Prizm said:

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.

Great!

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.

You will never find on a forum thread enough material to invoke such a huge change in your worldview. You will need to buy and read BOOKS, of which I have suggested a few so far.

I could suggest a few more if u so wish. There's so much more to this than the brief summaries you've read here.

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.

Actually you're wrong here. There is a HUGE distinction between Consciousness and the Mind.

The Mind only exists in a human being. The mind is Consciousness 'degraded' to working within a dense 'physical' realm, allied to a human brain.

When the body dies, the Mind is recalibrated to its Higher Consciousness.

My research indicates that each of us has a Higher Consciousness, a default state of Awareness which constitutes our Real Self.

When we ''die'', our mind recalibrates to our Real Aware Self. This Higher Self is in effect the real ''us''. It retains all our soul experiences, including 'memories' of all our 'past' incarnations as humans and/or other beings.

We are NOT our human bodies. Consciousness does not require a 'body' to exist.

It only 'acquires a body' in order to interract effectively with other participatory souls in a 3 dimensional DVD film show called ''life on earth''.

Once its role in the film is done by way of ''death'', Consciousness 'leaves the body' and returns to its Real, aware Self.

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.

The asserter does not need to ''step out of his sensory data framework'' to assert that all appearance of physicality is illusion. You do not have to personally travel around the world to know the earth is a sphere. You reference the work of other sources who have done the research, or discovered the earth's spherical nature long before you. With regard to the holographic universe, there is a plethora of submissions from all facets of humanity and from all epochs,  affirming the validity of the concept.

A lot of these concerns are best resolved by reading a good book or two on the subject - WITH AN OPEN MIND. In  addition to Michael Talbot's Holographic Universe, I would also suggest the work of astrophysicist Giuliana Conforto who wrote Organic Universe,and who stated therein,

''we have to remember that the luminous matter we observe with our instruments is only 0.5% of all calculated mass. What we see with our eyes is still less. ''Reality'' is a thin ''film'' of light, a visible matrix our biological body or robot can interract with; such a body is just a ''costume'' that lets us participate in the ''film'' itself for a while; it is not our true identity or ''I''.

Giuliana Conforto Organic Universe (Edizioni Noesis, Italy 2004)

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's not a 'plea'. It is a statement of fact, which I'm astonished you fail to grasp.

FACT is if the ''building blocks'' of a supposedly physical object are found to contain overwhelmingly empty space (ie empty to our five senses), it stands to reason that the object viewed and felt as 'solid' is an optical and sensory illusion. It's a complete no-brainer. Just because it LOOKS solid and FEELS solid does not mean it really IS 'solid'. Visit www.holography.ru.

There you will see holographic objects created today which appear as full 3D carbon copies of their originals.

Also, cutting edge scientific research has shown clearly that all atoms are scattered and do not congregate into discernible forms and shapes UNTIL and UNLESS THEY ARE OBSERVED.

Meaning by extension that nothing exists in solid form unless it is observed.

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’.

Erm, WE do not ''cause'' it to ''disappear''. It just DOES.

Here are two great videos on the subject:


The Holographic Universe: Pt 1 & 2


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnvM_YAwX4I&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG9FO7JGWq4&NR=1


Reality As You Know It Does Not Exist


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZj9Qps8H6M&feature=related

Hey Rossike, nice to hear from you again.

You will never find on a forum thread enough material to invoke such a huge change in your worldview. You will need to buy and read BOOKS, of which I have suggested a few so far.

I could suggest a few more if u so wish. There's so much more to this than the brief summaries you've read here.

Thanks….we’ll explore these concepts together.

Actually you're wrong here. There is a HUGE distinction between Consciousness and the Mind.

The Mind only exists in a human being. The mind is Consciousness 'degraded' to working within a dense 'physical' realm, allied to a human brain.

