Showing posts with label mind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mind. Show all posts

Saturday, 23 September 2017

Bending to the New Winds of Change


Written by Mathew Naismith
When the wind becomes a tree, is when the wind has to bend to the new wind blowing. As all things are governed by natural cycles, so are winds, one day a wind that the trees have to bend to or perish, the next day a tree that has to bend with a new wind blowing. Human existence is no different to the wind and the trees, it's all governed by natural cycles.
Once upon a time the Roman Empire was the wind that everything had to bend to or perish, now it's no more the wind or the trees. Of course we could say that the Catholic Church is the new wind from the Roman Empire era but it still had to bend like a tree to become the wind again as all things do.
Today, China is bending to the winds of the western mind, on the other hand North Korea isn't bending to this wind. Once it was the eastern mind within us all that was the wind, today it's the western mind. All must bend like a tree to this wind to once again become the wind. In regards to the present wind, it too will in the end become a tree or perish, of course if the wind becomes too strong, all will perish including the wind itself.          
The western minded coalition forces are today the wind, it's dominance over all else is felt throughout the world, as of any wind though, it too will have it's day to either bend to the new wind or perish. 
So is the new winds of change going to be of the western or eastern mind? Neither and simultaneously both. Once the eastern and western mind becomes one within us all, neither the western nor eastern mind will predominately dominate over the other, it's as though the yin and yang within us all will become one, whole, with no variations. This doesn't mean that the western mind (yang) and the eastern mind (yin) will no longer exist, it simply means they will be as one.
The strongest and wisest wind isn't the wind that blows everything down, the strongest and wisest wind is the wind that works in unison with the trees......Mathew G  
I thought anyone of the Christian and non-Christian faith might find the following interesting, the article links Christianity with Taoism to some degree.      

http://francis-ritchie.com/jesus-and-the-tao/
There is something formlessly created
Born before Heaven and Earth
So silent! So ethereal!
Independent and changeless
Circulating and ceaseless
It can be regarded as the mother of the world
I do not know its name
Identifying it, I call it “Tao”
– Tao Te Ching Chapter 25
I just thought I would end this post with the following. It is wise to treat everything as being governed by a natural cycle as the wise are aware that one can't possibly overcome these natural cycles in the end, flow with the water, bend with the wind. This is probably why I try to stay away from judging anything negative or positive, what I call a black and white mentality; neither perception is flowing with the water, bending with the wind.    
A man is born gentle and weak.
At his death he is hard and stiff.
Green plants are tender and filled with sap.
At their death they are withered and dry.

Therefore the stiff and unbending is the disciple of death.
The gentle and yielding is the disciple of life.

Thus an army without flexibility never wins a battle.
A tree that is unbending is easily broken.

The hard and strong will fall.
The soft and weak will overcome.

- Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 76

Friday, 22 September 2017

A New Wind Blowing


Written by Mathew Naismith

As a tree in balance with the wind will do, it will bend with the wind. As China has done and North Korea hasn't done, China has bent to the wind, the wind of the western mind, however, there is another wind blowing, a wind that the western mind wind must also bend to or pass by.

To put this into perspective, I have inserted a reply I gave to certain people on a forum. Knowing what is and isn't bullying and abuse, it was obvious a fair amount of abuse and bullying was going on, on this forum, I simply related this abuse and bullying holistically to the western mind imbalances and weaknesses. As I stated in the following, this has nothing to do with judgment or ridicule of a singular person or people. If I am to awaken to my own weaknesses and acknowledge them, I must also be fair and honestly look at other people and other groups who are obvious within their own weaknesses, after all, it's all as one. If I can do this void of judging a negative or positive, bad or good, it's simply not judgment but honest observation void of the biases of negative and positive, good and bad.
     
___________________________


This will be my last interaction on here unless I receive a response to this interaction.

The coalition forces are obvious within their dominance, their bullying other cultures into submission, of course to do this; one has to point out the weaknesses within these other cultures while at the same time totally ignoring one's own weaknesses. Bullying of course takes one to go into another cultures or persons domain, this is the same in going onto someone else's post to bully them into submission.

As I have previously given written material to confirm, the western mind will at all cost avoid looking at it's own weaknesses, instead choose to focus on it's strengths. If you look honestly at the coalition forces, are they also not doing this? When you go into other people's countries to bully these people into submission under false pretences, Iraq was a prime example of this, and on top of this pilfer their natural resources, is this not of the western mind void of the balance of the eastern mind?

It is natural for a mind, primarily of the western mind, to become dominating and bully everything that questions it's own weaknesses into submission. When we look at Libya who were well on the way to creating their own monitory system, which showed weaknesses within the western monitory system, it was inevitable that the western mind of the coalition forces were going to act through force. This is psychologically called projective abuse.

What are the similarities between the coalition forces dominance and certain people's reactions on this site?

