Discussions

Anonymous Icon

A Second Try

Posted April 13, 2012 by Jim Centi in Open

commented on March 9, 2015
by Silverghost

Quote

155

There has been little response to the topic An Interesting Overview, possibly because many view quantum physics as cumbersome. This topic contains sections of the two video transcripts that do not require an understanding of physics.

If you wish to view the two videos after reading this, the links are provided below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkDicwjRQs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5ia1P_tiak

Through a bit of research, it was learned that the voice in Comment #3 of the first video is that of Deepak Chopra. His comment follows:

“Matter seems like a good place to begin. The solidity of the world seems totally indisputable; fixed things that we can see and touch, our physical bodies, appear reassuredly solid, but since Einstein, modern physics has assured us that this solidity is a mirage.”

Comment #5 supports Deepak Chopra’s statement, but may be unclear, so an explanation is provided after the comment.

“This self contained system [material reality] is a hologram, what I call the super hologram.”

To say that material reality is a hologram is the same as saying that material reality is an illusion or mirage. Think of the holodeck in the Star Trek series. The holodeck was a chamber in which ship members could enter and experience a reality that appeared very real, but in fact it was an illusion; a hologram created by the ships computer.

Comment #8 expands upon Deepak Chopra’s statement. The transcript is condensed for the sake of brevity, but contains the essential communication.

Comment #8. “Quantum physics confirms what ancient masters revealed, that matter does not exist. Belief that the substance of the universe is matter, leads to what I call a fear embodied dichotomy, as people in their quiet desperation, attempt to accumulate as many material possessions and riches as possible. In fact, the substance of the universe is consciousness; therefore, human behavior is an important consideration.”

Dean Radin appears in the second video. A portion of Dean’s statement follows:

“When we look deeply enough into the nature of matter, everything we know about the everyday world dissolves; there are no objects anymore, there are only relationships. There’s no locality anymore there’s no time anymore. The more you look at something in detail, what we think of as solid matter, the less and less solid it begins to look.”

Another speaker in the second video is Robert Anton Wilson, a respected author whose numerous books are listed in an Amazon search of his name. His statement follows:

“Out of millions and millions of globs of energy and light, photons and electrons that make up this imaginary three dimensional solid world, which doesn’t exist at all, according to relativity or quantum mechanics….” another speaker seems to interrupt describing discoveries in quantum physics that support Wilson’s statement.

In addition to the cutting edge of science many spiritual traditions support that the material world is illusion such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Theosophy, Christian and Jewish mysticism and Sufism, the mystical branch of Islam.

There are numerous writings of individuals who I consider to be mystics that support this view. A sample of their words follows:

“It is very necessary that a man should be appraised early in life that it is a masquerade in which he finds himself for otherwise, there are many things which he will fail to understand.” [Schopenhauer]

“The distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one.” [Einstein]

“To identify with a physical body [materialism] there is the bondage of physical existence. There is bondage through identification”. [Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, The founder of Transcendental Meditation]

“Nothing is more hidden from us than the illusion which lives with us day by day, and our greatest illusion is to believe that we are what we think ourselves to be.” [Amiel]

Are you willing to accept that the material world which our sensory experience provides is an illusion? If you cannot accept it, why can’t you accept it?

If you accept that the material world is an illusion, does this increase your appreciation of the spiritual domain?

  • 155 Comments  
  • Silverghost Mar 09, 2015

    Before anyone intimidates and bullies me in relation to my grammar once again, I'm in chronic pain due to a chronic injury, I don't take pain relief in any form but through self-control, this kind of pain can, at times, influence my grammar and spelling period.

    I wonder if the third graders are going to use this in a derogative immoral way? I wouldn't put it past them.

  • Silverghost Mar 09, 2015

    Could have anyone imagined how my reply to Jim was going to totally manipulated and crewed around to serve for an excuse to intimidate and bully me? This is where the recent attacks on my character have stemmed from, this reply and manda's88 thread was used in a most deceptive, immoral and deplorable way.

    The post to Jim was only describing why I don't think Noet is Dean Radin are the same person, that was it, I actually used an actual event that took place to prove this. I once again proved my statements unlike Dustty and Noet, I'm still waiting on proof that I am a coward from Noet, he has not given me one ounce of proof of his ongoing inflammatory statements. Sorry boys that I actually, unlike you two, supply evidence of my statements.

    This kind of bullying must be stop, this intimidating and bullying is so obviously deliberate it's not funny.

    The funny thing is, all this is doing is proving my points on a thread of mine!!

  • NoetPoet Mar 09, 2015

    "Give us proof I said you bullied manda88"

    You just provided it you idiot.

  • Silverghost Mar 09, 2015

    You can bully and intimidate me all you like Noet on my own threads, you have totally discredited yourself once again but in a most putrid way this time, you used a person who yourself diagnosed as having some sort of serious mental issues for your own deceptive ends.

    Give us proof I said you bullied manda88 and give us proof that I said you stated manda88 was crazy? You can’t so you are once again being highly deceptive are you not? I think you better reread what was actually written, focus mainly on how it was written. You have the bull by the horns, something else for you to Google.

    It of course isn’t going to matter how much you reread it, you will still try to intimidate and bully me through manipulating my words around to sound complexly different to how they actually sound, this of course somehow gives you the right to intimidate and bully people on this board. I will make it easy for you Noet, making as many diagnosis as you did was awfully dangerous to say the least.

    G'day Jim

    "In that lengthy dialogue you had with him about a year ago, he referred to you a few times as Dean Radin and because I trust Bob, I believe that is your true identity."

    You don't honestly think this, I don't think Dean would intellectually stoop to utter constant abuse, there would be no need, what is anyone this abusive proving? There certainly not proving how objective they can be and I think Dean is some what more objective, take a look at Dean's write ups, are they anything like Noet's?

    I also don't think Dean is this anti spiritual especially going by his own write ups, look at what Noet did to a certain person who was obviously in distress, I think Dean would have handled this situation somewhat differently don't you? This person could have committed suicide through the abuse they received.

    Now let's take into consideration of Dean's position, would anyone in this position even consider abusing people like Noet has? I don't think so unless we are all a part of an experiment which is in my mind could be a possibility but I think unlikely. The abuse on this discussion board has certainly hurt IONS in a certain way, I don't think Dean would have any part of this do you?

  • NoetPoet Mar 09, 2015

    "Where is the evidence I caused manda88 any stress what so ever that would have induced her to commit suicide"

    Who ever made such an accusation?! You were the one who accused ME of that, or did you forget this due to the mental strain of all the lies and delusions you're trying to maintain?

  • Silverghost Mar 09, 2015

    "No part of that response was intelligible."

    Where is this so called actual evidence from Dusty? Where is the evidence I caused manda88 any stress what so ever that would have induced her to commit suicide, however, I will supply evidence to the contrary once again?

    The following are separate replies I received from manda88, you will notice she was quite happy with my interaction with her.

    1/Thank you silverghost I appreciate it. Yes I have to agree with you on what you said.
    2/@silverghost thank you for the information! After reading this I would have to disagree that you are an Internet troll.
    3/ Thank you silverghost. I appreciate you sticking up for me. Your right I really don't deserve it neither do you.
    4/Yes it is very nice to have people on here who listen and give helpful advice or even share their experiences.
    5/ I hope you know my gratitude for being here for me!
    6/That was extremely helpful information! Thank you.
    7/ Thank you both! I can only imagine what's going to be said about what I opened up to.
    8/ Thank you! Just emailed her!
    9/ Thank you. I like how more people are starting to put science and spiritual together.

    Now it is obvious all what Noet is doing is intimidating me which is but one of many forms of bullying.

  • NoetPoet Mar 09, 2015

    No part of that response was intelligible.

  • Silverghost Mar 09, 2015

    "Yes, because falsely accusing certain posters of bullying certain other posters to the brink of suicide is sooo much better!"

    You are still using a person yourself diagnosed with possible serious mental issues in the most despicable deplorable way for your own deceptive ends, your are utterly and openly deceiving people here. I have proven that you are a bully and so have you on numerous occasions.

    Supply the so called evidence Dusty provided, presumptions isn't evidence Noet? You can't because it doesn't exist and you know this, all you are doing is trying to intimidate me which is but one form of bullying is it not?

    Anything you say is not credible through your obvious deception.

  • NoetPoet Mar 09, 2015

    "Grow up and stop continually bullying me everywhere I comment on, on this board, you are only again only hurting yourself Dusty."

    Gee Mathew, you always harp on and on about how we should provide evidence for our claims about you (even AFTER we provide it), and yet when Dustproduction makes a deliberate effort to catalogue such evidence you immediately - and predictably - whinge about being bullied. You can't have your cake and eat it too...

  • NoetPoet Mar 09, 2015

    "I of course don't have to stoop to such a low level of intellect to make my points though as you obviously do Dusty."

    Yes, because falsely accusing certain posters of bullying certain other posters to the brink of suicide is sooo much better!

  • Silverghost Mar 09, 2015

    "Another one: "I can go through hell and still not take it as a plight."

    Another what Dusty, do you honestly want me to bully you about your own typos? I of course don't have to stoop to such a low level of intellect to make my points though as you obviously do Dusty. Grow up and stop continually bullying me everywhere I comment on, on this board, you are only again only hurting yourself Dusty.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 09, 2015

    Another one: "I can go through hell and still not take it as a plight."

  • Silverghost Mar 08, 2015

    " We could make an athology and call it "Silverghost: the Logics collection".

    Yet more inflammatory bullying tactics, you are just hurting yourselves boys, I'm totally cool with all this, I don't take misjudgements to plight but you two blokes obviously do. I thought I would give you a subtle hint here, I can go through hell and still not take it as a plight.

    I'm still waiting to see the evidence that I was sent to a shrink Noet, prove to us you are not just bullying me.

  • Silverghost Mar 08, 2015

    "Give us evidence that you have “qualifications” in psychology, slanderer.'

    I've been slandered as a slanderer now and again without any evidence to support such accusations and bullying tactic, if this continues slander isn't bullying I don't know what is.

    "I just gave you evidence. Are you really that delusional that you can’t see what I just wrote right before your very eyes??"

    Where does it precisely say I accused you of bullying manda88 in relation to the reply about you being Dean? I think you need to reread what I actually wrote my friend but of course this wouldn't matter would it, you are just playing bullying me?

    "“the mentality of some people totally flaws (SIC) me at times”

    So now we have stooped to totally reconstructing and adding one's own words into my own discussions,what does this prove my friend? I will give you a hint, this is very deceptive and just another bullying tactic by you.

  • NoetPoet Mar 08, 2015

    *anthology

  • NoetPoet Mar 08, 2015

    We could make an athology and call it "Silverghost: the Logics collection".

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 08, 2015

    We need to make a collection of these: "the mentality of some people totally flaws me at times"

  • NoetPoet Mar 08, 2015

    “the mentality of some people totally flaws (SIC) me at times”

    Most truthful thing you’ve said all day…

  • NoetPoet Mar 08, 2015

    “Give us any evidence what so ever I was sent to a shrink Noet.”

    Give us evidence that you have “qualifications” in psychology, slanderer.

    “You couldn't obviously supply this could you, this is just plain bullying when you have no evidence at all of your accusations.”

    I just gave you evidence. Are you really that delusional that you can’t see what I just wrote right before your very eyes??

  • Silverghost Mar 08, 2015

    Again, give us evidence I was sent to a shrink Noet, prove to us you are not just bullying me.

    Making continuous and misleading personal statements about anyone is bullying especially when you can't back these accusations up with evidence of any kind.

    These two blokes are bullying more than ever, the mentality of some people totally flaws me at times, I don't think they realise what bullying actually is it would seem.

  • Silverghost Mar 08, 2015

    "What the hell does that have to do with anything?! "

    In other words what does impartiality have to do with anything? You are kidding me right Noet?

    "I wasn’t doing any such thing,"

    The only person you are fooling is yourself on this.

    "What f***ing status?"

    Everyone has a status within society and on discussion boards but you obviously don't know this.

    "Being sent to a shrink does not qualify as “formal training” in psychology.'

    Give us any evidence what so ever I was sent to a shrink Noet.

    " Tell me Silverghost, are you really that STUPID or do you just think that everyone else is that stupid?"

    You obviously think they are, again give us evidence to where I mentioned in my post about you bullying in relation to manda88? You couldn't obviously supply this could you, this is just plain bullying when you have no evidence at all of your accusations.

    "Captain Irony strikes again!"

    More insinuating and insulting bullying tactics I see.

  • NoetPoet Mar 08, 2015

    “I think Noet actually handled himself quite well, except when making obvious impartial clinical diagnosis, as I pointed out, I don't think Dean would have acted in this way.”

