Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Wednesday, 12 October 2016

Ancient Technologically Advanced Man

Written by Mathew Naismith

 

Strangely enough, the following came about through a heated discussion I had with two people in regards to my last post, the more I proved my points, with their assistance, the more aggressive they became. They started off with name calling, then blatant abuse, deception and manipulation of facts and evidence an finally continuous trolling of my post. The following post was worth all this, they say no pain, no gain, pretty much right. 

Before I go on with the main topic of the post of ancient technological advanced man, I need to firstly touch on the discussion that incited me to write this post.

I had my beliefs/views questioned on the topic of Atlantis and Lemurian consciousness, in response, I supplied relevant material to support these views. Every time I produced such material, these two people become more and more hostile towards me. The point is, once a person in a discussion calls you names, you know you have them on the back foot in regards to the discussion. Once they stoop to outright abuse, deception and trickery/manipulation, you have won the discussion/debate. Once they then turn to internet trolling, especially on a regular basis, it's time to end the discussion with them.

A lot of people would have ended the discussion when it came to name calling, I certainly understand this from a spiritual perspective, especially if all you want is peace, however, people like myself obviously still have something to learn from these people.

The following is in reaction to these people I had a discussion with, as soon as your emotions influence your intuition and logics, what you often produce from this is rhetoric, half truths mixed with bias opinionating views and gestures. It would have been nice if these people got their facts correct before continually abusing other people of being delusional and liars, amongst other things.

               

Ancient Technologically Advanced Man

 

Age of Australian Aboriginal archaeological sites

How old?

SiteLocationEstimated ageGanga Maya CavePilbara, Western Australia45,000 years

MalakunanjaRock shelter, Arnhem Land, NT45,000 years

Devil’s LairLimestone cave, south-west Western Australia41,000 .. 46,000 years

Lake MungoDry lake basin, Willandra Billabong Creek, western NSW43,000 years

NauwalabilaRock shelter, Arnhem Land, NT40,000 years

Professor Rebecca L. Cann, together with her colleague Alan C. Wilson, previously claimed that humanity can be traced to people living “about 200,000 years ago, probably in Africa”. But she later revoked that claim, declaring that “Mitochondrial DNA puts the origin of Homo Sapiens much further back and indicates that the Australian Aborigines arose 400,000 years ago from two distinct lineages, far earlier than any other racial group.” [2]
_______________________

The following is interesting, there seems to have lived a modern man in Australia before and during the migration of aboriginals to the Australian continent.


Extract: One of these spanners is Mungo Man, who was discovered in 1974 in the dry lake bed of Lake Mungo in west NSW. Mungo Man was a hominin who was estimated to have died 62,000 years ago and was ritually buried with his hands covering his penis. Anatomically, Mungo Man's bones were distinct from other human skeletons being unearthed in Australia. Unlike the younger skeletons that had big-brows and thick-skulls, Mungo Man's skeleton was finer, and more like modern humans. 

In relation to this, the age of the Vedic texts is around 3716-3116 years ago (1700bc -1100bc), we are still talking about ancient civilisations here.


Extract: While the West was still thinking, perhaps, of 6,000 years old universe – India was already envisioning ages and eons and galaxies as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. The Universe so vast that modern astronomy slips into its folds without a ripple.

The movement of stars which was calculated by Hindus 4,500 years ago, does not differ even by a minute from the tables which we are using today. The Hindu systems of astronomy are much more ancient than those of the Egyptians - even the Jews derived from the Hindus their knowledge.

_______________________



Now let's consider what is called a super-continent.  


Extract:  Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Period (some 299 million to 272 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Period (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”

_______________________

Considering that Hindu science (physics) was thousands of years old before modern day science, and that modern day human remains where discovered in Australia, it would seem a modern day man could have existed on this super continent, or, on contents of a larger size than today. Now consider that time can indeed erase all traces of man, especially considering the movement of these plates, it's a  wonder we have any evidence left to put these pieces back together. Texts, like Hindu texts, give us a glimpse of ancient man who was more civilized and technologically advanced than what we could have imagined.

I asked a friend of mine from India the following:

My friend, can you supply me links showing how advanced your culture was in the antediluvian period, a period before the great flood.
I know that Hinduism is the oldest surviving religion in the world, is the Vedas even older, by memory, I think they are which I believe Hinduism is based on.
I'm presently in conversation with a Zionist and an extremist atheist about ancient technology and awareness. Going by memory, the Vedas make reference to physics principles, I need confirmation on this.
Thank You


Sreeram Manoj Kumar True Mathew Naismith you are absolutely right.....we all belong to the same source....by saying so our culture was so the same.....what is now the diversification of many religion was once SANATANA DHARMA. This was not a religion it was a way of life. One who is living a life considering the well-being of all automatically belongs to the SANATANA DHARMA. 

Vedas are not only of e particular sect. It is for the whole mankind. I is amazing to read about the thoughts of Aristotle, Pluto, Socrates which resembles the Vedic thought. In recent times to I came to know about Dr. Cherie Carter Scott and her thoughts which were reflecting what my ancestors told. 

If one tries to find their roots then the thought which surface are those which were prevailing thousands of years back.

We all have them in our subconscious mind we just need to tap them. The only way is to fan the fire of Abhipsa. This word "Abhipsa" my friend, cannot be explained in English. Some may say "interest" but that is too meek meaning. It is more than that like one of my scriptures says that the strong desire, same as what grasp for air is to a drowning person.

Nice to know you are seeking that along with many of us.

