this thing some people call god

Discussion in 'Philosophy and Religion' started by themnax, Aug 11, 2013.

  1. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    i believe there is a big friendly invidible blob of nonphysical energy.

    and because it wants everyone to be able to be happy,
    every thousand years it chooses someone from among the people of each world and place,
    through whom to tell people how to avoid making their world a place that makes everyone unhappy.

    i believe they never get it entirely right.
    and people imagine all sorts of things about this blob of energy and about the people it chooses to try to tell them what it only wishes for their happiness.

    i do not believe it ever chased anyone out of any garden,
    but rather, when it tried to explane to them,
    that by destroying it they were destroying themselves,
    this is what they chose to think it was telling them,
    because they thought it was great fun destroying things,
    and didn't want to believe that something no more powerful then themselves could destroy things they didn't create,
    and that only something more powerful then themselves,
    as a big friendly blob of invisible energy could do that.

    for many lives of a person on end, one after another, for more and longer then they could count,
    they were few and the world was big, and there would always be someplace they hadn't destroyed yet.

    but they were wrong, because they kept getting more and more of themselves,
    but their world was only so big after all, and didn't get any bigger then when they began living in it.

    there are still may places they don't go very often, but even those places have not been spared of self denial.
    and they still keep wanting to blame and thank the big blob of invisible energy
    that never wanted anything but to tell them how to stop making their world a place that would make them sad.

    i think everyone knows what it has always been really trying to tell them,
    even though they've written books telling each other what they want each other to call it,
    and how they think it would want them to be.
    everything else really, except the one thing it really was trying to tell them.

    it isn't for me that i say this. it wasn't even for itself that the big blob of invisible energy has always been trying to say this.
    it only for each persons happiness in life.

    the very simple secret, that was never meant to be a secret at all.
    only it is a thing people hide from themselves, and tell each other to hide from themselves.
    because they don't want to believe how much is entirely up to themselves.

    is that any place can be a heaven, any place can be a hell.
    it only takes this one thing for a place to be a heaven, and no more then the lack of it to be a hell.
    and that thing isn't believing the lets pretend about the big friendly blob that people have put in books.

    its really much easier then that.

    its just also not so often believed, because to believe it would mean not being able to blame and thank everything on the big blob of energy,
    but instead accepting our own part in MAKING the way things are for each other and ourselves
    to see and feel and be made happy or sad by.

    and that thing simply is to be considerate of everyone and everything, without regard to anything else we might feel or believe about them or about anything.
    for everyone in this same regardless way, to have the same consideration for all of each other.
    if and when people do that, where they are becomes a heaven for all of them.
    because if they try to make it a heaven for only some,
    they make it a hell for everyone including themselves.

    i know people are not going to want to believe this when i say it.
    they have always made books that say everything else.
    because they'd rather say the blob of energy is this or that,
    then just stop destroying everything and themselves with it.

    when they knock something over they want to say, 'oh, we've made the big thing mad at us and it hit us on the head'.
    for some crazy reason, they'd rather say that
    then 'oops, i knocked that thing over and it landed on me'.

    people do this because they want to think the blob of energy made everything just for them,
    so they can destroy everything all they want.
    well they can do that of course. but there's always only just so much, even of everything.

    there are other worlds, but the blob of energy didn't make them for us to destroy.
    it didn't make this one for us to destroy, if it even made this one at all. but whatever did, it wasn't for us to destroy that every place and every thing was made.
    and we can destroy a thing. we can do that. and we do do that. and then when we do, what we have is a destroyed thing.

    the blob of energy didn't destroy any gardens and it didn't destroy this world.
    all it ever wanted and tried to do, was to tell us how not to destroy these things ourselves.

    that is my religion.
    the blob of energy isn't about telling everyone to worship itself.
    its just about wanting people to know how to not make everything so that it makes everyone unhappy.

    you can worship it if you want to. there's nothing wrong with that.
    but if you want to do what it would really want,
    just don't be making things to be in a way that makes each other unhappy.
  2. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Makes sense to me...
  3. Maelstrom

    Maelstrom Banned

  4. Dejavu

    Dejavu Until the great unbanning

    You lost me! :-D
  5. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Non-physical energy---did you know that Einstein's Theory of Relativity suggests that particles of light---photons---are zero-mass zero-time particles, which means that, in fact, light does not exist in our physical universe.

