this thing some people call god

dowed

:-D
Yes.

extent:
The space, area volume, etc., to which something extends

i.e.the universe/whatever multipleverse is endowed with magnanimous intent,
Knowing the extent of the will then is wielding/yielding in harmony with the entire cosmic contract, knowledge is being shared. Being is all doing. That thing you recognize or not as will is simply the answer yes or the answer no and hardly speaks for what fundamentally motivates as you choose between like and dislike. You likely believe that your will and my will are separate things but they are only variations on a theme.
Just because a cloud expands doesn't mean it is unfinished. A constant state of becoming is ever fresh not incomplete in any sense. A constant state of becoming means there is no past or beginning and there is no future or ending. What appears start and stop are the in out cycles of respiration, for every inhale there is an exhale. Knowledge is complete even as there is ever more to learn as knowledge is being shared.

Your purpose for time is to bring it to an end, ex. "will you tell me when it is done".
You think knowledge incomplete and perception knowledge in every sense and fact is knowledge, being shared is complete in it's being shared. That it is ongoing is it's completion, an out of time interval not relying on eventfulness but only on diverse perspective. Perception is not knowledge as you perceive things in isolation but isolated perceptions added up lead to knowledge. We transcend the dream of time when we awaken now.

Time dilatation.

There is another way besides going faster to achieve the speed of light. That is changing cosmic economies of scale, getting very small. Suddenly I think of steve martin and dan akroid but anyway,

The distance between orbiting electrons is in proportion to the distance between orbiting constellations but from the perspective of orbiting constellations the distances are exceedingly small so light parses that distance in a proportionally shorter time. I suspect there are even larger economies and we touch on them with the concept of the age periods of astrology such as the age of pieces or age of aquarius.

 

Hardly? It speaks for it entirely!

What is your will?

No beginning and ending, but for the self, for consciousness, the moment means a future and a past. Time of mind :-D

Not incomplete in any sense? lol Why make sense at all then? Completion is not the crown of becoming. Being is. Perhaps you think a sense of incompletion opposed to creation? LOL

Knowledge is being shared, but that does not at all mean it is complete in itself as 'knowledge'. :-D

Our purpose for time?! :-D I once said our thought for time is to end it in mind, but it's really only to make it our own, to have it as mind. That we do nothing for time, but everything for ourselves.

Its being ongoing is its completion? Sounds nice, but it's untrue. Its being ongoing is simply that, it's ongoing. Knowledge is always perception, is only ever the ongoing act of knowing. What isolation thedope? I don't mind you making things up, but why not have them stick around as well? lol

Into all space? Stop living in the age of pieces man! :-D

 

The will is shared the only thing you can choose is how to intend your mind.

To be.

Only in the sense that the thought comes first.

No it just doesn't exist. Being is complete. Incompletion is opposed fundamentally to wholeness or holiness. Notice I say fundamentally as these things are ideas. Creation is a law without opposite. People say no one is perfect but if no one is perfect who is the measure of perfection?

So knowledge isn't being shared?

The self exists regardless you perceive it or not, your perspective is transient. You show up in time temporarily.

Where is your contravening fact. Having and being are the same, not sequential.

Your individual perspective.

Yes

 

No, you can only think about tomorrow and think about or remember yesterday. No matter how much you think about it, plan it, wish you had done things differently, or even pretend you are there, you are still physically only in the now. Physically you are trapped in the Now. If I was not trapped in the Now, long ago I would have gone back to a time in 1989 and transferred my assets to a Swiss bank account. But I am physically trapped in the here and now, and there is no way I can undo what has been done. Through hypnosis and other techniques, I can actually relive, very vividly, my past, but I cannot change anything, I do not have the freedom to act in that past, and physically I am only in the Now. You would have to have an idealistic vision of the universe if you think I can do the same with the future---that I can see the future. But experience tells us that no matter how we see the future, it is never exactly what we thought---and that is because there is no way to physically step into the future. My mother has had numerous strange clairvoyant events and several times when I was a child, she told us of things that frightened, which later actually happened. But she was not physically in the future, and it did not always happen exactly as she thought it would. No matter how you frame it, physically, which is also to say, realistically, we are trapped in the Now.

