The wisdom position; decision maker or advisor? …Or other
Advisors; if you’re a decision maker then you can make a wrong decision even if by all knowledge it’s the right one. Better to give advice as then when someone else makes a decision you can then advise on what went wrong.
On the other hand an advisor can be blamed for giving the wrong information, even if they cleverly gave multiple options.
Strangely the wisdom position in my mind belongs to something within the inner voice, it is that which has no position, gives no advice nor is the decision maker of the mind. It seams to kinda hang loose there, and as I listen I only know its that at work when I am not getting specific advice or what have you.
Not sure how to explain that. But I suppose everything I think is in some way not entirely true, yet I sense a truth between the untruths - so to say.
What’s the wisdom position in your mind and in general do you think?
If you were given that inner truth, then any manner of explanation or expression of it, would not be it, yet ‘it’ is never the same.
How did the bible writers and such get past this! How ‘to convey‘ meaning without translation or changing it in any way?
.
Hey there Mr. lower prefrontal cortex…a.k.a. Intuition.
You can’t.
You have to accept that when you create a current, that the water will only reflect the general motion of the current; but not the exact form of the current.
You have to be OK with buckshot rather than sniper-shot, and figure out how to accomplish effective buckshot aim.
I suppose this is a silly question to ask you, but do you think intuition is limited to the brain?
Indeed is cognition limited to that, I.e. can informational thought act aside from brain functions [whilst still utilising them].
Well I have experienced direct communication, but I wouldn’t say it would be wisdom to use it if I were god. …or at least that much of the bible is not derived from that. …but anyways I have no way of showing that, so lets do an experiment;
If we directly connected two brains together at the appropriate regions, the place where our words derive from would have nothing between them to dilute/subject the info. …or if we fused two brains together [I can remember the case of conjoined twins who used the same brain].
Surely god would be even closer than ‘physically connected’ can possibly get?
No, but yes.
Yes, in that the processing that feels like intuition to us is in our brain.
No, in that the senses that are feeding in the information that the implicit processes of the brain pre-weight are not located in the brain.
Yes, cognition is limited to the brain.
It is not so much just information, as all matter has this, but instead what is referred to as executive decision that only resides in the Brain.
There is simply no other organ in our body that is designed specifically for the purposes of making critical decisions.
Intuition is a process? of or like cognition? I think of it more as something I’d think about ~ the subject matter* or whathaveyou.
Sure, the info which composes intuition* may be that, though that would limit our scope to such derivatives multiplied by what we can concoct from that limited set. Do you think we are so limited?
If there is a communicative layer through all reality, then we are connected to that [‘all’]. I am not sure if our consciousness is purely limited to informations given only from the brain and senses, it has the ability to read info, so it is only limited to such physical info because it relies upon it. I cannot see how consciousness is otherwise limited but by itself and its known means.
On the other hand there may be no means it is aware of by which it can transmigrate its connections with the brain and interact with the communicative layer outside of that. It would seam that although it is touching that layer it cannot cognate informations directly, and that is why we have the vague thing we call ‘intuition’!!!
This is also why we can love etc without it being purely internal. We do touch the world.
.
This also relates to intellect as outside of brains [god?].
What we see as the colours in the world, do not physically exist, yet they do ‘exist’ ~ they are a thereness. Equally perception cannot be defined as physical, knowing, experiencing etc. though I agree calculating/processing is done by the brain, I think its also done aside from the brain and in terms of our mental qualities which we know are part of the world, but are not physical.
Yes, intuition is your implicit mind.
For instance, if you walk past something and were busy doing other things; that information of what you walked past is still logged into your brain.
The difference is that because you were not directly paying attention to it, it saved to implicit memory rather than explicit memory.
And in implicit memory, words don’t really exist; “thoughts” don’t really exist.
The sensations are collected and stores as they were for that object.
When you do something later that may relate to that object, you may have an decision to make regarding the subject of that object.
