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.

 

Who observed us into existence?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
You could call it the "ghost in the machine", the only problem being that in search of the choosing self there is no way to differentiate between the subjective experiencer and the objective reality. There is no here, here. Everything is made of meaning and consciousness.

And so I opt for an I-thou participative, cocreative relationship, between the little I am and the Great I am of all being which gives rise to existence itself, and sustains it, or upholds and maintains the entire universal probability wave in observation, from every angle and perspective, whereby the whole universe is non-local information processing quantum holographic self aware mind of God.

Nothing else makes any sense, not from the perspective of free will and self conscious awareness.

We can choose not to choose, and observe without judgement, and watch ourselves think - we can observe our own machine, and represent the external reality in our mind which is represented in the external reality represented in our mind, and though we have an "I am" it cannot be located. The ghost in the machine therefore is nowhere, and anywhere, and in a non-local holpgraphic universe, that would have to include by neccessity, everywhere at once, and of course, nowhere in particular.

To "know thyself" can only be to know who and what we are not, but never who we really are, unless framed within an eternal I-thou relationship with Godmind or universal self conscious awareness.

"To be is to be percieved."
Quantum Physicists like to say that, some of them..

[edit on 22-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Then please locate the choosing self.

What self? What is a 'self'? What do you mean by 'choosing'? Who told you that you had a choice about anything? These are ghostcatchers' illusions.


It's interesting how you cannot think in any other way than physical materialism.

How I think is none of your business. Learn how to address others with courtesy.


Tell us your theory about consciousness, the nature of the self and emotion, in a purely physical context and please adress the points I raised.

Do you seriously imagine I'm going to wander off the thread topic just to indulge you?


But just to clarify I didn't mean ghosts when I said outside of the physical body, I meant indeterminate, or nowhere in particular, and therefore anywhere and everywhere.

So it's not even I am because I choose, since the I am is a precondition of the act of choosing. No it's merely I am because I am or "I am that I am".

More ghostcatchers' illusions.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
I didn't mean to offend anyone, but it is interesting the reaction an "eternal now" provokes in the mind. Within the contextual framework of "our way of life" it does come as a bit of an insult, but I would suggest that the part of us which reacts to it negatively, is the very part which needs to surrender to the truth that now IS all there is.


But how... As much as you no doubt understand what you are trying to say, i find it very difficult to find answers in your posts.

How do we surrender to the now? Would you say this to a dying ethiopian or a starving child? Because by your logic, you deem anything in the past worthless (the cause), and anything in the future pointless (the answer).... Whereas my idea suggests that great power can lie in the future.... that power has a label called HOPE.




If we cannot get present to the present, and be here now, then how can we really live and BE alive?


If we have nothing to compare our current status to, our reach for dreams, then what's the point in existing at all. You present a very sterile view of life.



Sure dishes and laundry need to be done, but if all we do is for the most part either conditioned by the past (who we THINK we are) or in anticipation of the future (what we WANT to be or have), then we can really miss out on LIFE which is always fresh always new and always now.


Simply not true, i think most people love life, but sometimes we have to abandon our daily pleasures, forfeit that breath of fresh air in ensuring our children are clean and fed. Just because we aren't all sitting in a field deep breathing, doesn't mean we are wrong. There are many ways to appreciate life in regards to looking back and forwards.



I believe there is an insane program running which generates suffering, and in that sense it's helpful, provided it runs its course, because
"the more that suffering carves into your being, the more joy you can contain." ~ Gibran

I'm with Eckhart Tolle on this, that all our problems can be dissolved in the now and then in presence, thoughtful and needed action CAN be taken, without any worrry or fear or suffering or strife.


Well as much as i agree that we need to act rather than talk, we do NEED worry, because without concern we would beignorant, without fear we would be fools and without suffering we could not experience the joy.

You speak as though our natural emotions, qualms and worries are somehow spiritually impure. You are wrong.



For example just notice how many people like to complain about things and bemoan their problems, or rant and rave about the evils of the world, but they never for a moment pause to consider in what way they are at cause or how their own thinking and ways of being is contributing to the fundamental problem.