I will keep posting what I have understood my dear Mathew Naismith. Meanwhile if I come across any link which can polish your memory I will pin you 

Pranam.....

Wednesday, 22 June 2016

The Truth of Isms and Ideologies




Written by Mathew Naismith

Bare with me on this, it gets quite interesting and informative, This is probably one of my most impartial posts I've ever written, at first this isn't apparent though.

Atheism: While on a particular site, it was obvious I was being bullied by an atheist who didn't want to know if any of my perceptions were valid or not, basically, from the start this person had a preconceived perception, nothing I was going to say was going to change this fixated perception based on atheistic ideologies. There was no point from the start in a continuous discussion on anything remotely intellectual that was of my perception but I persevered. 

Even when evidence was obtained from various sources backing my perceptions, I was still called a liar, in actuality, once I provided such evidence, this person became even more noticeably aggressive to the eventual point of using harassment and bullying tactics. The sources I supplied included, quantum physics, psychiatry and philosophy perspectives endorsing my perceptions. The main problem was, if I was remotely correct in my perceptions that a consciousness can indeed exist outside of the brain, it immediately  questions the beliefs of atheism. Now this brings us to atheism being a belief and even a belief system that is purely based on fear alone.

I then posted a post inferring that atheism is a belief system by using the definition from a dictionary as follow, "The doctrine or belief that there is no God". What followed was astonishing to say the least, they were defending their atheism in the same exact way that a religious person with extreme ideologies would. I am talking from actual experiences here. Lets collate some evidence together to get a better picture of this.

1: The dictionaries state clearly it's of doctrines and a belief     

2: These atheists defended their atheism to the same degree a religious person with extreme ideologies would, stooping to unbelievable depths to do so

3: If their science is unable to prove the existence of God either way, this clearly means atheism isn't based on facts but assumptions and speculations

4: Seen as atheism is not based on facts, it must be based on assumptions and speculations  

5: To have such a blind faith in assumptions and speculations, means atheism is also of  faith. This of course depends on the faith an atheist has in regards to pure assumptions and speculations. In this case and other cases where I approached atheists on the same matter, they reacted as if they had utter blind faith of atheism which is purely based on, not facts, but assumptions and speculations.

6: Faith clearly infers a belief. Definition of faith: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. Is not science controlling our destiny?

7: Fear: A belief in an ism (atheism) opposing another ism, such as religion, denotes a reaction that infers fear. Why follow an opposing ism if one is not fearful of another ism?

8: With the reactions I had received from atheists on this site and other sites, they fear there atheism being questioned in anyway what so ever

9: If atheism is the be and end all, why express so much fear resulting in uncivil behaviour? If atheism were of facts, what would they have to fear when atheistic beliefs are questioned? Atheists obviously know that atheism can be questioned but they still stick to atheism as if it's the be and end all, a clear depiction of utter blind faith and dogmatism.

I think all the evidence that has been collated here, infers that atheism is indeed a belief system and based purely on fear, a fear that purposely stays ignorant to any other perceptions not of atheistic beliefs because of fear. Consider this, don't atheists often criticise religion for expressing these same traits that atheists obviously express as well? You can then add hypocritical to their biases. I should point out in all fairness, not all atheists are like this, some atheists, very few it would seem, are quite open minded, they just don't believe in a God or divine entities but I have found out some of them do believe in a consciousness existing beyond the brain.      

Science; like atheism, is purely based on assumptions and speculations, there are no facts in science, if there were, science would be dogmatic within their concepts, science can't be this dogmatic because science knows that the whole of existence evolves and changes, there can be no fixated concepts which means no utter facts. This of course doesn't stop people into science stating that science is about facts which of course infers dogmas, a fixated preconception of concepts and perceptions that can no longer be further proved. This analogy of course is again only an assumption.

General science might be fixated to these facts (dogmas) but quantum physics and metaphysics isn't, when two protons can communicate, not just interact, between each other, physicists know that consciousness isn't just of the brain. Consider this also, what caused the human brain to grow bigger over time, was it the brain miraculously growing bigger through evolution for some reason or was it consciousness causing the brain to grow bigger over time? Our brain grew because of our expanding consciousness, not our consciousness grew because of our expanding brain, conscious awareness causes the brain to grow, this is well known in science to occur. Consciousness before the brain...

Let's take this further, science can now computer emulate creating a mini-universe, did this not take a creative consciousness to do this? This infers that the universe we exist in, could have been created by a consciousness way beyond human comprehension, in actuality, some scientists believe that is exactly what occurred. It's a good idea to do your own research on this, you just might come across something I didn't. I don't want to detract from what you discover through my own perceptions, this is well known to occur.

New Age spirituality; is also based on fear, the fear of fearing and the fear of being in judgement and the fear of expressing the ego altogether. To know that fear is of being of fear, one has to judge what is and isn't fear. What makes us feel fear? A judgment of fear when fear can be highly beneficial to making us more aware. It's a bit silly denouncing fear when it can be so beneficial to us if used correctly.

How often do new age spiritually aware people denounce religion as being based on fear? Is this also not of judgment and slightly hypocritical? How often do these same people judge science as being some how of a lower vibration or less worthy in some way to their own beliefs? Consider this, is not all of what was created, from the same source of energy? Isn't everything of this source therefore worthy within it's own right? Everything has equal value, this also includes atheism and agnosticism.

