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.

 

Evidence That the Human Body is a Projection of Consciousness

page: 12
100
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Whats that have to do with the OP?

That has NOTHING to do with our body being a hologram. You know the same thing happens if you play video games all day right?

a reply to: TheBandit795




You don't get it, man! [puffs some weed]. It's all connected! We are a transdimensional projection of the holo-matrix consciousness. We are not real, it's all a simulation, a computer game. Cough. Cough. [puffs again] [slowly exhale an intoxicating vapor]

You see, matter is not real. There is only energy. That means we are not really bodies, only thought forms stuck in a mental prison constraining our true nature. If you could get rid of your preconceptions for like 1 min you could see all I have seen. You could command the elements, bend this illusion to your will. I do it every day.
What you mean it's only in my mind? Well of course, you are stuck in your own mental prison so how could you see as I see, that the mind, free from the shackles of materialism can become the god it has always been? The creator and ruler of his subjective universe. In my universe I can make anime real and work useless and I'm not subject to the tyranny of my digestive system.

Speaking of which, I could do with some munchies right now.

[falls asleep before being able to get up, head stuck in a puddle of drool]







Sorry I couldn't resist


The problem with many in the thread, and I think it was very nicely summarized by philosopheroftruth, is that there are both an internal and a universal reality.

Most people get stuck into one of the two, materialist-type people only believing in an objective universe, and spiritual/new-age/esoteric inclined ones almost only believing in in a subjective and internal universe.

Of course the truth as usual is that both are half right and half wrong.

There is more than just the matter we can touch, but not everything is a "projection of our mind".

Most tend to simplify and dumb down the universe, which is such a complex system that any attempt to reduce it to a few caricatures is bound to fail and to give a deformed view of reality.
edit on 23-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 23 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

It's one of the studies the article in the OP references to.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
It's true but the article in the OP is also bad science and logic as shown extensively by the ongoing confusion between "mind influences body functions" (how surprising, as a reminder our mind can control our muscles...) and "mind CREATES the physical body by sheer consciousness" (despite unconscious people still having bodies).
edit on 23-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
It makes sense... or is logical or what ever human word you want to use.

There are things we know for fact that just require a little more understanding than most people want to indulge in. Probably because it almost becomes abstract once we get down to the size of electrons and what not.

But just sitting here... try to look at your hand, not as piece of flesh. Try to imagine what makes it up at the very smallest scale.

The smallest I can imagine is atoms and such. How they bind together in groups and the more and more you get of them in specific combinations, the more and more dense they become, the more they start to take form out of non-form.

However, I have at one point seen what I believe is what we are in essence and that makes this whole thing really interesting.

You know that imagery of the drop of water that hits a fluid surface and sends rings out. That is more or less what we are in terms of energy, but of course there is no drops dripping. We are simply emitters that send out signals... or... waves of energy.

These waves can be affected and in the greater whole manifest itself in "real life" as an emotion or sensation or vision.

I also believe that this essence is not bound to the confines of the human vessel and I think that is where the science becomes interesting because since the essence is something external to the body, it can react and use the energies around itself as a way to influence the vessel.

Emotions and sensations are interpretations of the energies that hit the vessel made by the essence through the vessel.

Much like how it feels when you sit in a car and you drive over a rock lying on the road.
It's not the car that says "rock"... it's you the driver that comes to that conclusion and reacts accordingly by either making a small turn on the steering wheel or stopping to check how the tire is doing.

This essence is ever lasting. Like any energy existing in the universe is can never cease to exist...

This is what I think lends credence to the concepts proposed by fx buddhists and hinduists, that the essence will appear again in some other vessel. But since emotions, sensations and memories are creations and inhabitants of the vessel we are in presently we don't take them with us. As the body deteriorates they too become something else since their energy is un-perishable as any other. Actually I have an idea that the essence that is able to control the human vessel is probably the only thing in the universe that is made up of an energy connection that cannot be changed or rearranged. It can simply be... free from knowledge and emotion, needs and wants.

As such, no-one on Earth should fear what ever comes after "life", because it's just a passing phase anyways. A huge magnificent manipulative show for the sake of the show.

It's the universe waving back at itself saying "oh look... there I am."



