IMG_0569
Blog powered by Typepad

« Online reading | Main | Stem cell cure? »

Comments

I just finished reading a science fiction/fantasy novel that included a character named Schrodinger's Cat. She was a difficult opponent in a sword fight because if you could figure out where she was it was hard to tell how fast she was moving and if you could tell how fast she was moving it was difficult to tell exactly where she was.

http://www.webscription.net/ps-318-40-the-philosophical-strangler.aspx


Regarding breaking the laws of nature... It's more like there are rules that we do not understand.

A few selves are creative enough to construct a new reality and thus perform "paranormal" feats. They can, perhaps, perform levitations or healings that are inexplicable according to the conventionally agreed-upon "rules." Phenomena (mental experiences) of this kind seem bizarre because they don't fit most selves' established guidelines of how things are supposed to behave. But they open up new horizons, new possibilities, and allow other creative selves to test the boundaries of the "rules."

Levitations are commonly done with ectoplasm. Healing is done via a force that comes from a higher source and the healer is just a conduit.

You might find the book History of Spiritualism by Arthur Conan Doyle will change your opinion about what is normal and what is paranormal. There are lots more books like that at spiritwritings.com

Something's missing in monistic idealism. Consider accidents and sickness. We never "know" we're going to have an accident or get sick, so what aspect of mind creates them? Mind (chi?) does affect reality but something "out there" goes it's own way. The Jungian concept of an interaction between mind and matter seems more accurate.

“This Cosmic Consciousness buds into individual selves. These selves are not entirely separate from the larger field of consciousness (they can't be, because ultimately Cosmic Consciousness includes everything that is), but they have no direct knowledge of this connection; they believe they are separate.”

This quote above is a profound statement. I like the words “buds into individual selves.”

This is close to the question I worked on for six years and that is: what is the origin of our ignorance that causes us to believe we are separate. This ignorance causes humankind to commit such self-centered and inhumane acts towards others.

The creative manifestation process can only occur if we are innocent of our true reality or else we the created/manifested would be duplications of this Cosmic Consciousness (oneness). And even this statement is not quite correct because oneness cannot duplicate itself into twoness without entities (us) that perceive they are separate selves.

There would be no universe with unique life forms without entities that have a perception of other. My discovery was that for this Cosmic Consciousness to express itself it must create entities that are innocent of their true reality.

This innocence often/always turns to something we humans call ignorance and soon due to this ignorance (innocence) suffering enters our world of reality. I suspect this Cosmic Consciousness does not see our ignorance but our innocence.

The Buddha was right the origin of most if not all of our suffering is ignorance.

>Schrodinger's Cat ... if you could figure out where she was it was hard to tell how fast she was moving and if you could tell how fast she was moving it was difficult to tell exactly where she was.

That's clever, but it sounds more like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle than Schrodinger's cat ...

>Levitations are commonly done with ectoplasm. Healing is done via a force that comes from a higher source and the healer is just a conduit.

This is what many levitators and healers believe. Maybe their belief is what makes the phenomena possible. Ellison argues for this at length and provides examples to illustrate his point.

>You might find the book History of Spiritualism by Arthur Conan Doyle will change your opinion about what is normal and what is paranormal.

I've read Vol. I of this book. It's very interesting, but generally reflects spiritualist doctrines that were common in Doyle's era.

>Something's missing in monistic idealism. Consider accidents and sickness. We never "know" we're going to have an accident or get sick, so what aspect of mind creates them?

Good question. I don't know, although there are possible answers: subconsciously we may want to get sick or have an accident; we may be influenced by the subconscious desires or fears of others; there may be an element of randomness in the way events manifest ...

These are ad-hoc explanations, of course - not very well thought out, and maybe way off base.

Hi Michael

Monistic idealism is interesting, but it's as limited as monistic materialism/physicalism. And we're still left with the inversion of the Mind/Body Problem is it is true (if it's all Mind, then why a Body?)

Perhaps Reality is between two polarities - Order and Novelty - and their dialectical interaction is what makes a World and/or History (since Space/Time are one also.) The reason why I make the polarities Order and Novelty, versus Mind and Matter, is that the more we understand "matter" the more it seems like "mind". As john Wheeler puts it the World is about the process of "It from Bit" - that both Mind and Matter involve information and its processing, but with different software and no clear way to edit the programs.

No clear way, but not no way at all, thus we occasionally witness paranormal "super-humans" who have found part of the manual within and have learnt (in this life or another) how to change a brief out-putting of the Cosmic Machine Code.

To totally change the programs matter and Mind run on would unMake this World and kick off a new One, so there must be some kind of error correction system which prevents a minor code-change from propagating like a virus throughout all of the Cosmic Code. Perhaps "God" or "angels" are a part of that system.

This week's "New Scientist" has an article about an utterly mind-blowing possibility - that the "laws of logic" aren't the only ways for running the world - in fact quantum mechanics is a probable example of a different kind of logic.

