I have experienced life in the 4th Dimension

Our brain has cannabinoid receptors. We have natural neurotransmitters, like anandamine, which fit into these cannaboid receptors when we feel blissful. THC is not one of them, but it is so close chemically that it can fit and activate the cannaboid receptors.

 

Yes, but unfortunately, this burns out your serotonin stores and makes it harder for your brain to produce serotonin for a while afterwards.

 

This all assuming that the ultimate goal is survival, and I don't see how it is; especially considering all of the religions that are out there that look to something higher. Not necessarily to help mask fears, but because it's a natural yearning that is built into our being, and I don't know how that can be denied.

Explain suicides: Fearing life more than death.

Explain suicide bombers: Dying for belief.

Explain why some choose celibacy. Yes, they lose the game of natural selection, but they may be winning at something else. And this isn't a statement that sex is evil, just showing how all choice isn't due to self-preservation; and just because you lose out on one goal, doesn't mean that goal is the reason for our existence.

Explain sacrifice for a loved one, and the knowledge that not everyone prides self-preservation as their ultimate goal. Your sacrifice may help others to survive as well, but the purpose of that sacrifice isn't always to preserve someones life, but to preserve others contentment/spirituality - to preserve the self (I recommend watching gattaca) - You may lose the game of survival of your genetic material, but why would that be the most important thing? To say that there isn't more to it than than that is pretty near-sighted, like a horse wearing a reign, can't see left or right of himself - Elephant in the room effect.


I think you described it best when you said that it's just the survival of your physical body. How can you play a video game if there is no main character that you can control? In order to experience that reality, you need to have these bodies reproducing and surviving; you need a reality that self-preserves itself, otherwise the universe as we know it wouldn't exist. But that doesn't prove that the purpose of human life is to survive and to carry out its genetic material.

Also, it's been said that DMT is merely released before death as a last ditched effort of self-preservation, but I really don't believe that - There are probably cause and effect issues - DMT may just be our link back to where we came from; like some sort of portal encoded with information that allows you to get back home - Who knows.

Btw, what I really meant is that these chemicals already exist in nature, and why would they exist if they didn't provide some use? Although, Albert Hoffman in an interview told everyone that these chemicals already existed in our brain. Unless I was hearing incorrectly, dunno.

 

man, defzeppelin should write a book. id definetly buy it.

 

Everything is about survival, either the survival of the physical body, or the survival of self, and self is the part of you that makes you; you. Perhaps people commit suicide whenever they lose sense of the self, thus making the knowledge of self more important than the self-preservation of the body.

Choosing to either know thyself, or to build up your body through exercise. Both may help the survival of the physical self, but knowing thyself also preserves another part of you that may not be measurable -and may be more important than anything else - or truly know for what it truly is. The best analogy that I can give is the thought of a dog chasing its own tail. The tail exists just like any other part of the dog, but is it ever able to catch it, and if it can catch it, for how long? "The soul hides whenever it is searched for".

 

I dunno how to say thanks without sounding pretentious, but thanks =)

I am actually developing a couple of philosophical ideas with a close friend of mine. Going to make it into an ebook, and it's going to be available online for free to anyone that might be interested...

Anyway, back to the topic.

 

.
the a~um (om) may work just fine to make a bonded-vibration , re: the intuitive choir of a One space intention . dim4 isn't of another Space .

we seek .
we quest .
we .
we is the sound of life to life .

then , the most real 4d sound i have heard
is
woo

(in real Space , on topic )

it seems iffy to actually quest with chemicals - tho the confirmation of a dim4 elemental shape has been positive agreement . be bright so very bright'n'woo
.
.

 

I never denied the existance or importance of spirituality. To me it is of utmost importance and I see it as one of the highest pursuits and the reason why we're here. I'm just saying that through the process of natural selection, those who reproduce more pass on their genetic material which spreads throughout the species. Life isn't all about physical survival, but physical survival is what decides who passes on their genes. Developing brains which are only focused on our physical environments while filtering out the spiritual things all around us helped our ancestors avoid being eaten by predators. Of course having psilocybin as a natural transmitter would put us in tune with a whole nother layer of rality or "open the filter of consciousness" as Aldous Huxley put it in his essay "The Doors of Perception". But it won't help you not get eaten by a saber tooth tiger. That's why it never entered the species' gene pool. However, now that we are the kings of the planet and most of us are not threatened by preditors of other species, I think the next direction our evolution is going to take us is down a spiritual path, expanding our consciousness. Who knows, maybe even psychic abilities will be next =]

