Messages

Any possible reason to be worried or concerned about doing this? Gates of Horn? Sounds like an oddly specific formulation. Probably a construct of someone, right? What was that person's intent? Good or bad? If there are indeed such great results, could there be any "adverse" effects?

Could it also be that the phrase doesn't matter at all and things happen only because you expect them to after you use the phrase?

I've done quite some validations but I would not have needed them because I have a kind of intuitive 'knowingness' (which is not the same as knowledge).

The problem of this world is that most people are trapped in their mind boxes and there are two main boxes and for many or most people these are the only options that exist. It is also called a 'false dichotomy'. It is a kind of brainwash that society seems to have implanted into us now.

It is religionism vs. materialism/atheism/nihilism

Many here on the AP are beyond this, but we do not partake in the 'offical mainstream' narrative and discussions which is always about 'religionists' (christians, muslims, whatever) versus the 'atheist/materialist' (Dawkins type).

I personally yawn at this because I cannot relate to this. I guess many people on here at the Pulse feel a bit the same way.  

I totally get what you are saying. And a couple of weeks ago, I would have agreed wholeheartedly. But now, I no longer consider atheists, at least some of them, to be trapped in mind boxes. I always thought their stance was without compromise, just like "there is no God, end of story, f**k off."

But now I can see that some take a very humble "I don't know" stance and, in case of Penn, for example, they can be very compassionate and full of empathy. I never imagined this would be true and now that I realized this, I feel they deserve credit for that, at least. Hence this topic.

I am sorry if my comment yesterday seemed too harsh. I really know how hard this kind of situation is. I was not trying to judge anyone, I was trying to help. Given my background, I wanted to provide context that you might not be aware of. I even considered it my duty. There are, undeniably, people's lives at stake. So I took it very seriously.

My family was also subject to genetic testing because of an uncommon cancer. It has been a lege artis procedure in these cases for quite some time. It is nothing new. I yet have to hear about anyone who came to harm as a result of this. On the other hand, lives have been saved because of this.

Speaking of 23 and me, I agree with you. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving my DNA to someone like this either. Posssible risks are probably still small, but greater than benefits.

You are right about gut feelings, hints etc. I have had these  before  as  well. And I never said I personally demand any "hard" evidence, which is not easy to obtain in this area. I in fact am basing my own convictions on just hints and feelings. I have never had a proper "validation" moment, just some that came pretty close. Yet these are enough of an evidence to me myself. At the same time, it is not enough of a proof to Stand Up to a scientific inquiry, which would provide proof to others. And I am inclined to think we are not meant to prove afterlive scientifically. That would take all the "fun" of not knowing away. Just my hypothesis. One problem with gut feelings is that they are unreliable unless your mind is truly at peace. Otherwise you just don't know whether it is truly a "sixth sense" or your mind is playing tricks on you and you are in fact hearing your own wishful thinking for instance. Something that I certainly have to work on.

My whole statement about "hypocrites" seems to be unfortunate. Not what I meant at all. I didn't think it applied to anyone here on this forum, including you. I am sure many of you have seen glimpses of the bigger picture. I kind of have too. Yet there are many people out there who think they know for sure Bible, Qoran or whatever is the only right word and only because they were raised to believe that. If they at the same time force their beliefs on others, that certainly is hypocritical.

Yet it is not entirely their fault as your upbringing certainly plays a huge role on your future personality and beliefs. Chances are, I would now be a devout Muslim proclaiming that God doesn't want women to drive a car, had I been born somewhere in the Middle East. However, at the same time, it Is not like you are deprived of freedom of choice entirely. True that.

Also, I never said I was an atheist. This whole topic is about my realization that some of them have much in common with my own thoughts and beliefs. Recently, I thought they could not be further away from me opinion-wise. So quite a revelation for me which I thought I would like to share. I am starting to doubt my capabilities to express my thoughts clearly enough in English LOL. but then it is not my mother tongue.

