Page 2 of 5 <12345>
Topic Options
#114324 - 09/12/17 07:07 PM Re: T-Fields [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Phoenician Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/16/17
Posts: 54
Loc: CA
I get the concepts your putting forth here, but am stuck at "contrived".

You can talk on about SU/OU emanations of manifold concsiousness, and an essance that exists sans its biological container, but I will never see anything that is not the equivalent of what Dimitri pointed out.  Only beyond simple adding and into multivariable non linear equations.

 Quote:
Your individual MindStar is eternal and immortal; it has no "beginning" and no "end".


So what are you saying???

Concsiousness exists as a measurable wave in the physical universe, but is also an immortal soul thing that is really your eternal being at a higher state?

Is it like the "Dead Like Me" diner?

What makes this life so important?
Did it wait 13.6 billion years to use a vessel?

But enough of that...

 Quote:
In the "supracosmos" above and beyond the OU are the [natural] neteru who estanlish it and enforce its consistency & regularity: "Natural Law".


Once again, what Dimitri said. You added variables to make the equation work...

Similar lines of thinking are used in most theoretical physics too.  Add another dimension, it will totally work.

But seriously...

Why do people need a designer to explain symmetry? Mass is an accident, a byproduct of quantum fluctuation and cosmic inflation. Why can't it be, "Mass is organizing itself in a way that seeks to nullify it's own existance."?

A universe of stuff that wants to be a supermassive black hole. With mass/gravitation comes value. With value comes an observable balance and spectrum.

That it exists is the source of balance, with nothing else needed.

I don't need an extra level of whatever to tell me why after 1000 spins it's always something like; 46% Red, 51% Black, and 3% Green

Although I might have entirely missed what you're saying.

_________________________
14 6

Top
#114326 - 09/12/17 11:45 PM Re: T-Fields [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2593
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
[s][/s]
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Ok, so if rational thinking, logic, empericism, natural law,and the scientific method are all useless to grep these concepts, I'm still at a loss to distinguish where exactly it lays it's metaphorical head.

You say a subjective universe is infinite, yet there is very little variance in human behaviour. We are all bound by the same biology and the same laws of physics. Our entire experience and frame of reference are bound by certain conditions. Even this very conversation.

Everything you imagine and think about is connected to this, very physical, experience.

That people would rather it be otherwise has no bearing on the matter insofar as observable and experienced reality is concerned. Billions of Christians and Muslims and Hindus would also prefer to be special eternal creations rather than the meat machines we seem to be, yet they all hit the same wall that you have; when you strip away the rhetoric, the what ifs, we are left with an empty pot.

In other words, like the good Dr. Jessup, you want to FTF:

 Originally Posted By: Edward Jessiup, Ph.D., Altered States
I’m a man in search of his true self. How archetypically American can you get? Everybody’s looking for his true self. We’re all trying to fulfill ourselves, understand ourselves, get in touch with ourselves, get ahold of ourselves, face the reality of ourselves, explore ourselves, expand ourselves. Ever since we dispensed with God, we’ve got nothing but ourselves to explain this meaningless horror of life. We’re all weekending at est or meditating for forty minutes a day or squatting on floors in a communal OM or locking arms in quasi-Sufi dances or stripping off the deceptions of civilized life and jumping naked into a swimming pool filled with other naked searchers for self. Well, I think that true self, that original self, that first self, is a real, mensurate, quantifiable thing, tangible and incarnate. And I’m going to find the fucker!

As another 600Cer pointed out, there is a long history of attempts to physically situate the soul, usually but not always somewhere in the brain. However, and as Dr. S mentions again, the personality & memory have eluded physical localization. You can remove all sorts of brain matter and it's still there. Or somewhere. And it's that "somewhere" that the new field theory is now addressing.

This came about with physical body fields - Dr. Burr's L-fields:

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A., MindWar
As discussed in PSYCON #1, the human body is an electromagnetic machine. As such it both generates and is enveloped by EM fields (EMF), controlling everything from heartbeat and respiration to sleep and female menstrual cycles.