And yes, many pseudotransmitters do exist in nature, like THC and Psilocybin, and I think our species could benefit as a whole by harnessing their teachings. Terence McKenna referred to them as "evolutionary catalysts" and I agree wholeheartedly. He even thinks that psilocybin could have been responsible for the early emergence of language. Though there's not really any hard evidence of that, it seems plausible. Anyways, I was just saying that they don't exist naturally in the brain, not that they aren't natural. But even LSD, which isn't natural, is a great tool and a powerful teacher.

And I agree with you that the notion that DMT is a last ditch effort at self-preservation seems whack. It obviously doesn't revive you, if anyhting, it only makes it harder to physically survive, as you lose connection with physical reality. It doesn't even come into play until you're surely on the verge of death, so my point is, since this doesn't help you survive physically, why would we have evolved it? I think you may be right that it's been there from the beginning and the point of it is to remind us where we came from and bring us back. It's called "the spirit molecule" for a reason, and I think that in the future, we could see more like it evolve into our species as we have to worry less about predators and physical survival, and turn more towards philosophical endeavors.

 

i'll definitely buy it once you get a better grip on subject-verb agreement

Edit: nevertheless, your points are crystal clear. you obviously have delved deep into your own consciousness. I'm eager to know about your experiences with DMT. Which drugs, specifically, did you think Hoffman mentioned as being produced by the body? Because DMT is produced not only in death, but also during sleep. Allegedly.

 

Dmt isn't necessarily produced at death or during sleep. What I know is that it's produced by the pineal gland in the brain, and small amounts of DMT are released to induce dreams while you sleep. At the brink of human death, DMT is released then also--which may explain those otherworldly near death experiences people tend to have.

 

what are you saying? that i should have said released instead of produced? fair 'nuff.

 

Hoo, this is going to be a long post. But isn't discussion great?

Yes it does, and not I am not. When people can agree on the observation of a phenomenon, it confirms it. It is less likely that 100 people will simultaneously hallucinate something that isn't real than it is for one person to do so.

Perception is not reality. Perception is what we use to get the best picture we can of reality. Sure, we can't perceive everything without technological assistance. But that doesn't mean that everything you see that others don't is some other part of reality that they are blind to. If you take LSD and perceive the people around you changing into sheep and lizards (credit to Uncle Duke), that doesn't mean that those people are in reality sheep and lizards. It means there is something going on, in your brain, that is messing with your perception of reality. Your perception is not some new reality, it is just wrong.

If I zap a part of your brain and you can't stop flapping your arms, that is an effect. If I zap another part and you suddenly can't see, reality did not lose light, that is just an effect of your brain. If I zap a third part and you suddenly feel sensations from your foot as if they were in your hand, that is just an effect. If I zap another and you now taste a certain flavor when you hear a certain sound, it is just an effect. It's very reasonable to say that.

Why are those questions important, and what makes you think they have an answer? Why are we here? Isn't that sort of a nonsensical question? Sure, look into these experiences, but do it in a rational manner. Saying it is real because you experienced it is not rational, at least with a hallucinogen. I think Dr. Hoffman and any other scientist would agree with that. When working with things like hallucinogenic drugs, skepticism is the best starting point to find out what is true.

Science considers the most likely explanation to be the most correct.

No it isn't. It's about finding what is likely, what is real, and what is the truth. Automatically accepting everything you experience on a drug trip as truth will not accomplish that.

Source? Even if that is the case, many things are made in our bodies that can screw us up in larger amounts. Cholesterol, testosterone, hormones in general, neurotransmitters. There are plenty of similar examples.

All of us? Is that how schizophrenia works? How do you validate someone else's subjective experience? What do you mean by expand your mind? Do you mean learn more? Accept more? Know more? Believe more? You have expanded your mind, but refuse to accept that your experiences may not be accurate reflections of reality.

Those seem very similar to me. Man fears death, so has a natural yearning to believe that something else is out there.

Explanations for various examples: Humans are selfish beings. You will do what you think will work out best for you. If you think that is having sex with as many people as possible, you pass on a lot of DNA. If you think that is abstaining so you are spiritually pure, you don't pass on so much DNA. If you believe you will live in heaven forever with 72 virgins for blowing yourself up, you might just do that. If you think that life is crappy enough that it would be less painful to die than keep living it, you might commit suicide.

