Can Time exist within Time?

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Baron01

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Baron01
A thought cannot exist in the past because it did never exist. For the observer it looks like the thought was real but in reality there were only selfmade (not even selfmade but it feels like that) signals going off in the brain which the observer observes as a thought.

The observer doesn't exist without thought.

Can consciousness exist without thinking thought?

Ribbit

edit on 5-3-2012 by ButtUglyToad because: (no reason given)

The observer doesn't need any thought to exist. If it needs any thought in order to exist it wouldn't exist because thoughts are illusions. Basically everything that occurs within the brain is an illusion. Without the observer (your true self) you wouldn't be here typing on the forum.

The observer is like space. What is always here even if you don't think or do anything at all? Everything changes: your body, your beliefs, your life situation, your clothes. But something which isn't really a thing did not change, it's you. You can call it the observer, God, consciousness, awareness or whatever you like it are just words to describe the indescribable.

Saying the Observer is like Space is like saying the Person is the Body, sew that's kNot a good correlation.

The werd "observer" denotes one that watches, which requires action, which, of course, goes down IN Time and to observe/watch anything requires logical abilities, which then requires math, which require Thinking.

Have you ever thought of the possibility that everything you see as an individual observer is n0thing more than Thought?

As to the indescribable, it's only indescribable if you cannot observe it.

Sew just because you dew kNot remember, doesn't mean others suffer from your amnesiatic condition, for the only description for our Mother is m0m.

Ribbit

The observer isn't an object/energie/matter or whatever you want to call it. Space is like this. It doesn't have a specific place but it's the place itself. Could an object exist if there was no space? Could you experience life if there was no observer? Does a robot experience existence like you? No, a robot doesn't experience anything at all because it isn't an observer. If you weren't the observer you would be like a robot. No experiences, just a body. Maybe a body can't even live without the observer, I dunno.

The observer does not only watch but observes all 5 senses. You aren't what you experience, you're the one behind it. For the observer to observe there has to be action which is movement. Everything is in constant motion except nothing. The observer is nothing and so is space.

How can something or nothing go IN time? Where is this 'time'?


''Have you ever thought of the possibility that everything you see as an individual observer is n0thing more than Thought? ''

I don't see anything as an individual observer. The observer isn't a thing.

Everything is describable but what isn't a thing is not describable. We call space 'space' but I can't point my finger to it and say ''look there is space''. Well I could but that would be very silly.

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Baron01

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Baron01

 

The observer doesn't need any thought to exist. If it needs any thought in order to exist it wouldn't exist because thoughts are illusions. Basically everything that occurs within the brain is an illusion. Without the observer (your true self) you wouldn't be here typing on the forum.

The observer is like space. What is always here even if you don't think or do anything at all? Everything changes: your body, your beliefs, your life situation, your clothes. But something which isn't really a thing did not change, it's you. You can call it the observer, God, consciousness, awareness or whatever you like it are just words to describe the indescribable.

The observer needs to exist to be able to have a thought. A thought is not a illusion. A thought exists at the very moment it is being formed. And it takes time to form a thought.

When you think about let's say your dog. Is your dog really there?

No, but neither are you!

Ribbit

That's right frogman. I can't live within my thoughts.


ps. English is obviously not my first language so I apologize if my posts are full with spelling mistakes.

Originally posted by Baron01

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Baron01

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Baron01
A thought cannot exist in the past because it did never exist. For the observer it looks like the thought was real but in reality there were only selfmade (not even selfmade but it feels like that) signals going off in the brain which the observer observes as a thought.

The observer doesn't exist without thought.

Can consciousness exist without thinking thought?

Ribbit

edit on 5-3-2012 by ButtUglyToad because: (no reason given)

The observer doesn't need any thought to exist. If it needs any thought in order to exist it wouldn't exist because thoughts are illusions. Basically everything that occurs within the brain is an illusion. Without the observer (your true self) you wouldn't be here typing on the forum.

The observer is like space. What is always here even if you don't think or do anything at all? Everything changes: your body, your beliefs, your life situation, your clothes. But something which isn't really a thing did not change, it's you. You can call it the observer, God, consciousness, awareness or whatever you like it are just words to describe the indescribable.

Saying the Observer is like Space is like saying the Person is the Body, sew that's kNot a good correlation.

The werd "observer" denotes one that watches, which requires action, which, of course, goes down IN Time and to observe/watch anything requires logical abilities, which then requires math, which require Thinking.

