My initial reaction on reading the original post was:
1. Matrix Reloaded
Followed by:
2.Oh, a solipsist!
"Solipsism is the philosophical idea that one's own mind is all that exists. Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist."

Then I got to this:

ROSSIKE:

Absolutely. WE are God. . .

3. Nothing new under the sun.

aletheia:


"Solipsism is the philosophical idea that one's own mind is all that exists. Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist."

Solipsism collapses the moment one being sees or touches something built by another being in another time.

That alone shows that the thing being seen -

1. Was not a figment of the mind of the builder only

2. Is not a figment of the imagination of the viewer only.

But now exists independent of both parties.

Deepsight, ''Give me a break'' does not suffice as an adequate rebuttal of these concepts.

^^^ What do you mean? You are yet to respond to my posts -

Deep Sight:

There is no doubt that the faculties of the perceiver would influence the manner or mode of perception: or what is perceived. Indeed as the saying goes perception is cognitive reality.

Just as surely as some creatures are colour blind, and accordingly will perceive objects differently from other creatures.

So you have missed the question.

The question is whether the thing perceived is actually there or is an illusion.

Since you concede that – “The pyramids under another software program could appear to the receivers, not as ''pyramids'', but as a retinue of colors, each symbolizing a thought wave.” – then you have conceded that the Pyramids EXIST, but will be perceived differently by different observers.

That in itself is a moot point well understood by all.

This is a very misleading statement.

From a broad and generalistic point of view the statement may be allowed to pass, in that God is everything, being the source and creator of all existence: or rather, being the very fibre of existence itself.

I had pointed towards this in another thread some days ago –

It is therefore fair to state that we are projections of the universal mind in an abstract sense.

However this is not to be confused with the specific nature of the human experience as being distinct from God.

It is apparent even from contradictions in your surmise that you apprehend this as well.

For you stated –

And then contradicted that statement many other statements, a few of which are -

Hereby conceding that individual souls are units that need to develop. . . Ultimate Consciousness, by its very definition cannot be said to need to develop! Thus you concede that we cannot be said to be God.

Really? If as you postulate, we are all parts of God, this would not be the case. Ultimate Consciousness would not write a script for itself to experience, which includes separating itself from itself and thereby creating evil, no?

Such a suggestion, you must agree, will be absurd.

And philosophically, it must collapse; for its suggestion, I hope you realize, is that the only purpose of creation was the formation of evil.

This is the direct implication of your surmise: because creation involved bringing into existence “individualized” parts of consciousness – thus “separating” infinite consciousness into parts. You yourself stated that “separation” is the basis of evil, whereas “oneness” is the basis of good.

Thus, if God wanted all things to be good, then he would never have created any “individuals.” All would have remained one, indivisible grreat oneness.

I hope you can see that your surmise leads irrevocably to the conclusion that creation was only done for the purpose of introducing “divisions” and thereby evil.

On this ground, your summation must fail in its entirety.

Here again you accept that “God himself” is entirely and altogether different from we as individual beings, and also that he/she/it posesses exclusive discretion on certain things, to which we will never be privy.

Thus your assertion that we are God (attractive as it is to my mind) is riddled with problems arising from your very own words.

And -

Deep Sight:

Importantly, i must also add that if indeed we are all little parts of God, then the direct implication is that every single thing is a direct deed of God, and thus ALL things are predestined.

If this is the case then -

1. Your talk about souls coming to the "world" to develop, becomes entirely meaningless

2. Every terrible event in history, including the holocaust, mass amputation in Liberia, genocide in Rwanda, the slave trade, would all be direct deeds of God (since we are God) carried out possibly for his entertainment.

Rossike? ? ? ? ?

Deep Sight said:

What do you mean? You are yet to respond to my posts -

Ha ha,  You know we are recovering from the illusion of christmas festivities, so it's a bit hard to respond to all posts in time.

There is no doubt that the faculties of the perceiver would influence the manner or mode of perception: or what is perceived. Indeed as the saying goes perception is cognitive reality.

Thank you very much. Why then do you think our perception of the ''sun'', the ''earth'', etc, would be any different? You earlier suggested that they remained in those forms before their observers emerged on earth.

Just as surely as some creatures are colour blind, and accordingly will perceive objects differently from other creatures.

So you have missed the question.

The question is whether the thing perceived is actually there or is an illusion.

Whatever is ''there'' is only a series of frequency ranges which our brains convert to 3d images. In his book, The Holographic Universe, Michael Talbot, referencing Stanford University neurophysiologist, Karl Pribaim said:

''Karl Pribaim realised that the objective world does not exist, at least not in the way we are accustomed to believing. What is 'out there' is a vast ocean of waves and frequencies and reality looks concrete to us only because our brains are able to take this holographic blur and convert it into sticks and stones and other familiar objects that make up our world.''