    Our physical universe is a universe that exists at sub-light speeds and is therefore trapped in time. By trapped in time I mean that we have no choice but to let time flow. On the other hand, at the speed of light, the whole life of the universe, from its birth to its death, is nothing more than an infinitely small instant, and, if we were to achieve that speed, and suddenly existed as pure light energy, we would suddenly exist simultaneously at our starting point, the final point of where we and the universe around us ends, along with every single point in between. Our friends who did not accelerate to light speed could continuously calculate our position, as we move away from the earth at 186,000 miles per second. After a day they would say we are light day away from earth, after a month, 1 light month in distance away, after 1 year, 1 light year away, after 10 years, 10 light years away., and so forth, until they die and all their descendants die and the earth becomes a cold dead rock in space. Yet from our perspective, we are still at the launch site, and at the same time, across the universe as it dies, and every where in between.

    But we cannot reach the speed of light, we move around at extremely slow speeds compared to light. Yet every particle of energy in our body, is in fact moving at the speed of light. Because we have being and exist as mass, almost all the particles that our physical bodies are composed of, are jiggling in place, more or less, at the speed of light, rather than flying off across the universe, at least presently. There are photons that are constantly being absorbed by the atoms of our body, and there are photons that are emitted (after all, we live in a light filled physical world, and we are not only observing the universe around us (photons we perceive) but are observed by other observers around us (those perceiving the photons that are emitted from us). But each one of these particles, that we observe, that we emit, and that creates the mass that manifests our existence, are in fact simultaneously emerging from their individual births in the big bang, and ending in the last final moment of the death of our universe (or maybe they extend beyond into the next universes), and they simultaneously exist at all points in between, and that even though they may manifest themselves at this moment as our physical selves, for all our lives, their whole journeys across the universe is a single infinitely small moment of time.

    Everything we see, everything that is, everything we are, is composed of wave-particles that actually do not exist in our physical universe. Instead, our whole physical universe is a product of their existence within a timeless universe of light speed.

    Few people realize what an incredibly strange universe we exist in when considering the paradox of light. And yet we then think we can figure out how consciousness could emerge from physical matter. Even Jean-Paul Sartre, who argued for materialism, and dismissed any arguments for God, because we can know nothing but our own existential experience, still had to conclude that consciousness is emptiness, and the whole world exists outside of it.

    Berkeley said 'Esse est percipi' (Being is perception), and by this he meant that that is all there is---perception, and all other aspects of reality, are mere illusion. As it turns out, all there is to the world around us, is light, and therefore it is all an illusion. But the problem is still, if there is percipi (perception) there has to be percipiens (a perceiver----the subjective observer) (Please correct my Latin if I am wrong---there is also perceptum). If we live in a world of illusion created by a zero-mass, zero-time particle (i.e. nonphysical energy), could not consciousness itself exist as nonphysical energy?
  6. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    But in order to have nonphysical energy, you must have physical energy to contrast it to. Otherwise the term has no meaning.

    Nothing causes something in that something emerges due to its contrast against the field of no existence.
    But contrariwise nothing can only exist once something has arisen.
    Which is to say, they are the same thing....or no thing.
  7. Dejavu

    Dejavu Until the great unbanning

    Hi Wolf,

    Didn't know and don't now. Light exists. Definitely zero rest mass. Still trying not to get into particle physics! :-D

    What, did someone force him to?! :-D

    Bolded the bits that don't logically follow from their premises. Last question hangs on an if I can't get behind. :-D
  8. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Exactly Meagain---therefore within the field of the non-physical, the physical emerges. Based on the recent work of two scientists (whose names I can’t remember right now, but I speak of them in the other threads where we have had this same discussion), as light passes through the zero-energy field (which is light itself—the ground level of light energy of the universe), inertia occurs which alters the trajectory of the light forcing it to jitter in place rather than move in a straight line and these non-physical particles create physical mass which exists at sub-light speeds (i.e. in our physical universe). And yes, the physical and the non-physical are therefore the same thing.

