Mind/body Dualism

[Xaitis]

I currently am a dualist, however the issue of mind separate from brain is a complex and tough subject... one which I present to the brilliant people here at this foum.

Therefore, my question for discussion would be this:

From a materialist standpoint, how would one account for consciousness? Is that an explanation of how (in theory) a material thing could account for what would otherwise seem to be an abstract entity of thought?

For example, while the brain appears to be a powerful information processing tool there seems to be no working method which has the capability to explain how conscious experience can arise.

If I imagine a red flower, there is no red flower to be found in my brain yet I still see it consciously. When I imagine hearing sound, or another person's voice, my brain is not producing actual sound but I can still conscoiusly hear it.

Any suggestions? I'll add comments further in.

[todd]

Materialism?...ok

Image is created by reflected photons stimulating the neuronal terminations in retina, information is transported to the central nervous system through physical and chemical reactions in synapses. The total volume of visual information from this sensitive perception, corroborated with the associated previously stored information accumulated through all our senses is creating a little physical 'storm' in our brain which is being stored in our memory system defining the concept of "the rose" in our minds. Whenever a similar 'storm' will be recreated in our brains, our consciousness will associate it with 'rose'
Is this well enough? I hate materialism...

[CSwriter1]

Tood, why do you hate materialism?

You gave a good explanation of visual sensory perspection. Smell is even more fascinating to me.
The operation is pretty much the same, but under hypnosis, a person can be told an onion smells like a rose and that is what a person will smell. Or you know those pictures that look like one thing if you look at one way, or something completely different when a person thinks of the picture differently. Our thinking has much to do with what percieve or don't percieve.

And now we know, when we see someone doing something, it registers in our brains, as though we are doing the doing. Empathy is biological, however, this function of the brain can be disabled.

Than there are those people in a coma. How would you explain this state of being and consciousness?

[vicente]

"The best response is within a non-dualistic framework, and thus will hardly satisfy an intellectually inquisitive mind that demands an answer on its own terms. However, within the dualistic framework that we experience as our reality, the question is really a statement masquerading in question form, "asked" by an ego mind in order to establish its own reality and unique identity. Therefore, the questioner is really saying: "I believe I am here, and now I want you to explain to me how I got here."

Consciousness, being the first split introduced into the mind of the dreamer, is an ego state where a perceiver and a perceived seem to exist as separate "realities." Consciousness results in a concept of a limited false self that is separate and uncertain. This false self believes it is "here" and "asks" the question about its own seeming origin, thereby seeking to verify it. In truth, however, imperfection cannot emanate from perfection, and an imperfect thought of separation and division cannot arise from a perfect Mind, in which opposites cannot exist. Only in a world of dreams can these absurdities, and the beliefs that foster such uncertainty lead to musings like this.

The question therefore can only be asked by those who believe and experience that they are indeed separate and distinct, and it can only be answered by someone who agrees with this premise that the impossible has in fact happened, and therefore requires and even demands an explanation. Thus, only a dreaming ego would ask such a question, for the Mind (not to be confused with intelect/brain) could not even conceive of the separation which is the basis for asking the question in the first place. And obviously, if in reality the separation never happened once, how could it possibly happen a second time? Therefore, once again, it is a trick question, much like the comedian's question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" which, if answered, can only incriminate the person responding.

The book ACIM says: It is reasonable to ask how the mind could ever have made the ego. In fact, it is the best question you could ask, There is, however, no point in giving an answer in terms of the past because the past does not matter, and history would not exist if the same errors were not being repeated in the present (T-4.II.1:1-3).

In other words, why worry about how and why the separation happened in the distant past, when you are still making the same choice to be separate in the present?

ACIM continues: The ego will demand many answers that this course does not give. It does not recognize as questions the mere form of a question to which an answer is impossible. The ego may ask, "How did the impossible occur?", "To what did the impossible happen?", and may ask this in many forms. Yet there is no answer; only an experience.

Who asks you to define the ego and explain how it arose can be but he who thinks it real, and seeks by definition to ensure that its illusive nature is concealed behind the words that seem to make it so."

[CSwriter1]

I am not aware of caring how I got here. I am interested in intellectually stimulating discussion.

Nothing in your explanation, explains the difference between being fully conscious and in a coma. Considering your answer to the question of sensor perception, I am disappointed.

Your statement seems based on our ego centeric culture, which is also overly dependent on the word.
Smile, this group that manifest my response, does not consider your answer the last word on the subject, but rather a dead end.