Logic, of the Boolean variety that is used by our computers and most of our reasoning, is built, mathematically, on something more basic - set theory. I knew that much, but apparently set theory is built on a section of what's called "category theory" which discusses things called "topoi" - different ways of ordering the world and creating different kinds of "logic" to make a world from.

This stuff has been around for over 30 years apparently, but most mathematicians and physicists are ignorant of it and so it hasn't been in the mainstream spot-light. Now it seems a physicist, Chris Isham, has managed to identify what kind of topos theory that quantum mechanics is built on, and so there's a lot of excitement about the theory.

In short: there's more than one way of making a world. Perhaps there are many.

I for one consider the possibility of Monism Idealism but I think Substance Dualism provides a much better answer

“irreducible complexity or fact-value dichotomy or holographic universe or double slit experiment or delayed choice experiment or Nonlocality or Schrodinger's cat or monistic idealism or Order and Novelty or Mind/Body Problem or "laws of logic" or Substance Dualism?”

These are all intellectual pursuits into discovering the mind of God or stated another way the seeking of ultimate reality.

I suspect that the secret of life is in the pursuit (process) and not so much in the discovery (results). How else could ultimate reality (infinite) experience itself without this pursuit?

THE VIRGIN’S GARDEN

You can’t see heavy wind but you can hear it
And the body thereof is the voice

That which has no hand can shake an oak
And that which has no foot can walk the Earth

That which has no generative organ
Spawns bright winds and lets them spin away

Many forms of life exist although
Some have no bodies to be seen by any human vision

Down came the messenger who took the form of shadows,
Bright sunlight and a voice which spoke

She who saw it saw the form which it assumed -
Another is too bright to see in daylight

Irreducible, it has no need to reproduce
The splendid tapestry of oceanic wings

See, foreshadowing, the airfoils of the albatross
That comes ashore to breed

That comes ashore to nest and breed and brood
But lives for many months above the ocean

Where then may this messenger come home to rest,
What shore land and what boundary of sea?

What wanderings until the sea-blue cloak it saw
Beneath, and fell to Earth, and spoke

Its voice itself a body and its wings
The bright wind in the Blessed Virgin’s garden


Pavel
February 23, 2007

Some of you are almost there. You have to get away from the words. The Labels.
Behind them are thoughts...
Behind the thoughts are...

Consciousness permeates the Universe. We exist inside the mind of God. We are God's dream. Our brain works holographically and so does God's. We are a hologram embedded in a hologram.

excerpt from The Holographic Universe:
For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality?

Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.
http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html#zine

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not.
There are no consequences for belief or unbelief. Everyone becomes enlightened once they enter the light. - Artxerxes.

'A few selves are creative enough to construct a new reality and thus perform "paranormal" feats.'

In my personal experience it's the other way round, i.e., the "few" don't "construct a new reality", they're simply born knowing/remember/come to realise the "constructed 'new' reality" is what everyone else takes for normality/reality.

Believe you me, ever since I was a baby, whenever I've done anything that contravened "reality" everyone who's been a witness to it's either denied the evidence of their own eyes, or worse - and this's included, (in recent years), close members of my own family until they adjusted to the idea - they physically attacked me.

One old lady, Miss Sims, who wouldn't let any of us kids play near her house accidentally witnessed one of my antics and ever after said all the other kids could from then on play outside her place as much as they liked and as noisily as they liked, just so long as they kept away "him, the witch-boy!", i.e., me!

Even I, myself, as I got older, have sometimes been disturbed by my experiences.

When I was in my early twenties I saw a second television set appear alongside the "real" one with the image of a race horse being led into the Aintree winner's enclosure and heard a voice announce that year's (1982's) winner of the Grand National was Grittar.

This was on the Wednesday, and to cut a long story short, as a result of that experience I won what was for me a lot of money on the Saturday, especially since I was a non-gambler.

The thing was, when I finally received the money, instead of being pleased, I was filled with utter horror, because it seemed to me the implications of the experience was that everything must be foreordained, in which case nobody must have any choice over what happened to them.

The point being, in my experience, it isn't so much that "new" realities are "created" but that this one, the one we commonly take for granted as being exactly what it seems to be, solid/fixed/concrete and therefore inviolate, is itself the truly created one, and anything - or anyone - who threatens the comfort we derive from that "fact" has to be shutdown, either by locking them up in an insane asylum, denouncing/debunking them, or failing that, burning them at the stake.

And it isn't just paranormal stuff that creates this sense of being threatened: look at what happened to the likes of Alfred Wegener, because he dared to press his theory about Continental Drift.

Ditto Dawkins' hostility towards Creationism.

>I for one consider the possibility of Monism Idealism but I think Substance Dualism provides a much better answer

It may. I think idealism may be better at explaining things like synchronicities, though. Also, mystics almost unanimously say that reality is ultimately "all one," not dualistic. They could be wrong, but they've delved more deeply into these things than most of us, so I wouldn't write off their insights too quickly.