    Dejavu, I’m having Dejavu---it seems like we just had this discussion within the past 6 months or so… ;-)

    You’re getting into quantum mechanics. I am referring to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity when I speak of light as having zero-mass, zero-time. However understanding the other implications and aspects of what I said involves quantum mechanics.

    However bringing up the Uncertainty Principle is an interesting point. To measure position is to create a physical position for the photon—it becomes a physical reality that we can perceive. It is as if our measuring position (i.e. mass) has the same effect as inertia in creating mass---and this was realized even before Einstein, with the very first double slit experiment. But it only happens when we measure it. And some of the odd variations of this experiment have shown that it is not even the measurement, but the intention of measuring it. In other words it is an act of consciousness that impacts whether light is a wave, or a photon with mass and position.

    I can’t think of anything humorous to respond with (it’s too late and I’m too tired). But seriously, as he tries to explain consciousness and being and nothingness based on his materialist existentialism, he is unable to escape the fact that based on the Western philosophical tradition, consciousness is subjective, and emanates from non-being.

    I just summarized Berkeley’s proposition, and didn’t want to take the time to go through his whole argument. Esse est percipi implies that all is illusion, and only perceptions exist. Yes, Dejavu, I know you can’t get into that ‘if’ because it is too idealistic for you, right?
  9. Dejavu

    Dejavu Until the great unbanning

    Nothing causes something?! What field of non-existence? :-D Nothing can exist when something has arisen?! When is something ever nothing?

    The field of the non-physical! What field of 'contrast' is there but infinity? lol The physical is everything.

    Yeah, I'm sure we had something like it. :-D That consciousness has bearing on 'things' indicates it is nothing short of physical. To me anyway. :-D

    Consciousness doesn't come from nothing, or from its not-being. It arises from matter, which is not to say it doesn't arise in itself, just not before arising as life form.

    I'd say it only implies all is perception, but it is not so. All knowledge is perception however. I see no ideal in disembodiment. ;-D
  10. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    But this nothing, this field of non existence is referring to what we have been talking about—the non-physical, and this non-physical that I have brought into the discussion is a thing----a thing we experience every moment of our existence: light. Based on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, light does not actually exist in our physical universe. So in terms of physical reality we can say it is nothing. Based on more recent research where Newton’s 2nd Law, the Law of Motion (f = ma, or force equals mass times acceleration), was explained (or derived as they say in Mathematical terms, and by which laws are supposed to not be able to be derived, because they are supposed to be laws not theories) using the inertia of the zero-point field (the quantum light field that exists through out the universe, as the ground energy of the universe) in place of mass—the implication being that mass does not actually exist, only energy, in other words, all that is, at its fundamental point of being, is nothing more than light. Non-physical creates the physical.

    But of course light exists, we experience it every single moment of our existence. But it does not exist in our physical dimensions, it exists in the 4th dimension, the dimension of time, because it is both without mass and timeless---and it travels at the speed of time (the speed of light). The physical world is trapped in time. We are constantly moving forward in time. But the only time we can experience is the ever-present now.

    Consider for a moment the photons being emitted from your computer screen as you read this. In fact, let’s refer to one single photon—one that is hitting one of the rod or cone cells in your eye right… wait for it… Now!

    This photon was not created by your computer screen, it was only emitted from your computer screen. In truth it has existed since the Big Bang, at least. It has travelled from the Big Bang, clear across the universe. It has possibly been part of atoms and quantim particles, perhaps it has just been lost in the vast sea of the zero-point field, but it has existed since the dawn of time. When it was emitted from your computer screen, it travelled so fast to your eye that you can’t even fathom the extremely minute period of time it took. But even if you could fathom that short of a time, you didn’t experience it leaving your computer screen, you didn’t experience it travelling through the space between your eyes and your computer. You only experienced it for an almost infinitely small period of time at the very start of the word now, but even before you perceived the ‘N’ at the beginning of the word, that now is gone. And in the 4th dimension, in that very miniscule instant of time, that wave of light stretched from the beginning of time to the end of time, SIMULTANEOUSLY, and it was all a single infinitely small instant.