When the body dies, the Mind is recalibrated to its Higher Consciousness

The word consciousness is difficult to define and we humans don’t quite know a lot about it. Besides, people have various understandings of that word. Having said that, I don’t think there is a huge difference between the mind and consciousness. Both terms are close enough as to be synonymous. Nevertheless, if I am pressed for a distinction between the two, I would say that t[b]he mind produces consciousness[/b]. When people speak about Consciousness they are invariably referring to mental phenomena or the MIND. It doesn’t even matter if they speak poetically or figuratively about some[i] Higher or Supreme Consciousness[/i] – they are speaking properly about a MIND.

On the basis of this view, the human mind does not represent ‘degraded’ consciousness tied down, as you may be wont to assert to some dense physical realm. The reasons are very obvious: Consciousness or the mind is nothing empirically tangible or susceptible to material forces of degradation. You may disfigure or irreparably damage the physical human brain however. Such an action will make it difficult or impossible for the MIND’s mental processes to continue and be detected physically. This is what losing one’s consciousness means. At no time however is the consciousness degraded as it were.

My research indicates that each of us has a Higher Consciousness, a default state of Awareness which constitutes our Real Self.

When we ''die'', our mind recalibrates to our Real Aware Self. This Higher Self is in effect the real ''us''. It retains all our soul experiences, including 'memories' of all our 'past' incarnations as humans and/or other beings.

This view is mistaken. The mind is the SELF. What you call “Real Aware Self” is properly and exactly what the mind is. It is what retains our experiences and memories. There is no special recalibration going on at any point. At death, what happens is that the mind/consciousness/soul is separated from the physical material body. 

The relevant analogy is that a radio sitting on your table functions as a radio ONLY as long as it is able to receive radio wave signals coming to it. When the radio becomes permanently dysfunctional, it fails to pick up the radio wave and thus cannot function anymore as a radio. The radio frequency remains unaltered; it does not recalibrate into some other radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum. Likewise, permanent damage to the human brain would result in the inability to filter through and express the mental activity of  the conscious mind. At death, or a permanent cessation of brain activity, the mind is merely separated from its material body. It is not transformed into anything different.

We are NOT our human bodies. Consciousness does not require a 'body' to exist.

We are not merely our human bodies. That is the way to say it. Of course philosophically speaking, consciousness or the MIND does not require a body to exist and I agree with you there. A strict naturalist will disagree with us both at this point because he or she will be convinced, with good reasons, that one couldn’t show that there is any ‘bodiless’ consciousness around.

It only 'acquires a body' in order to interract effectively with other participatory souls in a 3 dimensional DVD film show called ''life on earth''.

Once its role in the film is done by way of ''death'', Consciousness 'leaves the body' and returns to its Real, aware Self.

You seem to be throwing terms around indiscriminately. The mind is the same as the soul. It is the same as the self [/i]and it is the same as [i]consciousness. It could just be differences in worldview here. The human mind/consciousness is not said to be existing merrily in some indiscernible plane from which it plucks a body at will in order to interact with other souls which have doubtlessly acquired bodies of their own; all of which is arranged to play out in some 3D film. I appreciate the imagery, but it is a bit too simplistic if you ask me.

The asserter does not need to ''step out of his sensory data framework'' to assert that all appearance of physicality is illusion. You do not have to personally travel around the world to know the earth is a sphere. You reference the work of other sources who have done the research, or discovered the earth's spherical nature long before you. With regard to the holographic universe, there is a plethora of submissions from all facets of humanity and from all epochs,  affirming the validity of the concept.

This is a false comparison. When you assert that all physicality is illusion, someone else can stake out a position diametrically opposed to yours. You relied on your sense-data to make that call, and another fully functional person relied on his or her sense-data to reach a conflicting conclusion. The problem this presents to us is a question of how anyone can prove the veridicality of sense-data. By what objective, extra-personal standards can we assess and judge the validity of our own individual perceptual framework? On what grounds can I trust the impressions of my sense-data? Also, on what grounds can I dismiss another person’s sense data?

