why? The Question I Ask You.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Why? That is my question.

Why are you here, at this very subforum?

What are you trying to accomplish? Why are you trying to accomplish it?

Why, are you trying to find the reason for all things that are being and the possibility of an afterlife? Why are you trying to prove god exists?

Why is the question I ask.

[edit on 14-11-2006 by grimreaper797]

Because I choose to...

and because I choose to make it the best experience possible.

they ask me:
"What makes you think what you say is the truth, and not your opinion?"

my response is:
"what is the process that results in the opinions one has formed? if you can answer this question, it will permit me to answer your question. However, ironically, if you had the answer to this question, you would not need to ask me your question."

nor would one need to ask: "why?".

our responses are getting too long, so Im going to shorten it up ET.

In short, our opinions come from experiences. You say truth comes with experience, but opinions come from experiences. Opinions are created when emotional responses interfer with our logical thoughts. This happens when we experience things first hand. So in short, you say experience is the way to truth, yet you say opinion is interfering with me finding the truth.

If that is true, then its because Im learning it all from experience. But its not true, because a majority of things I learn by taking myself out of my shoes, and facing the situation externally, allowing myself to disconnect emotional bias which creates opinions and prejudice to begin with.


By the way, your making my posts out like they are about me. Im not asking you the questions for you to answer them for me, Im asking them for you to ask them to yourself.

I know the question, but for me to ask you it, would destroy the whole point of you finding your way to the question. Finding the right question is most of the journey. feel free to PM me if you think its the right question.

you said "my truth is that all truths are irrelevent". Not so. My truth is not that all other truth are irrelent. My truth makes all other truths irrelevent simply because they become second nature. They simply aren't as important. My truth is not your truth, but my question IS the same as your question. The answer is the truth, but the answer wont be the same in time.

The question is "what do I do next?" figure out why. If you are enlightened, you wont have to agree with my logic, but you will be able to understand it.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
our responses are getting too long, so Im going to shorten it up ET.

In short, our opinions come from experiences. You say truth comes with experience, but opinions come from experiences.

As wierd as this sounds, i know you make sense. however, i disagree.

Experiences cannot form opinions, just reaffirm pre-existing ones.

If all sensory input first gets delivered to the subconscious part of the mind, then perhaps we only experience what our opinion permits us to experience. our opinion dwells within the conscious part of the mind, but it is not the conscious part of the mind that your senses report to, your senses report to the subconscious part of the mind. So, how can you be sure of what you have seen, if your conscious mind gets to choose to overide the truth your subconscious mind experienced?

So in short, you say experience is the way to truth, yet you say opinion is interfering with me finding the truth.

that is exactly what i am saying. experience is the way to the truth, yet you have never experienced the truth, you have only experienced your what your opinion permits to bubble up to the top, after all sensory input has been delivered to the part of your brain you are not consciously awary of. you are not consciously aware of your experiences because you are not consciously aware of you subconscious mind which only accounts for 99.999999997% of the reality most people are not experiencing. most people are not experiencing truth because of the 0.000000002% of their brains (conscious) which is the self/opinion which is in the driver's seat, so to speak, of your mind.

If that is true, then its because Im learning it all from experience. But its not true, because a majority of things I learn by taking myself out of my shoes, and facing the situation externally, allowing myself to disconnect emotional bias which creates opinions and prejudice to begin with.

but what are you learning? Opinions must also adhere to a certain formula, right?
we all learn through a process called the "Law Of Association", which dictates that your conscious mind can only accept a new truth if it is compliant with pre-existing truths. a good example of this is when we begin kindergarden we do not begin to learn multiplication and division or even algebra first. first we must learn how to count. and would we fully accept the concept of "5" if our opinion did not permit us to accept "1, 2, 3, and 4" as real or truthfull?

so if we only can consciously experience things that conform to the truths of our opinion (conscious mind) then what were the first truths that everything we consciously experience had to latch onto?
1) "Self Pre-Serve". to many this means merely "survive", to others it means "me first before anyone or anything". All first experiences and all experiences since then may only have been 0.000000002% of the real experience, as the truths we were not consciously capable of experiencing just got filed away to take up even more space in our subconscious filing cabinets.

By the way, your making my posts out like they are about me. Im not asking you the questions for you to answer them for me, Im asking them for you to ask them to yourself.

i'm sorry if my words sound that way. but in order for me to ask myself, i would have to rely on my opinion of myself to judge myself. and i choose not to trust my opinion as much as i trust the truth of whatever it is i refuse to judge.

you said:
"Im not asking you the questions for you to answer them for me, Im asking them for you to ask them to yourself."

if i were to be asking myself, then a pre-requisite would be i would have to divide my mind into at least 2 parts to do so. one to ask the question, and one to respond. i find i can see far more than just 2 angles when i think with one mind, not a fractionalized mind that is in pieces.

I know the question, but for me to ask you it, would destroy the whole point of you finding your way to the question. Finding the right question is most of the journey. feel free to PM me if you think its the right question.

but, i have no question.
1) so, either i have asked the question and found the answer
2) i have found the question to be unanswerable and refused to accept that so i pressed forward to the next logical question.
3) i have found the question to have multiple answers and have ventured out to explore the various plausible answers.
4) i have never had a use for the question, as i have always had the answer.
5) i have the answer, but the question is forever trying to corner speculation into submission, so i don't have the question, but i do have the answer.

of course, there are other plausibilities as well.

They simply aren't as important. My truth is not your truth, but my question IS the same as your question. The answer is the truth, but the answer wont be the same in time.

But i am less than here, so why do i have a need for such a question?

The question is "what do I do next?" figure out why. If you are enlightened, you wont have to agree with my logic, but you will be able to understand it.

what i do next is what comes before what i did last. this is one beautiful answer to a perfect question.

I do wholeheartedly apologize if my words seemed directed at you personally. they were not intended to be. i like your thinking style. or else, why would i be here? I like members who provoke thought, the harder the questions, the more brain food. Some people like to think, and i believe you are one such person. And i very much enjoy people who can find the words to make me think. Perhaps you did not notice, but it did take me 3 days to respond on this thread. I was off of work for three days, but i did have a 15 minute window of opportunity to answer your inquiries of the way i think Wed. morning. instead i opted to read over your post a couple of times and think about it for a few days. the computer i use is at work, and my home computer is inop. So, i gave your ideas some thought, as i know you put thought into them.

i don't think we think too differently. you have just as much knowledge and truth to offer me as i do you. you make very good points, and you articulate well when you share your thoughts here on ATS, and i honestly respect that.

the underlining point i can think to make now is:
"what do i do next" -- I like that question, a lot.

and:
if an opinion is subject to being truths compiled upon pre-existing truths only, then what were the first truths that dictate how experience is percieved?

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Experiences cannot form opinions, just reaffirm pre-existing ones.

Experiences combined with an ignorant person who jumps to conclusions, or has little to know intelligence, will form opinions on experience.