Have you ever thought of the possibility that everything you see as an individual observer is n0thing more than Thought?

As to the indescribable, it's only indescribable if you cannot observe it.

Sew just because you dew kNot remember, doesn't mean others suffer from your amnesiatic condition, for the only description for our Mother is m0m.

Ribbit

The observer isn't an object/energie/matter or whatever you want to call it. Space is like this. It doesn't have a specific place but it's the place itself. Could an object exist if there was no space? Could you experience life if there was no observer? Does a robot experience existence like you? No, a robot doesn't experience anything at all because it isn't an observer. If you weren't the observer you would be like a robot. No experiences, just a body. Maybe a body can't even live without the observer, I dunno.

The observer does not only watch but observes all 5 senses. You aren't what you experience, you're the one behind it. For the observer to observe there has to be action which is movement. Everything is in constant motion except nothing. The observer is nothing and so is space.

How can something or nothing go IN time? Where is this 'time'?


''Have you ever thought of the possibility that everything you see as an individual observer is n0thing more than Thought?

''

I don't see anything as an individual observer. The observer isn't a thing.

Everything is describable but what isn't a thing is not describable. We call space 'space' but I can't point my finger to it and say ''look there is space''. Well I could but that would be very silly.

I love this question:

"Could an object exist if there was no space?"

I'd then have to ask, could space exist if there was no object?

Then you asked this:

"Could you experience life if there was no observer?"

I'd then have to ask, could the observer observe without being Life?

Then you asked this:

"Does a robot experience existence like you?"

But then you answered yourself:

"No, a robot doesn't experience anything at all because it isn't an observer."

My question is then, how dew you know the robot doesn't experience anything at all? Did the robot tell you this?

What makes you think a rock can't be an observer?

What makes you think you are Life but a rock isn't?

Ribbit

Originally posted by Baron01

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Baron01

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Baron01

 

The observer doesn't need any thought to exist. If it needs any thought in order to exist it wouldn't exist because thoughts are illusions. Basically everything that occurs within the brain is an illusion. Without the observer (your true self) you wouldn't be here typing on the forum.

The observer is like space. What is always here even if you don't think or do anything at all? Everything changes: your body, your beliefs, your life situation, your clothes. But something which isn't really a thing did not change, it's you. You can call it the observer, God, consciousness, awareness or whatever you like it are just words to describe the indescribable.

The observer needs to exist to be able to have a thought. A thought is not a illusion. A thought exists at the very moment it is being formed. And it takes time to form a thought.

When you think about let's say your dog. Is your dog really there?

No, but neither are you!

Ribbit

That's right frogman. I can't live within my thoughts.


ps. English is obviously not my first language so I apologize if my posts are full with spelling mistakes.

There's no such critter as a spelling error, only peeps that think there is such an animal but they're also the ones that believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and even the Toothfairy, sew go figure.

Ribbit

Originally posted by Baron01

Everything is describable but what isn't a thing is not describable. We call space 'space' but I can't point my finger to it and say ''look there is space''. Well I could but that would be very silly.

What's the answer to this equation:

Solve for x:

x² - 1 = x

You would say there is no answer, but that is the answer, there is no answer, but then you don't see that the indescribable is not describable is, in-of-itself, the answer, the description of the indescribable.

Thus, the indescribable is describable.

Which is explained with the Perfect in Imperfection Paradox, which also proves that an Imperfect Utopia is possible.

As to space, I can stick one of my fingers up in the air, in your direction, and point to it with another finger from my other hand, and say, "More space just flowed thru that finger, in the period of time it takes me to say that, than you occupy at any given finite moment in time."

In that, I will have pointed at space and said, there is space, see it? If you don't see it, you need to take off the sunglasses.

Ribbit

''could space exist if there was no object?''
If you would burn down your house and remove the ashes, space will be still there. So yes, space can exist if there is no object.

''could the observer observe without being Life?''
The observer itself is not alive but needs a body to observe. By observer I mean 'soul' because the soul is the observer.

''how dew you know the robot doesn't experience anything at all? Did the robot tell you this?''
A robot doesn't have any senses. No, a robot is a manmade thing and it can't tell me anything.

''What makes you think a rock can't be an observer?''
Because a rock is an object without senses.

''What makes you think you are Life but a rock isn't?''
I am not life but the body is alive. A rock isn't alive because a rock isn't a creature. It's not a body and non-organic.