External to the human body, of course, are a great many natural and artificial EMFs, some (such as the Earth’s geomagnetic field) quite substantially larger. Both larger and smaller external EMFs may be weak or strong, and at every instant each human within their range is subject to not just their several effects but combined ones as well.

EMFs are subject to the principle of entrainment, which essentially means that a weaker field exposed to a stronger one will tend to align with it; and even a weaker field, if constant, may entrain a stronger but intermittent or irregular one.

To understand the significance of EMFs to the human body, it is first necessary to appreciate that each such body is not an inert, static clump of permanent matter. It is rather an organic complex in a constant state of reorganization and reconstitution. For instance, human liver and serum proteins are replaced every 10 days, and the whole of the proteins in the body about every 160 days. Moreover these protein molecules are extremely complex devices, not mere raw material; not even a single amino acid can be out of place in the replacement.

To put it another way, there are about 60 thousand billion cells in the human body, and every day about 500 billion of these die and are replaced and rebuilt.

Why? One possibility is that these molecules are so complex that they are inherently unstable and thus are continuously deteriorating. The metabolic system, including the liquid-based transmission of food and raw material throughout the body, is a raging furnace of consumption and regeneration.

How does the body know precisely how to recreate each cell and molecule? It cannot be within the object itself, because an object cannot “organize itself”. The answer lies in the existence of an entire layered network of EMFs throughout and within the body, altogether comprising a “master plan” EMF for it. Dr. Harold Saxon Burr, Professor Emeritus of Anatomy, Yale School of Medicine, named this the L-Field (for “Life-Field”/LF).

What exactly is a “field”?

 Quote:
When something occurs somewhere in space because something else happens somewhere else in space, by no detectible means by which the cause produces the effect, the two events are said to be connected by a “field”.

[Well-known examples being gravity and magnetism.]

In the case of the human body, its organizing system cannot be chemical, because then that system itself would be subject to the same entropic process. Hence there is more to a human being than mere chemistry. It requires an organizing field, not merely an accidental accumulation of proteins; thus the notion of “gene randomness” is invalid.

Organization inherently requires preconception based upon purpose. Thus human physical existence has purpose; it is not accidental. The ancient Greeks identified this as the principle of teloç (telos), signifying the inherent end, function or purpose of every phenomenon. [Its most famous modern refutation is Existentialism, which denies not only any purpose to individual entities, but indeed to existence itself.]

Anything that can organize must necessarily exist before what it organizes. DNA, for instance, contains “building block” codes, but not the “plan” or motivating force to organize an entire human body out of these “blocks”.

If LFs are a natural constant phenomenon, this would account for the general cessation of human physical evolution at least 100,000 years ago [and possibly much longer], as well as for the basic commonality of all human physical construction. Simple Darwinism is inadequate to explain the extreme complexity of higher life, such as development of such mechanisms as Darwin himself called “evolutionary novelties” - the eye and various complex organs. Additionally any such “novelties” would have to occur simultaneously for the whole organism to work together. The odds against this are so high that evolutionists simply bypass the question.

Where MW is concerned, LFs are important because their preservation or disruption immediately/similarly affects the humans within and controlled by those fields. PSYCONs #2 and #3 discuss electrical and magnetic wave phenomena as separate variables; this PSYCON #11 focuses on the entire mix of fields (EM&L) defining, sustaining, and governing each human being, as well as groups of them as extensive as the fields themselves. Identify the field “definition” of each group, and individual elements of it causing discord, destructiveness, or other negative social/behavioral impulse, can be positively corrected.

Even more interesting to MW is the theory that thought itself exhibits properties of a field-phenomenon.

Consider the ability to add 2+2. Like the rest of the human body, the nervous system is also constantly disintegrating and regenerating. So the material of brain cells and connecting nerves may have been completely renewed about 100 times since an adult was first taught addition. As he hasn’t been taught addition all over again 99 times, how does he still know how to add?

