80 posts shown.
Coffee hour is over. Now comes... time.
Time is a dual concept: the idea of space combined with the idea of movement through it. Yet, movement itself is an illusion, a byproduct of our inability to perceive the actual SPACETIME.
The perception of moving through time stems from a sensory deficit—our incomplete grasp of the fourth dimension.
Temporal extension is merely our stretching into an unknown spatial realm.
We have already established that space and time aren't separate entities, but a unified four-dimensional spacetime continuum.
To truly encompass this four-dimensional reality, one would require a fifth dimension... perhaps as a property of consciousness itself, acting as the vector for its own evolution.
Essentially, we aren't escaping these three dimensions anytime soon unless we find some way to be better people.🙄
Go ahead, John F. Kennedy... take your shot.
Dirty Harry said:Behavior, as a process, functions as a temporal category as well. It seems a mistake to dismiss mathematics as a tool for studying the universe; doing so merely builds an argument for your own timeless reality. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. 🙂
I am not rejecting mathematics entirely... I am simply asking questions
about where it actually "exists." Surely even you grasp that?😉
I don't need to be an idiot for you to fail at understanding me, Django. Even when it's obvious you aren't getting it, I don't resort to insults. But you refuse to see, and frankly, you're being rude.
My point is this...
The laws of nature are embedded within us... because man and nature are one and the same.
If a man is a mathematician, nature must follow suit. If a man possesses consciousness, nature must as well. How does a human develop the very models found in the natural world? By virtue of them already being present within him. One cannot perceive what they are not themselves. To see it, one must evolve to match it.
First, you have to grasp the unity of all things. Only then will you realize it doesn't matter which angle you take, because everything existing outside of us resides entirely within us.
Once it finally clicks that consciousness is the vessel encompassing everything—the thing that actually ENABLES this unity—then you won't find yourself struggling to communicate with fools.😉
You are starting from a FLAWED PREMISE: the idea that consciousness simply emerged on its own as a byproduct of evolution... a concept that quite simply DOES NOT HOLD UP.
Bobba Fett said:Good grief. I don't know who I'm even talking to. If this doesn't click for you now, it never will. You're a lost cause.
Fine. Let's try explaining this like we're in preschool:
ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR >>> HUMAN OBSERVATION >>> IDENTIFYING PATTERNS IN THAT BEHAVIOR >>> DEVELOPING A COGNITIVE MODEL TO MATCH >>> MATHEMATICS AND LOGIC
Is that clear enough? How much more obvious can I make it?
Fine then... if you're going to be stubborn about it, let's go with your logic.
Does your little "chain" imply the environment itself acts mathematically? Because if so... how does sophisticated math emerge from mindless matter?
According to your own words, the environment behaves mathematically, which we only realize once we've "built" a mathematical mental model. Does that mean the environment is "intelligent"—perhaps even smarter than us? I'd love to see you explain that.🙄
Richard Howard2 said:Spent the last few years overthinking this. Concluded it isn't true. Geometry and math don't exist outside our own minds. Yet, everything in the physical world moves according to those rules regardless. A strange paradox.
Mathematics and geometry. Mere definitions. Just more ways to quantify the inevitable decline. Thought process.And you, by your own mistake and sheer ignorance, equate them with... A matter for contemplation.
That model is the only one capable of explaining our reality. It exists precisely because it was forged from the behavior of our environment. This isn't some human invention. It isn't.
Imagine that. A nature model perfectly mirroring a thought pattern? It’s absurd. Perhaps it's time, Richard Howard2, to reconsider this strange coincidence.🙄
rapidjackal7 said:Hey Rachel Bishop, glad you checked in. I’d appreciate more details on what life is actually like in your corner of the universe...
Hey... hey... hey...🙂
I'll get to it tomorrow. Once I've slept and had a double espresso...😉
Richard Howard2 said:The question doesn't even apply to me. If it doesn't involve the flow of time, we're talking about thoughts—and by extension, our lives. You can map out the physical world with geometry and math, sure, but that’s a different matter entirely from our consciousness.