The reason your counter example is fallacious is simple. I may be lazy for instance and accept, on authority, that the earth is a sphere. Be that as it may, if I were to doubt it, I would need to investigate the claim for myself. To do this however, there is an objective, independent, unbiased idea of what a sphere is (a basis for which anyone could investigate and come away not pronouncing the earth to be rhomboid, trapezoidal, triangular or otherwise). If there is no definite , extra-personal, non-subjective  anchor point, I am not obliged to agree with anyone who decrees that the earth is a sphere. I could investigate, get the same experimental results, get amazing picture photographs of the earth from space, but since there is no agreement on a standard, I could just as well decide that the earth is cuboidal. Why should your subjective call on anything be believed  by any mind other than your own? What independent basis separate from your own senses can we call upon to validate or invalidate any sensory perception?

A lot of these concerns are best resolved by reading a good book or two on the subject - WITH AN OPEN MIND. In  addition to Michael Talbot's Holographic Universe, I would also suggest the work of astrophysicist Giuliana Conforto who wrote Organic Universe,and who stated therein,

''we have to remember that the luminous matter we observe with our instruments is only 0.5% of all calculated mass. What we see with our eyes is still less. ''Reality'' is a thin ''film'' of light, a visible matrix our biological body or robot can interract with; such a body is just a ''costume'' that lets us participate in the ''film'' itself for a while; it is not our true identity or ''I''.

Giuliana Conforto Organic Universe (Edizioni Noesis, Italy 2004)

I think you may want to expand on this holographic universe idea as you understand it so that anyone may follow your train of thoughts. It is quite possible to be hooked on particular quotes in a book and miss the overall message in the book. From what you have quoted, it is already apparent to me that you may be drawing conclusions different from what the author is reaching. The author may have wanted to describe the finite and perhaps limited scope of our current general understanding of what physical reality is. Indeed one may have to read the book entirely to see if at any point the author denies the existence of the physical – which point you are indeed strenuously making or defending.

It's not a 'plea'. It is a statement of fact, which I'm astonished you fail to grasp.

FACT is if the ''building blocks'' of a supposedly physical object are found to contain overwhelmingly empty space (ie empty to our five senses), it stands to reason that the object viewed and felt as 'solid' is an optical and sensory illusion. It's a complete no-brainer. Just because it LOOKS solid and FEELS solid does not mean it really IS 'solid'. Visit www.holography.ru.

There you will see holographic objects created today which appear as full 3D carbon copies of their originals.

Also, cutting edge scientific research has shown clearly that all atoms are scattered and do not congegregate into discernible forms and shapes UNTIL and UNLESS THEY ARE OBSERVED.

Meaning by extension that nothing exists in solid form unless it is observed.

There are too many untidy assumptions bundled into this piece.

1)You are trying to establish is that there is nothing like the physical just in case you have forgotten. Remember that it is the physical that you have chosen to call an illusion. Therefore, like I said earlier, you may want to tell me what you understand an illusion to be.  If I am going to assume that by illusion, you mean that physical objects are merely imaginary, then you’ll have to tell me why I should take your subjective call as true since to me, physical objects are not in the least bit phantasmal. On what basis should I accept your claim?

2)You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that by showing how tiny the atoms and subatomic components of solid matter are, it somehow leads one to conclude that solid matter is illusory. This is a fallacy of composition and it is exactly the wrong approach. Your approach would have been better if someone wanted to contend that solid matter is one monolithic homogenous indivisible whole. Then you can rely on a good grasp of physics to show that even all matter is essentially quarks or energy or other quantum phenomena (or possibly strings depending on how comfortable you are with the string theory). That a bottle containing water is real and verifiable and can quench my thirst for instance is not torpedoed by establishing that water is made of 2 molecules of hydrogen for every molecule of oxygen. You are abandoning the object in consideration and merely toying with its constituents. This endeavor strikes me as a hopeless non-sequitur.

Erm, WE do not ''cause'' it to ''disappear''. It just DOES.