Probably you didn't mean it the way I read it ... The fact that you don't know something, doesn't entitle you to believe that nobody knows it, or that it can't be known.

I don't think that any living person on Earth knows all the mysteries of the universe. I believe our reality was designed in such way that it is impossible to know everything, because that is the purpose of our lives: to live the best life we possible can without knowing what comes afterwards. Remove uncertainty out of the equation and it completely changes the way people's mindset with which they approach this reality. For the sake of the argument, let's suppose that Christianity is right and the Bible is indeed the truth and people know that. They will all be afraid of hell, they would all follow the 10 commandments and there will be no way of knowing whether they are doing so because they are genuinely loving people or just because they are afraid. Let's suppose we are living in a huge computer simulation that we constructed for our own amusement. Not knowing is part of the "fun" and knowing what comes after would ruin it.

This obviously just my hypothesis and I am sure I could be wrong and there might be some know-it-all out there. Prove me wrong and I will stand corrected. In any case, you are right that I should have formulated the sentence better. A hypocrite is everyone who claims to know but doesn't. But I am pretty sure that those who claim Bible is the word of God, even though it was written by people and changed drastically throughout centuries don't have the right answer.


Anyway, I think that I already demosntrated that the word atheist and its definiton is unclear by saying "according to his definition, I would have to describe myself as atheist as well, even though I am REALLY NOT."

As for scientific, I believe this word has a very clear meaning and I have no desire to revisit its definition or whether I used it appropriately. I simply meant by what I said that by the means of a NP experience, I was given an impulse which led me to prove to myself that there is more than just matter. However, scientific inquiry requires reproducibility. And rightfully so. Imagine that Fleming, who discovered penicillin, didn't reproduce his results. He would have had no way of knowing that it was actually a funghus contamination that produced it.   Anyway, I know for myself that I have a proof, yet I am unable to reproduce my experiences in such a manner that they would be published by a peer reviewed journal. That is what I am saying. Fingers crossed that Sam Parnia pulls it off someday though.

Penn Jillette seems to be an entertainer. He lives from making people paying attention to him.

How is that either wrong or relevant? I can either pay or not pay attention to him. My free choice.

Everyone is entitled of an opinion and I don't think judgement or effort to drastically change one's beliefs by force either verbal or physical is acceptable.

Certainly, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and no one would agree more than a libertarian. I don't think there is any physical or verbal abuse involved at all. As far as I know, this bloke wrote a book and has not forced anyone to read it. Only those willing to will do so. He also gives interviews and talks. No one is forced to go to them and listen to them, either. I believe that is the case with others as well, although maybe not all of them. There are idiots in every group.

Obviously, things tend to get heated when a zealot from one group tries to debate a zealot from the other. But again, no one forces them to engage in a debate.

For the most part religion is not imposed on anyone. It used to be forced in the distant past, but not anymore. So, it is a matter of choice.

This is just wrong. For instance, leaving the Islam religion is still punsihed by death in many countries. Also, if you are raised some way from the moment you were born, you can have a very hard time leaving that thought-pattern even when there is no danger of legal action against you. Sometimes you are just bullied by your social group. People disown their own children for things like these. In these cases, it is very good that there is a recognizable voice out there raising logical and reasonable objections without forcing anyone to do anything that people who find themselves in these rigid thought-patterns might stumble upon. It might give them food for thought, challenge their beliefs, make them contemplate, which is arguably only good. Whether they will hold on to these beliefs is then up to them. There are logical fallacies in many, if not most, religions that actually still cause harm to people, even though they have been proven wrong over and over. Condoms are worse than AIDS and all that kind of stuff.

This life is short and sooner or later all of us will find out, so relax, laugh, love and enjoy while the time is given to you here.

Agreed. I never said I am uncomfortable not knowing. I am uncomfortable people claim to know even though they don't. Just like you, I have my own "truth", which is kind of a hypothesis of what might be based on my experiences in NP so far (and which was heavily influenced by some of the forum members here btw), but I don't pretend to think that it is accurate and I am just fine with it. 

