23 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Is Consciousness Independent Of Form?

 

yes.  I know for a fact..

I'll grant you that.

19 hours ago, Hummin said:

I just got to 7 min of this intervju and was thinking about you. I have seen it before in 2019, and it was just reposted on facebook today. Give it a try

 

 

 

 

 

I got 18 minutes into it.  I'll give you my thoughts on what I've heard so far.  Beyond that, though, it is my opinion that they are so far off with many of their basic premises as to what true reality is that I'm not interested in continuing on to see what other of their ideas I disagree with or what other ideas they come up with which I would consider to be much more in alignment with true reality.

I think their analogy of life as a video game is a poor one.  I disagree with the following:

• The concept of payoff points.
• The idea that evolution is trying to hide the truth from us.
• The evolutionary concept of natural selection, which in my opinion doesn't exist at all.
• Survival being analogous to winning or losing.
• The concept that object of the game is to get to the next [evolutionary, I assume] level.

I disagree with their idea that what we're seeing is not "the truth."  I'd say that what we're seeing is a true representation, in three dimensional symbolic form, of base reality.  I understand what they're trying to express but I think they're using some inappropriate terminology which, I would say, is misleading.  I mean the title itself, "The Case Against Reality," implies that the reality we experience isn't real.  Of course it's real.  It camouflage, yes, but it's real nonetheless.  Physical reality has also been called an illusion, which is not an inaccurate term as it doesn't attempt to delegitimize physical reality and only brings awareness that what we see is only a representation of something else.  That something else being a greater reality.

 

I agree with the idea that physical reality is a camouflage reality in the sense that native reality is non-physical and what we do is translate native reality into three dimensional form.  What we see in physical reality is merely a representation of non-physical reality.  They use the term "icon" whereas I would use the term "symbol."  But if they're suggesting that one is true and the other is not then I would disagree.

They use a computer game representing physical reality in their analogy and what we think we see on the screen being an illusion.  The illusion being composed of pixels and smaller pixels (molecules to atoms to ever smaller particles).  But if one looks behind the screen then they'd be seeing true base reality, which is just a bunch of circuits and software.  Other than using an analogy to describe what base reality is they don't have any real idea of what it is and can only refer to it as "whatever objective reality might be."  And from the language that they use it's then obvious that they're still working within the paradigm of physical reality.  They haven't yet explored the concept, or the idea hasn't yet dawned on them, that base reality isn't at all physical.

 

They claim that if you saw base reality then you would not be able to survive in the game.  That, in my opinion, is pure bunk.  I can understand how they arrived at such a conclusion.  It's because so many of their premises are simply in error.

I agree with their conclusion that space and time are a construct of this reality.

If there's anything I vehemently disagree with it's their idea that our survival is dependent on the requirement that our perception of reality needs to be dumbed down.  I think that's where I stopped the video.

And then there's this statement:

"So if you waste any of your perceptual time and energy on the truth then you are wasting your time and energy."

Whoa!!

Just curious.  Have you attempted to read any of the books I linked to?

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I got 18 minutes into it.  I'll give you my thoughts on what I've heard so far.  Beyond that, though, it is my opinion that they are so far off with many of their basic premises as to what true reality is that I'm not interested in continuing on to see what other of their ideas I disagree with or what other ideas they come up with which I would consider to be much more in alignment with true reality.

I think their analogy of life as a video game is a poor one.  I disagree with the following:

• The concept of payoff points.
• The idea that evolution is trying to hide the truth from us.
• The evolutionary concept of natural selection, which in my opinion doesn't exist at all.
• Survival being analogous to winning or losing.
• The concept that object of the game is to get to the next [evolutionary, I assume] level.

I disagree with their idea that what we're seeing is not "the truth."  I'd say that what we're seeing is a true representation, in three dimensional symbolic form, of base reality.  I understand what they're trying to express but I think they're using some inappropriate terminology which, I would say, is misleading.  I mean the title itself, "The Case Against Reality," implies that the reality we experience isn't real.  Of course it's real.  It camouflage, yes, but it's real nonetheless.  Physical reality has also been called an illusion, which is not an inaccurate term as it doesn't attempt to delegitimize physical reality and only brings awareness that what we see is only a representation of something else.  That something else being a greater reality.

 

I agree with the idea that physical reality is a camouflage reality in the sense that native reality is non-physical and what we do is translate native reality into three dimensional form.  What we see in physical reality is merely a representation of non-physical reality.  They use the term "icon" whereas I would use the term "symbol."  But if they're suggesting that one is true and the other is not then I would disagree.