''In other words, the smoothness of a piece of china and the feel of beach sand beneath our feet are really just elaborate versions of the phantom limb syndrome [when amputees ''feel'' a limb long after it has been removed].''

''According to Pribram, this does not mean there aren't china cups and grains of beach sand out there. It simply means that a china cup has two very different aspects to its reality. When it is filtered through the lens of our brains it manifests as a cup. But if we could get rid of our lenses, we'd experience it as an interference pattern. Which is real and which is illusion? ''Both are real to me,'' says Pribram, ''or, if you want to say, neither of them are real''.

See The Holographic Universe by M Talbot Pgs 37, 63, 84-5)

From a broad and generalistic point of view the statement may be allowed to pass, in that God is everything, being the source and creator of all existence: or rather, being the very fibre of existence itself.

I had pointed towards this in another thread some days ago –

It is therefore fair to state that we are projections of the universal mind in an abstract sense.

I agree with this.

For you stated –

And then contradicted that statement many other statements, a few of which are -

Hereby conceding that individual souls are units that need to develop. . . Ultimate Consciousness, by its very definition cannot be said to need to develop! Thus you concede that we cannot be said to be God.

The separation is an illusion, a simulation, or a ''game'' since in reality, God cannot be divided from His Self.

The key to life is understanding that separation is illusion and all are One. We are the part of God that is largely (and temporarily) unaware of our Oneness with God. Being unaware of our Oneness does not mean we are ''not God''.

Really? If as you postulate, we are all parts of God, this would not be the case. Ultimate Consciousness would not write a script for itself to experience, which includes separating itself from itself and thereby creating evil, no?

Why not? What else would it do if not that? The reason for Life is to resolve issues, as well as to enjoy, learn, create, and recreate, explore the entire spectrum of emotions including grief, bereavement, injustice, love, beauty, dirt, disease - EVERYTHING.

That is why it's called Infinite Consciousness. EVERY situation is permitted and explored. It is just a game. You are a part of God that has been made ''unaware'' of the deal in order for such a game to be possible. Your position is only temporary. When you ''die'' you return to your apriori state of awareness, and another soul descends to take your place.

Evil on our level of reality appears monstrous, but at the higher levels of Reality from where we came, it is regarded as ''ignorance''. The key is to realise that none of this is ''real'', including ''evil''.

How can God be evil against His own Self?

It is all just a GAME.

Such a suggestion, you must agree, will be absurd.

And philosophically, it must collapse; for its suggestion, I hope you realize, is that the only purpose of creation was the formation of evil.

This is the direct implication of your surmise: because creation involved bringing into existence “individualized” parts of consciousness – thus “separating” infinite consciousness into parts. You yourself stated that “separation” is the basis of evil, whereas “oneness” is the basis of good.

Thus, if God wanted all things to be good, then he would never have created any “individuals.” All would have remained one, indivisible great oneness.

Well, absolutely!!!

Who else do you think created 'evil' but Infinite Consciousness, or God?

I hope you can see that your surmise leads irrevocably to the conclusion that creation was only done for the purpose of introducing “divisions” and thereby evil.

It wasn't only done to create evil. It was done to create activity and recreation. It's like any other game. You need opposing sides or there's no game.

NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has 'gone wrong' in God's 'creation'.

Everything is exactly as it should be.

edit

ROSSIKE:


It is all just a GAME.

Do you call THIS a game? ? ? ? ?

Do you realize that you describe life as being purposeless and meaningless?

What sort of God would use the above as a game. . .

That the suffering of billions should form nothing but entertainment for God is the most gruesome description of the almighty i have ever come across.

Can you tell us the constituents of an atom and the amount of space they occupy (by percentage) in relation to the atom?

Don't bother. I'll tell you. Strictly speaking an atom is 99.999% EMPTY SPACE if by empty space we mean that nothing is discernible in it within our range of perception. (How then can empty space form a ''solid'' object?)

Anything else you write here, is misleading, so stop trying.

I mentioned Quantum Mechanics because you introduced it into the discussion. All I did was to give a concise description of what Quantum Mechanics is and what it's not. There's no show-off here.

Please can you tell me what's misleading about my statements?

You still seem hurt from my first post? Come on man! Please don't be, I never intended to cause hurt. Are my apologies accepted?

You seem more interested in impressing us with your scientific knowledge than with discussing the issue at hand. You say ''the electron mass and charge are known and measured'', but this is beside the point if you're not giving us the figures. Is this because electron mass in relation to the atom is so negligible as to be embarassing to your argument?

