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

[Wi11iam]

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.

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?

As far as 'who the source is' it is not the main focus.  The focus is that whatever the actual source is, it has no beginning.

Therefore that which has been identified many ways but most lately as the holistic consciousness (rather than 'aspects of)  AKA 'that which evolved from the void and became self aware' is not the source, but in its capacity knows this to be so.

It is an aspect of consciousness itself...consciousness which entered the simulation through the void portal.

Science itself at present doesn't appear to be giving Campbell's theory any serious attention.  AP-ers and would be AP-ers are his main audience and supporters of his theories and you are one of these by the look.

However when I hear AP-ers such as yourself and Ted Vollers say things which sceptics use in their arguments against 'believers' - it seems exceptionally ironic and more than a little weird.


Good science in the physical world is about looking at the evidence and so far it is pointing to Big Bang and the mystery of where that came from.
Some branches of science are of the opinion that it was just a spontaneous event and that consciousness evolved in the physical universe and there is no other universe.  Their 'magicians hat' is the big bang.

Campbell's theory says differently.

Do you see the pattern at all Simon?

Are the scientists correct in their theory or do you think they are missing something?

Tom says that consciousness spontaneously evolved from the void.  It is his 'big bang' and his 'magicians hat.

Do you see the pattern Simon?

The only answer to stop this pattern going on endlessly is that Consciousness never had a beginning and that neither the physical universe or the non physical one are the reason consciousness exists.

But whatever the case, this is not true of .  We all might have our subjective interpretations of the physical universe and our subjective perspectives, but we share an objective reality, which so far as I know has not been duplicated in relation to the 'astral' - everyone simply has their own subjective experience period...

Which tends to suggest that what is experienced is done so because of the expectations of the one experiencing it in relation to the properties of the non physical and how these properties interact and react with subjective beliefs. 

As to the dots - I put them there because Ben suggested it...and yes - I think they represent data that gets through but the data is incomplete it has missing bits

While I remember, it could deserve a thread of its own but...(and correct me please if I am mistaken) Campbell says that we are 'data'.  Do you agree?

Also how would you answer this:

If Data is Consciousness, then what analyses that data?

[Astralzombie]

Science itself at present doesn't appear to be giving Campbell's theory any serious attention.  AP-ers and would be AP-ers are his main audience and supporters of his theories and you are one of these by the look.

However when I hear AP-ers such as yourself and Ted Vollers say things which sceptics use in their arguments against 'believers' - it seems exceptionally ironic and more than a little weird.

I am a fan, that's for sure. I think he makes an exceptional case for his theory. That's all it is to me, a theory but a really well thought out one.

It's not weird at all in the context that I used it. Obviously no one has ever believed the easter bunny to be anything more that fiction. I can't believe I have to explain that.

I used it as a reference to show how absurd skeptics think we are for believing what most of us have accepted as objectively true from our own subjectivity. More than anything, I am playing the devil's advocate.

[Szaxx]

The renewed diagram is better.
My question is based on many events that happened where I knew what was taking place and one in particular actually saved a life. The strangest part of this one is where the family saw something on a regular occurrence when one of the members were in some 'difficulty'.
I had no knowledge of this and when it became extremely prominent the rest of this incident was 'seen'. I knew who to speak to and what to say. A messenger of sorts. It couldn't be ignored and it resulted in a saved life and an emotional breakdown of the one who had to recieve this message.
It worked fully and was totally out of the blue.
Other times I simply KNOW.

[ingerul9]

William these 2 threads in which you posted have been very entertaining. I couldn't help but ask a "trick" question and I am curious what is your answer.

Please explain what consciousness is without using any concepts that you know.

[Bedeekin]

My my... this thread surely does evolve drastically when one is away for a little while. 

The new diagram is great. 

The dotted line represents fragmented 'useful Big Picture' data I presume.. not experiential data; that which one gets up to while nonphysical, flying, retrieving, exploring etc.

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

This is going to take some explaining... 

Here's one aspect I don't mind sharing... Before I read MBT I was content to play and use my explorations as a tool to improve my physical life. 26 years of playing and frolicking around in the garden of the wider reality. I was seemingly allowed access to areas that according to Campbell are only acquired by one who is consciously evolved. I have never felt spiritual and I as I said... everything I did was performed for the betterment of myself. It wasn't until I read MBT that doors were closed... access denied in various areas. I read the first book in 2 days. I didn't put it down and basically locked myself away. The next day I couldn't eat meat. Two weeks later I had lost a stone (14lb) and my arthritis and general sense of getting older where diminishing. I also found I was craving specific food groups that I previously hated. In a month I felt better than I did when I was 20. The difference was that I was finding it difficult to AP.