[vicente]

Your statement seems based on our ego centeric culture, which is also overly dependent on the word.
Smile, this group that manifest my response, does not consider your answer the last word on the subject, but rather a dead end.

On the contrary, the response was quite direct regarding the ego centric question regarding an "intellectually stimulating discussion".

The thread opens: I currently am a dualist, however the issue of mind separate from brain is a complex and tough subject

To me the subject is rather simple and straightforward. Knowledge arises from the sciential/cerebro-intellect. It does not exist in the absence of the body (which by the way, never existed). Gnowledge arises from the sapiential/cardio-Mind. It exists without a body.

Knowledge is ignorance!

From a materialist standpoint, how would one account for consciousness?

That question was addressed in my previous post. However, as your ego-centric, dualistic inquirey was unable to grasp that, perhaps we should broaden the response.

(for a convenience to me, to save time in this response) ACIM continues:

If a God did not create the world or the body, who did? Moreover, who are we and how did we get here?

This is among the most commonly asked questions, and is certainly an understandable one. Almost all people believe that they are physical and psychological selves, living in a material universe that pre-existed their coming, and which will survive their leaving. The difficulty in understanding that this is not the case lies in the fact that we are so identified with our individual corporeal selves, that it is almost impossible to conceive of our existence on the level of the mind that is outside the world of time and space.

When the thought of separation seemed to occur, A Course in Miracles explains that man seemed to fall asleep and dream a dream, the contents of which are that oneness became multiplicity, and that the non-dualistic Mind of man became fragmented and separate from its Source, split into insane segments at war with themselves. As the Course explains, these fragments projected outside the mind a series of dreams or scripts that collectively constitute the history of the physical universe. On an individual level, the serial dramas our ego personalities identify as our own personal lives are also projections of our split and fragmented minds.

Thus we are all actors and actresses on the stage of life, as Shakespeare wrote, living out a dream that we experience as our individual reality, separate and apart from Who we really are as Real Self. Moreover, our minds have projected many different personalities in the collective dream of the fragmented little self, complicating the whole process. Therefore, the question "How did we get here?" must be understood from this perspective of the collective and individual dream. In other words, we are not truly here, but are dreaming that we are. As A Course in Miracles states: "[We] are already home, dreaming of exile" (text, 169; T-10.1.2: 1). And this is how the dream seemed to happen:

Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which man remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting [to laugh] did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects (text, p. 544; T-27.VITI.6:2-3).
These "real effects" constitute the physical world we think is our home. The following passage is perhaps the best description in the Course of the process whereby this effect came into existence, once man took seriously the tiny, mad idea that there could be a substitute for Love. As we shall now see, this resulted in the making of the physical universe which is believed to be an opposite to our true Home:
The physical universe substitutes an illusion for truth; fragmentation for wholeness. It has become so splintered and subdivided and divided again, over and over, that it is now almost impossible to perceive it once was one, and still is what it was. That one error, which brought truth to illusion, infinity to time, and life to death, was all you ever made. Your whole world rests upon it. Everything you see reflects it, and every special relationship that you have ever made is part of it.
You may be surprised to hear how very different is reality from what you see. You do not realize the magnitude of that one error. It was so vast and so completely incredible that from it a world of total unreality had to emerge. What else could come of it? Its fragmented aspects are fearful enough, as you begin to look at them. But nothing you have seen begins to show you the enormity of the original error, which seemed to cast you out of Home, to shatter knowledge into meaningless bits of disunited perceptions, and to force you to make further substitutions.

That was the first projection of error outward. The world arose to bide it, and became the screen on which it was projected and drawn between you and the truth. For truth extends inward, where the idea of loss is meaningless and only increase is conceivable. Do you really think it strange that a world in which everything is backwards and upside down arose from this projection of error? It was inevitable (text, pp. 347-48; T- 1 8.1.4:1-6.-5)