At no point have these people admitted that they don't like their views put to the question. The fact they don't like my views that quite often put their own views and motives in question, it is obvious of what mind these people are primarily expressing. Of course the western mind, to the bitter end, will not want to look upon it's own weaknesses, instead prefers to look at other people's weakness just like the coalition forces. When I look at other people's weaknesses, I am also looking at my own, however, we must do this but void of bias.

This has nothing to do with judgment or ridicule of a singular person or people. If I am to awaken to my own weaknesses and acknowledge them, I must also be fair and honestly look at other people and other groups who are obvious within their own weaknesses, after all, it's all as one. If I can do this void of judging a negative or positive, bad or good, it's simply not judgment but observation void of the biases of negative and positive, good and bad.

To awaken, one must look at the whole as a whole and observe that whole as one, this means pointing out the weaknesses within the western and eastern mind no matter what form it takes. In saying this, it is virtually impossible for the western mind to do this impartially when void of the balance of the eastern mind gives to the western mind. The western mind, void of the eastern mind, will be naturally dominant and bully everything else that looks at it's weakness to submission.

The current wind is western minded, we must bend to this wind, the Chinese did just that but the North Koreans haven't. There is however a new wind blowing, a wind of both western and eastern origin, within this, there will be balance and the absence of one mind trying to dominate the other mind. Basically, a balanced consciousness void of conflict.


Simply put, there is way too much western minded dominance on this site for me; the deliberate avoidance of looking at one's own weakness is too evident. The new wind blowing is anything but what is expressed here, in my mind anyway, no offence intended.           

Saturday, 16 September 2017

The Mindless Western Mind!!




Written by Mathew Naismith

It was said to me recently in a discussion on the western and eastern mind that the western mind is controlling or maybe even of no mind. Considering that the yang and yin are within each other so is the eastern and western mind, one is never not of the other to one extent or another, it is therefore unlikely that the western mind is of total control and/or mindless. The following replies I gave to other people on this subject will explain this further.

The western mind, being of the greater ego, will of course judge someone like me stating that the western mind is mindless is judgmentally egotistic, however, the eastern mind observes this as simply pointing our an obvious weakness within the western mind itself. In saying this, as the western mind has it's weaknesses, so does the eastern mind. The difference is in that the eastern mind will acknowledge and deal with it's weaknesses, this is different to the western mind that primarily focuses on it's strengths while ignoring it's weaknesses.

_______________________________


Interesting Chinwhisker, this is probably why I relate Christianity and Hinduism, in the raw form, to be of both western and eastern mind, yin and yang, however, I only equate Buddhism to yin, the feminine, the eastern mind.

To me: Eastern mind = yin + feminine + of lesser ego
            Western mind = yang + masculine + of greater ego

A balance brings peace, God's kingdom, where an imbalance brings chaos, man's kingdom.

_______________________________

I also wrote the following reply on questioning the bible and the mindlessness of the western mind. It was interestingly mentioned that the western mind is of control or of no mind.

_______________________________


+Chinwhisker  It's all to do with how one is conditioned to read the bible, however, as I have found out,  prayers have been changed over time to reflect a different stance, is the bible the same?

If one is all ego, can we equate this to no mind? By destroying the very thing one relies on for it's existence to feed it's ego, I would say this is of no mind. 

China has destroyed it's natural environment mainly because of western influence through becoming more westernised.  Yes, I would say it's fair enough to call the western mind mindless.



Primarily focusing on, for example, positive thinking or love and light, is focusing on our strengths while noticeably ignoring the weaknesses. A good example of this is of children being abused in every way, this is ignored by positive and love and light people because it's too negative or toxic to address. It's a weakness that is plainly ignored. If half the people in the world spoke against this kind of abuse, a lot of children would be saved from abuse, instead, the western mind focuses on itself and it's own strengths, not it's own weaknesses. By ignoring these weaknesses because they are not of love and light or positive, allows these weaknesses to flourish, in actuality that is exactly what is presently occurring.

I should mention here that stating Buddhism is equated to the feminine (yin) and not also the masculine (yang) is in reference to it's philosophies. I believe that Buddhism came about for a need of a philosophy and an awareness to balance out life as a whole that was and still is primarily of the masculine. Even though Buddhism is of a religion as well as of philosophy, Buddhism wasn't meant to be followed or used in the same way as most ideologies. I believe Buddhism should be used in conjunction with other ideologies, not in opposition, a lot of western people following Buddhist philosophies, in my mind, are using Buddhism in opposition to other ideologies, not in conjunction.

It's funny to think it's the eastern part of the western mind that observes these weaknesses as the western mind is unable to. Consider this; can a man (yang) give birth? It's the same as the western mind being unable to address it's weaknesses, it needs the eastern mind to do this. Void of the eastern mind, the western mind can indeed be too controlling and mindless by primarily focusing on the ego, the outer world instead of the inner world or self.