No—it doesn’t disappear in the sense that from somethingness one gets nothingness; it doesn’t disappear in the sense that what was once existing as a solid object ceases to exist in the physical universe. All you may get is a change in form as you seek to break down a large macroworld object like a huge lump of rock. With increasing sophistication, you may just be able to strip it down to its elementary particles. I can even grant that you may just be able to convert all mass to energy but that’s about all you can do. It has merely changed one physical form to another—and thus it never truly vanished.

Cheers.

This is a false comparison. When you assert that all physicality is illusion, someone else can stake out a position diametrically opposed to yours.

1)You are trying to establish is that there is nothing like the physical just in case you have forgotten.

Several posts here (especially IbrahimB) have with reason tried to point out the above to the thread-owner in one way or another. It is one of the simplest things, really. I think once again you just nailed it neatly by this:

2)You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that by showing how tiny the atoms and subatomic components of solid matter are, it somehow leads one to conclude that solid matter is illusory. This is a fallacy of composition and it is exactly the wrong approach.

where do you want to go with this Zap.E.N Science if we do not exist then we do not Exist leave it at the manner it was created

FMK:

where do you want to go with this Zap.E.N Science

To begin with, it was not even science at all.

viaro:

To begin with, it was not even science at all.

figure out the meaning of Science Mister Physician

Prizm said:

The word consciousness is difficult to define and we humans don’t quite know a lot about it.

I reject the claim that ''we humans'' do not know a lot about it. You have predicated your objection to these concepts on the basis of the inherent subjectivity of any analysis regarding them. You cannot then incorporate ''we humans'' into your rebuttal. You should instead say ''I'', meaning YOU, do not know enough about Consciousness.

Besides, people have various understandings of that word. Having said that, I don’t think there is a huge difference between the mind and consciousness. Both terms are close enough as to be synonymous.

I absolutely disagree with this. The mind is not ''synonymous'' with Consciousness. Consciousness can read thoughts. It can communicate via telepathy. It can override the matrix program - Time, Space, Matter.

The mind is rarely if ever able to do this.

Thus, as I see it, the Mind is merely Consciousness degraded to work in dense conditions governed by matter as well as the laws of the material universe. Consciousness in every instance will override those laws. Consciousness can walk through physical walls. It can fly. It can appear anywhere it pleases in No time.

The mind is completely and utterly inferior to Consciousness.

The worst mistake any person can make is to equate Consciousness with the mind.

Nevertheless, if I am pressed for a distinction between the two, I would say that the mind produces consciousness.

You couldn't be more wrong in my view. Consciousness produces the mind. Infinite Consciousness is the originator of everything. How can the created become the creator?

On the basis of this view, the human mind does not represent ‘degraded’ consciousness tied down, as you may be wont to assert to some dense physical realm. The reasons are very obvious: Consciousness or the mind is nothing empirically tangible or susceptible to material forces of degradation.

If you accept that we reside in a Matrix, outside of which exists Ultimate Reality devoid of the artificialities and pretensions of Time, Space and Density, then you have to acknowledge that the Mind, produced by a melding of Consciousness with the Matrix, cannot be the same as Consciousness in its original form, or Consciousness outside of the matrix. Certainly Consciousness is not extinguished by its encounter with, and incorporation into the matrix, but it certainly is degraded, for want of a better word.

Quote
My research indicates that each of us has a Higher Consciousness, a default state of Awareness which constitutes our Real Self.

When we ''die'', our mind recalibrates to our Real Aware Self. This Higher Self is in effect the real ''us''. It retains all our soul experiences, including 'memories' of all our 'past' incarnations as humans and/or other beings.

This view is mistaken. The mind is the SELF. What you call “Real Aware Self” is properly and exactly what the mind is. It is what retains our experiences and memories. There is no special recalibration going on at any point. At death, what happens is that the mind/consciousness/soul is separated from the physical material body.

