Thought is independent of time

Nox:

I don't see the thread as a double slit experiment, but to each their own! lol

For those who, like I, understand consciousness to be embodied, time is not a constraint on thought. It's why we don't theorize consciousness to be independent of it. :-D

I don't see how thought can be 'outside' time, but I do see how easy it is to think it can be when we have not yet discovered we have all the time in the world. By we, I mean everyone. :-D

You don't mean quantum level do you?! lol

I once wrote here at hipforums that time is mushrooms. But it's really all kinds of things. :-D


tikoo:

Tikoo! If the fairy you speak of is life, you should know there is no reason without her to begin with! :-D Light has all the thought we can shine on it, but it will always be ours.

 

faerie is a creature of light and sometimes
a teacher . guys like descartes dissed this
sort of life . the life light is observable and
can be experienced as thoughtful . SPACE
is fundamental to its communication , um ,
as in jump family jump / speak light .

TIME is not universally relevant .

but thought is . Q

 

tikoo:

The fairy just whispered into my ear. She laughed - "Not even thought!"

How odd! think I. If nothing is universally relevant, I suppose we're left to make relevant everything we want. Most think we want a ground, a base, a camp, a relevance in itself to call home and call home from. Life. Jump family, jump.
Love!

 

Thank you for correcting me. I hadn't gone over the actual experiment in some time and had forgotten that it is a measure of position that collapses it to a particle, while not measuring leaves it as momentum (wave)---or however---you know what I mean. Because I got to working on this and wanted to write elsewhere on the question----I may not have gone back to review that experiment to make sure I was describing it correctly.

Interesting---I have also been wondering about the implications of light as existing in zero-space zero-time, because it travels at the speed of light---when it falls into a blackhole and its speed slows to zero. Does space-time suddenly become relelvant?

And in regards to energy exchange and light not being a particle---could it be that light is not a particle because it existis as zero-time, zero-space, and therefore, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Prinicipal is a problem of time (momentum) and space (position)? My mind is just wandering...

 

I have to explore this more. But it seems early to tell. In another article the researcher talks about simply repairing the wave/particle collapse. And doesn’t he do this by entangling the particles, which would already bias the experiment towards repairing the collapse. Then there is the question of intention. If we intend to, and actually measure the position we get a particle result. If we intend to measure position and then recreate a wave/particle duality, and do just that, then once again, should we not be surprised by the results in that it happened as we intended it to happen, in the same way that the original double slit experiment produces the results we expect to happen?

There is a scientist---I believe a quantum physicist who wrote a book claiming that even particles fit the scientific definition of life, and that in some sense they are all alive. I haven’t been able to read the whole book---it disappeared in my library, and I have been looking for it for several years---I hope I have it somewhere---I don’t even know the title so I would not be able to replace it.

But I do not mean to imply that light is actually conscious. Which is why I suggested replacing it with a person travelling at the speed of light. Even though it is not conscious, it is a reality of our universe, and the fact is, travelling at the speed of light, all space drops to zero, all time also drops to zero, which is to say that all space and time clear across the universe, becomes a single momentary point.

So from our perspective—yes, light is travelling but if we travelled with that light, current theory tells us it is all an instant from beginning to end.

(Well… actually I am an animist, but—for purposes of this conversation, I am keeping consciousness out of it in reference to light…)

That makes sense to me that the past is no longer happening----but for purposes of the gedankenexperiment----this is what I am exploring now-----Thanx guys! I was supposed to take my wife out for Valentine’s Day and now here I am locked in my office doing mind experiments! Thanks a lot!!!! ;-)

Just joking----but seriously, you guys got me doing some serious thinking here, but it fits right in as I was going through all this Heidegerrian philosophy…

You put no bounds on consciousness but you do not see how it can be disembodied. What do you see happening upon death of the physical body? I know you’ve alluded to the possibility of living forever in another thread, but…

Consciousness arises in the physical would be the argument against essentialism, being that it views being arising from out of essence, not arising from existence.

