Existence after mortal death...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-02-2013, 06:14 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2013 06:23 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Existence after mortal death...
(01-02-2013 03:53 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  It isn't a perfect analogy, yet it works. Christians and yourself are ariving at a conclusion based on your experience. Whether it be emotional or sensoric experience, it is all dependant on the states of your brain.
No, it doesn't. I don't know about your Christians, but my Christians were indoctrinated into Christianity as children. Whatever experience they might have later, it is invariably seen through the God glasses. For them, experience isn't the main thing, it's the faith in and letter of the holy scripture. Experience (which they heavily strove to induce to themselves) is a nice bonus. But if it doesn't jibe with the Scripture, it's from the devil, therefore an illusion.

I have met many Christians, but just a few of them valued experience as the main thing in their Christianity. They were mostly pastors, youth leaders. Mostly rather impressive people, who had some impressive stories to tell. Stories of incredible coincidences in their favor and "reality manipulation". Such Christians are interesting objects of study. I disagree with their interpretation, but I know their Chi is very strong Wink
(01-02-2013 03:53 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Sensory problems are common in the Autism Spectrum. You say love and awe is not supernatural but you assume this is. It is indeed unusual but does that mean it's supernatural? or that it has anything to do with chakras?

Do you remember what you felt and thought of the feelings before you related them to the chakras?
I don't say it is supernatural or isn't, I just rely on the youknowwatImean effect. The unknown, the new, the mythical but not proven, the described but not understood, the experienced but not included yet in science, the boundary experience. I don't want to play with definitions here.
Yes, these are unusual sensations. But the sensory problems in Autism spectrum are caused by an increased selective sensitivity, not by fabrication. Whatever we perceive, it's always out there in the world, though easy to ignore or overlook for normal people. As I said, I am extremely sensitive to materials that give a soft, velvet-like feeling. I can't withstand a real velvet, but it might be that which gives me access to more subtle perception of the same kind.

When I was a little boy, around 4 years, I was aware of the energies, but only of those around me, floating around like soft clouds of plasma, flowing roughly into shapes that I willed them into, condensating around me or in my mouth like a chewing gum. I had no idea what it is, I assumed it's normal, I was just puzzled that this soft substance is invisible, that it passes through solid matter and that Bible or science books say nothing about it. And I played with it for years like with plasticine, without saying almost anything to adults.
As for the chakras and so on, I wasn't aware of them until much later, pre-teens I think, when I read about them and tried to feel for them, to concentrate a little in the areas if they are there. Energy follows thought, so a little stimulation might awaken them. It worked. It might not have worked before, chakras aren't all fully active at once, they develop till 12 years or so. Most of people use only three lowest ones. "Fire in the belly" as Seth would say, or an activated solar plexus chakra, as I would say.

(01-02-2013 03:53 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  I am aware of no other source. I am also not aware of how the universe came into existence, does that mean god did it?
All I know is that individuals on the Autism Spectrum have sensory problems, the brain is wired differently and this can result in changes in the way the brain percieves the inputs it receieves from the environment and body, ultimately resulting in a different view on reality. As someone that has previously had delusions and has seen, heard and felt things that did not make sense or did not seem to exist, I know how our perception of reality is and can be skewed.

I do not have the answer as to exactly why you feel the sensations you feel and I won't pretend to. Seeing a neuropsychologist would be a good start.
I hope to. I'll make sure to describe the doctor everything, though I might want to be careful about my interpretations.
I just want to make a point. My brain is wired differently, but I'd actually say it's wired in a more direct, simpler way than yours. There is less ability to interpret or to make up things, to decorate the truth, to consider social consequences... If anything, I am a more reliable witness than a normal person. The sensory problems are strictly following the cause and effect. If I touch a velvet, I get a terrible shivering sensation all over my body. If I imagine the sensation, I start shivering too - but I know very well that I imagined it, I know where it came from and I'll say it.
Even if we all had different senses, as long as these senses follow a regular pattern, we can make an objective sense of them, compensate their peculiarities and get a good idea of the objective reality outside. It is the same situation when learning a foreign language. Foreign language is a strange but regular pattern that we learn to compensate for.

Yes, there is a room for mistake and interpretation. There is a grey zone between one explanation and another. I only eliminated the grey zone for the most part through years of observations, experiments and totally random, unexpected experiences.
For example, the great question. The energy follows thought. Does it mean I imagine the energy, or that I have an electric field around me, that shapes the energy depending on my thoughts?
I can not describe how many factors and observations went into that decision. To an extent, both explanation are similar. I had to wait for circumstances that would not fit for one or the other explanation.
Of course, I believe a good brain scan would easily answer the question, how and if at all is my imaginative and sensory part of brain related.

(01-02-2013 03:53 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  1. Why would the concentration of dark matter be greater on earth?
Because Earth is a gravity well, within a gravity well (the Sun) within a gravity well (our galactic arm) within a gravity well (the galactic halo). We know that DM is subject to gravity. Therefore, the study said that the concentration of DM around here should be about 16,000 times of DM density in the galactic halo. Which is still not much, of course.

(01-02-2013 03:53 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  2. A) How would it have a different effect?
Not all forces are equally strong or reach on the same distance. For example, gravity is the weakest of forces, but reaches a great distance. This allows us to observe DM gravitational lensing on an extremely great scale - of a whole cluster of galaxies.
However, other forces like magnetism have much shorter reach. For example, if our Moon was a quasar (or pulsar or neutron star?) its magnetic field would wipe clean all credit cards on Earth and close up it would tear us apart. But from a Sun's distance we wouldn't feel it.
So if we want to study interaction by other means than gravitational, we need to have the matter
- close up to us
- close to each other - a dense concentration of DM.
We can not possibly observe such conditions in outer space among galactic clusters, the distance would easily cancel out anything but gravity. These observations would lead to a premature, unjustified view that DM interact only through gravity. Which is nonsense. Sorry scientists, but I'll need a better argument than just that.
We have to ASSUME that Earth has the greatest concentration of DM anywhere near. This concentration wouldn't be even remotely dense to trigger any measurable gravitational (optical) effects - but it might be enough to observe other interaction. Probably not dense enough for weak nuclear force, but it might be enough for electric field, for example. And as I said, this is testable. If we assume that dark matter reacts to electric field (with an electric field of its own), this is a valid assumption. It is not a circular logic, it is a methodological circle. Here the electric interaction is not a premise, it is a method through which we test the premise.
Then we can push the experiment further. If we can measure dark matter, we maybe we can capture it. We will do so through its dielectric interaction. If we can increase concentration of dark matter, maybe we will get it to interact through forces that reach even shorter - weak nuclear (chemical reactions) and strong nuclear. Which is basically what James DeMeo and Wilhelm Reich were doing all their careers.

(01-02-2013 03:53 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  B) Can you give an example of somewhere else we see this? (something having a completely different effect because of it's concentration)
I hope I answered that, or can you be more specific? If you mean a scientific example, I don't know if any scientists ever thought about it in this way. However, it is logical.
And it is entirely possible to discover something that scientists did not think of for hundreds of years, even if it was right in front of their nose. I just saw how Thunderfoot might have done such a discovery in chemistry.
(01-02-2013 03:53 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  You and a lot of religious people fit into the category of people that make assumptions based on their personal experience of reality. This is the 'mold' I have placed you neatly inside. Some christians claim to have heard god or seen an angel, these are examples of physical detection as well. But yes you probably have them in the logic department, your posts are well constructed and your arguments are quite compelling Wink
Thanks Smile The point is, what came first, Christian indoctrination, or vision of the angel? Smile I try not to have any expectations. I know expectations may skew the observations. So I take seriously the observations that were not preceded by expectations. I might have had to learn about chakras from a book, but after I discovered them, in years of continued observations I made enough tests to be sure they're not my imagination. Actions are like radar, we may project the energy to get an echo from an object, but we get an echo most of the time. The trick is to learn to distinguish a true blip on the radar or just a weak, repeated distant echo of our own effort. Once we know where things are, we leave the radar clear and switch to passive mode, so they betray their activity by their own waves, we already know what to look for.

For example, if I saw the "angel", I might instead see an oval of white plasma, surrounded by a disc of less radiant plasma, making something like a shape of wings. But my interpretation would be, this is a dark plasma life form, and it does not have wings, but a magnetic field of that shape that concentrates the ambient plasma, that perhaps rotates, so it's flattened. I know the angel wings are an allegoric Greek art, meant to distinguish the angels on paintings as "the guys who live in the sky", who otherwise in Bible have no special distinction.

(01-02-2013 03:53 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Fair enough. I don't feel that the sensations justify the belief in chakras though. There are a lot of people that feel/hear/see things that don't exist, yet to them they are as real as anything else. Such is the result of many Schizophrenia disorders.
Sure. I just want to make clear that we live in a natural, causal world. Anything that happens has to have a cause. I don't want skeptics to see the brain as a black box that gives a random output that we only make sense of through readings on electronic instruments. I think such views are dangerously short-sighted. We need to make a great and clear distinction between fabricating disorders - like schizophrenia - and non-fabricating perception, like sensory integration problems.
The difference between them is very simple, either the creative and perceptive parts of brain are connected, or they aren't. Either the brain is rehashing its own material, or it isn't. The neurologic science surely already answered tougher questions than that.

(01-02-2013 03:53 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  If someone sees a giant spider chasing after them, yet no one else sees it, chances are that person is not gifted and can see a race of invisible giant spider invaders that everyone else can't. That individual needs to see a Neuropsychologist to check him out, scan his brain, test the levels of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, ect.

The situation is the same when a individual feels/sees/hears anything that others do not. There is no certainty to whether the percieved sensation is the result of something going wrong, but it could be. Best thing to do is to evaluate whether the sensation has an external cause, or if it is purely the result of the brain playing tricks.

If someone suffers hallucinations and never gets help, it doesn't matter how long he thinks logically about the hallucinations, subjectively they are as real as everything else and they skew that individuals perseption of the objective reality. So chances are they will not realize the problem with how they are going about finding the answers. Which is that they assume what they are feeling has and objective external cause, and is not entirely subjective.
Too bad such hallucinations usually come with an impaired judgement. When in doubt, we have to use logic and science alongside our observations. If I saw a giant spider, I'd use the knowledge that chitinous insects are small, because the chitin would crumble under its own weight on large scale. More so, spiders are a well-known thing. It is nothing new to me, so it is possible the brain is rehashing its content, because isolation between some neurons wore out from all this LSD I've been taking lately Angel

The point is, you CAN have an open mind, if your brain is too big to fall out Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 13-01-2013, 09:27 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Dom - 14-01-2013, 01:22 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 14-01-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Dom - 14-01-2013, 02:07 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Dom - 14-01-2013, 02:12 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 14-01-2013, 02:29 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 14-01-2013, 07:36 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Dom - 15-01-2013, 06:43 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 20-01-2013, 08:03 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Dom - 20-01-2013, 05:20 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 20-01-2013, 08:45 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 20-01-2013, 10:48 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 20-01-2013, 11:01 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 20-01-2013, 11:21 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 21-01-2013, 08:19 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 21-01-2013, 04:05 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 21-01-2013, 05:25 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 22-01-2013, 01:50 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 22-01-2013, 01:39 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 22-01-2013, 08:27 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 24-01-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 24-01-2013, 02:05 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 25-01-2013, 07:58 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 25-01-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 25-01-2013, 12:26 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 25-01-2013, 04:10 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 27-01-2013, 12:15 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 22-01-2013, 05:43 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 23-01-2013, 07:40 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 23-01-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 26-01-2013, 04:20 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 27-01-2013, 09:45 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 27-01-2013, 04:25 PM
Forum Jump: