Everything which has a beginning is by that very fact - a simulation ~Wi11iam

[Wi11iam]

Okay Ben so what I am hearing from you is that you are consciousness but the constrained version of you [CVOY] (called Ben) gives you (Consciousness) a sense of identity in this reality.

The identity gives you the opportunity to interact with the environment and other constrained versions of consciousness which also have a sense of identity for the same reason.

(Unit of Self as you have also called it) UOS

CVOY = UOS

In the case of your UOS you are able to peruse the 'astral' (The hard drive platform) and there are other 'games' – programmes UOS can access.

Q:  the 'astral' is the hardware?

Q:  The programmes are the software?

Q:  What is the UOS?

Q: Can you explain why the hardware is non physical?

All things are contained within the 'network' which – if I understand you correctly, contains everything and even if there were outside realities, these would be fractals of the network?

Understanding fractals as codes which are looped and then run, they self perpetuate infinitely.  The only way they can stop is if that which powers them is disconnected.  They are programmes and while they look real, they are not but they do give us an understanding of how looped coding works, and just as importantly they resemble things in the nature of the physical universe giving rise to the theory that the physical universe is some kind of programmed fractal.

Q:  Would you agree?

You said:

Out side the network lies another reality that isn't conceivable by the self aware avatar that is perusing the network. It may be pertinent to its existence... but if what we have learned is to be understood.. it will be a fractal of the local network.

Would you elaborate on this? 

Q: What is 'the local network?
Q: What do you mean by 'what we have learned'?

Q:  If there is no such thing as 'a place' (in terms of what you are saying regarding...say...the non physical from the physical) is anything 'a place'?

For example, could you consider Consciousness to be 'a place'?

You asked:

Q: I don't understand you use of the term 'madness'. What is this madness you speak of?

A:  The term has come up in this and other threads.  I have to assume that you are not reading all the posts otherwise you would not be asking this question.  You would understand why the term is being used.

The tree as a metaphor is quiet acceptable and relates well to fractals. 

The braches you speak of which are somewhat detached –
Q:  Are you saying they are detached because the Little Self Aware Unit is unable to access these?

You ask: 

Q: How would a self aware avatar within a computer game understand a peanut and what relevance is it to the avatar?

A:  From my experience, it would set up a link with its 'user' and the 'peanut' would not be of interest to the avatar...the user would be of interest.

The difference being that a game programmer only has to make code to create characters and that these characters are not self aware – they are animated by the user – they do not have lives of their own...they are not alive.

That is a huge difference.

To be specific; An 'Avatar' is not the form – the form is part of the environment and the environment is overall, also a Form.

The characters in a game are not Avatars.  For these to become Avatars the user would have to imbue an aspect of their consciousness into the character in order to be both the player and the played.


The Avatar is the consciousness within the forms.

In the case of the physical universe, the environments, including the forms are animated.  They are in constant movement and evolving and even when they are dying' they are transforming.  It might be supposed then that the whole universe is 'alive' or imbued with an Avatar (Consciousness).

If the physical Universe is a fractal, then it is one in which consciousness is involved within.

It is obvious that there are different forms (within and including the whole universe) which have certain advantages in how they can be used (by consciousness) and that the illusion created for the Avatar within the human form is one which gives an impression of a having beginning, gives an impression of individuality and a few other things which effectively deny the Avatar easy access to information which might assist it in redefining its identity to better reflect the truth.

Another thing which has to be looked into is that the Avatar is not so much directly influence by the 'user' as it is by other Avatars.

On of those influences is its learned sense of identity. 

[Bedeekin]

I don't actually presume to know any of the answers to the questions you pose. Neither do I mean the analogies and metaphors to be taken literally. There is no hardware or software. Not in the sense of understanding it as we do an actual computer... more that it is a fractal model of such that is beyond our current understanding and indeed relevance to the nature of our being. If we were to be able to unravel this mystery then the game is up. Don't you think?

I was using the 'avatar' metaphor as... a metaphor.

I am aware that an 'avatar' is a playable non-conscious character.

So when I answer... I am answering (semantics-free) still using metaphor... but I'll try my hardest to be more precise. I am quite busy but I'll do my best to answer. My previous post was an attempt to reconcile our differences and start up a better conversation. I was in a hurry so wasn't as concise as you would probably like me to be. Also.. while I know what I mean.. it takes me a little longer to construct my thoughts into digestible 'bites' of information. So bear (bare?) with me. Also.. my answers are only as I think I understand it currently.