Richard... you're making a mistake here, and a costly one, if you think the world around us is disconnected from consciousness. Math and geometry are products of consciousness itself. Think on that.😉
velvetranger10 said:From what I can gather regarding these spiritual mysteries,
it seems better genetics increase our chances of entering
the kingdom of heaven and achieving self-actualization. Our souls manifest through more than just the physical; they flow through the mental and emotional planes we inherit from our parents.
If our parents have reached self-realization, there's a high probability we will too. If they haven't, the odds drop.
Or perhaps I'm mistaken...
I don't think that holds water.
You can have a total genetic "failure"—intellectually speaking—and still somehow "claim" the kingdom. You could have parents who are addicts or abusers, yet those exact circumstances might be what "opens" the path to truth. There are no limits. Every combination is possible.😉
Anthony Reyes5 said:... so we have zero influence over our behavior, our views, our very identity?
And does that mean we can only claim to have changed the world once we've raised our children?
We don't actually "make" children. They arrive already formed; we have little say in the matter. If we merely birth and raise them, we leave the world exactly as we found it. The only way to shift the world is to become different ourselves. It's possible, whether one believes it or not.
The idea that we cannot influence ourselves is false. That is precisely our burden... to evolve. Opinions shift. Behaviors change. Personality shifts. Constantly.
Beyond that, one can become aware of this process—of the flux and instability of the so-called "self"—and consciously alter what feels necessary. Nothing remains static for even a moment. By observing one's own thoughts, this becomes clear. One can decide not to be a slave to every passing impulse, choosing instead to interrupt or redirect the flow of thought. We realize then that our "opinions" are often just habits, much like smoking. We repeat patterns established long ago. If one can quit smoking, one can "change the world."😉
There is a massive delusion in the mainstream mindset. The world is simply what we perceive it to be. If we choose to see it differently, it becomes different. That is the only truth left. 🙂
Richard Howard2 said:From this incredibly muddled sentence, my takeaway is that the core idea was suggesting a point represents only two dimensions despite possessing a third—essentially acting as a cross-section within a larger framework, implying the point itself is three-dimensional. You need to be clearer if you expect to be understood.
True. Not everything in your post was wrong, as I noted at the start of my last reply, but it lacked cohesion. My apologies.
Regarding space as a mathematical model where light and time move linearly—science has provided a definitive answer, which pertains to what I detailed under the numbers.
Such a model works fine on smaller scales (up to interplanetary distances), but anything beyond that requires the additional frameworks established by Einstein once it was realized that spacetime itself is curved within a higher dimension. As for those complexities, science is still searching; there is no final answer yet.
What I was discussing falls within the boundaries of settled science. Science remains far from a complete picture, but one thing is certain: your theories are much further off.
Naturally, there will always be those who prefer philosophy over facts.😁
I appreciate it... when you speak with some honesty.😉
..and as a reward... a poem for you...
To Sink
The wing is an illusion of space
and time.
to fly toward oneself,
to explore one's own depths.
To choose the deepest
and into it, quietly
sink.
Tin Kolumbić - The Art of Love and Death
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Richard Howard2 said:Every single point in space-time possesses its own temporal component, yet it isn't time itself, and vice versa. Spatial dimensions and the one temporal dimension are distinct; they aren't interchangeable coordinates. Therefore, space and time aren't identical. It is a continuum of interdependence, but a spatial component isn't a temporal one, nor is a temporal component a spatial one.
If we were traveling at infinite speed, we wouldn't be present at every point in space simultaneously—only if we were expanding at an infinite rate.😉
The reality is that there is NO such thing as three-dimensional space on its own... nor any time on its own... space and time form a WHOLE and a UNITY that our minds can't even grasp. What we perceive in three dimensions and what we "feel" as the flow of time isn't "actual reality," but rather segments and cross-sections... which only together constitute the whole. The total space combined with total time... as ONE PIECE... is the existing reality. While what we CALL space and what we CALL time... doesn't truly exist outside of our own "preconceptions."
