«Home

Do You Realise That We Don't Really Exist?

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.

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.

Avatar
Newbie
73 answers

Here's what you wrote about purpose in that link:

Why should your earthly, Darwinist rendition of 'purpose' be the same employed by Ultimate Reality? I'm really not sure we are anywhere near seeing, much less defining a ''purpose'' for this vast reality, in our earthbound, human state. BUT, we can glean from the accounts of NDEs and other paranormal sources, that an Ultimate Purpose does exist. I suspect the nearer we get to Ultimate Consciousness (perhaps following several incarnations), the more we realize the 'purpose'.

The two positions are not incompatible. However, (and my views may have changed slightly on this since 2009), the notion of souls undergoing spiritual development seems fraught with problems, as it suggests a deficiency in the Supreme Intelligence. A deficiency in Infinite Consciousness. Nowadays, I'm not prepared to jettison the notion of Ultimate Perfection on the basis of souls supposedly 'needing' development. Nevertheless, it could also be that the concept of 'Perfection' does not necessarily imply that one has everything one needs. 'Perfection' could also incorporate the compulsion to keep 'expanding'. So while 'game' might not be the best description for the process we're in, it must not be mistaken for a frivolous exercise.

On the highlighted, are you really trying to say that the 'division' has brought nothing else but evil? Surely not!! Our lives have also been enriched by various experiences which do not fall strictly under 'good' or 'evil' categories. I'd say the majority of our experiences fall into those 'grey areas'. There's immense value in those 'grey areas'. But without evil (caused by freewill), you couldn't get them. So, 'evil' is a necessary evil.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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,

0
Avatar
Newbie

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 –

http://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:

Any takers?

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

jagunlabi said:

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Here is a good youtube video clip on this topic;

0
Avatar
Newbie

figure out the meaning of Science Mister Physician

0
Avatar
Newbie

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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:

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hey Rossike, nice to hear from you again.

Thanks….we’ll explore these concepts together.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Here are two great videos on the subject:

The Holographic Universe: Pt 1 & 2

Reality As You Know It Does Not Exist

0
Avatar
Newbie

Prizm said:

Great!

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

viaro said:

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.

The mind is not non-existent.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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).

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

nuclearboy said

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.

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.

Classic know-nothing oaf with more lip than sense.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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

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.

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

ROSSIKE:

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

Deep Sight said:

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ibrahim B said:

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

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.

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.

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

IbrahimB said:

No offence taken my friend.

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?

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.

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 is merely the Thought of the creator of the object in dense form.

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Do you call THIS a game? ? ? ? ?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Deep Sight said:

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.

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.

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)

I agree with this.

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''.

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.

Well, absolutely!!!

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

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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

And -

0
Avatar
Newbie

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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:

0
Avatar
Newbie

Accordingly the sun, and the earth were not round in shape before humans arrived to “observe” them.? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Please give me a break.

That is patently FALSE.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Ibrahim B said:

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.

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?

Once again, interesting but irrelevant to the discussion. 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, consisting as it does, of energy vibrating on wavelengths higher than the 'physical', and even the particles you mention are found to be empty as you go deeper into the subatomic realm.

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''.

Whatever we ''see'' is merely a decoding of frequencies. The work of Frenchman Jean Fourier in the 18th century led to televisions and the discovery of holograms. He developed a pattern of converting patterns into simple wave forms and back again, providing the potential for a tv camera to convert pictures into electromagnetic frequencies, and the television to convert them back again to pictures.

Scientists have discovered that the human brain operates on the principles of Fourier transform, meaning it is a frequency decoder.

In the late 70s, research by Russel and Karen DaValois, two neurophysicists at Berkely University (US), revealed compelling evidence, since supported by countless scientists across the world, that the brain is decoding frequency patterns and converting them into holographic images that we 'see' (or think we do). In fact, even the human ear is a frequency decoder, as is our tongue, and 'sense of taste'.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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? ? ? ? ?

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.