"Okay Ben so what I am hearing from you is that you are consciousness but the constrained version of you [CVOY] (called Ben) gives you (Consciousness) a sense of identity in this reality.

The identity gives you the opportunity to interact with the environment and other constrained versions of consciousness which also have a sense of identity for the same reason."

yes. EveryUOS is in the same boat.

"In the case of your UOS you are able to peruse the 'astral' (The hard drive platform) and there are other 'games' – programmes UOS can access."

Not exactly.. My UOS is no longer constrained to the parameters of my physical parameters. It is freer and much less confused. It understands vastly more than I can calculate and there is a loss of insight once I become constrained again. This is personal experience and may not apply to those who may not lose any quality of insight upon re-constraining. When free of these physical constraints we are still constrained but less so.

Q:  the 'astral' is the hardware?

No. it is an organisational system/software or rather a larger operating system (LOS?) containing massive amounts of data. A portion of this data is used to organise, calculate, record and forecast what is this reality. This is decoded and essentially constrained by the IUOCs (UOS) that inhabit the system top down.

Q:  The programmes are the software?

No. The other realities or programmes are other constrained experiments or simulations like this one ran by their own LOS.

Q:  What is the UOS?

This is akin to a 'User' of the avatar only by analogy. I personally don't feel that it is ran by any LOS because an individual UOS can move freely (give or take  limitations of knowledge or possibility) within all systems. Based upon personal experience... when 'I' have been to other realities I can only observe. I am essentially invisible. I can't interact with the environment. I can seemingly slightly interact with the LOS of these realities but this is akin to diving underwater without breathing equipment. The same can be said when navigating within this reality or what is referred to as the RTZ projection.

So the UOS is a User... the higher self. We can now join Tom Campbell and begin to bring the idea that we are particles of a whole that is running the whole system... but I think we are more separate or special as individual units. We must be. If we weren't... I wasn't... I wouldn't be able to navigate as a constrained consciousness.

Q: Can you explain why the hardware is non physical?

The hardware isn't nonphysical neither is it physical. This is where it gets fuzzy and rather confounding because it is the part that could either get into the realms of science fiction or non-relevence. At the same time it could be the key question. What is the Hardware? Is it important? Is it important to a self aware computer what it is functioning within? Will it really matter to the computers function as an evolving consciousness?

It does if the human race is wiped out or there is a massive EMP that blows its circuitry.

No... I don't think we can relate the system that runs the system that runs the system.  

"Understanding fractals as codes which are looped and then run, they self perpetuate infinitely.  The only way they can stop is if that which powers them is disconnected.  They are programmes and while they look real, they are not but they do give us an understanding of how looped coding works, and just as importantly they resemble things in the nature of the physical universe giving rise to the theory that the physical universe is some kind of programmed fractal.

Q:  Would you agree?"

Yes. Very much so. this looping fractal... Recursion... or a recursive cellular automaton.

"You said:

Out side the network lies another reality that isn't conceivable by the self aware avatar that is perusing the network. It may be pertinent to its existence... but if what we have learned is to be understood.. it will be a fractal of the local network.

Would you elaborate on this?"

The network I mean is actually the operating system that runs the show that we are part of.. whatever that is. There are probably many more... these would be inaccessible. Unless this is the only one then my statement is invalid. But where there to be other systems then this throws any theorising into an eventual loop of pointlessness because it is irrelevant.

Q: What is 'the local network?

The nonphysical. I think i meant the 'astral'. Forgive me mistakes in my writings.

Q: What do you mean by 'what we have learned'?

I meant what I have learned about the fractal process.

Q:  If there is no such thing as 'a place' (in terms of what you are saying regarding...say...the non physical from the physical) is anything 'a place'?

Yes... consciousness is actually the only pertinent and solidly explicit 'place' outside of constrained PMR. A place exists once there are 2 points of existence. A base from which to 'be' and a point to experience 'being'. In PMR a place is much more easy to define. In the nonphysical it is a more looser term that requires no distance and is merely an intent to constrain the loose data of the LOS.

For example, could you consider Consciousness to be 'a place'?

haha.. yes. This is probably the most direct and real 'place' there is. As above.