    Your story sure is ‘fluid’, isn’t it! So now we’ve downgraded from a false accusation that I bullied a poster to the point of suicide, to an equally false accusation that I offered an “obvious impartial clinical diagnosis”. All this coming from someone who encouraged the same poster to think that she was channelling spirits!

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 08, 2015

    She admitted freely that a neurologist told her she had a "brain abnormality," did she not?

  • NoetPoet Mar 08, 2015

    “My friend you are so obvious, now to be fair, why didn't you insert the responses I got from manda88?”

    What the hell does that have to do with anything?! I was responding to your FALSE accusation that I bullied Manda88 by demonstrating that she didn’t feel bullied by me at all. What she said about you is so utterly beside the point that I can scarcely believe you even brought it up!

    “Obviously supporting Dusty in he's abuse to manda88, by you, was evident when you pulled me up for something I was clearly not doing but you didn't pull Dusty up.”

    I wasn’t doing any such thing, “obviously” or otherwise. You would do well to learn the distinction between what you WANT to be true and what actually IS true. Once again, I am not responsible for what someone else says, nor am I responsible for everything that I “should” have said but didn’t. Dustproduction is a big boy; he doesn’t need me to be his minder.

    “I also think making clinical diagnosis that this person is hallucinating for starters is abuse, you abused your status on this board which doesn't include you to make obvious clinical diagnosis does it Noet?”

    What f***ing status?! I am just another “random, anonymous” poster on this board, as I made very clear to Manda88. I also made it abundantly clear that she shouldn’t rely on medical advice from any such posters INCLUDING myself.

    “At least I have some formal training in psychology.”

    Being sent to a shrink does not qualify as “formal training” in psychology.

    “Now get your facts right Noet, where does it mention in my post about you bullying in relation to manda88?”

    Tell me Silverghost, are you really that STUPID or do you just think that everyone else is that stupid?

    The following is a direct quote from a comment you posted on the 5th of March ON THIS VERY THREAD:
    “I also don't think Dean is this anti spiritual especially going by his own write ups, look at what Noet did to a certain person who was obviously in distress, I think Dean would have handled this situation somewhat differently don't you? This person could have committed suicide through the abuse they received. “

    “Now tell me honestly Noet, did you not once again get you facts completely screwed up to sound the way you wanted them to sound?”

    Captain Irony strikes again!

  • Silverghost Mar 08, 2015

    "What was wrong with her? What was the outcome?"

    Dusty, this has nothing to do with us now, even though manda88 made the mistake in publicising her condition on a site such as this, it is now a personal matter. Psychologically, when people go to a so called professional to get help and they don't receive this help professionally, they will turn to other means to find reason, that is what manda88 did.

    On a site like this, we need to be a little more aware of people like manda88 looking for reason when they can't find it somewhere else. I think Noet actually handled himself quite well, except when making obvious impartial clinical diagnosis, as I pointed out, I don't think Dean would have acted in this way.

    We are going to get people in manda's88 on this site looking for answers, we need to be a little more understanding and impartial within our own personal opinions I feel.

    If you noticed, I didn't come into the conversation until I concurred that things were getting out of hand and becoming way to abusive which is sadly typical for this discussion board. We do indeed act like immature children without a doubt, we let our subjective emotions take full control of us especially when in disagreement .

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 08, 2015

    What was wrong with her? What was the outcome?

  • Silverghost Mar 08, 2015

    My friend you are so obvious, now to be fair, why didn't you insert the responses I got from manda88? You are never impartial within your opinions are you Noet?

    Obviously supporting Dusty in he's abuse to manda88, by you, was evident when you pulled me up for something I was clearly not doing but you didn't pull Dusty up.

    I also think making clinical diagnosis that this person is hallucinating for starters is abuse, you abused your status on this board which doesn't include you to make obvious clinical diagnosis does it Noet? At least I have some formal training in psychology.

    "By what POSSIBLE logic could the above be construed as the words of a person who thought they were being bullied and victimised *to the point of suicide* by myself?!"

    Now get your facts right Noet, where does it mention in my post about you bullying in relation to manda88?

    "I also don't think Dean is this anti spiritual especially going by his own write ups, look at what Noet did to a certain person who was obviously in distress, I think Dean would have handled this situation somewhat differently don't you? This person could have committed suicide through the abuse they received."

    It doesn't does it Noet? All I said is Dean would have handled manda88 quite differently to you.

    Now tell me honestly Noet, did you not once again get you facts completely screwed up to sound the way you wanted them to sound?

  • NoetPoet Mar 08, 2015

    “So calling someone crazy and diagnosing them from suffering hallucinations, for starters, isn’t going to cause a person who could have been possibly suffering a serious mental illness undue stress?”

    Not only did I NOT call Manda88 crazy, I explicitly told her that she WASN’T crazy and that medical professionals should not be calling her crazy! I also told her that it *sounded like* she was having hallucinations based on the information she provided, however I also made it very clear that she should seek professional medical advice and not take my (or any other poster’s) word for it. And in case you missed the memo, having hallucinations does not mean that you are “crazy”.

    “Tell me Dusty, do you honestly feel that the following would have helped manda88 if she suffered with a serious mental disorder and do you think Dean would have instigated and supported such action? I don’t think Dean would have made the numerous diagnoses as did Noet for starters. “

    What diagnonses?! I was very clear that my opinions were not to be regarded as diagnonses of Manda88’s condition. You on the other hand spouted a whole bunch of fantasist crap to her about how she was channelling spiritual entities. Way to exploit a vulnerable person there, Captain Irony!

    “My vote is that you are in fact a crazy person.”

    I SAID NO SUCH THING!!!

    “COMMUNITY SERVICE WARNING: Please do not feed the troll.
    Silverghost is a troll”

    Yes you most certainly are. How is this relevant to what I said or didn’t say to Manda88??

    “It was obvious Noet supported your own diagnosis that manda was crazy, he certainly didn’t pull you up but he pulled me up for being a troll, which once again he didn’t support with any evidence what so ever.”

    Oh great, so now I’m to be held accountable for all the things I DIDN’T say as well as all the things that someone else said! Handy hint Mathew: you can make the goalposts as wide as you like, but it won’t make one jot of difference so long as you’re kicking in the opposite direction!

    “Making numerous unqualified diagnoses is abusive and highly carless.”

    Luckily I didn’t do that then (which is more than can be said for you).

    “I do love the people who say they don’t go off topic are the ones who most often go off topic.”

    Like you, Captain Irony.

  • NoetPoet Mar 08, 2015

    “Does manda88 ring a bell?”

    Yes. That was the person who came here asking for advice about how to deal with unsettling mental experiences a little while back (http://noetic.org/discussions/open/616/ ). Manda88 clearly appreciated my advice, as is evidenced by her own words:

    (“Neopoet (sic) thank you I appreciate your input…I find your opinions very helpful. I never thought of things the way you laid them out….Neopoet (SIC) yes I will be consulting a professional. I just didn’t know where to go for this type of thing. Once again I appreciate it.”)
    (“I didn’t even think about them (referring to her migraines and lucid dreams) being connected….I’m glad there’s (SIC) people on here that help and don’t just attack someone personally. Thanks again.”)

    By what POSSIBLE logic could the above be construed as the words of a person who thought they were being bullied and victimised *to the point of suicide* by myself?! Are you and Jim smoking the same wacky tobaccy? Or have you just been sniffing more petrol than usual? I fully expect that you will whinge and moan for months afterwards about me asking you those questions, but honestly the only other conceivable alternatives are that you either have the reading comprehension skills of Forrest Gump on a bad day, or that you are deliberately perpetrating a malicious campaign of slander against me. The last option would be most incongruous with your self-proclaimed “spiritual” nature…

    “Who once again has their facts screwed up by flawed logics again..........boys?”

    Once again the answer is “you”, Captain Irony.

  • NoetPoet Mar 08, 2015

    @Jim
    “NoetPoet is the kind of dude who would enjoy causing someone to commit suicide.”

    Wow Jim, your grip on reality is even more tenuous than I thought! Kids, THIS is why you shouldn’t do drugs!

    “Among your deficiencies is the inability to recognize humor when a derogatory comment is directed toward someone they respect.”

    Case in point – how can one make a “derogatory” comment towards someone they respect?? ‘I wuz only joking’ is the oldest cop-out line in the book Jim, surely you’re old enough to know better…

  • Silverghost Mar 07, 2015

    G'day Jim

    I am a little bit of a ratbag and I do think quite peculiarly, I think this is what makes me out to be a ratbag the most.

    Two particular people on here are now known to be, internationally, cyber bullies, there going to have to curb their habitual behaviour from now on, in other words they are going to have to show a little bit more self-control, I can't see this happening but they have no choice and neither does IONS.

    Shovelling snow isn't something we have to worry about in Queensland, the heat is another matter.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 07, 2015

    RE: ILLUSION

    Jim,
    Is it possible that you inferred meaning into a mere arrangement of letters organized as separated words?
    You are always discussing illusion, and you cannot see one when it is presented to you.
    What else do you infer meaning into when there is none, or when a different meaning is intended?
    Ha ha!

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 07, 2015

    Silverghost,

    Thank you for your comment.

    I view you as one of the good guys because you are not intimidated by the aggressive criticism of the materialists.

    I’m sure you’re aware how they use personal attacks which often cause us to defend ourselves and the endless bickering begins which will eventually destroy the topic. Their intention all along was to destroy the topic.

    Dusty has referred to us spiritualists. I have considered becoming a spiritualist; didn’t they know how to put a curse on someone? Just joking of course, something lacking in Discussions is occasional humor.

    Thank you for the link, I’ll spend more time with it when I am not so burdened by shoveling snow.

    Perhaps others will read it and lose their fear of posting.

    Best wishes, Jim

  • Silverghost Mar 06, 2015

    Getting back on topic, I think Jim you have put your point across quite well in this thread and following replies.

    We are indeed deluded if we think this is all we are, having actual experiences of what we call ghosts confirms this, we are not the brain but the mind behind the brain.

    Does this make what the brain perceives an illusion? It certainly can but it's not the same with the mind especially a whole mind, a mind not deluded by the perceptions of the brain. The funniest thing is, science is only measuring brain activity, not the activity of the whole mind, a consciousness beyond brain activity. What this means is the brain can only perceive to the point of it's own consciousness, not the minds consciousness.

    Can the brain, with it's limited understanding and knowledge of the whole mind, be fooled by illusions through being delusional in thinking this is all the mind is?

    However, once we become aware that the mind isn't the brain, this illusion caused by the brains ignorance becomes transparent, you actually don't look at realities of duality in the same way again.

    You might find the following discussion quite interesting Jim.

    http://www.linkedin.com/grp/post/6572752-5979064089752719364#commentID_discussion%3A5979064089752719364%3Agroup%3A6572752

  • Silverghost Mar 06, 2015

    Look back to all our discussions Dusty, you don't answer many of my question do you but you can't (honestly) say the same about me can you, certainly not to the same degree?

    I get a total blank answer, as below, or I get abused and I'm the idiot!!!

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 06, 2015

    .

  • Silverghost Mar 06, 2015

    So calling someone crazy and diagnosing them from suffering hallucinations, for starters, isn’t going to cause a person who could have been possibly suffering a serious mental illness undue stress?

    Look closely at the diagnosis that totally untrained people from the very start made about a person’s obviously in a lot of stress, I don’t think Dean would have acted in this way do you Dusty?

    Tell me Dusty, do you honestly feel that the following would have helped manda88 if she suffered with a serious mental disorder and do you think Dean would have instigated and supported such action? I don’t think Dean would have made the numerous diagnoses as did Noet for starters.

    My vote is that you are in fact a crazy person.

    COMMUNITY SERVICE WARNING: Please do not feed the troll.

    Silverghost is a troll

    It was obvious Noet supported your own diagnosis that manda was crazy, he certainly didn’t pull you up but he pulled me up for being a troll, which once again he didn’t support with any evidence what so ever.

    Making numerous unqualified diagnoses is abusive and highly carless.

    I do love the people who say they don’t go off topic are the ones who most often go off topic.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 06, 2015

    I find your remarks humorless, but be that as it may I'll let NP be the judge of how much humor is employed here.

  • Silverghost Mar 06, 2015

    Here we go...........boys, who has there facts screwed up once again? Once again your disdain has flawed you logics and credibility big time but you are both full of so much disdain you can't see this can you?

    Next......

    http://noetic.org/discussions/open/616/

  • Silverghost Mar 06, 2015

    By the way......boys, I had a personal chat with this person, she agree, you could have caused her to commit suicide if she was any more traumatised, does calling someone out right crazy ring a bell? Knowing your intellect and self-centred mentality, most probably not.

  • Silverghost Mar 06, 2015

    Does manda88 ring a bell? Who once again has their facts screwed up by flawed logics again..........boys?

    "What in the hell are you talking about?! Either back up this disgusting accusation or apologize immediately!"

