VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:45 pm
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 9:10 am
VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2023 11:35 pm
We cannot (with human senses) see air, yet we know it is made matter.
We can see a limited range of light, and also know that light is made of matter.
I am not speaking of matter which has being created into functional form (rocks and human bodies as you mention) but matter which has no form, prior to being given form.
well put VV
cause and effect can only really exist if there is real separateness. This separateness is duality: me and you, before and after, this and that, cause and effect. In terms of duality, the mind applies reason and logic, believing that it can predict and control life. But dual separateness and chaos in the mind are illusions: every atom of a separate entity does not consist of thing, plant, animal or human, but of light. There is no separation in light. Where there is no separation, cause and effect are one and therefore not real. Life is light, non-dual
Through the lens of human experience, light has been shown to also exhibit "dual" properties (wave and particle).
This observation would lead one to surmise that the human instrument was designed to "see" things in dualistic measures.
'you', human beings, HAD TO 'mentally construct' a 'separation', and HAD TO name or label absolutely EVERY 'perceived' 'separated thing'. 'you' HAD/HAVE to do 'this' in order to MAKE SENSE, and UNDERSTAND, 'the world' or Universe in which 'you' have FOUND "yourselves" living IN.
VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:45 pm
The question re that (and the thread subject) is "Why would the Source-Creator design these human instruments so that any consciousness experiencing the universe through these, would "see" (experience) things in a dualistic manner?"
In order to COME-TO LEARN, UNDERSTAND, and MAKE SENSE of ALL-THERE-IS.
SEE, although 'you', human beings, NEEDED thee Source-Creator to evolve INTO Existence, thee Source-Creator NEEDED 'you' to COME-TO-KNOW thy 'Self'.
As HOW and WHY WILL COME-TO-LIGHT, SOON ENOUGH for the rest of 'you'.
VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:45 pm
Perhaps "cause and effect" can only be "seen" as "real separateness" through such medium, and an interesting property re that is that we can choose to "see" things as they actually are (non-separate) - while yet encased within a form which is designed to prevent such from at least being obvious to us which explains why Consciousness is actually (first and foremost) the REAL "thing" going on re any experience it might have, and while a medium-suit can inhibit that knowledge, it cannot completely block said knowledge altogether from the physical essence of "what consciousness is".
There ONCE was a 'poster' here, in this forum, who went by the name and label "obvious leo". What 'this one' was CLAIMING and trying to ARGUE FOR here sheds MORE LIGHT here on HOW, and WHY, Consciousness, Itself, IS ACTUALLY (first and foremost) the REAL 'Thing', going on regarding any experience that 'It' does have.
(Which, by the way, what EACH individual 'poster' here is/was at the fundamental EACH CLAIMING, and trying to ARGUE FOR, sheds MORE LIGHT ON what the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY, which HELPED/HELPS in the CAUSING and CREATING of the continually EVOLVING 'eternally Peaceful and Harmonious world'. 'you', posters, literally, do NOT YET REALIZE just how Truly IMPORTANT ALL of 'your' WORDS ARE here.)
VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:45 pm
To explain that "in other words" - I just wrote this, in reply to another in a similar (mirrored) thread on another message board.
Other: And I agree with your perspective to a degree. I would add that it's possible for the first cause to have had both physical and non-physical traits.
Me: You wrote that in the past tense. Did you mean to do that?
Other: Some alternatives I can come up with is that things simply appear physical, but that might not be the reality -
Me: If "something which appears to be physical but isn't", then what is it and why even to say it exists (is real)?
Remember what the thread topic is arguing.
If you can explain how a mind which is not physical in nature can interact with and create functional forms which appear to exist and naturally so, I would be more inclined to follow such reasoning.
Other: The Matrix!
Me: Primarily (and perhaps the authors were unaware they were doing so) the story of The Matrix is telling the viewer-consciousness that one cannot believe their eyes - yet significantly - in the realms we have two main happenings, all participants within those realms not only believing what they consciously experience is "Real" but interacting and even killing each other...
...So I have to ask myself the question...and encourage others to also ask themselves the question. "IF what I experience here on Earth in this [apparently physical] Universe only appears to be physical [real] to me but in actuality is not real at all, THEN what is it that I could ever experience which IS Real?
That thee 'I' EXISTS. Oh, and ALSO, the 'thoughts' EXISTING, which thee 'I' is AWARE or Conscious OF.
If what the 'thoughts/thinking' is OF, EXACTLY, however, is 'real' or not, then that is ANOTHER matter.
VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:45 pm
This thought-question then circles back to the idea (re the thread subject) of the Source of the Matrix in "IT's natural or quintessential state" (timeless, spaceless eternal, imageless, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, and potentially powerful state of pure being.) and said "state of being" should be argued as being the "only REAL "thing" which exists" and the stuff which makes those "creations" appear and be experienced as "real" by the minds which are all related to the Source Mind (re "IT is "Us" incarnate. "We" are "IT" attempting to understand the connection.") is "made real" through the process I mentioned ("When it choses to create (per the subject) when it chose to create this particular universe, IT did so by changing from the one frequency to an incredible range of frequencies, thus "becoming" time, space temporal, imaged, caused, beginning, change, and achieved this "altered state" by releasing the potentially powerful state of pure being into an actuality which it could (therefore) intimately experience.")
