God?

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

We have agreed that humans have self-awareness, and I think you agree animals have self-awareness, however, once we point to plant life...do you believe that this type of life form is self-aware?

In my opinion and perception plants are not selfaware. You can always use the argument that "they may be selfaware, but we can't see it", but that only proves that we just don't know. As of yet I can think of no indication that plants are selfaware.

Roel

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

In my opinion and perception plants are not selfaware. You can always use the argument that "they may be selfaware, but we can't see it", but that only proves that we just don't know. As of yet I can think of no indication that plants are selfaware.

Wow, was starting to think my text was invisible and mentioned this to Ray. By the way, where do you get your limosine detailed, they did a wonderful job!

I will indeed be addressing this shortly, however, work demands my attention at the moment.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

Isn't it funny that if we don't "connect" the energy source to the computer, it doesn't do anything?

This observation is highly significant, Roel. I'm not sure if you realize how deep this principle goes. I'd encourage you to ponder what you have said here, especially in the spiritual domain. The domain of seeking enlightenment and transcendence. There is an element of "connecting with energy" in all we do as humans. Finding the common thread, and learning to exploit it without harming others, is a milestone on the way to a higher level of self-awareness.

This "interesting side note" of yours also comes at a very significant point in my timeline here on TTI. I've reached a significant point of resonance. As such, it is often helpful to "dwell" at a resonant peak for awhile before moving on. So I find I am going to need a little "down time" from TTI to "celebrate" this resonant peak. Can't really say how long it will be, it could be only a few days, or it could be more. I'll have to read the energy signatures to figure out when to resume. But rest assured I will be lurking while I "celebrate".

And it's not very hard at all to figure out how this particular peak of resonance manifests itself.

Be well, everyone. I'll have some more stories upon my return, that is for sure!

RMT

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

As of yet I can think of no indication that plants are selfaware.

""Japanese researchers, in a study published in Nature, reported on their work with lima beans. What they found was that when lima beans are being attacked by spider mites they release a distinctive chemical that performs two functions: it helps attract predators of spider mites and it alerts other plants nearby that spider mites are in the neighborhood. When lima beans are damaged by say a metal tool or by a clumsy animal like a cow, the beans gave off a different chemical which other lima bean plants ignore. The lima bean can distinguish between different types of predators, and can communicate to others of its species what sort of predator is in the neighborhood.""

"" the researchers were also able to show that the terpenoids could be "smelt" by the neighbouring leaves with no infestation, prompting them to roll out their own defences.""

This may be just the indication you have needed. This area of science is relatively new, and further research is being conducted. On a smaller scale, I notice that my plants that are in vases near the sink, will lean towards the water. When the sun is streaming through the window, they will lean towards the light.
The same is with the plants near my audio speakers. They will either lean towards or away from the speakers depending on what is coming out. When I play Black Sabbath they just about jump out of their containers and run down the street.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

This may be just the indication you have needed.

Well, it is indeed the sort of indication that I seek. Obviously these plants have some animal-like defense mechanisms. It's almost impossible for me to refute this evidence. If a plant is able to truly distinguish between different types of predators, it's almost evident that it does have a certain level of selfawareness. But before I'm going to make premature assumptions, I'd like to know how the plant makes this distinction and how it releases the different kinds of chemicals.

On a smaller scale, I notice that my plants that are in vases near the sink, will lean towards the water. When the sun is streaming through the window, they will lean towards the light.

Ah yes, phototropism. I wouldn't attribute that to the selfawareness of a plant. It's not a choice, it just happens. Just like the fertalization of a flower.

Roel

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

Ah yes, phototropism. I wouldn't attribute that to the selfawareness of a plant. It's not a choice, it just happens

As far as you know they do not have self-awareness. The awareness the plant has would be operationally different than a humans, but the outcome the same. The plant is using a mechanism to move towards or away from some source. As you discovered the lima bean plant apparently is demonstrating some type of self-awareness by making choices as to defend or not. This plant had more pronounced attributes for making the observation of its ability to make a decision.

Your statement that it "just happens" seems rather crude and primitive.

Once again, I must repeat that awareness operates at many levels. Even with humans, the spectrum is wide and every person is aware of different things at different intensities. To use a story again to illustrate my point..

