Yes, I liked that phrasing too... the world is perfectly imperfect.


Although sometimes it takes quite a while to see the perfection of some aspects of creation.
Mosquitos come to mind...

You say that the mass consciousness is filled with all sorts of negativity. But what is negativity? Negativity is nothing more than something that you deem to be repugnant or undesirable to you.

Everything is subjective. Even the very notion of perfect/imperfect. In order for me to use the word in a meaningful way I had to define it. So quite arbitrarily and subjectively I defined perfection as total homogeneity. From a human point of view that basically means that total randomness is perfection.

In other words, I am saying that having no distinguishable features is 'perfection'. As soon as there are distinguishable features then those features can be judged to be imperfect. But if there is no form, there can be no imperfections - thus it must be perfect since there is no room for imperfection (i.e. nothing's happening - it's formless)

So from my point of view formlessness must represent perfection because there can be no flaws in formlessness (i.e. no features that can be judged to be imperfect).

This flies in the face of normal human thinking. We think entirely opposite. We think in terms of perfect forms. We think that the human form is closer to perfection than a mosquito for example. But that's only because we are biased.

Anoasis said,....



Well, from a human point of view mosquitoes are not the greatest thing. But from a mosquitoes point view they might think they are the greatest thing since the invention of the amoeba. After all, they have wings and they can fly! In some sense a mosquito is closer to being an angel than a human. At least it already has its wings.

We often say, 'Everyone will agree that raping and murdering a young child is bad, it represents evil and terrible negativity'.

Well, most people will agree with that, thankfully, but clearly some people enjoy doing it or it wouldn't ever happen. So even such a terrible event as that is subjective. We try to create absolutes by imagining that there is a consensus on subjectivity. But ultimately no matter how great the consensus is, it's still subjective.

What we call evil, or negativity, is a subjective call on our part. The universe as a whole (as an entity) wouldn't recognize the things that we refer to as being evil as being such. We just pick out things that we personally (or collectively agree) that we don't like and we call that evil. There is no such thing as absolute evil.

Even within the biblical framework there is no such thing as absolute evil. All that biblical evil amounts to is the things that the biblical God has decided he doesn't like. For example, according to the biblical God having sex out of wedlock is an evil thing. It's a sin, and all sin is evil. Yet, there are many mortal beings who are totally in disagreement with the biblical God on this point. It's all subjective. The biblical God doesn't represent any sort of absolute perfection. Rather it represents absolute authority. Absolute subjectivity. Only its wants, needs, and desires are relevant. Not because its perfect in an absolute sense, but simply because it's the ultimate power, and therefore the ultimate authority and so it gets to call the shots whether other people agree with it or not. The biblical God's power can only stem from being a bully. Its authority arises from brute force. Either do as it says or it will beat you up (send you to hell)

It doesn't rule via love. It rules via brutality. Is that a perfect entity?

Note to Michael,

I read your post but rather than responding point-for-point let me just say that as long as you define awareness as requiring "thought" and then you consider 'thought' to only be possible as electrical activity in the brain then you're stuck with needing a physical brain to even consider the idea of being aware.

From that point of view you can go no-where but to atheism. All your doing is basically taking the atheistic stance.

What I was attempting to explain is that you can 'experience' your very brain.

The idea that you are your brain does not wash with me. For much the same reasons that JB gave concerning a computer. A computer THINKS by your definition of thinking. In other words, it has electrical activity that processes data and can even accept input form outside devices (i.e. sensors)

But is a computer AWARE?

I have thought about this for many years and I've concluded that we can't simply be brains that are processing thoughts, because that would be the same as a computer. WHO would be AWARE that these thoughts are being processed?

I am the BEING that is AWARE of my brain. I am not the BRAIN that is aware of my BEING.

If you believe the latter than you are an atheist.

I can't convince you using logical arguments otherwise. If I could I would win a Nobel prize for being able to prove via reason, that we are more than just our brains.