Actually I said it could arise from consciousness-not-of anything. I actually took my gedankenexperiment a little further, and I explored that idea a little further. I’ll post that in a bit.

 

Ok----I have written up an article based on my gedankenexperiment. Any suggestions on where to submit it? It is still in rough draft form---I will still fix the style and what not---but here it is. (P.S. you guys have got me to thinking on this, inspired me, and as we go back and forth, it has shaped my thought, and will continue to shape my thought, and so on and so forth. But to the best of my knowledge I haven't used any of your words, and if I do, I would certainly ask permission from you first and would give you credit. The same goes for any concepts of yours. Point it out if you think something is specifically yours. I will always give credit where credit is due, and would never steal another's intellectual property or creation----I am happy to share the limelight.

I am also in the process of writing three books. They tie together and are a response to the Post-Modern Crisis. The 2nd of the three has the working title, The Mind Dimension, and tries to present a rational model of the universe that includes mind (consciousness), or spirit, or God, however you want to refer to it. It covers some of my very crazy experiences (such as the tail I wrote about in the thread about consciousness as a priori or emergent). The model itself is based on a vision, or lucid dream, if you prefer, that I had while trying to make sense of the mind/body duality---but after the experience with the tail, so for me it was no longer a question of 'is their' but a question of 'how.' The book is also a response to Martin Heidegger's philosophy, and an attempt to take it back towards essentialism. (Heidegger was from a peasant farmer family, and you definitely see the vestigial remnants of the old Germaninc paganism in his writing. Unlike Nietzsche, he lamented the death of god, and his work on 'being' was meant to lay the groundwork back to a place where we may find that reality is truly godless, or that gods have returned).

Anyway there is a specific early chapter where I begin to deal more deeply with the quantum physics aspect of it, and so forth---in exactly the way of this gedankenexperiment. I have been putting it off for sometime--wanting to do more research or whatever---but this has got me something to work with now. So this will form the notes of that, and may even be largely the first chapter covering that aspect itself.

Anyway, the first part of the article kind of goes over what we have talked about---it starts out with the double slit experiment, and then quickly introduces St. Thomas Aquinas (those things we can conceive but do not manifest in physical reality do not exist), Descartes, (the mind/body split) and Kant (the concept of existence is a mute point), and how Western Culture is therefore obsessed with the existence of physical objects. Then I go on along the same lines as my previous post about a photon existing on one side of the universe millions of years ago, and striking the Hubble telescope camera today, and yet that is all one instant at the speed of light. It kind of repeats that post, but it carries the thought further along.

Dejavu---it ignores the Pilot-Wave theory---I still have to explore that further.

SO to save space, I thought I would start with the actual gedankenexperiment. But of you want to see the whole thing I will post it:




To explore some of the implications of this, I would like take you on a journey much like the kind of journey Einstein would take while contemplating such things. The German term for this kind of mind-travel is gedankenexperiment, or thought experiment. It will take us down assumptions that may not be absolute, but I am the tour guide and the driver on this one. Feel free to explore your own assumptions, after all, it is only a gedankenexperiment.

Here is the first question I ask to initiate the journey: If a photon ‘moves’ through time the way we move through space, then is movement, which as stated earlier appears to be a dynamic of time, necessarily restricted by time? If something moved in time, the way we move through space, we would see it or experience it for only an instant. In other words, it would have existence in our universe of here-and-now for only an instant—and in fact, each photon we perceive as light is only an instant of stimulus picked up by our brains. Yet somehow at the speed of light, science tells us that this single particle/wave exists for light years as it moves across the universe, and yet from its own perspective, and from the perspective of our here-and-now, it lives for only a single instant. From light’s perspective that single instant placed it on potentially both sides of the universe. Our here-and-now perspective has it only as an instant within our own physical here and now reality.