When I was younger, one of the parents of a friend was totally blind. I was watching him walking around in a campground one day and saw him moving towards a rope that ran from a tent pole to a stake in the ground. I was going to yell out (maybe) because the course he was on, he would certainly trip on the rope. As he got closer he stopped and stood still for a few seconds and then moved back, then went around the rope. I was mystified by his ability at "sensing" the presence of the rope. There was no movement of air ( as far as I could tell ), no particular scent that I could perceive, so how did he realize the rope was there?

There are dynamics involved in the process of awareness. How does the plant "know" that water is near-by in a faucet? It doesnt have the same senses as a human, or at least as we understand them.
The light portion, I could agree that possibly the movement is merely an instinctive reaction.
Would the desire to survive be a type of awareness?

It would be interesting to run some experiments to determine if there is some type of awareness involved.

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

Hmmm, interesting sidenote. Isn't it funny that if we don't "connect" the energy source to the computer, it doesn't do anything?

Yes, that is an interesting sidenote. The "potential" is still contained within the computer. That "potential" isnt realized until the energy source is connected and turned on. The energy inside the computer hasn't gone anywhere, put remains passive until that moment of "inspiration".

To expand this concept a tad further with negative existence and positive existence as written by S.L. MacGregor Mathers ( 1888 )...

""The idea of negative existence can exist as an idea, but it will not bear definition, since the idea of definition is utterly incompatible with its nature. Negative existence bears hidden within itself, positive life; for in the limitless depths of the abyss of its negativity lies hidden the power of standing forth from itself.

Between the two ideas so different as those of negative existence and positive existence a certain nexus, or connecting-link, is required, and hence we arrive at the form which is called " potential existence ", which while more nearly approaching positive existence, will scarcely admit clear definition. It is existence, in its possible form. For example, in a seed, the tree which may spring from it is hidden; it is in a condition of potential existence; it is there; but will not admit of definition. How much , then, will those seeds which that tree in its turn, yield? But these latter are in a condition which, while it is somewhat analogous to potential existence, is hardly in so advanced a stage; that is, they are negatively existent.

But, on the other hand, positive existence is always capable of definition; it is dynamic; it has certain evident powers, and it is therefore the antithesis of negative existence. It is the tree, no longer hidden in the seed, but developed into the outer. But positive existence has a beginning, and an end, and it therefore requires another form from which to depend, for without this other concealed negative ideal behind it, it is unstable and unsatisfactory.""

What we have been harping on is that there is much more behind creation than what you can see, touch, hear, smell and taste. As the plant-awareness discovery brought to light was that indeed something was occurring beyond your level of awareness.

Without that awareness, the narrow band of potential creation, it all would be considered an accident. But when the existence of all creation is supposed to be multiple ( thousands upon thousands ) of accidents, then how could anybody possibly deduce there isnt a creative force behind the scenes?
To possibly win at a lottery, the odds are millions to one of winning. The odds of you, Roel, winning is very remote. Yet, with the concept of the accidents being responsible for all creation, theoretically, you would be indicating that it would also be possible for you to win the lottery several thousand times.
Simply put, by the evidence that has been presented, is it more probable that God exists, or improbable ?

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

Your statement that it "just happens" seems rather crude and primitive.

Ofcourse it doesn't "just happen" (I used the same words earlier in this thread while putting them between quotationmarks), there are several processes and conditions that allow phototropism. Most, if any, of these processes and conditions are not controlled by the plant. Or at least, not that we know of. Again, I agree the Lima Bean is an example of a plant that might give us new insights. But lets not jump to conclusions just yet.

Once again, I must repeat that awareness operates at many levels. Even with humans, the spectrum is wide and every person is aware of different things at different intensities. To use a story again to illustrate my point..

Yes, but keep two things in mind. Since we do not know much about the awareness in things besides humans, plants (and perhaps even robots), it's ALSO very well possible that:

1) plants have a selfawareness level of zero
2) humans have the highest level of selfawareness

When I was younger, one of the parents of a friend was totally blind.

Yes... what does this story tell us about plants? I've alway said that there are things that we simply can not grasp with our current knowledge. For instance cropcircles. I've been fascinated by these patterns that sometimes appear in different kinds of crop. Now I know for a fact that many of these cropcircles are produced by humans. There have been formations with such a complexity and size that make you wonder if humans would ever be capable of creating them, but perhaps I am underestimating human creativity. There's no way to tell where these cropcircles came from.

It would be interesting to run some experiments to determine if there is some type of awareness involved.