I agree with your statement here on consciousness.

Wolfe is explaining Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, in the geometric terms of Space-time. So what you are saying is that Einstein is wrong. But let’s consider this for a moment. The first part of what I said (he explained) is that we move through space not time. You have tried to argue that we can move through time, but clearly try as we do, we are only physically in the Now. We can go here, we can go there, we can fly at 300 mph, or even faster than the speed of sound, but we are still only in the now---we can move around as time flows on, but we cannot physically move around in any other time, except the ‘Now.’

Now consider light, It seems like it is moving in space—we turn on a light and suddenly the whole space of the room is lit up. We move a powerful flashlight up towards the sky and the beam moves as we move the light. It seems like the light is moving through space. But didn’t I already point out that the only light we can see is the light that is hitting the vision cells within our eyes in that extremely small moment of Now? There is nothing that can allow us to perceive light in any form except for the right now instant, because there is nothing we can perceive that moves faster than light. We cannot see light coming or going---we only see the light hitting our cells right now. So what appears to us as light moving in space, is only the light literally in our eyes at the instant of ‘Now.’

There have been numerous experiments that have proved the faster we move the slower time moves for the individual in motion (but he is not moving in time, only that his ‘Now’ is progressing slower). This has been repeated by different scientists many times. One way is to take a very sensitive clock into an airplane that flies at a high speed, and compare the time on that clock with the time on a control clock on the ground. Indeed the faster we move, speed does slow at the rate as predicted by the Theory of Relativity. This implies that as we continue to gain speed, time continues to slow. Once we get to the speed of light, and time has stopped (we are now a zero-time entity) we find ourselves moving in the 4th dimension, not the 3 physical dimensions. This is the second half—time moves through time not space. Now remember how I demonstrated that light only exists in our physical universe in the very instant of ‘Now’ and that all other light is either in my past or my future?

This is because light is moving through time, not space. It seems like it is moving through space, but that is because we our physical universe is moving at the speed of time. We could switch it around and say that every photon that will ever strike the vision cells of our eyes are in a fixed position in space (they are moving in time not space). As the three dimensional universe flies through time (the fourth dimension), my eyes move through the 4th dimension from one photon to another (from one ‘Now’ to another). In other words, I move through space, photons move through time, and the point where everything converges is the point of ‘Now.’

Motion is infinite until it stops, then it becomes finite. Directions are infinite. Possibilities are infinite. But if the universe has an end, as many scientists have good reason to believe, then it cannot be infinite. If there is an end of time for the universe as many scientists also believe, then the universe itself cannot be infinite. If the universe is expanding, then at any given point of time, the universe is finite (with a possible infinite potential). If the zero-point field is infinite, then the universe is too.

But no one in their right mind would question whether or not one’s own consciousness impacts one’s own body or not. That is obvious. It has no bearing on whether or not consciousness can affect physical reality in any of the situations I gave. In fact materialist beliefs generally assume that the situations I provide should not happen, and that any significant results are merely coincidence (however, the actual results of these experiments demonstrate that consciousness does indeed effect physical reality, even though there is no clear physical connection).

You said,

Therefore, when I provide examples of consciousness impacting objects that are physically separated from both one’s consciousness, and one’s own body, and even separated in time, then the implication is that in these cases consciousness is at least partially disembodied between subject and object. So an argument around embodied consciousness does not even begin to pertain. So I ask again, how would consciousness affect physical reality in cases where there is no physical connection?

Not necessarily wrong, they are just using an overly rationalistic, and objectivistic definition of being---one that is not very empathetic..

Consider a two dimensional world. It has the dimensions of up-down, and front-back. If we encountered this world it would be nothing more than a film—infinitely thin—because there is no left-right (or side to side) dimension. We could pass through that very thin film because it includes our up-down, and front-back dimensions, but no living thing in the 2-dimensional universe would be able to actually perceive us in any sense of who we really are, or our 3-dimensional universe because they would see an infinitely small slice of the side to side dimension of our universe. On the other hand, we can see all of their universe, as long as we are not looking at it from a direction that requires the lacking 3rd dimension to see it. In other words if our eye is looking within the universe, and not from the outside, then it will become invisible, because there is no side to side dimension (I said eye, because only one eye could look within at a time, unless we tilted our head such that the two dimensions go across both eyes, but it doesn’t matter because it would be invisible anyway). So even though this universe contains two of our dimensions, it becomes invisible to us from the inside. Once we look at it from more of a side view, then we can see it again.