_______________________________

Supplement:


I suppose the way we are looking at past lives is more western than eastern.

At times translation between western and eastern is easy, at other times virtually impossible. I don't think everything eastern can be successfully translated into western and probably visa-versa. Language is one barrier but so is the substance or meaning. Considering that the eastern and western mind looks at things in quite a different way a lot of the times, this figures.

I was talking to a bloke from India about the bhagavad gita, he simply said it's virtually impossible to convert the bhagavad gita to English, you lose too much of it's truer meaning. I don't think western language has as much inner depth and meaning as eastern languages. In saying this, I think the old English language has more depth than today's English; I'm not sure on this though.   

Wednesday, 13 September 2017

The Eastern and Western Mind


Written by Mathew Naismith

As we become more integrated and communicative around the world, I think it's essential we become aware of the differences between how we think in regards to other people of different cultures. At times the difference can be huge and at another times quite simular. Of course with the dominance and control of the western mind on the rest of the world, the differences in how we think is diminishing, sadly, eastern people are thinking more inline with western thinking.

I say sadly because it is obvious from the below information that the western mind is more dominating and controlling, even at the expense of the environment to it's own detriment. You have got to wonder, are more western minded people trying to understand eastern thinking to bring balance and a moderated existence back to the world? I should also mention, just because you are living under a western or eastern influence, you can still think and exist to the contrary depending on the influence one wants to exist under.
_________________________


Extract: The West has consequently developed a materialist science that is focused on the outer world--which it endeavours to control and exploit. In Asia, where most religions have arisen, consciousness has been directed inwardly to understand the essential nature of life.

The Westerners worked longer on the stuff they were told they had aced the first time. The Easterners concentrated on the areas they thought they had botched. Students from the West—where the cult of self-esteem reigns supreme—wanted a tummy rub. Students from the East were more concerned with fixing their blind spots, becoming well-rounded. The Westerners polished up their strengths while the Easterners addressed their weaknesses.


Extract:
§                  Patterns of attention and perception, with Easterners attending more to environments and Westerners attending more to objects, and Easterners being more likely to detect relationships among events than Westerners.
§                  Basic assumptions about the composition of the world, with Easterners seeing substances where Westerners see objects.
§                  Beliefs about controllability of the environment, with Westerners believing in controllability more than Easterners.
§                  Tacit assumptions about stability vs. change, with Westerners seeing stability where Easterners see change.
§                  Preferred patterns of explanation for events, with Westerners focusing on objects and Easterners casting a broader net to include the environment.
§                  Habits of organizing the world, with Westerners preffering categories and Easterners being more likely to emphasize relationships.
§                  Use of formal logical rules, with Westerners being more inclined to use logical rules to understand events than Easterners
§                  Application of dialectical approaches, with Easterners being more inclined to seek the Middle Way when confronted with apparent contradiction and Westerners being more inclined to insist on the correctness of one belief vs. another.


Extract: We can find the most striking difference in Asian and Western way of thinking. When Asian thinking aims for harmony, Western thinking strives for order. This is because the basic philosophy of Western people is based on the concept of liberty, free market economic system or liberalization of economic system. On the other hand, Asians do not give much importance to the aspects of free competition of the economic system. They are concerned more with the equal distribution of income or solidarity in helping each other among their communities, thereby assuring an egalitarian society.


If your also into the philosophical differences of views, you might like the following as well.


Extract:
Broadly, speaking,
Western society strives to
find and prove "the truth",
while
Eastern society accepts the truth as given and
is more interested in finding 
the balance.

Westerners put more stock in individual rights;
Easterners in social responsibly.
 

__________________________________

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

This is interesting stuff. I realise more clearly now why the western mind has problems with people like me, we point out where we can become more aware where the western mind only desires to focus on where they are aware.

Another example is standardisation. The western mind tries to standardise everything so everyone standardises when it is obvious the eastern mind doesn't. How many western people standardise spirituality with awareness? Of course to an eastern mind, spirituality and awareness are obvious bed fellows; there is simply no standardisation because there is no expression or motion of control unlike the western mind.

Another example is when the western mind ostracises or has disdain for people for having their own views, especially when these views are pointing out a lack of awareness. To the western mind, pointing out things like this is being critical, to an eastern mind, all one is doing is pointing out where one is lacking awareness. I am often ostracised/blocked on forums by the western mind for pointing out our short falls on my own posts; it's a typical western mind reaction.

Us westerners, in my mind, need to be more aware of our own short falls of the western mind, but of course the western mind only desires to be aware of it's grandeurs, it's strengths not it's weaknesses, this of course is it's weakness. 

I should point out that the eastern mind can be influenced by the western mind to become more of a western mind and visa-versa.  