No it's not beside the point. Yes, electron mass is very small but that doesn't mean it's non-existent. Besides, the electron is just one part of an atom, we also have the densely packed nucleus. I only cited the electron as a case-point. Even if an atom is 99.999% empty, you cannot discount the 0.0001% that is not empty! In a summary, what[b] I'm just trying to say is if something has mass (no matter how infinetismally small) how can it be said that it's empty[/b]?

The reason we say atoms are empty is not because there is ''nothing in them''. It is because what is in them, ie the energy they contain, is imperceptible to our five sense reality

I'm a little bit confused here. Really. So if there indeed is "something in them" what's the whole point? We're not going to strap everything to our five sense reality are we?

I never said the atom doesn't exist. However, everything that can be ''seen'' is illusion, in that it is the observer's ''faculties'' which determine the form characteristics of what is ''seen''. What is seen has no ''default'' shape, size, or density independent of its observance. Meaning nothing exists in form except when it is ''observed'', and the form and shape it takes depends entirely on the observer's ''faculties''.

This is incorrect. Objects do have an effect on how they are seen. If this were not the case how does the eye differentiate between a cup and an elephant? The shape of an object determines the manner in which light reaches the eye, and that's how we're able to differentiate one thing from another. It's not up to our faculties alone. The shape of an object decidedly has a role in the way it is perceived.

IbrahimB said:

You still seem hurt from my first post? Come on man! Please don't be, I never intended to cause hurt. Are my apologies accepted?

No offence taken my friend.

Yes, electron mass is very small but that doesn't mean it's non-existent. Besides, the electron is just one part of an atom, we also have the densely packed nucleus. I only cited the electron as a case-point. Even if an atom is 99.999% empty, you cannot discount the 0.0001% that is not empty! In a summary, what I'm just trying to say is if something has mass (no matter how infinetismally small) how can it be said that it's empty?

You this guy, you're very funny. If you walk into a cathedral and there's nothing in it except a GRAIN OF SAND in the middle, is the cathedral empty or not? lol.

Mind you I read somewhere that the size of the nucleus and electrons in relation to the atom is even LESS than that of a grain of sand in relation to a cathedral. So what are you saying?

The reason we say atoms are empty is not because there is ''nothing in them''. It is because what is in them, ie the energy they contain, is imperceptible to our five sense reality

I'm a little bit confused here. Really. So if there indeed is "something in them" what's the whole point? We're not going to strap everything to our five sense reality are we?

Well the point is that atoms are considered the building blocks of the physical universe, ie all that appears with density and form. But if there is nothing in an atom which can be perceived with our five senses, then there should be NOTHING which appears as solid to our five senses either - except that which we make 'solid' with our minds.

Quote
I never said the atom doesn't exist. However, everything that can be ''seen'' is illusion, in that it is the observer's ''faculties'' which determine the form characteristics of what is ''seen''. What is seen has no ''default'' shape, size, or density independent of its observance. Meaning nothing exists in form except when it is ''observed'', and the form and shape it takes depends entirely on the observer's ''faculties''.

This is incorrect. Objects do have an effect on how they are seen. If this were not the case how does the eye differentiate between a cup and an elephant?

First, it is not the eye which differentiates between a cup and an elephant. It is the brain. All the eye does is read electrical signals which the brain converts into 3d form.

Do you believe in the existence of non-corporeal entities, or non-physical intelligences?

Do you realise such beings are not bound by our physical walls and doors and can walk right through them as though they weren't there? If you've read the accounts of near-death experiencers, you would know that while  Out of the Body, a soul (or 'spirit') can see not just a 3 dimensional representation of a figure that would appear as ''solid'' to embodied humans, but often a 5 dimensional one.

In this position, a building is seen, but not just the 3d view of it, but rather inside the building, behind it, as well as underneath the building.

Now bear in mind that even that is illusion still as everything with form and shape is merely a mental construct of Consciousness using its own particular decoding facilities.   

Out of Body, even the thoughts and actions which went into the construction of the building can be perceived or 'seen', perhaps in the form of colors.

The very thoughts of other humans can be read quite easily in this state of being.

The shape of an object determines the manner in which light reaches the eye, and that's how we're able to differentiate one thing from another. It's not up to our faculties alone. The shape of an object decidedly has a role in the way it is perceived.

The ''shape'' of an object is merely the Thought of the creator of the object in dense form.

Different Thoughts give rise to different ''shapes''.

You this guy, you're very funny.

Never knew I was

If you walk into a cathedral and there's nothing in it except a GRAIN OF SAND in the middle, is the cathedral empty or not? lol.

Mind you I read somewhere that the size of the nucleus and electrons in relation to the atom is even LESS than that of a grain of sand in relation to a cathedral. So what are you saying?