They use a computer game representing physical reality in their analogy and what we think we see on the screen being an illusion.  The illusion being composed of pixels and smaller pixels (molecules to atoms to ever smaller particles).  But if one looks behind the screen then they'd be seeing true base reality, which is just a bunch of circuits and software.  Other than using an analogy to describe what base reality is they don't have any real idea of what it is and can only refer to it as "whatever objective reality might be."  And from the language that they use it's then obvious that they're still working within the paradigm of physical reality.  They haven't yet explored the concept, or the idea hasn't yet dawned on them, that base reality isn't at all physical.

 

They claim that if you saw base reality then you would not be able to survive in the game.  That, in my opinion, is pure bunk.  I can understand how they arrived at such a conclusion.  It's because so many of their premises are simply in error.

I agree with their conclusion that space and time are a construct of this reality.

If there's anything I vehemently disagree with it's their idea that our survival is dependent on the requirement that our perception of reality needs to be dumbed down.  I think that's where I stopped the video.

And then there's this statement:

"So if you waste any of your perceptual time and energy on the truth then you are wasting your time and energy."

Whoa!!

Just curious.  Have you attempted to read any of the books I linked to?

Well, you got longer than me, 7 min first time, and 12 min yesterday ????

 

I understand the we can see a different reality than what's real, but again, what is a pixel? And a atom is Socalled empty space filled with particles, and maybe the whole universe fits in a middle class car size. What if we just are a computer game, and our conscious is those who pushing us to make points, build societies, conquer, destroy, play false games and so on? 

 

What is the point with everything? 

 

Out at dinner, but what is free will? 

 

 

 

 

Can you have free will if you have consciousness? Or if you have consciousness or your will free? 

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Can you have free will if you have consciousness? Or if you have consciousness or your will free? 

Free will is a primary basis of existence.  Free will is built in.

 

"This is, again, difficult to explain, but free will operates in all units of consciousness, regardless of their degree—but (whispering) it operates within the framework of that degree. Man possesses free will, but that free will operates only within man’s degree—that is, his free will is somewhat contained by the frameworks of time and space."
—DEaVF1 Chapter 5: Session 904, February 27, 1980

 

Evidence of free will is found in the fact that you have choices.  If you did not have free will you would not have any choice.  But, as explained above, free will is limited by the degree of consciousness.

 

"He has free will to make any decisions that he is able to make (intently). This means that his free will is contained, given meaning, focused, and framed by his neurological structure. He can only move, and he can only choose therefore to move, physically speaking, in certain directions in space and time. That time reference, however, gives (underlined) his free will meaning and a context in which to operate. We are speaking now of conscious decisions as you think of them.

 

Each species is endowed also, by virtue of the units of consciousness that compose it, with an overall inner picture of the condition of each other species (pause), and further characterized by basic impulses so that it is guided toward choices that best fulfill its own potentials for development while adding to the overall good of the entire world consciousness. This does not curtail free will any more than man’s free will is curtailed because he must (underlined) grow from a fetus into an adult instead of the other way around.

 

The differences among all species are caused by this kind of organization, so that areas of choice are clearly drawn, and areas of free activity clearly specified. The entire gestalt of probable actions, therefore, is already focused to some degree in the species’ differentiations. In the vast structure of probable activity, however, far more differentiation was still necessary, and this is provided for through the inner passageways of reincarnational existence.

 

Each person, for example, is born with his or her uniquely individual set of characteristics and abilities, likes and dislikes. Those serve to organize individual action in a world where an infinite number of probable roads are open—and here again, private impulses are basically meant to guide each individual toward avenues of expression and probable activities suited best to his or her development. They are meant, therefore, as aids to help organize action (pause), and to set free will more effectively into motion. Otherwise, free will would be almost inoperable in practical terms: Individuals would be faced by so many choices that any decisions would be nearly impossible. Essentially, the individual would have no particular leaning toward any one action over any other (all with emphasis)."

—DEaVF1 Chapter 5: Session 904, February 27, 1980

 

The above will either provide you greater clarity of understanding what free will is and how it functions in practical terms or it will confound you with more questions.

On 12/14/2021 at 8:35 AM, Tippaporn said:

Link all 9 dots using four straight lines or fewer, without lifting the pen and without tracing the same line more than once.

I can do it with 3 straight lines (plus 2 squiggly ones)