If you want to stick with all that provable you must become an atheist. Although, even atheists can't prove that we are our brains. All they can say is that there isn't any evidence to go beyond that.

However, if this is true, then your computer must also be sentient and AWARE because it most certainly is THINKING by your definition of thinking.

So be nice to your computer, and don't forget to have proper funeral and burial for it when it dies.

Because by your definition of "Awareness" your computer must be "Aware" because it definitely thinks by your definitions of thought as being electrical activity in complex patterns supported by a physical media.

All atheists should start having funeral services for dead computers then.

Storage.

A computer stores information. It does not have memory. Memory requires conscious thought, (a person) to access the information. Computers don't think and are not conscious.

Demonstration:
If I take a common text file and change the file's name leaving off the file extension, the computer does not know how to open that file. The file extension tells the computer what program to use to open the file. Without the file extension the computer cannot remember how to open the file.

I, on the other hand, can remember that it was a text file. The computer cannot remember that. The only way the computer can open that file is if you tell it what program to use to open it or put a file extension on it.

A computer only follows instructions. It does not think and does not have memory. It only stores information.

RAM on a computer is called Random access memory. This is information and program instructions held and made available for current operations that is quickly accessible. These would be the programs that are open and running. When you close these programs they go back into storage. It is called "memory" but it is just information that is currently being used and accessed. It is not truly memory.

Jeannie

You cannot physically measure a thing that is not physical. If you could do that, then people could see and hear and measure ghosts and spirits. If I get out of my body and occupy the astral form, you cannot see or measure that from your physical dimension. And yet my astral form can see and think and move.
Many people have experienced this condition.




I did not say you could not detect brain function.



I have not dismissed the importance of the brain's role in this physical reality. It is essential. That is why it was manifested. I only stated that the brain, as essential as it is, is not the thinker of thoughts any more than a computer is the thinker of thoughts.

The person is not the brain. The person is not the body. The person is the thinker of thoughts. The person is the I AM that cannot be seen or measured in this reality.

The body and the brain are the equipment that is used by the person to operate in this holographic reality. The person cannot be seen or experienced without this equipment.

You speak of appearances and you identify with the equipment. You mistakenly think that you are the body and that your brain does the thinking.

Your brain only processes thoughts it does not think. The person thinks. the person operates the equipment. The person is the I AM.

Jeannie

I was very interesting in AI at one time (Artificial Intelligence). In fact, I still am interested in it, but what I mean to say is that I was involved in it at one time. I took course on AI programming, and actually wrote some AI programming for robots.

There were three things that I found interesting.

First, most of the programs that are classified as AI are not AI at all. All they are is a database of responses based on previous human knowledge. In fact I actually wrote an AI program to repair TVs. It was basically a program that asks what the problem is. And then offers solutions based on how the user responds. In fact, I was working as a TV repairman at the time, and I wrote this program on a Radio Shack TRS-80 computer. My boss was impressed, as were the other TV technicians. In fact they used my program to help them diagnose and repair TVs for quite some time even after I had left the job. They were still using the program a year later!

In any case, I fully understood how the program worked, and in my mind it did not represent artificial intelligence. The program was 'static'. In other words, it only "knew" what I programmed into it. It couldn't learn new things. In fact, the program didn't "know" anything. It was just an algorithm to fetch information based on answers to preprogrammed questions.

The second thing I learned is how to write programs that can 'learn' (and even ask questions themselves!).

This is a lot closer to AI, but from my point of view it's still just simulated AI. The programmer simply writes the program in much the same way I had written my 'static' AI program to repair TVs. But then the programmer allows for the computer to learn from the user. In other words, if nothing the computer offered solved the problem then the computer would actually ask the user how THEY solved it.

Then it would take that information and create questions and a diagnostic tract that will lead to that solution. In other words, the program reprograms itself. Yes, it's a much more complex program to begin with. It take a very clever programmer to write such a beast. It's closer to AI, but still not really AI. It's just a very complex version of the 'static' program made into a 'dynamic' version. A version that can grow and learn.

