Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If the human mind survives death, then you will eventually embrace a god

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster
 


You really should watch and follow along with the video but if you did it would change your belief so I doubt you will. I would rather forget belief and have truth instead.
The mind is experienced as thoughts and ideas and beliefs and concepts, projection in time - past/future - personality.
What do you experience as 'mind'?
edit on 25-4-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


Look. You embrace what you feel good about embracing. It's not my wish to dissuade you from embracing the reality view that best suits you, and my concern isn't for those who've found their faith-based community. My concern is for the folks who don't realize how deeply affected they have been by the social conditioning, and have no idea how vulnerable they'll be when they discover that their disbelief in an afterlife won't prevent that afterlife from being a reality for them.



That is my mission too.
The 'mind' is 'social conditioning' - it is not what you are.
If you hold fast onto the conditioning (mind) you may well find that you carry it with you forever - eternal suffering. If you discover that you are prior to the mind and find your true nature - the suffering will end.
edit on 26-4-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Continued from my earlier post...

Having established biology and cellular activity as inadequate to account for the conscious state, but certainly playing an undiscovered part in how radiated stimulations, light, sound, temperature, etc, lead towards the life experience, we turn now to the world that subsumes biological and chemical activity...the quantum world. We are seeking the mechanism that brings us into the conscious state.

Quanta exist in a double-aspected condition, they seem to exist as both a waveform and as a point-like condensate, a particle, a minute localised region of dense energy.

As a particle, the quantum vibrates about its own center at a velocity termed its rest phase, its lowest energy state. In this phase, the particle can be said to be uncoupled (non-interactive) from its environment and other particles nearby, this is its waveform. The quantum is also said to have a field of influence, the boundary of limit of its motion about its center. There are other particles nearby, equally uncoupled from their environment and each other, that is until an energy wave propagates through their region.

To illustrate this think of a small region of a beach. Along the shoreline a number of people (particles) stand fidgeting, but not moving from their position. They are positioned in a block of 10 people by 10 people, and are just about out of arm and leg reach of each other. These people cannot perceive each other in any way, even though they may only be a few feet from each other. They just stand there fidgeting incessantly at a particular unvarying rate. Suddenly, a wave of water (a propagated wave of kinetic energy) rushes in onto the beach and washes over the feet of the line of people closest to the waters edge. These people now react to the wave and are excited out of their rest phases and quickly move in the direction the wave is going. This makes them collide with the people behind them, which in turn brings them out of their rest phases, causing them to move in the same direction, equally colliding with the people behind them, and so on.

In quantum terms a number of effects arise:
1) the kinectic energy wave raises the quantum out of rest phase and excites it to an higher energy level.
2) each quantum has an upper energy threshold, above which it must emit excess energy in the form of a lepton; each particle seeks to return to rest phase.
3) as the kinectic energy wave forces the particles towards each other, they correspond through their quantum fields, which breaks down their waveforms, they instantly perceive each other.
4) it is from out of this correspondence that the energy that places organisms into the conscious state arises.

When quanta correspond with each other, a resonance arises that is the sum of their correspondence, that is to say, each quantum's intrinsic energy value and the value of the kinectic energy wave, bring forth an informational resonance. This resonance is the energy that is responsible for the conscious state, and lasts only as long as the correspondence. When the kinetic energy wave passes, each quantum returns to their rest phase, and the correspondence between them ceases, and the resonance fades. All this happens within an instant, which makes the conscious state an 'on/off' switching sequence, but because other kinetic energy waves are following on the heels of the first kinetic energy wave, the quanta are constantly switched on and off to their correspondence.

In the macro-world of our everyday life, we perceive the conscious state holistically, as if it were one whole field. It is in fact a field made up of inumerable little resonances arising and fading at such speeds that we are unable to detect the latency between them. The conscious state is simply the excitation of the organism stimulated into a higher energy state. Where does the sentient human mind arise in all of this?

At this point we need to differentiate between the conscious state and consciousness. The former relates to excitation of the organism, whereas the latter relates to the organism's self-sentiency, or self-awareness. It is the degree of self-sentiency that differentiates humans from the animal kingdom. Self-sentiency arose in parallel to the development of memory. Memory was the most important developmental phase in our evolution. The conscious state, alone, cannot imbue self-sentiency, only the faculty of memory allows self-sentiency, and eventually intelligence to arise...its development brought about our psychological life, which we call 'mind'. The ability to recall the 'past' places us (relatively speaking) in the 'present' of the here and now, which allows us to anticipate the 'future', this ability allowed our intellectual faculty to arise and grow through cross-referential recall.