Yes and No. Seriously. No matter how small a grain of sand is to a cathedral, it is THERE. And in the very absolute sense of the word, it is not empty.

You're right when you say an atom is majorly empty space, but it's wrong to say an atom is empty space. You can't argue with that.

Absolutely correct, Ibrahim - it has mass, and cannot be defined as empty.

Hell . . . i believe recent science has shown that even outer space is not "empty."

There are waves and energies and vibrations that we cannot naturally see.

In reality: there is nothing like "emptiness" anywhere in existence. . .

First, it is not the eye which differentiates between a cup and an elephant. It is the brain. All the eye does is read electrical signals which the brain converts into 3d form.

That's right, but at least you understood what I was saying?  

Do you believe in the existence of non-corporeal entities, or non-physical intelligences?

Of course I do! Believe me, I was about asking you the same question  

You've still not disproved the fact that an object does influence the way it is perceived.

The shape of an object determines how light falls on the retina and ultimately decides how the brain interpretes the object. The reason why we're able to differentiate one object from another is because the objects that we see actively alter the signals that reach the brain.


I can cite so many examples. For example how does the brain tell an acid apart from water when poured on the skin?

In the former case, the brain senses pain. Why? Why did it sense pain in one and not in the other?

Very importantly, the scarring effect of the acid itself happens independent of the brain. Just the same way if you poured the acid on a carpet, that is incapable of perception. The same scarring effect occurs in both instances.

This shows that objects themselves, have inherent physical attributes that is independent of any sensory mechanism.

Ibrahim B said:

You've still not disproved the fact that an object does influence the way it is perceived.

It is not an object until it is perceived as such.

The shape of an object determines how light falls on the retina and ultimately decides how the brain interpretes the object.

It is not ''the shape of the object'' which determines anything. The determination of the shape of the object is the job of the brain as it decodes electrical signals. There is no ''shape of the object'' until this decoding action takes place!!! Until it is decoded ''the object'' remains a mesh of interference signals, or electrical signals.

From the minute the TV studio beams out an image to a home 1000 miles away from it, it's all electrical signals in the air right up until it is decoded by a telly 1000 miles away into visible images.

If there were no telly there'd be no image, just interference patterns in the air which would be invisible to you.

The same principle is in operation in our own physical existence. Human beings, like tvs and radios, are receivers of electrical signals which our brains decode into visible 3D images.

Even what we take to be our own human bodies, are simply a mesh of interference patterns, and electrical signals, which our brains decode into material 3D objects.

The reason why we're able to differentiate one object from another is because the objects that we see actively alter the signals that reach the brain.

lol.

Again, u make an error in my view by placing the ''objects that we see'' in precedence to the signals reaching the brain. It is the signals which are converted to ''the objects'' by the brain. There are no ''objects'' until this conversion has taken place, even if 6 billion people have ''seen'' the same ''object'' before yourself.

I can cite so many examples. For example how does the brain tell an acid apart from water when poured on the skin?

In the former case, the brain senses pain. Why? Why did it sense pain in one and not in the other?

Very importantly, the scarring effect of the acid itself happens independent of the brain. Just the same way if you poured the acid on a carpet, that is incapable of perception. The same scarring effect occurs in both instances.

Great point. We are operating under a program, which I believe is plugged into us via our DNA. We are programmed to feel pain when harsh chemicals or acids are poured on us. Just as we will feel a blow to the head even if we were unaware of our assailant. This ''program'' is what we call the 3 dimensional reality or 5 sense reality, and it has its own ''laws'' which all are bound by unless there is an active, successful attempt at disconnecting from the Matrix.

Now, there are numerous instances of ordinary people unplugging themselves from the Matrix.

A common instance is where hospital patients refuse anasthesia for major surgeries and, using the power of Thought, undergo  operations with no anasthesia and no pain, where the process would normally lead to excruciating pain among the majority, who remain mentally wired to the Matrix.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7355523.stm

So it all depends on Thought and Belief.

This is what decides Everything.

Rossike, please!

Be careful. . . you are digging a hole. . .

It is not an object until it is perceived as such.

The sun did not exist until humans perceived it? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You are doubtless aware that the Earth has developed for millions of years held in place by the gravitational pull of the sun.

Will you make the absurd contention that neither the earth nor the sun existed AT ALL untill humans came along to perceive them? ? ?

THAT IS A FALSE AND ABSURD ASSERTION.

. . . The Andromeda Galaxy also did not exist until humans developed telescopes powerful enough to see it. . . ? ? ? ? ?

No way, Rossike. . . your assertion is entirely absurd.

Deep Sight said:

Rossike, please!

Be careful. . . you are digging a hole. . .