But A Course in Miracles further states that the world was made as an attack on Reality (workbook, p. 403; W-pIl.3.2:1), and this was accomplished, again, by the collective split mind of man that believed in its hallucinatory dreaming that it had usurped First Cause. This is the beginning of the ego's unholy trinity that was mentioned above in question 4 on page 4. The guilt over his seeming sin of separation and usurpation demanded that man be punished. Consequently, the fearful man sought to flee from his own insane projection of a wrathful, vengeful Reality who wished to destroy him. Therefore man projected his illusory guilt and fragmented self out of the mind, thereby miscreating a physical world of time and space in which he could hide from the non-physical Reality he believed he had dethroned and destroyed. Within these multiple dreams, the one man appeared to split into billions of fragments, each of which became encased in a body of individual insane dreams, believing that this would render personal "protection" against the ego's image of a wrathful Reality's ultimate punishment.
It is important to note still again that we are speaking about the collective mind of the separated man as the maker of the world. Every seemingly separated fragment is but a split-off part of that original one mind that sought to replace the One Mind of Man. Thus, the individual fragment is not responsible for the world, but it is responsible for its belief in the reality of the world.


Does A Course in Miracles really mean that a God did not create the entire physical universe?

We answer this question with a resounding affirmative! Since nothing of form, matter, or substance can be of Source, then nothing of the physical universe can be real, and there is no exception to this. Workbook Lesson 43 states, in the context of perception, which is the realm of duality and separation:

Perception is not an attribute of Source. Perception has no function in Source, and does not exist (workbook, p. 67; W-pI.43.1:1-2; 2:1-2).
In the clarification of terms we find the following crystal clear statement about the illusory nature of the world of perception, which Source did not create:
The world you see is an illusion of a world. Source did not create it, for what Source manifests must be eternal as Itself. Yet there is nothing in the world you see that will endure forever. Some things will last in time a little while longer than others [e.g., the greater cosmos, as we shall see below in a passage from the text). But the time will come when all things visible will have an end (manual, p. 8 1; C-4. 1).
And finally, a similar statement in the text:
Source's laws do not obtain directly to a world perception rules, for such a world could not have been created by the Mind to which perception has no meaning. Yet Sources laws reflected everywhere [through the Holy Spirit]. Not that the world where this reflection is, is real at all. Only because Man believes it is, and from Man's belief He could not let Himself be separate entirely. (text, p. 487; T-25.111.2; italics ours).
These passages are important, because they clarify a source of misunderstanding for many students of A Course in Miracles who maintain that Jesus is teaching that God did in fact create the world. They assert that all the Course is teaching is that he did not create our misperceptions of it. Statements which contain the phrase "the world you see," as in the above passage from the manual for teachers, do not apply simply to the world we perceive through our wrong-minded lens, but rather to the fact that we see at all. Again, the entire physical universe, the world of perception and form, is illusory and outside the Mind of Reality.
Therefore, nothing that can be observed -- nothing that has form, physicality, moves, changes, deteriorates, and ultimately dies -- could be of Source. A Course in Miracles is unequivocal about this, which is why we speak of it as being a perfect non-dualistic thought system: It contains no exceptions. And so the seeming majesty of the cosmos and perceived glory of nature are all expressions of the ego's thought system of separation, as we see in this wonderful passage from the text:

What seems eternal all will have an end. The stars will disappear, and night and day will be no more. All things that come and go, the tides, the seasons and the lives of men; all things that change with time and bloom and fade will not return. Where time has set an end is not where the eternal is (text, p. 572; T-29.VI.2:7- I0).
To attempt to make an exception to this fact is to attempt a compromise with truth, exactly what the ego wants in order to establish its own existence. As it states in the workbook: "What is false is false, and what is true has never changed" (workbook, p.445; W-pII.10.1:1). And again in the text:
How simple is salvation! All it says is what was never true is not true now, and never will be. The impossible has not occurred, and can have no effects. And that is all (text, p. 600; T-31.1.1:1-4).
In conclusion, therefore, no aspect of the illusion can be accorded truth, which means that absolutely nothing in the material universe has come from Reality, or is even known by Reality. Reality is totally outside the world of dreams.


What about the beauty and goodness in the world?

Following the above answer, we can see that the so-called positive aspects of our world are equally as illusory as the negative ones. They are both aspects of a dualistic perceptual universe, which but reflect the dualistic split in the mind of Man. The famous statement "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is also applicable here, since what one deems as beauty, another may find to be aesthetically displeasing, and vice versa. Similarly, what one society judges as good, another may judge as bad and against the common good. This can be evidenced by a careful study of history, sociology, and cultural anthropology. Therefore, using the criterion for reality of eternal changelessness that is employed in the Course, we can conclude that nothing that the world deems beautiful or good is real, and so it cannot have been created by Reality.