But if all that exists is only the here-and-now, where does light go before and after its momentary existence in our universe? We can argue that since space and time have been reduced to zero at the speed of light, that it is a mute point that it emerged into our universe millions of years ago from a distant star, because that is not our human ‘now’ nor is it the photon’s past. They are simply two separate time frames. But the implication is that the photons and the images they carry, entered into our here and now, from nothingness. After all, we have already determined that the past, because it no longer manifested outside of memories and casual influence, does not exist. The problem is, we experience the perception of that photon, and to that photon, that galaxy of millions of light years in our past, still exists. In other words, even with two separate time lines, we are able to subjectively experience something because it exists, but which we objectively determined does not exist.

This question is one thing if we are talking about a single photon, say travelling from that distant galaxy millions of light years away. But what is true of one photon, must also be true of all light everywhere within the universe. How can the here and now, be all that exists, when the light of the here and now, in this very instant of now, simultaneously exists anywhere from a minute fraction of an inch away to millions, maybe billions, of light years away, and which is also simultaneously, in our sub-light-speed here-and-now limited perspective, in our past.

Let’s add another dimension to this. We perceive our universe to be mostly empty space, or theoretically mostly empty space time. But we now know that the universe is not empty, but filled with energy—light energy. This energy field at every single point in the universe is at a ground level, meaning that it is the energy we start our zero point at when measuring energy. Therefore we refer to this as the zero-point field. It is the lowest energy state possible anywhere in the universe, yet it represents electromagnetic waves continuously vibrating clear across the universe. It is also why you can have particles suddenly appear and disappear in what appears as a total vacuum.

The researchers, Bernard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda, reworked Newton’s Principal of Motion (f = ma), and have mathematically shown that inertia, that property that gives mass (solidity) to matter is in reality the zero-point field. In their work, mass becomes an illusion created by light. The resistance on mass that makes it solid is the sea of light that makes up the universe. What we perceive as inertia is simply the zero-point field pushing on each and every particle that makes up that solid object. But now consider that the very quanta that make up each and every particle of that object is in fact light that is trapped in place to form the illusion of solid mass, again by inertia—the sea of light that is the universe.

This means that all of the objects in our universe are nothing more than light, held together by light. Somehow an aberration in the universal field of light energy has caused different wave lengths of light (or electromagnetic radiation, as it is also called) to rise up in a way that specific ones became trapped in place by the light field itself (inertia) creating the illusion of mass. However this energy as particle/wave does not exist in the here-and-now, and all matter has in fact risen from particles that exist in zero space time.

The argument now becomes one of slowing down light. Because if light travelling at the speed of light experiences a single moment of zero time and space, then light slowed down, must begin to experience space-time. In other words, as it slows then obviously that instant of existence, must begin to grow and therefore incorporate space-time. Slowing light is not so hard, scientists have in fact slowed down particles of light in the laboratory.

But does it really slow down? One explanation is that it doesn’t slow down, it just jitters around in place at the speed of light. Is it possible then that by losing its linear direction, it creates space-time? For example, if we add this into our gedankenexperiment regarding the structure of reality, we can say that there was an interference or an aberration in the zero-point field, that gave rise to light energies, and among those light energies there are those which encounter resistance by the energy of the zero-point field (inertia), and are therefore held in place by the same field. Now rather than moving in a linear direction, they only jitter in place, and through the action of inertia create the illusion of mass, and the jittering creates space time—because, 1.) mass has dimensions and by being held in place these particles create the illusion of dimensions of space, as they create the illusion of mass; and 2.) all of the universe, jittering in all directions at the speed of light, is therefore moving at the speed of time, i.e. the speed of light—not in a linear fashion, but in all directions, or in a 4th dimension if you will. It is the loss of linear direction of this light energy that gives rise to mass, and it is the rise of mass that gives rise to space-time.

But those individual wave/particles of light are still moving at the speed of light—even if not in a linear direction. We therefore could suggest that they still exist by themselves in a reality of zero space and zero time—a single instant. The Big Bang, the present, and the eventual death of the universe is all a single instant to the existence of these light energies. The light from that galaxy millions of years in the past, is simultaneously striking the Hubble camera, and all space-time is one minute instant at a single minute point.