Religion: The way religion is expressed by church leaders, especially in the west, can be totally based of fear at times, the bible can also be interpreted as being based on fear and on fables. The bible however can be interpreted in many different ways. I found if you read the bible as a non-fiction book, the bible makes no sense until you read it as a fiction book. When you read the bible as a friction book, you begin to become aware of the hidden meaning of the bible which then refer to a book based on non-fiction. The bible is encoded and if you are unable to read in symbols, the bible will stay a fiction book based on fear and fables. It's very difficult to read something that is of the infinite with finite perceptions. 

All these isms and ideologies are based on assumptions and speculations, a person into science or atheism  might say that science is  more of factual assumptions and speculations than religion or any other ideology, of course a religious person would state otherwise. People into science/atheism and religion might also state that their ism and ideology are more than assumptions and speculations but this is purely based on their own perceptions, not on other perceptions. In actuality,  no ism or ideology is more worthy than another when they were all created from the same source.

How many isms actually concur impartially to all this? Very few because each ism has it's own fixated preconceived perceptions based on their own perceptions. It's preconceived because usually each ism has it's own perceptions, anything out side these perceptions are usually denounced as being somehow less worthy of consideration.


The point is, everything was created from an infinite source of energy, facts however are of a finite perception because they have limitations where assumptions and speculations are infinite. For any ism or ideology to proclaim their of facts, their actually stating their perceptions are only of the finite, religious people and atheists mistakenly, in my mind, do this on a regular basis, especially when they are in opposing opposition with one another. It's this act of opposing that causes a consciousness to perceive primarily in the finite, which to me is always going to lead to conflict, this I believe will only stop when we start to perceive in the infinite. In a religious/spiritual sense, this infinite represents the connection to the source of all creation known to many as God or the source of all creation, I'm not sure if atheism and science have a name for this infinite source of energy but matter itself, matter and anti-matter.     

Monday, 8 February 2016

Ideologies and Philosophies and Beyond


Written by Mathew Naismith

I was recently asked what is my point I'm trying to make when making reverence to perceiving beyond present day ideologies and philosophies. My point certainly isn't that ideologies and philosophies should have no further part in our lives, so what is my point? I think the following should explain this in some way to some extent, I gave this in reply to someone asking me what is my point.

My point is perceiving beyond these obvious limited ideologies/philosophies, especially when people of one ideology/philosophy think their ideologies/philosophies are in anyway somehow above other people's ideologies/philosophies.

In one sense Buddhism is, but in another sense so is Hinduism and Christianity but only to a person who looks beyond these belief systems and isms.

I will explain this further using the sciences as an example.

General science is limited to logics, if it doesn't make logical sense or can be logically proven at a particular point in time, it can't exist. Logics in this case is used as an ideology in a sense that logics is fixated to one point of reasoning, any other reasoning process other than logical is disregarded. The problem with this kind of reasoning or perception is that it is limited to logics, in this case logics within general science has become a doctrine, a belief that if it isn't logically proven, it can't exist.

Like with religions/ideologies, there are different sciences and philosophies that use  different reasoning processes, metaphysics is one and quantum physics is another.  These science techniques perceive beyond the normal practice of general science, does it make these science techniques more superior than general sciences? At first we would say most definitely yes, however, this isn't the case. For example, people into Buddhism or Christianity seem to perceive that their religion/philosophies are superior in some way but the question is to whom?

I recently received the following reply from a good internet friend of mine. 

In discussion once, I mentioned that I see the Creator as a single source; I did, however, acknowledge that much is perspective, illustrating by saying "what appears to be a star from a distance, can become a galaxy on closer inspection.

This is a prime example of someone perceiving beyond a fixated perception that the creator is of a single source, even though the perception at that point in time tells us that the creator is of a single source.

In this case you could perceive that a philosophy, not influenced by ideological concepts, is being used here as a true sense of philosophy never fixates itself to a particular concept or idea. I know this person perceives beyond the thinking mind and uses the inner mind, in other words this person uses a mind not influenced by the five senses. This person still uses the mind influenced by the five sense, but, they obviously, to me, also use what I call the inner mind.  We of course all use the mind influenced by the five senses and logics at times in one way or another. 

If anyone is interested, this person also has their own Google community titled World Peace. 


To whom is a particular ideology/philosophy more superior or more of the absolute truth than other ideologies and philosophies?

If I met Buddha, for example, and he started telling me how he's perceptions are the be and end all, they are supreme to all other perceptions, I would just simply laugh at him for the simple reason no ones perception is supreme over and above another.  For example, are the sciences or Hinduism the answer to all of what is? The answer to this is simply no, consciousness itself is infinite, this means it's forever changing and is  endless within it's possibilities and creations. This also means consciousness isn't fixated to one perceptions or group of perceptions, it's basically boundless and unlimited within it's perceptions.

Lets say my perceptions were actually the be and end all, they were supreme over all other perceptions, in this case I would be able to become aware of the worthiness of all other perceptions, as within the present, each perception has it's place within consciousness as a whole.

OK,  lets put it another way, if I was a devout Christian, would it be wise for me to go into an environment destructive towards such perceptions? Within that present moment, Christianity is more harmful to me, it basically has no value in such an environment, however, if I was to perceive and adjust to my present environment, my experiences would be a lot different. 

What would happen to Buddha and Jesus, for example,  if they returned? They wouldn't last long even though their perceptions go way beyond normal human perceptions. This means their perceptions have no substance or creed within such a reality, there perceptions are seemingly worthless even though their perceptions are more aware and wise.

It matters not how aware or supreme a perception is, either it be an  ideology, philosophy or science, if such perceptions don't belong within a certain reality, they are meaningless. Indeed, a lot of what I write about is meaningless within this reality, it just doesn't fit within the main stream of things, so why do people like me still express themselves? 