If there is ''no special recalibration going on'' why does Consciousness retain soul memories blocked to the mind, which it reclaims upon 'death', and why does Consciousness experience a greatly heightened  awareness soon after 'death' as reported by near death experiencers?

Have you read their accounts? There are thousands of NDE accounts from across the world  which confirm this position.

Visit www.NDERF.org as well as www.near-death.com.

The relevant analogy is that a radio sitting on your table functions as a radio ONLY as long as it is able to receive radio wave signals coming to it. When the radio becomes permanently dysfunctional, it fails to pick up the radio wave and thus cannot function anymore as a radio. The radio frequency remains unaltered; it does not recalibrate into some other radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum.

But the radio ''functioning as a radio'' is precisely the degrading of the signals we're talking about. The mind is degraded which regards solely the broadcast as Consciousness, rather than the waves as Consciousness.

It's exactly like watching a television and assuming erroneously that the figures on the screen are residing within the box itself. This is the trick mind plays on humans across the world.


The key to life as propounded by a great many people down the ages from prophets to saints and seers, is for mind to reach greater attunement with its Consciousness. (The kingdom of God is within you). To figuratively ''bring heaven down upon the earth''.

When we 'die' we return to the default position of realisation that the power is in the signals and not in the radio set. Mind is basically a tool of deception, and thus for this reason, constitutes Consciousness 'degraded'.

The human mind/consciousness is not said to be existing merrily in some indiscernible plane from which it plucks a body at will in order to interact with other souls which have doubtlessly acquired bodies of their own; all of which is arranged to play out in some 3D film. I appreciate the imagery, but it is a bit too simplistic if you ask me.

You need to read a bit more widely in my view, particularly the accounts of NDErs and those who have experienced various communications with the ether. Do you realise that many experiencers insist there are aspects, even doubles of each of us which reside well, alive and conscious in the ether?

Do you realise that thousands of ND experiencers and others under hypnosis have related that prior to their earth sojourn, THEY chose their parents, the nations they would be born in, and the lives they would live as humans prior to making the trip, ie getting born as humans?

Do you realise that these individuals say that after each earth life a soul is subjected to a Life Review in which their recent lives are shown to them in a brief panorama characterised by much sorrow at their transgressions against others, with the soul feeling an extraordinary need to compensate for the harm done to others, harm which, under their heightened awareness of the Oneness of all, they've come to realise they were inflicting on THEMSELVES?


I find these accounts highly credible based on the sheer volume of such accounts from across the globe, and the general uniformity of their content.

The asserter does not need to ''step out of his sensory data framework'' to assert that all appearance of physicality is illusion. You do not have to personally travel around the world to know the earth is a sphere. You reference the work of other sources who have done the research, or discovered the earth's spherical nature long before you. With regard to the holographic universe, there is a plethora of submissions from all facets of humanity and from all epochs,  affirming the validity of the concept.

[b]This is a false comparison. When you assert that all physicality is illusion, someone else can stake out a position diametrically opposed to yours. You relied on your sense-data to make that call, and another fully functional person relied on his or her sense-data to reach a conflicting conclusion. The problem this presents to us is a question of how anyone can prove the veridicality of sense-data. By what objective, extra-personal standards can we assess and judge the validity of our own individual perceptual framework? On what grounds can I trust the impressions of my sense-data? Also, on what grounds can I dismiss another person’s sense data?

The reason your counter example is fallacious is simple. I may be lazy for instance and accept, on authority, that the earth is a sphere. Be that as it may, if I were to doubt it, I would need to investigate the claim for myself. To do this however, there is an objective, independent, unbiased idea of what a sphere is (a basis for which anyone could investigate and come away not pronouncing the earth to be rhomboid, trapezoidal, triangular or otherwise). If there is no definite , extra-personal, non-subjective  anchor point, I am not obliged to agree with anyone who decrees that the earth is a sphere. I could investigate, get the same experimental results, get amazing picture photographs of the earth from space, but since there is no agreement on a standard, I could just as well decide that the earth is cuboidal. Why should your subjective call on anything be believed  by any mind other than your own? What independent basis separate from your own senses can we call upon to validate or invalidate any sensory perception?[/b]

I've no idea what you're on about. Every physical object from humans to ipods is an amalgamation of atoms. If an atom comprises empty space to our five senses, as established by scientists, what then is it you are ''seeing'' if not an illusion within our five sense reality?