It already does occur. MJ had 2 different forms of Cancer, totally independent of each other. They wanted to do genetic tests as well. We found out that the outcome of those tests would actually be accessible by the Insurance Companies and MJ's sons and their kids all the way down the line would be effected by it. We said, "no thanks"!

They always have good selling points and try to tell you that they care about you, just like Car commercials try to tug at the heart strings, but in the end, they are a business. The medical community considers people "statistics". They gave MJ 8 months to live, two years ago, even if she had Chemo, which she refused. The Cancer went away by itself, without medical intervention. She did stop smoking, stopped eating sugar and ate healthier though. She also began reading books on Spirituality. But the biggest thing was, she didn't "buy in" to their diagnosis at all. She never gave up or gave in to it.

I usually really like and appreciate your posts and your insights but with this one, I am really bewildered. As a future medical doctor who just went through a whole semester of oncology, I believe I really should point out the facts that you seem to be unaware of.

As you know, because I have discussed this situation with you before, I am tremendously sympathetic about this situation and I am really happy for you that it turned out the way it did.

With that being said, I think that the decision not to undergo genetic testing was really (and I am sorry to say so) reckless.

It is highly unusual to have two independent forms of cancer at the same time. I am not sure why you were suspicious of the doctors' motives trying to order the genetic test, but if such situation occurs, the warning bell "genetics" just starts screeching in the head of any decent doctor. And rightfully so. It might be just a coincidence or a somatic mutation. But chances are, there might have been a germ-line mutation at play which might or might not have been passed on to the offspring(s). If that were indeed true, then depending on the type of mutation, the offsprings could be in either moderate or grave danger of getting some sort of cancer too!

The purpose of genetic testing is to catch these cases before it is too late. What follows is not a merciless giveaway of the information to insurance companies and exclusion from the healthcare system (that is what could have happened in Nazi Germany if they had not favoured immediate murder of these people instead). What happens is that a thorough follow up is established with regular checks. And it arguably has invaluable merit! The thing is that for most cancers, the rule is that when you have methastases further than in regional lymph nodes, you are a dead man walking. It is a sad truth that contemporary medicine has no way of curing the illness at this stage, it can only prolong the life-expectancy. There are exceptions to this rule, such as seminoma (testicular cancer) or some types of cancer affecting children, but it sadly applies to most cancers. But with regular checks, you can catch it early and save a life.

And the problem is that you cannot possibly rely on spontaneous regression each time. It is true that I asked you about your case and what kind of changes were made and it definitely cannot be ruled out that they played a role in the regression. However, causality and correlation are not interchangable. There are countless cases of people who also refused conventional treatment, became more spiritual, adjusted they diet and they died anyway... and much earlier than they probably would have with the treatment. The fact is, that we just don't know what is behind this spontaneous regression phenomenon. BTW there are some plausible theories based on immunological processes and we will see in the future if they are right or wrong. Maybe there is indeed a very specific set of conditions that your wife met including some very specific spiritual excercises which are necessary for it to occur. That is why I turned to you in the first place. But we just cannot know anything for sure from one case.

I am definitely not judgmental of anyone who does this thing if the treatment doesn't offer any chance of being cured. Heck, I have been there myself with my loved ones. The hardest decision to be made! But when it comes to genetic testing which can prevent  this from happening to close relatives, I don't find the choice hard at all. And as it is hopefully obvious from the paragraph above, it would be extremely hazardous, to say the very least, to expect that spontaneous regression would work for them as well.

