• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe

Where is the seat of awareness?

Void said:
Well, there is the quantum physics experimentations that shows a researched expectations play a role in the outcome, and the fact is science is bound by human nature. You can do anything with statistics, and even science to some regard. The conditions and methology placed on an experiment can limit or effect the outcome. Whats more, as science advances to new perspectives, old concrete theories can become obsolete, or they only become relevant to specific situations.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you're trying to refute here. On one hand, I talked about the utility of science. And on the other, I mentioned that there isn't ample amount of evidence to categorically state that all scientists go in with inherent biases and design their experiments such that they'd obtain results that agree w/ their initial notions.
 
zoad said:
I know that the statements I make are bold and can be seen as extrodinary, and yes I will admit to distortion in my wording, but I will also maintain that science has, in a way, created itself and what it has observed. I could go on and on giving full and complete explinations for my arguements, but that is outside of the topic area of this thread and I really don't want to fill up page after page trying to justify my statements to people who believe in one system of thought so strongly that they themselves will try thier hardest to justify thier own beliefs. I will go no further than to say that beliefs create observed reality, and the belief system of science has thusly created what it percieves, it has created what it proves. Science happens to be a huge, global belief system, surpassing any other religion at this time and it is widely accepted. Science at this moment is a fundamental part of our accepted reality because we have put so much trust into it. Even many who say they align with other religions still put more faith in science. What I'm saying is: before our sciences, when the classic religions had mainstay with the mass populace, people actually saw gods in the skies. They witnessed wars and dramas between the gods becuase this was thier accepted reality. These where thier beliefs and those beliefs were reflected physically before them. In a way, the atoms and electrons and quarks have become our gods now, and these too are reflected physically for us. It has only been within the last hundred years or so, with the advent of the general theory of relativity and quantum physics (a completely theoretical science), that science is starting to come around to realizing these ancient concepts.

-Zoad
Click to expand...

I'm confused at what's being stated here. Your statement regarding belief creating observed reality is very tenuous to say the least. No doubt that in some instances a person's mind tends to associate some familiar objects (such as people's faces) in a seemingly random entries. However, even in these rare cases, people see these quirky anomalies imbedded in other objects which doesn't necessarily abide by the whim of the observer. Thus, belief has some factor on how we view reality but it's not the whole recipe. As for your god example, I think it's a weak example to support your argument. The appearance of god is subjective anyway.

Also, if I'm inferring your correctly, it seems to me that you invoked quantum mechanics to support your orignal statement regarding belief creating observed reality. The analgoy isn't quite there. Upon interaction between microscopic and the macroscopic, the superposition of the eigenstates collapse in a strange unexplanable manner. However, the particle doesn't care whether or not we wish it to be in this energy and that energy. We have no control on how they "collapse" as we can only make the probabilitic argument based on the coefficients for each of the available basis vectors.
 
However, the particle doesn't care whether or not we wish it to be in this energy and that energy.
Click to expand...

Ah, but it does. The particle is potential until it is observed, or really created, untill it collapses in that strange and unexplanable manner. Until then, as it is a potential, it exsists in the same pre-material fabric that the subjective mind works from. Like I said, your body is a direct reflection of you mind. The subjective mind exsist outside of time. It is the conscious mind, the material mind, the objective mind which creates the illusion of time as it moves from material frame to material frame, each time the subjective mind choosing which probable frame to move the objective mind to next. In this way, time appears linear, and yet there is an infinite field of probabilites exsisting parallel to each other, and they are real too, but we choose not to activate them within our material awareness. All the matter that we percieve is jointly created by all the individuals within this accepted reality, yet it is also self-sustaining energy, standing waves which automatically adhear to the template we project upon it. That is, you and all the individuals that are around you are choosing to stay within the same material paramaters so that our realities stay on the same wavelength. When you sleep or daydream or even do other drugs, you allow your conscious to loosen your grip from that accepted reality, to explore other wavelengths.

And so, it is beliefs, acting upon that subjective aspect of your mind, which creates the perception of your reality. And if everyone choose to beleive in the same thing, then that is what everyone will percieve. Hence, if people strongly, deep-down believe that there are gods in the sky and that these gods playout thier dramas and that these dramas have relevance in thier lives, then the populace will jointly see these evens materializing in the skys, gods in human-like image moving between clouds, because this is what the populace believes must be created.