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
And it does not support the OP at all. They just dont understand the science and anyone who thinks it supports the OP doesn't understand it either.

a reply to: TheBandit795



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Yep, the article is actually pretty bad, I agree. But it's still interesting as it gives some clues that I can use to find more of the experiments that are being done.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795
a reply to: raymundoko

Yep, the article is actually pretty bad, I agree. But it's still interesting as it gives some clues that I can use to find more of the experiments that are being done.


Almost all the experience on the subject of noetics are done by the Institute of Noetic Sciences I linked earlier. You can check their site.

But most of their results only show that consciousness is able to very very slightly influence things directly.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   


The atom is solid because of force fields that define its boundaries.


Source



Are protons, neutrons and electrons totally solid?

No, these particles aren't totally solid. They make up matter (and therefore have mass), and we know that matter can be in solid, liquid or gaseous state. So the actual particles aren't solid, but they may be in a solid phase.


Source

Any thoughts?



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

That's because 95% of all thinking, feeling, choices etc is done by the subconscious mind. Not the conscious mind. People asleep or in a coma still have an active subconscious mind.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

Same thing I've just mentioned about the subconscious.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

That's because 95% of all thinking, feeling, choices etc is done by the subconscious mind. Not the conscious mind. People asleep or in a coma still have an active subconscious mind.


This is an ATS thread that is relatable.

ATS Thread



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Thanks!

I posted a thread about it a long time ago. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:44 PM
link   
When offered that particles may exist in a phased state has nothing to do with plasma. We are talking about something we have not yet encountered, except in relation to the Higgs Field/Bosom. Classically there seems to be particles. The problem with that is that it is just because there seems to exist solidity, to the five senses. This does not mean that in reality at the size of an atom or a proton, something that we commonly define as solid actually exist as a solid as we define it in general.

One can relate to sub-atomic particles as specific frequencies in the sense that there is a difference between carbon and iron (as an example).

In so far as electrons, protons and neutron being solid we are talking about alternative states of matter, beyond solid, liquid, gaseous and plasma.

The Higgs Bosom can very well also be the result of internal representations and as such there is only a Higgs Field.



Any thoughts?
edit on 23-5-2014 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBandit795
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

That's because 95% of all thinking, feeling, choices etc is done by the subconscious mind. Not the conscious mind. People asleep or in a coma still have an active subconscious mind.


It's a convenient answer to my concern, but honestly, not a proof that the body is a projection of the subconscious.

We can keep going if you truly want to prove it.

If in my subconscious I dream that I have wings, will they sprout from my back in real life?

Come on guys, I know why you want this to be true but theres a moment you have to admit there is simply no indication of this, quite the opposite.


Again, all these experiences show is that consciousness can, in some instances, very slightly influence a photon.

That you take this and think it means the body is a projection of the mind is beyond me and make me question the seriousness of some.
edit on 24-5-2014 by SpaceGoatFarts because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

The fact that particles don't seem to be "solid" and clearly defined when we look at their level means nothing about the fact that at macro level, their sheer number and energy makes them solid, tangible and quite stable.

Some people have a hard time to understand that at human level, the law of numbers is at play and no matter how a single electron behaves, what matters the is the global probability function which will becom more than a probability simply because there are billions of billions of particles.

Using quantum experiments to prove macro effects like the body is simply a falacy. Thats why these experiments say nothing about the claim in the article. It's the author who made that mistake.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Hey all, great thread here. I'm inclined to agree more so with Space Goat Farts (great name!) than others. I think people tend to jump on the extreme end of the materialistic spectrum in the belief that Consciousness arises out of matter. Yet, people tend to jump to the other extreme of a nihilistic approach to life in denying any kind of relative reality (objective).

Vedanta claims that All is Brahman (Consciousness), yet it completely acknowledges an existing objective reality.

I'd say as opposed to a belief, but more as a theory of my own, that Consciousness is fundamental to reality. The Universe as we know it is self conscious. Consciousness is the essence of the Universe and the universe does not exist without Consciousness as a fundamental nature. Granted, Nisargadatta uses the terms Awareness and consciousness separately, I am utilizing Consciousness alone here.

