Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 11:34:31 GMT -5
So Niz is saying that memory survives death? Not especially believing in reincarnation, if I nonetheless try to rationalize this, I might say that the memes that obsessed one during their life continue on despite the death of the body, being recirculated and digested by the society as a whole, so that any living being could 'resonate' with those same memes at any time. But on first read, memory-surviving-death sounds like memories are not a result of the plasticity of neurons, and exist outside of the body. I'm having trouble digesting it. I'm not a Niz expert but to say that desire survives death is not the same as saying memory survives death. Desire is a feeling that is given shape and satisfaction in the stories we write about what conditions would satisfy that desire, but this is already one step removed from desire itself. I can see one responding to a desire by becoming a tyrant, and another responding to the same desire by becoming a rock star. The memories relating to that desire will be very different. Desires are just floating around out there? I can understand this in a cultural sense, where each individual is just a little processor in a whole integrated unit, and various desires and memories drift around between individual nodes...but totally disembodied? This biz about memories or desire existing outside the body is new to me. I'm not sure if they are relevant for the awareness question in the OP. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 11:38:18 GMT -5
So everything is reduced to neurons? Memory being stored on a "server" outside the body is no more far-fetched than having psychic intuitions or remote viewing (information passing beyond the locality of the body). The reductionist endeavor of reducing A to B doesn't work at a purely phenomenological (qualia) level. Memory is what it is within the realm of experience. We relate to it and experience it directly. Where memories are stored is ultimately a Mystery. We can only burden the mind with conceptual assumptions on the matter. Dear Dude/Dudette, If we could see memory as a mere vantage point and not something that is similar to stored data on a physical HDD then it's not a far stretch to see how memory indeed 'survives' death. In the same sense that thoughts don't have owners and are accessible by just anyone/anything that is able to tune into it, memory also has no owner and is accessible by just anyone/anything that is able to tune into it. If we put it into a LOA framework then we can see how retrieving certain memories or not being able to remember works. edit: that would also explain how one can talk to dead pharaohs and do time travel. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize AFAIK, talking to dead pharaohs and time travel are still in the belief bucket. I'm sure if a channel opened up in me or someone I know and trust I might consider these ideas more seriously. Right now it just seems like highly creative thinking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 11:40:19 GMT -5
Hi maxprophet, Do you know of some stuff about mind being regarded as separate from the brain using it as a monitor of the condition of the organism and its external environment? Anyway whether that is so or not we can reflect on how it actually feels in our own bodies. For me it feels like mind monitors how the body is feeling in interaction with the external environment and tries to solve any discomfort that may arise. First it looks into the brains memory files to see if the problem has been encountered before and applies that, otherwise gathers data externally in the hope of finding a solution. For example in the area of personal relationships, it tries out various things by adjusting the way I relate to my wife for instance (none of which work, only joking darling) and continues to monitor the effect and adjust. If mind asks itself what its function is, that's what it comes up with in my case, how about you:) Awareness seems to be always present but feels like it has two states, focused or unfocused as in the following:- "In the 60's we used the term "Goofing out" at least we did here in Wales. You'd be driving along and would become suddenly aware that you were 20 miles up the road with no memory or awareness of those intervening miles or your existence during them. Yet the car had covered the distance with presumably you turning the wheel this way or that, braking occasionally and reaching for the spliff. Is awareness therefore never absent and not dependent on whether you are present or not? It seems like it is in which case there is no such thing as the absence of awareness" What do you think? amit What you say there doesn't seem so far-fetched. Awareness abides but attention or focus flits around. Mind as monitor makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 4, 2013 11:49:50 GMT -5
Beats me.  I think the article wouldn't touch the idea of memories being outside the brain with a 10 foot pole. My proposal of the client-server model is simply to wear away at the reductionist assumption. I have no idea how memories are stored. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 4, 2013 19:16:49 GMT -5
I'm not a Niz expert but to say that desire survives death is not the same as saying memory survives death. Desire is a feeling that is given shape and satisfaction in the stories we write about what conditions would satisfy that desire, but this is already one step removed from desire itself. I can see one responding to a desire by becoming a tyrant, and another responding to the same desire by becoming a rock star. The memories relating to that desire will be very different. Desires are just floating around out there? I can understand this in a cultural sense, where each individual is just a little processor in a whole integrated unit, and various desires and memories drift around between individual nodes...but totally disembodied? This biz about memories or desire existing outside the body is new to me. I'm not sure if they are relevant for the awareness question in the OP. No, I don't see desires floating around somewhere. Desire is part of the makeup of the mind/body, (conditioning) but maybe what's being missed here is that the mind/body is part of the makeup of consciousness, and this is the source of all mind/bodies, past and future. A desire is happening in consciousness. YOUR desire is happening in MY consciousness, because your consciousness and my consciousness are the same consciousness. It's not that a desire is born outside of consciousness and then does or doesn't die with the body. If we must, we could say the mind/body IS the expression of desire in consciousness, which is what Niz means when he says desire survives the body. He doesn't mean individual memory survives. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 4, 2013 19:22:01 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, If we could see memory as a mere vantage point and not something that is similar to stored data on a physical HDD then it's not a far stretch to see how memory indeed 'survives' death. In the same sense that thoughts don't have owners and are accessible by just anyone/anything that is able to tune into it, memory also has no owner and is accessible by just anyone/anything that is able to tune into it. If we put it into a LOA framework then we can see how retrieving certain memories or not being able to remember works. edit: that would also explain how one can talk to dead pharaohs and do time travel. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize AFAIK, talking to dead pharaohs and time travel are still in the belief bucket. I'm sure if a channel opened up in me or someone I know and trust I might consider these ideas more seriously. Right now it just seems like highly creative thinking. FWIW, it seems to me one can 'tune into' a 'field' or dead person, though what seems absent is what we would call personality. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 4, 2013 19:27:18 GMT -5
Hi maxprophet, Do you know of some stuff about mind being regarded as separate from the brain using it as a monitor of the condition of the organism and its external environment? Anyway whether that is so or not we can reflect on how it actually feels in our own bodies. For me it feels like mind monitors how the body is feeling in interaction with the external environment and tries to solve any discomfort that may arise. First it looks into the brains memory files to see if the problem has been encountered before and applies that, otherwise gathers data externally in the hope of finding a solution. For example in the area of personal relationships, it tries out various things by adjusting the way I relate to my wife for instance (none of which work, only joking darling) and continues to monitor the effect and adjust. If mind asks itself what its function is, that's what it comes up with in my case, how about you:) Awareness seems to be always present but feels like it has two states, focused or unfocused as in the following:- "In the 60's we used the term "Goofing out" at least we did here in Wales. You'd be driving along and would become suddenly aware that you were 20 miles up the road with no memory or awareness of those intervening miles or your existence during them. Yet the car had covered the distance with presumably you turning the wheel this way or that, braking occasionally and reaching for the spliff. Is awareness therefore never absent and not dependent on whether you are present or not? It seems like it is in which case there is no such thing as the absence of awareness" What do you think? amit What you say there doesn't seem so far-fetched. Awareness abides but attention or focus flits around. Mind as monitor makes sense. Awareness would be the light and the object is what would be focused on. The object is the content of consciousness, which changes and comes and goes, while the light of awareness is always present, even in the absence of an object or focus. Hencely, awareness is what you are, consciousness is what you know. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 4, 2013 20:07:29 GMT -5
AFAIK, talking to dead pharaohs and time travel are still in the belief bucket. I'm sure if a channel opened up in me or someone I know and trust I might consider these ideas more seriously. Right now it just seems like highly creative thinking. FWIW, it seems to me one can 'tune into' a 'field' or dead person, though what seems absent is what we would call personality. Dear Dude/Dudette, Right. The thing is that the 'tuning into' requires effort and a certain degree of imagination which means after you've successfully tuned into the dead pharaoh vibe it isn't clear at all if you just made that up or if there's really someone answering from the other side. What Esther Hicks calls 'Abraham' is in the A-H teachings referred to as 'Esther's Inner Being' which means the A-H channeling is a talk between Esther and Esther's Inner Being which basically boils don to Hicks-Self-Talk. When Esther puts on the Abraham hat she's just focusing differently (or better stated: defocusing) which results in allowing more subtle thoughts to flow (i.e. 'infinite intelligence') which she isn't allowing in here normaleveryday state of being. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 20:26:56 GMT -5
What you say there doesn't seem so far-fetched. Awareness abides but attention or focus flits around. Mind as monitor makes sense. Awareness would be the light and the object is what would be focused on. The object is the content of consciousness, which changes and comes and goes, while the light of awareness is always present, even in the absence of an object or focus. Hencely, awareness is what you are, consciousness is what you know. It's fair to say that it is not known if awareness is always present even in the absence of consciousness. Consciousness like everything else that appears in the awareness comes and goes. Who knows death just might be one of those absences of consciousness when the body dissolves. But I don't know... |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 4, 2013 20:45:38 GMT -5
AFAIK, talking to dead pharaohs and time travel are still in the belief bucket. I'm sure if a channel opened up in me or someone I know and trust I might consider these ideas more seriously. Right now it just seems like highly creative thinking. FWIW, it seems to me one can 'tune into' a 'field' or dead person, though what seems absent is what we would call personality. What if it's just a container of ashes?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 20:54:08 GMT -5
FWIW, it seems to me one can 'tune into' a 'field' or dead person, though what seems absent is what we would call personality. What if it's just a container of ashes? I don't know, the human body isn't an object taking up space in an objective universe, so I'm not sure what one 'tunes' in to that was never there in the first place. Although I do believe it's highly possible to tune into ones own death...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2013 22:02:43 GMT -5