If all sensory input first gets delivered to the subconscious part of the mind, then perhaps we only experience what our opinion permits us to experience. our opinion dwells within the conscious part of the mind, but it is not the conscious part of the mind that your senses report to, your senses report to the subconscious part of the mind. So, how can you be sure of what you have seen, if your conscious mind gets to choose to overide the truth your subconscious mind experienced?

are we then born with opinions? No, opinions form from observing but a lack of any understanding about the subject, first hand experience, or reinforced beliefs pushed onto them by parents and other people.

What you see is what you see, then your opinion tries to tell you what you just saw. The person may have said "you were over there?" but then your opinions and such run through from past experience with the person and then you here "you were over there?" in a sarcastic snyde tone.

It not that you aren't experiencing what other people are, you just allow your opinions and emotional response from those opinions to override your logical mind. Logical mind gets easily hi jacked by emotional responses, naturally. It take will power and practice to train yourself to not let the emotional hijackings occur.

Couldn't it be you experience the same thing, but your emotions hijack your system and you end up interpreting it differently then? Best way to train yourself out of that is to remain conscious of what your doing and saying. Going through things and not jumping to conclusions.

I can understand what your saying, but I think its the other way around. I think you interpret it first, then emotional hijacking occurs and it warps it. You get angry then suddenly your hearing a different tone and such.

If you cant control your emotions and such, how do you expect to think logically? If you can't think logically, the truth will definately be distorted. Thats why alot of things I have had to completely rethink over my time, because my original beliefs were from emotional responses that hijacked my train of thought and caused me to belief things that weren't true.

that is exactly what i am saying. experience is the way to the truth, yet you have never experienced the truth, you have only experienced your what your opinion permits to bubble up to the top, after all sensory input has been delivered to the part of your brain you are not consciously awary of. you are not consciously aware of your experiences because you are not consciously aware of you subconscious mind which only accounts for 99.999999997% of the reality most people are not experiencing. most people are not experiencing truth because of the 0.000000002% of their brains (conscious) which is the self/opinion which is in the driver's seat, so to speak, of your mind.

Your not making sense though. If you can only see the truth through your OWN experiences, you cant see the truth, none of us can. Mainly because first hand experiences cause emotional responses. If the emotional response doesn't occur, the opinion doesn't form. It doesnt follow basic logic

ex. if some cats are crazy, and all things crazy are boring, then all cats are boring.
^that is an illogical statement. Some cats are crazy, but some are not. All things crazy are boring, that means SOME cats are boring, logically. The fact you say all cats are boring is an emotional response you had from cats. They bored YOU. That doesn't mean all cats are boring though, it simply means all cats are boring to YOU.
the logical response would be
ex. if some cats are crazy, and all things crazy are boring, then SOME cats are boring.
I think all cats are boring, but the truth is that some cats are boring, if that statement were true.

Now lets take my example from before
ex. some black people beat me up, all people that beat me up are bad, thus all black people are bad
^illogical response. If you break it down, which any thinking person should, they would realize that the logic doesnt fit. Logically it would be some black people are bad. Then you would move on to realize, well what if some white people beat me up.
You would soon realize that regardless of race, they each have some bad seeds. Thats logically thinking, and putting your emotional hijacking to the side.

Understand what I mean by taking yourself out of your own personal experiences and emotions?

but what are you learning? Opinions must also adhere to a certain formula, right?

yes the formula that they must originate from something. Something must cause the opinion. lets take your number bit. How do all the zeros equal 1? 0 experience 0 views taught by parents, 0 things seen, cannot equal 1 opinion now can it? it takes something to have an opinion about it. Thats my point. Where do you believe opinions come from?

we all learn through a process ... truthfully?

the one error in that is this, you can have that opinion that 5 does not exist, but everytime you go to do something, you will find out you were wrong. You are told to put 6 dogs inside, but only one dog can get through at a time. How will you get these 6 dogs in if you don't believe in numbers? Numbers are simply a quanitive value, if your opinion is they don't exist, you will often get stuck with situations, and quickly realize your wrong.

Sometime you cant physically realize your opinions are wrong though. Obviously if you refuse to acknowledge number, you will quickly find out you are wrong. But what about more complex things like god and such? Well you have to use logic, just as you did to defeat racism.

Simple logic often solves simple problem. As things become more complex you must think more obviously, more connections and such. How do you disconnect yourself from your opinions? By putting yourself in some one elses shoes. Now Im an actor, so its easy for me to simply change my entire personality and think outside of who I am. Take yourself out of your shoes and you opinions and look at the logic in something believing what you don't believe in.

If your an atheist, look at things from a christian viewpoint, then a muslim viewpoint, etc. Look at it from every possible bias.

ex. If all people pray for some one they know near death, and some people survive, does that mean that prayer work or doesnt work logically?
Or does it work some of the time? If it only works some of the time, why? Gods will? Well if its god will, what the point of praying? It then shows that praying doesn't actually do anything.

so if we only can consciously experience things that conform to the truths of our opinion (conscious mind) then what were the first truths that everything we consciously experience had to latch onto?

if we can only experience thing that confirm our pre opinions, we can experience anything until we have opinions. That make any logical sense? That would mean we would have to be told EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING before we could experience. Opinions dont just form from thin air. parents don't give you an opinion for everything before it happens.

So where do all these opinions come from? experiences themselves. Opinions must come from something, they can't come from nothing. Now parents can give us opinions by teaching us it before we experience the situation, but its impossible to think they can teach us an opinion for everything before we experience it.

Eventually you will come across something you have no previous knowledge of. When that happens, where does the opinion come from? Experience.

So now if experience is the cause of the opinion, then experience distorts the truth just as much as any of the other ways opinions are formed. Experience is not an accurate way to find truth, people just believe it is because emotional hijackings. These emotional hijackings distort not only truth, but logic too. without logic, you cannot find truth at all.

1) "Self Pre-Serve". to many this means merely "survive", to others it means "me first before anyone or anything". All first experiences and all experiences since then may only have been 0.000000002% of the real experience, as the truths we were not consciously capable of experiencing just got filed away to take up even more space in our subconscious filing cabinets.

why are we not capable of experiencing them? opinions? Well as you can see, you cant have an opinion for EVERYTHING before you experience it. Some things you can, but eventually you will find something that you have no knowledge of ever existing til that moment. Why do you not experience it then?

i'm sorry if my words sound that way. but in order for me to ask myself, i would have to rely on my opinion of myself to judge myself. and i choose not to trust my opinion as much as i trust the truth of whatever it is i refuse to judge.

I understand, but I don't agree to an extent, below is why.

you said:
"Im not asking you the questions for you to answer them for me, Im asking them for you to ask them to yourself."

if i were to be asking myself, then a pre-requisite would be i would have to divide my mind into at least 2 parts to do so. one to ask the question, and one to respond. i find i can see far more than just 2 angles when i think with one mind, not a fractionalized mind that is in pieces.

What if I were to tell you that you have divided your mind by birth, and that you only use half of it by asking the question, or only the other half by only answering the question?

Your metaphysical ramblings aren't nearly as zany or interesting as Simon Moon's - who I assume you're trying to imitate here....

but, i have no question.

O but thats where your wrong, because in time, you must always answer a question, even if you don't consciously ask it.