Now... if a cube is a three-dimensional object... you can't claim height isn't a "cube" component separate from width and length... because without height, a cube ceases to be a cube and becomes a plane.
A plane, however, is a cross-section of a cube, and every point on that "cross-section" inherently possesses "height," even though the plane itself only has two dimensions and lacks a third dimension—height—within its own nature; it merely "moves" through it. Sigh...
So... in that sense, time is a "dimension" of actual space and inseparable from it, meaning every point in space is also a temporal one.🙄 There is no identical space at a different time, just as there is no "identical" plane at a different "height."
😕...... and now I know nothing at all... 😕
Richard Howard2 said:Time is a reality, just as much as space itself. Einstein and those who followed him proved it. Space and time are inextricably linked, bound together in a single fabric.
Fine... but does that space exist all at once?
If it does, then "time" also exists all at once, "inextricably linked with space," because we can't separate one from the other. We say space exists now, while time "passes" us by, drop by drop...
The question is... why do we perceive time as "passing" if it is merely a dimension or property of space?
It seems obvious. We don't see the whole thing at once. Much like I mentioned regarding cross-sections or snapshots, our perception of these slices creates the illusion of movement or the flow of time—like frames in an animation.
If time doesn't actually flow (just as space doesn't), then the very concept of time carrying the meaning of "passage" is flawed. Doesn't time simply become infinite, or eternity—which is perhaps the only appropriate term for the infinite. Thoughts?
Even if the existence of time is proven, we still know nothing about its actual properties. It remains an unknown dimension within an unknown space.
I am not suggesting we ignore the passage of time when catching a flight or commuting to work; what we "know" suffices for practical purposes. However, one should remain aware that we truly understand nothing about the actual nature of space and time...
....and it appears we aren't particularly interested in knowing... 🙄 😎
Perhaps four-dimensional space-time exists as a single entity. Our limited perception forces us to see only three dimensions, while we merely "feel" the fourth as time. If time is truly just another spatial dimension, then we aren't seeing the full picture—we are only seeing a cross-section. Following that logic, our "body" isn't just what we see now; it would be the entire collection of every state and position we’ve occupied from birth to death, existing as one singular whole. A sort of spatio-temporal body. There you go. Try to wrap your heads around that...🙄 as if I'm not already breaking a sweat...😎 😕 though God knows if I have a clue...
Time is a strange plant... growing only on the fertile, three-dimensional fields of the mind... creating an illusion of motion where none actually exists.
Space lacks dimensions, and thus lacks time—both spatial and temporal dimensions are merely perceptions... the mind constructs this four-dimensional fabric solely for its own convenience.
If anyone doubts me... feel free to test it... try to grab a "slice" of time within a "slice" of space... then we'll see.😎
Eric Wells3, consider this.....
There is no such thing as "other" versus "own" consciousness. There is only ONE consciousness. You cannot prove the existence of multiple consciousnesses through experience or any other means—only the existence of more conscious "individuals." This implies that this single consciousness is omnipresent, even if it remains unnoticed and unknown to everyone...
Consciousness holds desires, yet possesses none. For the sake of clarity, we must distinguish between the two. You might be aware of a desire, or you might not. It is vital to separate consciousness itself from its contents. Take thought, for example; thoughts simply flow. You can observe your own thoughts and their movement. These are distinct: thoughts, perceptions, and feelings are merely the CONTENTS of consciousness—transient and fleeting—while consciousness itself is CONSTANT and unchanging. This constancy provides the continuity of a "person," though a person is inherently nothing permanent. Ultimately, consciousness CREATES the individual. In this sense, a human doesn't "have" consciousness; rather, consciousness "has" the human as its own content. One shouldn't feel "offended" by this; one should realize that by identifying with transient content, they are choosing to be limited. No one is asking you to admit to a wider consciousness outside of yourself... because there is no "outside." Such a concept doesn't exist. Likewise, you do not exist anywhere "outside" of it. Consciousness is limitless, but you, being merely the content of that consciousness, are definitively fleeting and therefore limited.