'you' are just OVER-COMPLICATING and CONFUSING what IS, ESSENTIALLY and FUNDAMENTALLY, Truly SIMPLE. And, Truly EASY to UNDERSTAND, AS WELL.
VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:45 pm
Other: There's also the concept of emergence which involves new properties and substances coming into existence.
Me: Yes. This is explained re "When it choses to create (or per the subject) when it chose to create this particular universe, IT did so by changing from the one frequency to an incredible range of frequencies, thus "becoming" time, space temporal, imaged, caused, beginning, change, and achieved this "altered state" by releasing the potentially powerful state of pure being into an actuality which it could (therefore) intimately experience."
Other: Earlier you asked for evidence that consciousness is not physical. I view my claim more in terms of being the likely explanation as opposed to being a settled or proven
Me: I was specifically arguing so that you might think deeper about the question. Something about your thought-patterns have you leaning that way.
The path we are claiming to be on, is agnosticism and therein "most likely" is the bias preference, but is it an agnostic perspective?
Other: I think the strongest evidence for that comes from the nature of subjective experience.
Me: What is "subjective experience" IF the experience itself is not able to be experienced as REAL?
Should we suppose that in ITs natural quintessential state IT wonders if IT is "real?
Do 'you' feel an urge that 'you' SHOULD 'suppose' such a 'thing'?
If yes, then do 'you' think or feel that 'IT' has CREATED/CAUSED 'you' to 'suppose' 'said thing'?
VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:45 pm
Do any of us "children" of this Source-Consciousness think that we are "not real"?
Other: Not only is it invisible, but thus far, it has proven to be immeasurable to the point that even scientists eliminated it as a topic of inquiry in the first half of the 20th century. Of course, it has been bought back as a research topic.
When 'this one' speaks OF, 'thus far, 'it' has proven to be immeasurable', do 'you' envision that 'that one' is talking FOR absolutely EVERY one?
VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:45 pm
Me: Would you also argue that we human consciousnesses are "invisible to our own conscious awareness?"
Do 'you' UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCES in the 'see' word?
VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:45 pm
Is the argument also that in ITs natural quintessential state the Source Consciousness creator (re the thread subject) is "invisible" to Its own awareness?
'you', human beings, can 'understand' 'things' without necessarily 'seeing' 'them' with the 'physical eyes'. Do 'you', "vvilliam", 'see' what I MEAN?
VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:45 pm
As to what is invisible to our human-form sensors, when we take into account the restrictive nature of that form we should not be surprised in understanding why human-scientists "turn a blind eye" re factoring in the thread subject...
(1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.)
...when they are "doing their science".
Other: I also brought up hallucinations earlier. The reason I think that serves as a example of the non-physical is because they are not real.
Me: If one were to argue that the physical universe is non-physical and is simply an "hallucination" (re Matrix) please agree with me that the only explanation for that would have to be "what makes something "appear to be real" has to itself be REAL.
It would be FAR SIMPLER and EASIER for "others" to AGREE WITH 'you' here if 'you' did NOT USE Truly ILLOGICAL and NONSENSICAL WORDING like; ' the physical universe is non-physical and is simply an "hallucination" (re Matrix)'.
VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:45 pm
Other: You can't observe or measure something that is not real so in that sense hallucinations are non-physical, by definition.
Me: This argument is debunked through the understanding that The Source Creator n "IT's natural or quintessential state" (timeless, spaceless eternal, imageless, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, and potentially powerful state of pure being.) cannot "observe or measure" what IT is, and thus is an "hallucination" and "non-physical".
BUT, 'IT' CAN 'observe and see' who AND what 'It' IS, EXACTLY, and thus SEE, and UNDERSTAND, Itself, AS WELL. And this IS BECAUSE 'It' IS, OBVIOUSLY, EXISTING. Remember what 'the creator' can be 'observed and created' through and by 'its' CREATION.
For examples, or for actual proof, like for ALL and EVERY 'thing' I SAY and CLAIM, then do NOT FORGET to JUST ASK FOR 'them'.
VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:45 pm
Specifically, my argument is that anything which can be created and experienced as REAL must therefore be made of the same stuff (physical).
Do 'you' HAVE a sound AND valid argument for this CLAIM of 'yours' here?
If yes, then will you provide 'it' here for 'us' to take a LOOK AT 'it' and to DISCUSS 'it'?
VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 7:45 pm
That incredible variation of physical stuff is the way it is due to what we call "vibration" of the original state of the particle before it is quantized into 'many things which can be experience by said mind as "real".
1. WHY do 'you' persist with the 'vibration' word here?
2. WHY do 'you' presume or believe that there was some so-called 'original state', which has changed?
3. WHY do 'you' presume or believe that is the 'mind' that perceives what is 'real' or not?
well put VV