Can you think of any? It is, indeed, interesting.

Roel

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

The energy inside the computer hasn't gone anywhere, put remains passive until that moment of "inspiration".

No, it remains passive until I turn it on. The energy contained within the computer does not show any signs of selfawareness.

What we have been harping on is that there is much more behind creation than what you can see, touch, hear, smell and taste.

We can't be 100% certain of things we can't perceive. Sure there is more in the universe than we can perceive, but you can't derive any truths from it.

As the plant-awareness discovery brought to light was that indeed something was occurring beyond your level of awareness.

It's interesting and it might provide the evidence I was looking for, but I think it's way to early to draw any conclusion whatsoever.

But when the existence of all creation is supposed to be multiple ( thousands upon thousands ) of accidents, then how could anybody possibly deduce there isnt a creative force behind the scenes?

The keyword is "if". Let me ask you a question:

Who created the creator?

Roel

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

Most, if any, of these processes and conditions are not controlled by the plant. Or at least, not that we know of.

I wouldnt use the term "we" dont know of the concept of plants being self-aware. If one was to study many texts within the hermetic and other occult disciplines, many of the principles we are discussing, the practitioners of these "Arts" have known about for thousands of years and are now being confirmed by scientific researchers.

One of the areas of practice is called shapeshifting. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean shifting from a human construct and converting into another form ( physically ) found in nature. What it means in the classical sense is becoming one with a selected form. The discipline is that of recognizing the "patterns" of the selected form; a plant for instance; which does have inherent patterns...cycles of life and death, light and darkness, growth and reproduction, lunar and solar seasons, energy use and transformation... all particular patterns.

The shapeshifter, of whom is a master at shifting his/her awareness, will allow that awareness to touch the plant. To get to know the plant, to meditate on that plant, creating an image that enables the practitioner(s) to shift their patterns within those patterns of the plant. Basically becoming one with the plant and gaining an insight to the awareness as that particular plant.

That is one of the most crucial components in esoteric study, is that of "becoming".

The process of "shapeshifting" is very simple...
1. Close your eyes.
2. Energize ( Imagine energy filling you up, light bursting from your entire being )
3. Create ( Imagine ) a spirit body.
4. Enter into that spirit body.
5. Slowly merge your energy ( spirit body ) with the plant.
6. Allow your thoughts to quiet, to "listen" and "feel" the plant.
7. Become the plant.

At first this exercise may seem unusual, but in time, with practice, interesting results begin to occur. You actually will gain an insight (awareness) of that plant.

Yes... what does this story tell us about plants? I've alway said that there are things that we simply can not grasp with our current knowledge. For instance cropcircles. I've been fascinated by these patterns that sometimes appear in different kinds of crop. Now I know for a fact that many of these cropcircles are produced by humans. There have been formations with such a complexity and size that make you wonder if humans would ever be capable of creating them, but perhaps I am underestimating human creativity. There's no way to tell where these cropcircles came from.

The story was a connecting link between a majority of humanities level of awareness and those that discipline themselves to become more aware of their environment and the patterns that surround them.
How could he stop before hitting the rope unless he "sensed" the object was in front of him? He had to make a determination as to its size and depth, as well as other critical judgements to avoid the rope.
Others, of whom increase their skills of awareness regarding themselves and the environment, then declare that plants are self-aware; How could someone who is not at their level claim they are incorrect?

Can you think of any? It is, indeed, interesting.

I have been giving this some thought and have come up with some ideas.

1. Buy two plants that are somewhat identical in shape and size. Place each in similar environments and then make certain to regulate their feeding to ensure they are receiving the same nutrients. Prasie one and curse the other. See what effects result with either and document the results.
2. Buy a plant that is suited for this experiment. It should be relatively straight and easy to moniter for changes. Place a grid pattern behind the plant to record any changes in direction. Give the plant choices, and document any changes in the plant.
3. This would involve time elapse equipment. The experiment would be the same as above, but the camera would visually record the movement of the plant when subjected to a variety of choices.

There have been formations with such a complexity and size that make you wonder if humans would ever be capable of creating them, but perhaps I am underestimating human creativity

A certain percentage are created by hoaxters. But as they say in the ghost hunting circles, 99 % of the occurances can be traced to a reasonable source, but what about that other 1 % ?

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

We can't be 100% certain of things we can't perceive. Sure there is more in the universe than we can perceive, but you can't derive any truths from it.