I then had what I call an 'event' experience after pondering why I had changed so much. The experience that night actually took place the night before I couldn't eat meat one month earlier. In a nutshell I met a representative of myself (Higher me?) who I was designated to meet during a previous experience I had blocked [?]. We chatted and I was told some home truths about me. I was knocked down and reduced to a babbling bawling baby... all the ways I had hurt others.. and the reasons I had made bad choices. My final request of this other me was "How can I change? How can I be more like you? (the higher me)" I said to me "that had already been arranged" or thoughts/words to that effect. I had basically been reprogrammed by me to optimise myself physically.

Who was this ME? How did it work? Who made the decision to change ME? How was I not able to remember the event when it took place at the time and why was I not aware of it the day it happened? Why did it take place directly after being nudged by 'Awakenings'?

So in essence I am asking the same question. Where does this data end up and why am I collecting it? Is the data more useful to the other end or do I specifically need the data from the top end? How would I make use of it here or visa versa.

The question/s you are asking are actually fundamental questions and the hardest to answer.

Another thing is that I have been specifically told to NOT divulge certain things that I have done and accessed during my experiences. This is very frustrating because I want to but I truly don't want to find out the consequences of doing so. Also they seem benign but there must be a reason. Maybe this is why Campbell leaves certain things out. I don't know. Another reason Campbell leaves certain things out is probably because of the 'fantastical' nature of them. If what I experience sometimes is anything to go by, the scientific community would definitely NOT take him seriously.

[Wi11iam]

I am a fan, that's for sure. I think he makes an exceptional case for his theory. That's all it is to me, a theory but a really well thought out one.

It's not weird at all in the context that I used it. Obviously no one has ever believed the easter bunny to be anything more that fiction. I can't believe I have to explain that.

I used it as a reference to show how absurd skeptics think we are for believing what most of us have accepted as objectively true from our own subjectivity. More than anything, I am playing the devil's advocate.

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

[Wi11iam]

The renewed diagram is better.
My question is based on many events that happened where I knew what was taking place and one in particular actually saved a life. The strangest part of this one is where the family saw something on a regular occurrence when one of the members were in some 'difficulty'.
I had no knowledge of this and when it became extremely prominent the rest of this incident was 'seen'. I knew who to speak to and what to say. A messenger of sorts. It couldn't be ignored and it resulted in a saved life and an emotional breakdown of the one who had to recieve this message.
It worked fully and was totally out of the blue.
Other times I simply KNOW.

I have wondered at a few things to do with families, DNA and what have you.  I remember my dad saying once that he had premonition now and again and at one time it may have saved his life.

Sometimes I have thought about 'hide and seek' too – the fun of finding out things through your own participation and cognitive abilities.

I get the feeling though, that the holistic aspect is not purposefully hiding and is able to be 'mirrored' on any level/aspect of consciousness.

[Astralzombie]

For whatever reason, I just think that we are not intended to know all the answers from this point of view. It would somehow negate the purpose, whatever that is exactly. But I do believe we are only aware of a fraction of what we can know.

[Szaxx]

The family in question has absolutely nothing to do with me at all. The one who suffered I only met a few times fleetingly. The member the message had to be delivered to was a good friend. It doesn't fit into anything per se. The rest just occur randomly.
If this is some connection with the holistic I can understand it. A mirror, Im not sure of the terminology here. Having experienced the oneness with everything on a few occasions this data link fits the reasoning to immediate access and the non physical link fits the bill completely. Theres nothing physical that can be utilised in any way to explain the whole. It needs to be experienced to even begin to understand that connection. The 'entire knowledge' of all thats  presented is unbelievably mind blowing, you know everything about everything instantaneously. From thoughts to the strain on metal components. Everything is known and understood.
You have a great insight and I have wondered why none of your replies have anything related to a personal experience that instigated your dedication to this study.
Are you collaborating facts to generate a greater understanding of the subjectivity or somewhat fearful of misinterpretation by a personal perspective from the inherent distractions that abound while non physical?

[Wi11iam]

William these 2 threads in which you posted have been very entertaining. I couldn't help but ask a "trick" question and I am curious what is your answer.

Please explain what consciousness is without using any concepts that you know.

Ingeral - The closest I (as consciousness) have come to that is in realizing that consciousness had no beginning.  'No beginning' as a state of being is not a concept I 'know' because as this aspect (consciousness within physical form) I have had a beginning (and no memory of a prior existence but can still understand the concept) so I understand the concept of beginning and the concept of having a prior existence, even though I have no memory of having had one.