From our own perspective, of course, mass is not illusion, nor is space-time. This brings us back to how consciousness must fit into this reality. We have seen that the past, which is non-existent in our here-and-now reality, still exists for all those bits and pieces of the universe, moving at the speed of light (which as it turns out, is the whole universe, and everything within in it). On the other hand, all space and time is in reality a singularity, a single flash of light in a sea of darkness. Thus an immaterial, and therefore non-existent past, can still exist. In the Post Enlightenment Modern world, is it possible that the immaterial, and therefore non-existent consciousness can exist too?

‘Cogito ergo sum,’ (I think therefore I am), therefore consciousness ‘is,’ but not as the Cartesian ego separated from the physical world, because Descarte’s first impulse was fundamentally right, the physical world is illusion. Consciousness must therefore exist in order to create that here and now, in order to determine particle or wave, in order to understand mass and experience inertia at a single point of time in a single point of space. In other words, consciousness exists in order that we experience life in the here and now.. And if it does so at a single point of space-time (which is fundamentally an illusion of light), it is possible that it does this at all points of space-time.

Just as our physical reality exists in a sea of light energy at a level we functionally measure as zero, could we not also exist in a sea of consciousness that exists or has being at a base level we could functionally measure as ‘zero-being.’ Theoretically, when light only exists for an instant in the here and now of perception, it exists at the same moment in a different here and now. The photon that exists at the camera of the Hubble telescope, for example, simultaneously exists millions of light years away. At that same instant of ‘now’ (or light-now), that photon was also on the other side of the universe, millions of years ago. But it is not just that one photon—the universe itself, in so much as it is a sea of ground-energy-level light energy, is not bound by the physical here and now. As it exists now, it exists millions of years ago on the other side of time, now----and therefore beyond time. But we do not conceive that, we only conceive of that photon striking the Hubble camera in the here and now.

Just as we do not know that photon from its zero-space zero-time perspective, we do not know what consciousness is. We only know that consciousness is experienced as a consciousness-of, and that is an experience of the here and now. But conceivably, that consciousness-of, could be a point at which it rises above that ground-energy level in a sea of consciousness, and manifests-----just as light, when it rises above that ground-energy-level, and is suddenly manifested in the physical universe—in the sudden moment of here and now. In this way, consciousness could not only exist beyond time where space and time collapse to a single point (zero-being), it could very well be that it is the rise above ground-energy-level, the consciousness-of, that gives rise to physical reality.

What would the consciousness in zero-being be if not a consciousness-of? In Jungian psychology, we find the concept of the archetype, those elements of our subconscious that influence and shape our psyche well below the levels of perception. To our individual self, they are a priori, a given which we did not learn from experience. The archetype itself, according to Jung is not something that has content. We are not born with a Mother archetype, for example, that contains motifs of a loving or spiteful mother, a Queen of creation and fertility, provider of all things, with the power to take away as well. Instead we only have a crude structure that we ourselves fill with content and images. Jung compared it to the axial structure of a crystal, which always creates the basic structure of the crystal, even as the crystal takes on different forms by forming singly or with others, or uniquely in reaction to its physical environment. Despite the uniqueness of each quartz crystal, for example, it is still identifiable as the same kind of crystal, because it is this axial system, “…which, as it were, performs the crystalline structure in the mother liquid, although it has no material existence of its own.”

Just like the crystal, the consciousness-of of the archetype, which occurs after we have filled it with our own experiences and content, becomes our own unique version of what is still a universal archetype. Jung, himself, described the archetype as pre-conscious content of the psyche. But it does not really exist for us, until we become conscious of it, which in this case means filling it with content. The zero-being permeating the universe would conceivably be like this level of preconscious thought of the Archetypes—dare we even say, the level of Platonic form. But just as light exists in a single point of zero space and time, which therefore encompasses all space and time, it would make sense that such a form of consciousness would exist in the same manner if it underlies and is the essence of all that is. In other words, it too would represent a singular point of zero space and time, which encompasses all space and time. It is the true eternal here-and-now. It is the here and now that we cannot perceive because we are always conscious-of which inescapably becomes conscious of that physical moment of a single point in space and time: our here and now.