Of course, this is a very simplistic overview. There isn't space here to write out a detailed explanation.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 04:04 AM
link   
NorEaster:

I won't address semantics...


There are no semantics at play here, there is no opposition, just an alternate view. It's all hypothetical, as is your viewpoint. I'm not arguing with you, I just place my thinking here for perusal, it is no concern of mine whether you agree or not.


...but you did toss in a few important points about consciousness that can be addressed by the concept of the "Emergent System".


Toss? How are you qualified to determine the importance of what I write? Yes, I agree that consciousness is most certainly an 'emergent' phenomenon, my second post highlights it as such.


Screw reductionism. This 2013, not 1913. Strict reductionism didn't survive the 20th century.


Wrong. Reductive reasoning is alive and well in the 21st century. It is an everday habit which everybody uses daily when weighing up choices. Why deny what you yourself use in your postings?
edit on 26/4/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash

Originally posted by NorEaster
...This is the point of this thread. To open up a discussion about what's actually happening here on this planet, and perhaps on all other planets where human generating material brains exist. My ultimate effort is to educate people and give them the option of embracing these traditional notions or not. I just feel that all human beings should have the freedom and autonomy that they're physically capable of having. Then, if they want to join a specific community of humans as a result of agreeing with them and seeing the value in being a member of said community, they are free to join it and enjoy that community. As it stands, this isn't how community assignment is being handled once the human being emerges from this material realm.

Of course, I'm the clown...but I am totally enthralled with your proposition.
So - Where do I sign up?
Your suggestion (don't know why it would be considered far-fetched) that "this life" is a gestational process for an "after-life" is certainly NOT in opposition to most religious suppositions.
I would love to have more insight into how you came to the brink of this...uhhhhhh...paradigm?
Sorry I don't have much to offer...yet... Hope to...before you've lost interest!!!!!
Thanks for all your work in putting this out for consideration.


My efforts are to prove the definite plausibility of human conscious existence beyond the death of the brain, and that this survival has nothing at all to do with the existence of God, a god, or any version of primordial consciousness. In fact, I work to prove that such a primordial consciousness cannot possibly exist, and that consciousness itself is a capacity that is apical and not primordial.

The research I've done, and the fully vetted results I've crafted into an increasingly accessible presentation does succeed in proving that what I believe to be true is, in fact, true. I have even factored out a definitive and surprisingly plausible narrative that fully explains why Earth's Homo Sapiens human beings have become inherently vulnerable to the error of linking post-corporeal survival to the existence of a Creator entity. That was the hardest part of this effort, but by keeping the impetus as primitive and primordial as possible, the dots really came together in the end. I'm really confident that this general approach to that question succeeds more profoundly that I could've ever anticipated when I took this overall challenge on.

The notion will exist as fully and publicly available, and when it is I'll be sure to make this community aware of how to access it. It's much too comprehensive to post, but I am beginning to believe that I've finally worked out the bugs in how to properly present it. This, after over 3 years of struggle and varying degrees of success and failure. Yes, it's not an easy presentation.

Thanks for expressing an interest.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Continued from my earlier post...

As a particle, the quantum vibrates about its own center at a velocity termed its rest phase, its lowest energy state. In this phase, the particle can be said to be uncoupled (non-interactive) from its environment and other particles nearby, this is its waveform. The quantum is also said to have a field of influence, the boundary of limit of its motion about its center. There are other particles nearby, equally uncoupled from their environment and each other, that is until an energy wave propagates through their region.

To illustrate this think of a small region of a beach. Along the shoreline a number of people (particles) stand fidgeting, but not moving from their position. They are positioned in a block of 10 people by 10 people, and are just about out of arm and leg reach of each other. These people cannot perceive each other in any way, even though they may only be a few feet from each other. They just stand there fidgeting incessantly at a particular unvarying rate. Suddenly, a wave of water (a propagated wave of kinetic energy) rushes in onto the beach and washes over the feet of the line of people closest to the waters edge. These people now react to the wave and are excited out of their rest phases and quickly move in the direction the wave is going. This makes them collide with the people behind them, which in turn brings them out of their rest phases, causing them to move in the same direction, equally colliding with the people behind them, and so on.