Because we have a side to side dimension, that is, one more dimension in our world, we have an infinite number of more new directions than this 2-D world. Therefore, we can move all over the place in directions the occupants of this 2-D world cannot, and we can have more spatial being too. We can therefore move all over and around these occupants, but if we try to appear directly into this world, it becomes invisible—it is infinitely thin in a side to side dimension, and our experience of peering inside of it, would be an infinitely small instant---so small that, for all practical purposes, it is invisible to us.

But the occupants of the 2-D universe would not even be able to comprehend that our 3-D universe exists. They could look up and down, front to back, and they would see our universe all around in those directions as their own, but what they see of our universe is an infinitely small sliver that cuts clear through the universe in those 2 dimensions. And that infinitely small sliver could be akin to that infinitely small moment of ‘Now’ that makes up the experience of light within our own physical world.

The point is, our 3-D world is not inside of the 2-D world. It is the other way around. And everything that makes up the infinite directions of the third dimension is outside of that 2-D world. In the same way, we are inside the 4th dimension, but that 4th dimension represents an infinite number of new directions that we cannot comprehend.

But let’s take this further. We are speaking of a physical 2-D universe, and if it just sits there, then it would be dead—like a single frame of film—everything in it would be fixed in place, and completely immobile. So there would still have to be a third dimension—a non-physical dimension that is time. This third dimension would, for obvious reasons, be the same direction as our 3rd physical dimension. In other words, this 2-D world would be moving across our third dimension so that time would exist, and there would be sequential events and therefore movement. It would still never see our 3-D world as it is—it would only see an infinitely small sliver of the side to side dimension of our universe, and that would only represent the ever-present ‘Now.’ Our third dimension would still represent the non-physical within this 2-D world, and its people could still not even comprehend what our 3-D world is like, other than that they had a past, and have a future, but at any given ‘Now’ they see an infinitely small film, or plane, of our universe, But that infinitely small film, or plane, makes up the total entirety of their universe. If we were to move from side to side, we would potentially be moving back in forth in time from the perspective of this 2-D world. But for us we are simply moving in 3-D space. Furthermore, it would seem that even the tiniest deviation from the up-down, and front-back dimensions would represent the 3rd Dimension, so even though these 2-D people could not conceive of it, we could argue that their third dimension of time exists in every direction.

Likewise for us, the only portion of the 4th Dimension that we can perceive, that makes up our physical universe, is that infinitely thin film or plane that is the ever-present ‘Now.’ It is infinitely thin in the back and forth directions of the 4th dimension, yet this ‘Now’ makes up the totality of our physical universe. And if we could conceive of what directions the 4th dimension would be in, it would add another infinite number of directions. We can’t see it, but if we consider that light energy as it is held in place by the inertia of the zero point field, and thereby creating mass as it jiggles back and forth in every direction then, unable to conceive a 4th dimension, it seems that we are moving simultaneously in every direction—which is the direction of time—the 4th Dimension.

As far as a finite universe, Dejavu, why would it matter if we had an infinite universe when you would have only a finite life—in that it would end when your physical life ends. I don’t truly know if our physical universe is finite or infinite. I know that directions are infinite, I know that possibilities are infinite, I also know that if the universe is expanding, and especially if it does represent a creation of light within the zero-point field, then at any given moment of now, it is finite, but it could still expand infinitely. But if there is an end of time, then, yes, the universe is finite, but that does not mean that there is not another universe waiting to be.

Perhaps you are confusing idealistic of an ideology (as in ‘young people are too idealistic), with idealist of idealism. An idealist would believe that there is a nonphysical aspect of the universe, and this usually takes the form of, or at least includes some form of, spirit or divinity, or some other form of God or essence. Your argument as well is very contrary to essentialist views. An essentialist believes that essence is the source of being. But essence is not a physical form, instead essence is usually interpreted along the lines of Platonic form, or a spiritual form or being that gives rise to physical form---unless of course you have some unique materialist version of essentialism.

