A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

Perhaps Christine could provide a quick synopsis explaining how damaged synapses would compromise the brain's consciousness...

...or how a damaged synopsis would compromise the ability to adequately describe damaged synapses which were in the process of creating a synopsis of the event.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You and Guy got the whole tv analogy all wrong. The TV set is not consciousness, it is the antenna.

TV sets received tv signals from broadcasters, they themselves (tv sets) don't transmit the signals.

And it is the antenna that receives the signal, whether that antenna be built-in to tv or tv is connected to aerial antenna via cable.

As comparison to the brain, the antenna would be like the eyes and ears connected to brain via the nerves, while the TV set itself is like the brain that process the visual and sound that human can understand.

Just as the antenna capture the signal from transmission of the broadcaster, it is the antenna that conscious of the signal, not the TV itself.

Likewise, it is the eyes and ears that make us aware (hence the conscious parts) of the visual and audio, while the brain process what we see or hear.

Damage the tv, and it will not recognise or process the signal received from its antenna. That would be like a person who is brain damaged, are unaware what they can still see or hear.

But if you were to damage the antenna or disconnect it, then it would be like blinding a person or cause deafness.

Since Ben worked with radar and radio communication, he should understand what I am saying about the roles of antenna and tv.

It is not tv itself that receive the tv signal, but the antenna. The antenna is what provide the interface for the tv. So the antenna acts like the eyes and ears of a person, while tv process the signal it get from the antenna, just like the way human brain process the the visual and audio from our eyes and ears.

I don't think either you or Guy understand the tv analogy , because you don't understand the technology.

I think you and Christine are not fully understanding of what the purpose of an 'analogy' or 'metaphor' actually is. I will give you my dictionary meaning of the two terms. a) Analogy....Drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect. b) Metaphor...An expression that is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.

Analogies and metaphors are literary devices that act as a secondary subjects to help in understanding a primary subject, they are not meant to be taken as an equivalent.

For example, someone may say that the working of the human brain is analogous to the working of a computer. This is not meant to be interpreted as an equivalence, only that there are similarities.

 

[godnotgod]

...consciousness originates in the brain, the experiment suggests it may be transmitted to ANOTHER brain.

Oh, really? How's that?

 

[gnostic]

I think you and Christine are not fully understanding of what the purpose of an 'analogy' or 'metaphor' actually is. I will give you my dictionary meaning of the two terms. a) Analogy....Drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect. b) Metaphor...An expression that is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity.

Analogies and metaphors are literary devices that act as a secondary subjects to help in understanding a primary subject, they are not meant to be taken as an equivalent.

For example, someone may say that the working of the human brain is analogous to the working of a computer. This is not meant to be interpreted as an equivalence, only that there are similarities.

I know what a metaphors, analogy and allegory are, but I am pointing out how they are very limited comparisons between reality and symbolic representations.

I preferred reality over symbolic ones.

And Guy and gng's use of tv analogy tends to overlook the limitations.

Take this, godnotgod's post here, for example:

You are missing the point, which is simply that consciousness may not originate from within the brain, as you believe, and may actually originate from outside the brain, as TV signals originate from outside the TV set, and not from within the TV set. The experiment I posted proves the brain is capable of nonlocal communication with other brains.

So what he is saying that communication between one brain and the other, like tv signals correct?

But TV sets are only receivers of signals, there is no communication between one tv and another tv. All TV sets get their signals from the broadcaster, not from each other. Do you get it?

A broadcaster is not a TV set.

You should know, since you had worked with radio communication before. You know as well as I do, that not all devices are equipped two-way communication.

So their analogy falls short.

Perhaps they should have used the mobile phone analogy instead of tv analogy, because TVs cannot communicate with each other.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I know what a metaphors, analogy and allegory are, but I am pointing out how they are very limited comparisons between reality and symbolic representations.

I preferred reality over symbolic ones.

And Guy and gng's use of tv analogy tends to overlook the limitations.

Take this, godnotgod's post here, for example:

So what he is saying that communication between one brain and the other, like tv signals correct?

But TV sets are only receivers of signals, there is no communication between one tv and another tv. All TV sets get their signals from the broadcaster, not from each other. Do you get it?

A broadcaster is not a TV set.

You should know, since you had worked with radio communication before. You know as well as I do, that not all devices are equipped two-way communication.

So their analogy falls short.

Perhaps they should have used the mobile phone analogy instead of tv analogy, because TVs cannot communicate with each other.

The TV receiver analogy refers to the fact the a non-local transmission from outside the TV set may be received and processed, in the same way a non-local transmission from outside the brain may be received and processed. Do you have a problem understanding this?