Therefore, given that both beauty and goodness are relative concepts and thus are illusory, we should follow the injunction to always ask ourselves: "What is the meaning of what I behold?" (text, p. 619; T-3I.VII.13:5). In other words, even though something beautiful is illusory, it remains neutral, like everything else in the world. Given to the ego, it serves its unholy purpose of reinforcing separation, specialness, and guilt. Given to the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, it serves the holy purpose of leading us to an experience of truth that lies beyond perception. For example, a sunset can reinforce the belief that I can find peace and well-being only while in its presence, or it can help remind me that the true beauty of Man is my Identity, and that this beauty is internal, within my mind and independent of anything outside it.

[todd]

The book ACIM says:....(T-4.II.1:1-3)
ACIM continues..
When the thought of separation seemed to occur, A Course in Miracles explains
As A Course in Miracles states:
A Course in Miracles is unequivocal about ....

Another dogma?

[CSwriter1]

Back to Xaitis's question "From a materialist standpoint, how would one account for consciousness? Is that an explanation of how (in theory) a material thing could account for what would otherwise seem to be an abstract entity of thought?"

Fortunately because Descartes asked the same question, the witch hunts where stopped. He took skipticism to its extreme, and questioned his own existence. Then he concluded, because he thinks, he does in fact exist.

He also concluded a prefect being exist, but the opposite could not exist.

From here I would say our individual and material brains with their extended sensory system, are as radios capable of receiving sensory stimulus and processing it. What I have a problem with is the idea that energy is matter.

Experiements suggest thought is energy, but is this matter? I don't think so. Exactly what is mass? I am confident my body and brain are matter. But my thoughts and emotions are not matter. Could we say our being is both material and non material energy?

I would say animals have consciousness, but I don't think they are aware of consciousness. That is, they don't question what is going on in their brains, and wonder if they could think differently from the thought in their head at the moment. I suppose we could wonder if Neanderthals were aware of their consciousness and if they thought about what they thought? Oh dear, I am running into a wall. What is meant by consciousness in the first place? Conscious of what?

Chardin said God is sleeping in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. That would make us God's consciousness. Individually our brains too limited to be fully conscious of all existence, and culturally our consciousness is limited by culture. However, I think we can be conscious of far more than we normally conscious of and benefit from pools of consciousness that are not matter.

[vicente]

....Descartes...concluded, because he thinks, he does in fact exist.


BIG delusion! How can one put the "i think", the ego, before the I Am?

The "i think" does not prove existence, it merely makes the unknown palatable. The "i think" must do that for its survival, for as ACIM said:

"the ego uses the body to conspire against your Mind (in this context the Mind has no relation to intellect), and because the ego realizes that its 'enemy' (the Mind) can end them both (ego and body) merely by recognizing they are not part of You (the Mind), they join in the attack together. This is perhaps the strangest perception of all, if you consider what it really involves.
The ego, which is not real, attempts to persuade the Mind, which is real, that the Mind is ego's learning device; and further, that the body is more real then the Mind is.
No one in their right Mind could possibly believe this, and no one in Their 'right Mind' does believe it"

What I have a problem with is the idea that energy is matter.


Energy is the motion of mass seeking balance. Is thought/thinking energy? Thought and thinking certainly arise from energy and mass, and can manipulate energy and mass. But is thought/thinking matter?

Buddhists say that thought/thinking, like feeling, form, and will (the skandhas) are not real. From my experience I'd have to agree.

Can I prove it? Certainly,...if you mean to point to something whereas you can prove it to yourself.

There are Transformational Triggers which can temporarily put our personality (ego) into a sort of paralysis or shock,...thus allowing the us we really are to be undivided.

Where religion always steps between us and our experiences, Transformational Triggers can precipitate for us an uncovering of tremendums, that is, direct ecstatic, sapiential experiences. These activities bring pause to ego, beliefs and attachment to the past, and thus, being free of preconceived references, engage us, if just for a "taste", in the Eternal Now,...thus transcending nature.

For me, the Supermarket Activity is one of my favorites. A key to successful Transformational Triggering is don't over analyzed,...just do it.

Supermarket Activity
Enter a Supermarket for one hour,...not a WalMart or Sears, but a market like America's Safeway, Albertsons, Krogers, Acme, etc. In the store, you touch nothing, not a cart, not a basket,...read nothing, talk to no one. If someone talks to you, touches you, or you touch something,...immediately pick up an item, go to the check-out, pay for it and leave. Then try again later.