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Baron01

Everything is describable but what isn't a thing is not describable. We call space 'space' but I can't point my finger to it and say ''look there is space''. Well I could but that would be very silly.

What's the answer to this equation:

Solve for x:

x² - 1 = x

You would say there is no answer, but that is the answer, there is no answer, but then you don't see that the indescribable is not describable is, in-of-itself, the answer, the description of the indescribable.

Thus, the indescribable is describable.

Which is explained with the Perfect in Imperfection Paradox, which also proves that an Imperfect Utopia is possible.

As to space, I can stick one of my fingers up in the air, in your direction, and point to it with another finger from my other hand, and say, "More space just flowed thru that finger, in the period of time it takes me to say that, than you occupy at any given finite moment in time."

In that, I will have pointed at space and said, there is space, see it? If you don't see it, you need to take off the sunglasses.

Ribbit

Right now I'm getting mindf*cked by a toad so I will leave it right here.

Many think time exists and see the illusion as this: past--->now--->future

but that's just a thoughtprocess.

There is one eternal: . now

Originally posted by Baron01
''could space exist if there was no object?''
If you would burn down your house and remove the ashes, space will be still there. So yes, space can exist if there is no object.

''could the observer observe without being Life?''
The observer itself is not alive but needs a body to observe. By observer I mean 'soul' because the soul is the observer.

''how dew you know the robot doesn't experience anything at all? Did the robot tell you this?''
A robot doesn't have any senses. No, a robot is a manmade thing and it can't tell me anything.

''What makes you think a rock can't be an observer?''
Because a rock is an object without senses.

''What makes you think you are Life but a rock isn't?''
I am not life but the body is alive. A rock isn't alive because a rock isn't a creature. It's not a body and non-organic.

First, lets fix your misconsceptions about Space. Space is kNot atmosphere, atmosphere occupies Space. Space has Zero Mass and that which has no mass, FLOWS thru that which has Mass and Space cannot be averted, sew anything that IS, occupies Space.

As to observer, you said the observer is the Soul, which is Life, but what makes you think a Soul can only observe from a "lifeform" on this planet and cannot observe from a rock instead? What makes you think you understand what Life is and what it isn't? Observation, perhaps? But what if the picture show you've been observing, isn't the truth?

You say a robot doesn't have senses, but then, what are senses? Electrical signals interpreted by your brain, which were DESIGNED into your body. Sew I wonder if who built you says the same about you as you say about robots?

You are kNot Life, that's the biggest fallacy that will keep you thinking more of that which is wrong than anything else.

Ribbit

Originally posted by Baron01
Many think time exists and see the illusion as this: past--->now--->future

but that's just a thoughtprocess.

There is one eternal: . now

The problem is, you don't exist in just that Now, you exist in the Now within the true Now, sew the true Now is where your Now comes from, which makes your Now the Past of the true Now.

Try that on for myndphuck!

Ribbit

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


This reality sure feels real to me.

Moments of time exist within eternal time, but i dont know how that is going to help you find inner happiness. Seek the eternal and you achieve true happiness in this present time.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by ButtUglyToad

 

This reality sure feels real to me.

Then ask this question:

"If this reality is Thought, holographically projected into your Soul's "mind" and the real you (Soul) is just connected to the projection and it seems as real as real can get, then why the hell would WE the Souls dew it for Real in the Real when it's sew easy to dew it in WE's mYnd?"

Plus, WE can stack Time in Thought!

Ribbit

Originally posted by Lord Jules

Moments of time exist within eternal time, but i dont know how that is going to help you find inner happiness. Seek the eternal and you achieve true happiness in this present time.

But it helps you find Zero Happiness!

Have you ever been Zero Happy b4?

Ribbit

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Baron01
''could space exist if there was no object?''
If you would burn down your house and remove the ashes, space will be still there. So yes, space can exist if there is no object.

''could the observer observe without being Life?''
The observer itself is not alive but needs a body to observe. By observer I mean 'soul' because the soul is the observer.

''how dew you know the robot doesn't experience anything at all? Did the robot tell you this?''
A robot doesn't have any senses. No, a robot is a manmade thing and it can't tell me anything.

''What makes you think a rock can't be an observer?''
Because a rock is an object without senses.

''What makes you think you are Life but a rock isn't?''
I am not life but the body is alive. A rock isn't alive because a rock isn't a creature. It's not a body and non-organic.

