Showing posts with label reincarnation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reincarnation. Show all posts

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.......      

Wednesday, 31 December 2014

Timelessness, of Love and Tranquillity


Written by Mathew Naismith

I thought the following reply I received in regards to my last post was interesting. Jeff has always been an interesting bloke to listen too, he certainly know he’s history especially his ancient history. History isn’t actually about the past because every time we think about history it’s always in the present moment, history is never about a by gone time as Jeff will elaborate on.

I will go into how and why timelessness creates tranquillity and love for us a little further on in the post however, I think it’s wise to become aware of what time represents first for a better understanding of what timelessness actually represents.  

Reply
The following message talks about time in relation to reincarnation.

I think Edgar Cayce said he repeated a life experience in the American Old West time period as a guy by the name of John John Bainbridge.

Someone might want to repeat a life experience to change something they deeply regret for example.

The Lives of Edgar Cayce
[Paperback September, 1995]
by W. H. Church (Author), Joe Dunn (Editor)

Jeff Marzano 11:40 AM

Yes and the idea of reincarnation can make those consequences possible. That's called the Law Of Karma.

Not that karma has to happen in a future life. It can happen 5 minutes from now or also in a past life.

God exists outside of time in the spiritual realm. When we are born we become subject to the laws of time on this planet Earth. But when the physical body dies we return to that timeless dimension.

There are strange theories about how people can be reincarnated into any time period past or future or even live the same life experience over again.

In other words someone could die today and then be reincarnated in ancient Egypt.

Those types of theories raise many strange and paradoxical questions about the nature of time and this physical world. It implies that time is something other than a strictly sequential, linear process.

The weird thing about it is that everyone, everything, and I guess really the entire universe would have to exist in an infinite number of possible futures which may or may not actually happen in this physical world.

If someone wanted to repeat the same life over again everybody else would also still have to be there.

This is all very strange and far beyond human comprehension.

Anyone interested in reincarnation should start watching the TV show Ghost Inside My Child.

This show airs on the LMN channel and right now new episodes are airing on Saturday nights.

My Reply
I utterly concur with this, especially these days, I didn’t know, until recently; time is actually about the interactions of energy not a measurement of time. Take our physical lives for instance, our mind and body are always reacting with itself and other energy sources around it, cancer is a good example of this interaction and so is love as is of what we deem as our demise. Sure we measure this life form but only because of what these life forms (different energy sources) go through when interacting.

Would we have time if we had no interactions of these energy sources? I don’t think so, time is these interactions of different energy sources, without these interactions, I don’t think we would have time. This means timelessness is of non-interactions, this is why it feels so peaceful, tranquil and of love. I believe all energies of timelessness become one through becoming one vibration instead of many. It is very difficult to feel love for a vibration that isn’t in tune with our vibration, timelessness gives us this through the non-interactions of energy sources because all energy sources becomes one energy source through being in tune with other energy sources.  This is becoming one with God or the source I believe.


History isn’t about a past event but an indication of the interactions between energy sources, once we have an interaction we have time and once we have time we have history. Timelessness on the other hand isn’t about an interaction between energy sources, this also means within timelessness there is no history mainly because all energy sources become one. Once there are no interactions, there is no time or history as all vibrational energy sources become in tune with each other as one vibration, this gives us utter tranquillity and love.

Love is produced by being in tune with other vibrational energy sources around us, this is why it’s quite difficult to be totally unconditionally loving in time, we live with numerous and various energy sources that are not in tune with our own vibrations, we can’t expect ourselves to be totally uncordially loving under these circumstances unless we can become one with other vibrational energy sources.

This is the strange thing, as Jeff has pointed out we can relive a life event in ancient Egypt, how can this be so if we are living in time, time is after all about past history, a bygone era?

If we were to only look at time as being a measurement, what Jeff has stated can’t possibly occur, this is due to thinking once a moment of time has passed it’s a part of history that can’t be relieved. Now if we only look at time as being the interactions of energy sources, can we now see Jeff’s statement as being plausible especially when we take in the consideration of timelessness?

Timelessness has no history as a past time event because it’s not of time, history in timelessness becomes just another interaction of energy sources no matter when this event occurred in time. Everything within timelessness becomes the present moment no matter what the interactions of these energy sources create.


We can quite easily see how these timeless states of consciousness create love and tranquillity, there is no conflict or chaos as there is no time to create conflicts between energy sources. If we can learn in time to look at time as an interaction of energy sources instead of a measurement, our existence in time would become a lot more tranquil. The measurement of anything always gives us conflicts mainly because these measurements can oppose each other, in a timeless state of consciousness we don’t have these conflicts because nothing is measured. This is due to everything being within the present moment no matter how far back in the past these interactions seem. Time gives us the delusion that time is of measurements when it’s only of the interactions of energy sources.      

Tuesday, 26 August 2014

Reincarnation Experience


Written by Mathew Naismith

This is so uncanny. As most of my readers would know, I often converse with people who are into various ideological principles such as the sciences and atheism.   Recently I’ve been having a bit of trouble with a person who is seemingly strictly science minded on a Noetic site; this particular person has been quite aggressive towards me and others who are spiritually minded. This person could not leave me alone; I thought it had something to do with his insecurity of spiritually aware people, that is in part true but not totally true to my amazement.

Last night while in a very calm state of awareness it hit me, he was a very good friend of mine in Yugoslavia, we were very close. There was this girl called something like Bankyet, my friend, unbeknownst to me, was totally struck by here, he was very infatuated by here.  My friends name by the way was something like Yusuf.  Anyway I ended up with Bankyet, this devastated my friend and he has been avoiding me ever since.

Another funny thing was we were also together in Ancient Egypt, I was a healer and he was, you guised it, the science minded person.  

We have been clashing so much on this site but it was I who has been avoiding him mainly because of what happens when we converse.   He obviously felt he needed to confront me not knowing the correct reasons to why. I just wonder if his aggressive stance towards spirituality isn’t to do with me being a healer and him being a science minded person in ancient Egypt??  It would also be funny the reason that most people have such an aggressive stance towards something is from past life traumas!!  


Just a thought!!