Clearly, humans have evolved and I'd say evolution is Consciousness evolving into more of a subjective nature. This is our own experience. Is there ANY experience that we can talk about that does not involve Consciousness? Of course not. That doesn't mean that the world doesn't exist when we are not looking at it. It just means that nothing could ever be said to be, without Consciousness. Vedanta calls the objective reality 'Maya'. It exists exactly the way we believe it does, objectively, but it is only 'partially' real as compared to that which is 'Ultimately real' (Consciousness).

Mind/Body complex/sensory are obviously limited, but that consciousness we experience is still the same Consciousness that makes up the universe. Yet, it appears limited due to the mind/body complex. No, I don't believe we have ANY control over reality by our finite minds alone. Our thoughts most certainly do NOT affect reality, other than how we interpret reality. We each create our own subjective worlds via how we interpret reality by identifying with thought. But, we do not have any effect on objective reality which itself, is merely a product of Universal Consciousness (somehow).

It's a lot simpler than people are making it out to be. If reality is non-dual, then the consciousness I experience is the same as the consciousness that YOU experience and is the same Consciousness that my cat experiences and the same Consciousness that makes up the cosmos. Which means that while the world we experience is most certainly real, it is still only a product OF Consciousness.

I'd highly advise people to check out "Orch Theory" (check it out on youtube) which is a new scientific theory proposed by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff which explains how Consciousness INTERACTS with the brain and how Consciousness is fundamental.
edit on 24-5-2014 by CPO22566 because: no reason



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: CPO22566

Welcome to ATS! Thank you for choosing this thread to make your long first post.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpaceGoatFarts
a reply to: Kashai

The fact that particles don't seem to be "solid" and clearly defined when we look at their level means nothing about the fact that at macro level, their sheer number and energy makes them solid, tangible and quite stable.

Some people have a hard time to understand that at human level, the law of numbers is at play and no matter how a single electron behaves, what matters the is the global probability function which will becom more than a probability simply because there are billions of billions of particles.

Using quantum experiments to prove macro effects like the body is simply a falacy. Thats why these experiments say nothing about the claim in the article. It's the author who made that mistake.



Everything we experience is the result of internal representations. In context a fairly accurate one but, clearly not exacting.



What is Probability Density Function

1.The statistical function that shows how the density of possible observations in a population is distributed.


Is that what you mean by "Global Probability Function"?



Does probability come from quantum physics?
February 5, 2013


Ever since Austrian scientist Erwin Schrodinger put his unfortunate cat in a box, his fellow physicists have been using something called quantum theory to explain and understand the nature of waves and particles.

But a new paper by physics professor Andreas Albrecht and graduate student Dan Phillips at the University of California, Davis, makes the case that these quantum fluctuations actually are responsible for the probability of all actions, with far-reaching implications for theories of the universe.

Quantum theory is a branch of theoretical physics that strives to understand and predict the properties and behavior of atoms and particles. Without it, we would not be able to build transistors and computers, for example. One aspect of the theory is that the precise properties of a particle are not determined until you observe them and "collapse the wave function" in physics parlance.


Source

If one cannot use quantum events to explain or as you say "prove", macro events then what about about the Big Bang?





edit on 24-5-2014 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai

If one cannot use quantum events to explain or as you say "prove", macro events then what about about the Big Bang?



The big bang is a singularity where time and space themselves seem to become non existant. I wouldn't consider the big bang as something that can relate to our daily lives where we do experience space and time.


What I meant is that the quantum laws of physics apply to single particles only. When you look at billions of particles, the individual behavior of particles doesn't really matter anymore, only the overall behavior matters. And that one can be determined by classical laws of physics.

So anything quantum physics postulates usually do not apply at our human scale.

That's why I used the crowd comparison.

"Matter" is a crowd, and particles are individuals.

What you know about an individual will not help you understand how a crowd behaves, because the crowd responds to other laws.

Likewise, quantum experiments hardly represent the behavior of things like solid objects. As these respond to other laws because of the sheer number of particles.

So if an experiment says the observer influences th result of the observation of a particle, it's not true regarding the observation of billions of particles.

I know it's hard to grasp but not really if you accept these two different scales have simply different rules.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Threads like this are the reason I love this site



new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join