1) so, either i have asked the question and found the answer

wouldn't matter because in time you would have to answer it again, and again and again. Because it changes, the answer I mean.

2) i have found the question to be unanswerable and refused to accept that so i pressed forward to the next logical question.

there isn't anything further, because there isn't any more basic question to ask. It may be unanswerable, but only because of your inability, not the basic inability to answer it. If you cant answer this question, its your own fault, not the questions.

3) i have found the question to have multiple answers and have ventured out to explore the various plausible answers.

ahh your getting closer, its doesn't just have multiple answers, it has infinate answers, infinitely. By exploring the possible answer though, you are forfilling the answer to be true.

4) i have never had a use for the question, as i have always had the answer.

not according to your own belief system, the law of association. You cannot always have the answer until you have had certain requirements met to fit that logic.

5) i have the answer, but the question is forever trying to corner speculation into submission, so i don't have the question, but i do have the answer.

hmm, which came first, the question or the answer? Well the answer of course. Unfortunately, the answer is rather useless till you know what it is you are answering.

of course, there are other plausibilities as well.

most likely.

But i am less than here, so why do i have a need for such a question?

what do you mean you are less then here? You have need for such a question because without it, you will not act ever, which by default you do, whether you like it or not. In order to do something, you need to ask this question, consciously or sub consciously, you do.

what i do next is what comes before what i did last. this is one beautiful answer to a perfect question.

No that what you are doing now. What you do now is think, what do you plan to do after you think? If you dont know what to do next, what do you have? You can have every answer in the universe, but its the one question that all the knowledge and understanding cannot answer.

No amount of answers can predict what will happen next. Sure in a controlled environment you may be able to predict what happens during that experiment, but even then, its not garenteed. maybe you are doing the experiement and the power goes out, your generator fails, and your experiment prediction fails. Why? because even though you modified the environment to raise the chances exponentially, you still cannot ever raise it to 100%. Simply put, nothing is ever garenteed for certain.

Thats why no amount of understanding a truths can answer that question of what you will do next. The question is more accurately depicted logically as "what will I ATTEMPT to do next?" mainly because its not certain you will do it, or that you will succeed or anything. That question is infinite because as long as time goes, it must be reevalued and reanswered. The answers are endless because free will decides the current answer of what you will attempt to do next.

It is the question that has no set answer, and that no truth can answer. It is the question that is answered by free will and choice, and decided in history by chance.

Some believe its gods will and its not chance but destiny. At the end of the day...does it really matter which it was?

I do wholeheartedly apologize if my words seemed directed at you personally. they were not intended to be. i like your thinking style. or else, why would i be here? I like members who provoke thought, the harder the questions, the more brain food. Some people like to think, and i believe you are one such person. And i very much enjoy people who can find the words to make me think. Perhaps you did not notice, but it did take me 3 days to respond on this thread. I was off of work for three days, but i did have a 15 minute window of opportunity to answer your inquiries of the way i think Wed. morning. instead i opted to read over your post a couple of times and think about it for a few days. the computer i use is at work, and my home computer is inop. So, i gave your ideas some thought, as i know you put thought into them.

I do thank you for that, and Im rather glad you didn't forget about it.

I rather enjoy talking to you as well because you have a rather unique thinking style. I still think your subconscious word spelling thing is over thought, but other then that you make some very good points, which question me.

I though, dont think things over. I freewrite everything Ive ever written. Everything you have ever read from me was written simultaiously, without stopping or without pause (except to address points by reading what you say first of course). I do this because I believe that thinking about it too much allows too many variables to play. With freewritting you dont have time to think about what your saying and you just say it. This allows people to see what is truely going through your head without it being watered down or modified.

Overall I think its what works for me. If I need to think about it, then I just walk always because I feel the answers should come to me rather then think them throuhg (since thats how I have done everything I do thus far except for math problems, but even then I do sometimes see I am thinking to much and must walk away.)

i don't think we think too differently. you have just as much knowledge and truth to offer me as i do you. you make very good points, and you articulate well when you share your thoughts here on ATS, and i honestly respect that.

I think our differences come from basic perspectives. Most those perspective do unfortunately come from experiences. That is what I have tried to the best of my ability to remove myself from. You believe you learn from experiences, I believe that experiences do the opposite. I think that you should learn before, and deal with an experience. If it comes out unexpectedly, thats when you learn that you were incorrect. Experiences shouldn't be something where you live it and that is your truth. It should be, think it over, expect an outcome, if that outcome was different, find out why it turned out differently.

Unfortunately, you cant do every situation simulatiously. Eventually youll get a situation where you never had an expected outcome, you never thought about it before, and you acted before you made any logical thought about it. Those are the experiences which you have to try and put behind you, because I personally see them as the negative experiences.

They allow emotional hijacking because you dont have any expectation at all. Overall your more prone to emotional hijacking, which distorts truth and logic.

the underlining point i can think to make now is:
"what do i do next" -- I like that question, a lot.

Well it is one question which you will never find a definate answer for. Easy reason for it too. Time thus far is believed to be infinite. If it is, then the answer is infinite as well.

and:
if an opinion is subject to being truths compiled upon pre-existing truths only, then what were the first truths that dictate how experience is percieved?

The first truths were not truths at all. They were distorted truths...lies. We are not born with a conscious mind that is able to think out a certain situation, expect a certain outcome based on the logic of the situation, then if that fails, see why it went wrong.

As long as we are born, taught pre existing ideas, and told to view things certain ways, we will always build our "truths" upon the foundation of unknowns. They may be lies, they may be truths, but we don't know because we weren't able to think of them logically at the time.

Our greatest flaw is our lack of logic at a young age.

Originally posted by millerman
Your metaphysical ramblings aren't nearly as zany or interesting as Simon Moon's - who I assume you're trying to imitate here....

who?

Im sorry, I dont listen to philosophers or people that lecture, to me they are just wasting their time teaching things. The only person I respected as a philosopher was socrates, because he taught nothing at all, yet gave more to the people then any other philosopher.

Yikes, that's a grim neat,meaning - how profound.

1. But if you have nothing to prove, what reason are you here? Are you here to spread the idea you have? Or to just simply hear yourself say it?
   

I'm just opinionated.

Originally posted by clearwater
Yikes, that's a grim neat,meaning - how profound.

lol I lost you, what are you talking about?

1. But if you have nothing to prove, what reason are you here? Are you here to spread the idea you have? Or to just simply hear yourself say it?
   

I'm just opinionated.

hahaha alright then, you just like to argue haha.

well anyway, thanks for that. Now I know how to do lists

1. I didnt know this existed before. Awesome.
   

are we then born with opinions? No, opinions form from observing but a lack of any understanding about the subject, first hand experience, or reinforced beliefs pushed onto them by parents and other people.

maybe you are right. instincts may be inherited opinions.

Couldn't it be you experience the same thing, but your emotions hijack your system and you end up interpreting it differently then? Best way to train yourself out of that is to remain conscious of what your doing and saying. Going through things and not jumping to conclusions.