Saturday, 19 August 2017

Pleasure Centres of the Mind


Written by Mathew Naismith


 As the following explains, the pleasure centre is a part of the brain that gives us a feeling of enjoyment; this enjoyment is often referred to by the ego as a positive. Of course we can become so addicted to this enjoyment that we, the ego, will most often refer to everything that isn't of this enjoyment as being negative and even toxic; this is why in Western spirituality that there are more judged negatives at present than ever. Yes, to be honest, a lot of us are in this state.

Let's say we are into light and love or materialism or anything else that excites our pleasure centre. Everything else other than what excites our pleasure centre often becomes negative or we deliberately become ignorant to the things that don't excite our pleasure centre. What people like me write about is often critically judged as being negative and even toxic, mainly because it doesn't excite the pleasure centre, in actuality, awareness often takes away the enjoyment from our pleasure centre. Let's be honest, we are presently just as much if not more focused on what enjoyment our pleasure centre gives us than ever throughout human history.          


Extract: You may have heard that the brain has a pleasure center that lets us know when something is enjoyable and reinforces the desire for us to perform the same pleasurable action again. This is also called the reward circuit, which includes all kinds of pleasure, from sex to laughter to certain types of drug use.

How many Western spiritually minded people deliberately ignore everything around them that doesn't give enjoyment to the pleasure centre these days? Now, how often is everything not conducive to the enjoyment of the pleasure centre critically judged as being negative and even toxic?

Let's say I am an empath, a person who feels their environment, is everything that doesn't excite my pleasure centre negative? No, but to a lot of empaths and spiritually aware people this has become the case it would seem. To be truly spiritually aware, of a state that Buddhism calls pure awareness, a state of pure bliss to the ego, everything that doesn't excite the pleasure centre of our mind isn't negative or bad. Just because the feelings we get don't excite our pleasure centre, doesn't mean it's negative, it simply means it doesn't excite our pleasure centre. Of course the pleasure centre being about pleasure, the pleasure centre is often controlled by the ego, not just of the ego but controlled by the ego, it is wise to become aware of this in my mind.

Yes, as of any time in human history, we are controlled by the ego, meaning, the ego is in control of our reality just as much if not more than any other time in human history. Let's be honest with ourselves, it's presently all about exciting our pleasure centre while deliberately staying ignorant to anything that threatens the pleasure centres enjoyment. In actuality, lets' be truthfully honest even more, we are living more in fear than ever in regards to Westernised spirituality.

        
A state of pure awareness means we become aware of everything, not just to the things our pleasure centre desires. If I was to only become aware of the things that excite my pleasure centre, would I be truly and honestly spiritually aware? This state of pure awareness has nothing to do with exciting the pleasure centre, and that everything else that doesn't excite this pleasure centre is negative. Are we truly going to experience the kind of bliss found in this state of absolute pure awareness by only being aware of the things that excite our pleasure centre? There is absolutely no infinite bliss to be found in continually exciting the pleasure centre because the pleasure centre is pure ego, not pure awareness. Yes, we will find that by exciting the pleasure centre we will momentarily feel blissful and happy, of course the ego being the ego, it always desires more and more excitement, more and more pleasure.

Being truly spiritually aware has nothing to do with continually exciting the pleasure centre. Considering that to excite the pleasure centre all the time takes the deliberate ignorance of everything that doesn't excite the pleasure centre, this kind of state has nothing to do with awareness. There is no awareness in this, just pure and utter deliberate ignorance construed by the ego in control to keep the ego amused, happy and excited.

Can this state of pure awareness, a state where there is no separation and where one becomes one with everything void of the limitations of pleasing our pleasure centres, give us feelings of bliss and love? Going by my own experiences, I would say yes, but you must realise, it's only the ego that can feel pleasure, for it's only the ego that needs to feel pleasure to exist. So in all, in our present state of ego, we will feel pleasure, however, it is wise to be aware that it's the ego in control that desires to be only aware of what excites it's pleasure centre, not just of the physical brain but of the non-physical mind as well.

As usual, what I have written here will not excite too many people's pleasure centres, the actual truth about ourselves as a whole rarely does. Please, be aware that a true state of awareness isn't all about pleasing our pleasure centres, of course the ego in control will, as always, state otherwise. Simply, don't allow your pleasure centre, the ego; to control you while becoming truly aware as opposed to partially aware of what pleases the pleasure centre that is apart of  us all. Be aware that (all) pleasures felt are of the ego, also, don't try to control the ego and it's pleasure centre, but don't allow it to control you either.         

Saturday, 18 June 2016

Does Consciousness Exist Outside the Brain?


written by Mathew Naismith

The following discussion is long and tedious and at times bitter but what the outcome of this discussion produces, is amazing to say the least. The discussion is based on my last post, "Putting Consciousness Into Perspective", but is primarily to do with consciousness being able to exist outside of the human brain. Also, some of the links I supplied might be of interest to some people.