As far as the brain's ability to transmit as is shown to be the case in the experiment, gng has not in your quoted post, nor in any post that I am aware of, implied that the TV receiver analogy applied to the transmission side of the experiment. Show me where he implied the TV receiver analogy was intended to help explain the brain transmission side of the non-local communications between brains?

 

[godnotgod]

Take this, godnotgod's post here, for example:

godnotgod said: ↑
You are missing the point, which is simply that consciousness may not originate from within the brain, as you believe, and may actually originate from outside the brain, as TV signals originate from outside the TV set, and not from within the TV set. The experiment I posted proves the brain is capable of nonlocal communication with other brains.

So what he is saying that communication between one brain and the other, like tv signals correct?

But TV sets are only receivers of signals, there is no communication between one tv and another tv. All TV sets get their signals from the broadcaster, not from each other. Do you get it?

A broadcaster is not a TV set.

No, that is not the point. All I am saying is that, like the TV signal, which originates from outside the TV set, consciousness may not originate from within the brain as we have been led to believe. Furthermore, the difference between TV signal transmission, and the communication going on in the experiment in question, is that TV signals travel across space in time, but the communication between brains is instantaneous and signal-less; and does not travel across space in time, in the same manner that the response of entangled photons is instantaneous even when apart by millions of miles.

So the only function of the metaphor/analogy is to simply illustrate that consciousness may not be a local phenomenon, but is, in fact, nonlocal. The only thing that makes it local is the self-created principle of "I", a personal view, which is an illusion. Once this is realized, then the only other choice is universal consciousness. IOW, 'you', as 'I' do not actually exist.

The metaphor/analogy cannot be utilized in the manner you suggest, which is that TV sets communicate with one another, and so, as such, is a limited metaphor

 

[Ben Dhyan]

IOW, 'you', as 'I' do not actually exist.

I understand it is universal consciousness that gives to rise to the temporary 'I', but that temporary 'I' to me still can be considered to exist as an evolutionary 'stepping stone', until transcended in union with the universal consciousness.

 

[godnotgod]

I understand it is universal consciousness that gives to rise to the temporary 'I', but that temporary 'I' to me still can be considered to exist as an evolutionary 'stepping stone', until transcended in union with the universal consciousness.

When Nirvana is reached, it is realized there never was a seeker attaining to it. For this reason, it is said that:

"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him"

The seeker called 'I' is nothing but pure fiction. Only Brahman is the true Reality.

Our true nature is not this little localized self called 'I'. It is actually Brahman, playing itself as The Many, seeking Brahman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When Nirvana is reached, it is realized there never was a seeker attaining to it. For this reason, it is said that:

"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him"

The seeker called 'I' is nothing but pure fiction. Only Brahman is the true Reality.

Our true nature is not this little localized self called 'I'. It is actually Brahman, playing itself as The Many, seeking Brahman.

I have a different understanding of what the saying "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him" means! It means for the seeker, the road is their own journey to realization of buddhahood, and therefore the concept of Buddha must be extinguished as a real Buddha is beyond the concept of a Buddha, and does not identify with labels of any description.

This is a particularly important teaching as it is a fact that the siddhis will definitely unfold as the aspirant progresses, and if the aspirant imagines they have arrived, they are deceived. It is the same idea of other teachings about non-duality, the separative 'I' must be extinguished.

The same applies to Christian aspirants, if they think they are Christ, they are lost, they should be taught beforehand..."If you see the Christ on the road, kill him".

 

[Polymath257]

When Nirvana is reached, it is realized there never was a seeker attaining to it. For this reason, it is said that:

"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him"

The seeker called 'I' is nothing but pure fiction. Only Brahman is the true Reality.

Our true nature is not this little localized self called 'I'. It is actually Brahman, playing itself as The Many, seeking Brahman.

I always loved the masturbatory universe model!

 

[ChristineM]

Oh, really? How's that?

Review the experiment YOU cited

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Very interesting RBL, your story resonates with my own general understanding of the principles at work in this area. If you do not mind, I will elaborate. I mentioned Rupert Sheldrake in an earlier post and his research into morphogenetic fields. I suspect he is on the right track and that you are observing a common physical trait that is due to a linage linked to the Ramiro and Ermesinda bloodline.

I spent most of my working life in radio communications, one job involved satellite remote sensing data acquisition and processing. The tech involved processing visible and ir light em spectral and spacial resolution to determine the type and health of plants anywhere the satellite passed over. The processing allows for the inventorying of all plant types based on their reflected spectral resonance. I mention this as an example of a working application using the principle of bio-resonant fields. Sheldrake takes it a lot further and I am sure the intelligence/security systems are all over it, though the science is not in the public domain.