In quantum terms a number of effects arise:
1) the kinectic energy wave raises the quantum out of rest phase and excites it to an higher energy level.
2) each quantum has an upper energy threshold, above which it must emit excess energy in the form of a lepton; each particle seeks to return to rest phase.
3) as the kinectic energy wave forces the particles towards each other, they correspond through their quantum fields, which breaks down their waveforms, they instantly perceive each other.
4) it is from out of this correspondence that the energy that places organisms into the conscious state arises.

When quanta correspond with each other, a resonance arises that is the sum of their correspondence, that is to say, each quantum's intrinsic energy value and the value of the kinectic energy wave, bring forth an informational resonance. This resonance is the energy that is responsible for the conscious state, and lasts only as long as the correspondence. When the kinetic energy wave passes, each quantum returns to their rest phase, and the correspondence between them ceases, and the resonance fades. All this happens within an instant, which makes the conscious state an 'on/off' switching sequence, but because other kinetic energy waves are following on the heels of the first kinetic energy wave, the quanta are constantly switched on and off to their correspondence.



The quantum is not a particle or an anything other than the indivisible unit of whatever it is that's being examined - such as transfer of energy, raw activity, presence


quan·tum [kwon-tuhm] noun, plural quan·ta [-tuh]

1. quantity or amount: the least quantum of evidence.
2. a particular amount.
3. a share or portion.
4. a large quantity; bulk.


Your analogy is in need of an alternate substruction.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire


Screw reductionism. This 2013, not 1913. Strict reductionism didn't survive the 20th century.


Wrong. Reductive reasoning is alive and well in the 21st century. It is an everday habit which everybody uses daily when weighing up choices. Why deny what you yourself use in your postings?
edit on 26/4/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)


Of course reductive reasoning is valid. The entire holon theory is based on reductionism and the contextual implications it presents. I stated that strict reductionsm didn't survive the 20th century, Your own stated embrace of the emergent system as an physical manifestation proves that you agree with me. I don't understand the conflict here.
edit on 4/26/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster
 


You really should watch and follow along with the video but if you did it would change your belief so I doubt you will. I would rather forget belief and have truth instead.
The mind is experienced as thoughts and ideas and beliefs and concepts, projection in time - past/future - personality.
What do you experience as 'mind'?
edit on 25-4-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


Look. You embrace what you feel good about embracing. It's not my wish to dissuade you from embracing the reality view that best suits you, and my concern isn't for those who've found their faith-based community. My concern is for the folks who don't realize how deeply affected they have been by the social conditioning, and have no idea how vulnerable they'll be when they discover that their disbelief in an afterlife won't prevent that afterlife from being a reality for them.



That is my mission too.
The 'mind' is 'social conditioning' - it is not what you are.
If you hold fast onto the conditioning (mind) you may well find that you carry it with you forever - eternal suffering. If you discover that you are prior to the mind and find your true nature - the suffering will end.
edit on 26-4-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


I guess my focus is on those people who - for whatever reason - won't ever be capable of embracing your reality view. Let's face it, there are billions (just here on Earth right now) who are each vulnerable to a profound surprise when their brain clocks out for good. How can you view an intellectual fail-safe that could be available for everyone as a bad thing, unless your faith teaches you that such people deserve to be punished for their inability to embrace your own or any one of many god-centric theologies or philosophies. And if this is how you see things, then maybe you need to reexamine your own capacity for godliness, transcendence or enlightenment - or whatever it is that you're banking on as reward or salvation or what-have-you. Personally, I wouldn't want to exist within a community of people who could ever embrace such a disturbing definition of morality.
edit on 4/26/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
NorEaster:

The quantum is not a particle or an anything other than the indivisible unit of whatever it is that's being examined - such as transfer of energy, raw activity, presence.


The best way to describe that which we term as a particle is as a point-like 'smudge' of dense energy...a smeared condensate within a spatial vector. Each particle has properties that define what type of particle it is, mass, spin, wavelength, force manifestation, etc. As far as I'm aware the only current known 'indivisible' particles are the quarks and leptons. All the other particles are divisible to these primary constituents.


Your analogy is in need of an alternate substruction.


Not at all, my analogy works quite well. I fail to see how you can comprehend a need for a further substrate, perhaps you could explain why?