Two more remarks:

It is true that insurance companies want to make money. On the other hand, if they were not oriented on generating profit, they would go bankrupt and there would be nobody to buy the insurance from. For instance, I live in a country where health insurance is socialized and there are no insurance companies in the true sense. They are actually controlled by the state and you cannot really choose your own health plan. You don't have the option to pay more and include let's say biological therapy in the covering of your potential cancer treatment. And you are at the mercy of the state and what they put into the universal health plan for everyone, which you are required to pay for, yet have zero say on. So to argue that the existence of profit-oriented insurance companies is immoral or unethical doesn't stand up to reality. With that being said, I seriously doubt that anywhere in the western world, you would be stripped of your health plan that you already have based on newly-discovered genetic mutation. I might be wrong. But that would also have to include the insurance company learning about it from you or your doctors. For the latter, I believe that would be a case of breaching the patient-doctor confidentiality, which is punishable by law.

As for the doctors viewing patients as mere statistics: I cannot speak for everybody, but I sure as hell don't! But the ethical code dictates that you must not lie to the patient. You might withhold some information if that might benefit the patient or if the patient doesn't want to know. But you must tell the truth. And there is no more reliable source of information than statistics. Surely, each patient is different, there is also the possibility of spontaneous regression, however unlikley that might be. But you cannot possibly say in advance how each and every individual patient will fare. So the statistics is the only thing you have. And you cannot possibly promise the patient to cure him or her if you know that every single case so far ended badly. So you have to tell the most honest estimate, based on statistics unless they really don't want to know. And it is sure as hell important, because for terminally ill, every day counts and it is a very valuable information for them, because they can organize the rest of their lives accordingly. They know how much time they have to reconcile with that relative they haven't spoken to in 20 years, to visit that country they always wanted to go to... And so on. It is much more complex than just "doctors see you just as a number in their statistics." Some of them do, but that means they are bad doctors. And just like n any other profession or social group, they are good ones and bad ones.

Hi again!

Seems to me like I made a habit of showing up here once a year during summer, when things get a bit less hectic and I have more time to contemplate. And once the summer is over, a new semester at med school starts, I just don't find the time. Anyone else noticed this pattern with themselves? 

Anyway...

Politically, I consider myself libertarian. This might seem like a random statement that doesn't really belong here, but it is the reason why I recently stumbled upon an interview with a famous magician and atheist/skeptic Penn Jillette on a libertarian YT channel. I totally identified with what he said and I was kind of drawn to learn more about his opinions, since I had never really cared about him and thus didn't know much about him, although he is famous. Obviously, I came across his atheist and skeptical opinions as well. What striked me was how similar, sometimes outright identical, his opinions were to mine. Shockingly enough, according to his definition, I would have to describe myself as atheist as well, even though I am REALLY NOT.

In short, he approaches the question of whether there is any afterlife, god, divine being etc. with a simple "I don't know." This stance, he sais, is the most humble and sensible take on the subject. He also says that he doesn't think there is a God, but is open to possibilities and that any open-minded atheist, such as him, would be the first to change his mind if presented with evidence suggesting otherwise.

I could not agree more! It indeed is the only possible stance that makes sense. Only a hypocrite would claim that he has the defintive answer to the mysteries of what happens after death, a monopoly on truth, so to speak. Also, I actually used to believe the same thing as Penn did, until I did come across evidence to suggest otherwise (although my first OOBE is hardly "solid" evidence by scientific standards). Now I am sure there is something more than meets the eye. Yet I have no idea what that really is. And anyone who claimed any different would actually have had to die, then be resurrected and remember everything. And I am not talking about NDEs, I am actually talking about being "completely on the other side." Now, that might be the case for those who claim to remember their past lives, but to say that anyone has the definitive answer to it all would raise some eyebrows even here on Astral Pulse, I am sure.

As I dug deeper, I actually realised that those atheists, that I have despised for their pseudoskepticism and that so many people on Astral Pulse are ranting randi-ing about, are actually doing a great job of exposing religion(s) for what they really are: institutions trying to impose their monopoly of truth on others and trying to enslave them in the process. And doesn't Astral Pulse serve the same purpose, among others? To provide people with a hub where narrow-minded religious belief systems are put to question in order to help and free those, who have a dogmatic fear of astral projection?  Yes, sometimes some of these atheists get carried away and attack not only the stupidity of debunked, yet still widely reverred fundamentalism, but also any idea of "supernatural" at all. Yet, even the Devil himself, Richard Dawkins ,said in one interview that while not a believer, he is open to other possibilites.