I can understand what your saying, but I think its the other way around. I think you interpret it first, then emotional hijacking occurs and it warps it. You get angry then suddenly your hearing a different tone and such.

interpret what first? the sensory input that is not delivered to the emotional realms of the conscious mind, but instead are delivered to the subconscious realm of the mind? What is there to hijack if the subconscious mind only permits the consious mind to have what it can accept and nothing more?

If you cant control your emotions and such, how do you expect to think logically?

logically i don't see how emotions are not true, therefore controlling truth is not just accepting truth, but rather yielding truth to the opinion that emotions should be controlled.

If you can't think logically, the truth will definately be distorted.

logic can be easily distorted with or without emotions. Why not turn inwards to challenge one's own opinion and instead of running from emotions to merely control them, why not face them to quantify and define them. Logically speaking of course, if one could determine within their own minds what emotions are justified for and from where they come, then one could burn a lot more callories on logical perceptions without having to burn callories on attempting to control fear, love, hate, and all other emotions and personal emotional initiators. Trying to control emotions is like only so many fingers and toes when the damn is breaking. but, if one could define what their emotions truly are, and explain them for what they are and why, then you have no need to ever control emotions again. seems to me like a liberating concept, because by trying to control your emotions is just storing more information in your subconscious mind which is taking space away from one's conscious cognitive skills.

that is exactly what i am saying. experience is the way to the truth, yet you have never experienced the truth, you have only experienced your what your opinion permits to bubble up to the top, after all sensory input has been delivered to the part of your brain you are not consciously awary of. you are not consciously aware of your experiences because you are not consciously aware of you subconscious mind which only accounts for 99.999999997% of the reality most people are not experiencing. most people are not experiencing truth because of the 0.000000002% of their brains (conscious) which is the self/opinion which is in the driver's seat, so to speak, of your mind.

Your not making sense though. If you can only see the truth through your OWN experiences, you cant see the truth, none of us can. Mainly because first hand experiences cause emotional responses. If the emotional response doesn't occur, the opinion doesn't form. It doesnt follow basic logic

to say the opinion does not form is to say you are denying your genetic commands that are within each and every cell that comprises you as a whole. So, unless you've experienced being self aware enough to dump certain instincts from your programming, no you have not seen what you thought it was you saw.

1) your eyes see a thing
2) your subconscious mind recieves the signal.
3) your subconscious mind delivers the signal to your conscious mind.
4) your conscious mind can not accept anything that is inconsistant with what truths it accepts as truth. so, your conscious mind keeps only 0.000000002% of the experience that is compliant with what can accept, since no new truth can be incorporated without having a means to attach to a pre-existing truth. or else it is one brain cell all by itself with 4 or 5 "arms" without any connection to any other brain cell throughout the entire neuro-net.


The brain does not work the way you are saying it does. Some of the concepts you are presenting here are inconsistant with what is known about the human brain.

The truth is if you have not consciously accepted certain truths as truths, then you can not even be capable of recieving the information from your subconsious mind, because there simply is no place for it to fit in your conscious neuronet. What i am talking about is a state of mind that permits you to go more than a month without sleep, and still function just fine. Why? because sleep is merely a byproduct of having a subconscious that requires sleep. Have you experienced going more than 5 weeks without sleep?

What if I were to tell you that you have divided your mind by birth, and that you only use half of it by asking the question, or only the other half by only answering the question?

I would say you were right once, but now you are mistaken. I became self aware enought to know that the two cells that both combined with each having the genetic prime directive of "self pre-serve" never really fully joined the dna. Do you believe a sperm and an egg can both have dna that says "survive no matter what" and "survive no matter what", and be totally compliant with eachother to forfiet the genetic command of "survive no matter what"?

I would say i got further than that. i must have. because no one told me, i found that truth within, past my emotions, past my logical thoughts, past every pre-accepted truth, i ventured into the core of my own being.

and when i did i went more than 5 weeks without sleep, but i wasn't tired.
and when i did i went more than a month without eating, but i wasn't hungry, and i lost about 10 pounds.
and when i did i endure other physical changes as well.
and when i was in the process of changing i would sweat a pool while i slept with no covers, even though it was less than 60 degrees F in the room.

Perhaps you can prove to me these things did not happen? Then i will believe you are right, and i will most assuredly concede, i promise you.

and this is the answer to your question: WHY?

Thats why no amount of understanding a truths can answer that question of what you will do next. The question is more accurately depicted logically as "what will I ATTEMPT to do next?" mainly because its not certain you will do it, or that you will succeed or anything. That question is infinite because as long as time goes, it must be reevalued and reanswered. The answers are endless because free will decides the current answer of what you will attempt to do next.

It is the question that has no set answer, and that no truth can answer. It is the question that is answered by free will and choice, and decided in history by chance.

If truth cannot answer the question with no set answer: "what will i attempt to do next?", then what lies beyond truth and logic that provides a means to answer the question, if not freedom from the truth and from the logic and also freedom from the emotions and the opinion?

does one need to intimately know their own opinion, emotions, logic, and truth before they have the authority to freely ask "what do i do next?". without opinion, emotions, logic, and truth standing in your way, or obstructing the path, where have you sent them away to, in order to reach this final question?

is it the final question? can you define the final question without knowing opinions, emotions, logics, and truths? Or does one only reach this question by disregarding opinions, experiences, emotions, logics, and truths?

it seems to me that one must also in the process of identifying this as the finality of all questions disregard:
1) the opinions of all others
2) the experiences of all others
3) the emotions of all others
4) the logics of all others
5) the truths of all others

why? because it is can be construde as a selfish question. you sort of leave everyone else out, don't you? It's not "what do i do next for someone" or "what do i do next for the benefit of others?"

your zenith question is:
"What do i attempt to do next?"

i'm not yoda, but i like something the little green guy said:
"do or do not. there is no try."

you've given me some interesting perspectives, and i appreciate it, honestly.

but with regards to your question of: "Why?"

because: It is real. Within you there is something beyond you. i see you are closer than most, but take the truth of all you are into account.

i have experienced things that are not possible. that is the "Why" for me. But, each relationship is different. Every relationship between every soul is unique.
You hinted at the concept, and you said it very elegantly.

there are alot of different people on this planet. Surely if there is a God, then perhaps God does not want to have the same relationship with everyone.

i shared my thoughts and some of my experiences with you, whether you choose them to be compliant with your truth or not, is it relevant? i experienced what i experienced, and who or what can take the truths of it from me?

just some thoughts. just some retorical questions for no one else but myself.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
maybe you are right. instincts may be inherited opinions.

Well I see instinct as more of a reaction then an opinion. You are aware of opinions right? You can examine your opinions, you don't examine your own instincts. Its not like instincts are thought about or formulated, they are genetic. You are borning knowing how to do it. Opinions aren't genetic, because you could end up with completely different opinions in life then your parents, but instincts are those basic reactions, those split second actions.

Even instincts can be reprogrammed though, so you may have hit some sort of idea of inherited "opinions" but they aren't opinions we are talking about. The opinions we are talking about are the biases or the ones that make you see a situation in a different light then reality. Instinct is just a reaction that you are born with to keep yourself alive.