Simple, if I wasn't supposed to be able to perceive the way I do, I wouldn't be able to. No matter how you perceive,  it's worthy, maybe not too worthy within the reality we are presently experiencing but it's still worthy no matter what perception you express and follow. This means what ever ideology, philosophy or science you perceive through, it's still worthy no matter what environment you are in, however, just because the ideology, philosophy or science you perceive through is your be and end all, doesn't mean it's everybody else's!!  

The question is now, have people like me adjusted to our present environment?  Absolutely, but not at the total expense of our own perceptions, its wise to adjust to the conditions of our environment for only in this can we still express our own perceptions to some degree.


The controlling ego doesn't like to adjust or compromise for within this, it loses control, it's this simple!!             

Tuesday, 22 December 2015

The Worthiness of the Finite and Infinite


Written by Mathew Naismith

I've been receiving some interesting responses to my last two posts on my blog, the finite and infinite perspectives are certainly giving us different perceptions. On one side, we have the consciousness of science stating that infinite consciousness is a consciousness in delusion. On the other side we have consciousness of spirituality stating that finite consciousness is a consciousness in an illusion......Science minded and spiritually aware people are stating that each other is in a delusional or an illusional state of consciousness!!  

In actuality, both illusions and the delusions exist but not to the extent of the obvious bias being expressed by either side, both the infinite and the finite has it's place, to me this is obvious.          

The following is an interesting reply to my last post.....  



Reply
Hi Mathew I read the blog but still find myself confused at your understanding of truer self and the deception of science and the spiritual nature of the truer self as you put it. I'm not sure what it is you are trying to get across. Do you have a special different understanding of everything compared to the two mentioned above? If so can you explain it so that clarity can be given to that theory. I'm not trying to criticise just would love to see where your thoughts are taking you as it feels a bit off the mark if I'm honest.



My Reply
Finding other people's perceptions questionable, is all about trying to be  aware beyond your own perceptions, this can also include being aware beyond human perceptions at times.  Trying to perceive beyond your own perceptions isn't, to me, being critical Damon, it's quite cool.

Truer Self: Look at your truer self being everything that is infinite, it's a state of being that has no boundaries of the finite, in other words a starting and ending point, it's basically a state of eternalness. In most religions this was portrayed through the knowing of a God and/or Goddesses or anything portraying an eternal aspect. We have always had a connection with our eternal self  through spirituality in one sense or another. It's obvious to me there is something to the infinite self, why would so many people express such  an interest in the infinite if it didn't have some kind of truth about it?  We have obviously felt a connection to the infinite self, our truer or inner self/being.

Science: If I at all portrayed science being of deception, I'm sorry for that, this was not my intentions. Science is of the finite awareness, an awareness based on finite perspectives where's spirituality is based on infinite perspectives. Within any ideology or concept, it's not the ideology or concept that becomes deceptive, it's the people behind such conscious perceptions.

Spirituality = infinite + eternal states of consciousness + infinite awareness 

Science = finite + transitory states of consciousness + finite awareness

It's interesting how general science preconceives that consciousness also dies when the human self dies!!   

Don't be mistaken that these two quite different perspectives don't come together, they often do when a consciousness using such perceptions has no biases/boundaries to contend with. Some of the newer sciences of today use both finite and infinite perspectives as they did before modern day science. I think using both perspectives certainly seems to give us wisdom. This wisdom comes about by perceiving that there are no true boundaries, therefore, there are no preconceptions.

To me, it is obvious why we are lacking wisdom today, we have set up boundaries and biases between infinite and finite conscious perceptions and being. A truly wise person never preconceives what is and isn't, they always stay open to any possibility beyond their own perceptions.

Damon, you yourself have expressed this through querying a perception different to your own......It's not easy staying open to perceptions we have no idea of , only in the wise will we observe this.           
            


Note: The discussion between Damon and myself is still in progress, I will update this post in accordance with our discussion.

Reply 
 
Actually that helped thank you I agree with your explanation   

Friday, 15 May 2015

Why Do We Need Science?


Written by Mathew Naismith

I had a good internet friend of mine share what she thought was significant, that science can prove that reincarnation can occur and that the soul exists. 


One of the replies she received from this was as follow, Why do you need science to prove what is already known?

This is a significant question in more that one sense, why do we need science or, to be unbiased, any other means to become aware if everything is already known, this includes ancient and new texts of all kinds, this include the Kabbalah, bible, yogic and Tao practices, quantum physics and so on. It is obvious we still need these soul searching practices to become aware of what we are not aware of in our present state of consciousness.

Our present state of consciousness is important to understand here to answer this question, to do this we need to ask another question, what is  our present state of consciousness? You can't say we are enlightened, in my mind no truly enlightened consciousness, conscious of it's own enlightened state, wouldn't be able to exist in such a reality as to be apart of such atrocities and mayhem, they would have to totally separate themselves from such actions.

Is this saying people like Jesus weren't enlightened? Not to the extent we would like to believe they were, to be a part of any kind of chaotic reality takes one to be unenlightened to one extent or another, we are all prime examples of this, in other words we are all in an unenlightened state, the true question isn't if we are enlightened but how unenlightened we are from our true enlightened state.

Within this true enlighten state, all of what is, is already known, in this state there is no need for any kind of soul searching practices, this isn't the case when we are in an unenlightened state. Basically we are involved in an unenlightened state of consciousness quite unaware of it's truer enlightened self, within this state of consciousness, to become aware of our enlightened self again, we use soul searching practices like science and various spiritual ideologies.