-Zoad
 
Zoad: That hemispherectomy says exactly what I said. That patients with half the cortex removed haver serious problems. But of course, becasue it is in children, the brain is far more plastic and the regain some skills, but they are still perminantly altered.
 
"...all the children we followed up with are up and about and most have adapted to their handicapped side so well that they play the piano, golf, ping-pong and can dance," Kossoff added.

That doesn't sound very serious and nothing is mentioned of blindness. The children are much more flexible, but that is only because they allow themselves to be flexible enough to adapt quickly, whereas most adults these days are a bit more stuborn and don't believe that they can be as flexible. This is an example of how mass beliefs effect the outcomes of studies. An adult brain is just as functional and flexible as a child brain. You can ask spiritual gurus of this flexibility, the evidence is with them because they are the non-ignorant ones who have never left their childhood creativity and energy behind them.

-Zoad
 
Oh ffs. Your saying adults with serious neurological lesions are handicapped because they don't want to believe they can be normal.

So people who can't remember anything because of temporal lobe damage are just faking it? Likewise people who are blind in one field. And people with stroke too right? They just don't WANT to be able to wipe there own ass. I suppose thats true for alzhimers and parkinsons too.

The children arn't blind on one side because they don't actaully remove all of the cortex on one side, usually they leave the primary visual cortex.
 
...adults with serious neurological lesions are handicapped because they don't want to believe they can be normal
Click to expand...
It is a choice for experience usually made subjectivly. The decision to align with a peticular belief may not be objectivly known to the individual. The lesions themselves might have been created by the individual as an objective reflection of subjective conflict. In choosing to experience this, the individual would purposely align (subjectivly chosen to...) with the belief system of medicine. The individual whould produce symptomes aligning with what medicine believes lesions should be. Most children aren't "smart" enough to do this yet, though there may be some children out there who also choose to experience lesions. I also note that other people subjectively "broadcast" thoughts and children are very sensitive to this subjective stimulation. If there are adults in a child's life who are very worried for the child, that worry and the subjective images associated with it are impressed upon the child. If the child is strong-willed and able, they will naturally resist the images. If they choose to experience, they will allow themselves to be impressed.
So people who can't remember anything because of temporal lobe damage are just faking it?
Click to expand...
They are duping themselves as much as they dupe you.
People just don't give the human body what it deserves. It is a remarkable mechanism capable of fully supporting itself and maintaining perfect health. The main reason it breaks-down most of the time is because you impress so many conflicting energies upon it. Physical image is a direct reflection of the mind.
I suppose thats true for alzhimers and parkinsons too.
Click to expand...
Not nessessarely. Alzhimers is usually a transition disease, allowing the individual to mentaly translate into an after-death state more easily.

-Zoad
 
An adult brain is just as functional and flexible as a child brain.

I don't think that's quite true. A good example is learning languages. When a child learns a language it happens in a specific area of the brain that can never be reused. When an adult learns a 2nd language it is stored in a different part of the brain. There are instances where damage to the original area causes the patient to lose their first language but they can still use additional languages learned in adulthood! That's just one example.

Overall the childhood brain is a growing sponge, and many formations are a one-chance thing. While you can very flexible as an adult, it takes a lot more work, and some functions will never absorb to quite the same degree, as you are talking about roundabout adaptations. Though I agree (believe) with hard work you can get close.

You can ask spiritual gurus of this flexibility, the evidence is with them because they are the non-ignorant ones who have never left their childhood creativity and energy behind them.

This leads me to conclude that the above disagreements just come down to semantics, since I agree with this... and indeed the spirit of the rest of what you say. Giving up as an adult is naive, as you posit. However, there may come a point where repair and growth has to call it even (not quits, sure). Especially with brain damage.

They are duping themselves as much as they dupe you.

You are refering to agnosia there. Which only shows how fractured and frugal the brain is. An example is the condition blindsight, where a patient is blind but is in fact convinced that they can see. Stop me if we're not parked in the same garage BTW.