    Has Noet once apologized for all his indiscretions and numerous abuse to other members? Actually he backed his abuse up with creating personal non-scientific threads on a science orientated site, one rule for him and another rule for others as usual. This isn't Dean's form.

    Good try in trying to take the emphasise off yourselves.........once again boys but it didn't work......next.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 06, 2015

    Dustproduction,

    Among your deficiencies is the inability to recognize humor when a derogatory comment is directed toward someone they respect.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 06, 2015

    Re: "NoetPoet is the kind of dude who would enjoy causing someone to commit suicide."

    Jim, this comment sets a new low for you. Its is shamelessly malicious and vindictive.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 06, 2015

    Silverghost

    I haven't seen the comment your referring to about an individual in distress, but believe you may be right.

    NoetPoet is the kind of dude who would enjoy causing someone to commit suicide.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Imagination Mar 06, 2015

    Jim Centi wrote: If you accept that the material world is an illusion, does this increase your appreciation of the spiritual domain? Over the centuries, some spiritual ideas (like how can prayer work) become material ideas (radio, tv, satellite communication, etc.). All-One (Dr. Bronner). Conscious mind, subconscious mind, superconscious mind - spiritual metaphysics - Charles Fillmore, others.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 05, 2015

    Dusty,

    "Is it possible that you inferred meaning into a mere arrangement of letters organized as separated words?

    What the hell does that mean?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 05, 2015

    Noet,

    To see the intended jest in my comment the second part should be considered. What I said was “If you tried some of my stuff, you wouldn't be such an asshole.”

    I am not using any stuff. Perhaps I should use something and then these “I said, you said” dialogues wouldn't be so tedious.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 05, 2015

    NP, As per usual, Mathew has his facts screwed up.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 05, 2015

    Jim,
    Is it possible that you inferred meaning into a mere arrangement of letters organized as separated words?
    You are always discussing illusion, and you cannot see one when it is presented to you.
    What else do you infer meaning into when there is none, or when a different meaning is intended?
    Ha ha!

  • NoetPoet Mar 05, 2015

    “look at what Noet did to a certain person who was obviously in distress….This person could have committed suicide through the abuse they received. ”

    What in the hell are you talking about?! Either back up this disgusting accusation or apologize immediately!

  • NoetPoet Mar 05, 2015

    @Jim
    “When I referred to you as an asshole it was done out of friendly jest, because, you referred to me as a heroin addict, which of course, I am not.”

    It wasn’t done out of jest at all – who calls someone an asshole out of jest, especially when they don’t get along with that person very well to begin with?! What I actually said was that your words “could have come straight out of the mouth of a heroin junkie”. In other words, I was saying that you were exhibiting the same tendency towards cowardly escapism that causes heroin junkies to become and remain addicted. I was clearly NOT accusing you of actually being a heroin junkie!

    “In that lengthy dialogue you had with him about a year ago, he referred to you a few times as Dean Radin and because I trust Bob, I believe that is your true identity. “

    Then you are wrong, and for once Silverghost is right (about me not being Dean Radin, not about any of the other crap he just said about me). If you don’t believe me, the ask Dean yourself.

    “Someone implied that you and Dustproduction are the same person, playing different roles and I believe there is a possibility of that because that topic is far beyond the role typically played by Dusty.”

    Then “someone” is wrong. I would venture a guess that “someone” would rather believe a ludicrous fanciful notion that all so-called materialists are actually the same person, rather than face up to the reality that there are many people who can see right through New Age nonsense.

  • Silverghost Mar 05, 2015

    G'day Jim

    "In that lengthy dialogue you had with him about a year ago, he referred to you a few times as Dean Radin and because I trust Bob, I believe that is your true identity."

    You don't honestly think this, I don't think Dean would intellectually stoop to utter constant abuse, there would be no need, what is anyone this abusive proving? There certainly not proving how objective they can be and I think Dean is some what more objective, take a look at Dean's write ups, are they anything like Noet's?

    I also don't think Dean is this anti spiritual especially going by his own write ups, look at what Noet did to a certain person who was obviously in distress, I think Dean would have handled this situation somewhat differently don't you? This person could have committed suicide through the abuse they received.

    Now let's take into consideration of Dean's position, would anyone in this position even consider abusing people like Noet has? I don't think so unless we are all a part of an experiment which is in my mind could be a possibility but I think unlikely. The abuse on this discussion board has certainly hurt IONS in a certain way, I don't think Dean would have any part of this do you?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 05, 2015

    NoetPoet,

    When I referred to you as an asshole it was done out of friendly jest, because, you referred to me as a heroin addict, which of course, I am not.
    My comment was something to the effect “If you tried some of my stuff, you wouldn't be such an asshole”.

    As I've previously stated, I have a great deal of respect for you.

    Robert Johnston is one of the few participants in Discussions whose identity I completely trust, because I knew him years ago from the previous IONS website.

    In that lengthy dialogue you had with him about a year ago, he referred to you a few times as Dean Radin and because I trust Bob, I believe that is your true identity.

    The topic “The intuitional problem of consciousness” was posted in response to my suggestion that Dusty provide a few examples of his superior knowledge.

    Someone implied that you and Dustproduction are the same person, playing different roles and I believe there is a possibility of that because that topic is far beyond the role typically played by Dusty.

    Dean, with your influence at IONS, I believe that you could be instrumental in initiating the policy of using real names now, rather than waiting for the appearance of the new website, because no one seems willing inform us when the new website will appear.

    The use of real names now would be helpful in developing a community of friendship and trust that is currently seriously lacking in Discussions.

    If that can’t be done, I would not disagree with a decision that Discussions be dropped from the website now, rather than wait for the appearance of a new website.

    You have access to my email address and if you ever wish to communicate with me by email, please do so.

  • NoetPoet Mar 05, 2015

    @Jim

    "There has never been a more caustic, disrespectful attitude expressed than your comment “you know so little”."

    Oh really?? How about the time you called me an "asshole"?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 05, 2015

    @Dustproduction

    Attitude?????

    There has never been a more caustic, disrespectful attitude expressed than your comment “you know so little”.

    In this topic, the knowledge expressed was in the words of those in the videos. There was no expression of special knowledge on my part.

    I have often referred to you as a dogmatic devotee of materialism; that is not an expression of disrespect because everything you write reflects that. Also the many links you post and numerous quotations, written by the gods you worship, (professionals who remain dedicated to the primitive paradigm of scientific materialism), reflects your devotion to materialism.

    Only on one occasion did I disrespect you; about two years ago when I referred to you as an asshole. Since then you have posted disruptive comments on everything I've written, with one exception; A Paranormal Paradigm. I only wrote that topic because you were unable to see the big picture.

    As long as you decided to post nonsense, it would have would have been more appropriate to post your caustic comment to that topic.

    The last time we had an encounter like this, it was agreed that neither of us is going to change our worldview and it would be obtuse if we tried to influence each other.

    I left this forum for a while because I refused to partake in your malevolent, aggressive banter that attempted to make me look foolish. Some good people have abandoned Discussions for that reason and many do not post due to fear of your aggressive criticism.

    If you are unable to abandon your childish behavior out of respect for your illusion of self, do it out of respect for this forum and IONS.

    If you require an apology; I deeply regret and sincerely apologize for categorizing you as an asshole.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 04, 2015

    Re: superior knowledge

    attitude Jim, watch that attitude (a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or thing)

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 04, 2015

    Apophenia /æpɵˈfiːniə/ is the experience of perceiving patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.

    12 letters, one repeated three times, arranged in four rows, 3 letters, 4 letters, 2 letters, 6 letters

    u c

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 03, 2015

    Dustproduction,

    Are you addressing me with your comment “you know so little” or is that comment directed at the readers of the topic.

    Please explain your comment and provide examples of your superior knowledge.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 03, 2015

    you
    know
    so
    little

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 03, 2015

    Perhaps some of my topics are difficult to accept, such as this one that provides links to videos which instruct that the physical world we perceive through our sensory experience is illusory.

    I was reluctant to post this topic except for the fact that Dean Radin, chief scientist at IONS, appears in the second video. I believed as members of IONS, his appearance would cause readers to consider the message of the videos in a more serious light.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 02, 2015

    The more things change the one they remain the same!

    "The question of this thread is: " Are you willing to accept that the material world which our sensory experience provides is an illusion? If you cannot accept it, why can’t you accept it?"

    hahahaha"

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 30, 2012

    In response to Jim's question: If you accept that the material world is an illusion, does this increase your appreciation of the spiritual domain?

    I was also thinking about how the gamelan music is seen as a spirit and the instruments as the channel. The musicians release the spirit via the channel. The music is spiritual not only because of the trance-like state it may produce, but because the spirit of the music provides a vehicle in and out of the physical realm. This has deepened my appreciation of the spiritual domain. The spirit of the music moves between realms, breathing life into and enriching this one.

    The instruments will outlive me. The gamelan music spirit will outlive the instruments. It illustrates the impermanence/illusion of our material state and the eternity of spirit...once again.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Jun 30, 2012

    The question of this thread is: " Are you willing to accept that the material world which our sensory experience provides is an illusion? If you cannot accept it, why can’t you accept it?"

    hahahaha

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 30, 2012


    Hi Jim,
    I wanted to add one thing, though...I also play gamelan music (a good example is Jalan Jalan's Bali Dua music on Youtube). It is hypnotic, moreso than Western music. I think that many musicians would argue that there are times when they are in the *elsewhere* that comes about when playing music. It is similar to a deep meditative state. Despite being physically attached to an instrument, there is no sense of self. There is a sense of no borders on consciousness.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 29, 2012

    Hi slowlygetnthar,

    We could be getting into one of those “I said this, you said that” situations that are more childish than productive.

    In that particular comment, I was talking to you personally. For clarification I will repeat that section of the comment.

    >For education purposes, I am curious about something. Assuming that you have not had the actual experience of freedom from the separate self, is it possible for you to gain some sense of freedom from the will and intention of the separate self through introspection and/or imagination?>

    When you answered in general terms, I took it that you were avoiding my question that was directed to you personally.

    Now that we have cleared that up……I hope; I’ve noticed another comment of mine that contains a fault.

    When I directed the question “To ALL”, I neglected to consider that as comments were added to the topic, the question would eventually disappear down the list of comments. To correct this, I will reword it and ask it as a separate topic. You can hold off answering the question directed to you personally and respond to it when the new topic is reworded and posted.

    Boy, I’m starting to feel like someone who has never posted to Discussions. Hopefully, the errors of my posting will eventually go unnoticed when the new topic is posted.

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 29, 2012


    Hi Jim,
    I wasn't avoiding your question. I was seriously answering it.

    When deeply thinking, remembering, meditating or doing psychotropic drugs, I do believe people can experience what you are talking about!
    I'm not being facetious. I am being honest!

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 29, 2012

    TO ALL,

    In the event anyone is curious, my last comment to slowlygetnthar was intended as a bit of sarcasm because she tactfully avoided answering my question to her.

    I will ask the question to anyone who cares to answer it, but first a bit of background.

    The neuroscience community has made an announcement that has huge implications for our “sense of self”. It has proclaimed that freewill, along with the sense of self that believes it experiences freewill are illusions. I am led to believe that IONS will eventually be coming out in support of this announcement.

    Although we live in the universe, we experience that we exist separate from or independent of the universe; this is referred to as the illusion of a separate self.

    To the degree that we transcend the illusion of freewill, we also transcend the illusion of a separate self and we exist mentally or spiritually in a manner that connects us to the universe or all that exists.

    My question to anyone who cares to answer it is as follows:

    Can you, when wide awake and alert imagine and experience being free from the burden and isolation of a separate self? Stating this another way, can you experience that you have no freewill and experience total and complete surrender to the will of the universe or if you prefer, complete surrender to the will of God.

    This experience may grow over time, what I am asking is, can you experience it for only a few seconds?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 28, 2012

    slowlygetnthar,

    Your response was educational. In the future I will not post anything that I consider to be of value and will consider these discussions as simply entertaining chit chat.

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 28, 2012


    Hi Jim,
    I would think folks can have the experience via deep thought/meditation and/or imagination or even via psychotropic drugs. Maybe some folks do hallucinogenics specifically for the purpose of melding with ______________ whatever you want to call it.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 27, 2012

    Slowlygetnthar,

    My purpose in providing this commentary on the nature of enlightenment was not only to convey a conceptual understanding of the message, but to encourage a subjective or introspective experience.

    If one can experience, through introspection and/or imagination, freedom from the separate self; it becomes somewhat apparent that conversing with others is not possible.

    Perhaps I am expecting too much. Because I have experienced freedom from the separate self, it is possible through imagination and/or introspection to gain some sense of that experience. When freedom from the separate self occurs, even on a subtle level, it is realized that communication with others is not possible because the will and intention of a separate self is required.