Science also gives us confirmation, especially through quantum physics, that certain spiritual practices we follow and believe in are genuine or not to one degree or another. Science has proven that meditation is healing, not just to the mind but the body as well, this is important for anyone who isn't wholly into utter blind faith. Anyone who practices in meditation knows this already but many people don't, this is where science comes into it, science might not be important to some people but it is to others.

The other significance of the question, Why do you need science to prove what is already known, is to ask such questions shows us that we are evolving from old soul searching practices, we are awakening and no longer feel we need such practices and knowledge to evolve. Yes, some of us are bias within separating science soul searching practices from other soul searching practices, this however still shows us that we are evolving away from the old consciousness that needed such practices to become aware.

So in all, to question do we need science is a very good sign that our consciousness is for ever evolving, this evolving consciousness also includes all the soul searching practices we use to become aware, look at how quantum physics has allowed science to evolve. Any soul searching practice or ideology that isn't evolving, really does need to be left behind otherwise we will stay within this non-evolving consciousness until days end. 

You might be anti-science but at least this soul searching practice is evolving through the likes of quantum physics unlike many spiritual/religious ideologies of today.

A good example of this is, do we need to learn to meditate and the answer is yes, why? Because we still need healing from a consciousness that is still in an unenlightened state, the question is now, would we need to learn to meditate if we weren't in an unenlightened state and the answer of course is no. This means to learn old practices of meditation, is of the old consciousness that still needs old soul searching practices to become aware and heal. Now does quantum physics use old soul searching science practices to become aware and the answer is no, certainly not to the same extent as general science, quantum physics has allowed science to evolve within a new consciousness as all soul searching practices need to do in my mind.


To me we are in an unenlightened state from an enlightened state, in this state of consciousness, we need soul searching practices to become aware, however, we also need to allow these soul searching practices to evolve.   

Monday, 26 January 2015

Religion, is it Rational???


Written by Mathew Naismith

This post was inspired by a bloke called Sal C; the following was a reply I received from him. I have a feeling this is an important topic to bring forth, is religion questionable and the answer would be for sure, however, instead of looking at the negative effects of religion how about we look at the positives of religion for once keeping in mind I’m not religious myself; actually I don’t follow any ism period however I do try to be aware of the positive and negative effects of isms mainly because they have a direct and/or indirect impact on us all.  It’s a bit silly sticking our heads in the sand when these isms impact on our lives so much.  

Hey Matt, I want to know your opinion on religion. We hear so much on how it can be limiting to your growth and unscientific. I feel it can be very beneficial, even life saving, providing you don't get so entrenched in the beliefs as to disregard reason and logic all together. I feel if people look to a higher aspect of life, seeing God as life or consciousness itself, loving yourself and others and getting a good sense of community, then it is wonderful. I would like to hear your opinion. Your friend Sal

A very good point Sal C; being entrenched or fixated to any ism to the point of irrationalism isn’t going to be good to anyone, this is one of the reasons religion itself has a bad name, what is happening presently quite clearly shows this. Any kind of irrational thinking could indeed make a sound religion seem totally irrational and ending up as extremism. The point is, is it the religion or the people who are being irrational?  It’s of course the people of a religion who are being irrational not the religion itself. We could say certain religious doctrines are totally irrational therefore it’s the religion itself that is irrational making the people of that religion irrational and sometimes leading to an extremist mentality.

Doesn’t scientism (science) follow certain science principles and guidelines and at times irrationally disregarding anything beyond these principles and guidelines?  To me this is where science is falling short, it’s not looking beyond these doctrines (principles and guidelines) however not all scientists irrationally follow such strict doctrines as we are finding out.

So what this seems to be saying is it’s the doctrines (principles and guidelines) that are making us irrational, however, the scientists who are going beyond these doctrines show us quit clearly it’s  the people who are irrational not the ism itself.     


To me it would certainly seem doctrines are referring to principles and guidelines. What seems to be happening is people within any ism takes these principles and guidelines as the be and end all, it’s the people who are being irrational in religion not the religion itself.  Religion to me gives us certain guidelines to live by, they should never be the be and end all as I feel Sal C is pointing out, especially to the point of being irrational and even extremist within our thinking.   

I find that any ism, including scientism, can become irrational and extremists within it’s doctrines, religion itself certainly hasn’t got this on it’s own.  To me it is clear it’s not the doctrines (principles and guidelines) of any ism that is the irrational; it’s the people who are irrational. Doctrines are only principles and guidelines that we can follow with any ism but within a rational sense not in an irrational sense.

If you think on this, religion itself has always looked beyond human set boundaries; it looks at a God, super consciousness, energy source etc. by allowing us to perceive something that is in us that is beyond normal human perception and understanding.  Religion has always done this right throughout human history; I think it’s quite amazing actually.   

So does this mean we should all turn religious? Not on your nelly, this would be like saying we should all become atheistic or political, it’s each to their own space and their own path.  What we need to be aware of is our judgement especially negative judgment of someone else’s space.  

How many of us say we don’t judge and then we say religion or some other ism is this that or the other?  Be aware of this because it’s this judgment that can make us irrational and possibly extreme within our thinking which again can possibly lead to extremism. What is happening in present times is a good indication of how judgment can fundamentally influence good people to become extremists, it really all comes down to people becoming aware.  
        
I thought I would end off by adding a couple of links looking at the good side of religion.