"You asked:

Q: I don't understand you use of the term 'madness'. What is this madness you speak of?

A:  The term has come up in this and other threads.  I have to assume that you are not reading all the posts otherwise you would not be asking this question.  You would understand why the term is being used."

I have been so busy recently that I could only skim long discussions. As you can see my workload has relaxed slightly giving me the opportunity to do this and write a few articles on Sleep Paralysis.

"The braches you speak of which are somewhat detached –
Q:  Are you saying they are detached because the Little Self Aware Unit is unable to access these?"

No.. I now see that I was talking utter nonsense and as I have been collecting my thoughts realised I was rambling. The tree is a great metaphor.

[Wi11iam]

Yes...it seems almost time for diagrams

One thing for now Ben...I think we understand 'Avatar' differently...

You said:

I am aware that an 'avatar' is a playable non-conscious character.

I see it more as like the movie portrays it to a degree - an aspect of Consciousness which identifies itself one way, incarnating into another form but retaining its prior identity AND (eventually) merging the newer experience of identity with the prior one.

This of course doesn't quiet align with our experience because we do not have prior knowledge of existence as someone else...but the reincarnation angle which Campbell supports suggest that the IUOC in the non physical does have the collective experience of these 'life packets' saved as data - apparently non merged...

I digress...

When you are essentially travelling into the 'astral' you are doing so as the identity of Ben, the human being, even as you think or believe or have been shown evidence that you are not really Ben but the IUOC, you still travel as Ben, not the IUOC.  Do I understand this correctly?

[Bedeekin]

Diagrams can be good.

I am using avatar in the wrong sense... I mean an online avatar like world of warcraft or Second Life where it is bing controlled by a USER.

Using the film version of Avatar is another matter and when I went to see that film I actually thought 'this is actually more possible than it seems'; Create a clone and download/upload your consciousness into it. Not so far fetched me thinks. A worthwhile addition to the other thread in terms of technology allowing this.

When you are essentially travelling into the 'astral' you are doing so as the identity of Ben, the human being, even as you think or believe or have been shown evidence that you are not really Ben but the IUOC, you still travel as Ben, not the IUOC.  Do I understand this correctly?

No.. I am evidently much more. I am still Ben and I identify myself as me because I have memories of my normal physical existence but I have an umbrella of some other ME that is more me than the physical me. It's very hard to describe. I am collecting data and remembering that.. but the data that I have that makes me this 'more than me' is lost upon returning to normal consciousness.

I used to be little ol' Ben during my OOBEs. When I was younger... I would think and analyse like I did when physical. I would have desires and specific reasons.

within the last 5 years or so I am gaining insights that are only available as a memory or 'thing' when I am nonphysical... that upon becoming physical once more completely escapes me. A loss of insight.

These memories or 'understandings' often filter through every now and then... but not directly after the experience.

It is as though I am incapable of sustaining whatever knowledge I have as a nonphysical 'mind' in this physical mind. It's actually something I am currently working on understanding.

That is what I meant on the previous thread about my left and right brain differences. Although in hindsight it was a bad choice of wording. I don't think it really has anything to do with right or left... but more of a capacity or ability to translate the information... or download it into my physical mind. This also relates to my description of it being top down.

[Wi11iam]

Diagrams can be good.

I am using avatar in the wrong sense... I mean an online avatar like world of warcraft or Second Life where it is bing controlled by a USER.

Using the film version of Avatar is another matter and when I went to see that film I actually thought 'this is actually more possible than it seems'; Create a clone and download/upload your consciousness into it. Not so far fetched me thinks. A worthwhile addition to the other thread in terms of technology allowing this.

When you are essentially travelling into the 'astral' you are doing so as the identity of Ben, the human being, even as you think or believe or have been shown evidence that you are not really Ben but the IUOC, you still travel as Ben, not the IUOC.  Do I understand this correctly?

No.. I am evidently much more. I am still Ben and I identify myself as me because I have memories of my normal physical existence but I have an umbrella of some other ME that is more me than the physical me. It's very hard to describe. I am collecting data and remembering that.. but the data that I have that makes me this 'more than me' is lost upon returning to normal consciousness.

I used to be little ol' Ben during my OOBEs. When I was younger... I would think and analyse like I did when physical. I would have desires and specific reasons.

within the last 5 years or so I am gaining insights that are only available as a memory or 'thing' when I am nonphysical... that upon becoming physical once more completely escapes me. A loss of insight.