    For education purposes, I am curious about something. Assuming that you have not had the actual experience of freedom from the separate self, is it possible for you to gain some sense of freedom from the will and intention of the separate self through introspection and/or imagination?

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 26, 2012


    Jim, I concur that it is impossible to know the precise details of a state a person is describing, though you have tried to be very careful and clear in your description.

    I don't know that it is a transitory state, though, based on stories of Bodhisattvas. So, that's where I am with it.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Sungon9 Jun 26, 2012

    I do not have the time to read this, but if anyone is curious about an article that tries to debunk the idea that quantum mechanics are behind consciousness, here you go:
    http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=555

    I'm not a skeptic. In fact, I was wondering whether there were skeptics to this idea that were willing to publish a long article. Well, here you go, I guess.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 26, 2012

    Correction: the last sentence of paragraph six should read:

    Until such events occur, I will stand by my research that Enlightenment is a transitory state and a separate self is required to communicate with others.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 25, 2012

    slowlygetnthar,

    It is difficult, if not impossible to know specifically what state of mind someone is referring to when they use certain terms.

    For example, the following terms have been used to designate the experience of Enlightenment that I described in my comment to iamonesoru.

    Cosmic Consciousness, God Consciousness, Buddha Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, One with the Universe, Universal Mind, Nirvana, Samadhi, Enlightenment, The Nondual State, The Awakening, Quantum Consciousness, Nonlocal Awareness, Nonlocal Consciousness, The True Self, Unity Consciousness and other terms in other cultures.

    It is perhaps unfortunate that these terms are often used to designate a variety of other states which may be “elevated” or “spiritual”, but are not the state that I designated as Enlightenment in my comment to iamonesoru.

    It is certainly not my intention to appear all knowing, but I have never come across a description of the nature of Enlightenment as succinctly stated as in my comment to iamonesoru. My description of it would not have been possible, if I had no familiarity with the IONS premise that consciousness is not confined within our individual brains.

    There may be a time when the term “consciousness” is replaced by another term that is more appropriate. There may also be a time when another description is more appropriate than the one I provided. When and if such events occur, my description will require revision. Until such events occur, I will stand by my description of Enlightenment and that it is a transitory state.

    As far as your question regarding a state of grace, based on how I have seen the phrase used, it is certainly an elevated spiritual state. Rather than speculate on what the state is specifically; I repeat my opening sentence. It is difficult, if not impossible to know specifically what state of mind someone is referring to when they use certain terms.

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 25, 2012


    Jim, I do understand what you are saying.

    Conceptually, I am grappling with the idea of Boddhisattvas or many Indian mystics who remain in the exalted state but continue to interact with the rest of us. They are considered as residing in a perpetual state of grace. Does grace = nirvana?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 25, 2012

    slowlygetnthar,

    Regarding different interpretations of the term enlightenment, a phrase often used is “he or she is enlightened”. This implies a permanent state, which conflicts with my previous comment.

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 25, 2012


    I had not thought about there being different definitions for enlightenment.

    While reading this, I was reminded of a photo I saw of a person in a scuba suit, lying in a tide pool about to be re-subsumed by surf. Only the eyes, nose, and lips protruded/were discernible from the water, which was reflecting the sea, sand, and golden sunset. There was this wholism/unity between the person and sea/landscape and sky. For me, this image translates how I interpret someone in the world, but embodying the nirvana state.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 25, 2012

    Hi slowlygetnthar,

    Generally, I speak or write from personal experience, but what I have to say about the impermanency of enlightenment will require support from those recognized as authorities on the subject.

    Based on the work of Ken Wilber, Jack Kornfield, Adyashanti and others, enlightenment it is not a permanent state. Based on my research, at the extreme, the state lasts only four or five hours.

    In the state of enlightenment, it is not possible to carry on a conversation or teach. To communicate with another or teach requires a separate self. If one attempts to talk or converse with another when in the state, it rapidly dissipates and the separate self emerges.

    It is true that following the experience, shades or memories of the state continue, but the state itself is not permanent.

    Perhaps the myth that enlightenment is a permanent state has been allowed to survive, because there are different interpretations of the meaning of the term “enlightenment”.

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 25, 2012


    Hi Jim,
    Reading your beautifully-worded description, I was struck by this:
    When experiencing the purest form of empty mind, there have been very brief, momentary flashes of enlightenment, lasting only seconds.

    I was also thinking that once someone has that connectivity and empty mind, it may inform everything he/she does, even if enlightenment may only "last seconds." In other words, one may never entirely lose the sense of one-ness with all. While most of us will not be Bodhisattvas instantaneously~~ we don't remain in the nirvana state~~ we may be partially containing/refracting it as we move through the illusion ever after.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Jun 23, 2012

    Iamonesoru,

    It seems appropriate that I provide my perspective on the nature of enlightenment.

    First, let’s consider a fundamental premise of IONS: Consciousness is not imprisoned within our individual brains; consciousness is a characteristic or expression of the universe.

    We have been conditioned to believe and experience that consciousness is contained or imprisoned within our brain. Within that belief system or paradigm, there is no intimate connection to the universe.

    With no intimate connection to the universe we experience that we are separate from the universe or that we exist independent of the universe. This is the illusion of separate self that is discussed in esoteric literature.

    With a bit of introspection, it should be clear that because we exist in the universe, we are an expression of the universe. It should be clear that to believe and experience that we are separate from or independent of the universe is an illusion.

    When we experience enlightenment, the illusion of a separate self is abandoned. Perhaps because nature abhors a vacuum, self expands to become the consciousness of the universe. This self exists in eternity, infinity; this experience of enlightenment is the essence of spirituality; we are no longer imprisoned within space and time. As previously stated, my primary experience occurred over forty years ago.

    What follows is my response to your questions about empty mind. In periods of pure empty mind the personal self does not exist. The personal will [ego or desires of the separate self] are absolutely and completely abandoned and one surrenders to the will of the universe. Some may say that we surrender to the will of God. The important thing is that the personal will or sense of a personal self is abandoned; it no longer exists.

    When experiencing the purest form of empty mind, there have been very brief, momentary flashes of enlightenment, lasting only seconds.

    To experience enlightenment, one must be willing to abandon the sense of a personal self. There is no “me” or “I”; that is why I object to the phrasing “I am you and you are me.”

    I’ve been led to believe that IONS will eventually address the revelations coming out of neuroscience that freewill is an illusion and the “I” or sense of self that experiences freewill is also an illusion. For me, this is very positive information as it indicates that, as a species, we may be moving closer to the spirituality of enlightenment.

  • slowlygetnthar Jun 23, 2012


    IAMONE(WHAT?)SORU ASKED:
    How is it possible for someone to remain in the state of empty mind and achieve any state other than a state of mindlessness?

    Study what the Dalai Lama says about emptiness. Then, you will have the answer.

  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru Jun 20, 2012

    Dear Jim:
    Another question I would like to ask is;

    How is it possible for someone to remain in the state of empty mind and achieve any state other than a state of mindlessness?

  • Anonymous Icon

    iamonesoru Jun 20, 2012

    Dear Jim:
    I have done as you instructed me, and I accept your invitation to ask you questions here in this thread. After re-reading the thread that brought us to this point, the first question I would like to ask you is this;

    Which of us is the instructor?

    The second question is;

    When is the last time you used the state of what you call "empty mind" to look into the mirror?

    You are under no obligation to answer these questions here, and we may discontinue our discussions any time you choose.

  • charliet May 14, 2012

    Hi slowlygetnthar

    Never used the boxes, experimented with them and other forms of noise generation and rejected them all. With my background in professional audio I try to keep it as clean as can be. These random noise and voice generators can produce human like sounds that have no intelligence associated with them. I opt to use just normal ambient noises and I am very good at sorting them out (not bragging - just saying).

    One of the things that made me realize that something was there was the day I took a cleanly wiped digital voice recorder and placed it inside a sound proof, RF proof box. I asked for a simple contact such as hello or hi - thinking I would get nothing. About 20 seconds passed and I opened the case and removed the recorder, checking the playback I was stunned, and I mean stunned to hear about 5 seconds into the recording a clear "hello".

    I am careful to not jump to conclusions and have learned many things from my contacts, things that people will argue or not accept, things that have been proven to me. My stand on self, illusion, destiny and evil (to mention just a few), comes from both my intuitions and my contacts.

    Keep searching and reading and remember this - "even though it is an ancient practice, that does not mean it is truth".

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 14, 2012

    I have searched the website and found few basic rules that address these discussions.
    Since the discussion posted here are in fact the property of IONS, the discussion is not personal, nor is it a debate, an argument, or a competition. Directions from others to others are therefore merely suggestion. All are free to ignore want they wish, and contribute what they wish, as they will. This need not be viewed as rude or improper since it does not violate any agreement with IONS.

    Additionally, comments posted that contain research, and reference provide the opportunity for further learning.
    To give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject is the definition of enlightenment.

  • slowlygetnthar May 14, 2012


    Charliet, have you done any work with those boxes that pick up waves and translate them into language? I have seen some folks experiment with them on various shows. Some of the results have been hair raising.

    Just be picky about what you channel...

    I do have a white noise machine that will sometimes emit voices. I have always assumed it was simply picking up a radio frequency or something in the electrical lines, not disembodied spirits. In some other thread, I mentioned that it also emits an analog signal every now and then, which is common in old phone lines, though it is not hooked up to a phone line. Still, it has often given me pause.

    Like you, I observe, experience, experiment, read like mad, and try to keep an open mind. Science is theory, I agree~~not God, though some treat it more like religion than what it is...I am too busy trying to learn and understand things to waste time arguing with the redundantly dogmatic.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 12, 2012

    "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1]"

    1.^ "... modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions." —p.vii, J. L. Heilbron, (2003, editor-in-chief) The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science New York: Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-511229-6

  • charliet May 10, 2012

    I believe that most of the rules, so to speak, are theory, "we think so maybe it is". We are making some fantastic advancements in all sciences, but I know that we cannot quantify things like reality vs illusion or self vs no self. These are all someones "I think so maybe it is" theory.

    I base my theories on my experiences and observations and where possible on my experiments. As Jim said - I listen to the voices in the static, if it were all static I would have rejected it long ago. My background as an Audio Professional led me to EVP out of curiosity, after trying to debunk it I came to the conclusion there is something there, it has been eye opening and has proven itself many times over, but how do you measure it, it is to complicated to get into here, many people cannot receive EVP's, one theory is that you have to have "medium" capabilities, I have been told that I do.

    But how would one make rules for this and would they be correct? Every so often we hear the news blurb, scientists have to rethink blah blah, new findings have ---. Remember - someone once said - "rules are meant to be broken".

  • slowlygetnthar May 10, 2012

    Sorry, Jim. I was pondering the dividing line between what constitutes reality vs. illusion or the illusion of reality and all this stuff we have been discussing here...and what are the rules and how did there come to be quantum physics rules and material manifestation rules...who makes them? You are right, it is probably a graduate physicist in a galaxy far far away, sitting with Alice's catarpillar on the shroom, puffing away at the hookah...

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi May 10, 2012

    Slowlygetnthar,.
    Please be more specific in your questions. If I were to take a guess at what you are asking, I’d have to say that it was probably a grad student in neuroscience from a galaxy far, far away.

  • slowlygetnthar May 09, 2012


    Jim & Charliet,
    Who makes the rules? What governs the rules? and when did we agree to reality by the rules?

    ...just wondering...

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 06, 2012

    Which experiences the illusion, the brain, the mind, or consciousness? And want is the distinction?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5Fs6_O2mY&feature=related

    Professor Greenfield has a supplementary interest in the neuroscientific basis of consciousness, and accordingly has written 'Journey to the Centres of the Mind Toward a Science of Consciousness' (1995) W H Freeman Co, and 'Private Life of the Brain' (2000) Penguin. Her latest book 'Tomorrow's People: How 21st Century technology is changing the way we think and feel' (Penguin 2003), explores human nature, and its potential vulnerability in an age of technology.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 06, 2012

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5Fs6_O2mY&feature=related

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 06, 2012

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=48ol4sHasA8

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi May 06, 2012

    Charliet,
    I thought you were being serious and wasted all that good stuff on you.

    If you’re into the ancient North American Native views, how about send me some of the vegetation you occasionally ingest. I haven’t seen the world from that side for several years wwwoooooie. No wonder you hear voices in static. :-)

    As far as what direction you should go in, it depends on what side you address yourself. LOL

  • charliet May 05, 2012

    Hi Jim

    We are both still searching I would say, some day we will know the absolute truth. I have explored the Eastern views and read quantum theories. I have also explored the ancient North American Native views, I found that they made more sense to me.