Please bare with me, I have to prompt some people in opposition to my ideas at times to get the truth out in the open, I'm not interested in untruths. Prompting means to incite a discussion that tells of the opposing parties true intentions. I'm very good at this and it does take me to be tough on a person at times, basically, tough love. I wouldn't call this a pleasant discussion by far but at times we need to put up with the unpleasantries to get to what is pleasant for us, the world the way it is, is a good indication of this.            
       

Reply
Consciousness is not "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge", though knowledge may be acquired while conscious.

There is no "physical consciousness". Consciousness is a pattern within, or functioning of, a physical brain.

Consciousness is not "the act of acquiring awareness". That is the act of becoming conscious itself.

"The mental aspect is the same in the physical as it is of the non-physical, the only difference is, the physical existence needs a brain to process these mental actions and processes, the non-physical doesn't need a brain, it works with the mind"
No, consciousness is the functioning of a physical brain. There is no "non-physical" consciousness that does not need a brain.

A brain is still a brain without a mind. It just isn't functioning. But a mind is not a mind without a brain.

Consciousness is not a "non-physical entity". It is not an entity at all. it is a state of a mind.

Let's put this simply, without any "woo"...
The mind is the functioning of a brain.
Consciousness is an emergent property of a complex brain.
Easy-peasy. Nothing mysterious about it.


My Reply
There are a number of dictionary interpretations that say otherwise Bruce, but all these kinds of interpretation denote is a physical perspective over and above a non-physical perspective. 

"A brain is still a brain without a mind. It just isn't functioning. But a mind is not a mind without a brain."

So how do ghosts/spirits interact in a physical existence when they don't themselves have a physical brain? The only way you could answer this is state that ghosts don't exist when they obviously do. Science studies have proven that the mind exists outside the body. 

You put the physical before the non-physical therefore you will never be able to comprehend what I am talking about, you have proven the points I made in the post Bruce. 

Your in a box and this box is labeled physical, that is all you can perceive because you are in this box, easy-peasy, nothing complicated about this. 

People like myself are out of that box you labeled physical, therefore, we our perspectives and perception are much broader than the box labeled physical.

Bruce, in a million years you will never WANT to see this will you? If you are happy existing in your box, that's good as I am happy existing outside your box labeled physical.


What, stating facts instead of fiction Bruce. It is well known in psychology that we do indeed put ourselves within a box and this is where we perceive from, of course the box gives us a bias perspective as you have quite clearly displayed here Bruce. There is a much bigger world outside the box Bruce.......

Reply
You stated fiction, not facts. Fantasy, not reality.
I stated facts. I described both mind and consciousness in simple terms. Both of my descriptions are empirically supported. Yours are not.

It is well known in psychology that we do indeed put ourselves within a box and this is where we perceive from
So what?

of course the box gives us a bias perspective as you have quite clearly displayed here Bruce
You've yet to demonstrate that. All you've demonstrated is that you can't defend your ideas.

There is a much bigger world outside the box Bruce.
I'm glad you've noticed. Why don't you come out and play with all the rational intelligent people?




My Reply
The dictionary interpretations I read contradict your own for starters. So according to you, dictionaries are fictional......!!! 

Through a number of science experiments conducted, they have concluded that the mind does indeed exist outside of the body but there is no way you will comprehend this Bruce, this is inevitable as no doubt you will prove. Can you now see the box you are trying to perceive the rest of existence through? 

Anyone for starters who clearly states that dictionary's are fictional, are certainly existing in a box Bruce.


Reply
Please provide a link to the "dictionary definitions" you used.
I just think your dictionaries are fictional.

Through a number of science experiments conducted, they have concluded that the mind does indeed exist outside of the body
No, they have not. Now you are just flat-out lying.

Are you ever going to get around to defending your ideas? I'm getting tired of waiting. One might almost conclude that you cannot....


...and I see you've spammed this to a dozen different communities. What a dick move.

My Reply
Word web, consciousness: An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation

Being that consciousness is obviously cognitive, cognitive interpretation is as follow, " The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses." 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cognition

Now I know for a fact you will screw this around but consciousness is being cognitive, this is a fact Bruce. 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/consciousness

"The state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings: " 

I think a cognition relates to being aware would you not? You made the mistake in not thinking in terms of cognitive did you not Bruce? Big mistake.......Consciousness, an alert cognitive state, so what you are saying is consciousness isn't a cognitive state, obviously? 

