MIND

this catagory is for a over all coverage on the mind and mental states and consiouness 

Entries feed - Comments feed

Monday, November 26, 2018

CAN WE HAVE A SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS? OR GENERAL HYPOTHESIS? HERE'S WHERE WE COULD START.

This is all going to read a little weird and far out, but to help the reader understand we recommend reading the geometry articles relating to infinity with in the vacuum of space.

If we take into account the geometry articles that arrive with a conclusion of infinite density in the vacuum of space, despite it being 'seemingly' empty or at least far less dense than conventionally perceived. Then propose that it only feels less dense because it's all collapsing in a central point of cancellation giving each point in the space a stillness or equilibrium and no inertia or outward dynamic except where we experience matter as it extends from it, and so we also propose that all matter actually comes from this space. Perhaps the most important aspect here is to remember how we also arrived at a self similarity with the fractal math, and that consciousness appears to be based in a feedback loop itself, to be self aware is to experience the existence of the self coming into the awareness and not outward from it. Otherwise there would be no awareness at all, and so with the fractal math feedback this would also mean all points at what ever scale you wish to measure contain all information of the whole. 

It works better to think of this as information rather than matter or a particle dynamic, or better yet in terms of frequency, With all these concept's in place if matter is a direct extension of space and not a separate thing,does consciousness come from it?  or a direct result of it? since we think looking for consciousness in the brain is erroneous , the brain appears to be a processing tool for consciousness itself. No science today has concluded where consciousness comes from at all, we think they are looking in the wrong place. 

Now this is of course an unconventional in the face of conventional thinking , However many apparent things are so often observed only when individuals take it upon themselves to do so or someone else has inadvertently presented it to them. and of course things are often interpreted differently via other perspectives. So  what are the observable effects we can interpret to support the concept that consciousness is not created in the brain?

How about that time you thought of a friend or family member then they go and ring you in the same moment , or arrive at your door? Nearly everyone that exploratory minds has asked has had something similar to this that they can remember. Is this mere accidental co-coincidence?  or  random chance. We are proposing while we experience consciousness subjectivity we are connected collectively via this infinite feed back or fractal dynamic that has all information of the whole inside all points, change any point no matter how small and the whole thing changes not just that point in space and time, but the whole universe . This is what happens when we alter the math no matter how small for a fractal the results are reflected in the whole thing because the sum result is fed back into the whole orignal formula. This could also mean it's a collective consensus reality via these very subtle changes from all the thinkers and consious effects of our time even those who are not the human race, since , or course, there is more than one conscious effect and intention in this universe 

Now when it comes to theories in so-called psychic experience there are hundreds of frauds ,with mind sets based in mere egocentric self-importance and a goal to con people, We think that directly claiming to perceive something in conventional details would equate to the person having knowledge of what they are perceiving prior to acting out a so-called psychic skill. 

 If such a super connectivity of the fractal concept is a real thing and that consciousness really isn't in the brain but in everything or perhaps like a universal field as another way to think of it.  then we should be able to harness this via deliberate focus or attention to bring in data without having to be in a given location that relates to any data being received from that location or object.  Experimenter's have given target's to people who claim such skill in a way that reveals no conventional data about the target , instead the experimenter has given a random 4 digit number assigned to an object or place for the person to focus on, a set of information related to the target ends up coming in as various aspects. Since they would not be using the typical conventional senses in a conventional manner.  Of course we know how being present in a location and looking and perceiving works, its plain and simple. But this other way has actually been harnessed and practised by none other than the CIA. we kid you not.

 The CIA headed up a project named STARGATE in the 70tes after taking a lot of experiments and reworking a various set of practises and skills they ended up with something very interesting. the skill became known as 'remote viewing' 

and it did indeed show aspects of non-locality, meaning that all points in space and time are equally information rich. And that all the seasoned and skilled remote viewer needed was a tag or number assigned to a target regardless of distance or time they would come up with accurate aspects of the targets given. 

there are many forms of applying the skill and in early experiments some of the skill sets included listing various aspects. The following would be a typical list, while the remote viewer took pen to paper. 

LIST:

what does the object /target feel like:

what shapes are there:

is there a light source:

is there sound:

what smells are there:

The list was extensive but highly important tools to discern what could be matched with the real target later. It was found imagination sometimes caused the remote viewer to lose the signal and come up with things like football for a spherical object. Results like this lead the training to stop use of common nouns like 'ball'' and use sphere or spherical instead. This caused more valid accuracy in results. Most of the data is never first percived as a image persay, but more of a feeling of a shape or a kenesthtic. Often if an image comes in clear and sharp early on its usually just imagnation or AOL (analytical overlay) 

below we have a video of Dr hal putoff's experiences and research in remote viewing with the stanford research institute (SRI) who also worked with the cia for the research.

  

 

POWERED BY THE EXPLORATORY MINDS PROJECT A DIVISION AND SPIN OF OF THE REALITY EXPLORATIONS PROJECT AND AUDIO PERSPECTIVES PROJECT