The sun did not exist until humans perceived it? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You are doubtless aware that the Earth has developed for millions of years held in place by the gravitational pull of the sun.

Will you make the absurd contention that neither the earth nor the sun existed AT ALL untill humans came along to perceive them? ? ?

THAT IS A FALSE AND ABSURD ASSERTION.

lol. I've no idea where to start with you to be honest.

Dude, it is all a program. Our physical world, Time, and Space are all a program.

Your ''millions of years'' is in fact, a program sitting on somebody's DVD.

Time is an illusion as earlier explained.

In that DVD movie, 'time' exists. You can fast forward events in the DVD to view ''the future'', and rewind it to view ''the past'', within the context of the movie.

The place you are in the DVD is your own 'time' or 'year', or 'month', but outside the action in the DVD, anyone can access any part of its contents merely by flicking a button, ie pressing rewind or fast forward!

To YOU, such a thing seems impossible, because YOU are an actor in the DVD movie. You think ''the future'' has not yet arrived because you are at a point in the DVD, say the 20th minute in a 3 hr long move.

Those outside the DVD know the real deal. The ''past'' has not ''stopped happening''. It is still there to be accessed LIVE.

The ''future'' on the DVD can easily be accessed as well if they so wish,

The ''Sun'' and its ''millions of years of existence'' are ILLUSIONS.

Just state to me this -

"The Andromeda galaxy and the rest of the universe did not exist until humans invented machines capable of seeing them" -

And we can begin to call in the Psychiatrist to treat you. . .

Deep Sight said:

Just state to me this -

"The Andromeda galaxy and the rest of the universe did not exist until humans invented machines capable of seeing them" -

And we can begin to call in the Psychiatrist to treat you. .

First of all, the Andromeda galaxy, and the universe AS SEEN BY SOULS IN HUMAN FORM is
less than 0.005% of the actual matter (or electrical signals) in the universe, meaning that 99.995% of matter in the universe is inaccessible to our 5 senses. 

So you are a bit like an ant who, in its travels, happens upon an anthill, and assumes he has ''seen Mount Everest''.

lol.

I suggest you wait till you leave this very limited observation post we call human life before making any grand assertions about ''the universe''.

Just a word of advice.   

I make no grand assertion. I state what has been scientifically observed. You are the one with the claim that what we see is actually not there.

Prove it.

ROSSIKE:

If a tree falls and there's no one there to observe it, does it make a sound?

Hi again Rossike. Let me make some brief comment on some of your postulations

Absolutely. WE are God. Just as a drop of water is one with the sea. A drop of Consciousness is God. God would represent the Source Consciousness, which has deliberately created individualized units of consciousness for each to experience, some under an illusion of separateness.

In reality, all are ONE. Humans, animals, trees, insects, demons, angels, 'gods', deities etc. It couldn't be any other way. This also means that for each one of us, there is absolutely NOTHING in this world or the next, that we should be fearful of. How can God be afraid of His own Self?

If you understand that everything 'seen' and 'unseen' is of God, then you know you are God, and therefore, cannot ''die'', and thus, nothing should ever scare you.

Now you have admitted that you and indeed everything else is God or at least individualised "units" of God. So HIV, Ebola and other myriads of pathogens are also God. Even artificially synthesized organisms from Craig Venters lab are also God. I ask again, what is God doing as HIV infecting and destroying the bodies of other individualised "units" of God. Fear is not part of this thread and I will not dwell on it.

Humans are souls temporarily occupying a dense physical coat which helps them experience reality in this dimension or vibrational state.

God basically created from His Consciousness, individualized, autonomous units of consciousness which we refer to as souls.

The idea that we are inherently ''separate'' from God or from each other is what leads to evil.

Evil, fear and hatred are a playing out of the notion that we are separate.

Good deeds and Love are a playing out of the fact that we are One.

How is that these individualised "units" of God are capable of fear, evil and hatred. How can God experience illusion? How can infinite counsciouness as a whole or as individualized experience illusion? What are illusions made of. Are they also counsciousness?

One is to imagine. The other is to think

I do not think you answered my question. Maybe I reframe the question. How are thoughts and imagination produced and what is the source of both. To which plane or world of existence do thought and imagination belong?

Certain activities in the physical world are known to have a vibrational resonance with multi-dimensional reality. Numbers, certain signs and symbols, ley lines, etc, are known to create portals of communication with the REAL world ''out there'', as well as intelligences which reside therein, both ''good'' and ''bad''.

You'll have to ask God Himself why He allowed for this ''quirk''. My feeling is He could not have us totally cut off from Himself, being aspects of Him.

Another way to see it is that since Thought, or Belief creates ''reality'', the practitioners of these arts actualise their efforts by their deep belief in its efficacy.