There is a truth. That is a given fact. How we percieve that truth will be varied, since we all perceive our environment differently through our personal experiences. As more and more people experience that truth, a picture begins to form. As that truth is documented through-out the centuries, from a variety of lifestlyes and backgrounds, we can construct a concept of the nature of that truth.
When I listen to the different sides of the debates regarding truth, whom do you think an intelligent, reasonable person would believe?

One group actively pursues knowledge of truth actively and disciplines themselves to increase their awareness and refine their perceptions, and are following in the footsteps of others since the beginning of humanity.

The other group insists there is no point in pursuing knowledge of any possible truths, and just brushes off any methods of discipline as worthless. The level of awareness of this group is hardly beyond the confines of their own flesh, with no experience beyond that bubble.

I dont know how many texts of esoteric knowledge, including the Bible, stress time and again about seeing "that which is right in front of your face". Jesus even has made the statement that heaven isnt somwhere out in the distance. He said we exist in heaven, but cant see it because of the veils we have created within ourselves, by ourselves.

Just as a side note. The arguement rages between evolutionists and religionists. ( ok, I just made that word up!). "" Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life ...""
Now, the Bible never disputed the concept of evolution. And the comments regarding humans being unique compared to other forms of life on Earth ( "...nowhere else in the universe is a central nervous system like humans..." ) kind of supports the biblical account of man being specially created for a specific purpose.
Within the concept of evolution arises the question of where or what we are evolving towards?

Who created the creator?

Who created you?

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

I'll see what I can do with those plant experiments. It's very difficult to determine if a plant actually makes a choice.

Who created you?

In a way, my parents did. And their parents before that... and so on.

Now, who created the creator according to you?

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

Now, who created the creator according to you?

A text called Sepher Sephiroth describes the gradual evolution of the Deity from negative into positive existence. Here is the link to view this text or a translation of..

http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/liber_d.pdf

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

A text called Sepher Sephiroth describes the gradual evolution of the Deity from negative into positive existence. Here is the link to view this text or a translation of..

I'm guessing you provided a link to the wrong pdf document. Right now I'm staring at what looks like the index of a 3760 page book /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'm sorry, but I to me this document makes no sense at all. Perhaps you can clarify things a bit?

Again, the question was: "Who created the creator?" A simple answer in 20 to 50 words would suffice.

Roel

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

I'm guessing you provided a link to the wrong pdf document. Right now I'm staring at what looks like the index of a 3760 page book

I'm sorry, but I to me this document makes no sense at all. Perhaps you can clarify things a bit?

Again, the question was: "Who created the creator?" A simple answer in 20 to 50 words would suffice.

I did not provide a link to the wrong document. It contains the answer to the question you asked. Don't understand it?

Well, Ain't that a bi**h!

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[prceptdboundry]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

I did not provide a link to the wrong document. It contains the answer to the question you asked. Don't understand it?

Well, Ain't that a bi**h!

With all due respect, I do not understand the document either. But I am interested in your interpretation of what you understand the document to mean. I do enjoy reading your posts, and I value your opinions, as many of them differ from mine, which allows me to learn new ideas.

Would you mind terribly giving a brief synapses of how the document you referenced answers the question at hand?

 

[creedo299]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

If this therom is true, then God startyed out as the Devil?

Actually all the Devil means, is differnce.

It is mankind and evil entities, that recrute these beings.

 

[RainmanTime]

#778

Anyone who has studied the mystical traditions of Qabalah deeply will understand why the mention of "Sepher Sephiroth" was the precise energetic signal I was looking for to emerge from my resonance of 777. Gentlemen, we have some complex topics to deal with if we wish to keep this thread going.

Again, the question was: "Who created the creator?" A simple answer in 20 to 50 words would suffice.

Roel, I don't want you to take this as an insult, but this statement of yours certainly does exhibit that you are a product of the "I'd like it quick and easy" generation.

I'm sure you have heard the saying that anything of value does not come quickly OR easily. I am sure you would like to think that a 20-50 word answer would suffice. But let's think about this with a little bit of (linear) logic, shall we? Look at how long this thread is, and go through and read the evolution of thought laid out by myself and OvrLrd. This "tapestry" that we have laid out the pieces to is quite lengthy indeed. And it is only attempting to brush the edge of the reality of God our Creator, and how this God manifests in the laws we observe as quantified by science. And still, you are not convinced of that! I'd say this thread could go on quite a bit longer before you come to appreciate just the integrated aspects of God that we are trying to get across. And now you want an explanation of the Creator of the Creator in 50 words or less?????? :D I'm sure you know that some things in life you just can't have your way. Some things take work on your part.

