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.

 

Three layers of Reality.

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by doped00
Yes, I have read all of Monroe's books. I have educated myself on the possibility of a non-physical existence. Let's say there is a non-physical existence, why then do you "forget"? If EVERYONE absolutely KNEW this was just an experience and survived physical death, the world would be a whole lot better. I am also in the process of keeping a dream journal.


It is because we don't know that this system succeeds at yielding they kind of experience we have while processing data through a human interface.



Originally posted by doped00
I guess I find myself torn between believing this is all there is and believing this is just an experience. I mean, why wouldn't you believe this is all there is? Can you really blame me and the people that do? Look around you, the world is full of suffering whether it's the kids in Africa, or the single mom working overtime at two jobs, or suffering because of your desires like Buddha said.


While I am awake, looking through my eyes seeing the usual day pass by, I can see the limits of my mortality and limits of my perception. Which is fine. But in knowing that I have had past experiences, and have potential future experiences, I know that what I am spans through a chronological order and has become suspended in time/space.

However, my knowledge of myself also allows for other verticals of conscious experience which fall into the cognitive nature of reality, through having self-realization during physical sleep.

This different perspective has also added to my over-all chronological order, however in a non-linear abstraction that embraces in it's entirety, what it feels like to exist in a non-physical virtual reality.

If I follow both the physical and non-physical information and experiences I do start to see past the limits of my current passage in time, and start to see a more entangled web through many experience states which conclude many different states. Many of the non-physical moments where I have been fortunate enough to realize I existed, also allowed further investigation into the final layer of this
“model”. From that perspective, the self becomes more then a physical body and a human concept. It becomes a multi-faceted journey into many experience states both physical and non-physical.

In many ways, it feels like a fractal. Because as one's perception changes between these states we see different aspects of the self, thus a broader composition of the self. There is a lot of information there when given the time to examine it.

For example, in one non-physical moment I realized that I did exist in a “there” and I was “projecting” myself into “here” which in turn is my physical body. This counter-cultural revelation defies what people describe as an out-of-body experience. On the contrary, it's an into-the-body experience, not the other way around. An insight that only repeating the process of being conscious during sleep allowed me to obtain. No silver cord, no need to believe I was out-of-body... rather just in another state of consciousness. An experience that I am very grateful to have had.



Originally posted by doped00
So why the need to "forget" then? That's what I'm hung up on.


This is also an enigma of the self when it becomes a new personality. I can only give my best answer but that doesn't mean it will be correct so bear with my thoughts. If we take Bill Hick's famous, “We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively” insight, and look at what this means metaphysically.

It is like a type of quantum entanglement for the “self” in that each “node” to act individually must be unaware of other aspects of itself. For example, the cell in our hand doesn't know what it feels like to be the whole composite of cells which makes us a “whole”. Although it is part of us, it has an individuality to itself in a self-similar manner that then contributes to a larger system.

If there is any merit to a fractal organization of reality, and Tom Campbell suggests it's a process fractal as opposed to a geometric fractal that sets a precedence for how things have organized. In his example it allows for consciousness to be individualized but still part of a whole.

Represented in nearly every aspect of physical reality. Atoms as part of molecules making RNA/DNA and single celled organisms which in turn make bigger organizations of cells. The macroscopic to telescopic scale of our Universe suggests a vast interconnections of parts and wholes.

Metaphysics suggests consciousness is reduced into these systems and every aspect could have some dim level of self-awareness.

So is it “forget” or out of focus with that particular memory or information node? Buddha did see himself as having many incarnations even that of bugs and animals. Robert A. Monroe as you have read his books, looks at this as more a type of participation with becoming infused with other organic patterns to experience what it's like to be a bird, panther, bug or fish. Although at his run through he knew he was also Robert A. Monroe.

In my personal experience I have limited experience of this but I can relate on a smaller scale however personal experiences in non-physical states during sleep have yielded a small taste of what it means to shift focus into other aspects of physical reality.

The most important thing to note is the nature of taking yourself through these experiences. Not to believe in what others say about these experiences. Draw on what is self-evident with your own memories and knowledge base and expand through experience into knowing.

For example, I talk about having precognitive dreams for a reason, I know they occur far beyond the scope of my own experience with them. It is having an experience with them that allows me to open up and attempt to share a self-similar experience with others who now have a personal level of self-evidence to find commonality in what I speak of. In now way is it teaching a belief, rather self-examination of oneself to conclude similar experiences. If others experience it then it's irrelevant if I say I do or not. What is, is what is.