A very broad sweeping statement, one that is unfair in its judgement. You assume that people are ignorant, whereas the REAL truth is, most people are conditioned and powerless. It doesn't mean they are stupid.



Their solutions always collapse in judgement and project away from the present moment, and in this way our mindset, and our timebound consciousness may be thought of as a mental illness, where the definition of insanity is to keep on doing the same thing, over and over and over again, while expecting a different result.


No, what you are defining is 'trial and error'... Sometimes you HAVE to keep making similar mistakes before the answer is presented. Again another vague and obscure judgement.



So yeah, I'll risk being a fool, or a a-hole or seemingly arrogant if need be, to get in people's faces and confront head on the underlying cause of the disorder which has a LOT to do with our conception of time, throwing us right out of the present and out of the very flow of life itself in the process. It's out of alignment with reality, which indeed does flow through an eternal now.


Instead of getting in peoples faces and patronising people with illogical or pseudo-philosophical arguement, why don't you act upon your own words and stop judging people and get off your arse and help, as opposed to judging and condemning people for the state we are in. Your words are fancy, yet you are the one who seems to forget that looking to the past is a great way of learning from mistakes, and looking to the future is sometimes the strongest immaterial energy we can form.



We simply MUST be committed to the truth and reality at all cost except at the cost of truth and reality itself.


What?


Some things are true, and this is one of them. And if you can bear with me, and get to that place, you might just have an "ah ha" moment, and find some much needed relief from the quagmire of our BS "way of life" which is ruining everything and sucking the life out of life.


Again very negative, why should we listen to the words of one who has condemned us for our 'current' state? Since you don't even believe in the past or future, you set a very grim ideology of 'now'.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
edit - no use arguing. presented a viewpoint which may warrent consideration, it's up to the individual to choose.



[edit on 22-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


So with that whole big statement, and the one below it. You basically said that us humans are meatbags designed to simply transmit thoughts on our dimensional plane? Or is it that humans don't exist at all, and we are just manifestations of that creative nature that compels us all from the eyes of our own creator?

We could go as far as to say that physical reality is only a figment of our creative nature as conscious beings. After all, QM also said that all matter is comprised of only the crests of an all permeating energy wave and that 99.999999% of everything is just energy that is outside of our perceptual range.

But I digress. I am inclined to believe you in the here and now is the only now. But memories were designed for a reason. Even if only conscious in the present, memories and hope were a design for the 3 dimensional alone. Without them, a material world would be pointless. That does not, however, change the fact that time in itself would definitely be the most elaborate joke in all "Time" lol.

We live in a paradox of a world. An existence designed to question the very existence itself. A world where time is the only means of measuring entropy, yet time itself can never be verified or true in all logical sense.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
What I was really getting at is that the "self" as a self aware free will agent of choice IS consciousness, but that it cannot be pinned down and is just as mysterious as the observing consciousness responsible for collapsing the entire universal probability wave and choosing all existence into being or actuality. There's a utter simplicity in this somewhere..

So you have this self aware being called "I am" who can only live and reside in the eternally unfolding present moment of now, surrounded by and representing an absolute mystery both in terms of time and space and the material universe and, in terms of it's own identity and relative position within that universe. But, one can hardly argue, as some atheist materialists are prepared to do, for their own non-existence as a self aware being who chooses, and so it would appear that the Eastern Mystics (and some Christian mystics..) really are the closest to "it" by recognizing that there is no locus of the self in time or space, and that it cannot be distinguished or separated from the ground of all being, and non-being, the Tao. (see the work of David Bohm re: Holographic Universe and the Implicate Order for the modern scientific take on this idea)

However, they (the mystics) say that the only condition is that you can't pick or choose and remain at one with it. With this I disagree. since it appears to be made up of choice and meaning as the very fount of the creative process. And if we don't take our choices too seriously and see them as a participative cocreative act, of creativity, then there is no greater gift, than to have a self who can choose freely, the key word being freely, where one can only be free and liberated when operating from the present moment of now, where everything takes place and out of which everything arises and has it's being, through a continual process of mutually observing awareness of being ie: emersed within a self aware universal, holographic quantum mind. And one can only be a real, authentic self when you realize that you are not who you THINK you are, but that who you are being at any given time is a way of being, and thinking, which is your own creation, but that said you can never really know who you REALLY are. You, like God, are an eternal mystery!