Whats interesting is when you develop the ability to reason and use logic, you develop the ability to overright and overcome instincts. To me that points at the fact that its not conscious subconscious or anything to that extent, where opinions are.

interpret what first? the sensory input that is not delivered to the emotional realms of the conscious mind, but instead are delivered to the subconscious realm of the mind? What is there to hijack if the subconscious mind only permits the consious mind to have what it can accept and nothing more?

the first sensory is physical. Before it ever reaches your mental senses, its reacting physically. How can your subconscious mind know what to permit, until its experienced it before?

the only thing that could allow you to see things subjectively, even the first time ever experiencing it or knowing about it, would be emotional response.

The emotional response is the instinct again to self preserve. The self preserve interrupts the logical process, or attempts to, because if it didn't you could logically end up getting yourself killed.

You logic could say "its for the best to risk my life" where as the instinct which causes emotional responses, wouldn't want this to go through your mind. If instinct fails to stop you from using logic in certain situations, it may lead you to the conclusions you must risk your life to save another. That means the instinct has failed to do its job, and its only reason for being is to do its job.

So the response emotional hijacking occurs to begin with, is to self preserve in certain cases. Fear is an emotional hijacking to self preserve. So it makes sense that emotional hijacking interfers with logical process. That causes a distortion of the event, and a distortion of truth.

logically i don't see how emotions are not true, therefore controlling truth is not just accepting truth, but rather yielding truth to the opinion that emotions should be controlled.

which came first, the logical mind or the emotional response? Fear can be seen in animals, with a much lower logical process. Emotions are used to preserve the race and themselves. Fear self preserves, love preserves the race by reproduction, anger is to boost adrenline to either defend or get food to preserve itself. All the emotions are there to benefit instinct. They are chemical reactions to self serve. Remember what self serving does?

logic can be easily distorted with or without emotions.

logic isn't a matter of thought process, its a matter of fitting pieces of puzzle together. Emotions tell you "Its ok to put these pieces together" even though they don't fit, because it ultimately will serve you in the end.

Why not turn inwards to challenge one's own opinion and instead of running from emotions to merely control them, why not face them to quantify and define them.

You can't face it while being emotional about it. Running from emotions? emotions are chemical reactions used to benefit you physically and to meet the means of survival. They are used for self serving purposes. Emotions aren't beneficial to finding truth, of any sort, secondary or primary. You can face your opinions till you look at them in another light. Which is taking yourself out of your own shoes and examining the situation completely detached of emotion.

This is something I learned through Trial and error. Back about 2 years ago, I always wondered why it was that I could give my friends the right advice almost all the time, yet when in my own shoes I would often get unwanted and illogical outcomes. It was because when In my own shoes, I had a different response, because of emotions. When asked for advice, I wasn't effected by my emotions toward the situation. I was looking at in a plainly logical sense, without emotional distortion. It lead me to helping people make the better decisions. 99% of the time people were happy, and the other one percent was the few time I tried to help a depressed person who unfortunately still ended up trying to commit suicide in time.

All in All, emotions distort logical thinking processes when currently faced with the situation. Once you are having the emotional response currently, the right decisions becomes completely blurred.

Logically speaking of course, if one could determine within their own minds what emotions are justified for and from where they come, then one could burn a lot more callories on logical perceptions without having to burn callories on attempting to control fear, love, hate, and all other emotions and personal emotional initiators.

It does matter to know why they exist, but only for uses to know when to ignore them. If you identify them, you can ignore them, and ignoring them is the key to having control of your logical processes. Identifying them doesn't allow you to bypass controlling them.

When I say control I mean having the ability to ignore them even though they are there. Not meaning not having them at all ever. Though Im an actor so controlling my emotions both ways has always been easy for me. I have no problem swaying myself from one emotion to another by simply talking myself through the emotion, it an attempt to find neutral ground. Once at that neutral ground you can return to trying to solve the problem logically.

Trying to control emotions is like only so many fingers and toes when the damn is breaking. but, if one could define what their emotions truly are, and explain them for what they are and why, then you have no need to ever control emotions again.

yes you do, because they still exist and still effect your thought process. Its great to know where they come from an why, but it doesn't change the fact you have to be able to ignore them on command if you want to approach a situation logically rather then emotionally. Emotions serve you best, where logic balances everybody.

seems to me like a liberating concept, because by trying to control your emotions is just storing more information in your subconscious mind which is taking space away from one's conscious cognitive skills.

I think what you need to realize is that emotions is a negative thing when trying to interpret whats really happening. If you cant control your emotional response it means you can't ignore your emotional response. If you can't ignore it, you cant think logically.

to say the opinion does not form is to say you are denying your genetic commands that are within each and every cell that comprises you as a whole. So, unless you've experienced being self aware enough to dump certain instincts from your programming, no you have not seen what you thought it was you saw.

1) your eyes see a thing
2) your subconscious mind recieves the signal.
3) your subconscious mind delivers the signal to your conscious mind.
4) your conscious mind can not accept anything that is inconsistant with what truths it accepts as truth. so, your conscious mind keeps only 0.000000002% of the experience that is compliant with what can accept, since no new truth can be incorporated without having a means to attach to a pre-existing truth. or else it is one brain cell all by itself with 4 or 5 "arms" without any connection to any other brain cell throughout the entire neuro-net.

could it be that just MAYBE the information just doesn't all get there immediately? Let me put it this way, when something happens, do you immediately know exactly what happened that very second? No, you often take some time to process what exactly happen.

Now think of it like this. you say we are only getting .000000002% of reality a second. that all of that is not sent. well what if it is getting sent, but can only be sent so much at once. If you got 100% of the reality at once, you would probably collapse. You simply cannot take 200,000,000,000 electric impluses per second. Its not that it cannot take the information just that its not able to send all that information at once.

You of course wont get all the information, but do you remember what shirt the blonde 5'6" girl was wearing? Do you remember what happened to that guy in the coffee shop while the waitress was tying her shoes?

How much information is NEEDED? Dont you think you would be a bit overwhelmed if everything that was happening that you could see was flooding your conscious mind at once? Its focusing. You think about what you specifically focus on. And although your subconscious could tell you the color of the graffiti and what it said when you were walking down an allyway, and every other single detail, thats not what you were consciously thinking about.

Why? well how much could you consciously get done if you thought of every single thing you saw at once, every second? Well you wouldn't get very much done.

Ran out of characters again, damn it lol

The brain does not work the way you are saying it does. Some of the concepts you are presenting here are inconsistant with what is known about the human brain.

examples for me with links so I can be more informed on what Im saying thats wrong. Thanks.

The truth is if you have not consciously accepted certain truths as truths, then you can not even be capable of recieving the information from your subconsious mind, because there simply is no place for it to fit in your conscious neuronet. What i am talking about is a state of mind that permits you to go more than a month without sleep, and still function just fine. Why? because sleep is merely a byproduct of having a subconscious that requires sleep. Have you experienced going more than 5 weeks without sleep?

I physically cannot go very long without sleep, because I physically will fall asleep walking if I don't.

After going 2 days without sleep I have been known to be talking standing up and fall over asleep while talking. It simply doesn't work for me.