    In our sub-light speed physical world, we can speak of how it was absorbed within another atom in our eye, while those photons that did not hit our eyes or bounce off of things have travelled off at 186,000 miles per second. We can understand it in terms of existence within our physical dimensions, but that is how we can make sense of it, and when we measure it as mass, we again are giving it a physicality. But that does not change how it fits into the Theory of Relativity, and perhaps all we are really doing is creating an echo of it--after all, that small moment of measurement---that moment of 'now'---is gone even after it was measured, and that photon is no longer there, and then, it was still an infinitely small point in the existence of that light in the 4th dimension---infinitely smaller than the infinitely small instant that is the whole life of the universe in which that photon simultaneously exists at from beginning to end. On the other hand, if all mass is created by the inertia of the zero-point field, and that in reality there is nothing but light, then in the 4th Dimension, it is we, and our physical world that do not even exist. It makes sense that at the speed of light we do not exist, when you consider that if we were able to accelerate that fast, we would become nothing but energy.

    If the field of the nonphysical is the 4th dimension, and if light exists in the 4th dimension simultaneously from the birth of the universe to the death of the universe, and all points that it has travelled in between, then yes, the nonphysical is infinity. But again, as zero-mass, zero-time it does not exist in the physical.

    But how can that be physical when consciousness, as consciousness itself (i.e. without using our own physical bodies) has no physical way of changing the physical. We can measure brain waves (the physical manifestation of consciousness within the physical organic body of the brain), but we cannot measure physical emanations of consciousness when it impacts physical reality, such as the intention of measuring mass in the double slit experiment, or the intentions that are placed in simple oscillators in experiments at MIT, and are then used to alter physical reality such as the growth of insect larva, the ph of water, and the clotting of blood. In the latter experiment you can argue that it is electromagnetic energy because the oscillators are composed of electronics, but once again, there is no measure of electromagnetic radiation, and the oscillators have no output. They serve only as vehicles, and it seems that there is no change in the oscillations when they have been measured, and it has been suggested that even just a vial of water would have the same results.

    I was speaking in terms of the Western Philosophical tradition which, since St. Thomas of Aquinas generally maintains that anything which does not have physical form does not exist.

    Well, we could say whatever we want, but then it wouldn’t be Berkeley’s argument if we said something different than what he argued. Esse est percipi is the phrase that most famously sums up Berkeley’s argument and has been attacked by existentialists like Sartre and other philosophers. A disembodied consciousness is almost always idealism,. as opposed to materialism. This is the sense that I was referring to.
  11. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Sorry this was somehow a duplicate post.
  12. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Here is another example of how light does not exactly exist in the physical world as a physical thing.

    Something with physical mass, that exists in our physical sub-light speed universe, is always there. We can see it approach, and we can see it leave. Even if it leaves at an extremely high speed, we can see it until leaves our field of vision, after which we can track it by radar, and so forth.

    But consider a photon of light, We could technically say that we can see it coming. But we can't. We can only see it in the smallest instant of 'now.' That is when it registers. Light cannot reflect light that would hit our eyes before that light hits our eyes.

    But what about that light that passes by us and moves off into space at light speed? Can we turn around and watch it disappear? No. Can we actually track its position? No, even if we can technically track it in a particle accelerator or other closed device---we cannot actually track it---theoretically it would take particles that move faster than the speed of light, and such particles move backwards in time. Because how would light reflect light back to us in order that we can see it? Simply stated, we cannot see light particles from their back side.

    For one thing, when we watch physical objects move away from us, or even track them by radar, they are still within our time context--even when they are moving fast enough that time for them has slowed in relation to our time. But light approaches us from the past, and leaves us into the future. The only time we experience it is a single imperceptibly small instant of now. We neither see it approach nor leave. We can't even see it from the side.

    Einstein explored this concept when he went through the mind experiment after asking himself, if I was a photon traveling through the universe at the speed of light and I passed a mirror, would I see myself. The answer was paradoxical.