These memories or 'understandings' often filter through every now and then... but not directly after the experience.

It is as though I am incapable of sustaining whatever knowledge I have as a nonphysical 'mind' in this physical mind. It's actually something I am currently working on understanding.

That is what I meant on the previous thread about my left and right brain differences. Although in hindsight it was a bad choice of wording. I don't think it really has anything to do with right or left... but more of a capacity or ability to translate the information... or download it into my physical mind. This also relates to my description of it being top down.

Okay thanks for that Ben – it is very good data.

From what you are saying about retaining experience insight etc...This reminds me somewhat of dreaming – I dream every night and there is always residual memory – sometimes just a flash of a feeling other times the recall is far better.

There seems to be layers (which reminds me – can you clarify your 'top down' expression) which have something to do with – perhaps with intent – but the way I see it is that the dreams are real events only are called dreams due to their particular intensity.  They can be lucid which places me in a more direct realization that I am 'having a dream' and 'the dream is real' – which then gives me something to compare and often I have read from others that the dream is not 'real' unless it is at least 'lucid' but I don't think so myself.

The dream is still real.

So then we could fling around the 'what is real' argument but really it is consciousness which ultimately decides and so since I am consciousness, I decide, dreams are real even if they are not lucid.  They are as real as lucid, and lucid is as real as travelling.  The differences have to do with how we respond. The more 'lucid' the more control, decision space etc...

In relation to the movie Avatar, yes – for me it was more confirmation  as I have thought about this concept for some time and was glad to see it as a movie.

There is more I want to say regarding your post but want to sit back and contemplate.

[Bedeekin]

Okay thanks for that Ben – it is very good data.

From what you are saying about retaining experience insight etc...This reminds me somewhat of dreaming – I dream every night and there is always residual memory – sometimes just a flash of a feeling other times the recall is far better.

Very similar and probably a closely related if not directly related modality.

There seems to be layers (which reminds me – can you clarify your 'top down' expression) which have something to do with – perhaps with intent – but the way I see it is that the dreams are real events only are called dreams due to their particular intensity.  They can be lucid which places me in a more direct realization that I am 'having a dream' and 'the dream is real' – which then gives me something to compare and often I have read from others that the dream is not 'real' unless it is at least 'lucid' but I don't think so myself.

The top down expression is actually well represented by what you just said.. 'layers'... separated by metaphorical one way permeable membranes allowing a one directional flow of information/data/memory. The insights and information being collected and sent one way up the ladder to the seat of consciousness and very little coming down. Only being available to a caertain degree when merged [?] with varied aspects of the nonphysical 'layer/s'. But there is surely a way of getting this information and retaining it... I suppose this is what 'enlightenment' means. I'm probably being denied that particular 'pass'. 

[ChopstickFox]

Could you please have your VIP enlightenment pass ready upon arrival?

[Bedeekin]

 

I need to apply for a OSO Visa.

[Wi11iam]

Very similar and probably a closely related if not directly related modality.

The top down expression is actually well represented by what you just said.. 'layers'... separated by metaphorical one way permeable membranes allowing a one directional flow of information/data/memory. The insights and information being collected and sent one way up the ladder to the seat of consciousness and very little coming down. Only being available to a caertain degree when merged [?] with varied aspects of the nonphysical 'layer/s'. But there is surely a way of getting this information and retaining it... I suppose this is what 'enlightenment' means. I'm probably being denied that particular 'pass'. 

Could you please have your VIP enlightenment pass ready upon arrival?

I need to apply for a OSO Visa.

As can be seen - this is closely related to travel.

Yes Ben I suspected that was what you were referring to.

I have heard it said another way - like zones - each one more denser than the other, until this, the Physical Universe, is arrived at, with all its properties reinforcing - buy and large - the state of forgetfulness and uncertainty.



http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=7825&p=67123#p67123

Above is a link to something Tom Vollers said at me recently - it has to do with this topic and other associated things.  What he says in regard to 'The Void' - to 'not really being able to know...so take a camera' - these things remind me of when I used to frequent the Sceptic forum of James Randi Foundation - the same attitude towards those who they consider 'wack jobs' - woo-woos etc...

