they thought it was.

That's the beauty of it, the experience is prior to all thought, so thought cannot skew or filter it in anyway.


The reason I keep bringing up size is because humans don't know the limits of their mind, the awesomeness of experiencing an infinite being may be the same awesomeness as experiencing a being the size of the Milky Way because in both cases we cannot perceive its limits.

In this regards, you just wouldn't comprehend me unless you had the experience of a nonlocal simultaneous everythingness which has no boundaries. To create a limit or boundary on this Being, would be like water being unable to fill a cup, or wind that can't move, or finding the end of infinity.

I Georg Cantor's infinite math, he shows how you can slice the distance between 0 & 1, or 1 & 2, let's say to the tenths, so ten times, or ten slices, i.e. 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and so on.

Each of those units, can be sliced ten more times, then each of those units ten more times, ad infinitum to now possible conclusive end. So what you are proposing, is like trying to find an end where there is none.



Let's go a step further. What if the Milky Way itself is alive? What if, what you are experiencing is actually the essence of the Milky Way itself? The Milky Way is between 100,000 to 120,000 light years across. Can you comprehend that distance? I have trouble comprehending 1 light year, let alone 100,000 of them. I can certainly try though, 1 light year is about 6 trillion miles. So given the size of the Milky Way, if you were experiencing its essence vs experiencing the essence of the entire universe, could you tell the difference?

no I cannot comprehend it and I would not be able to tell the difference. But I am directly experiencing the milky way in a subjective limited way.

What I am referring to is completely different. For I am proposing One discovers who the inner experiencer is and what its qualities are. That then gives rise to a source in which you merge with. This merging is a complete different kind of beast than trying to comprehend the milky ways size vs. the entire universe. Still apples & oranges.



As a 3D being that may or may not travel through the 4D (call it time), I would never be able to imagine anything outside the dimensions I can access. Ever heard of the novel Flatland? It's about a 2D person (in this case a square) coming into contact with a 3D person (in this case a sphere) and how it can see and interpret this information. The book is actually a satire on Victorian culture, but is a great way to get an idea of how a lower dimension entity would see and understand a higher dimension entity. This example also helps bring up another observation, how do you know that what you experienced isn't just a being from a dimension MUCH higher than our own? Ever draw a 4d cube (or hypercube) and look at it? It hurts your head to try to comprehend how all the edges are connected.

What Im saying, is that Being is intrinsically and inherently linked to all beings, all things, all of existence, as its very ground of being & source. When that experience is accessed, even if you fathom multitudes of dimensions with multitudes of Beings, there is this inherent nature in that experience that it would itself still be the ground of being and source of any additional existences, of which it already feels like there are multitudes.

Now for the sake of discussion, could this being be one of many, or another one prior to it......like I said, that would be like trying to find an end to the Cantor's slices between 0 & 1.


You are talking literal witnessing, I'm talking hypothetical witnessing. Let's assume that we don't need to stand on Earth to witness a star. Though I would like to point out that we certainly can witness Rigel on Earth. How else would we know about it?

YEs universal traits according to literal witnessing


Looking at all I'm missing out on in the universe, I'd say its not surprising that there is stuff I'm missing out on within myself.

Well that happens to be one of the precursors to accessing the source, is to go within and kind of figure out whats what, what is real & illusion. Though NDE's still come to mind, as due accidents which trigger access to this Being. There is an ATS'er on here named Bluesma who even accessed it accidentally (though for me it was fate & synchronicity) and she didn't like anything about it and would never want to return to it, lol......but that's more so to do as an attachment to relative/subjective existence and all it has to offer.



Well as it stands, the only thing preventing you from doing that is your Earthly body. Which could never enter space and approach the sun, and if it did, you'd burn up before even reaching it (the corona is actually the hottest and brightest part of a star and its not even on the star). Though provided that you didn't die of asphyxiation while in space or burn up while approaching and being by the sun, how do you know you couldn't comprehend it?

There are methods, blueprints, maps that teach one how to free consciousness from the body for travel to witness such celestial bodies for one's self, and since there is no physical body around consciousness when it leaves, there is no worry about being burned & killed. I've popped out spontaneously a few times and seen some things.....but that's niether here nor there....



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Rtardx
 


I have just read your post about the inquietude that you are facing, few hear the call to find truth, the great reality. God if you want to call it that. So I feel that it is my duty to reveal a treasured resource, something which I have found to be a tremendous source of inspiration and guidance.

This is a lecture given by a Gnostic instructor about the two types of paths or initiations that exist: gnosticteachings.org... e.html

The library of lectures for further study: gnosticteachings.org...

and the website full of articles, lectures, forum etc: gnosticteachings.org...

I hope you find what you are looking for,
all the best!
edit on 5-3-2014 by zerozone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

dominicus
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 

*snip*

Considering science doesn't even know what consciousness is, let alone how to manipulate it fully, how do you expect to create a conscious AI Simulation, without knowing what consciousness is? Its like trying to paint a replication of the mona lisa without ever seeing the painting or ever getting access to it.


To start with, I'm going to be snipping some of your quotes. I found out that my last response to you was so long, I couldn't edit it without losing a good portion of it.