    The EVP for me has simply confirmed that my intuition and knowing, which I have had since childhood, is correct, it has provided a proof for me and an insight I never had before. I have to follow that as it has never steered me wrong, this does not mean I am closed minded, I seek new insights all the time and listen to everyone. We all travel different paths that lead to the same place, that is also part of the "self".

    One last question, do you suggest that inch and a half step be to the left or the right. LOL.

    Take care.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi May 05, 2012

    Charliet,
    Man, you sure ask a lot of questions for someone who doesn’t buy into this stuff…

    I rarely consider a single individual an authority. I consider authority somewhat valid when is a large group; such as the Buddhists or Hindus, which represent millions of people, express a point of view. These traditions advocate meditation to look within for answers.

    I also believe an authority to be worth considering when similar views are held by various branches of science such as neuroscience, biology or a group of individuals who share the same opinion, such as in the videos where several individuals with knowledge of quantum physics share the same view.

    There’s a guy who is considered a guru who advocates looking within [experiencing a quiet mind] and repetitively asking the question “What am I”. From I’ve heard it works for some. What this does is remove all the conditioning we have accumulated over the years and come upon some form of truth from inside, after all the conditioning is set aside.

    I think I read somewhere in your comments that you have been interested in the paranormal since childhood. Something inside told you that there was more to reality than what most people believed and you followed that something until it led you to EVP.

    We are similar in some respect. The voice inside that caused you to step aside from the consensus reality and led you to EVP; my inner voice caused me to step aside from the consensus reality and it led me to this current topic. We both have shifted away from the consensus reality to discover something that was more real or true for us.

    I think you may need to step only about an inch and a half further away from the consensus reality to recognizing that the whole dam thing [consensus reality] is illusion.

    I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I’ve been into this stuff for a long time and I may recall something that may be helpful to you or both of us. Keep checking in and maybe you’ll convince me that wrong about everything….Jim.


  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 05, 2012

    Here is a more pedestrian view the everything is an illusion
    There is a popular TV program called "Awake" on NBC. The premise of the show is that a police detective has an accident was splits his world into parallel worlds that are similar both different. When he falls asleep in the one world he awakes in the other. To tell the two apart he wears a rubber band on his wrist.
    The point is that no matter which "illusion" he is in, he still needs to participate according to the governing "rules."
    Illusion or reality, what is the difference in terms of navigation?

  • charliet May 05, 2012

    Question is Jim - "who are the authorities and how do they know"?. How do you or I know that what someone is telling us, cause the math works, that it is so?

    I have always found it interesting that we cannot accept what we are (there's another "can O worms",what are we??), and acknowledge that "the who is it that is seeing or doing" (one of D Chopra's favourite queeries), is you, the self, the I, the me. It's not the guy beside you or Joe down the street, it's you, and you are stardust and atoms and itty bitty little molecules just like everyone else, but, you are an individual, unlike any other, unique, a self.

    Like I said before, I have never seen or read any thing that proves to me that this is all illusion. Simple example, an animal died a million years ago and a fossil was created, we find this fossil and date it back with our trusted science to a million years. If you accept that (and I do), then answer me this, "why would the universe put all of that energy into keeping this illusion alive for a million years and to what purpose"?

    Don't you dare start a new blog called "can O worms" LOL. Really enjoy your blogs.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi May 05, 2012

    slowlygetnthar,

    I have always found it interesting that no one seems to doubt that we exist within the universe and as such we are an expression of the universe. Yet this sense of self that we consider “me or I”, somehow experiences that it exists separate from or independent of the universe.

    Perhaps this is why authorities, in a variety fields, are telling us that the “I or me” that we experience is an illusion.

    I’m starting to see a lot of humor in this stuff. I’ve got to control myself to avoid appearing as a wacko. Is the effort to control the illusion of self simply another illusion? No need to answer that, it’s a rhetorical question. :o)

  • slowlygetnthar May 05, 2012


    Also, Jim, I do know Plato's cave. It's one of my favorite readings.

    I think we have been exploring similar writings.

    Reading Charliet's comments, I tend to agree, but why must our "reality" be dualistic? There is self, but I do believe we arise from the Tao and are embodied in it, plus we internalize it. Therefore, there is not true separation. Is the notion of self simply a mechanism for experiencing, processing, learning from and expressing the holistic universe?

    An analogy, however lame: If we were sunflower sprouts, we would grow because of the Tao of sunlight, earth, water, wind and our unique genetic signatures for interpreting these through our structure. Every molecule of the sprout embodies these and is nurtured by them, externally as well. The sprout is separate but contained in and an interpetation/expression of the Tao.

    Expanding this slightly, I recall, as a teen, being quite excited to read, in the Smithsonian, that we contained the same chemical make-up as stardust. We are our universe.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 03, 2012

    And for a taste of research:

    "Lesion and perturbation studies of conscious content
    "Both focal lesion patient studies and transcranial magnetic stimulation
    (TMS) experiments in normal volunteers strongly implicate the PPN in
    supporting conscious contents. For instance, in one study patients with
    unilateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) lesions and healthy controls were
    briefly shown a number at one of four locations, followed after a variable
    delay by a mask (Del Cul et al.,
    2009<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19433438>).
    Subjects stated whether or not they had seen the number, and then guessed
    what the number was. Although objective performance for seen trials was
    matched between patients and controls, PFC patients were significantly less
    likely to consciously detect trials answered correctly, compared to
    controls."
    These are updates of classic techniques.
    The Sanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a pretty good article, here a
    couple of paragraphs:

    "In the 1980s and 90s there was a major resurgence of scientific and
    philosophical research into the nature and basis of consciousness (Baars
    1988, Dennett 1991, Penrose 1989, 1994, Crick 1994, Lycan 1987, 1996,
    Chalmers 1996). Once consciousness was back under discussion, there was a
    rapid proliferation of research with a flood of books and articles, as well
    as the introduction of specialty journals (*The Journal of Consciousness
    Studies, Consciousness and Cognition, Psyche),*professional societies
    (Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness - ASSC) and annual
    conferences devoted exclusively to its investigation (Toward a Science of
    Consciousness, ASSC).
    "2. Concepts of Consciousness

    "The words “conscious” and “consciousness” are umbrella terms that cover a
    wide variety of mental phenomena. Both are used with a diversity of
    meanings, and the adjective “conscious” is heterogeneous in its range,
    being applied both to whole organisms — creature consciousness — and to
    particular mental states and processes — state consciousness (Rosenthal
    1986, Gennaro 1995, Carruthers 2000)."
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 03, 2012

    From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3298966/
    Front Psychol. 2012; 3: 63.
    Published online 2012 March 12. doi:
    10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00063<http://dx.crossref.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2012.00063>
    PMCID: PMC3298966
    Copyright <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/copyright.html> © 2012 Bor
    and Seth.
    Consciousness and the Prefrontal Parietal Network: Insights from Attention,
    Working Memory, and Chunking
    Daniel Bor1,2* and Anil K. Seth1,2

    "We argue instead that there is more common ground between attention and
    consciousness than is usually emphasized: although objects can under
    certain circumstances be attended to in the absence of conscious access,
    attention as a content selection and boosting mechanism is an important and
    necessary aspect of consciousness. Like attention, working memory and
    executive control involve the interlinking of multiple mental objects and
    have also been closely associated with the PPN. We propose that this set of
    cognitive functions, in concert with attention, make up the core
    psychological components of consciousness. . .
    "Following on from this, we suggest that a key evolutionary purpose of
    consciousness may be to provide innovative solutions to complex or novel
    problems. . .
    " Although consciousness is difficult to define (Zeman,
    2005<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16186011>),
    we take the base concept to be the presence of phenomenal content for an
    agent, and we emphasize a distinction between conscious *level *(i.e., a
    position on a scale from total unconsciousness as in coma to vivid and
    alert wakefulness) and conscious *content* (i.e., the components of any
    given conscious scene – the qualia; Seth et al.,
    2008<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18606562>). .
    .
    " At the level of brain mechanisms, consciousness science now synthesizes
    results from a broad range of techniques, including electrophysiology,
    functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),
    magneto/electroencephalography (M/EEG), intracranial recordings,
    neuropsychology, and computational models (Tononi and Koch,
    2008<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18400934>).
    In the next section, we will describe how a coherent pattern has emerged
    from these studies, in which two tiers of brain regions seem critical for
    consciousness: first, modality specific regions, such as those in
    extra-striate cortex, underlie the specific (phenomenal) contents of
    consciousness; second, the prefrontal parietal network (PPN) in concert
    with the thalamus is heavily implicated in consciousness more generally,
    regardless of content. The PPN can therefore be viewed as a “core
    correlate” of consciousness. ...

  • slowlygetnthar May 03, 2012


    By "we all," I meant this collection of energies who/that participate in this illusion.

    Wow! the irises are..._____________________....wish we could attach photos...

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi May 02, 2012

    Slowlygetnthar,

    Who’s “we all”? I think your description of looking at the flower was kinda cool.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi May 02, 2012

    Hi charliet, welcome aboard.

    I generally favor the Occam’s razor approach, but in this case, it may not be the right tool.

    I realize that this idea that the material world is illusion, as voiced by those familiar with quantum physics, is a large pill to swallow.

    Aside from my personal experience, my comfort with this idea is the many years spent exploring Eastern spiritual traditions, esoteric literature and being a fan of the writings of mystics. All these sources address, perhaps in varying degrees of subtlety or intensity, that the material world is illusion.

    What we’re being asked to do is step outside of the box which has provided our sense of reality since birth. The best analogy I can provide is that of Plato’s cave. I won’t go into in detail, but what he describes is what it is like to be in the box of the consensus reality [he uses a cave to illustrate this] and then step outside the box or cave.

    If you Google Plato’s cave you will find it discussed on many sites. Explore them until you find one that is comfortable.

    I don’t want to create the impression that this is a “must do” for everyone. If someone can’t accept it, they will not be left behind in some planetary evacuation. Aside from the spiritual traditions that accept this view, there may be only a very small percentage of the population that accepts this paradigm or is even aware of it.

    I like it because it takes the intensity out of existence. If you know that the world presented by our sensory experience is illusion, there is a certain light heartedness and a humorous attitude that follows one around. It’s difficult to take things too seriously. For me, it provides an appreciation for the spiritual domain, which is an intuitive experience rather than one provided by sensory experience.

  • charliet May 02, 2012

    Hi all

    Not wanting to jump in here, just been following your conversation.

    Using the Occams Razor principle of the simplest answer is usually the truth and looking at "illusion", why is it that if a rock, (for example), is on the ground everyone sees the rock? Keeping it simple and not proposing that it is a mass illusion, would that not mean it is real, it exists? Anyone who were to kick it would hurt their toe regardless if they believed in it or not.

    Taking the rock a bit further, everyone sees the rock but it means or looks different to them than anyone else, everyone experiences the rock in a different way, would this not indicate a seperatness, and individual, a "self".

    I raise these two questions as I have never seen or read an answer that I could accept. I have raised these questions with my contacts, they express reality, not illusion. Self exists, not "no self", self is you - your expression, ego, your personality.

  • slowlygetnthar May 02, 2012

    OOOOooops, I was too brief in my writing. I had re-read your original post. You never said: you are what you pretend to be. I don't know who originally said it. Your posting made me think of it.

    I was merely alluding to the issue of pretend vs. reality and how do we arrive at the distinction between them? Is it reality if we all agree it's reality? That's my question.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi May 02, 2012

    slowlygetnthar,

    Ref: “You are what you pretend to be.”

    What post are you referring to, An Interesting Overview or this one. I don’t recall saying anything like that, is it possibly taken out of context?

    Please let me know the approximate paragraph in which it appears and the date of the post you are referring to.

    If it’s something ridiculous, I may have been quoting Aristotle, I hope we don’t get involved in that again. :o)

  • slowlygetnthar May 02, 2012


    Jim, going back to your original posting, I was thinking of that phrase: You are what you pretend to be.

    There seem to be limitations to the validity of the imagined illusion, however. I also think of the movie Working Girl, in which the protagonist's best friend says: Some days I sing and dance around the house in my underwear. Doesn't make me Madonna. Never will.

    So, does the illusion only "work" if others validate it as well?

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 01, 2012

    part IV one finally comment:

    I think that science as current is going to blow a gasket (soon) on these
    issues as new ways are discovered to enter this confused areas inherited
    from antiquity, and primordial man. These questions are dismissed as New Age
    nonsense, but science will end up joining this realm, and I would note that
    much of it in Indian tradition is associated, now with the supernatural,
    but the 'higher natural', thus open in principle to all the methods of
    science.

    JL

    This is how discussion should evolve!