People just don't give the human body what it deserves.

Hmmm. A judgement call. A little too harsh in some cases. There is little that can be done about specific damage in the case of most agnosias. Assuming that's what you are talking about to start with. :\ But, as I say, I'm with you in spirit - i.e. don't give in.
 
BilZ0r said:
You're very mistaken saying that science is a religion just like Christianity. Science is faith. Christianity is a myth/legend that require faith. You have to have faith in order to believe anything. But the difference is that 'science' is a way of thinking that using simple logic from a set of testable axioms, to build up a set of knowledge. Now while all scientific testing involves basic faith along the lines of the fact that we can trust what we perceive to be reality, or at least closely related to it, it's not asking much to have faith in that. And even if you can't trust it, it's still the best thing we've got.

Classical religions involve believing what is written in a book.
Click to expand...

Uh huh... And when was the last time you physically tested Newton's inverse square law, or Einstein's theory of relativity? Seems to me your personal knowledge is just based on what is written in a book and taken in good faith. Most complex scientific thought is quite esoteric to most people, they have no choice but to take what science tells them at face value, including the claim that it is all testable. I think most religions use a set of testable axioms too (before they get dogmatised, that is...) except that they are only applicable within the context of the ritual or prayer that they are designed to facilitate.

A physicist is an atoms way of thinking about atoms.
--Anon.
 
Yes, but I know that a theory has been tested, and reviewed by people who do understand it completely

But anyway zoad, so if people are just fooling themselves to believe brain lesions cause impairments, then how do people know the had a stroke to begin with? They wake up, usually in a dazed state, and often forget about it, go back to sleep, and then the next day they wake up and they cant move half their body. How can you convince yourself about something you don't know has happened?
 
...so if people are just fooling themselves to believe brain lesions cause impairments, then how do people know the had a stroke to begin with?
Click to expand...

I did say that the choice is usually made subjectively (there may be consciously-controlled instances, the possibility is open). You can associate "subjective" with "sub-conscience" if you like, though my definition of "subjective" is a bit more extensive than what you think of as "sub-conscience". Where a psychologist may make divisions of the mind like "id", "ego", or "sub-conscience", I only make two divisions, though divisions are arbritrary: "Subjective" and "Objective". Objective basicly refers to all that is manifest as a part of physical reality. Objective has to do with the body, matter, thought and beliefs, even emotion. All that is felt in time is objective (this may not be the most accurate statement, but it is close:). Subjective refers to the timeless and much larger portion of the mind. The Subjective mind is the part of the mind which exsists outside of physicality and manifests the objective mind and all of physicality. I have related it to the sub-conscience because it is the hidden portion of your mind (but only hidden because you choose not to recognize it). Where your awake state is your "aware", objective state, your memory-less dream state is your sub-conscience, your "unaware" subjective mind, though you are still aware in this "unaware" state, you just have choosen subjectively to not consciencely be aware. That is to say: you have chosen subjectivly to consentrait objectively and to not consentrait subjectively for the purity of the objective experience. This state has been occuring for some length of time, and the is no reason why it couldn't change or that it was different some time before. Science developed as an off-spring of this objective frame of thought.

Science developed as people wavered away from the God concept in light of what they observed and created objectivly that couldn't be supported by that old, dogmatic conceptual framework (and these things where subjectively chosen to manifest in order to stimulate experience). So they built a new religion that could support those things. These people, though trying to explore what they could objectivley, still held to the those old dogmatisms (is that a word?) because even though they couldn't be proven objectivley or couldn't provide a logical and objective framework from which to operate in the "real-world", they still aligned with the concept of that hidden portion of the mind and world which isn't objectively observable. Though religion at the time couldn't provide objective answers (and it tried pretty hard and still does), it still gave hope that there was something beyond this world, and people hung to this subjectively knowing that this was true. There are many old religions in the world, and you may say that they are the oldest sciences, always trying to explain what couldn't be obvserved. Science, being open-minded at first, and trying very adimately to solve the world, turned just as dogmatic as the religions before it. People adheared to theories, believed strongly in the evidence and looked to stay loyal to certain theories that they perceived as correct. Science and Religion, ever since inception, have been a struggling between what is subjectively felt and what is objectively observed as a product of beliefs, which are effected both subjectively and objectively.