Finally, as I starting working on industrial robotics I discovered that the use of analog computers actually provide a much more efficient means of creating AI. Most people aren't aware of this, but when computers first came out they came out in two 'flavors', - Digital and Analog. It wasn't very long at all that the digital computers won out (And that's what we use today, all modern computers are digital).

However, the analog computers didn't die out altogether, they are still used in industry in was that are not easily apparent. Like in inertial guidance systems of airliners, and for "smart bombs", as well as many uses in the medical industry. They are also becoming more popular in Nanotechnology.

In truth, analog computers are much closer to "intelligence" than digital computers are. They have a different kind of 'memory' together. They can truly 'memorize' things not merely store data. They can memorize events, and sequences of events, etc.

Our human brains are actually a composite of both analog and digital techniques intricately intertwined in very complex ways. But even so, I'm still convinced that they alone cannot be 'aware of themselves'.

There must ultimately be a 'perceiver'. And that perceiver is what we call "spirit". We are the spirit that perceives all of the physical stuff that is going on in the world, including our very own brains.

Otherwise what would be the 'perceiver'. Think about it in terms of a digital computers. What would be the 'perceiver'? The CPU? The RAM? The program that happens to be running????

The interesting thing about a program is that it isn't anything but a list of instructions that is stored in RAM, or on Disk. The processor merely executes the instruction ONE AT A TIME.

Who's doing the perceiving? The CPU? The RAM? The list of instructions?

How is the human brain any different when compared to a computer?

What would we be? The list of instruction? The CPU? The memory?

What PART of the brain would we be???

And if you answer that we are the WHOLE BRAIN, then I still ask, how does that whole brain become 'aware of itself'? Who's doing the PERCEIVING?

It's not by any means clear.

This leads to the idea that our true essence is not physical at all, but spiritual (meaning we are someting that we have yet to discover). Thus we call it 'spirit'.

pleasure waking up to page 11 - very good points abra,JB, got my day off to a nice start.

OMG! I have a dead computer in the other room. Do you think I should bury it?

Or maybe I will cremate it. No, I think I will just harvest it's organs (parts) for other less fortunate computers who need them.

Did you get it to sign the proper consent forms before it died?

No I didn't but since no laws have been passed declaring computers to be sentient persons I guess I can get away with using the parts. --------->Insert evil laugh here ----> Buuhhaha ha ha ha!

(Hunches over rubbing her hands together and creeps off into the celler where the dead are kept...)

Oh you little legal devil you!

Owl keep watch in case any atheists come to the door with computer salvation materials.

(I guess that should be 'salvage-ation' pamphlets)

Actually this is the form of general existance and art. When you create a child through union resulting in offspring you are not creating a full grown human being a but a child capable of growing fully into an adult human. When an artist creates they creat art according to what their mind, heart, and spirit desires. If the human race was created by a perfect or all knowing being to create a finished product would deviate from the "parental" concept and make the human race xerox coppies.

If one follows the creation theory obviously we would be created as a race capable of reaching perfection eventually rather than perfect from the start. Even texts about Eden indicate humankind were the imperfections of the garden. For them to be banished from Eden to learn and grow with less guidance and have self responsibility would be a neccesary step for these beings to learn and grow and reach whatever status on their own merit.

When thinking about religion, or the origin of mankind it's a good idea to use common sense rather than blind faith. After all the misconception is that blind faith is for God, and that is a lie. The blind faith is for other humans claiming to be able to define who your god is for you. It's better to throw that away completely, because if you did read the bible and the story of cain and able it teaches first and foremost that the god of the hebrews would prefer humble genuine worship than fake posturing or blunt expentancy.

So far as the ant farm analogy it is a good one because to a god we are perhaps that simple. The problem is that if they created perfection, or had complete control we would be remote controlled toys in an arena rather than living breathing self responsible beings. In addition, an ant farm must be nourished and fed, and we were given responsibility for caring for ourselves rather than just digging our own tunnels.