If you cannot recall anything about it useful cognitively, then your intuition will kick in by offering up the weighted value of the sensational implicit information regarding that object from earlier.
And here’s Prof Gerard Hodgkinson’s work on Intuition. Intuition: A fundamental bridging construct in the behavioural sciences nif-dev-web.nbirn.net/about/publ … uition.pdf
Which you can also find in book form.
That is a very, very big “if” that is not even reasonably imagined.
And that multiple is so diverse of an algorithm that it has produced over 100 billion people on the planet and has not repeated one perspective entirely.
A multiple of 2 is seemingly nothing, but when you realize that you are looking at a multiple of 2 algorithms, then millions, then billions, and that’s just one person (possibly trillions).
Then you multiply that by every human being that has lived.
Ah yes all that derren brown stuff comes to mind ~ where he utilises this to do magic.
That however is not what I am thinking of when I think of intuition ~ though it may well be influenced by it. For me yes, intuition can be a way in which the brain does some saving and calculating whilst the conscious mind is not present. But I see it as new informations sometimes caught on the fly [in the moment] and sometimes whilst in deep contemplation.
Not sure what to say, it all depends on weather or not we do have a consciousness, and that that is not 100% dependent on what info it yields from the brain. …if we really can think outside the box in some way.
To me it sounds like the current definition of intuition refers to what I’d call the ‘sleepwalking robot’ ~ it’s the brain working in a similar way to how it does with the consciousness but when that is not present.
.
Hmm I thought I had spoke about this ‘communicative layer’ at length before. Anyways it would seam that there are two main things in the world, objects and info, then that there are correlations between the two, they relate to one another etc. hence it would be reasonable to assume that those correlations and relationships would involve a third factor, namely the communicative layer I spoke of.
Consciousness also relates to both info and objects, and so it is either part of that communicative layer or a forth factor in the equation which relates to the other three.
Either way it seams reasonable enough to me that consciousness can and indeed may only ’know’ things derived from that.
.
Well in math it would seam that very large numbers can be reduced to simpler patterns, mores the point that if contained a set becomes increasingly limited. We wouldn’t be able to think of new things. …and we’d notice such limits because they are paralleled by an equally or even more vast amount of brain processes in the collective.
Both are what I was referring to.
The example that I gave was just one such example.
A really good example case was an indie car driver that avoided a crash.
He stopped his car without any warning and missed a pileup that he would have been involved in if he hadn’t stopped.
The problem started out of his field of vision, and he was not aware of it at all.
He could not explain why he felt so extreme of a sensation to stop suddenly.
They hauled him back in and ran simulation tests reconstructed from video of the day of the accident and discovered that what his implicit and subconscious network in his brain took note of was the crowd.
The crowd was all looking the wrong direction and not reacting the way the crowd normally reacts to races.
This caused his intuitive processing (the DMN) to kick into gear a heavily weighted alert through the amygdala that rushed to the lower prefrontal cortex, and then pushed the urgency to stop without explanation but only emotional urgency, to his cognitive processing.
This is yet another example.
Intuition applies to every facet of our brain.
It’s defined property is that it uses the sub-cognitive processing networks of our brain, largely the same areas defined as the DMN, to accomplish a decision that is only produced to the cognitive brain as a simple command that is often lacking in articulated thought and usually is largely described to the cognitive as mostly an emotional sensation with only conceptual ideas to follow.
This is because the pre-cognitive part of our brain, which governs routing information many seconds before cognition kicks in, doesn’t use cognitive language and speaks mostly in the language of value weights and counter weights.
These weights are accomplished through our emotional system; the amygdala.
So it is not akin to how our cognitive brain works as it lacks the slower speed executive processes which employ critical thinking.
You have.
I’m just saying that such a concept is a rather large if.
We haven’t any idea if such a thing actually exists.
Another consideration for you though for your theory.
Or, have you considered the possibility that in your theory that consciousness may itself be the communicative layer between information and an object?
