|
Post by enigma on May 28, 2014 10:39:30 GMT -5
Frog diplomacy!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 28, 2014 10:43:54 GMT -5
Yea, that's pretty far out there. With a detector there, you have a particle (going through one of the slits). With no detector there, you have wave (going through both slits). You can put the detector at either slit. But sometimes the particle goes through the hole which doesn't have the detector. The question is, how did the particle/wave know it had to become a particle, if the detector was at the other slit, and not the slit it actually went through? sdp It's 'cause there ain't no particle or observer or slits or movie screen! It's all just a little greasy spot! NOW yer talkin my language. Hehe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 12:20:35 GMT -5
The thing with physicist's is that they see life as having no properties except for mathematics. A problem arises when we ask them about the sweet smell of a rose. Or why satin feels so silky. That's also why science cannot find the seat of consciousness in the brain.. It's not just scientists, I can't find it in or outside of the brain either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 12:29:52 GMT -5
That's the very same awareness we are talking about. Pretty much everyone that's talking about awareness is saying " stop thinking about awareness and focus on being aware". That's all ATA is. Anything beyond that, postulations about Awareness being one awareness between us all, awareness being a soul or spirit or God, its all mental masterbation. A distraction for the mind to keep its focus on thoughts instead of abiding in that direct awareness. While the mind is fixated on building pretty concepts and organizing thoughts, it will never be completely satisfied with simply being alive, awake, aware. yup I agree, I'd just add that the value in thinking or conceptualizing awareness is that it is one of only two concepts that actually refer to something real. All other concepts can't say that. There is only one other concept that refers to something real.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 12:32:06 GMT -5
That's also why science cannot find the seat of consciousness in the brain.. It's not just scientists, I can't find it in or outside of the brain either. Haha, a fun game is to pick any object in the room, even a wall, and look for your own awareness in it...your awareness is within everything you perceive, and everything you perceive is in your awareness. Interestingly though, when you try this experiment, wherever you focus your attention seems to become 'your seat of awareness/consciousness' .
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 28, 2014 12:43:27 GMT -5
Yes, the adventures we take into belief systems (aka Religion, politics, philosophy, spirituality) is taking the long way home. And for the intellectually curious there's gonna be a road. ======================================= Some streets, like the unexpected wave nature of matter, will turn in a direction back toward the beginning. Science will never stop exploring, but now we do know this place for the first time. On the question of what it is that what appears to us can tell us of ourselves, those that are interested in looking openly and with sincerity -- those who are interested in testing their beliefs about what they think they know against what they see using skepticism -- can decide if they want to trust the giants of the past or not. Other streets, with names like "everything is conscious energy" or "the principle of self-organization" or "omnipresent subjective Mind" or "Life/nature balances itself" or "random order becomes self-aware through the modulation of the vibration of consciousness" or "perfect 3D Cosmic memory" ... well ... That's one of my faves ^ ^ ^ ~~~<3 Yeah -
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 13:21:22 GMT -5
Yea, that's pretty far out there. With a detector there, you have a particle (going through one of the slits). With no detector there, you have wave (going through both slits). You can put the detector at either slit. But sometimes the particle goes through the hole which doesn't have the detector. The question is, how did the particle/wave know it had to become a particle, if the detector was at the other slit, and not the slit it actually went through? sdp It's 'cause there ain't no particle or observer or slits or movie screen! It's all just a little greasy spot! Wait a minute, if there's no observer how do you know "It's all just a little greasy spot"??
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 28, 2014 15:14:31 GMT -5
It's 'cause there ain't no particle or observer or slits or movie screen! It's all just a little greasy spot! NOW yer talkin my language. Hehe. at zero, all manner of thing is well and mischief abounds in all directions therefrom. The word "creation" seems to have been a culprit in our other dialog in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 28, 2014 15:17:19 GMT -5
And for the intellectually curious there's gonna be a road. ======================================= Some streets, like the unexpected wave nature of matter, will turn in a direction back toward the beginning. Science will never stop exploring, but now we do know this place for the first time. On the question of what it is that what appears to us can tell us of ourselves, those that are interested in looking openly and with sincerity -- those who are interested in testing their beliefs about what they think they know against what they see using skepticism -- can decide if they want to trust the giants of the past or not. Other streets, with names like "everything is conscious energy" or "the principle of self-organization" or "omnipresent subjective Mind" or "Life/nature balances itself" or "random order becomes self-aware through the modulation of the vibration of consciousness" or "perfect 3D Cosmic memory" ... well ... That's one of my faves ^ ^ ^ ~~~<3 Yeah - Have fun out there lost in the weeds!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 28, 2014 15:18:08 GMT -5
I agree, I'd just add that the value in thinking or conceptualizing awareness is that it is one of only two concepts that actually refer to something real. All other concepts can't say that. There is only one other concept that refers to something real. American Idol?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 28, 2014 15:20:09 GMT -5
It's 'cause there ain't no particle or observer or slits or movie screen! It's all just a little greasy spot! Wait a minute, if there's no observer how do you know "It's all just a little greasy spot"?? (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 28, 2014 18:14:01 GMT -5
It's not just scientists, I can't find it in or outside of the brain either. Haha, a fun game is to pick any object in the room, even a wall, and look for your own awareness in it...your awareness is within everything you perceive, and everything you perceive is in your awareness. Interestingly though, when you try this experiment, wherever you focus your attention seems to become 'your seat of awareness/consciousness' . Do you then kind of get the feeling that the object is kind of looking back at you?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 28, 2014 20:58:24 GMT -5
From Wikipedia:
Awareness is the word commonly used to describe perception and the information revealed through perceiving, and perception is not limited to the human's physical senses.. redefining the common meaning of 'awareness' to suit a particular set of beliefs is a choice that incites conflicting understandings, a self-evident consequence of the choice.. 'awareness' is a poor choice of terms for describing a 'unified field', when the term 'unified field' already works so well.. keep it simple..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2014 15:34:41 GMT -5
From Wikipedia: Awareness is the word commonly used to describe perception and the information revealed through perceiving, and perception is not limited to the human's physical senses.. redefining the common meaning of 'awareness' to suit a particular set of beliefs is a choice that incites conflicting understandings, a self-evident consequence of the choice.. 'awareness' is a poor choice of terms for describing a 'unified field', when the term 'unified field' already works so well.. keep it simple.. There is really only two things that I know from an experiential perspective. The first is that what I'm seeing with my eyes, "IS". I may not know what it "IS", but whatever it "IS", it "IS". Secondly, there is the awareness of "IS". So whatever it "IS" there is awareness of it. The rest is all conceptual.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 2, 2014 17:39:15 GMT -5
From Wikipedia: Awareness is the word commonly used to describe perception and the information revealed through perceiving, and perception is not limited to the human's physical senses.. redefining the common meaning of 'awareness' to suit a particular set of beliefs is a choice that incites conflicting understandings, a self-evident consequence of the choice.. 'awareness' is a poor choice of terms for describing a 'unified field', when the term 'unified field' already works so well.. keep it simple.. There is really only two things that I know from an experiential perspective. The first is that what I'm seeing with my eyes, "IS". I may not know what it "IS", but whatever it "IS", it "IS". Secondly, there is the awareness of "IS". So whatever it "IS" there is awareness of it. The rest is all conceptual. And the conceptual is absolutely necessary. sdp
|
|