I too would be a materialist, believing in only a physical reality, had it not been for some of the weird things I have experienced in life, and while wrestling with materialism. So instead I am an essentialist. So when you say that I think that consciousness has no form you are right only in so far as I do not think that consciousness takes a physical form. I believe that consciousness takes a nonphysical form, in a higher dimension, in a similar way that light is nonphysical. My interpretation of our thoughts taking the form of ourselves is that our physical form is literally a manifestation of our consciousness within the physical 3-dimensions. We are who we choose ourselves to be, but we are also here to experience. Our ego, as a filter between the conscious and subconscious minds, serves the purpose of keeping us focused on the conscious mind and the physical world. We each have our own individual essence, which is our consciousness, and because it is of a higher dimension, we each have much greater control over our physical reality than we actually realize. That is a form of essentialism.

Ah, Sartre would be proud of you. We cannot hold light, but we can hold mass created of light. As I have said, light exists in our physical universe in only the briefest instant of ‘Now,’ and yet even in that moment it is a zero in mass and time—it is a thing of the 4th dimension, and even where it exists in our physical universe, as a zero, it is a prime example of how something can arise out of nothing.

Yes—the Big Bang, but light could very well exist from before that even. I agree that light must exist. And I also agree that it is zero mass and time only by our own. Because what we understand to be our own is only the physical universe, where as light exists in the 4th dimension—which has infinitely more directions than our 3 physical dimensions.

 

the universe has a beginning and an end. to it is seemingly unreal when compared to the ALL

 

thedope:

LOL !

Done. Next! lol

No, there must be sensation for the thought to come at all. Next! :-D

There are many of your fellow human beings who feel many things are yet incomplete thedope! :-D Shall we agree at least that everything is in completion? lol

It is, which is why it's not complete in itself, but shared.

You're saying I show up in time and then I don't? lol When?! :-D

Already given. Its being ongoing. Ongoing completion is just that, but it is not completion in itself. Next! lol

No, it's not isolated. Next!

lol Space not enough?

 

Wolf:

No, I can step into tomorrow and into next week. What's my thinking and planning if not a stepping? True, the past is past, though that's where I want it!


I'll have to reply tomorrow wolf. But quickly, this:

When does motion ever stop?! LOL Those scientists you say have good reason to believe the universe is finite have the worst I've ever heard of! :-D

 

Quite untrue, Sensation is the function of the low-level biochemical and neurological events that begin with the impinging of a stimulus upon the receptor cells of a sensory organ. It is the detection of the elementary properties of a stimulus.
Stimulus is a property of vibration and luminosity, magnanimous intent.

Everything is here now.

That it is shared makes it complete. You are teaching yourself and the world without ceasing, that creation is a law without opposite and is the completion of knowledge.

I say the form of your life is an out of time interval because it has temporality, limited by time, whereas time is continuous.

What ongoing. Each moment is new, a new creation patterned on and informed by the previous reflection. The life cycle of a human moment is inhalation, the period of slack
tide, the time when we choose and the exhalation. You think you are waiting for something
having a sense of anticipation or of wanting more, of what you have no idea so you say life.

I can't see through your eyeballs nor my head occupy the same space at the same time as yours. That individual facet in a compound eye is the only measure of distinction that you have. Yes your perceptions are isolated or bound in a corridor of refraction, that is why perception is not knowledge but can lead to it as you become familiar.

,

Sounds like, if I defend myself I am attacked.

 

Wolf:

The speed of time?! I don't get it. The moment, movement, is instantaneous - the present is always present. Light travels at speed. It is physical, is energy.

That we may not perceive the physical connection doesn't mean there's none. Everything is material, but not everything is conscious.

There is always physical connection. We just may not always perceive it. Consciousness is always embodied. There is no void between subject and object. One of the most interesting results from the experiments is seeming retroaction, but it is explained away by 'the moment'. :-D

Why not take it all the way? 2nd 3rd 4th, how about infinite dimension? Let's be generous with the universe, it's the least we can do! :-D

Nothing waits to exist. Existence is inherent. Everything exists within more. Inherency is only possible in infinity.