Again illusions are creating portal of communication to the real world according to you. Maybe you can see the contradiction in your premise. You have alreay claimed to be "God" or at leat individualised units of "God" and then you are asking me to ask God. By asking me to ask God, you seem to again separate yourself from God and yet in the same post you claimed that individualised units of God is inseparable from God.

I stated above that the nucleus was a ''mini atom''. meaning it comprised empty space. This is all scientifically verifiable

What is an empty space? Since you keep bringing science, it will be appreciated if you cite peer reviewed scientific articles supporting your postulation.

On the contrary, ''time'' is within the concept of NOW.

How is now within the concept of time?. One or more example from your own experience at whatever plane of existence will be helpful.

But the mere fact of the relativity of time means there is NO time!!! It is all relative to the observer's perspective, be it in a dream, or in what we consider ''real life''. (By the way, it is reported that when we transit, this experience feels exactly like a dream).

As Einstein noted, when you are doing something you like, 'time flies', and when you're in a dentist's chair, it seems to 'pass' very slowly. When you panic, time seems to pass very quickly, but not when you stay calm. The very fact that time is relative to the observer means there is no time. It is simply a perception and not 'real'.

Our manufactured official 'time' is linked to the earth's rotation, and when THAT changes, so does our 'time'. In the USA, you can drive across a state border and be in a different hour, and when you fly across the International Date Line, you are instantly in a different DAY.

Why? Because time is an illuuuuuuuuuusion.

There is no such thing as ''time''.

We note the passage of ''time'' because we are in a dense, and extremely unhappy state of existence in comparison to the bliss of Ultimate reality, from whence we came.

In states of Ultimate bliss, there is no awareness of ''time''.

And where there is no awareness of time, there is NO time.
/quote]

How is relativity of "Time" equivalent to no "Time". Give just one example of no "Time". All the examples you gave are indicating relativity of time rather than no time. Is it not possible that what you consider to be infinite consciouness may be finite consciouness to another. Do you not think that where X is unaware, Y is very aware of time, thus what is identified as ultimate reality by some may be experienced as no ultimate reality by others. Thus what one seeker experience as ultimate bliss is not even experienced as bliss by another.

From our human perspective, there often seems to be no sense to any of this. But I think the  job of Consciousness is to Create. Consciousness is nothing if it does not Create.

You are nothing if you wake up everyday and stare out your bedroom window.

You have admitted that it does not make sense from the human perspective. Does it make sense from the perspective of infinite consciousness and if so how? Best wishes.

Again, u make an error in my view by placing the ''objects that we see'' in precedence to the signals reaching the brain. It is the signals which are converted to ''the objects'' by the brain. There are no ''objects'' until this conversion has taken place, even if 6 billion people have ''seen'' the same ''object'' before yourself.

Your statement that the signals precedes the objects is incorrect. The object precedes the signal. I believe you're aware of the
Light -> Object -> Retina - > Optic Nerves -> Brain diagram that is so common in texts on Optics?

The characteristics of an object determines the signals it generates. I also gave you the example of the acid.

Even in auditory signals.

For example how do we tell the voice of a man apart from the voice of a woman? The voice of the adult apart from the voice of a child? This is because of the physiological differences in the man, woman and child. The ear (and consequently the brain) has no idea of these differences. But these differences, excite the sorrounding air uniquely, and enables the brain differentiate between the voices of a man, a woman and a child.

What I'm just saying is that objects have inherent characteristics that determine how they're perceived. The object comes before the "signals" and not vice-versa.

@nuclearboy

ROSSIKE:

If a tree falls and there's no one there to observe it, does it make a sound?

Short but very clever nuclearboy!

Actually this discussion reminded me of a poem by T.S. Elliot:

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Nuclearboy asked:

ROSSIKE:

If a tree falls and there's no one there to observe it, does it make a sound?

No it doesn't, if there's no one around to hear it.

What we call ''sound'' is merely our five sense reality, as represented by our ears, decoding electric signals.

ROSSIKE:

Nuclearboy asked:

No it doesn't, if there's no one around to hear it.

What we call ''sound'' is merely our five sense reality, as represented by our ears, decoding electric signals.

Interesting. Which would suggest that were I to shoot you with a silenced gun from say, 30 yards (thus ensuring you cannot hear the shot), the bullet couldn't hit you, right?

Not really interested in an argument seeing as I've gone through this thread and notice your mindset of explaining any the unexplainable. Enjoy your mental delusions and the plumb daftness of your ideas (which ought not anger you since I, the one who's insulting you doesn't exist).

What I'd give for Tudor to show up here and kick your non-existence out of you

nuclearboy said

No it doesn't, if there's no one around to hear it.