    All we have is the Now. And all physical objects continuously exist in that now--from one now to the next. They therefore have existence. A single wave/particle of light exists in only one small instant of now. after that, it is gone from all the subsequent nows. Even if we say, No, in the next second it is simply 186,000 miles away from us, and the second after that, another 186,000 miles away---but that means nothing to us, because no matter how hard we try, that particle/wave is now imperceptible to us. And even if it bounces off of something and were to return to us (which doesn't actually happen as I have been corrected on by a scientist (it is absorbed and another photon is emitted)), we could still not see it approach, it is only perceived in some future instant of 'now' but again, only in that single 'now.'
  13. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    I am speaking in logical terms, I think.
    I am not saying that things do not exist, I am saying that you can only conceptualize a thing by contrasting it with another thing or against a lack of things.

    If there could be only one thing in the universe, and I am an outside observer, I would see only one continuous thing with no borders in every direction that I turned. That thing would be the universe entire. There would be no area where it did not exist, and so no area where nothing exists.
    It would be one.

    But once I commit the act of observing this "One" universe, I must enter into it. I must expand that universe to include the observation, and the simple act of observation introduces an observer, or another thing.
    So now we have the single one thing observed and the single observer.
    But in order to have a single observed thing and a single observer, there must be a separation of the two by a border or they would be the same thing. As long as the border is adjacent they will exist in the same time frame. But if we move the observer and the observed apart, thus creating two borders, we introduce the space/time continuum.

    So any one thing that exists, must exist due to an observation of its existence or we could not say that it exists.
    Once we say that it exists, we have observed its existence.
    Once we observe its existence we have established a border between two things.
    When these two things are further defined by acknowledging that each has its own border, as two borders are needed or we end up with a mobius universe,


    Space and time come into existence.
  14. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator


    When you use the term light, are you referring to the visible spectrum of light as seen by humans, as in luminous flux, or the entire electromagnetic spectrum, radiant flux?

    Or the sum total of any possible form of energy?
  15. Dejavu

    Dejavu Until the great unbanning

    We exist in light, don't we? :-D

    Been through this before as you've pointed out. :-D Simultaneity pertains to time. Infinity is physical. Light is never at rest. We're not 'trapped' in spacetime.

    Consciousness does change the physical, being physical. The only way to change the physical is physical. I want a drink, I get one. We haven't discovered the 'extent' of the will.

    I'd have to agree with him on that point. Even our thoughts take the form of ourselves in thinking them. Nothing is non-physical!

    That we cannot physically weigh the photon doesn't mean it's non-physical.

  16. Mountain Valley Wolf

    Mountain Valley Wolf Senior Member

    Yes, yes, and yes. When I talk of the experiential aspect of light, I am referring to the common concept of light as the luminous flux. For example, we can see light, but only in that miniscule moment of ‘Now’ when it hits one of the vision cells in our eyes (but we always see light because there is a continuous stream of light). But light is in fact the radiation that makes up the whole spectrum (radiant flux). It is just a matter of frequency. Ultimately, if Newton’s Law of Motion is actually a law of mass creation factoring in the inertia of the zero-point field, then all there really is, is light energy, and light energy would make up any possible form of energy, just as it does mass, with the zero-point field as the ground level of energy of the universe. Even the energy when someone pushes a car would be indirectly represented, because it is force being used to overcome the rest mass inertia of the car within the zero-point field enough to create some form of acceleration. And after all, everything would be fundamentally nothing but light.

    Even an electron is just another form of a photon. For example, it does not have position as it rotates around the nucleus of an atom. It is at all inifinite points at the same time, and in fact in such a state it does not have mass (if I recall correctly). However once we measure mass, giving it position, it suddenly has a position and has mass (we need Tastywheat or someone to correct me if I do not remember correctly on the statement regarding mass). I know that I am correct on position however. When we do measure mass of an electron, we are acknowledging that it is no longer light, but a particle of physical matter.

    This is all verified with the Double Slit experiment. They have used different particles for the Double Slit experiment, such as electrons, protons, neutrons, even actual individual atoms, and they have found that they all have the same results.

    Yes, and based on the theory I have been relating, not only do we exist in light, but we, and everything else in the universe, is light.