Ergo why I stated an algorithm.
Look at the hand print section.
In there I discuss what you call, “thereness”.
In that thread, I referred to the same concept as “presence”.
Interesting examples of intuition there, I think I’m thinking of something else ~ a way of imagining, but I have no word for it. I take great care to ensure that visualisations are not purely brain functions [just as colour is not], but no doubt I need to understand more.
The functions of the intuition reminds me of symbology we were speaking of on another thread. For our slow ole consciousnesses to act effectively in the world, there needs to be far faster systems available to underpin it.
.
.
Yes I thought I gave that option or a fourth? Sorry for not being able to explain myself effectively.
I assume that somehow consciousness in that layer is localised e.g. to our brains, but that in the theory it seams to be otherwise universal?
If this is true then we are connected to the entire layer but do not have access to external informations directly, hence its plausible that inspiration may be extrapolated from that.
I don’t know if this will make sense, but I think we can achieve greater clarity of such informations by mapping our ideas in a manner which assumes a parallel in that communicative layer. Kinda like talking to god. Its as if info can be thought of as like locations on such a map, such that connecting to that location may give you some access to local informations particular to its spatial location on the map.
It seams to work best when one thinks about something possibly unknown.
.
Ah okey dokey.
Ps, presences are always a thereness but a thereness need not be a presence.
.
As I wrote in the other thread, intuition is just the term for the communication between subconsciousness and consciousness.
What you are probably trying to convey is the exact sensation of the subconscious “thought” itself.
That is indeed a very, very difficult thing to articulate.
OK…this is by no means ready for display, but you would probably find this interesting.
It shows a physical map of relationship between the various primary spiritual perspectives in respect to what I refer to as the “current of existing” (the big blue oval).
Judaism, for example would be the brown.
Buddhism, the orange.
Paganisms, the black.
Many Native American practices, the green.
Things like Bahai/Unitarianism are the Yellow.
The blank/white is representational of the beginning of the “current of existing”, but is no belief itself - at least at this point.
The blue in the middle is a conceptual placeholder for a concept I’ve been discussing over in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=175997
I know your thinking on that. I just use the term “presence” to refer to both interchangeably.
Sometimes I clarify by stating the “sensation of presence”.
No not that either, but info purely of the consciousness to consciousness kind, like love or faith in the divine, or as I say a connection with the conscious or otherwise communicative universal layer of reality.
I love the image, interesting use of colours there. The blue I assume is the actual experience and the orbs how that is experienced according to given traditions?
This is not exactly the mapping I meant but is nevertheless very interesting and most probably part of the same thing.
Sure thang, my version is more vague yours more specific/expressive, its good there are both.
I am still clinging on to ideas of the consciousness being non physical [as colour], but I don’t want to keep dragging it up, perhaps I need to focus on the material side before I delve into what may or may not be part of that.
Meaning, you can’t convey the religious impression through consciousness alone.
Though I’m not entirely certain that I have your impression well comprehended yet, so I could still be missing the mark of the tangent.
The blue oval is the conceptual representation of existing, regardless of perspective; just existing.
It represents the cardinal facts of existing.
Birth, Growth, Death; for instance.
Start, Middle, End.
It is stretched out to represent all of these frozen at once conceptually; like throwing all pages of Hamlet in one long chain together.
The orbs represent the perspective of the “current of existing”, typically, of each spiritual interest.
For instance, the paganisms family and their kind (the black orb) is down near the beginning and has a swoop in front and behind it down into the current.
This is because these perspectives either attempt to discern where the current is heading (the swoop above [in front of] it) or attempt to alter where the current will be headed by pushing into the current (the swoop below [in back of] it).
They are at the near beginning of the current because the general perspective is interested in a form of control over the fate of the current (fate of life) in some respect.
The green is that which tries to live with the current passively to sustain existence with preservation of both the current as it is (often thought of as nature, like the Native American traditions at large) and the adherents of the perspective.
As such, they are near the end of the current to represent their interest in preservation; aiming for the longest range of existence possible, and also representing their acceptance of what the current of existing brings their way; a recipient.
They are akin to the paganisms in the front and back swoops as they dip into the current to discern where the current is going (front swoop), or push into the current to take away from it (back swoop) to sustain.
Christianity, as one representative of the Brown orb types, is more radically interested in preservation of the adherents; specifically beyond the current of existing.
These perspectives are interested in outlasting the current; surviving beyond it.
Indeed, even seeing the current as the launching pad that thrusts them into outlasting the current (somewhat like the water that brings the “walking fish” to land).
As such, there is no swoop of taking from or pushing into the current with these perspectives, as these perspectives are not generally interested in the current of existing itself, or how to discern it or push into it - but instead interested in discerning outlasting it and finding the best trajectory for launching out from the end of the current of existing.
Buddhism, as one example, is the orange and is rotating all over the current and is representing not being at any one place in the current, but everywhere on it, and in all angles.
This is representative of the perspective that sees the current of existence as temporal and adjusts the adherent’s perspective to accept the temporal state of the current and instead to be with the current and not with the current at the same time; to be a flow with and around the current of existing transitively.
Consequently, this type of orb of perspective generally has unique insights about the current of existing that are rather provocative to many of the other orb perspectives which may largely stay in one spot in relation to the current of existing.
The blue orb in the middle is an idea I’m working on at this point of a perspective of being the current directly; not working with the current in some fashion; but instead being it itself.
And of course, the community builders are the yellow - they are those perspectives that see everyone united so they dabble in them all.
These are somewhat the “informers”, or facilitators of information between forms of perspectives.
It is a map that tries to visualize our ontological perspectives as an amoebic behavior in a trapped ecosystem of interdependence.
Or, as I think of it metaphorically; the big whale, the ecosystem that emerges from the big whale, and the look of that ecosystem in action with all life variations in motion at the same time.
Naturally that’s true, in fact it would be very odd if there were no relationship between the experiencer and the source of its experience.
I can think of one thing, it’s the continuance of me the conscious sphere to wit that which we experience is brought into. We don’t experience it if it is not brought into that sphere, irrespective of the greater relationship between it and the world.
Good point though, thanks!!!
.
The way I understand it is that over 27 years since my first spiritual experience, I have been connected to the spirit world. Now I am not going to just believe in all that stuff, I know its more than plausible that my brain is making it all up.
Hence for those 27 years I have been attempting to establish what is internal and what is external ~ what is not of the brain but is of the consciousness! This is why I am so committed [probably to an annoying degree lol] to determining what is consciousness and what is of the brain.
It’s a bit like love; do you love someone or do you have/contain love internally which you then ascribe to another person?
My religious impression appears to be a massive amount of information which I didn’t know prior to the experiences. However brain like computers can make stuff up to an impressive degree. If everything I thought was not material consciousness turns out to be of the brain, then my religious experience is purely of the brain - probably.
It may still be the case that even if we are purely physical beings, there may be something else out there that is not! And that something could be utilising communicative mapping I spoke of earlier to communicate with that and biological robots.
.
Ah right, bit like all-time is to time, but in terms of existing.
.
That makes a lot of sense for essentially shamanistic religions like paganism. The green orb is pretty much like neo-Druidry. The brown is also like Egyptian perhaps? …their whole lives were dedicated to the afterlife.
Is the blue not also within the white; where Buddhism is also concerned with the here and now.
.
The evolution of religion and religious philosophy does seam to have acted as contained like that, but you know how I abhor limits; wouldn’t you say people like jesus and Buddha are bringers of new orbs into the mix?
Does the map learn from exterior sources? Universal and infinite.
.
At the moment I can only explain in part and that analogously;
Reality is like a piece of paper and everything at work within it are pens writing upon that paper.
Between the pens and paper is the universal communicative layer, this is also the universal set and particular aspects of information.
The universal set of information is only known to itself except where particulars cross ~ imagined as like the drawing of the pens crossing over one another.
There is nothing stopping any info on that from being known because all things belong to the paper [reality].
Ultimately there is only one thing, so the trick is become silent as possible in thought and listen for whispers derived from informations of communicative layer. The whole of reality is always ‘speaking’ in a sense.
The next trick is to devise a thought or idea to which you want informations that you don’t have and cannot find by any other means.
Imagine such as a point on the paper written by your pen, it will correlate with all similar objects and hence similar informations in the communicative layer by means of mirroring. Like attracts like etc. byt this you can extrapolate informations you formerly did not know of.
In the simplest of contexts its like talking into the wind where the wind speaks back.
…probably sounds like gibberish atm, but I am working on it.
If you consider this…then why would your brain be “making it all up”?
What’s the provocation?
Start with a single simple concept that is spiritual and work backwards from there.
Correct.
What do you mean?
Keep in mind there are two blues…the blue orb and the blue current of existing.
What do you mean by white?
The white orb or the background that is white?
You should abhor limits. That’s how we expand.
Look at it this way.
Which orb appears first in anthropological evidence?
When do the other orbs come up?
Could we not say that as each orb came about that the boundaries were furthered?
Could we not say that this map is not finite, but a snapshot of the boundaries of the action at one particular moment - like taking a picture of a wave and pointing out the boundaries of the wave in that specific frozen moment?
In regards to figures in history.
I don’t see them as unique.
I see them as emergent. Meaning, if it wouldn’t have been them, it would have been someone.
And if it wouldn’t have been those ideals, it would have been something else profound.
What is the model of this communicative layer?
Because in reality, there is nothing between a pen and a piece of paper.
Unless you are referring to the electron field which causes no two objects to actually physically touch themselves, but by proxy of that electron layer.
Is this what you meant?
The brain perhaps wants to provide a reason why its consciousness meets no demise, that there is reason and purpose to life. Or on the other hand you ask it a question and its job is to give an answer, if it doesn’t find one from sensory input then maybe it creates a solution with the imagination, perhaps the brain on some mundane level, doesn’t know the difference between sensory info and imaginary info ~ especially if it has been told that some imaginations are true [god, spirits etc according to ones religion].
.
There have been some visions I cannot put down to that though e.g. in one I saw the three main women in my life clear as day when at the time I had only met one.
.
The blue and white orbs, I was concentrating on first getting a basic understanding of the orbs.
.
Ah yes that’s interesting, the whole thing is a constant furthering of boundaries, reaching out and making the hidden ‘revealed’. it is then an intellectual and spiritual evolution?
In a sense there was never any single orb containing the absolute truth {?}, many arrive at once [early pagan shaman etc] then each time you get a new orb into the mix a relationship is formed. We probably never get an orb complete [like a singular entire and whole religion].
I agree about the historical figures.
No I wasn’t speaking literally, I was seeing the pens as talking to the paper as they write. My ‘mystic paper’ thread explains it better.
I think I will scrap that way of explaining it though, I want to get onto a less metaphoric description ~ hell I’m even thinking that there is future technology potential in the idea. I have been imagining a way of ‘transmitting’ info from one location to another without using signals or wires etc…
Any ideas on how a universal ‘layer’ of info relates to all objects in the universe would be gladly accepted. I am visualising it in the context of the holographic model, so I imagine a flat hologram where all objects in the universe are contained, then underneath that a flat layer of info [just to visualise it] and naturally in-between that the communicative layer by which the info correlates and interacts with objects.
If we knew how that worked and could connect to it, we may find there to be an universal internet of sorts out there, who knows who/what will be on the other end of the line ~ being universal and whatnot.
As did I my wife.
I even wrote an entire poem to her before I ever met her, “Hello to the stranger that I never knew.”
I still hold that there rests an explanation that satisfies tangible understanding of these phenomenon’s.
What that exact explanation is, no idea at this moment.
That said, more of what I was referring to was looking at one specific concept within spirituality and looking back at how the fuck the neurology permits it as its medium.
Kind of like seeing lightening and asking how the fuck the air, ground, and sky permits this damn thing as the lightening’s medium.
Is the blue orb not also within the white orb?
…no.
The blue orb is a representational spot of being the current in the present tense action; ergo it’s dead center placement.
The white orb is representational of before the current; that big mystery no matter how you approach it - what was prior to the current.
Exactly, if we were to draw this out more directly, then it would be a very big array of frequencies striations all blurred in cyclic rotation.
Something like if you built a water fountain, and then had spigots that spit out differing colors of water at different angles of momentum, but in direction to slam all together like a blender.
You would get this queer coloration that was really hard to explicitly determine the separations, but you could tell they were there even if you couldn’t directly outline their boundaries.
No idea.
I am useless at the holographic universe. My mind immediately rejects the notion. It doesn’t feel right - in the sense of the word, “right”, as in how you can walk into your house and feel that something is off when something is even though you have done nothing but walk through the door.
The future is retro then, as I can accomplish that easily.
Grab a piece of paper.
Draw a spiritual symbol.
Hand it to someone on the other side of the world.
Done.
Massive amounts of information transferred without using electronics.
Just look at a fractal formula.
I agree, the only thing I can think of is that the mind has some way of extrapolating information ~ but from what, hence why I am so into intuition [how I interpret that term] and the universal communicative layer.
I can see the mind building an image from such info, yet as to the timing I.e. knowing future events, I don’t know. That is unless that communicative layer also stretches into or throughout all-time.
More pragmatically perhaps there is a way in which the brain envisions the kind of woman we are most likely to fall for, then makes an image of her. perhaps it taps into many areas of our subjective experience, so when we remember her we remember something very like her. Then when we meet someone in the world perhaps that someone also has such an image in her mind, and so when you meet there’s a chemistry!
.
Hmm good point, perhaps our neurology already has something like that to deal with ~ our consciousness. As you say the consciousness is something that kinda just happens and with little definable rhyme or reason to it when we look at the particulars.
So really the brain is doing with spiritual visions exactly what it does with our consciousness?
That said, I am happy to look at reasonable answers, but what I really think is happening is that our physical being is a vehicle to the consciousness/spirit. That spirit can manifest a visual interpretation of its world such that it can see the world, and it can also create a visual experience that is not subject to sensory input.
This is what I see as the dream level of ’seeing’, then after that comes a non-subjective visioning where universal consciousness is that by which the visions are manifest. For me when I met those ladies is was a vision not projected by me or otherwise subjectively but by the latter variant of seeing.
.
I see, thanks.
.
Nice way to visualise it! Humanity then has been on a little trip around the fountains, and by doing so now has a more complete picture from which to determine the orbs.
.
I know what you mean and feel the same, it’s a simple model to visualise things with that’s all. I do however feel that there is;
An universal medium [touching all things].
A oneness though multifaceted.
Universal info; at each causal stage of the unfolding of the universe there would be information pertaining to that.
Consciousness is that which can read info, nothing else can [although things utilise it].
Naturally all of that doesn’t mean we can access it, and at the least I expect there are layers and spatial locations involved even if we could.
…that doesn’t mean god/UC is so restricted though!
.
Haha, ya good point but not anything like what I meant, we cant use the internet without an internet but we can talk to each other for sure.
This is along the lines of how I understand the events.
Why wouldn’t it? Spirituality requires consciousness.
I don’t see rocks building shrines.
What if you were a spirit generator, not a vehicle?
What if when you turn on the human biology, there starts the incarnation of the spirit of that body.
At first it is very limited because the biological support is itself infantile; like early computers to now were infantile.
But as time moves on, the biology adapts and grows to become more complex and pragmatically reactive to what it understands as existing and the needs to do so therein.