First, lets fix your misconsceptions about Space. Space is kNot atmosphere, atmosphere occupies Space. Space has Zero Mass and that which has no mass, FLOWS thru that which has Mass and Space cannot be averted, sew anything that IS, occupies Space.

As to observer, you said the observer is the Soul, which is Life, but what makes you think a Soul can only observe from a "lifeform" on this planet and cannot observe from a rock instead? What makes you think you understand what Life is and what it isn't? Observation, perhaps? But what if the picture show you've been observing, isn't the truth?

You say a robot doesn't have senses, but then, what are senses? Electrical signals interpreted by your brain, which were DESIGNED into your body. Sew I wonder if who built you says the same about you as you say about robots?

You are kNot Life, that's the biggest fallacy that will keep you thinking more of that which is wrong than anything else.

Ribbit

How do you know that space flows through everything that which has mass? For space to flow it has to be something but space is clearly no-thing so it cannot flow.

The soul isn't life because it cannot die. The soul can't observe from a rock because a rock is not alive, has no senses and no brains. So I assume that I cannot hurt and/or kill a rock. If you had to make a choice between kicking a rock or a toad, which one would you choose and why? (you have to pick one, not kicking isn't an option) Obviously kicking a rock could hurt yourself a little bit but kicking a toad is cruel imo (it's alive).

My body was first built by my mother and then it took care of itself. My mother probably thinks the same about robots as me. If you meant the soul I'm not sure If the soul could be built or not. There are lots of lunatics claiming there is a God who creates souls but how could they know that? How could I know that? As far as I know there is no soul creator.

I am not life, true.

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Baron01
Many think time exists and see the illusion as this: past--->now--->future

but that's just a thoughtprocess.

There is one eternal: . now

The problem is, you don't exist in just that Now, you exist in the Now within the true Now, sew the true Now is where your Now comes from, which makes your Now the Past of the true Now.

Try that on for myndphuck!

Ribbit

edit on 8-3-2012 by ButtUglyToad because: (no reason given)

Maybe the true now does not exist and the now we experience could be just an illusion. Everything we experience occurs within the brain so maybe there is no space at all, maybe there is no matter at all, maybe there is no brain at all. Pretty sick.

Originally posted by Baron01

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad

Originally posted by Baron01
Many think time exists and see the illusion as this: past--->now--->future

but that's just a thoughtprocess.

There is one eternal: . now

The problem is, you don't exist in just that Now, you exist in the Now within the true Now, sew the true Now is where your Now comes from, which makes your Now the Past of the true Now.

Try that on for myndphuck!

Ribbit

Maybe the true now does not exist and the now we experience could be just an illusion. Everything we experience occurs within the brain so maybe there is no space at all, maybe there is no matter at all, maybe there is no brain at all. Pretty sick.

That's a serious rabbit hole.

If all of this is going down in Thought and kNot manifested for real, although as real as real gets, WE can dew anything WE want. WE could have up as down and down as sideways and sideways as nowhere, etc.... Sew what We here are experiencing is what We are being shown, regardless if it's the truth or kNot but by what I can tell, We have been shown the truth, just kNot all of IT.

Also, if what We've been shown is the truth, it's the past truth and kNot the current truth, sew WE are much older than I originally thought, but that's because I was basing that age on what We've been shown and that's sumwhere in the past, what can be called Old Truth.

Ribbit

Originally posted by Baron01

How do you know that space flows through everything that which has mass? For space to flow it has to be something but space is clearly no-thing so it cannot flow.

What if Space is the Body of God/SourCe, sorta like skin but inverted of our skin, which would be Massless? The only thing that can penetrate anything with mass, would be the massless for even photons are absorbed by that which has mass, but photons have mass.

It's said that Space is expanding, which denotes a flow of sorts, sew what if that expansion is n0thing more than God/SourCe growing?

Ribbit

Space is not nothing its not a void space has substance thats why space can be bent,Everything that has mass distorts space.You cannot bend nothing an space has substance M O O.

Originally posted by ecossiepossie
Space is not nothing its not a void space has substance thats why space can be bent,Everything that has mass distorts space.You cannot bend nothing an space has substance M O O.

Where science THINKS they are bending space and/or time, they are kNot! They are bending the invisible magnetic forces that permeates this holographic planet. You cannot "cloak" against Time nor Space, even though your scientist disagree but they also think the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the controlling law of the Universe, when it isn't, sew their credibility is seriously lacking.

Ribbit