Genes aren't everything. A lot of what guides people's personalities, thoughts, and actions is environment. People want what is best for them, and that is not necessarily survival. I did see Gattaca, and I did like it. Maybe we had different interpretations.

I'm not saying that the purpose of human life is to pass on DNA. That is merely evolutionary drive. I would say that there is no point to human life. No more than there is a point to a rock's existence or to the existence of that one cloud shaped like a duck. We're here, we want to stay here.

Why would their existence be evidence of some use?

 

Btw, I didn't mean what I said to be an attack on anybody. I was just making a argument for the sake of argument. I wasn't saying that you believed this or believed that. I was just arguing against the common argument that most people give (arguments that people just regurgitate to each other).

Anyway, Psychotronic Nick, I pretty much agree with everything that you have said and I really enjoyed reading what you wrote.

"Dmt isn't necessarily produced at death or during sleep. What I know is that it's produced by the pineal gland in the brain, and small amounts of DMT are released to induce dreams while you sleep. At the brink of human death, DMT is released then also--which may explain those otherworldly near death experiences people tend to have."

It definitely helps to explain something. Although, I really don't know what you mean by it being explained. What is explained exactly (that's an honest question; I'm not being snide)? Those experiences are just as real as any other experience, and you can say that it was merely a dream, but how much do we even know about dreams? Celia Greens studies about lucid dreaming shows that you can be conscious of your own dream, which is apparently a paradox. Here is a question that may be relevant: what exactly is the dream world? You can invalidate the DMT experience as merely a dream, but before you do that don't you first have to have a better understanding of what a dream actuality is?

Though, You have to wonder how it is possible for dead people to hear and see things miles away from their body. Even so much as knowing word for word what was said... but of course that is scrutinized, if it sounds silly, then it is; At least how many think of it, but sounding silly doesn't prove anything.


--

zilla939:

I am not sure about this, but was that addressed at me? Forums confuse me sometimes =/ If so, I never used DMT. The only drug I ever used was cannabis, and I am looking forward to trying LSD. I am just very interested in the DMT experience, and the experiences that any type of drug could give you, really.

I experienced pretty amazing things while on and off weed that many scientists would just write off as craziness, though.

Just recently, I have felt depersonalized... my body seems to be moving on it's own, and I am just watching it being operated... freakin' weird. I hope that I'm not becoming schizophrenic and start drawing anthropomorphic cats, soon... lol

 

Why assume that it isn't real? So truth depends on the likelihood of the experience being experienced? The nature of the experience may just be unpredictable and rare. This being less likely than that really doesn't make any point. What matters is the truth.

So truth is dependent on what people can and cannot agree on? Sounds like a glorified opinion.

What exactly is the best picture of reality? That's assuming that there is just one picture of it. If perception isn't reality, then you are saying that everything we observe is falsehood. Because after all, it is the human perception that studies itself and its surroundings. Every pursuit would be pointless. Because no matter how much you try to find the objective, it will be riddled with subjection. All ideas, all concepts, no matter how seemingly objective it is, is still dependent on our perception. I don't understand how anyone can deny that.

To invalidate that as a screw up in the brain stems from assuming that what is being seen is an hallucination, simply because you don't see that otherwise. You also assume that people really aren't fishes and lizards, simply because our views of reality are static, and anything that doesn't fit our perception is ignored - it honestly dosn't matter what we think, what matters is what's true. If people really are lizards and frogs, then that's just how it is- But you are right, it doesn't exactly prove that they are fishes and lizards; but at the same time, doesn't disprove it.

'Perception isn't some new reality' is also an assumption. So far the best argument you have is that since the majority isn't experiencing it, and since it's rare, then it is invalid.

If I create another human being exactly like you, zapped him, and gave him life, then I just created an effect. The effect being another living being having the same experience as us because he is similar in biological structure, and thus going to have the same experience and perception of reality. And of course zapping different parts of the brain will cause effects. You can't just get done reading what I wrote about effects and just use that example. Yes, they are effects caused by zapping, most definitely. What I tried to explain earlier is that everything is an effect, even you thinking up your reply, thinking your thoughts to help yourself to try to dismantle my argument; is just that, an effect. If you zap out my occipital lobe, causing me to go blind, you definitely caused an effect; I can't doubt that. No, you didn't change reality for anyone but me. You caused the effect of non-vision by using a tool. We have found out that by poking and prodding different parts of our brains, we could shut on and shut off certain effects; this is exactly what drugs accomplish.