Some suggestions: don't wear a watch, for someone may ask you the time,...unfamilar stores seem to be better, so your friends won't say Hi,...if you do have to suspend the task, you don't have to pick up something expensive.

I've also had good results showering without water, and not watching a movie,...popcornless.

Also,...read the JBC intro. For example "Not jumping to conclusions turns out to be a pretty good habit....Jump meaning to form a conclusion prematurely before all the data is in.
http://www.slimeworld.org/xxaxx/jbc_ndx.html

Vicente Marco

[CSwriter1]

Vincente, your are not relating to me. Perhaps we should begin again.

" From a materialist standpoint, how would one account for consciousness? Is that an explanation of how (in theory) a material thing could account for what would otherwise seem to be an abstract entity of thought."

You said soemthing to effect that we respond to stimulus, and are aware of this as thought. Right?

Now is the thought material or energy without matter?
Can there be energy without matter? Lets say, I have a brillent explanation of the universe, and drop dead at that instant. Does the thought stop to exist when my brain waves stop, or does the thought have an existance of its own? Sort of like, where does the flame go when the fire goes out?

However, experiments demonstrate, thoughts can control machines such as slot machines. This is not perfect control, but thoughts do seem to influence mechancial things. This would be energy with matter, right or wrong? The energy just isn't realized unless expressed with matter?

So of what you speak, there is an energy reality independent of material manifestation? Like fish of the sea, we are all of the sea? coming out of it and returning to it, separate but always a part of it?

[vicente]

Now is the thought material or energy without matter?

No,...I've never observed thought or energy without form. From Light's point of view (verses the current human-centric POV) neither thought, energy or form exist.

From a brain/human-centric mind that thinks there is a "here and now" or an "instant in time", it is impossible to not have thought, energy and form. The brain self (which is the perceived divided self), needs to think in those terms to make the unknown more palatable to itself. The brain-self even goes as far as saying that the unknown is not suppose to be known, or uncovered, to protect itself.

The intellectual brain-based generally don't have a clue about Thoughtlessness. Philosophical, brain-based people tend to be very closed regarding anything but their human-centric object-ive view of things.

The brain/intellect, as was previously mentioned, needs tp protect itself from the realization that there is no divided self, which would bring the brain-selfs dissolution.

Remember,...the Sages through history have said over and over, uncover your Thoughtless Self. To Thought however, this is very scary. Thought even suggests that this cannot be done,..."how could I take a bus into town, without thought?", Thought tells us.

However, experiments demonstrate, thoughts can control machines such as slot machines


And plants register feeling and emotions on kirlean film. But,...in response to your statement,...why wouldn't thoughts be interconnected with machines? The Sages say that when we cease identifying with Subject and Object, then they are all the samething,...no difference between a thought and a slot machine.

Samething with time. There is no time. So I would suppose that you could sit in a room at a casino and meditate yourself (astral-project) on top of some slot machines in the near future, and watch the kino board. When you see the number for the game in ten minutes, go down and buy a ticket.

So of what you speak, there is an energy reality independent of material manifestation?

No. I'm saying that energy is part of duality's illusion. Energy is as a by-product of the perception of separation from Light. Light is real,...that is the Stillness of Light,...what we call light-in-motion is a perception of separation from the Stillness of Light.

As what I'm speaking of is rarely (if at all) discussed outside certain Buddhist philosophies, and I'm aware of no book that discusses it adequately, I'll explain like this:

Let's take a trip in my amazing LightCraft. We are going to accelerate to the so-called speed of light, said to be 186,282 miles per second in space-time. That is to say, for every 186K miles of space, we perceive 1 second of time; hence from our human-centric point of view we will be traveling pretty fast. On the way, keep Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity in mind, for as we approach that light speed, time shall slow towards zero, space shrink to nothing, and as we cross a threshold where the mass of our LightCraft shall become as infinite, and we will experience dimensionlessness within the Stillness of Undivided Light.
For those who have taken this trip, there is an immediate realization. How did we reach a velocity of 186K mps and arrive at Stillness? In that moment they behold a gnowing or sapiential understanding from Light's own point of view, which is that Light actually travels no distance in no time. In fact, as you will see, Undivided Light has not traveled any distance in any time in all of eternity. The once human-centric held beliefs of space-time then shifts, and a reciprocal tremendum resplendently springs its metanioa. Our Duality Reality is actually 186K mps slower than the Stillness of Light.