As it becomes more complex, so too does the spirit and the understanding of that unto itself.
Why would it be any different than this?
I mean…how could it be any different than this?
It’s not like when you look at a dream, it is only the awareness of your state and the impossibilities applied therein that allows you to determine the origin of the dream as not being independent.
Otherwise, you would have no comprehension of the vision being not separate from yourself.
There are hundreds of writings from the ancients of humans describing visions which they readily perceived as that which was actually seen and not contrived.
Later, these same citations shifted terminologies as humans developed further. Eventually, these became less understood as actual sights, and instead conjurations of some aspect or another; even if accurate.
And this correlation starts in league with the advent of the concept of being aware of our awareness, “I”, in human writing.
I think we’re at that point, yes.
I think it is our time at this point to now assess and assemble new forms of the same pursuits out of a reflection of the many isolated examples that humans have created over a rather long stretch of experience.
Every blind man has their opinions on the Elephant from being at different spots of the Elephant, so the exercise given goes. At some point the blind men, if they are anything like a human, will talk and share with each other and pull together the most consistent, pragmatic, and agreed upon constituents of each other’s descriptions so to describe the Elephant in full - rather than in part.
I think we’re at a good starting point for that endeavor now. There is a rather large amount of information behind us in regards to the nature of our existential experience, and we are markedly less fixed into one or the other perspective inherently at this time as well.
I think of the blind men and the Elephant and I cannot imagine where there is a layer between the blind men and the Elephant that would include all information.
I mean…should such be the case, then eventually only one single human being would be required to exist.
We would have no reason to exist in mass as we would have no need to exchange information about the Elephant to get the whole picture.
We would only need one human being to do that.
The internet, and all things alike, are simply a new layer of skin that humans have created for themselves.
It is like the star-nosed mole’s touch receptors.
A way to gather information by expanding our sensory beyond our previous means.
One day, I’m quite sure that we won’t need a computer and an internet to gather information from these great distances.
We’ll have such within our person by tiny things we don over our body, or things which have been developed into our genetic structure and become inherent.
Being honest with myself, the image of the three women was not exactly the same as the ones I met, I had thought them to be a more perfect/heavenly version. Nevertheless the accuracy was such that they could not have been anyone else or at least not many others of those certain types, and then by whatever the images were created I have to wonder how it would know. If its my brain then how could it arrive at that level of accuracy?
.
Hmm that makes a lot of sense; the spirit then grows with the body/mind, though I don’t remember a time of not being me. Is anyone ever lesser? Is an old person decrepit [in both mind and body] with age less than any other person ~ I mean is there ever a case when there is not a person there [given that they are at least conscious]?
I could define the very same thing via my explanation of info and communication being experienced, each increases with a respective exponent of any. So you then get hierarchies through evolution and in different levels of life, or as grown in the lab to a given complexity.
I’d put it to you that maybe we are both right or nearly so, we are describing the same thing in a different way even if the implications are different.
.
I don’t know, it a bit like asking me if I know something comes from outside of me generally or not, we only experience the outside from the inside, and yet I think we all know that we do experience the outside. Visioning is like this, I could tell that dream level visioning is like dreams, internal and only experienced by me, whereas visioning can be experienced by others too ~ as I see it.
They feel different in that way at the least.
.
Indeed, it’s a bit like we are the jigsaw makers.
.
The elephant knows what it is! - let us say, but we blind men are constantly trying to work it out when in fact the elephant is constantly changing its colours and even its shape.
Without that layer how would we gain any information about the elephant at all?
I agree however that for us the experience of the layer is localised, though I see no inherent restriction on that, something tells me we will gain more access to it in the future.
.
Most likely, though I’d prefer it to be external. The trick is to be able to transfer info directly from one spatial location to another, even better if we could transfer energy like electricity [no need for electric cells for engines etc].
I suppose this is a silly question to ask you, but do you think intuition is limited to the brain?
