An alternative theory of consciousness, if you will.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


who cares for what u enjoy doing or thinking being for, such cheap means in insolent limits that dare speak about everything knowledge
i said truth not u, when u exist as much to urself how dare u act as if truth cant exist

truth limits u at ur worse level chicken, if u r then ur worse is ur best so from the start it is known that u cant b any value but how far would u go down to pretend getting of height is the time of ur negative end that could last forever

hotelcalifornia as i m proving it, the only way out is noway

Originally posted by Qi Maker

Originally posted by NorEaster
I am totally with you right up to this point. My terminology is a little different, and I have the gathering "human being" actively involved in managing the ongoing data entry criteria for the "memory cloud" that the brain uses to further manage its corporeal survival and to develop the emerging human personality, but essentially, we agree on how this happens. That said, I have to stay with my own view that the internal (historical) contextual composition of each completed human being (the "etheric body" if you will) prevents it from being able to employ a new brain for additional input, since authorship is a primordial qualifier when dealing with existential Identity (which is essential to the existence of whatever it is that exists).

I interpret this as not really differing all that much from the theory I've given, unless I misunderstand you or you me. It is that this 'etheric consciousness form' we develop crystallizes in a separate trajectory and transfers as a unique identity to the astral plane to assume its own domain, not to a new physical vessel, all the while a spark of that initial consciousness carries on through the phase state of transitions, inhabiting a new form to continue the process of fractal specialization ad infinitum until all is reabsorbed into the womb of the Father-Mother whole, or into the state known as Pralaya (en.wikipedia.org...).

It differs in that my research has suggested (to me, anyway) that due to the isolating nature of internal (historical) context, there's no spark that is capable of separation from the whole. The fractal nature of holon identity makes that logically impossible. The self-similarity that allows each contributory holon to be fully associated as integral to the whole, and prevents absorption by any other greater whole, is itself the limitation that makes such a transfer a complete contradiction, and therefore not possible.

Identity is primordial, and is the basis of physical existence. The human being, in whole and in part, is physically existent, even after its corporeal body has died and its component bits have dissolved into elements. The inimitable human whole - created by the Homo Sapiens brain (on this planet, as opposed to whatever brain it is that creates human beings on other planets) - is what continues to exist when that Homo Sapiens brain and body has ceased to exist as an isolated physical whole.

The Homo Sapiens corporeal union is based on a matrix of event trajectories, whereas the human being whole is actually an informational continuum. Two very different causal structures, with one (the event trajectory) being immediately realized potential and the other (the informational continuum) being the ramification of that realized potential. That said, the human being's informational form is an actual hybrid of event and information, (this requires a lengthy layout of how the brain works and what happens when it does what it does) which imbues it with an internal trajectory capacity, even as it remains inert as a composite whole (being the informational continuum that it is) relative to everything else that shares the same reality confine with it. This makes contextual shedding or acquiring impossible once the brain itself dies, but allows the human being to be physically dynamic and self-animating for as long as an informational continuum lasts, which seems to be forever, since information has no physical half-life that's ever been determined or even suggested.

There's a lot that goes into explaining the physics involved, but the bottom line is that our two views concerning the "spark" that you suggested are not compatible. That said, I appreciate your notion of the corporeal brain being the "generator" of the human being. That I agree with.

reply to post by NorEaster


ahh I see

very precisely stated and elaborated sir.

I will still stand that each uniquely identifiable informational continuum, as you put it, is intertwined with the whole event trajectory matrix, which is itself a meta-continuum, in such a way that separate trajectories are quantumly entangled to a point of being engaged in co-creative patterns, and thus able to merge and diverge through attraction and resonance.

In other words, all separate informational packets are linked inextricably to the primordial seed consciousness/intelligence....the one and the many~

Originally posted by Qi Maker
reply to post by NorEaster

 

ahh I see

very precisely stated and elaborated sir.

I will still stand that each uniquely identifiable informational continuum, as you put it, is intertwined with the whole event trajectory matrix, which is itself a meta-continuum, in such a way that separate trajectories are quantumly entangled to a point of being engaged in co-creative patterns, and thus able to merge and diverge through attraction and resonance.

In other words, all separate informational packets are linked inextricably to the primordial seed consciousness/intelligence....the one and the many~

If full contextual environments could be consciously aware and intelligent, then I'd agree with you. These "meta-continuums" - your terminology, but certainly usable in this discussion, are each a contextual slurry of isolated Dynamic Informational wholes (Intellect and/or Reaction) and a fact-centric Residual Continuum, and are contextually associated by the unit rate of emergence, which is based on the Unit Rate of Change (URC) or Quantum synchronization of the ongoing activity that causes information (factual and dynamic action directives) to emerge. There is some fringe research happening concerning quantum synchronization and the implications of action rate alignment as a "dimension isolating" attribute, but it's still very much to the side of mainstream physics. I tend to believe that this alignment issue is extremely determinant when dealing with what can and cannot directly associate as physical. Not as primordial as historical context, but pretty low on the attribute tree nonetheless.