There is another aspect to your story that should be addressed and that is the reincarnation angle. Reincarnation is definitely a reality, but probably nothing like the common understanding. The doctrine of reincarnation and karma is a study in its own right, and I suggest it should not to be dismissed by ignoring the possibility.

I thank you for the leads and i can sure tell you that both of those are out on the table. Both the bloodline hypothesis and the reincarnation process have appeared in the set of information as the ..."expressed" reasons for why this contact is being made. As i was researching those possibilities i picked up a few really unusual items right around that time just by lucky chance that made a rather strong suggestion about the lineage thing. There had been a very strong sense and several indications i might be related to the folks in Colorado whose lineage went back to a village 40 miles from where Ramiro ruled from, a town called Jaca.
I FOUND a possible way i could have gotten crossed up with the people in CO when i found a branch of my family that would have been aunts uncles and cousins that had been living in a small town north of Denver since 1871 with the first of these relatives in that year bearing MY COMPLETE NAME.
I stumbled over it while looking for the other folks' last name!
I found that too. They arrived there, in Longmont CO almost as soon as my family name and the two families have been living there ever since.
My grandfather's 'oldest brother" Clarence actually joined my direct lineage in Texas in 1893 and was then listed as "brother" in the next census seven years later. He was actually the oldest son of the great uncle from Longmont which is further evidence of the family connection to there and possibly to the folks from Denver. Just out of curiosity i asked the guys at the desk of the genealogy department at the library if they had ever seen anyone come to Denver from other states and into the genealogy dept and say that they have had strange experiences and coincidences with people they met there only to later come up in there and find they are dealing with actual long lost blood relatives. (?) The guy said "seven times in the last six years this has happened."
Thank god i'm not the only one.

9:27 AM 8/26/17
OMG! Here it is, i couldn't see this after i mangled the wrong button, i tried to post it and thought i had lost it yesterday.

I really appreciate your interest and input into this as it's the only thing in my reality that behaves the way this does.
I would characterize the behavior of the phenomenon as being very consistent in its information, message and means of delivery.
I would also characterize it as being precisely well timed between just thoughts and actual physical objects, people, random conversations right around that same time that are specific to this set of information and UNLIKE pretty much everything else. I hope i'm making any sense at all to you or anyone about this.
When a thought or a certain set of information comes in on anything or any one, i may have no evidence of that thought having any basis in fact, but if it persists, then i maintain my awareness of it in case anything else i've never heard of or encountered before seems to resonate with it by bearing matching or at least similar information.
For some reason i cannot account for after taking every precaution i can think of based on the scientific method to check for confirmation bias, i keep coming up against the fact that so far, as much is i know how to falsify this in a couple of different ways, including assumption of mental illness or defect..... It has still not falsified in any of its occurrences in nature ant that includes all of our human interactions with one another. Not once, so far as i've been observing it.

I have seen other peoples' coincidences as well 'reflecting' particular recent experiences (and) with specific people. This is extremely rare for me and is maybe only visible to me if i have some knowledge of the specific person or incident by relation to the person experiencing their coincidence. I had this happen some six months after the person's actual experience with a rather scary beautiful girl very mature for her age and radiating in what seemed to be infrared heat. Yep i had seen the real thing with this person while it was occurring, but i basically didn't pay that much attention to it at the time, only saw girl this person later had a very bad 'termination of friendship', i'm gonna say.
The person's mom sent her out of the state to finish her education, so must've been pretty bad. Six months later seven hundred fifty miles away i saw my person again and we were out by a pool in in beautiful upscale surroundings having a family reunion of sorts. I looked over at a far corner of the pool for some reason and i saw a young woman that looked er...(YIKES!)
The woman was extremely similar to the girl my person had had the falling out with, but i could see her clearly and i quickly determined that it was most certainly not the same person. The problem was she was behaving exactly in the same provocative and even alluring behavior i had witnessed before in the person's actual prior incident. Another problem was that she was showing the same amount of interest in both the person and myself, same as before as well. I did not consider this to be my coincidence because it was not primarily or even secondarily my incident. I had concern, but no controlling interest or ability to change any outcomes but one.
The one occurring right at that time by the pool.
I directed my person's attention in the complete opposite direction and NEVER said a word about what i was observing behind her knowing that if she were to see the person i was observing she would have been frightened to sobbing tears, if not immediately, then later. My person was much younger than i was and had never seen anything like that before and i wasn't about to have her introduced to it like that.
No further incident from there, we left before the woman across the pool had built up the courage to come over to us and start a conversation and i was pretty sure from her staring and body language, she was werkin' up to it.
Yes, ...werkin'.