This might not be a popular opinion here, but I think that I have to reassess my misconceptions about some atheists and the the purpose of the movement as a whole, that I have had. They might actually have a lot in common with my opinions.

Any thoughts?

Good to be back again, btw. 

Regarding the topic of Area 51, I also recommend watching this.

http://farsight.org/FarsightPress/Area_51_Farsight_Project_main_page.html

Thanks for the heads up. Might give this a try. 

Just wondering... Any other source where I could play it? They took down all of them. If you never hear from me again, they got me too.

Thank you for this post, Lumaza. Made my day. Just felt that I should let you know.

I'm not sure I can say this without sounding like an donkey's behind LoL, so please forgive me... but, that's because you simply don't understand.
It's the difference between ACTING good and BEING good.  But meh, in the sense of as long as you're doing good, it doesn't really matter THAT much.

One is done as part of the journey, and one is done after the journey has been completed (for the most part).

Sorry for a late reply, I kind of forgot (finals time  ). Anyway, no worries. I think I actually can differentiate between the two and I think I get your point. And I agree. But in my opinion it doesn't contradict what I am saying. You can either act good or be good. Absolutely. But... sorry I cannot help it (I might be a bit of a donkey myself ): when you are good, you still feel good about it in some respect. It just isn't the same feeling like when you are merely "acting." Every interaction of us with this world can be broken down to "feelings." Of course, there is nirvana - an absolute cessation of everthing. But still. Generally it is the case. And even the way to nirvana feels "kind of good."

I realise there is the story about Buddha and his pupil where the pupil asks him: So what is the sense in all of this when the desire not to desire is also a desire.

I see a great paralell with our discussion there. And obviously there is a significant difference between "desiring and desiring." But just like I am saying above, it still feels kind of good to let everything be as it is.

Anyway... I think that the language is a great barrier in this conversation. We are talking about something too subtle and intangible to be put down to words. And therefore, misunderstandings might occur. Especially since I am not a native English speaker. So chances are, our opinions (or rather feelings ) are not so different from each other.

There's a big difference between a "selfless act" done to feel good and a "selfless act" done because it's the right thing to do.

You can usually tell within yourself which you're doing... generally speaking, if you have to THINK about the good act before you do it (in ANY capacity), then it's generally the former.  If you DON'T think, you simply act, then it's the latter.  Don't get me wrong though, as long as the Intent is positive, there is always room for spiritual growth.  For the most part, we all have to ACT nice before BEING nice becomes the norm for us.

Or as you put it... not feeling anything after doing something good is probably the ultimate act of selflessness.  The kicker being just that... it's the act of simply allowing everything to be as it is.

But in the end, there is a big difference between the two acts you and I mention above.  

Again, I don't think there is that much of a difference.   If you feel something is the right thing to do and you do it, you feel good. If it also includes something unpleasant too, it has to do with ego, nothing else. So again, it is benefitial to you in the sense of development.

Yes you can also feel good about doing something greedy, but that is ego stuff again and not what I meant really.

The act of allowing everything to be as it is.... well, fair enough. I will again use the nalaogy to Nirvana. Buddhists seek the cessation of all ego-based feelings. And by doing so, they are supposed achieve that blissful state. So I would say that if you succeed in achieving that kind of state where you are just an observer and are dettached from eveything, you will probably feel pretty good, perhaps not in the usual emotional sense that we know as you would be dettached form emotion as well, but somehow else. For that matter, when I for example help someone, the feeling that comes along with it is not really an emotion. It is hard to describe but I think you know that feeling too. You just feel it was right and you feel good. And these tho feelings are not separate, they are the same thing and they are kind of devoid of any emotional load. It is hard to describe but I think you know that feeling too.