I try to encourage a similar openness to all things non-physical and dream related because of what I have seen in my personal exploration of these states. Suffice to say, it's a pleasant way to experience other aspects of the self in a cognitive reality perspective that has little to do with what we view as physical reality.

Forgetting must eventually become remembering.



Originally posted by slane69
 

Your model assumes that the cognitive self can perceive all of reality with the senses or the mind, that's a big leap of faith.


No, I don't think the cognitive self can experience all of reality with the senses or mind. In fact, I think the cognitive self has limitations that do not allow for rendering every detail in the known and unknown Universe all at once. That said the cognitive self is entangled with this vast and astronomical system so there is potential for the self to acquire more profound realizations within this system.


Originally posted by slane69
We also know that the nature of reality can change as we develop tools to perceive it on new levels and that even with those tools at times reality cannot be perceived completely, like position and momentum in quantum mechanics.

en.wikipedia.org...

Reality is constantly changing, and that is one constant. Hence why we have the passage of time. Time is merely the observation of change.


Originally posted by slane69
I see where you are going with your model but as at least one other poster has suggested your model all comes back to self. A very "human" model of reality it is.


That is the point. I certainly couldn't write a model to appeal to ants, lions or dinosaurs. Since aliens are not reading this post, I feel I must tend to the next best audience and make it relative to their experiences so we can find common ground from our human perspective.



Originally posted by sirnex
No, the limit is placed on the cognitive reality to perceive, which thus is translated over to the self by default as the one experiencing the cognitive reality. As the OP rightfully stated, cognitive reality is dependent upon physical reality in order to exist, and self reality is dependent upon cognitive reality to exist.


That's correct. Just looking at the overall picture and deconstructing it into certain interesting aspects by which we can connect as subjective self-similar humans. And in no way am I saying my “model” is an accurate one, just one that has interesting concepts that I feel worthy of discussion.


Originally posted by slane69
Really, our perception of reality is less than what exists in reality. Our range of perception can't translate all of reality to the self. We can't see reality in the infrared or UV spectrum, we can't decode radio waves or feel magnetic fields. The reality of the self is less than the reality of the cognitive which is a fraction of physical reality.

At least, this is what I feel the OP is trying to convey to us.


I like to think that the “self” is an underlying facet of what “reality” is. One thing is certain, “Reality” is being measured by the observer. It is the act of having measurment by the observer that allows a census of “Reality” to commence.

Since Physical Reality has many observers each at their own vantage point, each “self” within their own subjective vantage point share in the same self-similar experiences as the next part. We are only slightly different, in that we are individual humans. However because we are human we share many similarities.




posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 



I like to think that the “self” is an underlying facet of what “reality” is. One thing is certain, “Reality” is being measured by the observer. It is the act of having measurment by the observer that allows a census of “Reality” to commence.


This is where we part ways in our understanding of reality. Even under your model, the self never directly observes reality and only observes the cognitive aspect of reality. The self can never observe directly physical reality, even from a biological view. All sensory perceptions arise from physical interaction with physical reality, only to be decoded and made sense of by cognitive reality (the brain), which the last stage, the self can then observe and experience. Things like the 'observer effect' has nothing to do with conscious observation, which in itself is a fallacious statement, but instead deals with something as simple as two particles interacting as being the 'observers'.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
This is where we part ways in our understanding of reality. Even under your model, the self never directly observes reality and only observes the cognitive aspect of reality. The self can never observe directly physical reality, even from a biological view.


I agree, the "reality" that we as the "self" experience is more akin to qualia then the actual objective physical reality due to the fact it must be processed through a sensory interface and that information is then processed into a cognitive model.


Originally posted by sirnex
All sensory perceptions arise from physical interaction with physical reality, only to be decoded and made sense of by cognitive reality (the brain), which the last stage, the self can then observe and experience.


I can't agree more.


Originally posted by sirnex
Things like the 'observer effect' has nothing to do with conscious observation, which in itself is a fallacious statement, but instead deals with something as simple as two particles interacting as being the 'observers'.


Maybe this is where we might have a different view, but I think in large my point was regarding a "census" of reality, that is what we in majority agree to what it is (due to the subjective, intellectual, and information limits) we all must endure as we arise more sentient within our human biology.

Census reality is not even close to Physical Reality either, it suffers the same limitations as cognitive reality in that it is highly symbol and language driven. However, it is better then no census at all.

At any rate, good points Sirnex
I do enjoy chatting with you on these topics.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Robert lanza's Biocentrism theory is the most interesting I've read recently. I flat out don't think he is correct, but I really don't think humans are presently equiped to unravel as large a mystery. The fun of it is postulation.



new topics

top topics
 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join