All effects are just as real as any other. Just like the effect of not seeing a picture on a wall because you blinded me. Or seeing the picture on the wall in the first place, is an effect of many things working at once to deliver whatever information in such a way.

What makes you think that they don't? Also, thats something for you to really ask yourself. And I don't say this to dodge the question, it's just not something that I can effectively explain to you. I do suggest reading Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning, though. Frankl can explain this a lot better than I can. And answering a question like that requires a lot of context, which makes it so difficult to explain something like this to a skeptic.

Why would it be nonsensical? You should always have a degree of skepticism; I agree. But there are experiences that explain themselves, and I already know what you think about such a thought. But you see, you're outside looking in, and it's not something that can be explained or known unless experienced; you just have to see for yourself. No need to be skeptical of a experience if you don't even know what it was, and I don't mean that as an insult, either.


See, this is what I don't like about words like, "hallucinogen". The word already assumes that what was experienced as being unreal. For example, people call me an idealist because I honestly believe that world peace is a possibility. The word idealist already assumes that such a thing as world peace is impossible for whatever reason, and thus only exists as wishful thinking and not a plausible possibility. If people only believed that such a thing to be possible, and merely changed their minds, then it definitely would be a possibility. Same goes for hallucinogen, but not exactly the same way. The word is designed in such a way as to automatically assume that what was seen as being fake. So when others read up about these drugs, see the word 'hallucinogen' attached to the drug description, then they have already accepted this as truth - is it truly skepticism to take everything at face value?

I definitely agree, but where does skepticism end, exactly? To be truly skeptical, you have to be skeptical to your own skepticism, everything that is said by others, and this includes: Scientists, theologians, random people, mystics. How can you be a skeptic if you can't even be skeptical to the pursuit of science itself? Nothing is immune to skepticism, not even the almighty men in lab coats.

Yup, but what is the most likely explanation? Should that be decided by how many agree on an explanation? For example, why is it more likely that the reason why we laugh at each other, be some kind of evolutionary stepping stone than say people feeling connected with other because they sensed a feeling of sameness? See, you can 'prove' just about anything if you already have presuppositions to do so. I can probably create a good argument that we are all tiny frogs with hats on their heads (maybe not such a silly example, but ya), if I just design the experiment just right, give a very good explanation, and get just enough people with just enough influence to believe me, then I just created a newly accepted theory. But the likelihood of people believing in such a thing is pretty low, but that doesn't disprove my point. My point being, if you just get enough people to believe in the experiment and your explanation, then something false can be something true. And since most people take what scientists say at face value... I guess you get my point.

Also, ancient theologians had their own system to discovering truth as well. If you went against what was said, they you would be considered a blasphemer. Now in the modern day, blasphemer is replaced with, 'crackpot' or 'loon'. Just like all of the crackpots that once thought of the idea that we may all really be in a matrix, and that parallel universes exist. Now both ideas are respected theories within the scientific community.

Sure, just like how people believe that since something is natural, then it's good for you. Arsenic is definitely natural, but it'll kill you. Now, is LSD deadly or not? The drug is surprisingly safe, especially for something that has such a potent effect. Now, the real question is: Does safety of the drug really determine whether or not it's effects as being valid or not. And by valid I mean, did what the person see really exist? You can say that it's just all in his head, but isn't everything "just in our heads?"

The source is from an interview with Hoffman. Like I said earlier, maybe I didn't understand him correctly. The interview is part of an LSD documentary named LSD, but worded out.

'All of us?' I think so, but I honestly don't know. At least that's what Hoffman was saying, and I am pretty sure that he said that. The LSD experience is analogous to what a schizophrenic person experiences 24/7. But who's to say that what schizophrenic people are seeing aren't real? Just because we can't see or measure it in any way available, doesn't prove that it is real, and it doesn't prove that it is. Although, I am inclined to believe it because I understand the impact that perception has - Everything is real.

'Subjective experience', again, assumptions.

Do you even need to validate another's experience? How can you even validate an intimate and person experience of another person? Again, you're just outside looking in, and the only person that truly understands the experience is the one that experienced it. Sure, you can say that this and that was just an effect, but then I'll go back to my comments about effects.