The difference between the consciousness-of that gives rise to existence, and the individual consciousness-of that gives us perception of the here-and-now could be one of awareness (energy), and concentration. If it exists in the same manner as the zero-point field, then we could compare it to that: At any given point, the zero-point field represents the lowest level of energy, compare that to the energy and concentration of light at the point of a star, such as our sun. Nonetheless, the energy of the overall zero-point field is tremendous, and has even been suggested as a source of unlimited energy for even our own use, if we knew how to tap it. Our individual consciousness-of would be akin to the concentration of light at the point of a star, within the sea of consciousness. As concentrated consciousness it seems strong and bright, but the energy of the overall sea of consciousness is far greater.

And from our here-and-now, just like the photon, consciousness could be here in the absolute moment of here and now, and at the same time, across the universe a million years ago. Or, in a more practical manner, it could be in the instant now, conscious-of measuring a wave/particle parcel of light, deciding to measure it as a particle, and at that same time, 2 feet away, a few billionths of a second in the past, conscious-of a determination of that same parcel of light as a particle.

In this way, the double slit experiment could very well be a peek into a universe that is created entirely of light energy, but only through the action of consciousness which, becoming conscious-of, causes the aberration in the zero-point field and then defines and determines the state of resulting electromagnetic radiation. We determine whether it is particle or wave, mass or energy, and we do this as consciousness arising from a sea of consciousness. Our consciousness, like the universe of light energy, is therefore non-local and outside of time. But it is our own individual consciousness-of, that places it into the here and now, and therefore manifests the present. It is our ego, the same ego latched onto by St Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, and the modern world, that limits our understanding to this world of objects we pass through in the here and now.

 

Wolf:

Tikoo might say that being creatures of light, we can't help but create with it. Observation, which always takes that which is observed, interferes with lights interference with itself, collapsing its wave function, but not its wave potential. It doesn't matter when this happens, the point being that all observation is between the source and the screen, however indirect or delayed. Anyway, I'm sure I'm not qualified, however quantified, to discuss these things, not being a doctor, even of philosophy. lol

The link below has helped me understand the details of the experiments a little better. I'm trying to stay away from pages on particle physics which leave me with the feeling I'll need several lifetimes to come to terms with them. :-D

Of the four fundamental forces, gravity has no completed quantum field theory, and I don't want to become it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

Which theory? I don't know of anything that tells us the instant isn't endless. Or that anything through its speed drops to nothing in itself, in its space. I'll read the article I've just seen you post on your gedankenexperiment though and get back to you.

My not putting bounds on consciousness is my not seeing how it can be disembodied. The only after-life anyone has ever witnessed is in life; the life of others.

Would be? Consciousness does arise in the physical. Its subsequent arising in itself is not done outside of it. Essence is existence.

 

Thank you for the link---and thank you everyone for the links, including the one you posted, Tastyweat, on consciousness as a non-local phenomena.

The theory of relativity—after Herman Minkowski realized that you could apply the geometry of a triangle to space-time—Tastyweat—maybe you know better but I believe that it was Minkowski doing this that actually created the concept of the 4th Dimension. I don’t recall if Einstein actually used that term before Minkowski or not-----and again, I am no expert either. This math demonstrates that at the speed of light, all space and time drop to zero.

Being arising out of existence is contrary to the essentialism that holds essence as the ground of all being, and that believes in being arising from essence which means existence arising our of essence.

A disembodied consciousness is truly boundless, by the way. ;-)

There are plenty of cases that suggest the possibility of life after death---generally those cases of Near-Death-Experiences. Granted, that could be a survival device implanted into our minds through heredity, or it could be due to physiological trauma, etc, etc, but there is quite a bit documented on that. But I have my reasons for believing in it.