Back to the point now (*applause* on the change of flow:) :
Beliefs manifest what you objectively observe, You choose your beliefs. Subjectivley, the patient with the lesions chose to instigate the lesions for a reason, which may vary greatly from patient to patient. Your subjective selves are constantly trying to remind you of your own subjective presence and capacity. If there are conflicts within the objective mind, such as conflicts in beliefs or thought, your subjective and well knowing self will send your objective self messages in the only language it understands: objectivity. These messages take objective form in many ways: dis-ease, written data you have attracted to yourself, events you have led yourself into, etc. A stroke happens in the same way.

You will always lead yourself into new things everyday, purely for the experience and exploration. We all learn new things everday and these new things help us shape and form our beliefs so that they form more closely into something that can help us objectively understand our subjective selfs more efficiently. In light of this want to objectively understand the subjective, people have developed belief systems with the belief that they must be systematic. Because of this belief in systematic thought, many of these belief systems have become very rigid and as a result of that, many people try to adhear to many different systems, some of which are conflicting and may cause the individual to hold conflict which may or may not be reflected physically. Many psycho-dis-orders are the result of individuals with very conflicting beliefs. Many physical dis-orders and the result of the same. Dis-orders may not be created just for these reasons though: they may be created purely for the experience.

You are refering to agnosia there. Which only shows how fractured and frugal the brain is. An example is the condition blindsight, where a patient is blind but is in fact convinced that they can see. Stop me if we're not parked in the same garage BTW.
Click to expand...

First off, thank you for the insight killarava2day, but I'm not familiar with the term "agnosia". My point is: if the brain is fractured and frugal, it is because you have made it that way.

It is very hard for me to explain what I have a knowledge of within the framework of beliefs that most of the readers hold, so I must do alot of extra explaining to try and put these concepts across.

This whole thing is not the point of this thread, though, and I'm sorry for directing it to this point, that was not my intention. The question was: "Where is the seat of awareness?" In my honest opinion, the seat of "awareness" is where ever you focus it, and thats that.

-Zoad
 
Well that took up a lot of my time zoad, but didn't begin to explain how someone suffers from numbness, if they don't know they have had a stroke.

And what about drugs? How does someone get effected by a psychedelic drug if they don't know they have taken it?
 
I'm really tired of going on with this. If you want to keep reading banter like what I've been providing, then search the net for "Seth+Elias" and start clicking on things. If you are looking to change my views into yours, then give up: I'm the only one who is going to change me, and the same goes for you. I cannot change you, I can only answer your requests as best as I can and within the limits of these forums. If you are asking for me to translate my beliefs with yours, then I would have to write a thousand page book. All the things that I've said are not new by any means, and everyone has access to the information if they look for it. I am by no means an authority figure on this information, but I can provide what I know and have experienced. Can you provide your experiences concerning a stroke?

-Zoad
 
It should be a simple answer. How can people get a psychological response from something that has happened to their brain, if they don't know it has happened?

I know many people who have had stroke, I also have worked with many people who work in the stroke protection field. All I am trying to find out, is, is there any logic behind your belief system, and does it stand up to any scrutiny.
 
Yes, there is logic behind it, but the logic you use is a part of your belief system, and the logic I use is part of mine. I have to translate for you, using your beliefs to show mine. Most people are used to a standard logic set and arent used to changing thier logic. If people are confronted with different logic, they tend get uneasy because one change in logic changes the validity of alot of strongly held beliefs. And people dont give up beleifs easily. I'm trying to explain that the individual creates the stroke, actually manifests it, like, poof, there it is, out-of-no-where type manefestation. A tomor or stroke or even a zit is always within potential and you move your perception into that potential and make it real. You always have the complete freedom to move yourself into different potential realities, but your beliefs keep you on one accepted and standard reality which everyone engages in. You manifest something by moving it from potential into perception. That is all the energy you must exert and it is most effortless. Everytime you turn your head, you move things from potential into perception. The world springs up around you as you look left and right, only to fall back again when it leaves your perception. Our senses activate those potentials into perceved reality in alignment with our beliefs, and our beliefs go much deeper than supposed. The beliefs that you may recognize now, are very high level beliefs with beliefs stacked on beliefs creating mountains of logic which are based on basic assumptions about reality. Those basic assumptions are the foundations of your logic which you put so much trust in. Any one change in those basic assumptions and it disrupts the mountain of logic built around it, and it has become a very large mountain since science and capitalism started to boom. When I say "You create your reality," you become conflicted at such an obvious boast of power, thinking that you are the product of your reality rather than the sole creator of it. I emphasize that you do create your reality, in more ways than you may initially expect.