    Yes, when two things happen at a simultaneous moment of time, it does refer to time. But when all of physical time happens in one single instant, time becomes meaningless, because there is no succession of time. Time implies a sequence in which two things can happen at the same time, but there is time before that event and time after that event. If there is a single instant that represents all that is, there is no before time or after time in the standpoint of our physical universe. There could be a greater time, a time of successive instant moments of simultaneous big bangs, universes, and dying universes, in which case there would be a time sequence, but we cannot presently know this anymore than we can know Sartre’s God (which is unknowable if it exists or not and is therefore meaningless), and this still does not guarantee that all of that does not still form a single instant in the 4th dimension.

    But if our universe is finite, then ultimately, physically there is no infinity. Because once we reach the edge of the zero-point field, then there is only a great void. And if we were to move beyond that edge into the void, then the Force would no longer equal the inertia of the zero-point field times acceleration, and all mass would break down into light energy that would flow back into the universe. In other words, we could never penetrate that edge. We could argue that the infinite resides within, in infinitely smaller fractions, but even then, physically there is a finite limit to the physical universe---one popular theory is that physically this is the point of the strings that make up the universe as per string theory, or perhaps the space between the strings).

    Even if we were to add in the multiple universe theory and resolve the uncertainty principle with multiple universes (wherein each uncertainty creates alternate universes containing all possible certainties), at any given moment of Now, there would still be a finite number of universes. In fact, it is in this situation that Hegel’s dialectic of being and non-being makes incredible sense---on the one side you have being (thesis) and on the other, nonbeing (antithesis)---the synthesis is ‘becoming.’ The multiple universes would always be in a state of becoming, but they would always be finite, with a possible infinite potential.

    If this is the case----then ultimately the infinite could only exist in the 4th dimension or higher, where there I said there could be an unending procession of universes.

    And you are right, light is never at rest, in fact it is always moving at light speed—at the speed of time. But when light passes through glass or liquid or some other clear substance, it appears to slow down. But it cannot slow down, instead it jiggles.

    If mass is in fact light encountering inertia and being held in place, this does not mean that it stops, nor does it slow down, it is just jiggling at the speed of light in a relatively fixed point of space. In this way space-time is created, and mass takes shape, as mass bends the resulting space-time, gravity takes shape. Mass is all of this light energy jiggling at the speed of time. So what direction is the future in, or the past, which direction can we look to face the fourth dimension? Every direction, because light as mass no longer has a trajectory, it is jiggling in every direction.

    To not be trapped, means to move about freely. Can you freely step into tomorrow? Or Next week? Can you freely step back into last year? Could you take me back to 1988 or 1989 so I could prevent my first wife from stealing all my money out of my bank accounts? (And I have some investments I want to put that in.)

    The Quantum Physicist, Fred Alan Wolfe, explained this along the lines of, we move through space, not time. Light moves through time, not space.

    But thinking that you are thirsty and then getting a drink is using your consciousness to move your physical body. This is different than having a group of people sitting in a room, and concentrating on the intention of changing the ph of water, and conceptualizing that this intention be held by this oscillator, and then while the oscillator is in the same room as water, the ph of the water changes (which is one of the experiments that was being done at MIT). Whether there is a physical object (the oscillator) or not, the fact is there is nothing physical that we can detect that transfers energy from the mind/body of the subjects, to the oscillator, and then from the oscillator to the water.

    We understand light as physical, and while I am saying in this argument that it is nonphysical, I do still agree that in our sub-light speed physical universe we understand it in physical terms, and that can be measured. Therefore we do not see radio waves, a form of light, but whenever we turn on a radio we hear the energy that is transferred via these waves. But we cannot measure consciousness outside of the body. We cannot find any physical form that represents a transfer of this energy. Therefore, St. Thomas of Aquinas would say that it does not have form so therefore it is a nothingness. In fact, even light which has no mass (and is a zero-time particle) does not exist based on his philosophy. Mass is only physical form.

    I said,
    And you responded,

    Granted, the philosophy of St Aquinas is not law, or accepted in the same manner as Newtonian physics, but it does help shape many Western philosophical arguments. I actually agree with your statement regarding thought---but not in the same way you intended. In fact, Hegel would be very proud of you and say that you have latched on to the basis of his argument—but he was an idealistic essentialist, not a materialist as the philosophy you are proposing here.