 

Wolf:

Here's an article that may interest you about the speed of an instant.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...nd-boggling-spooky-world-quantum-physics.html

I can't see that motion itself is not the instant, ultimately immeasurable, as its relation to everything cannot be taken with relation to everything! The 'equations' of motion are all based on its being a function of time.

If that is what essentialism 'holds', ( but I can't see how it can :-D ) it is a confusion, since essence is existence.

As though one could know! When did you ever leave your body Wolf? :-D

NDEs suggest ADEs?! For how long can one be "clinically" dead and not die?! :-D

 

Sometimes we call those who cannot see blind. Form is defined by negative space. The form of your conception is the cause of the blindness.

An instant is the sum of creation. The relation of everything can be taken with relation to everything. There is in fact no discrete doing, only the great doing of being.

Distance and it's attending speed is a meaningless equation without destination. To affix a point in space requires three coordinates. Consciousness is not inspired by motion but inspires motion, the thought comes first. The driver in quantum entanglement is intention, the apparent isolates being intended together in the quantum experiment. There is no travel intended.

I think you are confused in thinking that you create your own parents. Again, sight, consciousness is not dependent on matter, hence a measure of blindness. If your parents had not eyes for each other then you would be nowhere seen as you were called upon from beyond yourself.

Consciousness arises to determine direction and we come into the world seeking. It is not time that we seek to serve, but our moments essence.

This could be useful to you considering your desires.
One is known through the many, a single intent expressed diversely. The field of being is spread across the animal and mineral kingdoms in equal measure, the sun shinning on all alike. To hold matter indefinitely to you, you cannot rely definitely on matter. Our desire is for us, but we must learn to master it.

 

thedope:

lol That's just you saying I'm blind while not saying how you can see that the instant is not motion itself! Bad form old man! :-D Define negative space! I dare you!

No, the relation of everything can only be taken as, not with relation to everything, because everything doesn't stop becoming everything.

Actually the inspiration works both ways. It doesn't make sense to say the thought comes first when discussing indiscrete relations. lol

Of course you think that thedope. Nevertheless we all create oneanother. It's of no account really, the degree you might insist upon that as recreation. I am not preoccupied with an order of creation to the point where I could be confused by one. :-D Consciousness is dependent on matter, in the most basic sense of its interdependency, of its arising from it. You can hang off my words all you like, but there's nothing I can do for your belief in disembodiment, not having one myself. ;-D

 

Negative space is the space that recedes from focus when you focus on a thing. Form is an outline/boundary and everything outside the boundary recedes from view when you focus on a thing.

Well everything is never less than everything and the future consists of the probabilities of current emergence or emerging current. The future is not, yet to come, it is always imagined from here.

Nothing indiscrete but everything intimate. Reality is non-local, nor is it remote.

I don't believe in disembodiment. I have seen dis-incorporation. I know that consciousness transcends time in the senses including that an understanding early can save years of trial and error. As far as the nature vs. nurture argument which this turns to be, animus animates animal and animal in turn informs animus but neither occurs absent intent, the third coordinate.

I also can see that consciousness transcends the individual body as we share our thoughts.

 

Existentialism is a pre-dated concept that ameliorates with the passge of evolution.

Imagined from where? Here is not here.

Remote from what or whom or when or how or why or where?

I have seen mis-incorporation. And Miss Corporation. I have missed corporations, and I have missed being incorporeal.

See it how? What colour and shape is a consciousness? Can I draw it?

 

Negative space is the not it of it.

Then where is it? Here/now.

Reality is not remote from any of it's constituents, ever. The whole defines the part but the part does not define the whole.

You mean you have longed to be dead?

We see by the light of consciousness. Seeing is interpretation of the minds eye. Specifically in answer to your question the mind cannot be weighed although things might weigh on our mind. The mind is, naturally abstract.