Ain't a zero. There's no nothing. Infinity provides all 'contrast'.

You don't think consciousness takes on physical form, and yet it does. I guess we have nothing more to say to oneanother!? lol In leaving this discussion and stepping into tomorrow, I'll only ask - How couldn't it want form? :-D

 

There, you said it, kind of, trying not to! Thought is a property of sensation! The self doesn't need the thought to come first. Has no use for first causes. Next! lol

Still waiting on that pizza...

No, that it's shared only makes it shared. Personally, I haven't finished sharing, even though I'm leaving the net for a while in the sea of life. lol

I say old chap, there's no time out of time. Your saying so is erroneous. No time without life to make it baby! That's just space, the unfinished frontier! Next!

All ongoing. The moment is continuous. I await no man. There are a few women I'd wait on though! :-D

Ah, you're coming to your senses, sort of! You are not I! But perception is knowledge, and that you insist that it isn't is only a symptom of your misperception. Next!

Typical! It would sound like that, to a christian! lol Next!

 

There is no next with you it's all remedial except for the recent introduction of the thought on time dilatation. No I didn't say it trying not to. Stimulus is the thought.


Still waiting on that pizza...

I would say the proportions of your life are indefinite. You cannot help but share although you can try and hide your private perspective. You never leave the neural net.

My saying is my saying, nothing erroneous about it. I've given numerous examples of the common perception of being out of time. You are good at tuning things out but all the good that does you is to miss the signal and keep putting up this silly static.

You wait on yourself wanting more and leave others behind in your hurry.

And this fundamental error in your calculation is why you argue nonsense. You are so sure that knowledge is sensory perception that you are being duped by your own reflection. Doesn't make you a dull boy just means you can't keep up conceptually which shouldn't and I suspect does not concern you being a sensationalist through and through.

What is that supposed to mean? You have a vicious prejudice going on there. Not vicious to me but vicious to your sense of genuine proportion. The meaning of both phrases is essentially the same.

 

Which you said is a property of vibration & luminosity.

And it is, but how if it's supposed to come first? Keep pedalling backwards! See if it makes a difference! lol Next!

LOL Can't keep up conceptually!? In your conception. Stop facing 'the ALL' and get physical. lol

I am prepared to love everyone as you are, despite your unwillingness to articulate the fact. Your grievances will be left behind. Next! lol

It means you have things out of order in requiring one. You are religious, not just 'studious' as per your claim. You insist I have a meaning for 'god'. "Already attacked in defence," how remedial. lol NEXT!

 

See you, thanks for the words everyone! Back soonish!

 

Vibration and luminosity came before you and as I said before our thoughts precede us.


Still waiting on that pizza...

How are they different?

Don't know where you picked up the idea that I was unwilling to articulate anything!

It is not for me to decide the measure of our inheritance but not beyond our ability to recognize. Order exists in concentric unidirectional flow and is what I describe. I don't insist on rules which is obvious in our semantic musings. I hope it's true that you return but I don't count it already in my balance.

 

We both know that planning or thinking about something is very different than actually being there. I could think all I want about having sex with Jennifer Aniston. Or how about a ménage a trios with her and Salma Hayek? I could even try to make my wife dress up, put on a wig, but it just isn’t the same—I know, I’ve tried… (Just kidding). But no matter how I fantasize, I imagine it wouldn’t begin to compare to the real thing, or, maybe I would be disappointed, who knows. No matter what I do or think, I am still only here with my wife, or myself… Just like you are only here in the present.

Your argument probably seems to make sense in a world that is becoming increasingly abstract. Our reality is shaped more and more by the synthetic view of the outside world through the computer screen, the TV screen, or even the images shaped by PlayStation and X-Box. Even this discussion is taking place in an abstract world. Imagine how much more intense, and real, this conversation would be if we were all face to face in a coffee Shop (a grungy one in Montmartre, Paris, and the young Audrey Hepburn, wearing tight-fitting black clothes, sits at my side holding onto my arm, hanging onto every word. (though I completely ignore her, and then at the end of the evening, maybe I’ll have sex with her, maybe not, maybe I’ll just send some strange man to the apartment I keep for her (not far from the Notre Dame), and go home to my wife for what is left of the night’s darkness. Or maybe I would send one of you home with her, after I took her to a dark back corner of the coffee shop and lectured her on modern day nihilism, and palmed her some white pills—opiates—another breaking down of her innocence…)). (See? Real life could be so much more personal, exciting, graphic, and ‘real.’)