Your own stated embrace of the emergent system as an physical manifestation proves that you agree with me. I don't understand the conflict here.


Indeed, there is no conflict in regards to the conscious state and consciousness being emergent phenonmena. The resonance responsible for the conscious state is a by-product arising out of energetic correspondence between quantum wave fields, and is an information carrier, a necessary requisite for the brain's neuronal networks to process into a quale experience of the world. How it does this is not yet fathomable. The Australian philosopher David Chalmers has termed this the 'hard problem' of consciousness.


My efforts are to prove the definite plausibility of human conscious existence beyond the death of the brain, and that this survival has nothing at all to do with the existence of God, a god, or any version of primordial consciousness. In fact, I work to prove that such a primordial consciousness cannot possibly exist, and that consciousness itself is a capacity that is apical and not primordial.


I applaud your ambition and the height it seeks to reach. Consciousness is something, I too, set out to place within a plausible context of post-mortem survival, but what you have to provide to do this is a means by which it does survive, and somehow retain cohesiveness. What stops it from fading to total dissolution when the physical energy mechanisms are no longer sufficient to sustain it? What is its power source when the body is gone?

I can provide a plausible hypothesis on how the conscious state arises, but not how consciousness would survive the demise of the physical body. I can only imagine some form of energy transfer mechanism directly from the environment.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
...My efforts are to prove the definite plausibility of human conscious existence beyond the death of the brain, and that this survival has nothing at all to do with the existence of God, a god, or any version of primordial consciousness. In fact, I work to prove that such a primordial consciousness cannot possibly exist, and that consciousness itself is a capacity that is apical and not primordial.
...The research I've done, and the fully vetted results I've crafted into an increasingly accessible presentation does succeed in proving that what I believe to be true is, in fact, true. I have even factored out a definitive and surprisingly plausible narrative that fully explains why Earth's Homo Sapiens human beings have become inherently vulnerable to the error of linking post-corporeal survival to the existence of a Creator entity. That was the hardest part of this effort, but by keeping the impetus as primitive and primordial as possible, the dots really came together in the end. I'm really confident that this general approach to that question succeeds more profoundly that I could've ever anticipated when I took this overall challenge on.
...The notion will exist as fully and publicly available, and when it is I'll be sure to make this community aware of how to access it. It's much too comprehensive to post, but I am beginning to believe that I've finally worked out the bugs in how to properly present it. This, after over 3 years of struggle and varying degrees of success and failure. Yes, it's not an easy presentation.
...Thanks for expressing an interest.

I hope you're getting paid for this (work)...
You say "overall challenge"... Was this a "challenge" presented by someone-else, or are you saying "challenge" in a more base sense of..."it wasn't easy"?
And -- in your work (and vetting thereof)...did you deal with the question of "why" Homo Sapiens needed the God/Creator/gods concept...and subsequent to that "how" did the notion become so near-universal, developing into numerous religions that virtually cover the globe?
If answering those questions would steer this off-topic -- or, away from where you want to go with it -- don't bother answering ----- maybe another time.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire

My efforts are to prove the definite plausibility of human conscious existence beyond the death of the brain, and that this survival has nothing at all to do with the existence of God, a god, or any version of primordial consciousness. In fact, I work to prove that such a primordial consciousness cannot possibly exist, and that consciousness itself is a capacity that is apical and not primordial.


I applaud your ambition and the height it seeks to reach. Consciousness is something, I too, set out to place within a plausible context of post-mortem survival, but what you have to provide to do this is a means by which it does survive, and somehow retain cohesiveness. What stops it from fading to total dissolution when the physical energy mechanisms are no longer sufficient to sustain it? What is its power source when the body is gone?

I can provide a plausible hypothesis on how the conscious state arises, but not how consciousness would survive the demise of the physical body. I can only imagine some form of energy transfer mechanism directly from the environment.


I can provide the emergence confluence, the existential impetus, the reason for indivisible cohesiveness and the requirement that it persist without possibility of physical dissolution. It requires a full reexamination of the true nature of physical existence itself, but that results in resolving pretty much every intractable physics dilemma that persists anyway, so what the hell.

Too much emphasis is being wasted on "energy" as the key to stuff that energy's impact on is - at best - ancillary.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash
I hope you're getting paid for this (work)...


Nobody gets paid for this kind of work. If successful, plenty of successful and lucrative careers will crash completely. I don't ever expect that to happen.