A person can "influence" the contents of consciousness—themselves—because those contents are fluid and changeable. However, there is no way to "influence" consciousness itself, as it is "empty" and immovable. It must be empty, formless, and eternal, so that all content and form may emerge "from it" into eternity. As the old Buddhists would say, emptiness is form, and form is emptiness... without compromise or limitation.
The problem with the human condition is that people fail to view themselves as consciousness. Instead, they are deeply, deeply attached to themselves as the transient content of consciousness—the human form—which is nothing more and nothing less than NOTHING. At the same time, they fail to see that by "abandoning" the self as a "being," they abandon their limitations and transience, remaining what they truly are: limitless consciousness.
And this unknown, unconstrained consciousness that contains you
(rather than you containing it) which "knows" you, rather than you knowing it, could be called God, or Allah, or a supreme intelligence, or whatever else you prefer... yet the truth is that it is more accurate to say that "we" do not actually exist. Only it truly exists, and it is because of it that we exist as its fleeting "form."
In religious systems, this is termed "creation." That is why humility, gratitude, and renunciation exist—to help a person let go of their false greatness (their perceived existence) and grasp their true, eternal essence.
Because of the unknown nature of one's own essence—the true nature of creation—it may seem as though "God" is someone or something outside of us. But that cannot be true... because "OUTSIDE" does not exist. Whatever is outside is actually inside, and vice versa.
To clarify: it isn't that nothing exists outside, but rather that "outside" as a category of space and time does not exist at all.
Human destiny is tragic in its finitude, yet that very finitude is the path to infinity. Because of this, it is simultaneously magnificent and, in essence, perfectly complete.
And... what else is there to say? People shouldn't be given hope for liberation, because they are already free... it is the TRUTH that sets them free.🙂
Where, specifically, does consciousness manifest within the material realm? How can we even begin to identify its presence? Where in this so-called "nature" do we actually locate it?
Naturally, it isn't found anywhere specific... nor can it be "located"... yet WE ARE CONSCIOUS. This implies that consciousness DOES exist within nature, even if it remains invisible and beyond the reach of any scientific instrument. By mapping out physical and chemical processes in the brain—if I may address a certain skeptic—one merely proves those processes themselves. That provides zero confirmation of consciousness or insight into its essence. The only, I repeat, ONLY proof of consciousness is consciousness itself. We can only confirm it from within our own being. So, while consciousness might not be "visible," it is through consciousness that everything else becomes visible; it encompasses everything.
YOU CANNOT FIND THE TOOL WITH THE TOOL.
In this context, "man" is the totality of nature contained within himself. Consciousness is what holds "nature" within itself, which simultaneously means that ALL OF NATURE IS CONSCIOUS.
...
jimmy said:Rachel Bishop, it’s flattering to have my words quoted... 🙂
But most people find it incredibly difficult to even ask the questions. It requires going against their own interests, or against those toxic forces hurting them that they might finally realize exist. What stays hidden within us doesn't stay buried without a reason. 😉
I mean, nobody wants to face their own shadow unless they're forced to—that's where the inevitable, all-consuming pain steps in.
Glad you find my words worth reading.🙂
Facing oneself is painful, certainly. But the reality is we can't run from ourselves, no matter how far we go. Eventually, you just get exhausted from the flight and the weight of what you're carrying. One has to wonder which is actually harder.🙂
Solaris said:That sounds ideal.
But how can one be certain they've truly exhausted all desires? We can only claim awareness through conscious thought, yet who knows what remains buried in the subconscious?
It isn't much of a dilemma... you monitor your own actions, dissect the motives driving them, and eventually... a hundred different desires surface into the light of consciousness.🙂