All energy-mass is an effect within divided light. It makes no difference how fast energy-mass is moving, for even at 186,281 mps, the Stillness of Undivided Light will continue to be perceived as 186,282 mps faster, because the closer to Stillness one gets, the slower time appears to advance, and the more the perception of length contracts. The past cannot pass into the Now, regardless of how close one is to it; just as the Conditional cannot enter the Unconditional and allow the Unconditional to remain Unconditional.

Look at a star in the evening. The light we see is not the light that celestial body radiated in that perceptual moment. The manifested light we see from many heavenly luminaries beyond our solar system is millions of years old, while the closest, Alpha Centuri, is about four years along by the time it reaches our vision on Earth. Let's reverse the above and look at something close to you. Regardless of what you may think, you are observing the past; perhaps only a fraction of a second in the past, but the past nevertheless. We do not see the world or cosmos that surrounds us, but only the one which surrounded us, because all our sensed based cognizance arrives through the past, that is, that which is as beneath the Present of Undivided Light.

Thus: http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index...ct=ST&f=2&t=325 (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=325)

Vicente Marco

[CSwriter1]

Okay, Vincente, after saying all that do you feel better?

I am tired and will sleep on the thought that if we travel at the speed of light, time stands still. Is that right?

This, however, doesn't seem to have much to do with consciousness. It is not something I can experience, and I am not sure how useful information that can not be experienced is? That is, I can only "think" what you said, and I am not sure if this has value? Why should we care about truth we can not know through experience? CS

[vicente]

I am tired and will sleep on the thought that if we travel at the speed of light, time stands still. Is that right?

That's the Theory of Relativity in a nutshell.

This, however, doesn't seem to have much to do with consciousness

It has everything to do with consciousness.

Once again,...can you not see the humor in people seeking 'Who They Are' without understanding 'Where or When they are.' If you do not understand Where and When you are, how are you going to discuss consciousness?

Why should we care about truth we can not know through experience?

As there are different "levels" of love (agape, emotional, instinctual, unconditional, etc), so too there are different levels of experience. For example, experience born of belief can only be experienced through the condition of that belief. You cannot understand truth through that level of experience,...so, you must trigger ways to have a direct experience, that is, an experience with the predisposition of a belief.

I named several triggers to realize this,...ie: http://www.slimeworld.org/xxaxx/jbc_ndx.html

Vicente

[CSwriter1]

Okay, Vincente, I will agree belief influences our experience, but in what way would, understanding that if we travel at the speed of light- time stops, influnce our earthly choices?

Descarte's arguments ended the witch hunts. That is something I can care about. Right now the extreme foundamentalist right Christians are gaining power to control our nation, and that concerns me a whole lot more than what happens when traveling at the speed light. The Descare arguement was that is a powerful God, but not a powerful devil. It seems we have reverted back to believing there is a powerful devil, and those who believe this are gaining control of our governing processes. Perhaps we should return to Descarte's argument and the credibility of the bible?

[vicente]

Okay, Vincente, I will agree belief influences our experience, but in what way would, understanding that if we travel at the speed of light- time stops, influnce our earthly choices?

In all ways; for such clarity of understanding dissolves the splitting of Mind, that is, the perceived and the perceiver, while leaving only the perceiving. At the Stillness of Light, all objectification, seeing objects as separate things, becomes meaningless, thus, perceiving Light-centrically, verses Human-centrically, interaction is undivided, which is synonymous with joy.

Right now the extreme foundamentalist right Christians are gaining power to control our nation, and that concerns me a whole lot more than what happens when traveling at the speed light

Then perhaps you'd like my Spiritual Atheist forum: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Spiritual_Atheists/

My position on religion in America is this:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NMO/message/3

Vicente

[jesupocaplypse]

Is not matter and energy in way the same though?

When you take any thing any particle, any molecule, and 'zoom in' you'll see it is made up of atoms... zoom in further, and you'll 'see' it is made up of a nucleus surrounded by some electron cloud orb deal... What are electrons protons and neutrons made of? quarks?

keep zooming in, on these smaller and smaller 'things' and do you not eventually get to a point where it's simply congealed energy? energy condensed to a slower vibration...

But What is 'energy' first? There's no such thing as energy, you cannot show me An energy... can you?