You say "overall challenge"... Was this a "challenge" presented by someone-else, or are you saying "challenge" in a more base sense of..."it wasn't easy"?


I guess the 2nd, although it's been sort of an externally imposed challenge. Not from anyone specific, but more due to my own concern for the 90% (or better) of the human race that's obviously worshiping the wrong version of God, regardless of which of those versions ended up being the right one. When you really look at the bizarre state of theism, the best case scenario for any such god, if the thing were to actually exist, would be a dismally high loss percentage of converts. If that's the best God has, then God's an idiot.


And -- in your work (and vetting thereof)...did you deal with the question of "why" Homo Sapiens needed the God/Creator/gods concept...and subsequent to that "how" did the notion become so near-universal, developing into numerous religions that virtually cover the globe?


I did. It's an amazing example of default progressive development ultimately resulting in the conscious and deliberate addressing of the primordial existential imperative by the apical hybrid expression of all forms of physical existence. Pretty brilliant workaround on the part of the engineers involved. The whole process works on its own, and requires nothing but initiation.

Of course, the fact of it exists as residual information that's been completely misunderstood by those brilliant minds that took the indicators and spun them into the craziness that we see in churches, mosques, temples, and Youtube videos from one end of the planet to the other. I don't expect to be successful in fixing this mess either. I'm pretty realistic about what's possible.


If answering those questions would steer this off-topic -- or, away from where you want to go with it -- don't bother answering ----- maybe another time.


It's my thread. I already got what I needed from it, so it can do what it wants from here.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
NorEster:

Too much emphasis is being wasted on "energy" as the key to stuff that energy's impact on is - at best - ancillary.


Now this where we do part company.

As an aside from the theme of the thread, I'd like to state how infuriatingly incoherently you write! Your grammatical structuring of sentences makes it awkward for their logical meaning to transfer to the colloquial understanding of the reader. There's no doubt you do a lot of reading, but have failed to assimilate the sentence structuring of better writers, to present clear and concise meaning. What I quote here is a typical example. You should write for the audience you want to reach, dialling back on the intellectual pompous verbosity if needed. I know I am verbose, but I write clearly and concisely, with an intention to deliver difficult concepts in the most simplistic manner I can.

The first clause of your sentence is quite clear...

Too much emphasis is being wasted on 'energy'...
...but then you fail to deliver a clear meaningful accoutrement of 'why' in the second clause...

...as the key to stuff that energy's impact on is - at best - ancillary.
That is just an awful way to state your opinion on how you think energy's role is far less important than what people think.

If you want to impress your readers, then do so in the most simple and concise manner possible. Currently, you write in the manner of a person particularly interested in the sound of their own voice. I truly apologise for my didactism, and hope you accept it as friendly advice and not as offensively adversarial, but it needed stating. I am interested in your subject matter, but I don't want to have to reconstruct your sentences in order to garner their meanings. Now, back on topic.

Obviously, I disagree with your opinion on energy's role, in fact it set alarm bells ringing, so I re-read everything you wrote in this thread, and although we agree on a number of points, there are many points you present I certainly disagree on.

Energy's role is everything! It is the bedrock of all existence...no exceptions! Whatever energy truly is, there are no existential parameters it does not subsume, and that includes the environment of the so-called afterlife. Any hypothesis that seeks to provide plausible support for the continuation of post-mortem consciousness must absolutely defer to energy's role and the laws by which it has been discovered to operate.


I can provide the emergence confluence, the existential impetus, the reason for indivisible cohesiveness and the requirement that it persist without possibility of physical dissolution.


Please clarify the following; 'emergence confluence'; 'the existential impetus'; 'indivisible cohesiveness'. You should not leave it up to the reader to supply their context, this is your thinking, not your readers!


It requires a full re-examination of the true nature of physical existence itself, but that results in resolving pretty much every intractable physics dilemma that persists anyway...


I take it you do realise what you are saying here? Are you privy to some alternate understanding in Newton's 3rd law? With this question I am referring to 'physical existence itself', or more to the point, the concept of 'physicality'. By all means, bring me up to speed and please state what is its 'true' nature? Let us resolve 'every intractable physics dilemma' together.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Energy's role is everything! It is the bedrock of all existence...no exceptions! Whatever energy truly is, there are no existential parameters it does not subsume, and that includes the environment of the so-called afterlife. Any hypothesis that seeks to provide plausible support for the continuation of post-mortem consciousness must absolutely defer to energy's role and the laws by which it has been discovered to operate.