What we call ''sound'' is merely our five sense reality, as represented by our ears, decoding electric signals.


Interesting. Which would suggest that were I to shoot you with a silenced gun from say, 30 yards (thus ensuring you cannot hear the shot), the bullet couldn't hit you, right?

If you'd spent a fraction of your time here reading and understanding the concepts being discussed, you would not ask this silliness. Your concerns have been addressed above, and I shan't bother referring you to the exact text.

Not really interested in an argument seeing as I've gone through this thread and notice your mindset of explaining any the unexplainable.

Seeing that you can barely spell, it's no surprise you're incapable of grasping the subtleties of this discussion, never mind attempting a scholarly rebuttal of concepts.

Enjoy your mental delusions and the plumb daftness of your ideas (which ought not anger you since I, the one who's insulting you doesn't exist).

What I'd give for Tudor to show up here and kick your non-existence out of you

Classic know-nothing oaf with more lip than sense.

The one thing I find amusing here is how this thread turns science on its head to make unjustifiable claims. I still wonder: 'nothing is physical' . .  'nothing is solid' - and why do we bother to sit on solid chairs and type on solid keyboards? Oh, I forgot: they are 'atoms' - the chairs are not there, the keyboard of the PC is not actually there. . and all of a sudden, we are all GoDS. . .  blah, blah.

Gosh! The human mind is a mystery indeed.

Deep Insight said:

I make no grand assertion. I state what has been scientifically observed. You are the one with the claim that what we see is actually not there.

Prove it.

I would think that for most reasonable people the scientific conclusion to the effect that atoms, the 'building blocks of the physical universe', comprise 99.995% empty space, is enough proof to back up the holographic nature of our physical world.

For a more in-depth study on the subject, why not read the book by Talbot, The Holographic Universe? It's only $7 on amazon.com. You could start with that, although many other books and studies are available for study. It's really not something that can be ''proven'' to you on a forum.

If you do not seek out this information yourself, you will not know about it likely till your last day on earth.

Why? Because our educational/religious/media/ social systems are geared towards limiting our connection to Infinite Consciousness, and the realisation of our true nature as powerful multidimensional beings.

The aim is to keep you focused on the ''here and now''. To treat this as 'real', in order for the few (who KNOW the score) to benefit from your numerous unwarranted sacrifices to ''the system'' from working for ruthless multinationals to fighting and dying in wars predicated on greed.

But None of the concepts I've discussed here are new at all.

African philosophical systems conceptualize the physical universe in terms of fleetingness and transience, in terms of an illusion.

Ancestor veneration, including elaborate funerals in which kings and nobles are buried with treasure and models of servants for their life in ''the next world'' is as African as apple pie is American.


The ancient Hindi and Sansksrit writings speak of the world as  '''Maya'' - Illusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29


In fact it was with the violent rise of christianity and islam that this OLD KNOWLEDGE came to be eliminated from human discourse.

I believe it was the actual REASON for the introduction of these two ''world religions'', and the destruction of the old faiths, including the old ''pagan'' beliefs of Africa, Europe, South America, and beyond, in numerous ''crusades'' and ''jihads''.

Those beliefs carried far more truths than the faiths which replaced them.

The 2 modern ''world religions'' mentioned emanated from the same region - The Middle East/Eurasia.


Those 2 religions subdued the old world religions by killing and massacres, NOT by ''peaceful conversion'' as their adherents love to imagine.


In the Old religions, Death was seen in every instance, not as the end of the individual, but as a natural transition to a higher form of existence.

This transition was regarded as natural as birth into this world, with the process regarded as independent of one's belief system, or object of worship.

With the rise of the christianity/Islam hegemony of Babylon derived faith, this convention was systematically destroyed and replaced with the ''either Jesus or hell'', ''follow Muhammed or you're a heathen'' type of doctrines geared at division and mass control of the public.

This division and control is playing itself out with ruthless efficiency presently, with the two major religions pitted against the other in a duel of wits that has the Elite who created them, smiling to the bank.

With the new global religions came the fear of death. Today, death is largely seen as ''the end'', and is met with much mourning. (Although in Africa, celebratory funerals indicate a certain retention of the old knowledge of death as a passage rather than the end).

And also with the 2  new global religions came the concept of ''sinners''.

From being units of Infinite Consciousness having a brief experience in a 'physical' dimension, we became ''sinners'', who needed men in long gowns to ''redeem us'' ''from sin''. (with the appropriate donation of money of course).


Thus the controlled masses have become herded into Camp Fear. Because they've been made to believe that the movie is real, that their bodies are them, and them their bodies and nothing more, they play out this belief, and become mere pawns in the hands of the powerful, WHO KNOW THE SCORE.