You cannot simply dismiss those findings and their implications because you do not like them or because they (supposedly) do not make sense to you, then turn around and ask for ''proof''.

What about the ''measurement problem'' alluded to in the last video I posted? Atoms do not congregate in shape, form, size, or density unless they are observed. It is the observation which makes them appear as 'solid objects'.

What more do you need to know after these last two points have been incontrovertibly established by science?

I've no idea what other ''proof'' you are looking for, nor have I the time or inclination to go scouring for further material to ''convince'' you. You need to take up the search for the truth yourself. I'm just here to nudge you a little.

Here is a good youtube video clip on this topic;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA

Absolutely fantastic video, jagunlabi.

Here's part 2 of it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlmrHMBW36w&feature=related

Y'know the funny thing is that these things that western scientists are only just discovering were known to our ancestors for thousands of years, as well as other ancient civilizations across the world. This was why those cultures showed less of a focus on material wealth/industrialization/greed/avarice, and more on transcendence, dignity, the soul, as compared to the 'modern world' where this knowledge has been suppressed by those who wish everyone to believe it is all 'real' in order that they can benefit from our labour, slavery, and artificial focus on material acquisition as opposed to things of the Spirit, which are what REALLY matter.

Of what profit is it to gain the whole world (Illusion) and lose your soul?

The underlying message of all the sages and prophets of old has been that an exclusive focus on material illusions constitutes the greatest foolishness.

Thankfully, science is at last catching up with the great secret of the universe.

Quite right.Coming closer to home, if you go to any native shaman anywhere in nigeria and tell him that you now know that the material world is an illusion, he will probably show his surprise, not by your claim, but on the fact that you are in possession of this ancient knowledge, because i believe that all native african shamans knew the nature of our reality as an illusion for ages but kept this knowledge hidden from the mainstream.

ROSSIKE:

Y'know the funny thing is that these things that western scientists are only just discovering were known to our ancestors for thousands of years, as well as other ancient civilizations across the world. This was why those cultures showed less of a focus on material wealth/industrialization/greed/avarice, and more on transcendence, dignity, the soul, as compared to the 'modern world' where this knowledge has been suppressed by those who wish everyone to believe it is all 'real' in order that they can benefit from our labour, slavery, and artificial focus on material acquisition as opposed to things of the Spirit, which are what REALLY matter.

Of what profit is it to gain the whole world (Illusion) and lose your soul?

The underlying message of all the sages and prophets of old has been that an exclusive focus on material illusions constitutes the greatest foolishness.

Thankfully, science is at last catching up with the great secret of the universe.

This is Dr. John Hagelin on consciousness and the nature of reality from the scientific perspective;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuuKBInwQRU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ31qkK4NoE&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM&feature=related

you People here are amazing  like you have never heard or known the universal laws before.  science exist  millions and millions years BC    see INCAS  and Maya Calendars  this will tell you that all of those things  scientist are descovering  have been announced  centuries ago by Oracles and  Prophets    those people announcing the power of God   the creator of everything    you remember when  Joshua stopped the sun so that they could fight  before the dawn of the day ? it was not the sun was stopped  but God blocked during  6 Hour  the Planet earth rotation   that is to tell you that we exist because  an Absolute Intelligence   Exist too and  placed everything in Harmony following  universal laws and rythms   we Exist  use your science in Good manner   not like a Foolish

jagunlabi said:

Quite right. Coming closer to home, if you go to any native shaman anywhere in nigeria and tell him that you now know that the material world is an illusion, he will probably show his surprise, not by your claim, but on the fact that you are in possession of this ancient knowledge, because i believe that all native african shamans knew the nature of our reality as an illusion for ages but kept this knowledge hidden from the mainstream.