Religious impact on the arts and human creative development.


Looking at religion philosophically.



I’m not religious myself but I don’t judge religion itself as being irrational or extreme within it’s doctrines and beliefs, once people start judging, anything can happen and it most often does, irrational thinking and extremism is but two of these effects.   

Wednesday, 8 October 2014

Mind over Matter


Written by Mathew Naismith

In this post I’m going to collate different aspects to try to give a bigger picture of what I feel is going on in relation to science and mind over matter.  To me it’s important that science at least tries to become aware of how mind over matter can and does occur at times.  I will collate a double slit experiment with the God particle and what the relation is with the double slit experiment and God’s consciousness.   

It’s probably advisable to watch the below vid on a physics double slit experiment to get a better understanding of how the mind can affect matter before you go on. This experiment is significant in relation to God’s consciousness as I will further explain a little further on.

video


The double slit experiment shows us, scientifically, that it is possible for the mind to affect how matter reacts. Scientifically this is significant because this would mean all science experiments can be influenced indirectly by the mind without physical intervention.  This is because if a scientist wants or expects a certain outcome within a certain experiment, they will only get what they expect. This isn’t the only significance of this experiment.

In recent times science has created a God’s particle (Higgs boson), these are supposed to be the same sort particles that created this universe.  Science is also continually re-experimenting on mind over matter; the double slit experiment is a good example of this. These science experiments are inadvertently linked and have come about by no mistake at a time of a great conscious change.  

Conscious changes don’t just  effect spiritually aware people but everyone including scientists, this is why and how scientists today can even think of looking at God particles and mind over matter.  What has the double slit experiment, mind over matter, got to do with God particles?  The double slit experiment doesn’t just hint at consciousness existing outside of the human mind, but that this consciousness, without actual form, can influence particles of matter. If man’s consciousness is able to influence matter and produce a God particle, what would a much more aware consciousness be able to do?  Would this consciousness not be able to influence how a universe is constructed (created) for instance?  

You could say that the double slit experiment conducted by scientist are flawed by what they expected, mind over matter producing what is expected but these scientists didn’t expect such outcomes. This makes these science experiments more credible mainly because it’s not what they expected in the first place, the mind didn’t inadvertently influence the outcome.   

To me these experiments are showing we are this God consciousness, we are creators in our own right. The further aware science and spirituality become, the closer we become to being aware of who we truly are.

The bellow links are for further reference on the God particle and the double slit experiment.  I should mention, the first article is from a religious site which I thought explained about the God particle in the most simplest terms.    



Wednesday, 17 September 2014

Truth, An Incorrect Evaluation


Written by Mathew Naismith

I found the following quite interesting so I thought I would share it with you today. It’s basically saying maths and science has got it wrong, there not about truth but an assumption of a truth. I’m also into science as well but I didn’t take offence to this mainly because science is but a tool, used incorrectly, it will produce flawed results.  I also don’t take any ideological principles to heart, they are again but tools.     


The following is an overview of Chapter-1 on TRUTH

Truth is unique and universal. This means you and I cannot define truth. Truth comes only from nature.

We are not alone. We can never become alone. We are all working simultaneously and interactively all the time. Thus we cannot have freewill. Only a lonely person can have freewill. But loneliness is impossible. You have to eat, you have to breath. We are part of nature and tied with it. We are objects of nature just like all other objects.


Math and Science are all all wrong. We give two examples, one from math and one from science,  to illustrate. You have to read them carefully to understand them. This will require some math and science background. However, if you read you will still get the root cause – why they are wrong.

Sunday, 31 August 2014

Consciousness Outside the Human Mind


Written by Mathew Naismith

Does a consciousness exist outside of the mind, the physical brain? To some people, like myself who have had unquestionable experiences, believe there is without a doubt a consciousness beyond the physical mind,  others however who have had no or very little experiences of this can quite strongly doubt such a thing exists outside the human mind (physical brain). 

Science decrees nothing can exist unless proven through science but should this stop us from discussing such possible occurrences? In my mind no but other people think yes, why discuss something that can’t be proved to exist or not like with God for example!!

I would like to ask a question here, how many non-proven scientific theories have been discussed without being able to prove such theories are actually plausible?  How many years have scientists been discussing how the universe was created without knowing exactly how?

If we could go back just a hundred years ago, how many discoveries of today could we tell the scientists back then about, they would think you were ludicrous because we couldn’t scientifically prove what we were saying just a hundred years ago? What we can or can’t prove scientifically solely depends on scientific capabilities, so if science was incapable to prove or disprove anything, would this mean it couldn’t exist or it wasn’t plausible period?  Actually logics says no, if you can’t prove or disprove something it just means it can’t be proved or disproved at that point in time.

Some people have the understanding if someone said they saw a flying pink elephant that would still have to be plausible using this type of logics. This is a ridiculous evaluation for the main reason common sense tells us a flying pink elephant can’t exist unless physically proven to be so.  Where does this leave us with the belief in a God or a higher consciousness outside the human mind?  In this case common sense tells me it’s quite plausible that a God could exist for the main reason I have myself experience ghostly experiences as has other members of my family. When two people, at the exact time, notice draws opening and shutting on their own, this has got to make you wonder and more inquisitive to what kind of energy from is doing this.

Another thing to take into consideration here is, how come so many different ideological principles believe in the existence of God or of a higher consciousness if there is no chance of this kind of consciousness existing? This shows me, without relating to my personal experiences, that the possibility of a higher consciousness could exist, this is common sense logics but it’s not common sense logics to believe in a flying pink elephant.  Inductive reasoning tells me there is a possibility of a God existing but not a flying pink elephant for various reasons as explained.