You need certain "truths" because it just wouldn't make sense otherwise. If it doesn't make sense, what use does it have to be aware of it? It doesnt mean you don't see if or its not there, just that there is no point to think about it consciously since there is nothing you can do with it.

Truth is I can see something that makes no sense to me, look at it, and have no idea what it has to do with. Hand a child a a pre calculus book. Now what would happen? They would read it and have no idea what its talking about because it requires previous knowledge like algebra 1 and 2, all the basics of math and such. But would they fail to think about it at all? Would they consciously not see it? Of course they would see it, it just wont make any sense. I could pick up an astrophysics book right now on the cutting edge of physics, look at the math calculations and I wouldnt understand any of it. Nothing at all.

Would I fail to see it? Nope, I would see it. Would I fail to remember the equations. possibly no either if I read it enough times. Pre truths only allow you to understand it, but that has nothing to do with actually preceiving it.

You can preceive something and be completely baffled by it, but still be aware of it and its existance. You may even be aware that it means something specific, like the answer to a riddle or the way to make a black hole, but you still cannot understand it.

A child does not need to acknowledge the existance of numbers to see, preceive and remember the equations of physics. They still know it exists though. Is it true? Well they don't know, what they do know is that it is something that they don't understand. They could say its false, but only out of the idea that what is not understood is false, a very basic and arrogant concept.

Overall, knowing its true means having to know that there is some process before it that works as well. Now we look at it and say well if this is true, everything before it must be true then right? well actually no. Read up about newton, and the way einstien changed the face of science. I read einstiens biography, and newtons, and what it did.

What happened is that they thought they had almost figured out everything. Einstien came along and figured something out. He changed the basic principles. Now how could the universe still work the same, but the basic truths have changed? Well its because it doesn't have to be the truth to always look like it fits.

Just because we have reached a certain point in science doesnt mean a new theory may come along that explains the current reason why physics works, while changing the fundamental principle as to why it does this.

If the if the truth is always the basics, and the basics are sometimes false, can the truth sometimes be false?

In your mind, the truth is the basics. The law of association says we need pre truths. Well that means the truth is always the basics, but in time we have learned that the basics have sometimes been false. If thats the case then sometimes the basics are false.

now if the basics are sometimes false, and the false is sometimes unconnected to the truth of the more complex, it would be correct to say that the basics are sometimes unconnected to the truth of the more complex.

SOME TIMES, the basics can be false, while the more complex still end up being true. The basic can be flawed and false, but what was built off it ultimately still ended up being true.

now I really do wish I knew where I was originally going with this but Im drawing a sudden blank. Maybe I should just leave it as is for this one and move onto the next quote

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I would say you were right once, but now you are mistaken. I became self aware enought to know that the two cells that both combined with each having the genetic prime directive of "self pre-serve" never really fully joined the dna. Do you believe a sperm and an egg can both have dna that says "survive no matter what" and "survive no matter what", and be totally compliant with eachother to forfiet the genetic command of "survive no matter what"?

well what if I were to tell you that is what you WERE. A question i dont often ask people because the inability to contemplate it is "Where do YOU think the conscious and subconscious originate?" did the brain just make them up? if so how? How do you think the consciousness and sub consciousness came to be. How did we develop it as we got older. We did are biggest evolving in the first 5 years of our life, we somewhere along the lines grew to the point where we developed this consciousness. How? It didn't come with us at birth. Children between birth and 1 show no characteristics of consciousness. They show signs of life, and signs of emotion, but they don't have a conscious. They don't feel bad for waking mom up all the time, or crying in the middle of the night when people sleep. They dont feel bad for pulling on a dogs ear and hurting the dogs ear. They don't have that consciousness.

Where did it come from?
Im asking because I want to here your opinion because your one of the people that I think may have an idea on this.

I would say i got further than that. i must have. because no one told me, i found that truth within, past my emotions, past my logical thoughts, past every pre-accepted truth, i ventured into the core of my own being.

and when i did i went more than 5 weeks without sleep, but i wasn't tired.
and when i did i went more than a month without eating, but i wasn't hungry, and i lost about 10 pounds.
and when i did i endure other physical changes as well.
and when i was in the process of changing i would sweat a pool while i slept with no covers, even though it was less than 60 degrees F in the room.

Perhaps you can prove to me these things did not happen? Then i will believe you are right, and i will most assuredly concede, i promise you.

and this is the answer to your question: WHY?

Can I prove definately those things didnt happen? Nope. Can I give you a clue as to why those things don't prove your basic truths? Well the basic principles of newton lead to many discoveries which worked. Why did they work, when his ideas were flawed? Why do einstiens equations work, and why did his equations lead to the most powerful weapon in history, when physics now point to the idea his theory of the way the universe worked is wrong. How could things that are false lead to thing that work and are true? How could the basics lead to some things true?

Well I said it was because the basics don't actually have any connection to the more complex. They might have a connection consciously, and maybe we dont have the ability to consciously figure out the more complex before making a basic truth. We make some basics that work, then we reach some more complex things that work because of those basics, then we reach something that doesn't work, and we wonder why?

Then we realize that basics were wrong. We wonder how we got more complex things that worked and were true, from ideas that were false. Well its because a part of it was true, but partial truth does not make it truth, just distorted truth.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If truth cannot answer the question with no set answer: "what will i attempt to do next?", then what lies beyond truth and logic that provides a means to answer the question, if not freedom from the truth and from the logic and also freedom from the emotions and the opinion?

well truth has no connection to the answer in reality. And as long as you know the question, you have no true need for the logical part, because logic is being able to determine events, determine truth. The answer to "what will I attempt to do next?" is simple, it needs no logic and no truth of the universe or god. It needs no truth, because the truth doesn't effect the answer, and logic isn't needed because why would you need logic to choose what you want to do next? You may need logic to decide what would be the best choice of what to do next, but make no mistake, its one of the few questions were the answer that isnt the best answer is still a valid one.

I could decide to go outside a start a fire in the street, or I could decide to go to sleep. Now obviously going outside and starting a fire in the street isnt the most logical idea. BUT that does not make it any less valid. It has no definate answer, meaning no "correct" answer. It also has no incorrect answer. If you answer the question "what will I attempt to do next" then simply put in motion the answer by a simple couple footsteps, you have already answered it and made it the truth.

what about the guy that decided to do something then immediately died? Well he had the intention to do it, and would have attempted it, or he would not have yet answered the question.

does one need to intimately know their own opinion, emotions, logic, and truth before they have the authority to freely ask "what do i do next?".

haha finally you get it. NO they don't. That was my whole point to asking WHY? why are you doing all this, because you dont need to know any of it to freely ask and answer the most important question of your lives.

It may not always be the best answer, or the most beneficial decision to answer that way, but IT WAS the truth. You did attempt to do it, and it was the truth. It IS the most important question of your lives, and youre giving another answer everyday of your lives. If you ask it consciously, it usually works out better, but either way you still do it. Doing it consciously lead you to thinking about it more. Thinking about it more isnt NECESSARY, but it does give you more desired results, which is the aim at the end of the day.