Remember in my example I said that we are assuming humans have created the technology required to create a functioning A.I. So we can easily assume that humans at this point understand consciousness enough to program it. I'm saying that in my example that we have created a being that is like us down to the last detail, ALL except that it resides in a computer that we programmed. Does this being have consciousness?



*snip* The remembrance and the current are direct knowledge & experience, which has been confirmed by others I have come across. So who is right?


For now. Both of us and neither of us.


*snip*

A human being has blood, nervous systems, meridians if you ask the asian philosophies, a heart, a gut, intuition, all of it working in tandem to create a conscious living being. Considering science or programmers do not fully comprehend how all these systems work together for Consciousness to integrate, what makes you think that with current level technology, they can create a cat, and instantly it will be conscious or self conscious?


Like I said, the entire exercise with the A.I. is hypothetically assuming we have the technology and the know how to do it. All those things you mentioned in the above quote could be simulated with a computer, given the right knowledge of how they work. OR by programming rules for A.I.'s development into the computer, like simulated evolution. That way, we don't have to know how these internal functions work, we can let the program develop them independently while developing its A.I.



Yeah, well absolutes may exist, and because science limits itself with rules & regulations they may miss out on areas where they should be looking in the first place


If they do, science hasn't found them yet. Just look at how science has handled the smallest units of mass. We've gone from Atoms; to protons, neutrons, and electrons; then to quarks; and so on. Seems like every time we zero on the smallest unit of mass, we find something smaller.



Even if you don't assign number to physical objects, it remains subjectively conceptual


Agreed to disagree on this one.



Actually there are tons of people that share the same philosophies.


Not exactly the same though, their philosophies may vary here or there but have the same overall idea. But that means that they aren't the same (ie subjective). Of course even if they are the exactly the same, the fact that you and I are having this debate is proof enough that philosophies are subjective.


*snip*

Reality itself is without labels and thoughts. Children are taught how to superimpose thoughts/labels that everyone is agreeing on, over a naked reality.


What you just described there is learning language. A child doesn't have to know that the woman standing over it caring for it is called "mother" without knowing that that is what she is.


My point is, Love is an actual thing, a direct experience of something that is intangible, but nevertheless real.


Love is an emotion. Emotions are the result of chemical reactions in our brain. Now whether those chemicals being released is a natural reaction given a set of circumstances your brain is interpreting or your consciousness forcing your body to release those chemicals to experience it is remaining to be seen.


Thinking is intangible, subjective, nevertheless, thinking happens.


Thinking is just a process of energy transferring between synapses in our brain, another chemical reaction. This being said, how does your consciousness think without a body? CAN your consciousness think outside your body? Is consciousness just an illusion created by the chemical reactions to help us handle reality?


Because its similar to knowing that you're soaked, when you're soaked, or in love when your in love. There is an aspect of direct knowing, just like you know you are. No whatever that "Are" is, can certainly be debated....but there is an aspect of knowing that breathing, seeing, living, reality, existence are all happening.


That is called instinct. Instincts in humans is something that is fiercely debated on whether we have them or not.


In this regards, you just wouldn't comprehend me unless you had the experience of a nonlocal simultaneous everythingness which has no boundaries. To create a limit or boundary on this Being, would be like water being unable to fill a cup, or wind that can't move, or finding the end of infinity.


Did you know in Set theory, infinity can have different sizes? For instance, the set of all real numbers is larger than the set of all integers? You were kind of on to this by discussing I Georg Cantor's infinite math. Here's a link:

The Different Sizes of Infinity

I bring this up so we can transpose to a different discussion. What if there is a BIGGER infinite being than the infinite one you witnessed?



no I cannot comprehend it and I would not be able to tell the difference. But I am directly experiencing the milky way in a subjective limited way.

What I am referring to is completely different. For I am proposing One discovers who the inner experiencer is and what its qualities are. That then gives rise to a source in which you merge with. This merging is a complete different kind of beast than trying to comprehend the milky ways size vs. the entire universe. Still apples & oranges.


But what if it worked in steps? What if whatever you merged with could do the same thing with itself and merge with something even LARGER?


What Im saying, is that Being is intrinsically and inherently linked to all beings, all things, all of existence, as its very ground of being & source. When that experience is accessed, even if you fathom multitudes of dimensions with multitudes of Beings, there is this inherent nature in that experience that it would itself still be the ground of being and source of any additional existences, of which it already feels like there are multitudes.

Now for the sake of discussion, could this being be one of many, or another one prior to it......like I said, that would be like trying to find an end to the Cantor's slices between 0 & 1.


Well that happens to be one of the precursors to accessing the source, is to go within and kind of figure out whats what, what is real & illusion. Though NDE's still come to mind, as due accidents which trigger access to this Being. There is an ATS'er on here named Bluesma who even accessed it accidentally (though for me it was fate & synchronicity) and she didn't like anything about it and would never want to return to it, lol......but that's more so to do as an attachment to relative/subjective existence and all it has to offer.


So you say, but there may yet be an undiscovered method to get there externally too.


There are methods, blueprints, maps that teach one how to free consciousness from the body for travel to witness such celestial bodies for one's self, and since there is no physical body around consciousness when it leaves, there is no worry about being burned & killed. I've popped out spontaneously a few times and seen some things.....but that's niether here nor there....




You can witness celestial bodies outside of our planet by leaving your body? Quick question, what color is our sun?




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join