Now let's look at the possibility of delusional episodes, can a rather large number of people become delusional at the same time? The answer is yes to a point, they can't have an exact same delusion but can two people who physically witness an occurrence, at the same exact time, experience the exact same delusional episode? It’s possible as anything is a possibility, like a flying pink elephant for example, but common sense logics tell me it is less likely to be a delusional episode than an actual occurrence.  Anyone who believes in the possibility of a flying pink elephant existing would also concur that these two people could have only experienced a delusional episode; they are using a non-common sense logics to evaluate by to start with.  It is obvious that common sense logics tell us that a higher consciousness could exist however, there is no common sense logic in regards to a flying pink elephant actually exists.  This sort of retort is obviously quite unreasonable to actually take seriously, comparing a pink elephant to God or an external consciousness is quite illogical. The existence of God is defined by common sense logics but a pink elephant doesn’t make sense to start with so you can’t logically and sensibly compare these two scenarios with each other.


So does a higher consciousness, or any consciousness, outside the human mind exist?  Because science can’t prove thoroughly enough it does exist, to a scientist it can’t exist at this point in time however, to a believer and/or to a person who has experienced such actual occurrences, it certainly does exist.  Yes this is without a scientific decree but we are only talking about a scientific decree here which certainly doesn’t overrule other decrees from other ideological principles, or it shouldn’t in my mind. It comes down to this; the existence of a consciousness outside the human mind is really left up to the individual and the ideologies that believe that a consciousness does indeed exist outside of the human mind.  

Saturday, 23 August 2014

The Insecurities of the Sciences-Spirituality


Written by Mathew Naismith

This is funny, having an interest in psychology,  I thought I should have been able to answer a question I asked my wife last night not long after replying back to another science minded person who showed signs of being insecure, the question was, why are science minded people so insecure when conversing with spiritually minded people? It seems to have something to do with our belief in a higher power, a power greater than all the sciences put together, this is highly threatening to them.  

Before I go into this any further, we must determine what the signs of such insecurities are. The following is a reply I gave to another person in relation to how we react when we are insecure as a child and how we display the same insecure traits in adulthood.

“This is an interesting way of putting it but yes......insecurities give us biases. We are all quite bias when growing up because we are only aware of our immediate existence, this is like anyone being fixated to one ideological principle and thinking it's the be and end all, any other ideology questioning such an ideology will make these people feel insecure and make them react quite irrationally/illogically/foolishly, how does a child react when it's insecure? The same way!!”

The following was written by a self-proclaimed atheist pointing out the insecurities that some people have about their beliefs, he of course used a conversation he had with a religious person which in itself shows how insecure he was, why wasn’t he objective to start with instead of using an opposing ideological principle to he’s own to prove a point?  It’s funny how easy it is to point out other people’s insecurities but not so easy to see our own insecurities.
   

I have had numerous discussions with atheists and science minded people, they are all too willing to point out the insecurities in other people’s ideological principles but their own. They’re not being incorrect altogether in pointing out these insecurities in others but because they are bias, they can’t see their own insecurities, this is how a bias attitude can give one flawed logics but of course they won’t see this either because of their insecurities.

When first starting out in these discussions, they usually start out rationally, but most often than not, these people will display an irrational behaviour after I have proved a point.  What kind of irrational behaviour am I talking about here? Name calling, narky remarks, dishonesty, being asked to scientifically prove every point I make but on the other hand they have excluded themselves from doing the same and so on.  Once I start to prove my points, especially scientifically, the irrationality gets even worse; my evidence is usually dismissed as nonsense even though such evidence was obtained from Professors in physics and psychologists for example.  I’ve even been told psychology isn’t a science even though science and psychology both derived from philosophy!!

Another indication of such insecurity is I’m a science basher even though I’m also into the sciences as well; this is a totally irrational statement brought on by an obvious insecurity of some kind. When these people are insecure, they will harp on the same thing over and over again like you are science bashing. This allows them psychologically to denounce anything you say as being factual or of any sort of truth by making themselves believe you are only a science basher. Do I get the same reaction from people into other kinds of ideologies such as spirituality? Yes but only if they feel insecure, a lot of truly spiritually aware people don’t react in an insecure way because they don’t feel threatened.  I also by the way have conversed with a number of science minded people who don’t react insecurely  either but see my point as I do of theirs, the discussion ends there.

In the religious Dark ages, the churches in Europe were afraid (insecure) of the sciences and of anyone of any other ideological principle but their own, there reaction of course was to rid themselves physically of such threatening people.  

Are the people who are science minded today showing signs of the same insecurities of the religious Dark Age? The reactions I get from other science minded people show me this is the case, they seem to be in fear of a more highly aware consciousness than the sciences they so much believe in. A higher consciousness will, especially if it’s of God like consciousness, make modern day science mundane. This would be catastrophically psychologically disturbing to most science minded people who think science is the be and end all. This is of course no different to telling a highly religious person that it’s been proven a God doesn’t exist, we are talking about pure fear here so we will indeed react irrationally. The Middle East is a good example of this at the moment, any kind of fanaticism is a good indication of an insecurity complex, this includes fanaticism in any ideological principle including the sciences.

It has been said to me, when relating modern day science mentality to the religious Dark Age mentality that science minded people don’t go around killing people not of their ideology.  I know by some of the reactions I’ve had that if certain science minded people could, they would kill everyone who is spiritual.  There fanaticism in the sciences tells me they would kill for their ideology if they could.  Science indeed has become a religion and a religion that is threatened by a possible higher power than theirs!!   


