internet's effect on the universal conscious

Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:19 am » by **Towelie**

That brought back a lot of Bruce Lee memories, i did 12 yrs Aikido because of him(wanting to be like him lol) didnt we all back then?

I like a lot of the Buddhist and Taoist ideals of mind, body and spirit but although i can appreciate these philosophies i dont see them as an adequate explanation for consciousness.........far from it.

Arisen - ive made similar comments a while back(somewhere in these foums) about consciousness being an emergence(greater than the sum of its parts,) but is it? or are we just missing a method in which to measure it?

Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:36 am » by **Arisen**

towelie wrote:Arisen - ive made similar comments a while back(somewhere in these foums) about consciousness being an emergence(greater than the sum of its parts,) but is it? or are we just missing a method in which to measure it?

I think that by definition a higher form can not be clothed in a lower one without reduction, so direct measurement is not something that we can attain.

What I can say is that our consciousness is bounded by space and time perception.

At a higher level, supposedly, time is perceived as a chain of cause-consequence (not a temporal event) and space is perceived as similarity of form of various qualities (called spatially "close") or disparity of form (called "far").

Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:50 am » by **Towelie**

"I think that by definition a higher form can not be clothed in a lower one without reduction." Quite Agnostic by definition.

Is consciousness bound by our perceptions of space-time, although i am fully aware that i am me in my dreams i/we dont appear to be bound by the dimensions of space-time, so if consciousness is more than merely a state of mind is it realy bound by our dimensional limitations....................or is it just 1:50am and ive drank way too much vodka.

Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:03 am » by **Arisen**

towelie wrote:"I think that by definition a higher form can not be clothed in a lower one without reduction." Quite Agnostic by definition.

that is pretty sharp :flop:

towelie wrote:"Is consciousness bound by our perceptions of space-time, although i am fully aware that i am me in my dreams i/we dont appear to be bound by the dimensions of space-time, so if consciousness is more than merely a state of mind is it really bound by our dimensional limitations....................or is it just 1:50am and ive drank way too much vodka.

I think you hit the nail on the head:

How do we define infinity? Is it when time lasts infinitely or when there is no time and it equals zero? How can it be that when I love her, I spend seven years working for her, and in my perception these years fly by? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t this time last infinitely long because it will take seven years before we will be able to be together?

In reality, infinity is when time reduces to zero. We believe that infinity is something infinitely distant because we imagine that the end (death) is pushed beyond infinity. We perceive infinity in this way because our perception is shaped from lack rather than fulfillment.

Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:13 pm » by **Arisen**

In support of this view that infinite time is when time shrinks to zero, not when it lasts forever, think about this, the more pleasure we get the more time goes by quicker. - the law of relativity in human nature

When we are completely fulfilled with pleasure (say.... orgasm) well... time seems to stop. It's like reaching the speed of light in physics when time stops. Enlightenment? Tantra Yoga? etc

you see then how the possibilities open up, to me all logical reasoning is true...

Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:49 pm » by **Towelie**

Yeah zero is an infinity also so is Pi.

Infinity is an unusual concept, there isnt only infinity there are an infinite amount of infinities.

Draw a box then inorder to make a circle requires an infinite amount of lines of symmetry(we all did this at school at some point,) once youve got that circle draw another box bigger than/outside of the first one and do it again, an infinite amount of lines to make it into a circle.
As the second circle is larger than the first circle it mustve required a larger ammount of infinite lines inorder to make the circle - one infinity bigger than the other.