To my own understanding, the only community that can include a plurality of intelligent and consciously aware Intellect wholes is a full contextual environment - either fully realized or still gestating as a sub-environment attached to the full environment that hosted its initiation event. I don't think there are any other naturally emerging platforms, although there is an intentionally initiated association platform that exists, but I don't think you're actually referring to that, since attraction and resonance isn't what brings this platform together.

Reality is pretty strict, and while it can definitely be leveraged, it can only be leveraged in ways that adhere to the substructure that bases it.

Originally posted by absolutely
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

who cares for what u enjoy doing or thinking being for, such cheap means in insolent limits that dare speak about everything knowledge
i said truth not u, when u exist as much to urself how dare u act as if truth cant exist

truth limits u at ur worse level chicken, if u r then ur worse is ur best so from the start it is known that u cant b any value but how far would u go down to pretend getting of height is the time of ur negative end that could last forever

hotelcalifornia as i m proving it, the only way out is noway

You Know...most people here would not even respond to your....Incoherent Blathering. I try to look for the Good in People as it is My Job to BRIDGE GAPS when all else fails. This is what I have been trying to do with you to a small point but even some of the Obvious Killers that I have had to Smile At....while attempting to find common ground as from their outlook...we are Strangers in a Land that they claim is now THEIRS but isn't and never has been. The land belongs to the people who are in a thousand year old or more Village based at 9000 ft...and this is considered DOWN IN A VALLEY.
NOW...How does this compare to you? As I said earlier...most people would not spend another moment of time as they would consider it a waste as you have responded in a manner which is not only rude but judgmental and you seem to think that you know everything there is to know about me or what my motivation to talk to you on this topic is. To be honest...some of your explanations are so incoherent that most would have given up on you. I have been trained to be able to communicate with just about anyone using a system of finding something that we all have in common or perhaps a common goal or even a like or dislike that is common between parties.
You have mistakenly come to an idea that by using WORDS in a manner that many would consider insulting that this would put me off or effect anger in me...or even respond negatively toward you when In reality I am just curious at what it is that so easily sets you off?
I have noted your repeated words that I am evil or am using some sort of process that is part of some plan-like concept that you do not approve of...but I harbor no ill will toward you nor does it matter to me whether you care for me or not. But I am curious what the reasoning is behind the way you post as well as why you seem to have so deep seated Hatred of me. Again...Even this does not dissuade my curiosity or my attempt to actually talk to you without the Childish Words.
If you have something to say that has any real merit...I will listen and consider the words. If you continue to act in your so far manner...I will just chalk you up as a lost cause who was more interested in insults and lack of manners than a person who truly has a chance to connect with another person. If you are not the connecting type...I will bring out my saw and sever my out stretched HAND....as mine grow back QUICKLY!
It is your choice. Split Infinity

reply to post by Qi Maker


IMO you were making great sense until this:

Consciousness crystallizes its unique character over the course of individual life, developing its own etheric body/signature that is then transferred to the astral plane upon physical death.

You start your post with a purely reason and evidence based model of conciousness, but here you completely go off the rails of the logic express with this assertion that is assumed to be true. Am I, as the sceptical thinker, supposed to accept this unsubstantiated metaphysical claim that of course is completely lacking any empirical evidence of any kind? Why must this astral plane exist a priori? As i read further, I realize that this unproven and illogical concept forms the basis of you post. This undetectable, unmeasurable and unprovable realm simply must exist, and your reasoning follows from there. To be blunt, thats a massive and gaping void in your logic that isnt even addressed - it is simply assumed as true, like the world is round true.

Thats problematic! Could you explain the basis of your belief in the undetectable? Why not just stop at the physical model of the brain, which adheres to reason and evidence? Why are you attempting to square this circle?

(I dont mean to come off as passive aggressive, I was just a little thrown by the perceived disconnect there)

Respectfully

reply to post by Neo_Serf


In short, because I reserved the liberty to employ imagination when proposing a totally hypothetical theory.

And B) Because, due my to my direct experience with certain realities of the beyond, I hold a spiritual/synchro-mystical perspective and will naturally speak from that viewpoint, often using words/symbols to describe intangibles/abstractions that cannot be verified or approached from the rationalist/materialist perspective.

I'm not a scientific materialist in the least, maybe I should have made that clear.