Whether we exist by accident or divine intervention either way we evolve physically, mentally, and spiritually on our own merit based on our experiences and our individual or collective potential. Evolution is the whole point because to believe we exist for only the "amusement" of the god or gods would make us pets rather than children.

While in the imperfect state, (the incarnation) you claim the imperfection to be, a lack of awareness, of all knowledge, of prior experiences. Is that correct?

Then in the perfect state, the self dissintegrates and we become one with all universal forces and in some hive mentality we are then aware of ALL experiences. Is that correct?

I would like to suggest that there is something else to be considered. In fact, you begin to bring it up with the following:




What you are discussing when you compare AI with HI (human intelligence) is indeed totally separate types of intelligence. Obviously a computer is not aware, and we, as humans seem to differentiate intelligence and consciousness intuitively. A very small toddler is somehow aware that animals are not like toys.

As adults we understand that consciousness exists in an animal and in humans without giving it any conscious thought. The field of Psychology has attempted for over 100 years to identify (ontology), study (epistemology) and understand (causation), humans by observing their behavior.

Attributing human and animal behavior to consciousness indicates that a mental state can be objectively viewed and understood. But mental states are the thought processes that occur within the brain activity of the individual and no matter what behavior is witnessed, the mental activity can only be “subjective”. The cause of behavior may not be attributable to a particular mental process at all and thus the behavior is misattributed.

We must know this, innately, or we would not recognize consciousness in any other life form

Abra and possibly JennieB, believe that the universe is a single conscious entity within which, all consciousness, exists, at least SOMETIMES (between incarnations). Creative and myself argue that we do not recognize the universe as the sole owner of all consciousness because we do not know the ontology based on the current epistemology of the universe. We are also at a loss to see any behavior that would indicate that our own consciousness is not fully and only responsive to our own subjective existence.

In other words, I (and possibly Creative) believe we are a fully integrated singular being consisting of our own unique biophysical inherited genetic make-up and our own intelligence that becomes a mental state at the attainment of knowledge and thus grants us consciousness.

We vary in the many forms of mental states, which I rather think might be similar to what Abra calls “state of being”, all of which are functional to a conscious being. One of our mental states grants the ability to be aware of self and to question how that self fits into the entirety of the universe.

Now Abra thinks that the self is actually a blank incarnation of a Universal One which he calls the ‘perceiver’. He also thinks the perceiver is only a portion of the Universal One and that every other self aware creature is also a part of the Universal One, there is no real self, only a perceiving self (the universal one) Abra puts forth the notion that the Universal One USES the physical form to ‘experience’ that which it does not have, a physical make-up.

The quandary in that thought process is this: The Universal One must first be aware that there is a physical. While it is not itself a part of the physical …. Whoops, first problem. If the Universal One is all of everything – it must be physical as well? So why can it not experience the physical of it’s own accord? What was the purpose, the need to create a physical being from which to partake of this experience?

Further, there is a problem attempting to integrate all the experiences of various conscious beings. For example, when does the overlap become a boring thing to a Universal One? How many suicides can an entity experience? How many deaths does it take to understand it is only the antithesis of life? How much greed needs to be experienced before there is an understanding of what causes it?

You see ‘reincarnation’ in these cases is meaningless if there is no INDIVIDUAL spirit. Abra believes in universal oneness so there are no individual spirits, there is only one consciousness and it sets itself up as a perceiver, but the purpose for which makes no sense.


Every belief system attempts to explain based on personal and subjective mental processes as to the nature of why we are here. Without scientific ontology, without epistemology, without causation all beliefs voiced are only the words of a creative mental state solving a subjective problem – “how do I fit into the entirety of the universe?”

Abra, your mental processes are creative, but I can’t get past the flaws.

I understand what you are saying here and where Abra's beliefs are different... a lot different ..... from mine.