This is a question not of mere memory, but of the structure of thought organization and integrity. The interaction and entrainment of such “T-fields” (TF) may account for individuals’ abilities to sense, emulate, or inculcate moods, impulses, desires, and fears in others, both individually and en masse.91 Just as LFs are distinct from the physical body they create and organize, so TFs are superior to and separate from the physical machinery they manipulate and use.92 That TFs also have the ability to entrain LFs may explain the well-known phenomena of mental states affecting bodily harmony and health, and vice-versa, as when bodily energy affects mental alertness.

In this model, therefore, the brain is properly seen as the mechanism used by one’s primary and subordinate TFs for the cataloguing of sensory input and the storage of memory. These are results, not the thing itself, of the self-aware “thinker”, the primary TF which is individual consciousness of identity and being.

Sensory areas of the brain are more or less permanently wired to the respective physical senses, hence their injury or loss is quantifiable and somewhat irreparable. But learning and memory functions are not so localized, as long as enough brain cells remain to be usable. These are used only intermittently and at desire or need.
This is why memory is so subtle and elusive a thought-activity. Memory is the backbone of one’s current situation. It is how one conveniently decides who he is and communicates that to others. But it is still not the nucleus of the conscious self. It is this ultimate self which is the thing that assigns meaning and value to both memory and current sensations.

[The original MW passages contain the footnotes & references.]

TF-theory thus locates the TF external and general relative to the physical brain, though like Bfs it reaches throughout & within.

Like those examples of magnetism & gravity, Bfs & TFs are identifiable by their effects, not by their mechanisms. At some time in the future man may discover instruments to reveal such mechanisms, but we're not there yet.

As noted, the Egyptians perceived the MindStar Emanations in far greater detail than later vagueness concerning the Greek psyche and certainly the rock-bottom J/C "soul". I go into the 8-fold Egyptian definition, as well as telos, in MindStar; but I left these out of MW because they're not necessary to MW PSYCON application and would just [further] distress a non-initiate readership.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#114327 - 09/13/17 12:31 AM Re: T-Fields [Re: Phoenician]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2593
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
I get the impression that most of these questions you can work out methodically for yourself at this point. \:\)

I'll add this: Many people are a bit flummoxed by the non-need for a creator/creation point in time, because we were all brought up on Hebrew linear time: start & stop.

I go into the 4th dimension in detail in FindFar, both OU & SU. In the former it's a simple measurement of change between two 3D objects or locations. Forget all the Einstein BS.

In any SU you create, dimensions 1-4 are infinitely variable at your will. You are the "5D of Imagination", thank you Mr. Serling. \:D

FYI the Egyptian concept of the 4D was circular, and other cultures have also been cyclical. Nice book on all this is G. Whitrow, The Nature of Time.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#114328 - 09/13/17 01:26 AM Re: T-Fields [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3147
To me it seems to jibe with all the "black matter/black energy"-bullshit that is being used to fix an equation to fit a found answer.

It is an intermediary answer which points to an unknown or incomplete knowledge in need for further research... but not to be taken all too serious.

That which raises red flags is the claim of being "metaphysical" while at the same time having physical output. There's a cross-over somewhere which implies quantifiability somewhere.

It might be a fitting answer to you. My mind and knowledge sees the leaps of faith and the holes the position entails.

As said before, it might be a fitting intermediary but I doubt it would be correct.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#114329 - 09/13/17 09:01 AM Re: T-Fields [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6837
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: MA
I'll add this: Many people are a bit flummoxed by the non-need for a creator/creation point in time, because we were all brought up on Hebrew linear time: start & stop.