As most people do, you're confusing the emotion "love" with what people call "Unconditional Love".  They're NOT the same thing.  Unconditional Love has nothing to do with the emotion and has to do more with accepting "what is".  It's a language barrier issue more than anything else.

Again, I didn't mean that greedy kind of love that is in fact not love at all but rather ego. And again, what does the  accepting "what is" feel like?  

There's no need.  It's all opinion and perspective anyway.  You choose to take it on or you choose not to.  
Whatever YOU choose to do is meaningless as it doesn't effect me at all... it only effects YOU.  

As I have said, I meant is as a kind of a challenge for further discussion. I don't really care who is right or wrong. I just just find the conversation entertaining and... well not sure if benefitial, so I will just go with entertaining.  Sorry I didn't make myself clearer  

I'm not really interested in proving you wrong, sorry

I meant for the matter of discussion, not for the matter of feeling good beating me or anything, of course

I agree that every selfless act is motivated by something and that that is not a bad thing. However "selfless" is defined as "having little concern for one's own interests". I am seeing a difference between extending a kindness (or whatever) based on what I benefit from it, i.e. "feeling good" "knowing I did the right thing" vs compassion/empathy and love for the other individual being the primary motivator. I'm not dissing feeling good about it at all, just saying that in my view its secondary. Thats what makes it "selfless"

I can help a little old lady across the street because I know it will make me feel good or because I have empathy and compassion for her predicament. Many times its probably both, agreed. Win-win. But if my benefit is the primary driver, its going to be easier to look the other way. It has to jostle with all of my other self interests at the moment. Is "feeling good" worth being 5 minutes late to the important job interview? Not today!  

I agree, I just think that feeling good is an essential part of this. You can have little concern for your own interest, but then again, if that is the case, you eventually will feel good about helping people.
The example with the old lady is a good one. However, I think that it is about priorities. The former option is materialist-based, the latter more love-based, therefore... let's say better for the spiritual development or whatever. So again, both actions are motivated, it is just about you choosing which is more important to you. Either you choose to hurry to your interviw, but that is going to make you feel bad for the lady, or you help her out, come to the interview late and feel bad about it, but you know you helped her and that is going to make up for that.

I didn't define unconditional love, I just asked a question, so I'm not sure what you mean by this. I would like to see your definition though.  

Fair enough, I probably misunderstood you. It is hard to "define" anything like that, I just think (maybe unlike you) that unconditional love still feels good even though you might not seek that feeling at all. It is just like the concept of Nirvana. It is about dissociating yourself from emotional ego-based load completely, but in the end, it is supposed to be blissful. I hope you get what I am trying to say

You make a good point, and I'd say that probably accounts for a substantial part of what we label "altruism". But if you are making the argument that nobody would "be altruistic if it didn't make them feel good" you are saying that we are incapable of truly selfless acts. That kind of sums up what disturbs me about the MBT. I read a lot about "unconditional love". Is it really unconditional if I (or the higher consciousness, whatever that may be) really do it only for a benefit?

I don't really understand what feels so wrong to you about it. Every selfless act is motivated by something. Even when you do not directly feel elated, you kind of know it is the right thing to do and that makes you do it, because you then feel at least better if not good. If it was not that way, it would make no sense for anyone to do it. I am really not disturbed by that. Quite on the contrary. Imagine you did something really selfless and didn't feel anything after doing so. Would that not feel kind of hollow. So I do not see a motiviation fueling every single act of ours as a bad thing. That is, if the benefit you get out of it is mutual. Everyone is happy, so what is the matter.