But seriously, the modern day world is shaped by what, Guy Debord, the Post-Modern Theorist calls, ‘The Spectacle.’ The Spectacle is an immense and powerful dynamic of modern Industrialized Societies constructed of commercials, promotions, programs, movies, websites, simulations, virtual realities, lights, music, holograms… It is the multitude of spectacles that bombards modern man, every day of his life, designed to either, seduce him, shape him, manipulate him, provide temporary happiness, replace live human interaction, or all of the above.

Porn is the perfect example of this Spectacle, as I wrote elsewhere, ‘With all the porn readily available, packaged for all kinds of consumption, it can easily lead to a sense that robs us of reality and becomes, what we believe is better than sex. Sex exists in the real world, the Spectacle of porn is the abstract world of a consumer-induced reality. It is abstract, unreal, and alienates us from the physical world, and the companionship of a fellow human being---even, if allowed to dominate our minds far enough, while actually engaged in physical love with a living partner. We are alienated because that partner can never be the fulfillment of all the immense multiplicity of perfect fantasy partners created by the Spectacle---and thus we suffer from alienation---from ourselves, and from our partners.’

You speak of the physical world, yet you suggest a reality that is so alienated from the physical world itself that fantasy becomes the real…

So yes---I guess thinking about tomorrow might seem like you are in tomorrow---but, I’m here to tell you, you are still physically in the present. At best, you are only experiencing some extremely abstract form of simulacra.

If there is an end to the universe, then all motion would stop at that point for anything within our universe. What is so bad about their reasoning?

Their reasoning doesn’t mean that they are right, but we won’t know for a long time, maybe never…

Ok, let me try this one last time. The only way we can understand the reality outside of us is by perception (this again relates to esse est percipi). More than any other perception, that of sight, is the strongest determinant of ‘Now.’ I say this because we see things before we can feel them. In my ‘Now’ I may not be standing near enough to something to touch it (or even smell it), but I can still see it. It may take me 5 minutes to walk to a specific object, but I see it in my ‘Now’ as about a 5 minute walk away. I can see things before I hear them. In my ‘Now’ lightning strikes a mile or two away from me, and I see it happen almost spontaneously as it happens. But by counting how many seconds it takes for the sound of the thunder to reach me, I know how far away it is.

On the other hand, if I look in a telescope, I can see a galaxy 400 Million Light Years Away. In my ‘Now’ what I am seeing is that galaxy as it existed 400 Million years ago. In the actual ‘Now,’ 400 Million Light Years away, that galaxy does not even exist in that same spot anymore, and who knows what kind of changes have taken place to it. But that is not my ‘Now’—it will take about another 400 Million years before that becomes the ‘Now’ for earth. No matter what I use to try to see that galaxy—an X-Ray telescope, a radio telescope—my ‘Now’ is always going to be of a galaxy 400 Million years ago. But if every photon stretches clear through time, then obviously every photon that is being emitted in the direction of earth’s intercept at this very moment, from that galaxy 400 Million Light Years away, is at this very same moment clear across the universe hitting earth at that point of intercept, in the 4th Dimension. Yet trapped in time as I am, it will take 400 Million years before earth as I know it in the 3 physical dimensions will actually be in that spot intercepting those light waves. The light is already there, it is only my continuous moments of ‘Now’ that are 400 Million years away from it. That light cannot travel in space to where I am, I cannot travel in time to where it is.

Yes, light does travel at a speed in a physical sense from our perspective. But that is because we cannot perceive of the 4th Dimension. It seems to me that to conceive the world in the way you are suggesting, is to insist that only Newtonian Physics applies to all of reality.

I could also say that just because we may not perceive of any non-physical essence, does not mean that there is none. I feel like I have presented a very strong argument in favor of the non-physical, using something that we always experience, and yet through which we cannot perceive of a physical form—light. After all, we can see light, but we cannot hold it.