So in the final analysis, the only possible way to maintain any sense of self identity is to identify one's self in a relative framework to the whole thing, in an "I-thou" relationship, and a relationship between subjective self and the objective reality, or truth.

There must be a "who-ness" to the "isness" or suchness of being since self and qualia (first hand experience) cannot be made separate in any model of consciousness and since the subjective experiencer cannot be separeted from the objective reality of existence - but it can in no way be an ego projection of any kind either, and so to be one with the all in all who is the "I am that I am" is to BE a nothing, who, by the very nature of his own "I am" of actually being, is a nothing that is a something by virtue of being both nothing and everything.
ie "I and the father are one, but I do nothing of myself (and am nothing) but only what I see the father doing."

"And you will come to know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

"Fear not, nor let your hearts be troubled, for it pleased the father to share his kingdom with all his children!"


I cannot be the only one who likes to "grok" this stuff, or who is made joyful in it's contemplation and grokking, surely..? And I don't think I'm completely insane either to consider such things.

Best Regards,

OmegaPoint

[edit on 22-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Most surely you are not insane. And even if you were, it would be ok. We would not be able to see sanity if not for the insane. Another duality to our world.

Interesting you should say that some christian mystics hold these beliefs too. Cause like I said in the U2U. Christ was more buddha like than anything. The subtlety that shows the bibles true colors were never quite covered all the way. We are sons and daughters of God. Christ was the son of God. Therefore christ was no different than me and you.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Agreed, he was fully human and fully divine, but to take that back to his conception as "half human half God" does neither him, nor us, any justice whatsoever. No doubt much mythology was layered onto him and his life, teachings and great work on the cross, but I don't think it really changes the deeper meaning or significance, and neither should it detract from the character of that paticular "I am" person who is speaking.

Jesus is like an elder brother, or a master teacher, and perhaps something even greater..

But he wasn't born that way. I have no doubt whatsoever that his fated path and life experience drove him in a powerful way to process all the great learnings, including the three flavours of Taoism from the fear East, from the Orient, again I'm with you on that too.

I'm going to bookmark this thread and return to it. Nowhere else have I ever been able to fully express these ideas and get them OUT for consideration. In other words, now that they're out, I'd like to step back and re-consider them myself because it wasn't always "me" per se who was writing this stuff..
maybe I AM crazy!


Edit: I think the best way to think of or to consider the person, words and work of Jesus Christ, is to see that he was two people, re-integrated. There was Jesus of Nazareth, and then something happened, and he became in effect a new creation, a new being with a new mind, who, when he made a return path through his hometown area he was not recognized by his old friends and acquaintances, who could not for the life of them understand who this person was, nor where he could have obtained all this knowledge and wisdom, they were utterly baffled by his transformation.

So there was Jesus of Nazareth and then Jesus the Christ (annointed by God)

And what I was just attempting to describe in these last few posts, is the logic or the reason, for the metaphysical Christ, as a possibility still available to any and all who may seek as he must have sought, in order to find out the truth, about human nature and the nature of our existence in the grand scheme of things, since anyting less than that is a worthless and meaningless pursuit which adds no value, no matter how many facts may be accumulated.

What is revealed there in "the Christ" is a new realm of possibility in human potential, a model and a pattern. Same thing with the Buddha, although people don't cringe when you mention that guy.

What is so sad imho, are all the presumptions and the contempt prior to any real investigation into these matters, which just "throws out the baby with the bathwater."