I got here by getting to know all of it, then realizing I made that whole big journey just to realize I didn't NEED to make that journey to begin with. Had I just consciously asked "What do I want to attempt to do next?" thought about what I felt like doing, followed my heart, Id be at the same spot I am now, when you look at it from an accomplishment perspective.

After all the truths found, and all the questions answered, you still will have to answer the one question: "What do I want to attempt to do next?" because time and life doesn't end when all the other questions cease to be questions.


without opinion, emotions, logic, and truth standing in your way, or obstructing the path, where have you sent them away to, in order to reach this final question?

I never sent them away, I simply ignored them while they were there. I ignored the emotions to use my logic, ignored the opinions to find the real truth.

In the end, opinions don't stand in the way of one truth. Opinions cant change the one truth, nor can emotions, or logic. You can't change what is undefined to begin with. You cant distort what does not exist until you choose it. Thats the simple truth. If it does not exist until you decide to do it, it isnt distorted and it cannot be simply unseen. You choose it, you acknowledge it, you preceed to try it.

No opinion stands in the way of this truth. No logic can predict if it will happen or fail to happen, and no emotion can make you choose the wrong answer, because there is no wrong answer.

is it the final question? can you define the final question without knowing opinions, emotions, logics, and truths? Or does one only reach this question by disregarding opinions, experiences, emotions, logics, and truths?

what other question can you find where it doesnt matter how bias you are, how ignorant you are, and how emotionally unstable you are, that will still be true, regardless of how it ends up being answered?

You dont need opinions or emotions, or logic, or any other truths, to decide what to do next. Its the process of deciding what to do. You dont need to be logical to choose what to do next, even if it be just sit there. You dont need to be opinion free to make a choice, because its a choice even if its bias.

It doesn't matter how bias the answer was, how logical it was, or how emotionally smart it was, it is still what you attempted to do next, and its still the truth.

What other truth has that kind of flexiblity and importance on each and every persons life, regardless of who they are?

it seems to me that one must also in the process of identifying this as the finality of all questions disregard:
1) the opinions of all others
2) the experiences of all others
3) the emotions of all others
4) the logics of all others
5) the truths of all others

I had to disregard them to realize that the basic things I was taught were lies. That I dont NEED to know why the universe exists, I dont NEED to know what causes things to happen, and I dont NEED to know WHY? I asked you WHY? because I was hoping some one would answer it as "why?" isnt the question to ask, why is ulitmately irrelevent.

It doesnt matter what your opinion is, what your experiences were, your emotions were , your logical capability, or anybodies for that matter. The only real TRUTH that is relevent to every person, yet different for every person, is what do I do next.

Whether god exists or not is not relevent to every person, whether or not the origin of the universe was big bang or not is not relevent to every person. What IS relevent to EVERY person is what do they attempt to do next. Why is a secondary question you ask yourself for your own purposes.

The origin of the universe is relevent to YOU, but not everyone else possibly. The possibility of god is relevent to YOU but not everyone else possibly. What is just as relevent to you as the next person, and every person? What actions will you attempt to take is whats relevent to everyone.

why? because it is can be construde as a selfish question. you sort of leave everyone else out, don't you? It's not "what do i do next for someone" or "what do i do next for the benefit of others?"

its far from selfish though. What may be SEEN as selfish, may benefit everyone more then you can imagine. The intention is important to god, the action is important to god and people. I did try "what can I do next that would benefit others?" but guess what, its a flawed question. Want to know why? Well because you dont know whats beneficial and what isnt. What will you attempt do to next is determind by the type of person you are. You do what you feel is right, and you do exactly what you feel you are suppose to do. Maybe thats because some one extremely self centered was MEANT to be self centered for an important reason. Maybe his self centered attitude helps in the long run>?

We cannot predict the future, thus we cant ask questions in terms of what can we do for some one else. We have to ask what do we want to do next, and if it involves helping a person, then thats what you were meant to do.

We can never know for sure whats most beneficial, we have to act in what we personally feel is the best action. We must be ourselves, because that will lead us to what we were meant to have and deserve to have, for better or worse.

your zenith question is:
"What do i attempt to do next?"

i'm not yoda, but i like something the little green guy said:
"do or do not. there is no try."

what if a try alters the face of the planet without ever achiving the intended goal? Yoda didn't think things through enough.

you've given me some interesting perspectives, and i appreciate it, honestly.

same here, youve challange me and help clarify my own thoughts and make them more formed. Also you challanged me to think and form a couple new ideas, and tie what I have been thinking together.

but with regards to your question of: "Why?"

because: It is real. Within you there is something beyond you. i see you are closer than most, but take the truth of all you are into account.

i have experienced things that are not possible. that is the "Why" for me. But, each relationship is different. Every relationship between every soul is unique.
You hinted at the concept, and you said it very elegantly.

there are alot of different people on this planet. Surely if there is a God, then perhaps God does not want to have the same relationship with everyone.

i shared my thoughts and some of my experiences with you, whether you choose them to be compliant with your truth or not, is it relevant? i experienced what i experienced, and who or what can take the truths of it from me?

just some thoughts. just some retorical questions for no one else but myself.

why isn't what matters, I was hoping you would see that. Why doesn't matter, its a secondary question, and gives secondary truths. I refered to god and science as secondary truths because they are answers to secondary questions. They aren't the primary important questions that matter the most.

as far as what you experienced, just keep in mind that you have your own path, I have mine, thats the truth.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
I would say you were right once, but now you are mistaken. I became self aware enought to know that the two cells that both combined with each having the genetic prime directive of "self pre-serve" never really fully joined the dna. Do you believe a sperm and an egg can both have dna that says "survive no matter what" and "survive no matter what", and be totally compliant with eachother to forfiet the genetic command of "survive no matter what"?

well what if I were to tell you that is what you WERE. A question i dont often ask people because the inability to contemplate it is "Where do YOU think the conscious and subconscious originate?" did the brain just make them up?

where do i think the consciousness and subconscious originate?
cell # one, which was really 2 cells that "joined". did the brain make them up? i think they that the conscious and subconscious existed before i was born, and yet i am part of it.

i will share an analogy i like:

Remember the cartoons (like the Flinstones) as well as many other tv programs that showed characters with a angel on one shoulder, and the devil on the other shoulder, both trying to influence the decision making of the character who's shoulders they were both on?

now, what did they represent?
what do you think the angel represents, and what do you think the devil represents?

i think sometimes the angel represented logic, sometimes love, and sometimes fear. But, essentially i think the angel was depicting fear. i say fear because it seemed it was always warning of negative consequences, or telling what negatives consequences could exist. which to me is a representative symbol of what fear tells us, as well.

i think the devil is essentially the "what can this do for me, how can i benefit". Which is indicative of what the instinct of "self pre-serve" would say if it were a living entity.

so, i see how many people do this still, in every action, and in every behavior, because these two characters pretty much define their intentionality. what is next for them is: "How can this harm me and/or the things i love, and what are the possible consequences?" and/or "How can this benefit me and/or the things i love, and what potential rewards are in it for me?"

most people when making a decision automatically see only two options to ask:
1) "How can this harm me and/or the things i love, and what are the possible consequences?"
2) "How can this benefit me and/or the things i love, and what potential rewards are in it for me?"

where does this judgment come from? i believe the instincts that we are born with, and the fear that is the byproduct of the instinct. But, perhaps, the truth is not answered by either of those questions. so accustomed to the automatic thought processes we learned before we were literate, or even potty trained, that perhaps we don't always make the conscious decision to totally disregard both the angel and the devil and remember we have a much bigger mind sitting between the two of them. i think these "scales/balances" within our mind do not always serve us to provide us with the truth, but rather sometimes prevent us from seeing it all together.