Very true. I believe there'a a lot more knowledge that's hidden. In fact that's why it's named the ''occult''. For the uninformed, ''occult'' is synonymous with evil, whereas the true meaning of the word itself is ''hidden''.

Hidden knowledge.

The knowledge, neither good nor bad, can be used for good or for ill.

Africans, like many other civilizations, believe in the existence of an invisible, impersonal nature force which can be harnessed for the empowerment of self and/or community. The more you have of it, the more 'Life' you embody. I think the Yorubas call this life force Ashe. Other groups have their own term for it.

When people visit a traditional priest to procure a certain favour or advantage, it is this force they are getting him to direct towards them in greater abundance.

I think the christian term for this force is the Holy Spirit.

The mistake they make of course, is to assume that they alone have access to it.

@ROSSIKE

Thanks for your courage in posting this uncommon fact

This world is more or less a virtual world, not as real as we think, Song of Solomon said "vanity upon vanity" reason why God is not bothered about some happenings in this world, He knows better.

This world is like a night dream, will soon pass away, we are entering an age of awakening, not many people will embrace this fact.

sarmy said:

@ROSSIKE

Thanks for your courage in posting this uncommon fact

This world is more or less a virtual world, not as real as we think, Song of Solomon said "vanity upon vanity" reason why God is not bothered about some happenings in this world, He knows better.

This world is like a night dream, will soon pass away, we are entering an age of awakening, not many people will embrace this fact.

Absolutely.

The highlighted is what I wanted to explain to the guy who posted the image of a starving kid. At our level, it's a starving kid, and it looks terrible, but at the ''God level'', it's similar to God hypothetically scratching his left wrist.

As he scratches, the cells under the His 'skin' get battered as one cell smashes into another, knocking it out.  The other cells recoil in horror. 'What an evil world we live in', they'd lament. 'What did that poor cell do to deserve this horrible fate?'

Yet to God, nothing at all has happened!!

He only scratched his wrist for a couple seconds!!

lol

NB  I know this analogy is a bit of a simplification, but not by a lot to be honest.

Brilliant thread, keep it coming.

ROSSIKE:

sarmy said:

Absolutely.

The highlighted is what I wanted to explain to the guy who posted the image of a starving kid. At our level, it's a starving kid, and it looks terrible, but at the ''God level'', it's similar to God hypothetically scratching his left wrist.

As he scratches, the cells under the His 'skin' get battered as one cell smashes into another, knocking it out. The other cells recoil in horror. 'What an evil world we live in', they'd lament. 'What did that poor cell do to deserve this horrible fate?'

Yet to God, nothing at all has happened!!

He only scratched his wrist for a couple seconds!!

lol

NB I know this analogy is a bit of a simplification, but not by a lot to be honest.

I am sorry, but this is frankly meaningless.

You are yet to answer the conundrum of purpose and motivation.

If its all virtual reality, then what is its purpose? See the question on purpose I raised here –

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-375644.0.html

You stated very clearly that it’s all a game: In reaction to that I wondered what sort of game a supreme deity would be enjoying by expressing himself through starvation of children, for example.

It makes far more sense to think that human spirits are within a process of spiritual development, hence all the trials and tribulations in the world; and not that it’s a macabre game being played by some whimsical and careless deity?

Get real.

Finally you are yet to respond to what I laid out here:

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.

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.

Any takers?

Oh dear, I forgot about this thread.

I have been very busy lately, but I'll be coming back later to revisit the discussions in this thread.

"Do You Realize That We Don't Really Exist?"

Now, who or what is the non-existence  asking this question, and t[i]o what non-existence are these questions posed[/i]? That this question can be asked at all, and that anyone might even begin to frame an answer, no matter how irrational, is to PRESUPPOSE that we actually do in fact exist!