Furthermore, I see the term "unconditional love" as you define it as kind of a nonsense. Love has to feel good, it just doesn't make sense to me for it not to. You might disagree that you can actually feel a lot of pain yourself by selflessly sacrificing your personal aganda to help someoone else. But I could say that the pain you are feeling might actually be about giving up the material values or your greed and, in bigger picture, also about personal development and the good feeling of doing something for others (and therefore yourself, if you go with the theory that we are all just one). So no, sorry, but that kind of love does not exist in my opinion and I don't see why I shouldn't be okay with that.

Try to prove me wrong, I am seriously intersted if you can come up with something that contradicts what I said above

I wonder though, for those of you who are "all in" with the MBT, how you square this concept of love as just the most efficient means to an end vs the concept of love being purely altruistic. Meaning, are you OK with that?

Now, this is very interesting when you think about it. What does it mean to be altruistic? It is essentially helping other people in a selfless fashion, isn't it?. But why do you do that when you get nothing out of it? Well, you do it because you actually do get something out of it. And that is that you feel good doing it and so, by your words, it is "efficient" for you. You also love because it feels good, right? I mean, would anybody be altruistic if it didn't make them feel good? I don't really think so. And so, is it really selfless to love and be altruistic if you get a reward for it? So to say, is it really altruistic to be altruistic? 

Happy New Year to everyone btw

But see, that's really the thing... you *DO* have "the ability to perceive all of it at one time"... you just don't know how to listen.  Most people go through life listening on the purely physical level.  That's not deep enough.  Hell, as I said, most people don't even realize that they have this connection because they're too completely invested in the idea that this is a physical, objective reality to even bother to notice. 

I agree. I just probably didn't make myself clear enough. You are right that physical reality is NOT the objective one (if there are any objective at all). And yes, you have the link to the consciousness right know because you are it. But... Do you know everything just right at the moment? In a way, yes: somewhere deep within lies the answer. You COULD access it. You just usually don't. And to master the ability step by step takes a hell lot of effort. And this process is a learning experience. If you mastered the ability straight away, the learning value would be diminished.

Take every single experience you live through. Dealing with it without knowing everything teaches you thing or two, doesn't it? When you are unsure about what happens after death for example, you learn how to react to situations where death is involved while being uncertain and to deal with this uncertainty. Imagine you knew exactly what happens. It would take all the fun away. Yes, you are able to access this information. But are you able to tell me?

He doesn't even realize it, but his consciousness is already everything... so is yours, and mine... etc...

True, but most (or all) of the time here on Earth you don't have the ability to perceive all of it at one time. Else you would be able to do, know and foresee everything. Then life would have know meaning as you would learn nothing from being separated from the source and from the process of rediscovering it.. That is what I think. And just maybe beavis was going that way too fast and so his higher self decided to step in and stop it. Just a thought. Who knows? I definitely don't.

That, and it doesn't even surprise me when I see the infinite possibilities of past world/lives and the choices I gotta make. I'm glad I took that road. I'm still bugged about singularity tho (mostly the end of the line).

Our consciousness already reached far beyond the Universe, it's everywhere you want it to be, trillions and trillions of galaxies. Those who are not letting people down is because they just know what they gotta do deep inside, if you're in doubt it's because you're not on YOUR right path. Your consciousness can be in alternate universe, where ever you choose it to be. It's the teachings that it brings you that is important.

I feel that my consciousness is communicating with other higher consciousness (few humans) but mostly people reincarnated here on earth who know at which point we are.  Basically defining the world we actually live in... life/death/astral thoughts.

Beavis I know that you are wondering where we are going. It's pretty simple actually, we are going into the Science Singularity.
It might not happen in the next 20 years but 40-60 years, maybe 80 or a century... But it's bound to happen, eventually people will be cyborgs, androids and such. Technology develops too fast, and by the time we've figured what is happening a hacker will already have released the A.I. in the computer world.
The only way for us to survive will be to get implants and "merge" with computers.

If our consciousness is completely transferred through computers without the feeling of our body dying, and that the computers figure a way to overcome the Universe collapsing on itself, or becoming a complete void (being one of the theory of Hawking) Then we would be considered "Immortals".