Now for my evidence of the mind being able to exist outside of the physical brain.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiPkKX_ha7NAhUGJKYKHSF7B-8QFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ukapologetics.net%2F07%2Fmindandbody.htm&usg=AFQjCNF_gczwScwjo4FjTlX0No-2eLj5Fw&sig2=x5kSYKZVlQ9K1uSAjq2Cag

http://www.learning-mind.com/quantum-theory-proves-that-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-after-death/

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/03/brain-create-consciousness.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

http://www.oddee.com/item_98822.aspx

http://humansarefree.com/2015/07/scientific-proof-of-reincarnation-yes.html

So if I'm lying and unintelligent, unlike yourself of course, all these far more intelligent people than you are also lying according to your obvious bias perception? You have once again proven that you do indeed exist in a box labelled physical. 

In a million years my friend, you will not concede you are wrong in any sense, this will be obvious in your replies. Get out of your box Bruce, it's making you look awfully stupid my friend.

By the way, I can, in time, produce future links to state how much of a liar I'm not and how ignorant you are if you like.



Further proof that souls exist which means so does the mind outside of the body. 

http://consciouslifenews.com/scientist-photographs-soul-leaving-body/1165924/

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/quantum-scientists-offer-proof-soul-exists/story-fneszs56-1226507452687

Extract: A PAIR of world-renowned quantum scientists say they can prove the existence of the soul.

http://www.strangenotions.com/seven-proofs-for-the-natural-immortality-of-the-human-soul/

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/10/29/science-now-proves-reincarnation-a-look-at-the-souls-journey-after-death/

Of course all these people are far more unintelligent than Bruce, he will obviously tell us so. I think these people are no doubt far better educated than Bruce but Bruce is still more intelligent according to Bruce. That bias perception giving a bias perspective again caused by existing in a box, will these people ever wake up from out of the illusion? We better hope they do one day.... 


I will in time produce more info and links to many more people who are liars and far less intelligent than Bruce even though Bruce isn't even a scientist, it would seem, or quantum physicist. The box can certainly delude us.


Reply
"Word web, consciousness: An alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation"
...which is not how you defined it in your post. As I pointed out in my first reply.

"Now I know for a fact you will screw this around but consciousness is being cognitive"
Nope.
Consciousness is cognitive.
Learning is cognitive.
That does not mean that Consciousness is learning. That's a logical fallacy.

Consciousness is the state of being aware.
Cognition is the state of learning.
Learn the definitions of the words you use.

"Now for my evidence of the mind being able to exist outside of the physical brain."
Peer-reviewed research, please. And present your argument. I don't debate with links. Demonstrate you understand what they are saying.

"So if I'm lying and unintelligent, unlike yourself of course"
I'm more honest than you, and far smarter.

I await your peer-reviewed research demonstrating mind/body dualism...

My Reply
It would seem we are going to continue is this charade.

Try to be conscious without being cognitive, you're actually saying a consciousness can. Consciousness is being cognitive. It is also obvious you didn't know this because you should have mentioned it earlier but you didn't. 

What I explained what consciousness is, is correct because I didn't say the definition of consciousness did I, I only stated consciousness did I not? Your not very observant Bruce, that bloody box again!! 

By the way, there is a big difference between definition and interpretation but of course you don't know this either it would seem. Get out of that box Bruce...

So being aware through being conscious isn't learning through being aware!! 

"I'm more honest than you, and far smarter'.

So calling people names is a sign of intelligence Bruce, I don't think so especially when that name calling isn't backed up with evidence as I have produced. 

"I await your peer-reviewed research demonstrating mind/body dualism..."

So on all the info I supplied from far more intelligent people than you or I, even if you don't think so, this is your reply, your kidding me aren't you.......!! 

Because you are far smarter than I, you demonstrate that you know what they are stating. I think my post certainly demonstrates that I know what they are stating but you won't ever have this will you?

Bruce, give us sound evidence that I lied, good luck on this because I have already proven otherwise haven't I? But not to anyone in a box.... 

Bruce, it's not a good idea confronting people like myself like you have here, all you have proven is how bias and unobservant you are as of anyone stuck in a box would be. 

You absolutely have no idea what I am talking about Bruce which again proves my point about the box. You have proven how unobservant you are as you have proven how observant I am and that my friend is a fact. You of course won't see this either sadly enough

Interpretation: A mental representation of the meaning or significance of something 

Definition: A concise explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase or symbol 

There is a huge difference in their meaning. I stand by my explanation, cognitive represents consciousness as consciousness is represented by a cognitive factor. 

Once again, give us evidence I lied Bruce, at least give us this.....


Reply from another member

Play nice everyone ;)
I personally find your different perspectives very interesting and thank you both for engaging.


My Reply
 Everyone's perspectives are interesting but I don't think Bruce thinks this, I suppose that's why he stooped to name calling. 

What's interesting is that one of us is calling the other person names when replying to them, while the other person has always used the persons actual name when in reply. 

I think my physical pain is getting to me, too much typing in a short time space which makes the discussion even more interesting.