It is only a dogmatic reductionist belief in physicality that will not let you admit anything other than a materialist viewpoint. Consciousness is always embodied because we think it appears so in normal experience. But the experiments I describe suggest that this is not always the case. In fact you say there is no void between subject and object, yet I presented the experiments at MIT where the conscious intent, was created at one time, and the experiment itself was done at another time. The experimenters were therefore not even present during the actual experiment, but it was separated from the act of consciousness and the affect on physical reality by a gap of time. The separation, i.e. creation of a void, was not only physical it was also in time. And these experiments were designed to be easily reproducible. However, if you want to truly see phenomena representing disembodied consciousness, take part in a Lakota yuwipi ceremony.

That is true. Consciousness may very well be of a 5th Dimension, or even higher. Einstein needed another dimension above our 3 to make sense of the universe. Today there are models of the universe that suggest something like 64 dimensions…

This takes us back to Hegels dialectic of being, non-being, and becoming. A universe that is always in the process of becoming, has infinite potential in infinite directions, but at any given moment of ‘Now’ it is still finite.

But speaking of inherency is an interesting thing to bring up. I love the Japanese term of inherency because it speaks directly to the meaning of that which is within, or that which underlies—in other words we are implying essence. This brings up the point that, even if a physical universe is finite, even if it has an end point, this does not prevent it from being infinite—it just means that the infinite aspects are found in the nonphysical aspects of that universe. Yes---the inherent---the essence is only possible in infinity.

Those are very bold statements. And they sound so Newtonian. How much mass is there in a particle that has zero mass? (“And for the winning question, what is your name, Bob?” “Heh, I knew it when I came in here…” “It begins with a B, Bob.” “Uhhhhh…” “It ends with a B, Bob…”). (Sorry---I’m just having some fun with you…)

But I like the part about infinity—it seems like a point I was trying to make too…

Correction, I think that consciousness is non-physical that manifests in the physical realm as physical form (i.e. our physical bodies). Though our experience of consciousness is still one of non-physical form.

I do think it wants form—it wants to experience the physical. Which is why we are here in this physical realm. But I think that in its own non-physical realm, it may even be able to create its own physical sense of form—who knows, or another form that we do not understand.

But---I do have to thank you! Not only has this been a fun and interesting discussion-----it has given me ideas, new perspectives, and even some more structure, to which I can rewrite a chapter in my book that I was not happy with, but have been too lazy to go back and tackle until now. (You see, I am trying to prove that there is only a physical universe, and that the non-physical cannot exist… JUST KIDDING! I think it should be fairly obvious what the chapter (and the book) is about…)

 

The whole defines the part but the part does not define the whole.

The future is an artifact of current emergence, a memory in effect of a time that doesn't exist, same as the past, both representations of living tissue.

The constantly becoming complete in their constant becoming.

There are even strange states of physical that we do not recognize as physical or we find the physical behaving in unpredictable ways.

.
Two votes for prejudice, however I feel it is un-intentioned as it reflects a form of indoctrination. World views are represented by dendritic constructions that shunt or transduce energy into the same perspective every time it receives a particular stimulus. These world views then are crystallized constructions that propagate at the same frequency no matter the proportion of concern, the angles of a crystal remaining the same no matter how large a crystal grows. The only way to reorient frequency is to expose the current position as wanting in reliability. That is, when we discover that our previous learning has led us into suspicious relations with the world. At that point we may decide to give up our life in order to find it.

 

Very good points thedope.

That is why, don't tell Dejavu, but I might let you be the one to take Audrey Hepburn home after our philosophical discussions in this grungy Montmartre Coffee Shop. (But then again, she did stick her foot into Meagain's crotch under the table (and here she thought I was ignoring her))...

 

Wolf:

A perceived delay, one might say, between the will and its actualization? lol What are you waiting for if you have thought 'all you want'? Should Don Quixote have stayed at home? Make it happen!

Twenty years too late for Audrey, but it's the thought that counts 'in here', so naturally, I'm game for all abstraction.

Not entirely though. I extend myself naturally to the individual.

I suppose it all hangs on whether or not you think our overall tendency, as human beings, is to the orgiastic. :-D

And? My moving into my future was my point all along! That I remain in the present can only be suited to it! :-D

I have suggested no alienation, no disembodiment, let alone a 'partial' one! lol I suggest no metaphysic.

To reason against infinity is to be closed to the fact that anything 'ending' only does so within something else. You can of course choose not to know, for all the good it will do you! ;-D

Then it seems that way to you. lol All sense is physical. As thedope would say, there is no idle thought. But there are brighter thoughts than others! For all the 'concern' we may show for the physics of a thing, that a thing not be denied its physicality is the heart of our passion. Intelligence not only wants free speech! :-D

LOL Oh, you behold it enough to hold it! The only "argument" in favour of
the non-physical is disappearance!

Not true. You want to have me a materialist, whatever that means to you, and so you will, but only as you have me. lol The 'separation' you speak of simply isn't one. In what is the consciousness disembodied? I hope the yuwipi in question is not being 'killed' for your notion of disembodiment! Keep on waxing it if you want to!

If anything is ever 'found' in its "non-physical aspect" be sure to let me know! lol If it turned out that nothing was essential, everything wouldn't thereby become desirable, only certain things, to be sure! :-D

Ah, but I'm not living under the assumption of zero-anything! lol My perception isn't everything! It's only mine! I love when it's shared.

Thanks to you too for your words, hence this final reply, at least for this thread. :-D I'm going awol again.

"Correction,I think that consciousness is non-physical that manifests in the physical realm as physical form (i.e. our physical bodies). Though our experience of consciousness is still one of non-physical form. "


Correction then. :-D Consciousness is physical that manifests in the physical as physical. lol Our conscious experience is physical. What you are trying to get at, in words, is that consciousness can create the physical? I agree entirely.

Proving the physical is all there is would take us out of it alright! Loving it however... :-D

Not all of them, look, I'll go through them.

thedope:

No, as I keep saying, to his eternal objection, and thus the maintenance of his lie, the part does define the whole, albeit in part, the whole never having stopped being defined, definition itself ever ongoing.

thedip:

No, only the past is an artifact of emergence. No-one remembers the future.

thedeep:

With that he's agreeing with your point ( which I don't ) that the universe, at any given moment is still finite despite infinite potential, in short, that it is finitely infinite. Really, infinity is infinitely infinite! Feel free to quote me on that! :-D

thedapple:

This is true, though in reply to what you wrote, ie. that not perceiving the non-physical doesn't mean it doesn't exist, he doesn't question why one would ever try to make a case for 'non-physical existence' as you are, and as he tries to too! You are both like bizarre priests to me, shunting inscrutable beliefs to their ultimately insupportable corners! But I do not believe in an ultimate reality. In my company you are never 'forced' to believe in infinity! lol

thedoppel:

Votes?! LOL Show them through, for even prejudice is a preference! It is you that would have my 'world-view' wanting in reliability! It's ok, you can go on wanting! The actuality will 'out', as they say, for it is inherent! Let's make sure no-ones learning is 'previous'! :-D

Wolf:

Wisdom, in her beauty, looking more and more like life the longer I look at her, makes eyes at me! She beckons to me in her laughter! Not for my having twenty years on you and thedope, but for moving! For knowing how I move! Knowledge, here, is no open book, but an open mind, embodied for all time! Yes, we are in love, let those who profess only to know our infatuation feel the roll of our mirth at the girth of their fatuousness! lol

 

Leaving them unscathed by your critique.

The part never perceives the whole owing to it's personal perspective. The part only attempts definition, definition being ongoing. I can mince words as well as dice, slice, chop, halve and quarter them.

Simply the future is an imaginary projection of what may transpire based on memory, period.

Really, I will have a hard time remembering such a vain proclamation. Complete does not necessarily mean finite. If infinity does not equal zero then complete is not finite.

The only unsupportable corner I have seen in our conversations is your idea that you will live forever as you are. That somehow you, among all other beings in this world have happened upon the fountain of youth. That there are transcendent things is demonstrable as I showed earlier.

Let the record show as it does, that you go through my words Dejavu as I simply repeat them. I regard your view as naive.

Do you question your own accounting?
:

Dude, I've been banging her for some time, you keep chasing that tail though!