From the various models I have studied, it appears that the 'Astral' also had a beginning, so I can understand from the same perspective how that most likely would have evolved (and use metaphor directly from the physical) to 'paint a picture' which allows me (from this state) to understand why 'fractal simulations' were created and consciously explored (I being one of the 'explorers') I can even understand (as you should be aware, having read the threads) that the most likely explanation as to how this all started - how the 'fractal simulations' came to be (same reason - consciousness created them) all things which have a beginning were create by consciousness - therefore Consciousness had no beginning. 

Any aspect of consciousness which has gone through the process of a 'beginning' can understand this concept as a possibility, and even as extremely likely but cannot comprehend it in a way which would allow it to experience a state of no beginning - this state would - for all aspects of consciousness which have experienced a beginning - be non-explainable because it cannot be experienced from our perspective...(unless...as a memory...?  *ponders*) 

Therefore (to answer your "trick" question) Consciousness has no beginning or end and is aware of having no beginning or end.

I think I answered your question the way you asked me to.

Since we are all aspects of Consciousness which had no beginning or end, we can 'touch' (and be touched by) its significance (acceptance) and even allow it to influence our expression.

[Wi11iam]

I have to go to work now.

I have read what you have shared Ben, Simon and Szaxx - and I am excited by the data. 

I will use my time at work to allow the data to merge and look forward to replying in a few hours.

[Astralzombie]

Also how would you answer this:

If Data is Consciousness, then what analyses that data?

There seems to be an obvious answer but I think it's misleading. We as individual consciousness's analyze each other personally everyday. In fact, I think that's all we ever do. To do this, we have to separate ourselves from each other and take on personal identities. But I think this is only an illusion that benefits the purpose of a physical and non physical existence. Which appears to be a paradox because we can't imagine another possible form to exist in and maybe there isn't. But if the "astral" didn't come first, that implies that a physical existence did.

I think it's more appropriate to say that the "parts of the astral" we access did not come first though I'm not aware of the data that you say suggest otherwise. But that's not a fruitful debate IMO as I don't think it matters to our identity. At least not as I view it.

The easy answer is that consciousness analyzes everything. We as humans analyze other humans so why wouldn't this be true for consciousness as well? It's misleading though because we are not aware of all aspects of consciousness, as you say and I agree with.

[Wi11iam]

The new diagram is great. 

The dotted line represents fragmented 'useful Big Picture' data I presume.. not experiential data; that which one gets up to while nonphysical, flying, retrieving, exploring etc.

I have an idea of what the dotted line might represent, but I put it there because you asked for it.


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

Here's one aspect I don't mind sharing... Before I read MBT I was content to play and use my explorations as a tool to improve my physical life. 26 years of playing and frolicking around in the garden of the wider reality. I was seemingly allowed access to areas that according to Campbell are only acquired by one who is consciously evolved. I have never felt spiritual and I as I said... everything I did was performed for the betterment of myself. It wasn't until I read MBT that doors were closed... access denied in various areas. I read the first book in 2 days. I didn't put it down and basically locked myself away. The next day I couldn't eat meat. Two weeks later I had lost a stone (14lb) and my arthritis and general sense of getting older where diminishing. I also found I was craving specific food groups that I previously hated. In a month I felt better than I did when I was 20. The difference was that I was finding it difficult to AP.

It is interesting that you had access to areas which Campbell believes are not accessible to the aspect of consciousness which are not 'evolved' enough (I assume he is referring to QoC).
It is interesting too that the GOTWR can be used in order to...enhance lifestyle in the physical – without QoC being necessary.
It almost seems as if by reading MBT your 'innocence' was lost (you had new data) and the effect of that data changed your physical expression and also became a kind of block to your AP-ing abilities which were not so hindered prior to this.

I then had what I call an 'event' experience after pondering why I had changed so much. The experience that night actually took place the night before I couldn't eat meat one month earlier. In a nutshell I met a representative of myself (Higher me?) who I was designated to meet during a previous experience I had blocked [?]. We chatted and I was told some home truths about me. I was knocked down and reduced to a babbling bawling baby... all the ways I had hurt others.. and the reasons I had made bad choices. My final request of this other me was "How can I change? How can I be more like you? (the higher me)" I said to me "that had already been arranged" or thoughts/words to that effect. I had basically been reprogrammed by me to optimise myself physically.   

Prior to this, had you ever experienced the 'babbling baby' and associated realisations?
I am asking because I have had these – but within the framework of the physical reality.  While a sense of 'a higher being' was involved, this was 'presence' rather than face to face.

Similar episodes of revelation have also happened while involved in earlier communication through Ouija.