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 01, 2012

    This is not the only place where this topic is being discussed. These are all PhDs involved. I'll simply copy & paste to avoid retyping:

    Animals and humans share what Kant/Schopenhauer discussed in terms of
    categories of perception. The issue is not consciousness but the 'self-consciousness' of man, potentially.
    JL

    Hi there John
    I'm not even sure that there is such a thing as self consciousness. I think it's a chimera.
    Take a mathematical category of this what you mention below, then we control
    our sensory inputs (not our behaviours) and we just have a better control of
    our sensory inputs (which is actually like a feedback function, to a greater
    or lesser degree) than say a dog in relations to our behaviour.
    Not even sure what they mean by perceptions slippery word not well defined.
    Regards

    GR

    What about conscious awareness of what is in your mind, as in mindfulness meditation?
    KW

    Precisely. But even mindfulness is only an attempt to jumpstart
    'self-consciousness'.
    JL

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 01, 2012


    I find the term "self-conscious" inadequate for describing the experience the being addressed here, due to the fact that self conscious has other lesser meanings associated with it. If what we are talking about is a high form of observing self, of noting that one is, but then noting how one is, and further observing from a more executive self the awareness to change the actions of the self, perhaps we need a better term.

    tah

    You are right, the term in English has a number of different meanings.
    But the fourfold series (from Sanskrit) is now conventional in many New Age
    circles. The problem is that few have ever experienced (to their
    knowledge, it is omnipresent in homo sapiens with the power of attention, but not on
    demand for longer periods) the distinction to a sufficient intensity to
    make the point clear. Usually people have some experience, often as children,
    of such a separate state, but it tends to die out in adults, save the way
    you can always generate split seconds of 'self-consciousness' via the
    focus of attention.
    The four stages in classic yoga/buddhism, are sleep, consciousness,
    self-consciousness, enlightenment (???). Note that self-consciousness is to
    consciousness as consciousness is to sleep. Full, continuous self-consciousness
    is very rare in homo sapiens, and usually only persists in those who aim
    still higher: towards a mysterious state beyond all such states, the so-called
    'fourth state', or 'enlightenment', The latter is even more rare, a rumor
    almost. Who knows?
    But the evolution of this state of affairs can't be explained by Darwinism.

    To make the matter more confusing, many people use the term 'consciousness'
    for self-consciousness, calling the normal state of man something else,
    mechanical awareness, or some such.

    Note the problem with holding attention in a fixed mode. Continuous
    attention would energize self-consciousness, supposedly.

    JL.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction May 01, 2012

    Part III

    So if we were to use this as a starting point, what Eccles is describing only accounts for stage 2, a level of awareness which is share with other mammals. And that beyond this there is no science that defines the stage 3 experience. Correct?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC49701/

    tah

    Yes, that is about the state of affairs, although texts of yoga claim to a
    'science' of the other states.
    It is worth considering the claims for the great antiquity of these issues,
    and the philosopher and Indophile Danielou tried to suggest the way that
    primordial Shivaism (not the stuff now current as 'traditional' Shaivism)
    goes all the way back to the Paleolithic. I am suspicious that once you study
    some of the texts here you realize that very primitive men could do yoga
    after a fashion using, for example, visualizations of images. The cultural
    archaeology is filled with records of primitive versions of these things,
    and, of course, the legacy of shamanism is a (usually decayed) version of all
    this, and the same questions confuse discussions of shaman, because these
    issues of consciousness arrive already garbled by superstition. So these
    states have had a continuous history, we suspect with homo sapiens. In fact,
    it might have been this question of consciousness that drove man to
    rapidly crystallize a new species (speculation, of course).
    It is confusing situation, prone to constant misinterpretations (I hope
    mine is not one of them).
    JL

    I was going to include this but had difficulties locating the comment I wrote in response to a talk by Antonio Damasio. The question it raises is whose higher self.

    Damasio makes excellent points in this talk.
    One question I have is how much the experiencing self is aware of its own nature. Paul Brok's writes in his book of essays, "Into the Silent Land" that a tumor or brain injury can alter the identity of the self unknowingly, ~" a tiny leak of blood into the temporal lobe and you can end up with a new person."
    He tells the story of Robert, a contented man who suddenly finds himself unhappy with his lot, so he buys himself a Fender Stratocaster just like the one Jimi Hendrix had played, and leaves his wife and children. It turns out he has a brain tumour. When the tumour is eventually removed, years later, he asks for his wife and children and expects his life to revert to how it had been. But, of course, it is too late.

    So we have the Self we have, but if we woke up with a different self we would not be aware of the difference it seems. Broks says, "Well it's about how personal identity is fragile, and how at one level we're basically meat and at another level we're basically fiction: human beings are storytelling machines, and the self is a story, and we tell a story about ourselves, and we just pick up on the story."

    But Damasio gets a lot of it right I think.

    tah

    I

  • slowlygetnthar Apr 30, 2012

    ....Okay, I will agree to participate in this dream as long as this river has tangerine trees and marmalade skies at some point...

    Thanks for your kind words. Some days, I am just struggling so hard to be a human being and mindful of compassion in words and actions.

    I have often thought that looking at the night sky is like looking at the dome of the inside of my head~~each thought a star....Is it possible that each thought is a separate reality in another dimension?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 29, 2012

    Hello there slowlygetnthar, nice to hear from you.

    From your recent posts about love and your sense of humor, you got it together luv.

    As far as participating in the illusion, row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily life is but a dream.......

  • slowlygetnthar Apr 29, 2012


    Hi Jim,
    I am fine with this world being an illusion. I just want to eliminate the mirage of the blubber tire around my middle!!! It's purty stubborn!

    Okay, that said, WHY WOULD WE AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS ILLUSION? ? ?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 29, 2012

    Dustproduction,

    I regret that I did not recognize sooner the communication problem between us. My dialogues have all been with those somewhat familiar with the paradigm shift. You are the first advocate of the existing paradigm that I have interacted with; so in a sense, I lost my virginity to you. Please forgive my awkwardness…..Jim

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Apr 28, 2012

    Its evident to me that the enculturation that exist here will not allow for learning or an intellectual exchange of ideas in the manner that I how attempted to pursue them. Dismissiveness and assumptiveness are tedious and insipid, and certainly no way to pursue your "paradigm shift."

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 28, 2012

    Dustproduction,

    To save you some time and effort in responding to me, I’ll give you a brief overview of what I believe is the nature of our mix-up.

    Currently, the dominant scientific paradigm is often referred to as material realism, material reductionism, scientific materialism and a few other terms. For simplification, I will refer to it simply as materialism.

    Materialism has dominated science for over three hundred years. There is a movement to replace materialism as the dominant scientific paradigm. The science of IONS, headed by Dean Radin, is participating in this movement, along with a network of scientists from around the world.

    Awareness of this movement is not generally known to the public. It is not publicized in popular literature. It is referred to in many of the books in the IONS library and certain professional journals.

    To give you some indication of the significance of this emerging scientific paradigm, I will quote from a book by Stanislav Grof M.D. “Beyond the Brain”.

    “In his groundbreaking work ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ Thomas Kuhn states the following:

    When a scientific paradigm changes, the world of the scientists changes with it. They use new instruments, look into new places, observe different things, and perceive even familiar objects in an entirely new light.

    According to Kuhn, this radical shift of perception can be compared to a sudden transportation to another planet.”

    Essentially, the emerging paradigm is that consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality and not matter [materialism].

    It is not unusual that an individual being exposed to the emerging paradigm for the first time will consider it irrational or not scientific.

    My first exposure to the new paradigm was “The Tao of Physics” by physicist Fritzof Capra. Since then there have been dozens of books, among the most recent are “Entangled Minds” by Dean Radin and “The Taboo of Subjectivity” [Toward a New Science of Consciousness] by B. Alan Wallace, the President of the Santa Barbara Institute for the Interdisciplinary Study of Consciousness.

    There has been tremendous resistance to the new paradigm. Many scientists have built careers on the materialistic paradigm and have publicly mocked the new paradigm as pseudoscience, so egos are a consideration. Funding is a consideration; the emerging paradigm receives only a small fraction of the money going to conventional science. There are also social and political considerations.

    So the struggle is not over, but there is a growing number of scientists who believe that materialism is in its final days.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 28, 2012

    dustproduction,

    In my effort to quickly respond to you, my last paragraph is a bit garbled.

    It should read “Please be as clear and precise as possible and state the specific area of science that is being neglected which you wish to discuss.”

    I neglected to add, that it would be helpful if you state this in your own words rather than copy and paste dialogue from supporting texts.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 28, 2012

    dustproduction,

    Ok, let’s try to clear this up.

    Quantum physics is generally accepted as the cutting edge of science. In these videos individuals who are knowledgeable of quantum physics are telling us what quantum physics reveals.

    Please be as clear and succinct as possible and state specifically area of science is being neglected that you wish to discuss.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Apr 28, 2012

    Why is it the minute we introduce science back into the conversation, or pursue a more academic approach in the discussion people here are no longer interested in participating? Is it because most here would rather continue to engage in dialectics and conjecture?

    IONS has the word "science" in it name. It is dedicated to "exploring phenomena that do not necessarily fit conventional scientific models while maintaining a commitment to scientific rigor."

    Before we can even get to the point where we can begin to express our opinions we must be clear about the scientific foundation upon which we are basing out opinions. Anything less is an exercise in speculation.

    So this information I have posted remains open for discuss as far as I am concern.
    And I will continue to post to it as time allows.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Apr 27, 2012


    Re: " to be confronted with an irreconcilable difference of opinion"

    This is an either or type of question; either you accept the illusion, and explain this increased appreciation for belief, or you don't accept it and offer an explanation. Differences were invited.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 27, 2012

    Dustproduction
    Please give me a chance to respond to one comment before you hit me with a deluge such as you have done. This is a response to your comment:

    “Let's at least address this statement:
    " After listening to both on these videos I will say that I have strong doubts that all the speakers are discussion "consciousness" with much of a shared understanding, even though they are all faithfully addressing and repeating the word. It might be said, that they are all guilty of mistaking their perceptions of consciousness for the reality of consciousness."

    You have strong doubts that the speakers do not have a shared understanding of consciousness and I respect your right to express those doubts.

    I don’t see the speakers as isolated individuals picked at random to appear in these videos. I see them as a network of individuals who share similar views relative to the nature of reality and consciousness.

    I have some familiarity with the making of movies and videos. There are legal forms to be filled out, releases to be signed etc. These speakers are not actors looking for work who will agree to appear in anything just to get paid. They knew the nature of the videos they would be appearing in and agreed to participate in a project with others who shared their worldview.

    We once again appear to be confronted with an irreconcilable difference of opinion……Jim

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Apr 27, 2012

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

    Since the dawn of Newtonian science with its vision of simple mechanical principles governing the entire universe, some philosophers have been tempted by the idea that consciousness could be explained in purely physical terms. The first influential writer to propose such an idea explicitly was Julien Offray de La Mettrie, in his book Man a Machine (L'homme machine). His arguments, however, were very abstract.[30] The most influential modern physical theories of consciousness are based on psychology and neuroscience. Theories proposed by neuroscientists such as Gerald Edelman[31] and Antonio Damasio,[32] and by philosophers such as Daniel Dennett,[33] seek to explain consciousness in terms of neural events occurring within the brain. Many other neuroscientists, such as Christof Koch,[34] have explored the neural basis of consciousness without attempting to frame all-encompassing global theories. At the same time, computer scientists working in the field of Artificial Intelligence have pursued the goal of creating digital computer programs that can simulate or embody consciousness.[35]

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Apr 27, 2012

    Part II
    A few theoretical physicists have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, but that quantum theory provides the missing ingredients. Several theorists have therefore proposed quantum mind (QM) theories of consciousness.[36] Notable theories falling into this category include the Holonomic brain theory of Karl Pribram and David Bohm, and the Orch-OR theory formulated by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. Some of these QM theories offer descriptions of phenomenal consciousness, as well as QM interpretations of access consciousness. None of the quantum mechanical theories has been confirmed by experiment. Recent papers by Guerreshi, G., Cia, J., Popescu, S. and Briegel, H.[37] could falsify proposals such those of Hameroff which rely on quantum entanglement in protein. At the present time many scientists and philosophers consider the arguments for an important role of quantum phenomena to be unconvincing.[38]

    ^ Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1996). Ann Thomson. ed. Machine man and other writings. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521478496.
    ^ Gerald Edelman (1993). Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind. Basic Books. ISBN 9780465007646.
    ^ Antonio Damasio (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Press. ISBN 9780156010757.
    ^ Daniel Dennett (1991). Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little & Company. ISBN 9780316180665.
    ^ a b Christof Koch (2004). The Quest for Consciousness. Englewood CO: Roberts & Company. ISBN 9780974707709.
    ^ Stuart J. Russell, Peter Norvig (2010). "Ch. 26: Philosophical foundations". Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall. ISBN 9780136042594.
    ^ "Quantum Approaches to Consciousness". Stanford University. December 25, 2011.
    ^ Cai, J.; Popescu, S.; Briegel, H.. "Persistent dynamic entanglement from classical motion: How bio-molecular machines can generate non-trivial quantum states". Physical Review E 82: 021921. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.82.021921.
    ^ John Searle (1997). The Mystery of Consciousness. The New York Review of Books. pp. 53–88. ISBN 9780940322066.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Apr 27, 2012

    Jim,

    Perhaps a better first question is to directly ask what question you are posing here. You write: "Are you willing to accept that the material world which our sensory experience provides is an illusion?" To which I answer "No, I am not" Next you ask, "If you cannot accept it, why can’t you accept it?" I provided my answer wish you dismiss as my being, "a fan of the material reductionist view that the brain produces consciousness."

    Let's provide the necessary background that would outline what we are discussion in an academic way, with references to some of those in the videos you preface this argument now.

    (provided in a separate posting)

    Now I also not that IONS had a recent conference,""Toward a Science of Consciousness," which I freely admit to knowing little about. But the use of the word "Science" does stand out. Assuming this is not a differing type of science, I will ask why my use on science in an attempt to find a starting point is deemed unacceptable?

    I also find that Arnaud Delorme, PhD in Neuroscience, is a visiting scholar at IONS, from the Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience at the University of California, San Diego and the Cerco Laboratory in Toulouse, France, is conducting scientific experiments in an attempt to detect "Brain and Physiological Activity of Sender and Receiver During Local and Remote Periods of Spiritual."

    "Psychophysiological Correlates of Spiritual Transmission is an experiment that is using scientific methods to explore a widely reported phenomenon that occurs in many spiritual traditions, and in Hindu traditions is called "shaktipat." Believed to be the direct transmission of spiritual energy from one person to another, or sometimes described as a recognition of essential truth that occurs in the presence of someone who is particularly clear or enlightened (kind of like the resonance of a tuning fork), it is unknown whether the phenomenon is due to placebo or expectancy effects, or may have effects that are measurable in the laboratory and cannot be attributed to placebo or expectancy effects. To examine this, we are measuring brain electrical activity and signs of autonomic arousal (like increased temperature, heart rate, and respiration)"

    Underline "scientific methods."

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Apr 27, 2012


    Jim,

    Let's at least address this statement:
    " After listening to both on these videos I will say that I have strong doubts that all the speakers are discussion "consciousness" with much of a shared understanding, even though they are all faithfully addressing and repeating the word. It might be said, that they are all guilty of mistaking their perceptions of consciousness for the reality of consciousness."

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 27, 2012

    dustproduction,

    I haven’t explored your two comments in depth, because I have difficulty getting past your comment “So to start with, I am dismissive of anything that Deepak Chopra might have to say on the subject of consciousness, because it would be spiritually base, and I would prefer a scientific answer, one that is brain based.”

    I conclude from that comment that you are a fan of the material reductionist view that the brain produces consciousness and that consciousness is confined within the brain. I also conclude that you may have a bit of contempt for the spiritual perspective that consciousness is not confined within the brain.

    Let me know if my conclusions are wrong. Assuming that they are right, I’ll add a paragraph or two.

    I would be willing to bet the ranch that you will not find a staff member of IONS that agrees with the material reductionist view that consciousness is confined within the brain. You may be hard pressed to find anyone in these discussions that accepts the reductionist view.

    For every authority you post that is a material reductionist, I could post one with the opposite view. So, if I am right about your material reductionist views, I think it would be practical to agree to disagree and end this on a somewhat of a friendly basis…..Jim

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Apr 26, 2012


    Please forgive the double posting, its late. This eliminates the typos. I should know by now.)

    Are we trying to run before we can walk?

    After listening to both on these videos I will say that I have strong doubts that all the speakers are discussion "consciousness" with much of a shared understanding, even though they are all faithfully addressing and repeating the word. It might be said, that they are all guilty of mistaking their perceptions of consciousness for the reality of consciousness. It is therefore not impossible to pick and chose which of these tidbits fit our own views. It is easy to place a round peg in a square space, but that does not make it belong there.

    So to start with, I am dismissive of anything that Deepak Chopra might have to say on the subject of consciousness, because it would be spiritually base, and I would prefer a scientific answer, one that is brain based. Perhaps this excludes me from this conversation.

    (see War of the Worldviews: Science Vs. Spirituality, by Deepka Chopra & Leonard Miodinow. “Astrophysicist Sir James Jeans wrote: ‘The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.’ This is the essence of Chopra’s view: that a great consciousness—which we share—is the basis of the Universe and all reality. From Miodinow’s perspective it is unimaginable that consciousness could be anything more than brain chemistry at work and certainly not something capable of creating a universe. )

    I have recommended a book by Terrence Deacon titled, "Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter" before. At 545 pages, the book is not brief. It is the carefully plotted course traveled by "Terry & the Pirates" (Deacon, Tyrone Cashman, Jamie Haag, Julie Hui, Eduardo Kohn, Jay Ogilvy, and Jeremy Sherman, with Ursula Goodenough and Michael Silberstein) over a decade long voyage to a destination, consciousness. His concept is based in Complexity Theory, but explores the edges of Chaos Theory, evolution, while expands Shannon's Information Theory.

    Deacon: "I would even venture to speculate that there culd be emergent levels of sentience above the human subjective level, in the higher-order dynamics collective human communication---sentience that we large brained, symbolically savvy individuals would never be able to experience even though our sentient conscious interaction happened to be it necessary constituents. Of course such a sentience could nly arise if these human interactions constituted a higher-order teledynamic individual; a reciprocally organized self-perpetuating complex of morphodynamic processes."

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Apr 26, 2012

    Are we trying to run before we can walk?

    After listening to both on this video I will say that I have strong doubts that all the speakers are discussion the "consciousness" with much of a shared understanding, even though they are all faithfully addressing repeating the wood. It might be said, that they are all guilty of mistaking their perceptions of consciousness for the reality of consciousness. It is therefore not impossible to pick and chose which of these tidbits fit our own views.
    It is easy to place a round peg in a square space but there does not make it belong there.
    So to start with I am dismissive of anything the Deepak Chopra might have to say on the subject of consciousness because it would be spiritually base, and I would prefer a scientific answer, one that is brain based. So, perhaps this excludes me from this conversation.
    (see War of the Worldviews: Science Vs. Spirituality, by Deepka Chopra & Leonard Miodinow. “Astrophysicist Sir James Jeans wrote: ‘The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.’ This is the essence of Chopra’s view: that a great consciousness—which we share—is the basis of the Universe and all reality. From Miodinow’s perspective it is unimaginable that consciousness could be anything more than brain chemistry at work and certainly not something capable of creating a universe. )

    I have recommended a book by Terrence Deacon titled, "Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter" before. At 545 pages, the book is not brief. It is the carefully plotted course traveled by "Terry & the Pirates" (Deacon, Tyrone Cashman, Jamie Haag, Julie Hui, Eduardo Kohn, Jay Ogilvy, and Jeremy Sherman, with Ursula Goodenough and Michael Silberstein) over a decade long voyage to a destination, consciousness. His concept is based in Complexity Theory, but explores the edges of Chaos Theory, evolution, while expanding Shannon's Information Theory.

    Deacon: "I would even venture to speculate that there culd be emergent levels of sentience above the human subjective level, in the higher-order dynamics collective human communication---sentience that we large brained, symbolically savvy individuals would never be able to experience even though our sentient conscious interaction happened to be it necessary constituents. Of course such a sentience could nly arise if these human interactions constituted a higher-order teledynamic individual; a reciprocally organized self-perpetuating complex of morphodynamic processes."

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 24, 2012

    shahab 124,

    Thank you for your comment and expressing interest in this topic. I’ll attempt to answer “what is this all about?”

    My experience is that there can be stages to exploring this material.

    We can treat it lightly; view it as simply another worldview and go on to something else with the intention to possibly return to it later.

    We can also consider the sources as credible i.e. the spiritual traditions mentioned in the topic, the quotes at the end of the topic and the views of those who are knowledgeable of what quantum physics reveals. When we do this, we may accept the belief that the material world is illusion.

    I find that there is a profound difference between simply accepting the belief that the material world is illusion and actually “experiencing” that the material world is illusion. To explore this further, it is practical to consider the nature of the “I” that experiences the illusion.

    It is the opinion of those at the cutting edge of introspective analysis that the experience of an “I” that is fixed in time and space is an illusion. Another way of saying it is that the “I” is a transitory experience that is ever changing. Still another way of saying it is that the “I” is an aspect of the illusion of the material world. This could be explored in a more comprehensive manner, but for the sake of brevity, I will simply state that I accept this view.

    When all this provides a context for meditation or simply entering a state of deep relaxation, there are occasions when I am acutely aware that there is absolutely no effort required to exist in this world. One becomes consciousness rather than a physical entity that is experiencing consciousness. There is no necessity for thought.

    It is difficult to convey this idea of absolutely no effort. In our normal state we are unaware of the effort required to simply maintain a sense of self that thinks or seems to think. So it is difficult to appreciate the meaning of “absolutely no effort”.

    When I experience that there is absolutely no effort required to exist in this world, there is a sense of peace and freedom that could be described as a very subtle euphoria.

    After such an experience, there is a change in my mental state. I recall being somewhat reserved, bordering on a subtle defensive posture. Following the experience, I am lighthearted. I am more open and friendly and do not take situations in the world as seriously as I previously did.

    You state that you may post more. I look forward to the possibility of that and also look forward to the possibility that others may join us. It is my wish that this can be done using common language, in an open and friendly manner……Jim

  • Anonymous Icon

    shahab124 Apr 24, 2012

    Jim,

    I might be the new face for IONS site but I have been following the discussions for last couple of months. I have read Dean, Karl Pribram, David Bohm and inclined towards the Holographic model of the the universe. "Conciousnses creates the reality" thats the bottom line, Our senses are like apparatus/devices, which continously demodulates the frequencies to project the real/live world, we are conditioned right from the birth to trust on senses so it is difficult to swallow the idea of unreal world. Big question is "what is this all about" .. will post more

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 21, 2012

    When there is a lull or pause in comments, I may occasionally post something to fill the void. This is one of those occasions.

    In watching the two videos, I notice that every speaker is very serious; not a laugh or smile in the bunch.

    If this material were presented in a lighthearted manner, as perhaps George Carlin would do, I think it could be humorous. For example, imagine George Carlin appearing in the videos with a dialogue similar to the following:

    “When I vividly recall sitting on Santa’s lap, I laugh at my seriousness.

    I believe that the Santa Claus illusion was practice for adulthood. As adults, were told that the material world is an illusion. Come on guys…. get hip….this is hilarious!”

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 20, 2012

    I think that the use of the word “revolution” in my last comment could be misinterpreted and turn off some people.

    The revolution I refer to is to make this topic more democratic, by encouraging more people participate.

    It is not my intention to attempt to change anyone’s worldview. This could cause the thought police to pounce on me and I really don’t need that : -) ……Jim

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 19, 2012

    Fans of Discussions.

    In the spirit of revolutions that are occurring around the world, I would like to determine if there is the possibility for a revolution in this topic; I would like to hear from those who post only occasionally or not at all.

    If you feel that the theme of the topic is simply too difficult to accept; let’s talk about it.

    If you feel that my questions at the end of the topic are too personal: let’s talk about that.

    If you feel that it all sounds like bunch of bull, tell me and we may find some humor in all this bull.

    If you have questions or are not clear about something; let me know.

    If you feel that the comments in this topic have been ambiguous or excessively verbose; I agree with you, let’s see if we can change that by using more common language.

    I will respond to half of Parkers question by stating that the experience of no thought is not a permanent state. I will respond to this in more detail along with the first part of his question when I feel that others are curious about it or that others may benefit from hearing it.

    I am a revolutionary; I would like to hear from those who post only occasionally or not at all…..Jim

  • parker Apr 17, 2012

    @ Jim Centi:

    I agree with KRANI's statement that the material world is of illusory nature. I also accept you hold your "bottom line" opinion that the material world is illusion, which perspective allows you to depart from the world of thought and move into the domain of experience, particularly to experience an appreciation of the spiritual domain.

    Can you elaborate on your experience and appreciation of the spiritual domain, now that you have departed from the world of thought?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 17, 2012

    Matrix12,

    Thank you for your comments. I have a tendency to look for the bottom line.

    When the bottom line can be stated in a few words i.e. the material world is illusion. I find that allows me to depart from the world of thought and move into the domain of experience. My acceptance of this bottom line allows me to experience an appreciation of the spiritual domain.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 16, 2012

    In my last comment to Kyrani, I listed the questions asked at the end of the topic. I left out the most important question:

    If you accept that the material world is an illusion, does this increase your appreciation of the spiritual domain?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 16, 2012

    Kyrani,

    As you will note from my comment to Parker I am having computer problems. Please blame my computer problems for the necessity for me being direct.

    The focus of this topic is on comments made by Deepak Chopra, Robert Anton Wilson, and others that proclaim that the material world is an illusion or mirage. Dean Radin somewhat alludes to this, but is more reserved in his comments.

    After acknowledging these comments and the reference to spiritual traditions that accept the illusory nature of the material world, I ask the following questions:

    “Do you accept that the material world which our sensory experience provides is an illusion? If you cannot accept it, why can’t you accept it? Your comments reflect that you cannot accept that the material world is illusion and you provided reasons why you cannot accept it. In this regard your comments are very appropriate.

    It is my intention to not get involved in dialogue relative to why people disagree that the material world is illusion. To do so would distract from the focus of the topic. It is sufficient to note that they have voiced their disagreement. Best wishes mate…..Jim

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 16, 2012

    Parker,
    Apparently this problem of the disappearing scroll bar may be with computer and not with the website. I’m typing directly to the comment box rather than cutting and pasting, so until I get the problem resolved, my comments will be short and perhaps lacking in certain regards.

    If your comment infers expanding this material beyond IONS, I haven’t given that much thought.

    As a fan of the hundredth monkey syndrome I believe that if an appreciation of the spiritual domain is experienced by IONS members, in sufficient numbers, it is possible that we could begin to notice a bit of shift in consciousness appearing in other areas.

    I will respond to your comment in a more comprehensive manner when the problem of the disappearing scroll bar is resolved.

  • KYRANI Apr 16, 2012

    @ Jim
    I don't believe that the material world is just an illusion but rather of illusory nature. There is still the substratum on which it rests. I see it as the Hindu illustration of the snake seen as the illusion when one realizes that there is really only a rope on the ground. There is still the rope. And that rope is the spiritual /mental realm. So we can't just dismiss this existence as nothing because it is based on The One Mind, the singularity or Oneness. This realization is very important and why I believe that a paradigm shift is essential not only for science to move forward but for the whole world, everyone.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 16, 2012

    Parker,

    The scroll bar in the box where comments are posted has disappeared. I have a response to you prepared, but cannot post it because when posting it only the last few lines appears in the comment box and the message cannot be viewed without the scroll bar. I will contact IONS about this.

  • parker Apr 15, 2012

    Jim Centi:

    You have said it well.

    Now, presuming you agree that an increased appreciation for the Spiritual world is a good thing, then how do you propose we can use this knowledge to help more people increase their appreciation of the Spiritual world?

    Helping people to appreciate that the material world is not everything they may think it is, may well be a start, but to do so in any scale is at least a little daunting. Then overcoming the many objections to accepting the significance of the Spiritual realm, is not at all easy either, considering the level of confusion and conflicting opinions that exist within traditional religions and other philosophies as to what true Spiritualism is.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 15, 2012

    Parker,
    Yes, Dean’s statement is very insightful.

    Perhaps it would be more accommodating or comfortable for some to cognize that the material world is “less and less solid” than it appears, rather than jump ahead and proclaim that the material world is illusion.

    A bit of caution may be required to avoid getting involved with word play, as you put it in a previous comment.

    For example, to someone who has a clear conceptualization or experience that the world is not as solid as perceived by sensory experience, the perception of another who is firmly convinced that the material world is solid as it perceived by sensory experience, could be viewed as a deficiency in cognitive skills, delusional experience or illusion.

    I will be flexible and not take a firm position on this. I will accept either perception as valid i.e. the world is not as solid as it appears or the material world is illusion. A position that is comfortable for one individual may not be accommodating to another individual.

    The thing of importance to me is that there is a more appreciative experience of the spiritual domain. The position I will take is whatever allows an individual to gain a more appreciative experience of the spiritual domain is appropriate for that individual.

  • parker Apr 15, 2012

    @ Jim Centi:

    Dean Radin's statement (below) which you referred to is inciteful and intriguing: “When we look deeply enough into the nature of matter, everything we know about the everyday world dissolves; there are no objects anymore, there are only relationships. There’s no locality anymore there’s no time anymore. The more you look at something in detail, what we think of as solid matter, the less and less solid it begins to look.”

    This statement also leads directly to your final comment in the opening thread; "If you accept that the material world is an illusion, does this increase your appreciation of the spiritual domain?" - If one was to accept that the material world is not illusion, but rather it is as Dean Radin expresses it - "less and less solid", I would then also suggest it becomes very easy to accept how this should profoundly increase our appreciation of the Spiritual domain.

    This is like comparing our limited perceptions of the temporal things, to our innate sense of comprehension that there are eternal things. We don't know that there are eternal things, yet we also do not know enough to preclude it. Yet if these less than perfectly understood things are eternal, then it becomes easy to accept that they are also Spiritual, and not altogether within our limited temporal capacity to comprehend.

    So it would seem that whatever inspires an increase in our appreciation for the Spiritual realm, would be both beneficial to learning these things, and preferred to guessing about them based on temporal observation.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 15, 2012

    Parker,
    Taking your paragraphs in the order that they appear:

    Your suspicion is correct; I do get what you are attempting to explain.

    I also agree that as our awareness of the nature of reality expands, what was previously considered mystical becomes more a generally accepted world view.

    “because the perception of the material world is universally held, the illusion remains only in the perception that the material world is actually made of substance.” I am pleased to find that there is agreement with your first three paragraphs, hopefully this will continue with the remaining paragraphs.

    Agreement continues, we were fiddling over words and we both agree that the material world is not made of substance. I believe that it would not be presumptuous me to rephrase a bit and state that when the material world is perceived to made of substance, this represents illusion.

    Well now, in light of your final paragraph, I am considering having the baby in my avatar begin to move slightly out or the womb. :-} Perhaps this will occur as other participants in Discussions begin to comment. It has been a joy…….Jim

  • Anonymous Icon

    matrix12 Apr 15, 2012

    Absolute reality is a thing cannot be simplified in few words its as if there are few blind persons are standing near an elephant and each one of them touching different parts of it...so if one of them touches its teeth then he would feel and say its a sharp object...and when another one of them happens to touch its feet he would say may be its a sort of a pillar or something...but actually its an elephant...what happens is that different persons gives a different view of reality...cause its beyond our senses and its like what happens in quantam physics where we sort of define atoms and electrons in abstract forms cause we cannot sense them.. We cannot touch an atom...we cannot lick it...neither it cant be felt...as its so minute ...thats our senses cannot feel the changes occuring at a so small change....there are some limitations in the natural world!!!

  • parker Apr 15, 2012

    Jim Centi:

    You are correct, one may be deluded by false perceptions. On the other hand, when a perception of a "thing" is held by virtually everyone, or unanimously by more than one, then what is being perceived is at a minimum constantly perceivable by everyone involved, whereas the delusion is only perceivable by the one deluding himself. Even this could be argued, given the limitations of English, but I suspect you can get what I'm intending to explain.

    Again, I may have been reading into your questions what I perceived as your philosophical perspective, and commented accordingly. I am not convinced that there is any "mystical" component to the various religions, or any mystical ability held by or evidenced by any of the thoughts expressed by such as Schopenhauer, Einstein, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Amiel, etc. These are individuals that were/are more Spiritually aware than their counterparts. Some of them would admit that, others of them perhaps would not, but the knowledge of the things they expressed was Spiritual in origin, even when occasionally scientifically "discovered". Either way, it is not mystical or mysterious.

    I would repeat with these different words, in response to your question: "Are you willing to accept that the material world which our sensory experience provides is an illusion?" - That the illusion is not the perception of the material world, but because the perception of the material world is universally held, the illusion remains only in the perception that the material world is actually made of substance.

    And to your following question: "If you cannot accept it, why can’t you accept it?" - I'm not sure, but I suspect we are attempting to say the same things, in that we are fiddling over the way to word the answer to the above question. Thus I do accept that the material world is not made of substance.

    And finally: "If you accept that the material world is an illusion, does this increase your appreciation of the spiritual domain?" If you indulge me to re-worded this, to say that: "If I accept that the perceived material world is not made of material substance", - then yes, I believe this does help us to increase our appreciation of the Spiritual realm.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 15, 2012

    In my fourth paragraph, a sentence reads, his perception was most certainly an illusion. It would be more accurate to say his perception was most certainly not real.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 15, 2012

    Parker,
    You have introduced a philosophical postulate which requires acknowledgement of different levels of cognition. Perhaps this could be interesting for a while. .

    As I see it, on one level, everything that is perceived is real or valid, simply because it was perceived. On another level a perception is considered real or valid if it is responsive to consensus agreement or some other method of determination.

    Let’s see if I can illustrate this by example.

    If a man believes that he can fly and jumps to his death off a tall building. On one level, his perception was real simply because he experienced it [this seems to be the position you are taking]. On another level, his perception was most certainly an illusion.

    Is it your intention to delve deeply into this and if so, what value is there to be gained?

  • parker Apr 14, 2012

    Jim Centi:
    I will accept your presumption that the purpose of the two videos is to reach the great majority of the world’s population which believes and therefore experiences that the material world is real. Nothing in my initial response was contrary to this. For clarity, I repeat that our perception of the material world is absolutely real. This perception is not an illusion.

    Many of this group believes that the only reality is the material reality. Either belief detracts from an appreciation of the spiritual realm which promotes a higher intelligence and the validity of psi [telepathy, remote viewing etc.] Again, I did not challenge this belief, rather I offered an explanation of an alternative to consider, and my offer was in response to YOUR questions posed, not in response to their videos.

    If my attempting to explain my beliefs in answer to your questions has somehow caused you to interpret that as invalidating the videos, I ask you to forgive me, as this was not intended. My response was my attempt to answer what I perceived to be your questions at the end of your initial posting - if you did not intend to invite answers to those questions, you might have considered posing them as statements.

    I said “Yet only a fool in his heart will say with confidence, that all things that exist, just happened to exist as they are perceived, by accident.”

    Again, I shared my thoughts in answer to YOUR questions, which are not a reflection of, or in response to the intention of the video presenters. You might consider remote viewing my intentions prior to commenting again, or perhaps you would rather remote view the knowledge of these things from the Creator of them. He is willing, if you are.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 13, 2012

    Parker,

    The purpose of the two videos is to reach the great majority of the world’s population which believes and therefore experiences that the material world is real. Many of this group believes that the only reality is the material reality. Either belief detracts from an appreciation of the spiritual realm which promotes a higher intelligence and the validity of psi [telepathy, remote viewing etc.]

    When you introduce concepts that the two videos are invalid, that is your prerogative, but you should recognize that in doing so you are acting as a force against the benevolent purpose of the videos.

    You say “Yet only a fool in his heart will say with confidence, that all things that exist, just happened to exist as they are perceived, by accident.” Come on Parker, no one in the videos said or implied that. If you use remote viewing to look into the intentions of the speakers in these videos, you will see that what your said in your closing statement is offensive to them and the spiritual paradigm that they represent.

  • parker Apr 13, 2012

    The perception of the material world, is not an illusion. The perception is very real. The illusion lies in the very common mis-perception that what we perceive as material substance, actually has any material substance.

    Therefore, what is expressed as material substance, is also, not illusion, it is intelligence in motion. This intelligent energy in motion is that which is perceivable, therefore it exists. There is nothing that may be perceived, without it first being expressed, which is itself, the explanation of the Creation of all things - both as as they are expressible and expressed, and as they are perceivable and perceived.

    It becomes apparent by process of deduction (that even humans are capable of), that since all things exist as they are perceived, then each thing has been expressed for that purpose. Only original intelligence, could be capable of expressing itself in so many ways, yet also capable of creating/expressing other intelligence that could perceive those expressions of itself.

    Einstein's comment about distinguishing between past, present and future is incomplete. He is correct in that there is no actual distinction between the past, the present, and the future, as all time co-exists concurrently, yet the temporal perception of past, present and future is not an illusion, because that perception is also very real.

    The intelligence expressed as all things is the Creator. The Creator, of His own free will chose to express His Creation as it is, and He expressed us as His temporal Creations, with the capacity to perceive His Creation and to participate in it, within the temporal limitations of our free will to express ourselves, that He imposed upon us for the duration of what we perceive as our temporal life.

    Because He is eternal, our temporal connection to Him, imparts a modest comprehension of eternity within us. Because we are expressed by Him (which expression is His means of Creation), we remain connected to Him and through Him to each other. Therefore we can follow our individual and collective connections to Him, and learn from Him, because for the perfect joy of the Creator, we have been Created for that very purpose. We need only accept and ask of Him, all that He yearns to reveal to us.

    And if some are more comfortable referencing the Creator as "it" or as "intelligence", or merely as some form of "self-organizing and self-expressing energy", that is acceptable. Yet only a fool in his heart will say with confidence, that all things that exist, just happened to exist as they are perceived, by accident.

  • or Sign Up to Add a Comment

Stay in touch with IONS