I'll be returning later to fully examine the rest of the thread for what useful information or enlightenment I might gain out of this. Otherwise, it seems to me that this whole question rests on epistemologically (philosophically) absurd presuppositions.

Carry on, ladies and gentlemen,

lol

this is definitely gonna be bumped 4 sure.

BUMP !

Uyi Iredia: BUMP !

do you agree with the OP?

are we not really..real?

*Kails*:


do you agree with the OP?

are we not really..real?

No, I don't and I made a fairly long post explaining why only to find it deleted.

*Kails*:
lol

this is definitely gonna be bumped 4 sure.

Lol

Excellent thread folks!

Shame I missed the excitement by a few years!

Never the less it's all still valid and intriguing,
anybody keen to relight this old flame?

Peace

VirtualCobra: Excellent thread folks!

Shame I missed the excitement by a few years!

Never the less it's all still valid and intriguing,
anybody keen to relight this old flame?

Peace

Hmm. I saw the thread yesterday and i fell in love with the beautiful mind of the OP. Is ROSSIKE still on Nairaland? Is he a schorlar somewhere? etc

Oduduwaboy:

Hmm. I saw the thread yesterday and i fell in love with the beautiful mind of the OP. Is ROSSIKE still on Nairaland? Is he a schorlar somewhere? etc

LOL...I still dey homie..

ROSSIKE:
Well, actually we do, but only in the form of Consciousness.

All appearances of form and physicality are optical and sensory ILLUSIONS.

Nothing is ''physical''. Not the ''planets'', not the Earth, not You, not your PC, and not your keyboard.

Whatever we call physical matter is composed of atoms, including our physical bodies.

Atoms are considered ''the building blocks of the physical universe''.

Yet, when examined with a powerful microscope, an atom is seen to comprise empty space.


[img]http://thm-a02.yimg.com/image/0769fd29f754a792[/img]
An Atom


The nucleus in the middle is actually very tiny in relation to the atom in reality, and was famously compared to a grain of sand in the middle of a cathedral. Even the nucleus itself has been found to be a mini-atom, ie, consisting of empty space.

Why then do we ''see'' and ''feel'' physical objects?

One reason is that what we ''see'' is really not what is there. (Or rather, is just one form of possibly billions of possible representations of what is there).

The world we see is only in existence at the back of our brain, where the electromagnetic signals picked up by our eyes, are converted into a dense 3D ''physical'' format, complete with colour and surround sound.

This is exactly the same way a TV decodes electromagnetic signals into a colourful, raucous football match, or blood-curdling gangster film.

Our bodies and brains are likewise, receivers, connected to a biological ''internet'', in which we receive and decode electromagnetic signals according to a uniform pre-determined format. Some believe the author of this format to be God, while others believe it to be a group of lower level intelligences.

If that format, or wavelength, were to be changed, we would decode those signals in an entirely different manner.


Much of what we call religion, magic, meditation, psychic power, juju, etc, are at base, attempts to override this format, or matrix - our limited five-sense straitjacket - and access other, more efficient methods of decoding reality, in order to influence/alter its physical, 3D manifestation.

Many thanks.

Yes and no...what we say is physical is our interactions with reality and the sensory inputs we experience from those interactions....

note: reality is what we can ascertain with our senses....
note: what we call physical is the reaction our sensory inputs feed us....

Oduduwaboy:

Hmm. I saw the thread yesterday and i fell in love with the beautiful mind of the OP. Is ROSSIKE still on Nairaland? Is he a schorlar somewhere? etc

I actually agree with EVERYTHING he said. But only because I've dabbled with visionary plants.

The receiver in our heads is capable of picking up different signals when it's connection to this reality is severed.

Weah96:


I actually agree with EVERYTHING he said. But only because I've dabbled with visionary plants.

The receiver in our heads is capable of picking up different signals when it's connection to this reality is severed.

Could you kindly intimate us on the plants you dabbled in? Did you try Ayahuasca? I understand it's highly efficient and takes you there straight away.