Who was this ME? How did it work? Who made the decision to change ME? How was I not able to remember the event when it took place at the time and why was I not aware of it the day it happened? Why did it take place directly after being nudged by 'Awakenings'?

So in essence I am asking the same question. Where does this data end up and why am I collecting it? Is the data more useful to the other end or do I specifically need the data from the top end? How would I make use of it here or visa versa.

If we come from the angle of the model that this...invisible but nonetheless intimately connected alternate reality came first (is not a product/creation of the physical) then the answer could be that this 'higher self' is YOU before YOU became YOU.
How cryptic.
Was YOU, before and aspect of it became 'Ben – the human being in the physical universe.

Data is interesting...Why are you collecting data which is mostly hidden from you?
Why is Ben collecting data in the non physical which is mostly hidden from Ben in the physical?

One possible answer which came to mind while I was at work is that help is given (like teachers) but the answers are not.
It must be important to the 'higher self' that the 'lower self' has as much opportunity to learn for itself.
This would suppose that there is a purpose in the lower self existing which is important to the higher self.
In every aspect of fractal experience, a 'new thing' is effectively created, which while part of the holistic, is still new.

This pattern repeats itself through the layers.

In relation to the holistic in the ...'source fractal' which is seen to come from the void, it is also a 'new thing' (which as a discussion deserves a thread of it own) and everything after that which involves consciousness is also a new thing.

My own data of experience leads me so far to conclude that the fractal process is in part, a way in which the original new thing set about to discover its 'self' because it – for some reason – could not penetrate the void from which it obviously (to itself) came from.

The usefulness of the fractal process is significant in that it can reduce consciousness – by degree – into 'parts' which are able to be studied – especially by the preceding 'parts' (which are 'higher selves' to the postceeding 'parts') proceeding as they do together.

[yep I know 'postceeding' is not a word – but at this time I can't think of the correct word.]

In effect, this universe consciousness is experiencing is bouncing back data – in our own attempt to discover who we are and what purpose we were 'created' for.
It would seem natural for any consciousness which has a beginning to want to know the answers.

The question/s you are asking are actually fundamental questions and the hardest to answer.

I don't think consciousness is data.  I will explain more in my answer to Simons latest post.

Another thing is that I have been specifically told to NOT divulge certain things that I have done and accessed during my experiences. This is very frustrating because I want to but I truly don't want to find out the consequences of doing so. Also they seem benign but there must be a reason. Maybe this is why Campbell leaves certain things out. I don't know. Another reason Campbell leaves certain things out is probably because of the 'fantastical' nature of them. If what I experience sometimes is anything to go by, the scientific community would definitely NOT take him seriously.

Through my own experience with Ouija principle and the forthcoming data communicated with that method, there were things I was also specifically told not to divulge – but I questioned this because I was quite adamant that everything need be transparent in order for trust honesty etc...also I had a specific experience while using this method which taught me that I can be too trusting...that I needed to also be able to make my own decisions and learn to trust in those decisions.

One thing I was told was to keep secret my use of Ouija, but under the circumstances it had such a profound effect on my understanding, learning, growth and insight that I could not really keep it secret and felt my intent to share HOW I came to access the data was important, especially because at that time I thought that others might also want to access this incredible way of getting data which was extremely helpful and beneficial.

While I knew Ouija had a shadowy reputation, I did not realise to the fullest extent how bad that rep was.
This I have learned well enough now – I can tell you that in my revealing how I got a lot of data set me up – in one forum in particular two individuals were very outspoken about it and never let a chance go by to use the info to cast doubt and demonise me and these individuals were purposefully doing so in order that others would turn off even wanting to read my data...which was exactly what was intended by these particular individuals who saw my information as dangerous to their own agenda.

Others, who were more 'spiritual' types – the 'love and lighters' tended to act nice when they were in positions where they had to make some kind of reply but would generally avoid having to interact with me.

Ah..so what would have happened if I had of taken the advice and kept things secret?

Who knows?  I don't regret being open and upfront about that – and the ripple effect, while very uncomfortable and often working against what I was about (unity – getting on the same page etc) it still taught me so much – the data feedback is always worthwhile and since my initial intent was not untoward or otherwise hiding some sinister agenda, the overall affect hasn't been bad for me.

I would take into account too that sometimes in order to get someone to do something, you tell them not too.

But I don't think it really applies to my particular example.

[Astralzombie]

I would take into account too that sometimes in order to get someone to do something, you tell them not too.

I'm sure Beedeekin will also keep in mind that people interested in this "secret" will try to coerce the holder into divulging the info by pretending to remain neutral when it they are anything but. 