To understand what I mean by expand your mind really requires a lot of insight and context, but I'll try to explain. When I was younger, I learned of quotes like, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself", but I truly didn't understand the value of this quote until not so long ago. See, quotes like these cram in a lot knowledge and context into a single sentence. Not until you give this sentence context through experience can you truly understand the message; This is what wisdom is - knowing something. Now, if you take into account my example, and you think of expanding your mind as knowing more and to understand what mystics have been trying to express for thousands of years, for example, then this is what I mean by expansion of mind. This is not to say that is the only meaning of that phrase. In other words, expansion of mind is to open your mind and to see what others have known for centuries - to bring in new understanding a wisdom into yourself.

You can say that many are refusing to accept their reality as being inaccurate. And this is where wisdom grows from, being skeptical of your own experiences. But if such an experience doesn't require an explanation, then there is no need to be skeptical of it. This also stems from meditation, and I don't mean sitting around reciting mantras. I mean sitting down and really thinking of your questions and answering them very honestly. A lot can be discovered in these sessions, if you only believe that something like that to be valid. Even debating with you right now is a form of meditation. When ideas connect in your mind in such a way, you begin to just 'know' things, and this knowing will probably be ignored by you, and I respect that; that's good. But skepticism also requires temporarily giving something the benefit of the doubt. Because after all, maybe that person knows something, and I better listen because I may miss it.

If you don't have the wisdom, then you really can't expect to connect with another persons understanding, and you risk ignoring important information for the rest of your life, simply because you thought it was a joke - I hope that doesn't make me sound pretentious, but I think that's a very important point to make.

Now, I have to be honest here; this is probably the biggest pet peeves that I have. Frankl explains this type of argument very beautiful by saying that, "Man plays hidden motive games with himself". It can't just be that people have these beliefs because they truly believe in it. Just because it isn't understood, doesn't mean that it's believed in to hide some kind of hidden fear. Can't you just consider that they may know something that you don't? No, that isn't possible, right? That type of argument can go either way, really. I can say that you are an atheist because you have some hidden fears of eternal existence (and I know for a fact that many do have these fears) and what it could mean for you if God existed. Perhaps you haven't been living up to your purpose and it would mean to drastically improve on your life... but I digress on that. That kind of argument is just not a proof of anything, and it really just assumes so much.


The type of selfishness you talk about can bring a lot of good, as long as you consider others in the process. Actually, searching for contentment in your life will probably positively effect others around you. But that's another argument really, because it would get us into so much it's ridiculous. But basically, being happy with where you are in life is going to bring your more happiness and this happiness will make you a more effective member of society.

Ever consider what guides a persons actions could be will alone? Environment, and other factors definitely are important in shaping who you are, but doesn't prove that you can't somehow transcend all of these factors (Dark City is a good movie).

Since you seen Gattaca, you have to wonder why what one of the main characters did what he did. What was he preserving exactly?

We aren't rocks nor are we cloud. We are what we have always been, and ignoring the tremendous amount of amazing human actions just seems so silly to me.

You either want to stay here or don't.

You're right about that one. It doesn't necessarily require use.

 

When making the argument about which perceptions of reality are valid and which are not, I think it is important to remember the question: "If a tree falls in the woods and nothing is around to observe it, does it make a sound?" At first glance, just about any logical person will answer "Of course it makes a sound! What a stupid question." Think a little deeper and you will realize that it does not, as "sound" does not exist outside of our own minds. The tree will produce a vibration of course, but it is not a "sound" unless there are ears to pick up the vibration and convert it into neural impulses that produce a sound in our minds. All sensory perception is not a direct observation of the physical world around us, it is a code, a symbolic representation of the world around us. Take temperature for example. When you feel a temperature on your skin, it's not that it is objectively there. Each and every single molecule around you is vibrating at a slightly different speed. Your skin senses the vibration of the molecules around you, finds the average, and converts the vibrations it senses to a neurological code which your brain recreates as a symbol, the perception of temperature. This isn't really objectively accurate, but it would be impossible to be aware of the motion of every single invisible molecule around us, so we change it into something else to help us interpret it. Take color as another example. Does color really exist, or is it just your brain coding patterns of photons and recreating them as something useful that we can understand and use to interpret the world around us? We use different colors to represent different frequencies, but the important thing is to remember is that those colors are not the actual frequencies themselves, just representations of them that we CREATE in our minds to help us be aware of what is happening around us physically. Nothing you perceive with your senses actually exists in the way you perceive it, it's all just a symbol created in your own mind. Psychotropic drugs alter the balance of our neurotransmitters or introduce new ones altogether, and hence change the way our brains create the symbols out of electronic impulses which it uses to interpret reality. Psychotropic drugs change the way our brain creates symbols to represent the world around it. Just because it's different from the way our brain normally represents the world around it does not make it any less valid.