The new ''holy texts'' made sure to include in their admonitions to ''love'', the deadly threat of eternal suffering and damnation for those who refused to ''accept'' their new brand of ''saviour'' as ''the only truth''. Even imbuing God (Infinite Consciousness) with qualities such as bloodlust (witness old testament massacres supposedly instructed by the loving bible ''God'').

So generally the aim of the new world religions was to replace knowledge with fear, dignity with trepidation, freedom with mental imprisonment, and multidimensionalism with materialism.

This was why the Elite controllers of the christians and muslims felt the need to KILL millions of people in Europe, Africa, the Americas and beyond, who believed in the old faiths, in their numerous orchestrated ''crusades'' and ''jihads''.

The only way to alter the mindset of the world to their desire was by killing off and destroying civilizations which were founded on those concepts.

ROSSIKE:

The only way to alter the mindset of the world to their desire was by killing off and destroying civilizations which were founded on those concepts.

If we follow the spirit of your argument, then those civilizations were not there - they were 'atoms' with empty spaces, blah blah. Thus, we could come to the conclusion that they were all images conjured up in the (non-existent) mind - thus no 'destroying' took place. As such, it should not even appear in your post - otherwise, you'd be arguing the direct opposite: that they actually existed.

In my spare time, I took a peek at the religion forum and this thread title immediately caught my eye. After reading the various contributions, I decided that the thread title must have just been intentionally constructed that way to lure people into the thread. If that was the aim, it was absolutely dead on. It is quite irresistible as a topic.

The problem I have with the view here is that it doesn’t quite explain satisfactorily how one should go about denying the all-too-obvious material component of human existence.

Just like the naturalist is inclined to view humans as merely or mostly matter, this thread starter wants to view humans as merely a mind. Both views seem to me to be incomplete and unnecessarily reductionist. A balanced view ought rightly to be that a human is a delicate blend of both - matter and mind. These two must always work together or we do not have a functional sentient human being in any proper meaning of the word.

So, are we simply the mental projections of some transcendental mind? Are we simply brains in a vat stimulated by electrodes manipulated by some ingenious mad scientist in some indescribable reality? Are we and by extension, every materially extended object, simply the hallucinations of individual observers? If one is to make that assertion, one needs to prove or demonstrate how this is true or to be believed. This is impossible to prove for essentially, it would require the asserter to step out of his sensory data framework to essentially establish the validity of his sense-data conclusions---and in addition show the invalidity of possibly contradictory sense-data information furnished to minds other than his own.

Just think about it—why should anyone proposing the idea that all humans are essentially ‘consciousness’ believe that idea himself? On what reliable external and non-subjective basis can he decide that his own sense-impressions about the external world are actually valid? He cannot merely assert that these are his subjective feelings on the issue. Why should he believe that his subjective assessment is valid? He might be mentally impaired; he might be hallucinating; he might have been manipulated by intelligences higher than his to imagine that his own consciousness actually reflects reality. How does he know that what he thinks he knows is what is actually to be known? And if there is no objective, extra-personal standard or basis upon which anyone can make this pronouncement, why should observers external to the asserter agree that it is an accurate reflection of the world as viewed or experienced by them?

This issue is not answered by pleading that solid objects can be split and further divided until it is reduced to atoms or even quarks. It is patently false to assume also we can keep dividing and reducing matter till at atomic or sub-atomic levels, we somehow magically cause the physical to ‘disappear’ into ‘empty space’. This merely betrays a misunderstanding of quantum realities especially when scientists flippantly allude to a void or to some nothingness (which is not really NOTHING).

viaro said:

The only way to alter the mindset of the world to their desire was by killing off and destroying civilizations which were founded on those concepts.

If we follow the spirit of your argument, then those civilizations were not there - they were 'atoms' with empty spaces, blah blah.

In one sense you are right. But I'll tell you where I think you are wrong.

You forget that experiences are not an Illusion. Form, density, and shape ARE the illusion.

Consciousness' experience of these forms is not an illusion.

In other words, the world we ''see'' is only 'real' to the extent of what the experience of it has imbued in us or branded on our souls or Consciousness. Thus memories and experiences which consciousness retains are real, but the ''physical'' apparatuses used to achieve them are optical and sensory Illusions.

A TV hip hop musical  is only 'real' to the extent of your experience of it and whatever you take away from it.

It doesn't mean there actually are people dancing inside your television set in a space called MTV Base.

A radio broadcast is only 'real' to the extent of your experience with the transmitted news.

It doesn't mean a newscaster is sitting inside your radio speaking.

[b]Thus, we could come to the conclusion that they were all images conjured up in the (non-existent) mind -

The mind is not non-existent.