[Wi11iam]

 

The family in question has absolutely nothing to do with me at all. The one who suffered I only met a few times fleetingly. The member the message had to be delivered to was a good friend. It doesn't fit into anything per se. The rest just occur randomly.
If this is some connection with the holistic I can understand it. A mirror, Im not sure of the terminology here. Having experienced the oneness with everything on a few occasions this data link fits the reasoning to immediate access and the non physical link fits the bill completely. Theres nothing physical that can be utilised in any way to explain the whole. It needs to be experienced to even begin to understand that connection. The 'entire knowledge' of all thats  presented is unbelievably mind blowing, you know everything about everything instantaneously. From thoughts to the strain on metal components. Everything is known and understood.
You have a great insight and I have wondered why none of your replies have anything related to a personal experience that instigated your dedication to this study.
Are you collaborating facts to generate a greater understanding of the subjectivity or somewhat fearful of misinterpretation by a personal perspective from the inherent distractions that abound while non physical?

A large portion of my insight comes directly from my interactions with the communications device and the data received through this process.
I have had limited experience with OOBE – enough though to allow me a glimpse and the glimpse was to behold.

I am collaborating data (not necessarily all facts/truthful) in relation to gaining a greater overall picture of what is most likely occurring.

I could relay stories which relate to personal experience that instigated my dedication to this study – and believe I may have already done this on this BB.
But in truth I can only say that my whole life (in hindsight) is the main reason.

I think you might be referring to what I said here?:

I get the feeling though, that the holistic aspect is not purposefully hiding and is able to be 'mirrored' on any level/aspect of consciousness.

If so, I was saying that the actual state of the holistic Consciousness is not that apparent in the physical or the astral aspects of consciousness and more to the point, the accuracy of 'mirroring' the real is dependent upon the individual and collective aspects of consciousness – wherever they at present reside – to being aligned with that Holistic Consciousness, represented in my diagram as the Blue Line – The unimpeded data.



I am hoping as this discussion evolves that the diagram can be tweaked accordingly.

[Wi11iam]

When I see the question "If Data is Consciousness, then what analyses that data?" I would answer it based on my understanding of who I am, which is not 'data'.

We as consciousness may well analyze each other but what we are really doing is analyzing the data presented through the individual (aspect of consciousness) and depending on both how the data is processed (sent and received) and the Quality of the consciousness sending and receiving, determines the value of said data, in relation to the holistic consciousness (which is of extremely valuable quality)

The illusion you speak of which benefits the purpose of the aspects of consciousness in physical and non physical has more to do with the red lines in the diagram which are not aligned to the overall purpose of the holistic consciousness (hence the illusions).

As to you saying:

I think it's more appropriate to say that the "parts of the astral" we access did not come first though I'm not aware of the data that you say suggest otherwise. But that's not a fruitful debate IMO as I don't think it matters to our identity. At least not as I view it.


I am not exactly sure what you are referring to here.

[Szaxx]

Re the diagram. In the physical actually knowing (outside of the 5 senses) of another physical event real time. How would this be represented? It has no connection to the astral or higher. If I assume its a data link between two concious entities then the blue line has no beginning and no end in this circumstance.
It's a very real phenomenon (label accepted).

[Wi11iam]

Re the diagram. In the physical actually knowing (outside of the 5 senses) of another physical event real time. How would this be represented? It has no connection to the astral or higher. If I assume its a data link between two concious entities then the blue line has no beginning and no end in this circumstance.
It's a very real phenomenon (label accepted).

My impression is that absolutely all consciousness is connected to all aspects of itself.
The various degrees of density seem to inhibit this connection being particularly noticeable – apparently even in the non physical.

I think this is one of the reasons that 'phenomena' exists – because it is simply not ordinary.
I would not know how to represent these connections.  The diagram is simply, and simply represents personal awareness and connection to the unimpeded data stream as a better alternative than the impeded aspect.
This is why I decided to make the blue line thinner as it progress through the different states – the restriction is necessary – like a tap controlling the flow of water – too much and it could 'blow a valve'.


Another observation is that in all cases of travellers' experiences they are connected to the physical instrument and this most likely has an affect on their experience.
It is worth contemplating that the experiences had in this 'mode' are not the same type as will be experienced when the physical instrument is no longer a part of the influence.

[Szaxx]

It's more prominent when non physical and some of the 'actions' you are capable of when NP are autonomous. In the physical these actions are non existent barring extremely rare cases.
This fits your diagram well enough and the thinning blue line represents this well.
The difference in semi-circle sizes could be expanded. The 'possessed knowledge' in each concious state as a representation is greater by magnitudes, this isn't that well represented.

[Wi11iam]

I think it is adequate enough as the impression is that one can fit into the other, like those Russian dolls.