What if our physical senses had evolved differently? Example: What if, to evade predators, our ancestors began to live predominantly in dark caves. They would have eventually lost most of their eyesight and perception of light, and would have evolved other methods of interpreting the world around them. Bats are a perfect example of this, as they use sonar rather than their vision to "see". Do you think a bat perceives the world around him through sonar in any way close to how you see it? Of course not, it's completely different in every way. Does that make it any less valid? Say we went the same route, yet the part of our brains which interprets visual signals would have remained for some time, as it would not be lost as quickly as our use for it would be. So the entire human race would be blind, but a part of our brain would still be able to create symbols which we would perceive as light. It just wouldn't be used at all. Say one of these humans ingested a substance which caused neurons in that part of the brain to fire, causing him to see as his distant ancestors who relied on light did. He would run back to his people and tell them a crazy story about the unexplainable experience he had with an entirely new way of interpreting the world. His friends would say "you're crazy, reality isn't like that, your brain was just fucking up." Different interpretations of the same reality can be equally valid, as everything you sense around you is only a symbolic representation created in your mind, not an objective view at all. different species with different brains perceive the same reality completely differently. When we change our brains we change our perception of reality, the way our brains represent it, but it is still valid just as a bat's sonic interpretation of the world around him is.

 

Haha, some nice discussions going on.

I'd say atheists have met their match.

Didn't expect this thread to reach over 2 pages let alone 8!

 

I'm not assuming. It might be real. That is less likely to be the case if only one person experienced it. Truth doesn't depend on anything. But to figure out what is true, probability is a pretty good tool.

Not at all. If 100 people in a gathering simultaneously experience a loud voice from the sky saying "I am the lord, worship me," they may interpret it differently. But it happened. Objective experience is how we know pretty much all of what we know so far. That crazy guy touting the end of the world may have the subjective experience of truth and know what's going on, but since it is subjective and he can't show it and it can't be confirmed, you can't just assume that he is right.

No it isn't. There are many pictures of reality, depending on who's observing and what tools they have. There is only one reality. I hesitate to say there is a true picture of it, but I would say that there is only one completely true representation.

Everything we observe is a representation of reality. We get a picture. We do not get the full picture. We can't sense X-rays, gamma rays, infrared, gravity, magnetic fields, etc. While it is conceivable that everything is wrong and your entire experience is only in your head, it s pointless to assume that to be the case, because in that case, how would you behave? There is a lot of subjectivity around, which is why science is based on objectivity. Repeatable experimentation, statistical analysis, stuff like that.

Some people babble to themselves. Some people can't function in society and are put in mental institutions. These people don't have a connection to another reality. They just can't live in reality.

Are you really arguing against reality? How do you function in the world? By accepting an objective reality.

What I am trying to say is that your brain is tuned to give you an accurate working picture of reality. Generally. Some people's brains don't. But the point is that you have this organ. Without it you would be dead. It gives you everything your conscious is. If you mess with it, you are quite likely to experience a lot of weird things. That is because you are messing with it. In the same way, if you put a bunch of electromagnetic devices in a room and then try and watch TV, your experience will be different. That is because the tool that you are using to receive information (CRT, Antenna, whatever) will be messed up. You aren't getting a truer picture, your are getting a less true picture. I think it safe to say that the same applies to the brain on drugs.

Why are we here? That question assumes that there is a reason. What would give us a reason for being here? A higher power. Some divine power, advanced alien race, or supreme universal intelligence. That is what is assumed to be the case in answer to that question. Just because is not good enough. Because the universe happened a certain way, and life on earth evolved a certain way is not good enough. Purely by chance is not good enough. People that ask that question are looking for a more powerful sounding answer. Why must there be a reason?

