One of my earliest thought experiment : Look into pitch black darkness ( easy to find ). You see " pitch black darkness ?" Nothing ? Isn't it ' something,' since you are seeing it ? What is it ?
There's more to the experiment, as in how the ego behaves when the experiment extends. On May 1, 8:45 pm, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > Just contemplate for a moment what comprises consciousness. You are > conscious of sight, sound, scent, taste , your body through sense of > feeling. In your mind you are aware of these very things through your > memory of them. If your memory and the centres of these senses cease > to work for some time what would be there in your awareness. > Consciousness then would be aware of itself. There would be no shape > or a feeling of some object. There would be no I as that also requires > some sort of sense. There would be no thought as it would require a > memory of words or sound. It would be simply a state of coma. Go and > ask for general anaesthesia for a few minutes, that would be your self- > realisation. > > On Apr 30, 10:29 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Consciousness observing itself is nothing new. Being able to find > > cultural analytical memes as correlates too is nothing new while > > looking at/for the truth. The process is at once complex (as in ‘the > > many’) and simple (as in ‘the one’). This is no contradiction. > > > On Apr 30, 9:20 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 30 Apr, 16:31, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > No pat you did not insult my intelligence as it is hard to insult > > > > someone who is, I actually have that in my profile here, Title; > > > > Working Slob... I must say that you are a true character, Yahoo, LMAO! > > > > I always thought it might be pronounced Yaowee, as in if you had > > > > touched a hot stove! Consequently, most people after doing so, scream, > > > > hollar and shout profanity while invoking the Lord's name as well. > > > > Having had this thought in my head for some time, I have developed > > > > quite a tolerance for pain and most times remain silent. lol! > > > > Well, SLOB could be an acronym for Specifically Lazy Old Bore. And, > > > again, I'm only saying that for laughter's sake, not that it's true. > > > It could equally be Secretly Latent Omnipotent Being. Don't worry, > > > I'm sure you're not the only poster here who's fluent in the ancient > > > tongue of Profanity. But, of course, that raises the question what is > > > 'fanity' and why, then, is swearing pro-fanity? > > > > Have a good weekend!! > > > > > On Apr 30, 5:44 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 29 Apr, 14:55, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I am a working slob, Pat but not an unlearned one! I did, in fact, > > > > > > know this about the name יהוה > > > > > > The pronunciation, however, is probably incorrect! More likely > > > > > > Yahwee > > > > > > than anything else but hard to tell since the language has evolved > > > > > > so > > > > > > much through the years. The pronunciation "Jehova", is likely to > > > > > > come > > > > > > from the names of the characters that form the name which are; Jod, > > > > > > He, Vau an He. > > > > > > Sorry, I didn't intend to insult you intelligence; but, there are > > > > > other readers that may NOT have known, so I feel obligated to take > > > > > them into account. The pronuciation of "Yehovah" (really sounds more > > > > > like Yaa-hoe-vah [and DON'T forget to pronounce that final 'H' as it > > > > > has a 'dagesh' in it {a dagesh is a small dot in the centre of the > > > > > letter that, in some letters, completely changes the pronunciation. > > > > > For example, the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, 'Bet' is > > > > > pronounced like a 'V' without a dagesh but, with the dagesh, is a 'B'} > > > > > that, when present, demands the speaker to actually finish the word > > > > > with an aspiration!]) was the result of adding the vowels associated > > > > > with the word "Adonai" (ADNY with the vowels: short 'a', long 'o', > > > > > short 'a'; the word Adonai means "Lord" or, when used colloquially, > > > > > "my Lord", as the final 'Y' is the suffix that connotes the first > > > > > person singular possessive) and adding them to the letters YHVH. That > > > > > was done after the REAL pronunciation was lost. Personally, I've > > > > > always hoped that the REAL pronunciation was 'Yahoo' and that the > > > > > search engine of the same name has led the world to commit the sin of > > > > > 'taking the Lord's name in vain' to the point of common parlance. > > > > > 'Twould serve us right. ;-) > > > > > > > On Apr 29, 8:54 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 28 Apr, 17:07, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Pat, I am very impressed by your commitment and fortitude. I > > > > > > > > look for > > > > > > > > ward to your forthcoming book! I woner if you will be employing > > > > > > > > 11 > > > > > > > > dimensional M-teory to explain these concepts pertaining to the > > > > > > > > "One" > > > > > > > > or God as I like to call it? > > > > > > > > Actually, I'd be happy to spoil that one for you by telling you > > > > > > > now. > > > > > > > I'm opting for the very first 26-dimensional pure bosonic string > > > > > > > theory as the most likely. That way, using only bosonic fields, > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > various fermions are, in essence, illusory resultant products of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > interactions of the underlying bosonic fields. Thus, with the > > > > > > > original 26-dimensional theory, all 4 bosonic types (EM, Gravity, > > > > > > > strong and weak atomic forces) stem from one generic force and can > > > > > > > account for all that exists. My proposition is that 16 of those > > > > > > > 26 > > > > > > > dimensions act as the 1 extra dimension of M-Theory, the > > > > > > > remaining 10 > > > > > > > are the 4-D space-time and the 6-D Calabi-Yau space in which > > > > > > > consciousness exists (in 3 of the Calabi-Yau dimensions) and, in a > > > > > > > Platonistic way, where and how the underlying abstract concepts > > > > > > > we use > > > > > > > are defined (in the remaining 3-D area of the Calabi-Yau). It is > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > proposition that that 1 extra dimension of M-Theory is, in fact, > > > > > > > a 16- > > > > > > > D reticulum that acts as the medium through which the other 10 > > > > > > > dimensions expand. > > > > > > > > Thus, I can have an M-Theory approach, but actually employ the > > > > > > > original, most mathematically complex 26-dimensional theory and > > > > > > > explain how consciousness works and where ideas are 'kept'. My > > > > > > > reasons are that I need to not only explain our 4-D tangible > > > > > > > space- > > > > > > > time, but also be able to explain 7 heavens and 7 hells and how > > > > > > > THEY > > > > > > > can expand (which is alluded to in various scriptures); and only > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > the original 26-dimensional theory can both 'the seen' and 'the > > > > > > > unseen' be explained in a way that matches what God said He did. > > > > > > > And > > > > > > > it matches perfectly...but only by using 26 dimensions. I'm not > > > > > > > sure > > > > > > > if you knew or not but the ancient Hebrew name for God, YHVH > > > > > > > (commonly > > > > > > > pronounced as 'Jehovah'), has a numerical value of 26...and I > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > don't think that was by chance. > > > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 10:10 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 28 Apr, 14:16, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Energy is something whereas God is the source of something. > > > > > > > > > > You cannot > > > > > > > > > > explain God as he is above explanation. All attributes are > > > > > > > > > > manmade and > > > > > > > > > > useful only for our understanding which is limited. > > > > > > > > > > Omnipotent, > > > > > > > > > > Omniscient, etc. are meant for our finite understanding so > > > > > > > > > > that we can > > > > > > > > > > grasp an image of God. It is not good to bring any religion > > > > > > > > > > in this > > > > > > > > > > discussion as what we are trying is an exercise of logic > > > > > > > > > > and not a > > > > > > > > > > matter of faith. Religous people don't argue so much, they > > > > > > > > > > believe in > > > > > > > > > > what the scripture says and pray according to their faith. > > > > > > > > > > Some > > > > > > > > > > religions don't accept arguements and frown on such > > > > > > > > > > activities. I > > > > > > > > > > suggest that you close this topic here as it is too much > > > > > > > > > > above us and > > > > > > > > > > we may keep on arguing and yet yielding no mutual > > > > > > > > > > acceptance. > > > > > > > > > > Well, I bring religion in because I view it as a form of > > > > > > > > > evidence-- > > > > > > > > > open to us all. Whilst you can close this topic easily > > > > > > > > > enough, it is > > > > > > > > > my life's work to answer these very questions and, I'm afraid > > > > > > > > > that I, > > > > > > > > > personally, cannot close the book on it until I've written > > > > > > > > > that book. > > > > > > > > > And that will be done. You and many others believe that God > > > > > > > > > is so far > > > > > > > > > above and beyond us that we can never hope to understand Him. > > > > > > > > > In the > > > > > > > > > very face of that obstacle, I will persue it to the very end > > > > > > > > > simply > > > > > > > > > because others don't or won't. It's my obligation, as no one > > > > > > > > > else > > > > > > > > > dares. They say that fools rush in where angels fear to > > > > > > > > > tread, well, > > > > > > > > > I rush in where fools fear to tread. Some may think that, > > > > > > > > > then, > > > > > > > > > incredibly foolish, yet I view it as my office and > > > > > > > > > obligation. I'll > > > > > > > > > never fill in all the fine details, but I will pin down > > > > > > > > > enough that > > > > > > > > > the concept (of God) will be known and will be discussed, > > > > > > > > > because it > > > > > > > > > is my firm belief that God is NOT so transcendant as to be > > > > > > > > > completely > > > > > > > > > beyond our comprehension, rather, His immanence gives Him a > > > > > > > > > closeness > > > > > > > > > to us all that we, each of us, can hold on to and learn from > > > > > > > > > within. > > > > > > > > > All that is needed is a roadmap and a few guideposts and I'm > > > > > > > > > working > > > > > > > > > on them. > > > > > > > > > > I do agree with you that "energy is something and God is the > > > > > > > > > source of > > > > > > > > > something". I agree with that through extending that energy > > > > > > > > > back TO > > > > > > > > > its source. Essentially, God is a multi-dimensional object > > > > > > > > > of stringy > > > > > > > > > energy that is twisted and contorted in such a way as to > > > > > > > > > produce all > > > > > > > > > that is in this 4-D universe as well as everything in > > ... > > read more »