Let's take brainwaves for example... We all know that the brain operates in 3 general wavelengths ... Beta Waves, normal, awake, active... Alpha Waves, (meditative, 'lost in thought', deeply relaxed, 'zoned out', half asleep... and then Theta waves... which is when your dreaming... i think there's a fourth... when your in the deep sleep of restoration... delta waves, i believe [correct me if i'm wrong about any of those]

Any way, for there to exist a Wavelength, of any sort, a wavelength being a certain measurement of a vibration, of 'an' Energy... there must exist some thing to BE vibrating... to create this energy, to emit these waves...

Are brainwaves... our state of Mind... the vibration of the Brain?

Or is the brain a Receptor, of the Mind ...of brainwaves... to translate them into physical experience/reality/existance... but where then do they come from?

for a vibration to exist, there has to be some thing to vibrate... but there also has to be a medium, of Matter for that vibration to travel through, to be received/perceived... a conductor..

Sound vibrations being of such a lower frequency require, some thing as substantial as air or (water) to travel through... and can pass through even matter as dense as wood or metal, light is much higher frequency, and can pass through Space (which is not really a void, or a perfect vaccuum), but cannot pass through denser material such as a wood or metal..

What is the frequency of brainwaves as compared to light or sound or radio or micro waves or such?

If we had a brain outside of our skulls could we pick up other brainwaves more easily?

Perhaps if two people had Outiebrains they could pick up each others brainwaves easily... and communicate telepathically!!


Has anyone here seen the movie "What the Bleep do we Know?" I highly recommend it to all of you interested in the workings of the mind, and quantum physics... it can be downloaded off edonkey... but i digress,, the point is the example in that movie showing how Water works as a conductor of Thoughts, of brainwaves, and showing the crystalline structure of water as subjected to different qualities of thought... the appearance of the water that was told "I love you" over the appearance of the water that was told "i hate you" then remember what percentage of the human body is made of Water.

mmmm time for another cup cinnamin coffee...


peace friends

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by jesupocaplypse@Apr 15 2005, 11:00 PM
Is not matter and energy in way the same though?


-- that's the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: energy into mass, mass into energy

I want to see What the Bleep Do They Know but I kept missing it at the local theaters. Then I broke my ankle & have been more or less housebound for the past couple months But now the ankle's healing up nicely & I've been getting out & about. A local church is showing the flick on May 1st so I hope to catch it then.

[CSwriter1]

Vincente, I am most pleased. I also feel a tinge of horror or dread, realizing how far the Christian right has come in its power to destroy our democracy. I have been committed to changing this reality, but became inhibited when I realized religion was the problem. That is until "Shock and Awe". Now I am less concerned about offending people and intent on rising awareness of the perversion of our democracy.

I wish you would add your information to what I wrote about "deism" in religion and the "crisis of democracy" in culture and politics. I wish you lived in the same area so we could get together to make a video, counteracting all the media saying our democracy comes from Christianity, and public education since 1958, that leaves the masses ignorant of our separation from Christian Europe.

But this subject is dualism and consciousness, so I suppose what has been said should be associated with the subject.
I need to break the possible subjects so far into two and will make a post for each one. Here, however, it can be said, what we learn is extremely important to our consciousness, and our culture is extremely important to what we believe and how we "feel" about what we think is true or not true. Our culture determines our social position when we state what we belief is so, and this true influences our sense of self esteem and further action or non action.

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by CSwriter1@Apr 16 2005, 10:22 AM
I wish you lived in the same area so we could get together to make a video, counteracting all the media saying our democracy comes from Christianity, and public education since 1958, that leaves the masses ignorant of our separation from Christian Europe.



CS, do you have a diy media place where you live? Here in Cincy we have Media Bridges (http://www.mediabridges.org/home.html) where ordinary folx off the street can learn how to use cameras & other video equipment to make their own videos & TV shows. One of my friends has his own diy TV show & sometimes I go down there & operate a camera for him. A diy place may even hook you up with like minded individuals interested in a video project like yours.

[CSwriter1]

This is so cool, and I have to meet obligations and leave for the day. Ouch, I want to stay here and respond to brain waves and thermal law. You all are so good.

Sonrisa, thanks for reminding I have the phone number of someone with the desired skills and similar interest. Am I the only one who wishes to be freer to pursue this stuff? Family and friends have become more demanding of my time than I desire. It is so hard to stay focused with all these distractions. But I also think it is a goal of this incarnation, for me to get along with people, and be more generous of myself. It has to my lesson, considering it is so hard for me.