How can you know this is the course we are going to take. It might be a possibility, but a sure thing? I don't think so.

If it indeed were to happen, it opens up quite a few philosophical qustions.
Can an artificial machine contain a consciousness/soul within itself? If so, will we have means to do it?
How did the life as we know it and which we consider nature-based (of organic origin) begin anyway? Surely, organic compounds can be made out of inorganic ones, but how were DNA, RNA and protiens made? Which one was first? There are quite a few theories out there (Oparin's being the most popular at the moment), but none of them offers satisfactory answers. Now when we on AP, unlike most scienists, know consiousness is not just a brain product, how does it relate to the creation of life?
Can something artificial be 'injected' with consciousness after it has been made? Or is it only present from the beginning upon birth/fertilization etc.? Or are artificial things already conscious too (I know everything is already consciousness but I mean it in the sense of having an individual personality, just like we do in the physical reality)? And again, aren't we also 'artificial'? Is consciousness 'artificial'? What was the first thing that existed? And what was before it?

Just trying to say I am clueless here. Everyone is. But you seemed pretty confident in that particular point. Why?

I will say this. What you eat and drink has a huge effect on your mood and psyche. My personal experience. To get rid of toxins is a good thing to do, yet I too do not think there is a link between pineal gland calcification and AP (and other psychic abilities). The effect might be indirect in that you might get into an emotional mess because of your diet. But calicification in this case is not one of the top things to worry about, I think.

BTW: Xanth, congratulations to your 10,000th post on Astral Pulse and 1,000th post on Unlimited Boundaries which came at almost the exact same time. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Just a little more practice at it and I might have spread my consciousness across galaxies and dimensions permanently and still be looking down here at my Human body like a spec of dust.

Mabe you were not meant to. Maybe you would not learn as much that way

I guess you might want to read the validation thread:

http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_permanent_astral_topics/validation_thread-t25607.0.html
Very nice read. There are also many other sources like thia. But you never can be 100% reassured, unless you do it on your own. So do.

You know what's tricky, though? When you do a reality check and still fail to recognise it as a dream. Happened to me many times.

Nothing as we know it is certain, with infiniate possibilities, why not even consider the insane, outrageous and extraordinary? There are tons of things we are unsure of or even agree on. Which kinds on concepts are you specifically refering to? I would love to hear some of your "outside of the box" thinking

In general, every concept which operates with the idea that physical matter is the only thing that is. But it is hard to come up with something you have not come across, since members of this forum are pretty much on the same wavelength. But not so long ago I also reasoned on this forum why the theory that negs are only part of ourselves and creation of our minds could be wrong. Not necessarily because I think so but because I felt it was developing into kind of a dogma here so I felt the need to challenge just as I do with every dogma.
Oh, I hate dogmas. The scientific and medical ones in particular. I have been involved in this field for quite some time and love it but find it just sad how closeminded people in this field are. I don't only mean those 'our consciousness is just a chain of chemical reactions in our brain' there is nothing but matter' statements. I have also witnessed and/or experienced first hand some medical treatments which are considered pseudoscientific and ineffective or even harmful and seen how effective they actually are. They are still not approved of or even banned in some cases, though. Not saying that some alternative treatments are NOT scam.
You would also find me agreeing with many so called conspiracy theories because facts are not always on the side of the official description of events. And I ignore the dogma that 'a democratic government would never do that' or 'aliens don't exist because weather balloons' a big time.
I could list some of my views on the nature of reality, too. But I would probably just repeat someone else's words from here.
Anyway, every time I see such an idea as yours here it is like a fresh air.

Just a little update about my brother. he is now on recovery and i'm still praying for him to finish his treatment. we are lucky to have a Drug Addiction Services out there who helped my brother. after his treatment i will tell him about astral project and meditation and everything that i learned about this forum.

I think you should not rush it, though. Dont spit it out instantly and give him some time to process it. He just went through a very turbulent part of his life.