[edit on 22-7-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   
to examine the mind with another mind makes for poor results ...

trying to see the unseen with eyes that can only see what it was meant to see will only see what one is able to see with what it was meant to see

a cup can only be filled if it is emptied

again and again we come to this ... it's not the end as many perceive

it is the mere beginning of truly seeing



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Omegapoint i just got to ask you something. Do you ever talk like a human? Your posts and i seem to run into alot of them sound likesomehting from star trek tech manual.
We need to recalibrate the dilythium matrix grid and convert power from the forward array into the subspace fusion generator. LOL

Seriously not to poke fun at you but i love reading your posts cause its like eating a steak its got alot of meat on the bone lol.

Hope you take this in good fun cause i dont mean anything wrong. Oh and i do understand you and i agree with some of what you say so its not over my head just very very wordy. LOL

Keep on posting i love it.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr. Toodles
 


Perhaps the I Am obeserved us into being as souls created from the I Am NOT, of the I Am.
Free agency of mankind would be why the earth is deteriating. No child starves unless we let it.
Yes reality is only as we percieve it because no one here knows the answers yet. We only know the questions.
magantice



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Magantice
 


But that is the point. We have all the answers to all our questions right in front of us. We know how to solve the problems but we do not. Because our leaders are corrupt. If we wanted to, whether this country was free or not, we could take back all the power. Our minds have potential beyond anything on this planet or any material existence and many fail to realize that.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
absolutely ...

blinded by worldly promises

enslaved by mental and psychological fears

dictated by redundant social codes

fooled by the ghosts of civilization raised from historical sacred tombs



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Yes, but some people have to be "right". Which is rather showing if you ask me and degrades their opinion as far as I am concerned.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr. Toodles
 


And this sir as you so eloquently put it I would argue is the point.



We live in a paradox of a world. An existence designed to question the very existence itself.


After all what do you truly learn if you never truly question?



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I feel as though I have become a philosophy ranter lol. I suppose I have come to learn in this thread, that quantum mechanics is more philosophical than scientific. Although it has scientific merit of some sort. It seems to me that we are witnessing the merging of belief and science.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr. Toodles
 


Ah, but science has everything to do with philosophy and both are the child of belief. After all as Socrates *or Plato and a few others through a character named Socrates* pointed out "The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing.". Alluding to the fact that it is all about belief, all knowledge is strongly believed belief. If you catch my drift.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Ahh that is very true. Considering all science is based on theory and theory can never be proven as undisputable fact, makes sense. And anyone who claims any science is undisputable fact....should never read anything about science again.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr. Toodles
 


Glad we are in agreement.
I think you put it better than I did I should add.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr. Toodles
The observer effect in Quantum mechanics says that matter has only the form of energy and an infinite potential to become matter within the finite confines of our universe until observed. Whether conscious or not, an observer of these waves is what defines how these waves will take the form of matter, or what we know as our observable universe.

en.wikipedia.org...(physics)


So this brings me to my question. The world that we know, that we have studied. And that we learned about the past of. Is everything we know only relative to how we observe it? The past, present and future, did it all play out the way we see it? Or did it happen totally different and what we see now is only an illusion that we have created in order to materialistically define our set parameters and limitations?

Both quantum mechanics AND alot of eastern religions say that our reality is only defined by how we observe it. If that was true, then why does our world continue to deteriorate? I am a heavy believer in such things. And the fact that this world does not get better EVER is because of the exact conspiracies that we talk about on this website all the time. They would all have to be true if we assumed that the oldest beliefs and time tested science experiments were correct.

Last question is this:
Assuming this theory is correct, then who observed our world in such a way that Human consciousness evolved?


I suppose you could say "God" was this "observer", although this God may not be like what the Church says, but that's fine, as real religion and Church dogma aren't the same to me.

However these speculations or theories are not necessary right here, as the question is based on a misconception of QM. First off the idea is not that "observation" turns "energy into matter", but reduces a particle that is in a "superposition" of many possible states of, say, energy, momentum, position, etc. to a single state. The particle is still an electron, photon, or whatever it was beforehand. Next off, the "observer" does not have any control over the outcome of the observation, i.e. of what state the particle collapses into. He, she, or it can only perform the observation and cause the collapse.

There are other "interpretations" of QM like many-worlds and many-minds that do away with the collapse idea, too.







 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join