Since Metaphysics explores the 'why' not the 'how' I don't think it would matter much if we measured time. I think it's only relevant to those that require some affirmative answer for death. What body of evidence should we examine to determine that there's a bunch of conscious nothingness out there some where just waiting for a vessel? Should we believe these past-lives regressionists that always seem to be royalty and never the chamber maid?
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#114330 - 09/13/17 09:27 AM Re: T-Fields [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3924
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:
As another 600Cer pointed out, there is a long history of attempts to physically situate the soul, usually but not always somewhere in the brain. However, and as Dr. S mentions again, the personality & memory have eluded physical localization. You can remove all sorts of brain matter and it's still there. Or somewhere. And it's that "somewhere" that the new field theory is now addressing.


Yet one good whack on the noggin, or a trip into the later stages of Alzheimer's, and 'you' are gone, or radically changed forever.

It doesn't seem all that mysterious to me.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#114331 - 09/13/17 10:17 AM Re: T-Fields [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
entropicmomentum Offline
pledge


Registered: 08/07/12
Posts: 55
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino

As another 600Cer pointed out, there is a long history of attempts to physically situate the soul, usually but not always somewhere in the brain. However, and as Dr. S mentions again, the personality & memory have eluded physical localization. You can remove all sorts of brain matter and it's still there. Or somewhere. And it's that "somewhere" that the new field theory is now addressing.


Personality & memory have been demonstrated to be physically based in the brain. You can remove bits of brain and maintain consciousness, but removing the wrong bits can destroy memory and alter personality.

The point of my reply isn't that because we can't find the soul in the brain the soul must exist outside of the physical body. My point is the existence of the soul is not axiomatic.

Just because there is no specific area of the brain where we can find the seat of consciousness doesn't mean it is external to the brain. There is no reason to believe that consciousness exists as an object, metaphysical or physical. There is no evidence of a ghost in the machine. There is no "I" inside your head behind your eyes.

There is no reason to believe that consciousness is anything more than an emergent property of the brain as a whole. Would you say split brain patients have two souls?
_________________________
We're soaked to the bone in the blood of the innocent.

Top
#114332 - 09/13/17 11:04 AM Re: T-Fields [Re: entropicmomentum]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6837
Loc: Virginia
Considering the central nervous system works together; trying to locate the seat seems futile. Aquino's argument appears to be rooted in Middle Aged knowledge. As if consciousness is an etheric and material thing.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#114333 - 09/13/17 03:09 PM Re: T-Fields [Re: Dan_Dread]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2593
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Yet one good whack on the noggin, or a trip into the later stages of Alzheimer's, and 'you' are gone, or radically changed forever. It doesn't seem all that mysterious to me.

It isn't at all mysterious if your premise is that "you" are nothing more than a brain-turd. ;\)

What you're bringing up here is more precisely disruptions in/of the brain, and/or physical senses in/output. There's a considerable range of literature, from the cautious to the wacky, about "near-death experience", wherein consciousness continues and also may go off in SU directions despite bodily incapacity, anesthetic, etc. Check also into "lucid dreaming". I haven't worked with this much, though other Setians have, with interesting results.

As also mentioned in MS, I'd also recommend the works of Dr. John Lilly, such as his The Deep Self, in which he discusses his sensory deprivation tank work to isolate the consciousness by removing the distractions of the physical senses. He was caricatured in the book/film Altered States. The book is much more thoughtful; the flick is fun but was simplified to make it more of a horror movie.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#114334 - 09/13/17 03:20 PM Re: T-Fields [Re: SIN3]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2593
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Considering the central nervous system works together; trying to locate the seat seems futile.

The CNS is just part of the physical machinery, like the brain. A TF is external and defining, and identifiable by its signature, its results. Think again of gravitational and magnetic fields as simple examples. Despite various speculations, no one's identified their machinery yet either. That's why they're called "fields"; see again my definition of that term above.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#114336 - 09/13/17 06:57 PM Re: T-Fields [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dark Light 444 Offline
pledge


Registered: 08/02/17
Posts: 85
Pretty surprised at the lack of shamanic knowledge going on in here. Indeed, if anyone here lived in the periphery of existence (how do you do that?), or is a conscious, lucid dreamer, then one knows first hand about what Aquino is talking about.