 

[godnotgod]

Review the experiment YOU cited

I wasn't asking about what happened as a result of the experiment; I was asking how it is possible that such a transference could take place at all.

 

[godnotgod]

I have a different understanding of what the saying "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him" means! It means for the seeker, the road is their own journey to realization of buddhahood, and therefore the concept of Buddha must be extinguished as a real Buddha is beyond the concept of a Buddha, and does not identify with labels of any description.

This is a particularly important teaching as it is a fact that the siddhis will definitely unfold as the aspirant progresses, and if the aspirant imagines they have arrived, they are deceived. It is the same idea of other teachings about non-duality, the separative 'I' must be extinguished.

The same applies to Christian aspirants, if they think they are Christ, they are lost, they should be taught beforehand..."If you see the Christ on the road, kill him".

Buddhism teaches to 'put an end to the becoming', and it is this 'becoming' that translates to 'the Buddha on the road'. IOW, there is nothing that becomes a Buddha, as everything is already Buddha-nature. Awakening to that reality is all that matters. There is no seeker in the process of becoming a Buddha. All of those notions vanish (ie; are extinguished) upon Awakening. But the extinguishing also applies, as you noted, to any concept of Buddha.


The same is true in Hinduism. There is no jiva who 'becomes' Brahman. The only truth is Brahman itself. One metaphor is gold. It can be fashioned into gold chain, but the chain is, at all times, gold. The gold has not become a chain.

"form is emptiness;
emptiness is form"


And this applies to the topic at hand as well: nothing has 'become' The Universe; The Universe is itself none other than The Absolute, playing itself as 'The Universe', but we see it through the filters of Time, Space, and Causation, and so we see something 'becoming' something. The rope has not become a 'snake'; there never was a snake from the very beginning.

And lastly, from Huineng, 6th Zen Patriarch, we have:

"from the very beginning, not a single thing exists"

 

[ChristineM]

I wasn't asking about what happened as a result of the experiment; I was asking how it is possible that such a transference could take place at all.

Not my problem, you quoted the experiment to validate your claim a tv set was comparable to a brain
which in no way actually validated it.

 

[godnotgod]

I always loved the masturbatory universe model!

What's that you say? You can relate to such an idea on a personal basis?

 

[ChristineM]

What's that you say? You can relate to such an idea on a personal basis?

Whatever turns you on

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Buddhism teaches to 'put an end to the becoming', and it is this 'becoming' that translates to 'the Buddha on the road'. IOW, there is nothing that becomes a Buddha, as everything is already Buddha-nature. Awakening to that reality is all that matters. There is no seeker in the process of becoming a Buddha. All of those notions vanish (ie; are extinguished) upon Awakening. But the extinguishing also applies, as you noted, to any concept of Buddha.

The same is true in Hinduism. There is no jiva who 'becomes' Brahman. The only truth is Brahman itself. One metaphor is gold. It can be fashioned into gold chain, but the chain is, at all times, gold. The gold has not become a chain.

"form is emptiness;
emptiness is form"

And this applies to the topic at hand as well: nothing has 'become' The Universe; The Universe is itself none other than The Absolute, playing itself as 'The Universe', but we see it through the filters of Time, Space, and Causation, and so we see something 'becoming' something. The rope has not become a 'snake'; there never was a snake from the very beginning.

And lastly, from Huineng, 6th Zen Patriarch, we have:

"from the very beginning, not a single thing exists"

We agree that apparent duality of any kind implies maya, but where we differ is that you appear to be stating that maya does not actually exist.

Can you provide context and link for the statement "from the very beginning, not a single thing exists" attributed to Huineng, as it is, it is meaningless?

 

[godnotgod]

Not my problem, you quoted the experiment to validate your claim a tv set was comparable to a brain
which in no way actually validated it.

No, that is not what I said. A TV set cannot be compared to a brain. But the fact that TV signals do not originate from within the TV set can be compared to the idea that consciousness may not originate ifrom within the brain.

Do you understand the all-important difference here?

I did not quote the experiment to validate that a TV set is comparable to a brain.

But you stated:

... the experiment suggests it may be transmitted to ANOTHER brain.

...which you seem to accept. So if you accept the results of the experiment, I am asking how you suppose that to be possible. If you did not think it possible, you would not accept the results.

 

[godnotgod]

Whatever turns you on

Oh, you too, now, eh?