 

Perhaps light does not move---something else I have considered. We simply move through time (moving through light) which creates the illusion of light having motion. This would mean that we are moving in all directions at the speed of light, but not exactly the 3 physical directions. But it is movemnt we cannot reverse---it is only 1-directional, otherwise we would go back in time. Or if we actually live in a holographic universe--a flat holographic pane, and are moving forward (our minds creating the depth of the 3-dimensions), as if through the cells of animated movies. If light does not move--perhaps it is the energy transfer you refer to.

In any event---if motion itself is the instant, then it can only be that instant of the here-and-now. Because that is all that exists in the cosmology I wrote of earlier asking if it fits your concept.

But there are things that come up that should not happen in such a universe. Many of the case studies of Dr. Stanislav Grof, for example that involve people very accurately describing events in the past, including details that they would have no knowledge of.

Philosophy has been essentialist for most of its history. Husserl, who founded the school of phenomenology, and insisted, like Bentano who he borrowed from, that consciousness always intentional, i.e. has an intentional object. In other words, it is always consciousness of. Yet Husserl was an essentialist.

But I understand your sentiment. I was there too. Even things like Plato's forms seem as crude products of a still primitive level of understanding. But the 10 years or so (especially after hooking up my Indian friends), I've gone too far down that rabbit hole to not understand the universe as essentialist.

Here is an example, which is unique to myself, I don't know who else other than my son experiences this, but every summer that I go to sundance, I start seeing animals, before and after the sundance, in the shadows or in my peripheral vision or whatever, but I turn and there is nothing there. This starts out a week or so before the sundance. If it was just me, I could write it off as just a weird thing---visual hallucinations induced by expectations of ceremony.

But the first time I took my son to a sundance, he started experiencing the same thing----except that I never told him about it. This is just one minor example of all the weird stuff that happens. I wrote about the yuwipi ceremonies, and of course, there is the tail---in the other thread.

But there are questions such as those presented by the research of Rupert Sheldrake and his morphic fields. See, for example:

http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/morphic/

It is a crazy universe...

Touche' ----except for my experiments with Shamanistic States of Consciousness, which are not exactly out of body because I experience awareness of being in two places. I rationally interpret these as an experience of travelling within---I assume I am consciously accessing my own subconscious. But I am told that I visit spirit world, by those I communicate with in the SSC. The tail was a gift in response to my doubting such matters, etc etc---sounds weird and crazy-new-age crap---which is why I generally don't talk much about such things. They are deeply personal experiences of one who once doubted such things could occur.

I have known a few people over the years who claim they have had out-of-body experiences. Here again---Dr. Grof's work has tons of case histories of out of body experiences.

Yes--that is the problem with NDE's---which is why we can only say---'...suggest life beyond death...'

 

I offer that
Creation a law without opposite. All of time is here now. Memory, the past, is living tissue. Fossils are extant, not images of past events. They are the current state of something that is always in existence. We project a past from current emergence in the same way we project a future.

All of time is now. We have ancient memories, consciousness transcending the idea of linear time. Time is concentric. We have in us all that ever was because now is all there ever is.

 

Where did I suggest that it was? Why do you avoid answering questions, and instead make spuriously profound statements of irrelevance?

So now must accompany here? Why? another example of pseudo-intellectual drivel masquerading as intelligence

If you are going to arrogate intelligence to yourself, at least learn how to apostrophise

After reading your high-falutin excrescence, yes.

Where did I ask to weigh the mind? Again, why do you retreat into quasi-meaningful nonsense, instead of frankly answering what has been asked?

 

No accusation was made by me, no question was asked by you, until now. The why of our experience can be found in your regard of the world, Thou art that.

Technically motion is space/time. Here is not yet to be nor ever absent.

How about I just share my thoughts?

Glad I could be so inspiring.
I would not deny the one mind any experience.

You asked what color which is a measure of minds eye. Regardless I know of no rule that should confine my responses to just what you ask or want to hear. Specifically again in direct answer to your question, The mind is naturally abstract

 

you're kidding, arent you? I could eat alphabet soup and shit better arguments than the abject rubbish that you post.

Again, you avoid answering questions and you avoid dealing with reality. You're a flake.