Did the brain just make them up?if so how?

the cells in the drivers seats started heading away from the original observer (the first cell), and went out looking for definition. part of the subconscious mind may have every intention of remaining true to yourself. so, if a mind, or even one cell knows fear, then one shall fear the unknown. if one fears the unknown, then perhaps the portion of the subconscious mind that wishes to remain true to you will logically start calculating and counting upwards to the highest number to put a number on how many things there may be to fear. just perhaps when your logical subconscious portion that will remain true to you reaches the highest number it will relinquish back to you all the brain cells in your subconscious mind that were storing the numbers. just a thought. i think one has to force their own consciousness inwards to go through whatever stands between your conscious mind, and the enormous amount of information stored within the subconscious mind. let us not forget that perhaps cells alone are not the only ones who may be self aware, conscsious, and intelligent. there are also a slew of lifeforms that reside and perform duties within the cells themselves. And the macro-organism, and the cells, and the other microbial entities within cells, and whatever consciousness that lies beyond that, all of them must utilize forms of communication in order to get done what the body needs to get done. however, perhaps the forms of communication are not always the same, nor compliant with one another in order to communicate. for instance there is a relay, but no direct communication between the mechanism that re-sequences the dna strands, and the brain. neuropeptides play a role, which also deliver emotional stimuli and communication with the cells, from the brain and hypothalmus. I'll stop here, i think i delivered my point, i just started going a little too far....

How do you think the consciousness and sub consciousness came to be.

in a word: ignorance.
i'm not sure they could originally acknowledge that the other existed. think of your first consciousness as simply being the one "truth" or "observer" that only knew the instinct and "i am". now if that first cell is essentially the observer and the "truth", then how can the "truth" fear the "truth"? How can truth fear truth and continue to exist? perhaps it couldn't. so, if truth could not even acknowledge or recognize fear without another emotion to show it that fear exists (*love perhaps), then people in essence are born into having a split personality, with the overwhelming majority of their true personality being buried within their subconscious mind, but they are too afraid to face what they may find there. this is part of the reason, but not all i believe, of why we have compartmentallized minds that are not sharing all information with it's own mind.

How did we develop it as we got older.

i believe outwards, stretching for the external, and seldomly looking inwards to see if anything was left behind that perhaps we would need.

We did are biggest evolving in the first 5 years of our life, we somewhere along the lines grew to the point where we developed this consciousness. How? It didn't come with us at birth. Children between birth and 1 show no characteristics of consciousness. They show signs of life, and signs of emotion, but they don't have a conscious. They don't feel bad for waking mom up all the time, or crying in the middle of the night when people sleep. They dont feel bad for pulling on a dogs ear and hurting the dogs ear. They don't have that consciousness.

i worked closely with developmentally dissabled children for nearly 12 years. i know what you are saying sometimes seems true, however i can't totally agree. i have seen young children do things that i would equate as consciousness, even if they had a measured i.q. of less than 50. just because they are not consciously aware of guilt, does not mean it does not exist within them.

Where did it come from?
Im asking because I want to here your opinion because your one of the people that I think may have an idea on this.

ultimatley i believe consciousness comes from many directions, and many dimensions. i beleive we remember the future internally because we are connected to something our physical limitations and languages can not always describe in words, because the words do not exist.

i think what we think is matter, is not matter. the substance we call atoms are not substance at all. they are not particles of matter. they are condensed fluctuating energy or light that quantum physics seems to be telling us that even these "particles" are phasing in and out of existance and enormous speeds. so, what is making me up, when it is not here, is where? where do the protons, electrons, and neutrons that are making you up go when they are not making you up? It is shared with others, would be one explanation. so, essentially what science seems to be saying these days is the same "matter" that is making you is also simultaneiously making something else up as well.

but what has enough force to condense light into what appears to be the form of matter? The only thing i have heard about that has such power to trap and condense light into such a form is black holes. so, have we been through one, or are we in one? or is there another answer?

do you know you've never actually touched anything in your life? When we think we are touching something, there is actually just a "force field" built up to repell the molecules by means of electro-magnetic field. so, since there is always a space between us and what we think we touch, at the molecular and atomic levels, we have never touched anything. how would this truth effect the opinions of others, i sometimes wonder.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
i think these "scales/balances" within our mind do not always serve us to provide us with the truth, but rather sometimes prevent us from seeing it all together.

At first I was just going to overall respond but this needed specific addressing.

And I completely agree with it. The instincts of fear and such are there specifically for you. They aren't there for other people or whats best overall. They are for your own personal use, meant to benefit you ultimately.

Now as far as our conscious goes, I think that its just all theory right now, so its not really debatable. I cannot agree with you, but how can I say its not true at all? I can't.

Personally what makes alot of sense to me is we ended up evolving into something that picks up what we cannot see. How do we know that we are not picking up certain "wavelengths" (lack of better words) that our brain literally picks up?

All in all this thread wasnt meant to be about consciousness lol. Let me direct you to my own little possible theory of where the conscious could be.

www.belowtopsecret.com...'

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
i think these "scales/balances" within our mind do not always serve us to provide us with the truth, but rather sometimes prevent us from seeing it all together.

At first I was just going to overall respond but this needed specific addressing.

And I completely agree with it. The instincts of fear and such are there specifically for you. They aren't there for other people or whats best overall. They are for your own personal use, meant to benefit you ultimately.

and yet, what also seems to be human nature is: a sense of belonging and acceptance by our peers. unfortunatley, in homing in on our skills of empathy many people tend to test the "boundries" of others and ultimatley end up looking in the mirror one day and realizing that they define themselves by the fears of others, because the feedback we receive from others does offer us feedback concerning ourselves. so, if we (people in general) have a sense of empathy and love, and also of fear (dominant factor i believe) and a need for acceptance and belonging, these characteristics of our personality may not be promoting self-preserve, but in fact working against our health and mental well-being, perhaps.

Personally what makes alot of sense to me is we ended up evolving into something that picks up what we cannot see. How do we know that we are not picking up certain "wavelengths" (lack of better words) that our brain literally picks up?

true. but, to add to the theory, what if what we interpret as subatomic particles are actually "worm holes" created at different times that are created by singularities from other existances? can anything have enough pressure added upon it from all angles that it ceases to exist? if so, i have yet to witness such an event, or even hear about it from someone who has witnessed something that "dissapeared" altogether from existance. just a thought.

All in all this thread wasnt meant to be about consciousness lol. Let me direct you to my own little possible theory of where the conscious could be.

www.belowtopsecret.com...'

I'll probably join you there sometime monday.
thanks for the enlightening conversation,
john.