Go ahead and masturbate your temporary meat machines until you are no more.

That's the great thing about consciousness. You are perfectly within your power to exterminate your conscious self, to the point where your awareness (of yourself) lessens more and more to the point where you may just be left with some straggling, few, disconnected memories of that former dying(/dead) self, that then may simply become apparitions; that is, until what's left of your energy field, if there *is* anything worth salvaging left, will be absorbed by a greater, more determined force than your dwindling one.


I think that the cool message here is that, if you ever cared about life beyond this phase, you can do stuff about it. I've been working on mine for a while. I'm all set. So to speak.
_________________________
K.I.S.S.

Top
#114337 - 09/13/17 07:25 PM Re: T-Fields [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3924
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Yes, the brain does all sorts of funky stuff, especially in regard to how we experience things.

This is something I find very interesting, magical even, just not in the same literal sense you seem to. NDEs and lucid dreaming? Really?

I'll stick with workable science, new age nonsense has never done much for me.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#114338 - 09/13/17 07:28 PM Re: T-Fields [Re: Dark Light 444]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3924
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Shamanistic knowledge?

Properly understood as; if I can convince these braves I have magical powers, I won't have to carve canoes anymore!
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#114339 - 09/13/17 08:27 PM Re: T-Fields [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dark Light 444 Offline
pledge


Registered: 08/02/17
Posts: 85
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
Shamanistic knowledge?

Properly understood as; if I can convince these braves I have magical powers, I won't have to carve canoes anymore!


Have fun carving canoes.
_________________________
K.I.S.S.

Top
#114341 - 09/13/17 09:13 PM Re: T-Fields [Re: Dark Light 444]
Kori Houghton Offline
pledge


Registered: 11/23/15
Posts: 71
Loc: East Coast USA
 Originally Posted By: Dark Light 444
Pretty surprised at the lack of shamanic knowledge going on in here. Indeed, if anyone here lived in the periphery of existence (how do you do that?), or is a conscious, lucid dreamer, then one knows first hand about what Aquino is talking about.


Really? I am not convinced that Aquino knows what he is talking about.

I watched the Sheldrake video at the link. While I found it interesting, I could offer alternative explanations for some of the common experiences he mentioned. I think there is something to the TF idea, but no convincing evidence was offered for TFs originating outside the living human body. Of course, your mileage may vary. More so, perhaps, if you've suspended all disbelief by being one of Aquino's "fans".

 Originally Posted By: Dark Light 444
Go ahead and masturbate your temporary meat machines until you are no more.


Wow.

 Originally Posted By: Dark Light 444
That's the great thing about consciousness. You are perfectly within your power to exterminate your conscious self, to the point where your awareness (of yourself) lessens more and more to the point where you may just be left with some straggling, few, disconnected memories of that former dying(/dead) self, that then may simply become apparitions; that is, until what's left of your energy field, if there *is* anything worth salvaging left, will be absorbed by a greater, more determined force than your dwindling one.


No one posting above me, who expressed disagreement with Aquino's theories (beliefs?), said anything about wanting to exterminate any part of their being. If we suppose that Aquino's beliefs about TFs are pretty much spot on, why would we have to do anything about it? If TFs exist as suggested, then all of us are already using them. The idea that humans need a special work-out routine for their consciousness has no more validity than Cher's claim as spokes skelington for a fitness chain in the 1980s "if you don't have time to work out every day, you don't deserve a hot date". Question is, what are you shilling for, Dark Light?


 Originally Posted By: Dark Light 444
I think that the cool message here is that, if you ever cared about life beyond this phase, you can do stuff about it. I've been working on mine for a while. I'm all set. So to speak.


Yeah, sure.
_________________________
Only Man cares for Man; the Universe doesn't give a shit. -- Marcelo Ramos Motta

Top
Page 2 of 5 <12345>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.03 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.