    If our thought is composed only of the electrical activity of the brain, then I would agree with you, and have even, in the past, considered that as reality myself. St Aquinas would probably disagree, and state that the electrical activity is only the medium, but consciousness itself does not have form and is therefore nonexistent. For example, we can even use our consciousness to conceive of made-up things that do not exist, and concepts such as blindness (an example he uses) that do not take physical form, and therefore are non-existent.

    So before you argue that blindness does exist, because there are blind people, and therefore he is wrong, what he means is that there is no physical entity that we can label as blindness. Therefore it is non-existent. In this way, we could argue that blindness may be an essence, but it does not physically exist.

    Can you please explain to me through what physical form does consciousness exist that it may alter light from a wave to a particle, or impact the experiments at MIT, or the various phenomena that Rupert Sheldrake explores, or the results of countless cases investigated by Dr. Stanislav Grof? What physical form does consciousness manifest within in order to affect the physical world in that way.

    And if you weigh in the difficult paradox of the Uncertainty Principal and the implications it presents for ‘being,’ it seems to me the only way that we could resolve such a problem was if consciousness was from a higher dimension, outside of the 3 physical dimensions, such as light.

    But the problem is that it is a zero-mass, zero-time particle. And zero is the equivalent of saying, ‘nothing.’ My wife would say that if I had zero money I would be nothing. Seriously though, if you have zero of something, you do not have that thing. Sartre would argue in your favor saying that absence implies existence. If something is not there, it still implies that it is somewhere else. But even when light is here it is still zero.

    So I argue that it is not really here in the physical, i.e. the three dimensions of physical reality, it is in the 4th dimension. Now the 4th dimension was not conceived as real, it was simply added to make sense of the theory of relativity---how non-existent can you get other than that?

    But let’s ignore that for a moment and say that since we experience it, it is physically real. Our physical reality is composed of a nonstop, continuous now. Yesterday is gone, tomorrow never comes, there is only now. Things exist because they are existent in the now. When something is destroyed, it no longer exists. When someone dies, they no longer exist (once their physical body has rotted away to its essential elements, then they truly no longer exist in any form). Since we cannot return to the past, even absence does not imply existence in physical terms. That person, or that thing is gone---forever.

    Now consider a single particle of light from a distant light source, say, the sun, which is 8 light minutes away from us, meaning that it is 8 minutes away at the speed of light. If we are facing the sun for a period of 5 minutes, we could theoretically identify a light particle 3 light minutes away from us in space between the earth and the sun. But there is absolutely no way whatsoever to perceive that individual photon. So not only does it have zero-mass and zero-time, it does not have any perceptual being (existence) in our physical universe.

    If it was a planet or other object 3 light minutes away, we could perceive it, but because of this problem with light, we are always perceiving it 3 minutes in the past, but we continuously perceive it.

    We can argue from a theoretical perspective that this particle of light is there, but since we cannot perceive it, its being is meaningless to us. However, 3 light minutes later, for an extremely small instant of now, that particle is in the here and now of our physical universe. It is only at this instant, because we have the possibility of perceiving it, that we can state that it truly exists.

    If we perceive it, it is absorbed and then for all practical purposes it no longer exists. If we do not perceive it and it flies off into space behind us, then once again, there is no longer anyway to physically perceive it. So once again it ceases to exist.

    You could argue that by this reasoning, a space ship that is 3 light minutes away and moving away from us, also no longer exists. But that is not true, because we can still perceive it. For example, we can send a radio message to it, and receive a message back, even if it does take 6 minutes or more to happen. If we have a radar that is powerful enough, we can detect it, and if it reflects enough light or produces light, we could watch it through a telescope. This is not possible with a particle of light.

    When I wrote the argument of Berkeley as it is summed up, ‘Esse est percipi,’ (being is perception) and explained that he meant that all that truly exists is perception and everything else is illusion. You responded:

    And you bolded the part about all else being illusion. I assume by this that you understood ‘Esse est percipi’ in a more practical materialistic way that we perceive things and therefore they exist.

