He has done extensive work with ancient text translation and considers himself and Essene. I think he is accessible, and if you look at his website and don't see him coming around to your neck of the woods any time soon, consider shooting him an email. You might be surprised that he answers and is enthusiastic about your work. I know I am.
On Sep 14, 7:41 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11 Sep, 12:58, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Gregg Braden termed consciousness the Divine Matrix: > > >http://www.talktotara.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=139 > > I read that book about a fortnight ago. It's got some good points > in it, especially about the holographic aspect of the universe. The > actual matrix about which he speaks, I would term as either 'the > ether' or 'the medium through which our space-time expands'. I'd love > to sit down with him and put together some notes. He's also done some > work with the Sefer Yetzirah, which I've been working with lately, > and, if that code is ever truly understood, mankind would have a far > greater understanding of how creation works. > > > On Sep 11, 7:51 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So your argument is that although its "held in the brain" it is not > > > material? > > > > On Sep 11, 2:09 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Hey Just, > > > > > Yes that is the idea my claim is that conciousness is held in the > > > > brain, and so it must be a biological mechanism, so yes it does assume > > > > that answer. > > > > > You say: > > > > > ' If you realize (start from the fact that) consciousness is not a > > > > mechanism then the fact that manipulating a mechanism affects it does > > > > not mean its a mechanism or that there is a *mechanical* linkage to > > > > it.' > > > > > Which really is you doing the same thing is it not? > > > > > Of course not all mechaninsims can be said to be objects either. Would > > > > you not call mathamatical formulea mechinisms? Lets take Pi for > > > > example, is it not a mechanism by which a carpenter can figure out the > > > > diamater of round table that he has been asked to build? > > > > > On 10 Sep, 16:09, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Lee, > > > > > > Thanks for the great post it is very clear. > > > > > > I think there is a flaw however in your argument. Here it is: You > > > > > write: > > > > > > > If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of electricity and > > > > > > chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses both > > > > > > electricity and chemicals in order to work, yes or no? > > > > > > In general, if by "use in order to work" you mean anything like what > > > > > happens in steering linkages then I think your argument fails because > > > > > it assumes the answer. Here is why: > > > > > > If our consciousnesses are like steering linkages and if we manipulate > > > > > one end of the linkage the other end moves then it is safe to assume > > > > > that our consciousness "uses one end of the linkage" where "uses one > > > > > end of the linkage" means something like what happens generally in > > > > > mechanical linkages. > > > > > > If however, our consciousnesses are not like steering linkages and if > > > > > we manipulate one end of the linkage and the other end moves > > > > > (consciousness is affected by material manipulation) then it is not > > > > > safe to assume that our consciousness "uses one end of the linkage" > > > > > where "uses one end of the linkage" means something like what happens > > > > > generally in mechanical linkages. > > > > > > The possibility would still exist that if our consciousnesses are not > > > > > like steering linkages and if we manipulate one end of the linkage and > > > > > the other end moves (consciousness is affected by material > > > > > manipulation) then it is due to some other process than "uses one end > > > > > of the linkage" where "uses one end of the linkage" means what happens > > > > > in linkages. It would then be due to an entirely different process > > > > > that still allows the cause to be transmitted. > > > > > > Whether consciousness can be affected by material manipulation is > > > > > given and has been known ever since the cavemen ducked a rock thrown > > > > > at their heads. It does not rely on modern advances in neurology in > > > > > the slightest. > > > > > > If you realize (start from the fact that) consciousness is not a > > > > > mechanism then the fact that manipulating a mechanism affects it does > > > > > not mean its a mechanism or that there is a *mechanical* linkage to > > > > > it. > > > > > > Furthermore if you understand what a mechanism means to include > > > > > roughly it "being an object" and you understand that "consciousness" > > > > > means to be an "experiencing of the object" as *opposed* to the object > > > > > itself. Then saying that consciousness is a mechanism is a > > > > > contradiction in terms and no empirical question is needed to > > > > > determine whether it is materially affected. It cannot be affected > > > > > materially because what we mean by the term is not something either > > > > > objective or material. That does not mean it cannot be manipulated by > > > > > manipulating a physical object. It is obvious it can. It only means > > > > > that the linkage need not be material indeed cannot be material. > > > > > > Consider the mechanism of your brain. If consciousness is an objective > > > > > property of that mechanism then you are correct. But if consciousness > > > > > is not an objective property (meaning that when say "consciousness" we > > > > > mean something other than an objective property ) then describing the > > > > > influence of matter on it in terms of a mechanism which is an > > > > > interaction between two objects > > > > > > I further assert that what I mean by "my consciousness" is not some > > > > > property of what I experience. Therefore it is not objective, > > > > > therefore it is not material. > > > > > > Again thanks for the exasperated attempt at rigor and clarity. It is > > > > > actually that kind of clarity that is necessary to sort this out > > > > > > On Sep 9, 6:20 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Umm there seems some flaw here, now what is it? > > > > > > > Ahhh yes! > > > > > > > If I was to suggest that to manipulate where a car goes you need to > > > > > > use the stearing wheel, that sounds about right yes? > > > > > > > I was to further say that a stearing wheel does not in fact stear > > > > > > the > > > > > > car, it only manipulates where the car can be steared, then maybe > > > > > > you'll begin to see what is wrong with your statement above? > > > > > > > If we can manipulate our conciousness via the use of electricity and > > > > > > chemicals, then it is safe to assume that our conciousness uses both > > > > > > electricity and chemicals in order to work, yes or no? > > > > > > > Or put in another way. If I drink a glass of water and notice no > > > > > > change in the way my conciousness is working then it is safe to > > > > > > suggest that water is not a mechinism that conciousness uses in > > > > > > order > > > > > > to work.(apart from our bodies dependancy upon it of course) > > > > > > > On 5 Sep, 14:48, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > These experiments lend a lot of experimental support to > > > > > > > > > consciousness being primarily chemical and electrical. > > > > > > > > Actually they do not. > > > > > > > > They just lend a lot of experimental support to consciousness > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > manipulate-able through chemical and electrical manipulation of > > > > > > > ones > > > > > > > brain. > > > > > > > > But we already knew that. All it takes is to ingest a beer (or > > > > > > > two), > > > > > > > or -and I am not an advocate- ingest some LSD, and you will > > > > > > > know.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