I can understand highly sceptical personalities engaged predominantly as their egos using such expression, but when it comes to those who come from the 'enlightened'  sector and who are teaching interested individuals certain 'truth' - I am not so understanding.

Anyhoo, like I said, it is relevant to this topic - I was perusing Campbell's MBTOE forum and the topic "If Data is Consciousness, then what analyses that data?" caught my eye.

I read the threads and could see that there were one or two who seemed frustrated with the answers they were getting - so I thought I would post leaving links to the two 'beginning' threads here in AP, because I feel that the content of these threads as well as how they unfolded/evolved - the data might go some way to helping answer this Q.

As Lionheart has often said - OBSERVATION and ACCEPTANCE - these are good tools, whatever the reality one is experiencing - be aware enough to observe as neutrally as possible and accept the evidence in the same way.

"Please extinguish all drinks and fasten your bootstraps."

[Wi11iam]

I have created this simple diagram.  Just as it is, what thoughts if any does it evoke for you?

[Bedeekin]

That's a fair diagram William. I would maybe put a broken dotted line seeping through; sometimes insight or a tiny aspect of understanding will be triggered by things in my everyday existence and a spark of understanding will manifest. Just like dream recall but more powerful.

I can remember new data I collect but not the ambient understanding I have when present in the nonphysical. I don't always get deeply into the holistic state... the deeper I go the more intense it gets but the less I understand or rather the ability to find explanation for.

It begins to get very hard to explain... again... another example of it becoming more removed from 'Ben' and closer to my higher self and that loss of insight thing. I am being very sincere and truthful here and have never really gone this far into describing it. I'll have to thank you for that.

I would be interested to hear if anybody else experiences this.

[Astralzombie]

That's a fair diagram William. I would maybe put a broken dotted line seeping through; sometimes insight or a tiny aspect of understanding will be triggered by things in my everyday existence and a spark of understanding will manifest. Just like dream recall but more powerful.

I can remember new data I collect but not the ambient understanding I have when present in the nonphysical. I don't always get deeply into the holistic state... the deeper I go the more intense it gets but the less I understand or rather the ability to find explanation for.

It begins to get very hard to explain... again... another example of it becoming more removed from 'Ben' and closer to my higher self and that loss of insight thing. I am being very sincere and truthful here and have never really gone this far into describing it. I'll have to thank you for that.

I would be interested to hear if anybody else experiences this.

Yes, that would account for the revelations (nothing in the sense of Biblical) we get during waking hours while concentrating on other tasks.

As well as the de javu (sp?) moments and other little things. No data is always completely blocked to everyone.

[Szaxx]

I like the unimpeded data stream being universal.
The non physical is interpreted as a barrier between the holistic. Is this where the awareness of who we are, the individual, the I, has to be in order to experience the atomistic?
If so how does the connection between an event (physical) happening miles from someone sensitive, who knows whats happening at that exact time and in great detail?
The omnipresent data stream could explain it to a degree but the information available would surely be incomprehensible between two individuals in this circumstance.
What are your thoughts on this?

[Bedeekin]

Based on that I think it may have inspired me to make a diagram... oh dear. 

[Astralzombie]

Will's diagram does a good job of showing how we do know more while OOB but "return" without everything that we knew. The dotted line Beedeekin described would show how we do return with some knowledge and why other phenomena occur.

[Bedeekin]

I am attempting a diagram but it needs to be in 3D... and the directional information lines are in danger of obliterating the actual diagram... and then I am having trouble equating it to a linear path... on top of that every time I try to separate the physical from the nonphysical the knowledge of experience is getting in the way of making a satisfactory representation.

I think I might stick with William's.

[Astralzombie]

I can remember new data I collect but not the ambient understanding I have when present in the nonphysical. I don't always get deeply into the holistic state... the deeper I go the more intense it gets but the less I understand or rather the ability to find explanation for.

I think MYBTOE explains this perfectly by simply keeping this part mystical. From a scientific POV, there is no way to prove anything beyond a certain point in certain instances so it just becomes conjecture. He is trying to engage his scientific peers and trying to explain further would surely drop their interests as much of what Cambell says already teases scientific heresy. Sadly, most only think about their careers.

[Wi11iam]

How about this one then, does it touch upon more accuracy?

