2. Any kind of a plane of consciousness or GOD or an afterlife needs a support system that looks like a brain, but is presently undetectable. So I used the idea of rolled up universes that can unroll or unfurl with a little bit of energy. At the extreme, they can unroll so far that they transmute or change into a big bang. If they fall short, they break up into particles which can become building blocks. If you'v ever looked at organic chemistry, amazing and miraculous stuff happens that leads to biochemistry. I am hijacking neuroscience and saying that a plane of consciousness or an infinite brain can form on its own. But it's not made of carbon, it's made of a large Elemental table of the primary universe. Ours is a secondary universe.
Hi David,I think the problem with that approach, is that you will end up with something that is far too much like the physical universe we already know about. Made like that, it will be subject to the same sort of rules (mutatis mutandis) as the world we know. If in the other realm, consciousness is fundamental, it simply can't be constructed out of astral neurons that run on astral biochemistry. It may even be a timeless realm! It is best to focus on what a world actually built out of consciousness will look look like.
Remember that if the non-physical is fundamentally about consciousness, in all probability physical reality is too - it is just harder to spot that this is so.
I know what you mean about biochemistry - I took chemistry to PhD level. Michael does too - I always wonder how the chemistry inside the body manages to run for any length of time without drowning in unwanted bi-products of all kinds!
David
remove noise from the signal.
Information doesn't have feelings or experience anything - look at a library and ask how much awareness it has!Speaking of which, I'm starting to wonder if maybe the substrate of everything isn't "consciousness", but rather -- information.
Information doesn't have feelings or experience anything - look at a library and ask how much awareness it has!
Yes, I think this notion comes directly from physics. They flirt with the idea that consciousness is important, but call it information because it feels safer!Right - and it's also intangible and causally inert. I don't see how it could give rise to the tangible and causally efficacious.
great point. I think remote viewing is another example where they used "science" to remove noise from the signal.
I with you on this too. Isn't precognition time travel?
I agree SF was far too keen on the tools of war, and the idea that we could fight off such aliens is really crazy.
David
Grant Cameron – Classified documents suggest UFO ... - SkeptikoSorry but I got absolutely nothing new from this at all, having heard Stan's lectures over the years.
I agree with whoever it was back thread who said - 'same old, same old'
I was looking forward to what Alex trailed about the consciousness connection which when it came to it, came down to a couple of sentences and Stan being truthfully honest saying something like 'I'm a nuclear physicist - what do I know about that?'
Like others have said here I'm pretty sure that if consciousness is fundamental then it precedes nuclear physics and all other nuts and bolts stuff and Stan is riding the wrong horse.
I'm also rather baffled by the either/or choice of nuts and bolts or non-physical mind stuff.
Even many physical sightings have the objects disappearing into apparent nothingness which suggests it's all a spectrum - mind merges into matter and vice-versa.
I'd really like to hear Alex talk to somebody like Grant Cameron who seems to have 'got this' while still having his finger on the nuts and bolts pulse of UFOs.
we've been in contact... he's great... but he was a big Hillary fan and didn't take the Podesta stuff well/correctly IMO.Whoops! Sorry Alex - must remember to do my homework first!
Hope you get him back on to tackle the latest developments.