So here’s a puzzler that I’ve been wondering about: Take this: -- What looks through my eyes is the same as what looks through your eyes -- Call it awareness, presence -- (just pointers) -- that’s the ‘what’ in the above line. Now is this awareness 1. absolutely the same thing -- there’s one Awareness and it’s what is looking through both of our eyes. or 2. the same type of thing. Because we both have eyes, brains, etc. we have the same equipment, and awareness is the natural experience or whatever that arises as a result. It’s not the same absolute thing as in #1 because there is no connection. I’m comfortable with #2 but open to see where I’m amiss. It’s the old Agnostic in me. A person raised in a more god-fearing way may prefer #1. whether you believe in a divine or not, you can easily and directly observe a sentient unity to all of creation through simple observation of yourself follow any emotion, sense, or thought back to its source and you will find your own Awareness at their source. Observe Awareness carefully & you will find what every human in history has found who has observed their Awareness closely your Awareness is empty of definable characteristics and does not change or evolve in it's nature or makeup it has no form, and no boundary you can find, in fact, there is no place that you can observe where our Awareness is not. your own awareness is "observably" without form, movement, or location, "it is therefore beyond limitations of space and time" and here is where it gets interesting. everyone's Awareness is the same...not similar, but the same awareness as a continuos unbroken whole How do we know this? everyone's Awareness is without form, definable characteristic, or boundary....observe your own awareness and see if this is not true... this means that your Awareness, and my Awareness, and everyone else's very own intimate Awareness, that is closer than your own skin, that makes up your essential beingness, is all one Awareness...where there is no time, no movement, no boundary, there is no seperation Your awareness and my awareness are not similar to each other, but one and the same the same Awareness that is reading this right now...is the se awareness that is typing this right now... right now, in this very moment, you can turn your attention inward, and both observe, and immerse yourself in that which is the unifying nature of all things in all places in all times, that connects us all together at our source as timeless oneness There is no mystery here, just simple observation by anyone will reveal this to be true your own Essential Nature, that is immanently and easily observable as your own simple Awareness is the limitless, timeless, formless oneness underlying all thoughts, emotions, perceptions Your own Personal Awareness is Universal do you define that which eternally pervades us all and is at the source of all perceivable creation as Divine? if so you can experience the divine in any moment by simply turning inward and being aware of the most mundane and common thing in all existence, your own Awareness....which is beyond time and boundary if your thought paradigm does not include the divine, then simply ponder the magnitude of the observable fact that the observable nature of your own Awareness proves the existence of a universal sentient oneness that pervades us all, without boundary or division, at the source of ALL perception |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 5, 2013 1:16:20 GMT -5
FWIW, it seems to me one can 'tune into' a 'field' or dead person, though what seems absent is what we would call personality. Dear Dude/Dudette, Right. The thing is that the 'tuning into' requires effort and a certain degree of imagination which means after you've successfully tuned into the dead pharaoh vibe it isn't clear at all if you just made that up or if there's really someone answering from the other side. What Esther Hicks calls 'Abraham' is in the A-H teachings referred to as 'Esther's Inner Being' which means the A-H channeling is a talk between Esther and Esther's Inner Being which basically boils don to Hicks-Self-Talk. When Esther puts on the Abraham hat she's just focusing differently (or better stated: defocusing) which results in allowing more subtle thoughts to flow (i.e. 'infinite intelligence') which she isn't allowing in here normaleveryday state of being. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize Maybe we could view consciousness as a repository of all knowledge, (maybe more of a thought/feeling) and it seems like we resonate with certain aspects of it according to our ability and propensity. I speculate that this is the function of all insight and genius as well as deviance. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 5, 2013 1:23:15 GMT -5
Awareness would be the light and the object is what would be focused on. The object is the content of consciousness, which changes and comes and goes, while the light of awareness is always present, even in the absence of an object or focus. Hencely, awareness is what you are, consciousness is what you know. It's fair to say that it is not known if awareness is always present even in the absence of consciousness. Consciousness like everything else that appears in the awareness comes and goes. Who knows death just might be one of those absences of consciousness when the body dissolves. But I don't know... You know that 'something' is present prior to the appearance of anything, as 'something' knows of the onset of that appearance. This means that 'something' is present in the absence of consciousness. We could argue whether it is 'always present' but that idea would be based on time, which is just another appearance. If presence is present now, it is present eternally. 'You' cannot go because you do not 'come'. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 5, 2013 1:28:48 GMT -5
FWIW, it seems to me one can 'tune into' a 'field' or dead person, though what seems absent is what we would call personality. What if it's just a container of ashes? What difference does that make? A person is more like a window on creation, or a viewpoint, than it is an object. Death is an event seen through that window. Nothing actually dies because nothing was actually alive in the sense that we normally mean it. Again, yer already dead. |
|
I think the article wouldn't touch the idea of memories being outside the brain with a 10 foot pole. My proposal of the client-server model is simply to wear away at the reductionist assumption. I have no idea how memories are stored. 
