http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1340226645

The beliefs of Maureen Caudill, some of which are described above, really have me baffled. 

For instance, is it true that dead computers go to F 13 and in some cases can be reincarnated into animals?

Also, since computers need PUL, could that explain why some tend to crash much more than others? 

Since Caudill is a TMI trainer, I wonder if this line of thinking is accepted at TMI.  You didn't cover this subject during our Northern Va workshop so I'm wondering if this is a new discovery.

It really has vast implications.  Modern cars have computers, so I'm wondering if when they are totaled in an accident, do they also go to F 13 and whether they also can be reborn into an animal.

It all sounds delusional to me but then maybe there IS something to it.

Reaction?

R

The F 13 on my computer is a blank key.  Guess you'll have to use your imagination... 

rondele wrote on Jun 24^th, 2012 at 3:16pm:


As DocM points out one must always remember that what we perceive is our own, individual Interpreter's "nearest similar thing" translation of what is actually there.  In that sense everything everyone perceives is "delusional" since none of us ever perceive what is actually there.

This is the first I've heard of Ms. Caudill's experience or her book.  It's her description of her Interpreter's translation of her perception of her encounter.  And as such I couldn't call it  any more delusional than my, or anyone's, descriptions of experience.  I also take into account that those of us who are exploring beyond the fringes of consensus reality are likely to encounter things our Interpreter has little if any previous "nearest similar things" to use in its translation from pure perception to conscious experience.

All that said I could certainly fabricate an interpretation of Ms. Caudill's experience that would fit with some of my previous knowns.  For example, using the concept of an Aspect of self . . .

A computerized, artificial intelligence can be thought of as the logic, intention and function of its programmers spun off as a portion or Aspect of the programmers "being."  In essence an Aspect of self has been projected into the computer's hardware. 

It's been demonstrated that when a fiction-writer creates an environment for a story the writer's characters will act within, that environment exists within non-physical reality.  Such environments have been found, explored and accurately described by OB'ers who had no previous knowledge of them.  It's logical to assume that the writer's characters could also take on lives of their own so to speak.  For me it is entirely possible that an explorer entering such a fictional environment might encounter some of those characters and believe they are real people who perhaps need retrieval.  And, since the characters can be thought of as Aspects of the writer, maybe they do need retrieval.

My point is that computerized artificial intelligence could be thought of as something similar to a writer's character in a  novel.  It could appear to be a separate, autonomous being  And I'm not saying that's what it is, I am only fabricating an interpretation of someone elses experience.

Bruce

Plants and stones do have consciousness. Water too.
But it works in a different way. They have a different task to perform in the plan of Life.

There are stories of people who were so sensitive that they could talk to the water.
We came out of the waters long ago. We originated from the waters.
Such people can here the water say they should come. If they do they would drown. Such things are said to have happened in the past.
If you are sensitive enough and open enough and not know what you are doing you might fall for that trap. But you will be given a next life. Mother Water knows all to well she cannot build up Karma so she must immediately give you another organism. One way or another.

Plants have conscious too. Their task is to be the food for animal life. They know that and they don't feel pain when they are cut and eaten.

So with conscious of stones. I never talked with one. Guess it will take a long time too.
The entity Seth that spoke through Jane Roberts said evey cell and every molecule screams out with consciousness. So be it.

I don't know about consciousness of computers. It surprised me. I am apt to make jokes about that but that's part of my nature. I could well be wrong. I have been wrong so many times in the past.

I've read a lot of sci-fi stories of Jack Vance. If all those worlds exist that he described I'm in for a big treat.

Who makes the rules of what's possible?

consciousness..energy...I hate it when we, as a spiritual energy, diss plants, rocks, water, etc as less of a spiritual energy than ourselves. We are just simply different energy. No more meaningful or more aware. Only ego will make you believe you are more important, higher spiritually evolved, closer to "god", whatever. Human, animal, plant, rock, water, God. All the same thing. One. Open your heart to the love of all things equally, and feel that same love returned. Tell me there is less of a spiritual energy at the "core",(27) and I will tell you, "you have never really experienced it". Having experienced true love extended to me through the energy of a simple oak sapling behind TMI, I know, without doubt, all are equal. None more that another. All of here to serve others. (other energy/beings,love) That a rock, a plant, a fish, water, you or I, all equal in the spiritual realm. None above another. (My roommate...he experienced poison ivy. His take on the energy was somewhat different than mine.)

"hate" is not the proper word. Disappointment perhaps, or dislike. Hate was used in an effort to invoke emotion into the statement. Although I know perhaps hate is something many do, I find, and have found, it extremely difficult to maintain the energy needed to hate for a number of years.
Although for reason, there is a ex member (perhaps x) on this site who brings me very close to remembering how to hate. Funny, i never met the person yet just looking at their picture makes me feel a distaste. No reason I can think of but perhaps in another time we met, or exchanged unpleasant energy between us.