Please excuse my inability to express myself coherently as I attempt to respond to you here. I feel that it's important to point out sentence #2 in your statement. {Whatever energy truly is, there are no existential parameters it does not subsume, and that includes the environment of the so-called afterlife} And to ask how can it be that you feel free to make such a definitive statement about something that you admit - within the same definitive statement - to having no clear understanding of concerning its physical properties or existential basis?

I made my own statement about energy with a full understanding that energy is a property, a capacity for activity or force, that is possessed by an existent something and that it isn't an existent something, primordial or otherwise, in its own right. It can't simply exist. It can only exist in reference to the relationship between two or more existential wholes. It certainly can't be the basis of human afterlife if it's not even the basis of its own physical existence.

Damn....there I go again. I wish I could write on a 5th grade level, but the truth is that 5th graders don't discuss this kind of stuff. I can't even imagine how they'd describe any of it. I suppose they'd use "thing" a lot.



I can provide the emergence confluence, the existential impetus, the reason for indivisible cohesiveness and the requirement that it persist without possibility of physical dissolution.


Please clarify the following; 'emergence confluence'; 'the existential impetus'; 'indivisible cohesiveness'. You should not leave it up to the reader to supply their context, this is your thinking, not your readers!


The statement stands on its own as a claim that I am making. If I had decided to fully reveal all that I have discovered in that statement, then I would have. This is where I come to relax and comment on what interests me and draws my attention. I haven't chosen it to be my public platform. On here, you're free to supply whatever context you wish to whatever it is that I choose to share. This is an Internet forum. Not a thesis dissertation.



It requires a full re-examination of the true nature of physical existence itself, but that results in resolving pretty much every intractable physics dilemma that persists anyway...


I take it you do realise what you are saying here? Are you privy to some alternate understanding in Newton's 3rd law? With this question I am referring to 'physical existence itself', or more to the point, the concept of 'physicality'. By all means, bring me up to speed and please state what is its 'true' nature? Let us resolve 'every intractable physics dilemma' together.


I realize exactly what I'm suggesting here. You already know how to learn as much as you could ever want to know about what it is that I've discovered. If you're actually interested, then I'll hear from you.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire
I truly apologise for my didactism, and hope you accept it as friendly advice and not as offensively adversarial, but it needed stating.


The word is didacticism.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 




Without the authoring brain (it's now dead, and no other brain can replace it as the author - it's an internal vs relative context issue that can't be resolved) the eternal human being is what it is, but that doesn't have to restrict that human being to an extremely finite response to what it's been presented with once it has transitioned. If the human being has allowed for adjustments, while its brain was building it as the "generated" informational whole that it is, then those adjustments are definitely available. It depends on how strident the human embraced each limitation (faith) it was taught to embrace, and that's the real scary part of all of this. Some people - while certainly aware that others have embraced alternative reality narratives - have never allowed such foolishness to be anything but evidence of the sort of evil that exists to destroy the souls of weak and recalcitrant people. These people wold probably be stranded within the imposed reality paradigm indefinitely - which could be a good thing for them, I suppose.

So what your really saying, using plain basic english for the sake of more people being able to easily understand your premise, which I shall attempt to do here instead of getting lost in lofty intellectual digression down rabbit holes the size of infinity is:

Your thought's/beliefs reflect what happens to you in the afterlife. (1 simple line!!!!!!)

Nore....... I love you and everything bruh!!!! But most times for the sake of others, wish you'd get to the point alot a quicker (says the ego which isn't me!!!!)

Anyway, I agree if that's your point. Beliefs reflect the afterlife. Also all of your time spent breaking everything down is also belief systems using logic reason etc, meaning that you would also be in the same predicament, by your own logic.

For me it's quite simple, for I remember pre-existing prior to a body and ego/mind (I know I know, you've heard it a million times.)

The most real and fundamental aspect of who we are, is units of consciousness, all of which have a source, The One Father/Mother/Original/Primordial Consciousness. We come from that, and to that we shall all return. Though I agree belief systems will keep most from returning to that until all beliefs are let go of and experience is embraced.

On the other hand, NDE's reveal that there is already a system in place for safe returns to our origins across the board regardless of gender, race, sexuality, age, belief system, etc.

