The Truth Concerning What Humans Worship As God

page: 10
31
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by angeldoll
So then, I have a question, NorEaster. What holds this DCH -- this superhighway of experience, information, and personality together? What prevents it from breaking apart and drifting...away from itself, until there's nothing left but inconsequential fragments?

If there is a Center, what is it?

If there is not, then back to my original question. What holds it together?


In short, the answer is The Informational Continuum (IC). That said, each full contextual environment contains and is defined by its own isolated IC. As one would have to insist, there is a primordial full contextual environment, and that environment is where the initial IC reigns supreme (a little personification in use). All other full contextual environments are based on unique Unit Rate of Change (URC) and I am only aware of how such secondary environments are initiated by intelligent beings, with specific intentions for such full environments. If they (these secondary full environments) emerge naturally, I'm not aware of how that can occur.

The mechanics involved are the same well known mechanics that cause a ball to roll across a flat surface, and atoms to gather in physical structure to form the matter that the ball and the floor are then constructed off. That matter (material existence) is - when taken apart beyond the particle level - simple layers of organized Event trajectory (linear and relatively redundant) that have been combined and configured in a very specific survival imperative expression called symbiosis with the other unit-level physical staple - Information. In essence, the Event unit and the Information unit are the building blocks of physical existence, and there is literally no other form of existence besides physical existence.

What defines the nature of organization and possible response for any and all full contextual environments is the relative contextual make up of the environment in question. Of course, there are universal "yes"s and "no"s, but these are extremely primitive, and few in number. The primary "yes" is "first, survive" for all that exists. All other universal "yes"s and "no"s are based off that foundational "yes", as are all relative "yes"s and "no"s regardless of the reality confine that contains them. As the progressive development (event and information in ongoing survival symbiosis) advances within a full contextual environment, the open avenues of possible event response become more and more restricted. This is due to the primordial "devotion" to the primary "yes" noted above ("first survive") and the added fact that once emerged, Information is physically permanent, as well as - as physicists already agree - instructive in its symbiotic relationship with the Event . This is how "natural forces" and "natural laws of physics" develop - again, this isn't news to the physics world.

While it may seem unlikely that such primitive forms of existence (certainly not life or intelligence of any sort) can actually form organized development, the proof exists all around us and is undeniable. Some seem to require an omnipresent omniscience beneath it all, in order for them to allow such order to exist, but the truth is that such a level of sophistication would require its own progressive development, and to explain that development puts you right back at square one again. Unless, of course, you simply declare a supernatural God-thingy responsible and walk off on the whole examination. Then again, if you're going to do that, then why bother trying to bring science and physics into any of it? Just present the bible as your science book and move on to more important matters.
edit on 10/31/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Indeed, what would hold it together? A whole is only a composit of fragments..subject to being vulnerable to drifting apart, or simply going "poof". What is it's purpose? Simply to "house" so to speak, the previous personalities of dead humans? Is it worthwhile? Does it need to be worthwhile? If I have interpreted any of this remotely correctly, then the PCH is both everything, and nothing. It is a parking garage.

Provided all are equal as personalities in the PCH. One creates their own scenarios of heaven or hell, or a stroll in the park, consequently becoming their own puppetmaster? Gandhi's personality holds no more value than a modern street thug's? They both simply have continued conscious existence within the PCH?


The PCH is the "post-corporeal human" - the passed human being. You can call it the human spirit if you like. To me, it doesn't matter, but when referring to it in a public forum, I don't use the word "spirit" because it's a term that presents a visceral impact for literally everyone that reads it, and each impact is different for each person reading it. I choose different descriptive terms to universalize the concept a bit more. The term "post-corporeal human" (or PCH) makes it clear (I assumed) that I was referring to a human that had died and passed on with its full personality and conscious awareness intact.


This actually sounds very much like spiritualism, in which upon death, as a spirit, the person simply crosses over into another dimension. They have jobs and junk. They have entered yet another journey. Journey after journey.


That's exactly what it is, except that I believe the PCH to be comprised of dynamic intellect, which is a unique information/event trajectory hybrid that the human corporeal brain literally manufactures - burst by burst - by configuring residual information stored within the brain's carbon memory banks (carbon's a great data storage material, by the way) in response to the body's survival requirements (as laid out within the DNA directives, and the human "mind's" dynamic determinations via a form of biofeedback involving the data stream entering the brain's short term memory for upload and further processing and storage.

These bursts of dynamic intellect never cease to physically exist, even after they address and direct the survival requirements upon configuration and release by the brain. They simply gather in logical association, and continue to be aware of themselves as an inimitable, indivisible whole; eventually realizing the value in dynamically affecting their own ongoing development by way of affecting the short term memory data stream (via a simple cognitive triage effort that I have decided to call The Personality, since that's what you end up with as a result of that effort). When the corporeal brain dies, the gathered whole of dynamic intellect is "freed" into the informational realm (you can call it the spiritual realm if it makes you feel better), and the fully viable human being is now born and ready to begin its existence. Pretty simple actually.