    With physical objects, we perceive them as they exist from moment to moment until they are destroyed, then they no longer exist. Sartre said that absence implies existence, because even if it is not here, it can still be somewhere else. But in the case of destruction of the object it is a past existence—it no longer exists anywhere in the present, and therefore no longer truly exists.

    In the case of the single particle of light, it is only perceived for a single instant, and that perception, is the end of its existence. It exists the very same instant it ceases to exist, so for light we could even say ‘Non esse est percipi’ (nonexistence is perception) and it would be just as true as Esse est percipi’ (existence is perception). Literally, light exists only in the briefest instant of the now, and by the time we even perceive it, it is gone forever from our physical universe. In response to Sartre, that absence implies existence, we can say that yes it does exist somewhere, but not in the physical universe, because it is no longer perceivable, just as it was not perceivable before that single instant of now. Where is it? It has moved into our future, it is where it has always been—in the 4th dimension, where it stretches from the beginning, to the end, of our universe.

    It is zero-mass, zero-time, and even if we say it existed for a very brief moment in our physical universe, during that same moment it ceased to exist, even before we perceived that we perceived it.
  17. thedope

    thedope glad attention Lifetime Supporter

    In the case of Dejavu we might be able to make a case for transcendence at a minimum.
    To have more is to transcend our history, transcending meaning going beyond the perception of. Another way to express the verity of transcendence is that there is always more to learn. Another is the expression of pure imagination where by no extant artifacts play a role in our apprehension. Another guise is the eureka moment, that seems to emerge of it's own from a place beyond our perceptive norm.
  18. thedope

    thedope glad attention Lifetime Supporter

    Limited power is a contradiction in terms. Not knowing the extent of the will suggests not recognizing the will at all. It helps clear up my refractions to say that the universe/whatever multipleverse is endowed with magnanimous intent and intent is the psyches notation for gravity. No multiple intents creation being without opposite and knowing the extent of the will then is wielding/yielding in harmony with the entire cosmic contract..
  19. jaredfelix

    jaredfelix Namaste ॐ

    Try to imagine the edge of our universe and all the planes of existence on our and the infinite others all contained in the mental creation from the ALL (creator) Its so profound. the universe is mental, law one of the principles of our universe...
  20. Dejavu

    Dejavu Until the great unbanning

    Well, I can freely step into tomorrow, next week too. Invention is free, the trappings of the preventative being a regret we can happily forget! :-D

    Wolfe is wrong on that count. Spacetime is continuum itself. I am amazed at where physicists forget themselves for their theory! Motion is infinite. Consciousness is the physical coming to terms with itself, for pleasure. :-D

    My body wanted that drink! It prompted my mind, for it is my mind, however abstracted. All terms remain physical through all becoming. That our own physicality mightn't permit of a certain measurement is still no reason to suppose the 'non-physical'! lol

    Life of course! lol Consciousness is only ever of life. Anyone would be wrong to say blindness doesn't exist, as though it could exist in itself without existing as a particular physical quality! There is no dimension existing 'outside' of another. Through it, naturally, but outside? Is it in our interests to hold the universe as finite?! ;-D I am an idealist if not an essentialist! I didn't 'intend' you to agree with me that our thoughts take the form of ourselves in thinking them, but I don't see that you do in asserting consciousness has no form. :-D

    To have and to hold? What does the 'measurement' of light really mean to us? Having is holding. It is neither zero mass or zero time. That we cannot measure its mass or travel at c doesn't dim our own light. Think of our sub-light sublimity as no mean concession to conscious expression! lol

    I meant it makes no sense to say all is perception then to add that all else ( what else?) is illusion. The two sayings are as true as eachother only in their being untruths. :-D What beginning and end? You mean the big bang? Lights 'stretching', its stream, its unending change through its motion is never its ceasing to exist. It is zero mass and time only by our own, and even then only in the attempt to measure it.

    Does it? I don't think so. We know the will. Will you tell me when it's all done? :-D

    Didn't know it had a first law! I have a feeling it's the lot. lol It is what it is. I like dopes law that creation is law without opposite. Yet he's over in another thread saying he's not his body! ;-D

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice