100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Quantum mechanics' knowledge | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/13/08 09:57 AM
|
|
I just don't see any reason why self has to "divide" in order to take on different viewpoints. Unless you're saying that "the taking on of different viewpoints" IS "self dividing", in which case we're not really talking about the same thing when using the word "self". To me, there is only one "self". Anything else is "not self". Yes I guess I am saying that taking on different view points is self dividing. Self divided into separate points of view, so obviously there must be a reason for it. Unless you can claim to have my point of view, then there is more than one "individual" and those individuals each have a personal unique point of view. The one self is divided into many individuals with uniques points of view. I don't think you can deny this. You don't have my point of view and you don't see through my eyes and you have not experienced what I have experienced and until we are joined together in the great nirvana beyond this reality, you will appear to be separate from me, and you will continue to hold separate opinion, preferences, beliefs, likes, dislikes, interests, etc. We are connected and are part of the one self but we are individual points of veiw with our own memories, experiences, opinions etc. If self has not divided into separate points of observation and experience, then you would be saying "We are borg." instead of "I am." JB PS. I also believe that these separate individuals will maintain their individuality for the most part, unless they agree to melt into another part of them selves on a more permanent basis. (I have many parts to my personal psyche and I see them as different individuals or points of view.) Ok, well it sounds like you are defining "self" as something like "an agregate of experiences", which is completely different from what I define as "self". To me, "self" is "the thing that does the experiencing", not "the sum of the experiences". In other words, "self" is separate from the experinces. It HAS experiences, but it not those experiences. Just as it HAS a body and a mind, but it is not the body or the mind. No I am not describing self as something like "an aggregate of experiences." (But the "person" is like a storage of experiences and information.) Where did you get that impression? 
Self is the one who observes and does the experiencing. It does that through its many points of view. We are its many points of view and we have developed as individual "persons." These "persons" are data centers and thinking centers of the mind of self. They contain the memory of these experiences and the programs and knowledge gained from them. They can be accessed by other individuals. They are individual thinking centers of SELF. jb 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/13/08 10:05 AM
|
|
To simplify, self is "God."
Self is conscious prime source. Self is consciousness expressing itself by being. But what the hell do I know? I exist. That is all I know.    
JB |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 09/13/08 10:35 AM
|
|
To simplify, self is "God." Self is conscious prime source. Self is consciousness expressing itself by being. But what the hell do I know? I exist. That is all I know.
JB Ok, I guess I did misinterpret about the "agregate experiences" thing. My bad. So really, the main difference of opinion is that I don't believe that we are "all one". I believe that we are all separate - that I as "self" is different from you as "self", and "god" doesn't enter into the equation at all. 
[edit] Although I guess one could define "god" as "the agregate of all "selves"". But without relenquishing my belief in the separateness of each "self", I personally see no way to make use of that definition in evaluating anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/13/08 10:40 AM
|
|
I don't usually use the term "God" because what it usually means to most people is some external entity who sits on some thrown in heaven who created the earth and rules over humans and make rules for them, and if they disobey those rules its curtains for them.
And all the other religious concepts of God. For me, I see that we are all connected at the quantum level to a vast field of consciousness. I don't discount the idea that we might be able to break that connection and exist separately from that at some point in the vast reaches of eternity though. But even my higher self seems to be connected to something else... so who knows how far that connection extends. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/13/08 10:46 AM
|
|
To simplify, self is "God." Self is conscious prime source. Self is consciousness expressing itself by being. But what the hell do I know? I exist. That is all I know.
JB Ok, I guess I did misinterpret about the "agregate experiences" thing. My bad. So really, the main difference of opinion is that I don't believe that we are "all one". I believe that we are all separate - that I as "self" is different from you as "self", and "god" doesn't enter into the equation at all.
[edit] Although I guess one could define "god" as "the agregate of all "selves"". But without relenquishing my belief in the separateness of each "self", I personally see no way to make use of that definition in evaluating anything. Then how can you say that there is only one self? Are the rest of the people apart from you just an illusion of your own mind?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For me, I see that we are all connected at the quantum level to consciousness.
From my point of view we are more than just 'connected' at the quantum level. We all arise from the quantum level. Therefore if the quantum is all connected, then so are we! I think the desire to retain our egos is very strong. We have come to believe that we are our egos and so we imagine that if the ego dies then so do we. We just can't abandon that concept. It's as hard for us to abandon as the idea of cause and effect, or time. We just can't help but believe that if our ego (are seperateness) should vanish, then we'd no longer be "who" we are! This is one reason why a religion like Christianity is so attractive to people. They don't care that they've failed their creator, all the care about is that the story claims that their egos will be preserved by an eternal caretaker. They would much rather believe that they can perserve their egos than to entertain any other possible idea. The idea of losing their individuality is just not something they are willing to consider. They'd rather believe in a hell than to believe that they can't keep their ego.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 09/13/08 11:27 AM
|
|
To simplify, self is "God." Self is conscious prime source. Self is consciousness expressing itself by being. But what the hell do I know? I exist. That is all I know.
JB Ok, I guess I did misinterpret about the "agregate experiences" thing. My bad. So really, the main difference of opinion is that I don't believe that we are "all one". I believe that we are all separate - that I as "self" is different from you as "self", and "god" doesn't enter into the equation at all.
[edit] Although I guess one could define "god" as "the agregate of all "selves"". But without relenquishing my belief in the separateness of each "self", I personally see no way to make use of that definition in evaluating anything. Then how can you say that there is only one self? Are the rest of the people apart from you just an illusion of your own mind?
I didn't mean that there is only one self in the solipsitic sense. I meant that there is only one "me" and only one "you". And the "me" is different from the "you". However, I will admit that I have not yet found a theory that describes the mechanics of interaction between "me" and "you" to my satisfaction. It's just that the "god is all and all is god" theory is just as disturbing to me as the pure atheistic theory, for pretty much the same reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/13/08 11:33 AM
|
|
To simplify, self is "God." Self is conscious prime source. Self is consciousness expressing itself by being. But what the hell do I know? I exist. That is all I know.
JB Ok, I guess I did misinterpret about the "agregate experiences" thing. My bad. So really, the main difference of opinion is that I don't believe that we are "all one". I believe that we are all separate - that I as "self" is different from you as "self", and "god" doesn't enter into the equation at all.
[edit] Although I guess one could define "god" as "the agregate of all "selves"". But without relenquishing my belief in the separateness of each "self", I personally see no way to make use of that definition in evaluating anything. Then how can you say that there is only one self? Are the rest of the people apart from you just an illusion of your own mind?
I didn't mean that there is only one self in the solipsitic sense. I meant that there is only one "me" and only one "you". And the "me" is different from the "you". However, I will admit that I have not yet found a theory that describes the mechanics of interaction between "me" and "you" to my satisfaction. It's just that the "god is all and all is god" theory is just as disturbing to me as the pure atheistic theory, for pretty much the same reason - that self-determinism is ultimately meaningless. Yes I totally agree. It is disturbing to me also. I don't buy into that Nirvana or oneness with God thing either. If we live our lives and become persons of our own making and right, what good is all of that if our person and all its experience and energy is just sucked up and consumed by the one God when we die? It is the theft of the soul in my opinion. The kidnapping of the person. Nope I don't think that is the way it is. The individual remains who they are, or what is the point? You are right, self-determinism is meaningless. Individuality is meaningless and useless. We may as well be Borg if that were the case. That's not the case. But there is still a connection to all individuals between individuals. This connection is like pathways or roads or streams of energy and information for communication. Its kind of like the Internet.
JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's just that the "god is all and all is god" theory is just as disturbing to me as the pure atheistic theory, for pretty much the same reason - that self-determinism is ultimately meaningless. What would be meaningful? Would a multitude of 'individual' spirits be more meaningful than a single all-encompassing consciouness that is capable of "dividing" itself even if only by illusion? If so, why? Why would a multitude of spirits be more meaningful than one all-encompassing consciouness? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/13/08 11:36 AM
|
|
It's just that the "god is all and all is god" theory is just as disturbing to me as the pure atheistic theory, for pretty much the same reason - that self-determinism is ultimately meaningless. What would be meaningful? Would a multitude of 'individual' spirits be more meaningful than a single all-encompassing consciousness that is capable of "dividing" itself even if only by illusion? If so, why? Why would a multitude of spirits be more meaningful than one all-encompassing consciousness? Because of individuality and self-determinism. For purposes of growth and sharing and most importantly, acknowledgment. I exist because others acknowledge that I exist. If you were invisible, and no one could see you, how happy would you be? Where is the joy in being one? Where is the joy in being alone? 
JB One Al + one = Alone If all is one, then the one is alone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 09/13/08 11:45 AM
|
|
It's just that the "god is all and all is god" theory is just as disturbing to me as the pure atheistic theory, for pretty much the same reason - that self-determinism is ultimately meaningless. What would be meaningful? Would a multitude of 'individual' spirits be more meaningful than a single all-encompassing consciouness that is capable of "dividing" itself even if only by illusion? If so, why? Why would a multitude of spirits be more meaningful than one all-encompassing consciouness? [edit] What JB said! (You're too fast for me JB)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To me it would mean that ultimately I (as that one-and-only all-encompassing consciouness) am completely alone. Which scares the hell out of me.
Why should being alone scare you? If you are all that exists then what's to be afraid of? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 09/13/08 12:26 PM
|
|
To me it would mean that ultimately I (as that one-and-only all-encompassing consciouness) am completely alone. Which scares the hell out of me.
Why should being alone scare you? If you are all that exists then what's to be afraid of? No idea why it should, but it does. And it's not a matter of being afraid of "something", it's being afraid of "the absence of anything" - no exchange of ideas, no comraderie, no helping others, no agreement, no laughing children, no beautiful women to making love with, no dog to play fetch with, no cat to pet and make purr, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read through here, I do not claim but a small small knowledge of quantum anything.
I have been told that my belief of the basic life energy falls into this catagory. I believe this energy connects all life. I do believe that we stand as our own person, ego or individual. The life energy is so basic and elemental that any complexity is our own. Whether that makes sense or not that is some of my scrambled eggs in my head 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No idea why it should, but it does. And it's not a matter of being afraid of "something", it's being afraid of "the absence of anything" - no exchange of ideas, no comraderie, no helping others, no agreement, no laughing children, no beautiful women to making love with, no dog to play fetch with, no cat to pet and make purr, etc. Well I don't know Sky, You sure seem to have created a whole bunch of dogs, cats, and purry women. That's some imagination you've got there! I don't know why you're so concerned about it. (This has been a prerecorded subconscious message that came from you to you) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The proof I offer of this life energy is the exchange of it between all living things. If I stand close to someone at an elemental level I get a "sense" of this person. I can "feel" for example if they are in a good mood, if they like me or not, etc.... This is because energy exchanges whenever it comes close to another energy source of similarity.
I do not have an education in any of these fields at all. This belief of mine is from my experience and personal analysis. So I do not know if this falls into the quantum theories at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 09/13/08 12:57 PM
|
|
No idea why it should, but it does. And it's not a matter of being afraid of "something", it's being afraid of "the absence of anything" - no exchange of ideas, no comraderie, no helping others, no agreement, no laughing children, no beautiful women to making love with, no dog to play fetch with, no cat to pet and make purr, etc. Well I don't know Sky, You sure seem to have created a whole bunch of dogs, cats, and purry women. That's some imagination you've got there! I don't know why you're so concerned about it. (This has been a prerecorded subconscious message that came from you to you) Yeah, allegory is always easy to refute. My own fault for using it. 
But doesn't change the idea underlying the allegory, which is that I prefer to think that I'm not alone and that what I perceive as my interactions with others is not just spiritual masturbation. (If you'll excuse a little more allegory  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, allegory is always easy to refute. My own fault for using it.
But doesn't change the idea underlying the allegory, which is that I prefer to think that I'm not alone and that what I perceive as my interactions with others is not just spiritual masturbation. (If you'll excuse a little more allegory )
There does seem to be this paradoxical thing. People tend to like to think of just one God. One Top Dog. Even the Greeks, who had many gods and goddesses still felt a need to have one Top Dog; Zeus. Christians insist on a monotheistic God. They have no problem giving God the 'three faces of Eve', and allowing him to be his own sacrifical lamb. For some reason that's acceptable for them. Even the pantheistic religions tend to like to believe that we all arise from a single source and return to that single source. Yet, when we think of it in terms of pure solipsism we frown on it as spiritual masturbation. It seems that we have no problem with God being the masturbater. We just want no parts of it.
It's funny how we can attribute to God characteristics that we find to be personally offensive. I do understand where you are coming from though. Intuitively I also think of the spirit world as being full of individual spirits. It makes it more inviting. Who wants to go to a spirit world and be the only one there. 
However, this may just be due to our limited human way of looking at things. Maybe when we become the all-conscious mind we don't have a problem with it, because from that point of view it all makes sense. It only appears to be a distasteful idea to our human way of thinking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree with Skyhook in that the worst possible thing would be to be alone for eternity.
I think that even eternity is something that would get tedious after a while. That is why I think death was invented. Life and death and other people is so much more interesting that being alone for eternity with nothing but your thoughts or your imagination. It would be like posting these thoughts to the computer without being connected to the Internet. No one would acknowledge that you exist, no one would hear or share your thoughts. Abra, you think there is nothing wrong or scary about "being alone?" Then why are you reaching out to people via this club? Why do you claim to want to find someone to share your life with? Solitary confinement has been deemed as cruel and unusual punishment. And it is. So what ever started all of this made sure that there would be others. Individuals who will maintain their autonomy and individuality as long as they desire it. In my book/article "The eyes of Infinity" I state that we are all eyes of the infinite consciousness, and the first eye that appeared cannot be distinguished from any of the others. We are all equal in our basic construction. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 I seem to have misplaced my quantum toolbox... anyone have a quantum shifter?
|
|
|
|
|
