It's interesting to note, that towards the end of writing the above, despite having been physically sedentary for awhile, and not having eaten in a number of hours, i perceived my body becoming very hot, and started to sweat in an air conditioned environment. 

   What does this really mean?  If what i wrote is relatively accurate, this is what really was happening.  My Consciousness while focused on the body and this level some, was also very strongly attuning itself to a very expanded state of consciousness. 

  My connection to the body automatically translated that to "heat" and sensation of same.  Why, because materially, heat is the speeding up of the vibration of physical matter. 

  In other words, it's all just a symbol and interpretation of a Consciousness shift from my more typical, less expanded consciousness state and awareness to one i don't attune to a lot while strongly focused on the physical. 

  I've had experiences/perceptions like this before. When i was doing the Gateway Voyage at TMI, during a toning exercise and meditation, i experienced similar.  My body seemed to get really hot, to the point of sweating, from earlier being on the cold side.

  It's all about perception and symoblic interpretation. Theoretically, i could have translated this consciousness phasing differently, and likely if i was less physically focused, i would have.  I might have felt instead, a non localized, expanding sensation or the like. 

  But because i was still fairly focused on the physical and the body, my perception and awareness interpreted through a more physical lens because of habit.

  If we understand how all of this really works, it becomes very fascinating to the wide ranging implications and ramifications. 

This is why for a very Love attuned consciousness connected to a human form, walking on water, restoring sight or cut off ears, bring people back from the dead, is not only possible, but once certain conditions and understandings are met, as easy as thinking a thought. 

  Because it's a virtual thought reality to begin with!  But you won't ever be able to do any of those above things, as long as you stay material minded, buy into the illusions, and keep self stuck through limited choices, etc. 

  This is why as soon as Peter's doubt and uncertainty entered, despite having the Master beckon him out to walk on the water and at first doing so, he started to immediately sink.  He re-convinced himself of the illusion of the supposed reality of the physical.  Even Yeshua's encouraging help and in his face example, wasn't enough to keep him out of fear, doubt, uncertainty's grasp.

  Positive/expanded consciousness ET's that temporarily focus here, not being convinced by the illusion and not being stuck in limited belief systems, can also manipulate this reality very easily with just a flicker of thought and will. 

   

  Albert, there are some key differences between what i describe and what ACIM talks about.

  ACIM essentially says that spiritual error and suffering is not  "real".

   I disagree, though it might be a temporary condition, it is very real, and affects all of Consciousness, especially the already Love attuned parts of same and those more stuck, very much because of the interconnection/Oneness of Consciousness. Those that are consciously aware of the Oneness to some degree, can FEEL (they experience) the pain and suffering of those stuck, and that is the prime motivation for all this Retrieval work.   

   Also, i don't think the physical is solely a result of those separative oriented Consciousnesses getting stuck.  As mentioned, it's a mix of that and Love based Consciousness influencing and modifying this perspective framework. They had done so enough to turn it into a learning/remembering framework perspective. 

  As i mentioned, it was all originally Christ's Dream and Co-Creation. He was exercising his creative ability, and projecting ideas, thoughts, relationships, etc out.  When it was still pure, it was more fluid, harmonious, and connection was obvious.  Some of the forms and what not that we see now, like living things, were in this original beautiful dream/creation of Christs.  But when the separative oriented consciousnesses became involved with it, and started changing the patterns, they started to manifest a subset of Christs dream, a distorted, dense/stuck reflection of it. This is the physical as we perceive it today.  The nonphysical dimensions are relatively less stuck reflections.

  However, they were exercising their freewill and to some extent that was to be expected.  But, here is how i KNOW that this wasn't necessary for consciousness growth/expansion.  There are Spirits that have never significantly separated themselves from the Oneness and Love, except some a little for Retrieval purposes.  So i don't think we should judge those Consciousnesses/Spirits that used their freewill temporarily in a limited way. 

   There is nothing wrong with creativity and being a cosmic artist, which is exactly what the Christ Spirit is and did.   

   I don't agree with Campbell on all of the particulars, but i do agree with the essential concept.  One thing i don't agree with, is how he takes the grandness, the mystery of it, and talks about it like it's nothing more than some 0 and 1's and a kind of equation. It's a too intellectually polarized treatment of it.

   In a lot of ways, what i'm talking about is rather different than ACIM.  If you remember Cosmic Journey's, Ah So talks about some this, in a somewhat similar way, using different words and terms, except he doesn't go as much into the detail or holism as i have.  He doesn't mention that it was Christ's Co-Creation and all that. 

   The effects of the physical and the nonphysical virtual, temporal realities on our Souls and Spirits IS very much real, whether it facilitates stuckness or expansion/growth. 

  I hope that someday both me and the Disk i'm connected to, to fully consciously remerge with Source, and became a Co-Creator like Christ is, and Co-Create other beautiful, artistic, and unique Dreams and other consciousnesses to enjoy and grow in same.  Some of our Spirits are direct Co-Creations of his Spirit, sort of like Spirit probes.  Others, like he himself, were directly created by Source in the very beginning. 

    My sense is that my Spirit was created by him for retrieving purposes. It would explain my overall pattern in this and other systems. 

  I don't think you are getting the holism and subtly of this, or are getting too hung on terms or apparent similarities to sources with falsity within them.

  I agree with a lot of what you said in your reply, i'm just putting it into a larger, holistic framework. 

   

   

   

"It keeps the wayward ones from..." that's an interesting perspective I haven't thought of before.

I figure something such as rule sets are in play. For example, I have some knowledge of biochemistry and molecular biology (not to the extent a related biologist has),  and I've wondered about how rules were set in play so that biochemical energy would has to follow the guidelines that were put in place.

I watched the God Science: Simulation Hypothesis.  Actually, I will give the author credit for calling it what it is, an "hypothesis" which is NOT a theory, which is Tom Campbell's downfall in credibility; presuming to have a "theory".  The author put together a very creative documentary.  My question is regarding your statement: "An excellent documentary on the Simulation Hypothesis in physics ...". What makes it excellent?  Because it holds ideas you like? 

Here's the problem with the popular thinking and why one can't get anywhere this.  I'm gonna take some concepts in the movie and show you how weak they are.

First, the Big Bang: Everyone now thinks it's fact.  Sorta like how the world was thought to be flat at one time, and you could fall off the edge.  Why do I say that?  Well in physics, often physicist drop conceptual obstacles and just go with the math.  Let me tell you the conceptual problems with the Big Bang.  It is said that there was a singularity; that was all there was and that is was very hot - infinity hot; it was a pure point.  And when it exploded, it expanded creating the universe, the space and matter.  Now people do all kinds of calculations about the first "moments" of the big bang - like how fast it expanded, etc.

The problem is that there was no space in the singularity because it was a point object. Given that one cannot say the singularity was hot, because as Justin (somewhat incorrectly, but related) described heat, one does need particles to go bumpily-bump for kinetic motion to exist and that is how heat is defined and what it means.  If there was no space - room for motion, and there was no matter then by definition there was not bumpity-bump; there was no heat.  Then if one says all the space that existed was in the singularity, then the Big Bang took place "everywhere" at the same time because there was no other space to identify, or contrast, the location of the point.  It did not happen over "there" somewhere.  If one takes so-called physical constants, and with some dimensional analysis one can do on a 3M sticky note, one calculates "Plank Time".  It is the smallest unit of time for which anything can be know from a Quantum Mechanical point of view.  BUT physicist calculate events around the Big Bang ALL the time that violates Plank Time; and they just go with it.  My point here is the Big Bang is not some fundamental Truth in the Universe; it is a contemporary construct, a representation, that fits a couple of facts and that's about it.

AND the whole String Theory representation of all the dimensional stuff is NOT the only theory.  See Sir Charles Penrose - ya need a PhD to start reading his introduction. He solves the same problem in 4 dimensions that includes time. The Russians contribute too ya know.  My point here is what is popularized is NOT the only theory.  But the movie uses this to then drawn an analogy that stated the universe was like booting a computer!  Do you believe that crap? Booting a computer! In Penrose theories, the Big Bang was not the beginning.

Then one can go through the whole sophomore year of Modern Physics introduction in the movie, like Campbell, and try to build up some notion of solid science behind the hypothesis.  However, one is skipping the "actual" expedients and the math that historically gave all that science foundation.  But going the movie or Campbell route I could grab specific words, or phrase to build into my idea. I could say things like... because  J Thompson said the atom was like plum pudding in 1904, I can create The Plum Pudding TOE.  Or, because early in the days quantum engagement was being recognized, Einstein or somebody called it "Spooky Behavior"  I could also derive some Plum Putting Ghost Beings that created the Universe too.

People are clutch at straws to build theories and playing the uninformed watcher to buy into these ideas.  As an aside physicists actually did "derive" mathematically their science of the Big Bang.  That's what gives it credibility.  But there's no derivation here with the hypothesis or Campbell.  It's just hijacking ideas.  In the case of the movie, at least they say it is a hypothesis and give the view something to reflect up, but it is not actually science yet.

There's talk about Plato and the Atomist family of Greek philosophers..while I was also a philosophy major prior to my physics trains - and I studied Classical (Antec) Greek I'll drop - which is what the Presocratic philosophers documents are written in,  I can tell you they did not develop their theory much beyond the notion of "bits" of stuff.  Heck even at the time of Newton it was little more than than.  But again, somehow this movie is laying the function of some theory that upsides materialist thinking.

Then the guy that study materialist verse non-materialist view and found the answer.  Now that presumes there are only two possible views and they don't detail his method which was probably something like weighted-risk analysis functions that he "posed himself" to score an answer.  That means nearly nothing outside of physical measurements.  He's simply score hypotheticals.  The idea here is simply matter -> mind vs mind-> matter.  That's it?  The problem is a solution to that question, IF that question is not an "ill-posed" question to be meaningful would have to be demonstrated a prior.  AND in math there are theorems used that test whether a solution of a problem exists AND that the math model is not "ill-posed".  None of that rigor is here, tho people are stealing ideas that were develop under the constraints of such rigor.

Then the bit about code in String Theory.  First I should say in Quantum Mechanics observable phenomena actually do fall out of the math. Specifically energy states that correspond to eigenvalue solutions of the wave equation, or even the existence of new particles fall out of the theory - like neutrinos.  IF memory serves neutrinos were postulated by Wolfgang Pauli because the conservation of momentum was violated in experience; that was around 1934 or so.  Neutrinos were actually discovered in 1958 I think, experimentally so.  What exact predictable observes are falling out of String Theory's bits of code. Of what specific predictions does Campbell's TOE give that may be checked to determine whether there is any validity to his TOE?

Having also been a programer, which is common in experimental physics, and other sciences, etc... It's a long way from inferring "computer code" from strings of binary events.  First you do need a binary processor, then hex code, then compilers... it's a long long way to a program along with some computers to run it.  Did you notice how Neil deGrasse Tyson slowly approached that subject in the interview?  Does binary events in String Theory mean more than repeating decimals in rational and irrational numbers?

The movie also says that nothing, but a virtual reality can explain quantum entanglement.  Says exactly who? Nothing? I bet the hypothesis cannot predict or mathematically demonstrate how entanglement events result from their own hypothesis other than using some catch phrases to related notions to refer that that paper and ... there ya have it.

The problem is this.  This approach needs to destroy reality to create a virtual framework where anything goes. There is no way to solve the problem in convention means; Rigorous notion, derived concepts, and buzz words are then scavenge to and then assemble in the loosest way to justify the virtual reality even tho no rigorous (mathematical, logical) framework is created. 

Another analogy is the dream... comparing our reality to really being more like a dream reality.  Well, do that "without" having any physical experience or sensations or former thought foreknowlege to construct the dream.  Let consciousness simply run with NO imagery; then describe your dream analogy.  You can't.

What do statements like: "non-physical is exactly that, non-physical" mean?  Well first those idea came from a time when people did't know how to describe something beyond the physical experience.  But I could also say Plum pudding is exactly that, plumb pudding. 

Or stuff like a (silver) thread connecting conscious states.  Why a thread?  Why silver? Why isn't it blue? Why the physical constructs to define ineffable relationships?  Why is it one thread, why not a web?  Why used "real" stuff to describe the unreal?  Is it unreal?  What does that mean?

To me, this is the fundamental problem.  Mankind does not possess currently the language, or native non-physical based concepts or symbolism to articulate what is beyond (Ya know Richard Feynman created his own symbology to draw Quantum Electrodynamics and it "worked"). 

Does a FM radio think AM waves are virtual?  That is assuming the FM tuner was designed to even recognized amplitude modulation - which it is not.  Or you are saying FM is not objective reality, it is virtual projection of the AM broadcasting radio booth operator?  Are you saying the the whole electromagnetic spectrum needs some string to attache the frequencies together?  Of course not.

Ya know Hebrew is called the Holy Language not only because it is Jewish, but because Hebrew has "holy" concepts embedded throughout it's exegesis of terms.  THATs what is need here, a new language.  Oh and as an aside, I think it may have been Justin that posted the link to some guy's alien-Biblical theory that relied on the word Elohim in part.  The problem with that guy's approach was that it was pure exegesis and he did not consider the "themes" in the stories themselves.  He would not have been so confused about gods and angels and who is who etc if he considered the themes.

Virtual is more "real" then real.  That's like question begging. First define virtual then. Otherwise your just playing a shell game, what reality is under the shell.  Err what is it over the shell?

What does it boil down to?  It is all real.  Accept that.  Why are wasting time pitting the material spectrum of our environment against consciousness and visa versa?  That's thinking like humans think - oppositionally, in exclusive terms, rigid boxed constructs.  Exclude certain idea in the movie so the hypothesis works.

It is more worthwhile to contemplate the meaning of form, then bits.

   Dunno Albert, i'm not completely certain about some of the particulars. 

  I am certain that things like silver cords, akashic books, etc are not objective realities, but symbolic interpretation related to material related belief systems and perceptions.

  There is a sort of silver cord in the body, nerve connections between the Pineal and Leydig glands, that if that is severed, according the rule set here, it equal's physical death. `

  However, there is no cord from one's physical body to one's "astral" body, etc. 

We don't even "go out" of the body and all that. We phase/shift from perception of different consciousness states. 

Even saying that this happens "within us", is a misnomer, as in reality there is no within or without, since these are spatial concepts, and space is an illusionary, physically based concept/perspective framework. 

  As to the really big questions and ultimate overview, it's possible i won't really know fully accurately until i'm fully attuned to Love and/or complete detach from the body. 

  It sounds like you're saying that we, or some of us, have to use our freewill in limited ways to really grow? 

  Maybe it's only about growth/learning once a consciousness is stuck?

  Maybe it's other wise about creative expression and interaction/companionship? 

   An interesting question to ask, is there, or has there even been, anything such as negativity, lack of love, selfishness, etc directly within the heart and mind of Source itself?  If not, could we assume that perhaps Source already has a full understanding of Love, but created unique, individualized, freewilled Consciousnesses out of itself more for expression and the desire/hope of companionship? 

   Now, if it created these various potential companions, would it wish for these to choose separation from it?  A parent doesn't have a child, with the hopes that the kid wants nothing to do with the parent, but either way, a wise, loving parent will give the child space and some freewill to choose. It's much more fulfilling to have a companion whom of their own free volition chooses to be with you, than a limited being you create that has no choice but to be with you.

  Perhaps the former part of the above says a lot by implication?

   So BillB, so you basically side with the materialists and macro-realists in science, that physical matter has an objective reality?

  I think i remember seeing a previous comment of yours where you say something like matter is objectively real and consciousness comes from, is derivative of matter? 

   

   

Quote:


  As you are someone who occasionally references to certain religious ideas and concepts, i'm a bit surprised at the above.

   There is an old saying that has much truth in practice and observation of humans, "The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

If there weren't core differences between these, then why should that be the case?

  But if we understand the Law of Like attracts and begets Like, and we understand the First Cause behind the temporary manifestation of matter, then it becomes very easy and logical to understand why "flesh is weak" and Spirit is "willing" and strong by contrast.

   One needs a much larger overview to understand/perceive this, and you won't get that through physical science, but via direct spiritual insight, particularly with Consciousnesses much more aware than one's material personality. 

   And as much as you poo poo Tom Campbell, Campbell is not just talking from a physics viewpoint, but from many, many, many years of direct exploration. 

  He started having classic OBE's in his mid 20's, and he is now approaching his 70's*. 

  That's near 50 years of direct exploration. He just may have realized some things over that time.

  Does he get everything right all the time? Course not, he's no "He/She", but who among us is?  You?  Me?  Definitely not yet. 

*Edit to add quick correction, i looked up his birth date, which is 12/9/44, so he is already in his 70's. 

I also want to note that i'm not a "TOE'ist" or "Campbellianite" by a long shot. Folks that have been on this forum for awhile, know that i have spoken critically of some of Tom Campbell's beliefs.

   I don't want to be extreme in pigeonholing BillB. Obviously he has some openness and open mindedness, and realizes that matter in the obvious physical form, is not all there is. That's A LOT more than the average scientist out there who thinks that OBE's, NDE's, etc. are nothing more than imagination, delusion, and/or chemical reactions in the brain.

  So i very much respect and commend that he is more open than the above types. 

But when one begins with a fundamentally limited assumption about the core nature of reality, and that consciousness/awareness comes from matter, it will distort all the rest of one's perceptions and beliefs. 

  Like Max Planck and some other well known physicists that were involved in the pioneering work of quantum physics (people likely with much more respected credentials than our BillB, since that's always so important to such types), i believe that consciousness is primary and matter derivative from same. 

  I do not believe this because of physic's theories and experiments.  In fact, i wasn't aware of Planck's and other folks conclusions until fairly recently.  This was a spiritual truth i intuited a long time ago, and well before i came across Tom Campbell, Bob Monroe, Bruce Moen, etc.  When i started to get those intuitive downloads as a young teen about the deeper nature of reality, such things as the importance of Love, the existence of Oneness, etc also one of the concepts downloaded was that Consciousness was much more than physical and that physical was in a sense an illusion or rather a specific, limited perception.   

  However, the fact that some early pioneering physicists did postulate similar, and it seems that physics is slowly, but surely moving in that direction as a whole, i do find interesting and encouraging. 

    The left brain part of us is important to develop. Without proper left brain development, use, practice, etc, we will lack discrimination, a sense of holistic logic, and/or the ability to explain concepts well and logically to others. 

But, over emphasis on the left brain side of us (very common in men), is one of the strongest hurdles for people to more clearly perceive that which is beyond the physical.

  The reason why there are so many more women than men that are consciously aware of, and accepting of nonphysical and/or spiritual reality, is because they are more intuitive and more empathy attuned as a trend.  They FEEL the truth of these, and accept the validity of such feelings. 

  However, western culture, and especially American culture has been moving in the direction of left brain dominance/polarization.  We have become very imbalanced as a society, intellectualism is put too much on a pedestal at the detriment of such important things like intuition and empathy. 

  All one needs to do is go to a youtube or facebook video that talks about some "alternative" theories or views relating to the nonphysical or spiritual, and the amount of derogatory, extreme, CERTAIN comments from the intellectually polarized to the those open to something more, will quickly show you how far the herd as moved in the direction of left brain polarization where physical matter and our 5 senses is all there is.

 

"Mystical substance" I like that.    Thank God it exists.

I think what I said earlier on this thread applies.  If the Source of everything is real, then even that which is temporary is real for as long as it exists.

It could be that there is no such thing as unreal, not even a dream, since everything makes use of the awareness, creative and mind aspects of being which "DO" exist. What else is there?


1796 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2015 at 11:35pm:

Quote:


The film does. I put forward the question in relation to that.

It proposes that the reality we think we are living in is a simulation, an illusion, that the reality around us, even material and space are no more real than in a dream or on an animated computer screen. If that is the case, then what of right and wrong as it pertains to this illusion. Is right and wrong an illusion too?   

Yes, the film stops at asserting that reality as we know it is an illusion, and it does not go on to discuss right and wrong as we know it within that illusion.

So if, as the film makers assert, that reality as we know it is not real, but a sort of illusory dream or simulation, then it naturally follows that what we do right and wrong in this simulation is not real either.

Or if we accept that what is right and wrong is real, then we accept that reality as we know it is real too.

Anyone's thoughts? 

Actually on that light note, I have certainly observed a difference in the temperaments between collectives of coffee drinkers and collectives of tea drinkers. In my country and in my working experience I have observed that in engineering, the trades and on the land, physically active jobs where men work directly with form and structure, tea tends to be the preferred drink, and black of course. In fields such as office work, social science education, community welfare and counselling facilities, where women dominate and the outcome of the work is not so tangible or clearly apparent, coffee has always been the drink of choice, and lots of it too, with milk and sugar. The tea drinkers are jovial, easy going, rational, hard working, and at peace with the world. By comparison the coffee drinkers tend to be irritable, especially if they don't get enough of it, emotional, prone to gossiping, tend to hate society and driven to change the world. Their styles of conflict and expectations of friendship are quite different too.

Of course the drinking of tea or coffee is not the only differentiating variable between the groups, and a correlation, even if it is the only differentiating variable between groups, is still only a correlation, not a cause.

Being a tea drinker I have always been the odd one out when working in welfare related environments, and my colleagues have often pressed me to drink coffee with them. I usually decline and joke that I don't want to take the risk.             

Quote:


   I have found through my shamanic journeys that caffeine (which fuels coffee and tea) tends to put me in a solid C1 consciousness. It tends to block out all of my senses that reach beyond the physical thought level. I try to avoid caffeine so as not to get stuck in the physical consciousness only.

Quote:


Thank you for this knowledge. I always liked the effects of tea over coffee but didn't know why until now.