I might have to apologise to Bruce, I have been a little rough on him but it has been interesting, it confirms my perceptions and perspectives in a number of different ways unbeknownst to Bruce.

It's very interesting what that box has created, this is the illusion being that all we are is this box.


Reply from another member
I'm really just learning about all this, but I'm always ready to hear arguments on any side. 

I will reiterate to you both, though, to please be civil where you attack the contention, not the person.

My Reply
You and me both otherwise I wouldn't bother acknowledging Bruce. 

I should ease up on Bruce, I've prompted him way too many times but it's been interesting all the same.


My follow up reply
The following is an interesting read on why attributing consciousness to the physical brain is absurd. 

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/one-page-proof-that-attributing-consciousness-to-the-brain-is-absurd/

Extract: Consider this an open letter to philosophers, brain researchers, physicists, technocrats, Ray Kurzweil, and TED executives who censored lectures on consciousness by Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake.

Conventional science readily admits (insists) that the brain is made of the same particles that constitute everything else in the universe: rocks, chairs, comets, meteors, galaxies. According to conventional physicists, these particles are not conscious. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude the brain is conscious. The brain has no more ability to spawn consciousness than a rock does. End of story. End of proof. You’re welcome. Of course, a few scientists will argue (and many more will privately believe) that, since we humans ARE conscious, this proves the brain is producing consciousness—because, where else could we look for an explanation? Which is called circular reasoning. Meaning: you already assume what you’re trying to prove. Any first-semester logic student would mark that argument INVALID. Some scientists, suddenly invoking a brand of mysticism they otherwise deplore, claim the unique complex configuration of particles called the brain somehow—in this one case—has a capacity to break every rule in the book and deliver consciousness. But no proof, just faith. Supposition.
­_________________________

To me, to take a solid unwithering stand that consciousness can't possibility ever exist outside the brain, is an indication of utter blind faith, a consciousness entrapped in a box of dogmatic beliefs and concepts based purely on bias. Consider this, how would a consciousness entrapped in a box behave otherwise but bias and bias to the extreme. This sounds awfully like I'm talking about an extremist religious ideology but I'm not, I'm speaking of the bias and extremism of science........

I however don't exactly agree in the statement that certain physicists state that consciousness is in rocks, trees and so forth, I once read that these physicists state that everything has a form or kind of consciousness, meaning, not everything has a consciousness like humans for example but I could be incorrect in this. Basically, this article supports my scientifically supported suppositions and conjectures in regards to my post.
_________________________

The discussion is continuing which in my mind isn't worth mentioning, the following is my last sensible reply in regards to this discussion.

_________________________

This is interesting, our discussion has been primarily on the physical aspects of consciousness, basically, a consciousness that is cognitive, cognition being "The psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning" (Word Web).

In my post, I had a different interpretation of non-physical consciousness than of cognition for a very good reason, that reason being that not all non-physical consciousness is cognitive for the pure fact such consciousness isn't psychologically represented. I'm not about to go into this to why this is so on here.

What I am stating also is that awareness, which obviously takes a consciousness of some kind, is of learning, even when the physical conscious mind is unaware, the physical, and most likely non-physical, unconsciousness is aware. So while we are asleep, unconscious, we are not suppose to be aware and learning? This seems to be what is being stated by certain people here, even when we are physically unconscious, we are still learning because we are still aware be it in a different format. Has anyone heard of sleep learning to begin with?

Another point to make here is the way we analyse, if I was to totally pull apart a human body and totally segregate each part from the other, would we still call these segregated parts a human as opposed of being of a human. It's no longer a human especially when we segregate it, it's of parts of a human.

What some people are doing here in this discussion is the same, segregate everything and only mention what they want to acknowledge and still call it a holistic analysis. Not once has anyone of the opposing view to mine analysed the info I have given holistically. Certain people within science and spiritualty do the same if they want or desire a certain outcome other than what the holistic approach will produce/create. This is well known in the circles of psychology and quantum physics to occur. 

I could pull apart any fact and turn it into fiction, this is fact, the question is, would I be deceptive in doing so? Obviously......How often is factual life turned into fiction and of course visa-versa? This is one reason people like me can see through blatant deception  which is usually created by a consciousness being bias while stuck in a box.

My box analogy is certainly being proven here.


 Extract:Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. 



Where is the physical brain when two subatomic particles can communicate with each other over a long distance? Communication takes consciousness because one consciousness has to be aware of another consciousness to be able to communicate, in other words, self-awareness. This of course won't make any difference to a bias consciousness, this is going to be evident.  
________________________

Human consciousness has always evolved, just because we think we have found the right box, were not allowing human consciousness to evolve any further!! As human history quite plainly shows, there is no right box, only evolution......we are meant to evolve even if that means evolving into an entirely different species or entities.