That's a fair diagram William. I would maybe put a broken dotted line seeping through; sometimes insight or a tiny aspect of understanding will be triggered by things in my everyday existence and a spark of understanding will manifest. Just like dream recall but more powerful.

I can remember new data I collect but not the ambient understanding I have when present in the nonphysical. I don't always get deeply into the holistic state... the deeper I go the more intense it gets but the less I understand or rather the ability to find explanation for.

It begins to get very hard to explain... again... another example of it becoming more removed from 'Ben' and closer to my higher self and that loss of insight thing. I am being very sincere and truthful here and have never really gone this far into describing it. I'll have to thank you for that. ~ Ben


Thanks for that Ben.  What you share helps the projection of insightfulness and the process of getting on the same page (GOTSP)
What you say in your first paragraph reminds me of how serendipity/synchronicity works in this physical universe.

Why do you 'collect data' and where does this data end up and for what purpose do you suppose the data is for?

Why do you suppose the holistic state has this affect on you?  Is this similar to what Frank Kepple talks about in his resource – I think he calls it "F4"?

[Wi11iam]

Yes, that would account for the revelations (nothing in the sense of Biblical) we get during waking hours while concentrating on other tasks.

As well as the de javu (sp?) moments and other little things. No data is always completely blocked to everyone. ~Simon

Why should any data be blocked from anyone Simon?  Could the reason be similar to why certain data is not for certain eyes here?

In the case of biblical revelations, and religion in general I had a recent 'revelation' that ALL religions get there origins from the 'Astral'
Would you say this was possible or even probable?

[Wi11iam]

I like the unimpeded data stream being universal.
The non physical is interpreted as a barrier between the holistic. Is this where the awareness of who we are, the individual, the I, has to be in order to experience the atomistic?
If so how does the connection between an event (physical) happening miles from someone sensitive, who knows whats happening at that exact time and in great detail?
The omnipresent data stream could explain it to a degree but the information available would surely be incomprehensible between two individuals in this circumstance.
What are your thoughts on this? ~ Szaxx

I like that too Szaxx.

Did you notice that in my next rendition I decided to thin out the stream as it passed through each Aspect of Consciousness?

The non physical might act as a barrier between Physical and Holistic aspects of consciousness – as portrayed by the red lines.

The connection to an event which happens in the physical will perhaps have physical properties which allow this to occur independently of the non physical – through the atoms (as a medium) but still might require  the unimpeded stream in order to activate this as you suggest.

I am not sure that the data would be incomprehensible between two individuals but would agree that it would take effort of both to align the understanding through working on a communications process which would better enable this to happen.

[Wi11iam]

I am attempting a diagram but it needs to be in 3D... and the directional information lines are in danger of obliterating the actual diagram... and then I am having trouble equating it to a linear path... on top of that every time I try to separate the physical from the nonphysical the knowledge of experience is getting in the way of making a satisfactory representation.

I think I might stick with William's. ~ Ben


Sometime simple is effective enough.  I am thinking the diagram as 1 per person but have made the blue and red data stream lines to denote 2 ways in which an individual might experience the Aspects of Consciousness...and adjusting accordingly as we go...

[Wi11iam]

I think MYBTOE explains this perfectly by simply keeping this part mystical. From a scientific POV, there is no way to prove anything beyond a certain point in certain instances so it just becomes conjecture. ~ Simon


I think to keep something mystical is suspect.  This applies to an outside engineered purposeful agenda and equally to an inner purposeful self made wanting to remain ignorant attitude.

However, if something is mystical but not purposefully hidden or veiled or costumed etc...then it is easier to 'crack the mystery' because no thing is actually working to keep it mystical.

Science does this kind of thing all the time, and would not settle for MYBTOEs explanation of 'mysterious' and 'cannot be proven.'

Conjecture is okay as long as it remains open ended and aligned with what evidence is available...science always uses conjecture (hypothesis - it is a wonderful tool of the imagination) but is ready to let go any conjecture which proves itself to be incorrect as pushing through the mysteries reveals new evidence to the contrary.

In the case of Campbell's Conjecture regarding 'The Void' what he is saying (through Ted Vollers) is that 'The Void' is akin to a magicians hat, which produces something from 'nothing' only the 'nothing is actually a 'Void' which denotes a beginning which is evidence of a simulation – yesterday I though of it another way.  That which was obviously created, has a creator.