One thing that OvrLrd and I have always admitted to is that WE cannot "prove" the existence of God to anyone in the normal manner of "proof" that our linear-thinking society seems to think is the do-all-and-end-all of logic. "Proof" of something as all-encompassing as God can only be left to the student. But the teacher still plays a pivotal role in helping to guide the student in establishing that proof for themselves.

The Massive SpaceTime Matrix theory of energy I have presented is one such guide that deals with the physics of matter, motion, and energy. And as I have said, this theory only aligns with the bottom portion of the Tree Of Life. The reference to Sepher Sephiroth that OvrLrd has pointed you to is another such guide that you may wish to study. But it will NOT be easy. And not saying that my Massive SpaceTime model is easy to understand, but Sepher Sephiroth is much more difficult, because of its depth. The fact that you saw "nothing" on the surface when you first looked at it is not surprising at all. Remember, I have been studying mystical Qabalistic texts since 1982 Roel. And even today I do not have "the complete picture"...but I can see and feel how it has been coming to me since 1982 and how it continues coming to me as I progress on my spiritual and physical paths of life.

If you wish to begin to understand what Sepher Sephiroth is describing, perhaps poking around at some of the other knowledge and information on that website might help? For those with short attention spans /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I am even willing to provide some help and point you at some things you might find interesting...

Why not start out by reading The Kybalion. Yes, it is a long treatise, but I think you will find it worth it. As a little teaser, you will find that section IX deals with something we have discussed, and agreed upon before : VIBRATION. Here is a little snippet from that section that relates to what my message has been with Massive SpaceTime and their triplex dimensional integration in the form of Energy:

"Modern Science has proven that all that we call Matter and Energy are but "modes of vibratory motion," and some of the more advanced scientists are rapidly moving toward the positions of the occultists who hold that the phenomena of Mind are likewise modes of vibration or motion. Let us see what science has to say regarding the question of vibrations in matter and energy."

prceptdboundry wrote:

Would you mind terribly giving a brief synapses of how the document you referenced answers the question at hand?

If you really want to understand how that document answers the question of not only the Creator, but the Creator of the Creator, you cannot take short cuts. It is not like learning algebra, or any other mundane discipline of our current human knowledge. It is, in essence, understanding how all things are "One, nay None." It is the path to spiritual enlightenment of where we come from, what we are, and why we are here.

Here's to my next cycle of 777, started with this post! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif (Of course, I am raising a beer as I type this last line!)
RMT

 

[zerubbabel]

Re: #778

Rainman,

Here's tipping a spiritual beer to you! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/loveit.gif

http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

I don't know if you've seen the above link, but its quite an interesting document. The "Sepher Sephiroph" is certainly not for everyone. It takes an investment in time to properly understand the terms, let alone the concepts. It's not casual reading. For the agnostic, I imagine it is as painful to read as covering a good eye to exercise the lazy one or forcing a left-handed person to write with the right. I guess I wouldn't particularly enjoy communicating for hours in binary code. It certainly doesn't mean I would dismiss it out of hand. Although it does not impact my thinking or beliefs, it sure impacts my life. The link above presents a very good case as how the extremes of any belief can co-exist in the holographic universe. The problem is, can extreme views adjust to the new "laws" that admit multiple realities within the same matrix. Debate becomes meaningless as all "sides" would be correct in their subjective reality for the holographic model would also prove objective reality meaningless. Properly understood, merging realities could just lead us to an evolutionary step. I like to believe that we can solve the problem that chaos presents and recognize the emerging pattern. We truly are on the cutting edge of discovery. The mind, once unfettered by the linear sciences, has entered realms of thought that is producing innovative ideas about a grand unified theory that ties in, not only matter, but mind and spirit as well. The theory, whatever form it takes, by necessity has to answer All the facets of existence. The hollographic model, at least in its infancy, seems to meet many of the requirements of what a "beautiful" underlying theory would demand.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Functional Vs. Physical

Well, Ain't that a bi**h!

I think I get it now... this phrase is the key to understanding creation!!!

bi**h obviously stands for bi'uwsh !

The answer was there all the time! Oh my.