I again apologise for the length and disposition displayed in this post.......      

Friday, 17 June 2016

Putting Consciousness Into Perspective



Written by Mathew Naismith

Consciousness; the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses. This interpretation refers more to the physical consciousness than non-physical. The non-physical interpretation would be something more like the following, " The mental (mind) action or process of acquiring awareness through comprehension, observation and all the senses".

The mental aspect is the same in the physical as it is of the non-physical, the only difference is, the physical existence needs a brain to process these mental actions and processes,  the non-physical doesn't need a brain, it works with the mind. Being aware that the brain is nothing without the mind, the minds actions and processes are non-physical until the brain expresses the minds actions and processes, this has given us the perception that the mind is also physical but it's not. Everything we create comes from a non-physical source of energy, the mind is a non-physical entity even though we use a physical form, the brain, to process the mind. Only through a physical form are we able to measure the mind and know of it's existence within a physical existence, this is quite different in a non-physical existence where there is no need to measure anything to know of it's existence, consciousness in a non-physical entity and is automatically aware of the minds existence.

Now we might also think that the mind dies with the brain when the physical self dies, once the physical brain is dead, so is the mind. Being that the mind isn't physical to start with until expressed through a physical brain, it's very unlikely that the mind dies with the brain. There are of course various science experiments that support this analogy. The mind existed before and after brains are formed, reincarnation is good example of this. Science once again has proven, to some extent, that reincarnation could possibly be a real phenomena. So it's obvious that the mind, therefore consciousness, exists as a non-physical entity, in actuality, consciousness, therefore the mind, is probably more of a non-physical entity than a physical one. Basically, consciousness is non-physical until it's expressed through a physical brain, however, not all that is expressed physically is expressed through a physical brain. This of course further refers that the mind doesn't need the brain to express itself in a physical way. 

It would seem that consciousness can exist without a physical form to process and inturn turn these processes into actions, physical form, in actuality, it's not the non-physical that is alien to consciousness, the mind, it's physical form that is alien to consciousness (the mind). This infers that consciousness natural state is non-physical, not physical as we perceive, this is the illusion that physical existence has given us I feel.

True Meaning of Old Texts: Our perception, within a physical existence, has given us the perception that the mind can't possibly exists without the brain, this of course is untrue. Many of the old texts are written by people that are aware of this, however, so that people of the perception that the mind is the brain perception, meaning, that these people are predominantly of the physical perception, these old texts had to be written so that the average person could comprehend what is being stated. This meant that the writer had to express himself in a physical way, everything written had to be put into a physical perspective.

A good example of this is God, God's and Goddesses and demons, devils and angels to name a few. We often put these entities into form because that is the only way we can comprehend and perceive their being, otherwise they couldn't exist for us. In actuality this is how these old text writers had to write, most of the times, they had to put a physical figure or representations to something that was and is of a non-physical consciousness entity. For example, is God a white bearded man in a white robe? No, but God's consciousness had to be presented like this so that the average person could comprehend what was being portrayed within these texts, we are also talking about a people who were  predominantly illiterate as well when these texts were written. Could you imagine telling people of God's consciousness as being just a consciousness and expect the populous to comprehend where you were coming from? It just wouldn't have happened so the old texts had to be written so that the average person could comprehend them, this meant that when it came to explaining consciousness,  these texts where encoded into symbols to hide the real meanings of the texts.

Devils and angels are the same, devils haven't got horns and angels haven't got wings, this is our perception of these kinds of consciousnesses so we can relate to them to acknowledge them. This kind of acknowledgment is needed in a consciousness that is predominantly of the mind of physical existence, meaning, the physical is acknowledge before the non-physical. Any consciousness that perceives the physical before the non-physical, needs physical acknowledgment, this means putting each consciousness, like God, angles and demons, into a physical representation for acknowledgment. Often old texts will present themselves inline with the physical when their own acknowledgment is of the non-physical.

So what is all this saying?

It's saying that there is only consciousness until consciousness is expressed or recreated into physical form. The devil is a representation of a conscious way of existing as is Jesus or Buddha for example. They are not a representation of a being or beings, they are a representation of a consciousness, a non-physical consciousness. Now not many of us can comprehend this or even want to comprehend this but some of us can, and yes, we are at that stage of human consciousness where a certain number of people are able to comprehend beyond physicality.

We can indeed create or summon a being or beings that look like devils and angels for example, within a physical existence, this is a good thing to occur though because it gives us a comprehension of something we might not otherwise become aware of.


We do indeed have a choice, either to live by a Jesus/Buddha consciousness or by a devils consciousness for example, remembering though, Jesus/Buddha consciousness is of awareness, wisdom and harmony where's the devils consciousness is of ignorance, folly disharmony, the choice is indeed ours to make. I know what kind of consciousness wisdom would choose to exist by......!!