Sure. That's why in science, you use the null hypothesis, which states that everything to you see happens purely by chance, and there is no relation between you dependent and independent variables. That is usually what you are trying to prove. If you can show with a .95 or greater degree of certainty that the null hypothesis is false, you can accept a relation between your variables. Granted, this leaves the chance that 1 in 20 studies with a .95 degree of certainty is due to chance and wrongly interpreted. Which is why you repeat studies. If you have 3 studies on the same thing which indicate a trend with .95 certainty, there is only a 1 in 8000 chance that it is wrongly interpreted. And so on.

Getting people to believe you is different from demonstrating likelihood. Objective experience is what we have to reliably go by, so that gets a very large preference over subjective. That does not mean that subjective is less true, but that we can't confirm it. There are many equations to figure out likelihood of arguments. Logic goes a long way, too.

The difference between now and the blasphemer times is that the accepted truth back then was really more like what the crackpots say today. They didn't test it, they didn't question it, they just said it. Now we have reliable systems for finding out what is true and what isn't. A lot of the stuff about matrices and parallel universes, regardless of possibility, is just theory. Not like evolutionary theory or EM theory, but more like "Theoretically, this could be the case."

That's all for now, I'll post more later.

 

Important things to realize:

1) Everything is subjective, even my views of subjection, which my argument ironically continues to remain correct. This isn't to say that there isn't an underlining reality and truth to it all. But A truth, not to say that THE truth will be revealed to you if you only let it, willfully.
2) All experiences are equally valid.
3) All perception is valid. Change the perception, change your experience, change what can be known.
4) The only thing that is truly real is consciousness. Everything else is merely an object, and objects only exist in our minds. But since it exists in our minds, doesn't make it false. It is very REAL for us indeed - We merely share the same perception.
5) Studying one perception by using another is a fruitless practice, because there is information loss.
6) Knowledge of this world can be very misleading.
Example: "The mirror is an ancient Buddhist symbol for clarity, completeness of perception, and purity of consciousness. A mirror reflects a thing objectively, but what we see in the mirror is not the thing itself. Because the object is not seen directly, it may be seen more accurately ~ more clearly, without judgment and with greater perspective. This can lessen the tendency to see a thing as fixed or solid and encourage better understanding. The mirror, or perception, more effectively propels the mind toward insight and compassion than mere argument or lecture. "

The important thing to realize about the Buddhist statement on ignorance, isn't a statement about a lack of scientific information you possess. Ignorance is to accept this reality as being the true, ultimate, or only reality - To become engrossed in the delusion of the idea of objectivity. Objects only exist in our minds, and the true self isn't an object.

7) Symbols merely express something higher. Forgetting what the symbol represents, and worshiping the symbol itself is very misleading, and I think this is what the bible means by, "Don't worship false idols". Meaning, don't get swept up with this reality and to just remember where you came from. For example, there are American nutjobs that would fight for the American flag, but lose sight of what that flag is supposed to represent.

8) Ego is very misleading, let it go.

9) Divinity, truth, freedom, all come from within. Again, if you willfully allow it to, by dropping ego. Just look at ancient metaphysical ideas, and you can see just how similar it all is to current scientific understanding about the universe. There are multiple venues at arriving at truth, and evidence most definitely can be personal.

10) Not everything real is measurable and testable.

Inner context, and how much of it has grown is dependent on how far you are willing to go with your spirituality. Everyone arrives at the same truth independently from one another, if only you remain honest.

In the end, this all really comes down to doing your own searching and to arrive at these understanding yourself. I am pretty sure that everything that I have said would not make any sense to you because you simply just don't have the understanding or the context (not an attack). All of what I have said could sound very fruity, flowery, and gag inducing, and probably even annoying, but that's just how it is.

People get too caught up with how something sounds, and never stop to think if it's valid or not.

 

Symbols merely express something higher ... def zeppelin


your set of symbols is all the truth you have to work with , and you'll need a set that's not too many not too few . when symbols combine they make greater , more specific meaning . it's best if you understand truth is created and shared by all life . basic symbols are shared , and this life context is very important . a weak or vainly assumed context is death to meaning . meaning must , like life , be in motion . truth is in motion and there's an essence of magic about it . like a geometric mandala is in motion .

it's a language of truth that will open a good relation with dim4 . it can help you feel the nature of life in that expression of existence .

i'd say life in dim4 is an existence of light : light is geometrically physical .

 

I'd say music has alot to do with dim4, I noticed. Music can be used as a way to get through.