That which is 'a creator' is Conscious.

That, which is Conscious, is an Aspect of Consciousness.

The Void is evidence of the mechanism by which the creator of the simulation entered into a simulation of a beginning – and from this evolved (became more and more aware and self aware) as per Campbell's theory.

There is no 'mystery' to the function of 'The Void' – the 'mystery' is hidden on the 'other side' of it – and as Ted sarcastically suggested, if I wish to go therein make sure I take a camera so I can come back and show everyone the evidence.

(Completely unnecessary)

As we have from time to time exclaimed, 'we could go mad trying to reach a conclusion' but the obvious conjecture is that Consciousness must have never had a beginning.

For example, if we could find a way through the void, and discovered that the next layer also had a beginning, ....yet another void, we can conclude that we are still within a simulation, but would be hard pressed (perhaps...I have never thought about it) to come up with what that simulation was created to explore.

What we CAN ascertain is that the one we DO know about (but haven't brought pics back to show our scientists) is that it most obviously is for the purpose of creating a simulation of a beginning, but not an end...since then through the process, 'end simulations' have been created and explored – not of course without also having beginnings.

One thing which need to be acknowledged is that the holistic aspect of consciousness which was birthed through the 'beginning and no end' simulation will be aware of and accepting of this data itself, and would want all of its 'Aspects' to be likewise informed.

[Astralzombie]

My quote in it's full context explains why he keeps it mystical and that is because I believe he is trying to garnish credibility from the scientific academia in regards to his theory. He admits that it is just the best theory that fits all the known objective data along with his subjective data. I'm quite sure that he probably does have a theory that digs far deeper than he admits to on the record but that is my subjective opinion based on the objectiveness of his approach. In light of all he says and has shown, I think it's a fair assumption that he will refine his theory and further expand it based on new evidence or data. But to go any further than he already has with the current data would be just as credible as saying, from a scientific POV, that the current data suggests that Santa Claus and the Easter bunny are actually the source or origin of all consciousness. When it comes down to subjectivity, nothing can be more annoying than being told that this is how it is because I say so, regardless of what the best and current evidence shows.

I don't suspect him for not going further, in contrast I applaud him. He actually leaves it up to us to fill in the gaps for ourselves personally since there is nothing else that he knows objectively or subjectively to be true.

Would you rather he just lie about the matter instead of encouraging us to dig deeper personally? Since this is exactly what you are doing, I think you can give him a little credit for that. I think you would find a wider and accepting audience for your beliefs if you would accept much of what you are saying as just theoretical and therefore suggest that the audience explore for themselves. Keep in mind that much of what you are saying, though I believe some to be true subjectively, is equal to telling academics in their current mindset, that you believe the tooth fairy is real. They won't even give it a second thought and dismiss it outright.

But I do not put him on a pedestal or marvel at his insights. I just give credit where credit is due. I think we all do or should anyways.

I do like your newest diagram better even though the first was really close. Do you agree that it shows how data can stream through in smaller bits?

[Wi11iam]

I am not and have never portrayed Campbell in a negative way which needs defending.

I don't understand your references to Santa and Easter bunny...I am sure if you looked hard enough in the Astral you will find them, but they are not the Source and it is silly to even use this as an argument. 

We would best give each other credit where credit is due and if you think my observations (related to thread topic) are incorrect then say so and point out exactly or as near as you can as to why, okay?

I do like your newest diagram better even though the first was really close. Do you agree that it shows how data can stream through in smaller bits?

Are you referring to the 'dots'?

[Astralzombie]

I too think they are silly to use and that is why I did. I was trying to make a point that trying to objectively prove what comes after physical death to close minded people is near impossible. Any attempt to do so, no matter how much scientific data suggest that it is true, is completely disregarded as fairy tales to these people. That's all.

Besides, I do believe that a case can be made for the Ester bunny being the source.

As far as you needing to defend yourself against anything you say against anybody, would have to stem from you. It's not place to say so otherwise.

But you did say that to not go further than he did was suspect in your mind. I considered it good science.

...and if you think my observations (related to thread topic) are incorrect then say so and point out exactly or as near as you can as to why, okay?

I have to admit that I have no idea what you are referring to, unless it's to the fact that I still consider all this theory and not objectively proven.


Yes, I'm referring to the dots. Do they not represent data that gets through in bits and pieces?