It's a flash in a pan for all of us who simply passing through as tourists. I'll catch you on the flip side regardless



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
If you are Lost in a endless nothingness.
you to would make gods to believe in.

humans are week and afraid.
they need to believe in some thing.

If their is nothing but this short life.
would you go mad?



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
NorEaster:

The word is didacticism.


Indeed it is, I 'c' my typo error. Thank you for pointing it out. You seem more pedantic than I am.



...how can it be that you feel free to make such a definitive statement about something that you admit - within the same definitive statement - to having no clear understanding of concerning its physical properties or existential basis?


The truth is - and I'm in good company here, no one (and I do mean no one) has a clue to what energy truly is, not even the physicists studying it with all their theory and machinery. Energy itself is beyond our grasp and ability to isolate from matter and the four known forces by which it manifests.


I made my own statement about energy with a full understanding that energy is a property...


A property of what?

It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. Richard Feynman
The situation hasn't changed since Feynman stated those words. Energy is not the property of something else, energy is that which gives properties to everything else, and although it manifest in different forms, the two main manifestations are as potential energy and kinectic energy, all other manifested forms can be grouped under the two main manifestations. Even though I state...

Whatever energy is, it is the bedrock of all other forms of existence
...its manifestations as potential and kinectic energies may be all there is to it, there may be nothing below it upon which it depends for its existence...that is my current belief. The thing to understand is that before potential and kinectic energies arose, there was nothing, and from this understanding one comes to cognize that all existence in whatever shape and form must defer to energy's presence for their existence.


It can't simply exist.


Not without coming into 'being', and according to current understanding, that is exactly what it did at the so-called 'Big Bang'. The way I view the theory of the Big Bang is that before it occurred, there was only kinectic energy in existence, there was no potential energy in the form of mass and matter. The Big Bang is the moment where kinetic energy halved into potential energy as mass and matter, which brought every other form of existence into being.


Damn....there I go again. I wish I could write on a 5th grade level...


Stick with it, matey, I've every confidence you'll get there. You've got my support.



If I had decided to fully reveal all that I have discovered in that statement, then I would have.


Here's what I've discovered. Your unwillingness to reveal anything is nothing more than a subterfuge of artifice.


If you're actually interested, then I'll hear from you.


Hello!
edit on 27/4/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)
edit on 27/4/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)
edit on 27/4/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire


I made my own statement about energy with a full understanding that energy is a property...


A property of what?



en·er·gy [en-er-jee]
noun, plural en·er·gies.
1. the capacity for vigorous activity; available power: I eat chocolate to get quick energy.
2. an adequate or abundant amount of such power: I seem to have no energy these days.
3. Often, energies. a feeling of tension caused or seeming to be caused by an excess of such power: to work off one's energies at tennis.
4. an exertion of such power: She plays tennis with great energy.
5. the habit of vigorous activity; vigor as a characteristic: Foreigners both admire and laugh at American energy.


Let's go with definition #1. The rest are definitions that depend on that primary definition.

None are anything more than descriptive terms related to the properties definition - #1.

I bookmarked dictionary.com... when I started posting in Internet forums. I didn't feel like having my spelling, usage or syntax corrected by everyone driven to find some way to shut me down. I may not be a good writer, but I know the English language and how to use it.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire


It can't simply exist.


Not without coming into 'being', and according to current understanding, that is exactly what it did at the so-called 'Big Bang'. The way I view the theory of the Big Bang is that before it occurred, there was only kinectic energy in existence, there was no potential energy in the form of mass and matter. The Big Bang is the moment where kinetic energy halved into potential energy as mass and matter, which brought every other form of existence into being.


Kinetic energy is the energy possessed by mass in motion. It exists only as a result of a physical mass having gained it as the mass itself accelerated to a given velocity.

It exists only as a direct result of mass and matter. How could it exist before the existence of mass and matter.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by elysiumfire


If I had decided to fully reveal all that I have discovered in that statement, then I would have.


Here's what I've discovered. Your unwillingness to reveal anything is nothing more than a subterfuge of artifice.




subterfuge  [suhb-ter-fyooj]
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: cheating
Synonyms: artifice, cheat, chicanery, deception, device, dishonesty, evasion, excuse, fraud, plan, ploy, pretense, refuge, ruse, scheme, sham, shift, sophistry, stratagem, trick


Are you trying to do this?






top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join