We are individual spirits. Yet these individuals are all connected to the body of the one. They will remain individual spirits as long as they wish.

We do not go from being a human incarnation, then die and go directly to being one with the entire universal Godhead knowing all and being all. That is absurd and quite impossible.

Each individual is a universe unto Itself. Your physical self is your human self experiencing life in a human body on the planet earth in the milky way galaxy.

Your higher self IS NOT the infinite all knowing God. Your higher self is your 'true self' which has sent life streams into the space-time worlds to give life and animate the bodies growing and living there. Your higher self sends out a small container (a soul) at the end of that life stream and connects to a human body as it is being born, or shortly before or after birth it takes up a semi-permanent residence in that body to experience physical life.

So your incarnation has its own soul body which is connected to its higher self body. But that's not all. This higher self body sends out many life streams and animates many bodies,--> more than just the one. You can actually be living many lives in many different time lines because the higher self body is not inside of your space-time world but outside of it.

Every one of your incarnations are connected to your higher self and when the higher self is finished with the earth game, it pulls up all of its life streams and moves upward to the next existence to find experience in many different worlds.

This higher self then retains all of the memories and experiences of all of your life on the earth and it is shared with all of the individual souls who lived those lives. They become one, but are more like one big happy family.

There is more of course. This higher self is connected to its own higher self..... infinite selves and infinite worlds, all connected. Nothing boring about it at all.

Jeanniebean

If had to explain why your possibilities are any more logical and plausible than any other eternal life belief system, how would you do that?



What have you witnessed that has brought you to the conclusion that this is a possibility?
If not witnessed, what logic has been presented to you, that indicates this could be true?



Perhaps not boring unless you tend to hyperventilate at the thought of a never ending fairy tale with literally “no rhyme or reason”.

Which leads me to my last question – what purpose would all this ‘experiencing’ serve? Unless you believe the experiences to be infinite source of amusement for and entity of infinite life? How sad it is to think that the experience is only a source of amusement and that we take it so seriously. But then again, it was a pretty ridiculous venture for the soul in the first place. Why would any ‘soul’ choose to incarnate in a life form that would require such great exertion just to maintain and then be betrayed by this flawed physical form? I hate to think I’m even dumber in another existence than I am here. Arghhhhhhhh!

As above, so below.

This insignificant world we live in is run and managed by many different people. Governments are very complex and competitive. Countries and the world are not run by just a single king.

Hence it is logical that the Universe ~~ which is infinite, is also run the same way. ~~By many individuals with their own interests, agendas and talents.

Also to think that the physical and material worlds are all that exist is thinking inside of a very small box. There is evidence of other dimensions, and matter that cannot be seen... yet is there just the same.




Personal experiences have been out of body experiences, remote viewing, past life memories in the form of vivid dreams, experiences with other dimensional beings, claraudience, telepathy, and a little soul travel.

Logically, the idea made more sense to me than any other one I found. A lot of it comes from the Leading edge research group and the matrix V books by Val Valarian.





It is never ending. The purpose is joy. Life. And simply to exist and be acknowledged as existing. Much better than existing as an observer in the void with nothing to observe and nothing to do.




There are many choices for individuals in the vast universes. Many that you or I cannot even imagine. Some never experience being human. As for the earth incarnations, it is indeed a game.

Only the extremely bold and adventurous will come here. You must be very bold to set aside your memory of your true nature to experience the human earther game. Once you leave here you are a new being. You are almost unrecognizable from what you were before you came.

Individuals are in a constant state of change and growth.

Jeanniebean

and again who was it that died and left you judge and jury......boy we are casting alot of rocks and glass houses people.....take it down a notch.


Maybe we should do a cooking class in here......and let you guys chill for a bit. What do you think?

I am officially matching JB and the cutieful abra....and thinking that you guys should go to Hawaii on your first date.....I can do this cuz I am the official Matchmaker of JSH.







And you too need a vacation

Okay Feral, send us the tickets!

You are paying for this are you not?