How can people get a psychological response from something that has happened to their brain, if they don't know it has happened?
Click to expand...
Because, what a person associates as knowing is what is objectively experienced, and other data passes by thier attention as unofficial data because they think that that data is irrelevant to the physical situation at hand. Thoughts and images fly through your head all day, multiple thoughts running paralell to each other but you usually focus on one line of thoughts which relate to your physical reality. Subjective data slips by your attention all the time, even right now as you read this, because you are not focusing on that data, you are focusing on what is being read. You may have a premonition about the end of the world, but never notice it. A stroke victim knew subjectively that the stroke was going to occure, and subjectively chose not to be objectively aware of it until the stroke went on long enough to cause whatever the desired disability is. Yes, individuals actually plan subjectively on having a stroke, and yet still be objectively unaware of it untill they subjectively decide for it to become objectively apparent.

Now, your subjective self is never trying to screw you and itself (still you) over. You never do something unless there is a pay off at the end. A stroke patient would experience life without the functionality of half thier body, or experience a complete recovery after years of dedicated therapy, or whatever outcome they wanted to experience objectively. The phrase, "God works in mysterious ways," is a popular one and as esoteric as it is, it remains significantly acurate if you substitute "God" for your name, for you are the god of your reality and you do work in mysterious ways. But you work regardless of mysteria, whether you are aware of how you work or not.

So, as a final statement or conclusion: You create the tomor in your appendix, or the clog in your brain or heart. You have subjectively moved it from being an objective potential, to an objective reality, where you objectively recognize it and take note of it.
 
Oh.
So does that mean you wont get a tumour, because you know not to create it?

(oh, and if one perons logic is different to anothers, from the same starting axioms, the one persons logic is wrong, that is the whole idea of logic)
 
So does that mean you wont get a tumour, because you know not to create it?
Click to expand...

Subjectively, everything is known, experience is shared freely and there is no privacy. Objectively, you may not know how to create a tumour, subjectively you do (...this is not to say you do not have the ability to create a tumour with an objective knowledge of doing so).

You are missing the point on the subjective/objective thing. Subjective information is always there with data on anything and everything. Objectively, you may not know how to access that information or even remain ignorant to its exsistance. There are many individuals who DO know how to objectively access that information. Subjectively, that information is constantly being accessed and used for individual purposes, objectively you may or may not realize this, though that information is always being reflected in your objective universe. When you meet a person, you instantly set up a communication with them subjectively before any word is even said. Two people who have never met, instantly know each other before any introductions, but you may not recognize this information objectively if you have remained ignorant to its exsistance or do not objectively know what it is yet. When a person says, "It was love at first sight," they are objectively realizing an aspect of these concepts. This is nothing new and people have literally been using these concepts for many eons.

(oh, and if one perons logic is different to anothers, from the same starting axioms, the one persons logic is wrong, that is the whole idea of logic)
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the whole idea of your logic. My logic says that there is never a wrong answer. My logic knows that any set of rules can be used and identified as logic. Saying what you've said, you limit your logic to one rule set and your arguement is correct for the logic you use. What you said is correct using my logic too, but my logic uses much more basic and flexible rules that allow me to interpret and understand all objective logic. My logic presupposes first that all logic is infinitely flexible and abstract. The logic that I am currently using for your benifit is a translation of my real logic using you're logic for translation purposes. Its as if I'm teaching you the basics of Latin in Englich words, but my Latin allows me to interpret all languages.

Ever read "Seat of the Soul" by Gary Zukav?
Click to expand...

Never read it but it sounds interesting. Do you know the copyright date on that book by chance?

-Zoad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top