Not really spiritualism, but it is what's been mistaken for spiritualism.


Another thought that crossed my mind, while reading the assertion that the personality is what remains after the body is gone.....ostensibly the part of us that would be most likely to survive should logically be the strongest part of us? That is.....Our intellect, and/or our emotions? (Our drives would no longer serve us, as they are centered on our physical survival. )

Our personalities are shaped early-on, at the whim of others. "The looking glass self",whatever blah blah, and sometimes does not reflect what goes on internally at all. People can fake the personality.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to consider that it is this internal part of us which is the authentic self and that which only belongs to one's self, as the part that would continue?


We are literally what we create of ourselves as we think and react to our ongoing corporeal lives from instant to instant. So yes, what you suggest is basically what you end up with. We call the outward persona of a person "the personality", and while I use that word slightly differently, it still is very much the deliberate self that we consciously and unconsciously craft and perfect in response to the most primal expression of the survival imperative - Identity. For good or ill, the personality is our deliberate effort to satisfy the Identity survival imperative. For some of us, this is a good thing, but for too many of us, it's disastrous.


To assert that only the personality remains as functional, if at all, is the antithesis of what most of us have learned.

So, Brainy ones. Feedback?


And yet, we all expect to recognize our loved ones after we've crossed over into the eternal realms. Think about it.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

And yet, we all expect to recognize our loved ones after we've crossed over into the eternal realms. Think about it.




In support of your comment there, I will add that our supposed 'loved ones' here, are just that, HERE! The Soul playing them is dew'n just that, playing a part so in the 'cross over' you have kNOw individual 'loved ones' waiting on you, you have the Collective of Souls awaiting you, which are your true loved ones.


Ribbit



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I'm not sure if it is because your response was specific to me, or because my comprehension is better this morning, but I think I have a clearer picture of what you are saying now. So thanks.

All in all, even though this theory contains a new and well formed vocabulary, hours of intelligent thought and an admirable struggle for reason, is this theory that much different from more common ones?

The human spirit, or whatever one chooses to call it, is released from the physical remains through death; enters into another environment; and is rewarded or punished, either by his own doing, or though the power invoked by a greater entity. Here, the greater entity has been omitted, which places these ideas in a more scientific category than a religious one. Or perhaps more of a philosophy. In a way -- existentialism? One concludes in this scenario that the existence of humankind has no meaning. Life has no meaning, and death has no meaning. We are, er, flotsam and jetsam, as they say. We are completely cerebral both here and there, and while continuing to punish ourselves in these self-constructed hells, we manage after all to cling to our neuroses.

So, it's not a particularly sympathetic account.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I'm not sure if it is because your response was specific to me, or because my comprehension is better this morning, but I think I have a clearer picture of what you are saying now. So thanks.

All in all, even though this theory contains a new and well formed vocabulary, hours of intelligent thought and an admirable struggle for reason, is this theory that much different from more common ones?

The human spirit, or whatever one chooses to call it, is released from the physical remains through death; enters into another environment; and is rewarded or punished, either by his own doing, or though the power invoked by a greater entity. Here, the greater entity has been omitted, which places these ideas in a more scientific category than a religious one. Or perhaps more of a philosophy. In a way -- existentialism? One concludes in this scenario that the existence of humankind has no meaning. Life has no meaning, and death has no meaning. We are, er, flotsam and jetsam, as they say. We are completely cerebral both here and there, and while continuing to punish ourselves in these self-constructed hells, we manage after all to cling to our neuroses.

So, it's not a particularly sympathetic account.


The real bottom line involves the procreation of the intelligent entity that initiated our own "reality confine", and how this confine is actually the gestational placenta for the progeny of that entity. I haven't revealed this aspect of the premise here, since it does sound pretty inane without the proper informational background laid out in full. What I'm discovering, however, is that the background information is so controversial, that very few actually make the journey to where the whole presentation is designed to take them.

The value of the human being - alone - is negligible, but as a collective whole, that value is immeasurable. Kind of like the blades of grass in a perfect lawn. One blade is not the whole lawn, but if there were no blades of grass, there'd be no lawn. The human corporeal lifespan provides a full and fully textured experience of what it means to be both material and informational, with a wide range of what that can possibly mean as more than simple memory or description. Also included is the appreciation of relentless change and the direct immersion into the full impact of emerging holistic circumstance, which can only be experienced by what is corporeal. The human being is uniquely capable of fully experiencing that, and precious few can contribute that experience via the contextual environment's Informational Continuum to the emergent entity that will - at some point - be the recipient of all of this priceless information.

The ancients decided to call this being "Man" - with the elevated designation, of course. Jesus referred to himself as both the Son of God and the Son of Man, and as humanity's grasp of the creator's deliberate intent (the internalization of this information by the human mind - allegorically depicted as the Holy Spirit's impregnation of the virgin Mary, and the son being that translation into human understanding) this Jesus character certainly was that - even if only in allegory.

No, there's no other theological premise anything like this. If there was, I'd be working with the folks who'd introduced it.
edit on 11/1/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
31
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join