>Some of you are almost there. You have to get away from the words.

It's good to know that some of us are "almost there." I'm not sure how I can write this blog without words, though. Maybe just smiley-faces? :-)

It needs mentioning here that too much research, as well as personal experiences by many people (I offer my own precognitive dreams as my most personally persuasive events), indicates that the vast majority of our lifeborne occurances are not under any form of conscious control. As stressed by cognitive neuroscientists, we are conscious of only about 5% of our cognitive activity, meaning our decisions & indecisions, actions, reactions and non-actions, emotions & behavior depend upon that 95% which take place BEYOND CONSCIOUS CONTROL. Given my own precogitive experiences (quite unnerving & upsetting), I cannot see the universe of physical experience as being anything but predetermined. And if the physical is truly illusory, and all is mind, then consciousness itself implies predestination, and we experience all of the good, bad and indifferent because we MUST. Not the most comforting of thoughts, but who am I to insist on emotional comfort in a realm of experience over which I have no conscious input?

Given my own precogitive experiences (quite unnerving & upsetting), I cannot see the universe of physical experience as being anything but predetermined. And if the physical is truly illusory, and all is mind, then consciousness itself implies predestination, and we experience all of the good, bad and indifferent because we MUST. - Kevin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree absolutely 100%. I have also had quite a few precognitive dreams. One time I even dreamed the plot of a movie I was going to be watching 2 hours later, that when I was dreaming it I didn't have a clue. It was so weird. The name of the movie was "The Yin and Yang of Dr. Go" and it starred a young Jeff Bridges. When I was young (we're about the same age) he and I looked very much alike. I think that caused me to identify with the character, and the bizarreness of the plot is what might have triggered me to dream about the movie, before I even saw it. In my dream I was being chased by this older gay man and I was going "up" to see this pretty Asian woman. I had the dream during an afternoon nap. When my wife got home she asked me if I wanted to see one of the 88 cent movies we'd bought at a discount store. What was so bizarre was that the exact same scenario as my dream took place in the movie. This is not the only precognitive dream I've had but it's certainly the most bizarre. One of my favorite precognitive stories is the coal slag slide in Aberfan, Wales where a school was buried.
"It was the worst disaster ever experienced by Aberfan. The reports of premonitions literally came from all over Wales and England. http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue18/18premonitions.html

I have come to the same conclusions about reality, but I came through the psychological realm to this understanding. Once one understands that space and time are both ideas, created by man and inherited through the ages, and realize the unreality of them, then all the "big" problems seem to have quite clear solutions. The sense of relief and (ironically) freedom is overwhelming, however there are downsides to this "enlightenment": life seems less dramatic when you understand the structure and goals. The upside, especially for those in the psychological field, is a complete lack of fear in dealing with "dangerous" clients, an ability to easily understand the goals of all "insane" behavior, and a way to connect with any other human on this planet without any form of judgment whatsoever.

I'm partial to Peter Russell's interpretation:

http://twm.co.nz/prussell.htm

Michael you're addicted to language. Music is the proper model to understand universal mind. The source of the I-thought is created by repeating I-I-I which then resonates as "inner ear transduction." (featured in the latest WIRED magazine)

Asymmetric resonance is outside of axiomatic logic in phonetic language. The older language is the more musical it is. Music communicates information through ultrasound resonating electrochemicals which then create electromagnetic waves, and then bend spacetime, above the infrared spectrum.

In fact all of science is based on "equimultiples" while nonwestern music is ASYMMETRIC with C to G as 2:3 and G to C as 3:4 and 2:3 is Yang and 3:4 is Yin.

The unified mind self-organizes health, happiness and reality. Science is a subset of this larger natural resonance.

I've had precognitive dreams, seen inner flicks of future events when pondering a choice (after falling asleep then entering that place between sleeping and full wakefulness) and even "heard" a message referring to a dramatic event I would experience the next day.

Even so, I believe there is always choice -- reality is not predetermined; it branches, grows in unexpected ways. One precog dream was accurate (it involved a woman I wouldn't meet for the first time until several days later) and filled with details, but there came a point when what I'd dreamt (this had extended for years, to the moment of my death) diverged from what I experienced (created, some would say).

I buy the idea that we're all "buds" of All -- consciousness, whatever you wish to call it -- but I also subscribe to the idea that we are simultaneously expressions of intermediate non-material beings. I use the term "entity" for them -- it refers to that region of self common to many physical experiences, a kind of meta-self. It's accessible, too, without too much difficulty.

Regards

Bill I.

In simple reductionist language, we serve as a mirror for the universe to explore itself and the universe grows in accordance. The universe, in turn serves as a mirror for us to explore the nature of ourselves and we grow in evolutionary terms. Both are reciprocal processes.

The comments to this entry are closed.