So it comes down to being aware of how threatening it is to others that it’s possible that a higher consciousness exists over and above their own ideological principles, being spiritually aware we must realise how threatening we seem to others who judge their ideologies to be the be and end all.  I don’t myself seem to have any ideology that can be threatened in this way, it truly wouldn’t worry me if it was proven that a higher consciousness didn’t exist, it would just prove I was incorrect within my assumptions  that is all. Certain science minded people on the other hand have a lot more to lose because they have put science above all else, we must show empathy and be considerate of their situation, it’s not easy for them especially psychologically. 

Thursday, 24 July 2014

Science/Spirituality as One


Written by Mathew Naismith

I came across a couple of articles that interested me recently on the reasons why science and spirituality belong together as they once were.  I don’t think any singular ideological principle should become dominant of our lives, once this occurs; such ideologies can become destructive as human history quite plainly shows. Separating science and spirituality only gives us dualism (separation) of our thoughts and once this is done both these thoughts become enemies when they were once allies. I hope you enjoy and please log onto these links, in my mind they are worth a read.

A psychological look at science and spirituality: I do find the ideological principles of psychology being far less bias than certain religious and science ideologies; it’s no doubt why I use it so much.  


Extract: When I was at school, people often asked, “Are you an artist or a scientist?” This was the 1960’s. “Why restrict oneself?” I always thought. “Galileo and Da Vinci were both artists and scientists, so, why not both?” Likewise science and spirituality need not be thought of as separate for, it seems to me, they are also highly compatible. They are complementary, needing each other to make something whole, something bigger than either of them alone. Properly integrated, they permit a level of understanding that amounts to much more than their sum.

To give another example, Apollo 14 astronaut, Edgar Mitchell, returning to earth from the moon in February 1971, “Was filled with an inner conviction as certain as any mathematical equation he’d ever solved. He knew that the beautiful blue world to which he was returning is part of a living system, harmonious and whole – and that we all participate, as he expressed it later, ‘in a universe of consciousness’.”

Both these men of science were deeply affected. Mitchell’s experience too was obviously life-changing because in response, in 1973, he founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences.


The following link will sends you off to a site I think is worth browsing with numerous articles to peruse.  


Extract: Do any of the following questions arise in your mind?

Is there truly a way to get rid of my anger and worries permanently?
How can I get permanent peace and not just temporary peace that prevails when I meditate?
Besides living a happy and successful life, I also want to realize my true Self, is it possible to attain this?
Is it possible to live a spiritual life without compromising my worldly life?
If yes, then all your problems can be solved through Gnan (True Knowledge).

The darkness of ignorance can be instantly dispelled by the light of true knowledge. True knowledge is result oriented.


By brining science and spirituality together again, we will cease the never ending push and pull effect between science and spirituality thus reducing the chaos in the world quite dramatically.  All ideological principles belong together as one not just science and spirituality for in this will we only obtain true peace and serenity.  It’s quite funny because it’s only in this separateness can chaos exist, once we stop separating these thoughts/ideologies, chaos will no longer exist for it needs separateness to exist, it needs duality.  

Wednesday, 23 July 2014

Wisdom and Science


Written by Mathew Naismith

Even though modern day science derived from mysticism and philosophy, it still at most tries to distance itself from these ideological principles, is this wise?  I don’t think it is wise for the main reason science used on it’s own is very emotionally cold at times, it has little to do with humanity and even ethics as it will do whatever to execute and prove an experiment.  The cruelty done to animals and humans is a good example of this.  Psychology is a science and is about humanity however most sciences don’t take the science of psychology into consideration especially if it’s going to interfere with an experiment.  

What makes things worse for modern day science is the domination by multinationals, it wants it’s pound of flesh no matter what the consequences are and of course one of these consequences is pollution.  

To me, science ideological principles should never be used on their own and should definitely not be dominated by multinationals or any other controlling force controlled primarily by the controlling factors of the ego.  Science to me was never supposed to be used on it’s own, it was obvious what was going to happen if it was, a free for all and total abuse by outside influences more concerned with profits than science itself.  

Where has the wisdom gone within science? If modern day science was controlled, or strongly influenced by wisdom, would modern day science be as destructive? I don’t think so because wisdom would tell the scientists not to experiment on anything that was going to be destructive without taking appropriate precautions.  Today we still have no full proof plan to deal with major nuclear fallouts or leakages; the recent disaster in Fukushima nuclear plant is a good example of this, the cover up of this disaster is amazing.  This is bad science practices controlled by multinational forces.

Science obviously needs to be governed by other ideological principles that are not controlled by the ego to give it ethics and the wisdom to experiment and produce safe constructive science, it is obvious it can’t do this on it’s own and certainly not dominated by a an egotistical force like multinationals.

The following by Prof Tom McLeish is quite interesting only if you are open minded and have no dogmatic ideological principles you hold above all other ideological principles.



Tom McLeish, Professor of Physics and Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research, University of Durham

Extract: Science finds its place within an old story of participative reconciliation with a nature, of which we start ignorant and fearful, but learn to perceive and work with in wisdom. Surprisingly, science becomes a deeply religious activity. There are urgent lessons for education, the political process of decision-making on science and technology, our relationship with the global environment, and the way that both religious and secular communities alike celebrate and govern science.


Why is Science Such a Pain?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpD2X-qqL8o