Questioning Consciousness

[Sounder]

"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT." ~ Nikola Tesla


Well, I'll put more weight to Tesla's words than I will to 97% of other scientists.


If I recall correctly, the Cavendish experiments suspended two large balls to measure the gravitational constant. I was told in high school physics class and later read in a book, but don’t know if it is really true, that early editions of Encyclopedia Britannica indicated that the constant changed with temperature. If so, the molecular activity has an effect on the attraction and the ‘masses’ are part of a larger and open system.

[coffin_dodger]

"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT." ~ Nikola Tesla

He's certainly closer than current scientific thinking.

This Universe is perfectly balanced. Like matter seeks like matter, to complete equilibrium.

If Newton had only waited a month he would have seen the apple raise back up again, in the form of gases.

For every ounce of matter, there is untold void containing miniscule traces of non-matter. I would suggest that the void is 99.99999r% of our Universe, but it perfectly counterbalances the matter that exists. Perfectly, to the ounce.

The planets of our solar system (matter) are indeed 'floating' - in perfect equilibrium and displacement with the vast, vast, vast surrounding non-matter.

Time is different from solar system to solar system, galaxy to galaxy, too. When we eventually get beyond our own solar system, we'll take detours to pass through systems in which time passes much more slowly, allowing us to return to our loved ones without any drastic disparities of aging. It'll effectively be time travel, of sorts.

[Burnt Hill]

^ Nice! But isn't there way more dark matter than matter?

[Wombaticus Rex]

The "Time Slice" article a page back, mein gott that was fascinating stuff. Reminded me of an early Edge Conversation (do they still do those?) about timing perception.

Found it: https://www.edge.org/conversation/brain-time

Your brain, after all, is encased in darkness and silence in the vault of the skull. Its only contact with the outside world is via the electrical signals exiting and entering along the super-highways of nerve bundles. Because different types of sensory information (hearing, seeing, touch, and so on) are processed at different speeds by different neural architectures, your brain faces an enormous challenge: what is the best story that can be constructed about the outside world?

Cognition, of course, is embodied, much to the dismay of the brain fetishists in neuroscience. The "Self in a Vat" model is too tempting, and the reality too complex. Still, despite some out-dated models in the mix, I highly recommend that link.

There is a very definite Zeno's Arrow flavor to the mechanics of perception, the gulf between constantly shifting sensory input and the relatively stable gestalts we actually interact with.

In my own explorations, I've found my body to be much more intelligent & aware than whatever role I walk around performing most days, and have discerned a clear, profound qualitative difference between being merely awake vs. actually aware. The boundary is binary but on the other side is a very broad spectrum of experience to explore. One of my focuses recently has been to get comfortable with the sensation of being multi-local, which is rather alarming -- a bit like falling off a building in a dream, generally to the same result of ending the experience, too.

Anyways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

(There is another lineage of "time slice theory" involving epistemology, moral relativism and social justice which is rather less interesting but still worth thinking about.)

[tron]

it is why the good die young, they are too good to be here so they are raptured. im glad i stilljerk it like a demon, keeps me here where i am useful to the source.

[slimmouse]

this very thread, and in particular the last 3 posts by Sounder , CD, and Rex, are one of the reasons this place stands out a mile for me.

Thanks guys.

I just cant help thinking about. the brain as our own three pound universe, within which Universal Consciousness flows and is subsequently processed, resulting in our own recording of experience, which on meat-sack termination, somehow through an alchemical process involving DMT, then takes us back into the mix with all memories, emotions and actions duly noted . DMT is of course now known to be manufactured in the pineal gland, itself located at the centre of our hitherto labelled universe

If that sounds a bit far fetched, then fair enough

Howevers, A spontaneous uncontrolled excessive release of DMT in highly stressful situations , such as death for example , and as they say, the possibilities are endlesss

[Nordic]

tesla quote.jpg

"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the FIRMAMENT." ~ Nikola Tesla

Not to harsh the mellow but I'm trying to find if this is an actual Tesla quote and so far I'm empty handed.

[tron]

https://lordsofthedrinks.com/2015/10/27 ... r-alcohol/

i worry sometimes about how much i drink which isnt much at all

http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.co.uk ... igion.html

i also worry about religion

[Sounder]

no, no, thanks Nordic, upon further noggin knocking I can see how these words are out of context for words that Tesla actually would have said.

This seems likely to be a false quote even if he did hold similar views.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

http://deoxy.org/w_nature.htm

'Nature of Consciousness' -- Alan Watts

Excerpt:

You may go to church, you may say you believe in this, that, and the other, but you don't. Even Jehovah's Witnesses, who are the most fundamental of fundamentalists, they are polite when they come around and knock on the door. But if you REALLY believed in Christianity, you would be screaming in the streets. But nobody does. You would be taking full- page ads in the paper every day. You would be the most terrifying television programs. The churches would be going out of their minds if they really believed what they teach. But they don't. They think they ought to believe what they teach. They believe they should believe, but they don't really believe it, because what we REALLY believe is the fully automatic model. And that is our basic, plausible common sense. You are a fluke. You are a separate event. And you run from the maternity ward to the crematorium, and that's it, baby. That's it.

Now why does anybody think that way? There's no reason to, because it isn't even scientific. It's just a myth. And it's invented by people who want to feel a certain way. They want to play a certain game. The game of god got embarrassing. The idea if God as the potter, as the architect of the universe, is good. It makes you feel that life is, after all, important. There is someone who cares. It has meaning, it has sense, and you are valuable in the eyes of the father. But after a while, it gets embarrassing, and you realize that everything you do is being watched by God. He knows your tiniest innermost feelings and thoughts, and you say after a while, 'Quit bugging me! I don't want you around.' So you become an athiest, just to get rid of him. Then you feel terrible after that, because you got rid of God, but that means you got rid of yourself. You're nothing but a machine. And your idea that you're a machine is just a machine, too. So if you're a smart kid, you commit suicide. Camus said there is only one serious philosophical question, which is whether or not to commit suicide. I think there are four or five serious philosophical questions. The first one is 'Who started it?' The second is 'Are we going to make it?' The third is 'Where are we going to put it?' The fourth is 'Who's going to clean up?' And the fifth, 'Is it serious?'

But still, should you or not commit suicide? This is a good question. Why go on? And you only go on if the game is worth the gamble. Now the universe has been going on for an incredible long time. And so really, a satisfactory theory of the universe has to be one that's worth betting on. That's very, it seems to me, elementary common sense. If you make a theory of the universe which isn't worth betting on, why bother? Just commit suicide. But if you want to go on playing the game, you've got to have an optimal theory for playing the game. Otherwise there's no point in it. But the people who coined the fully automatic theory of the universe were playing a very funny game, for what they wanted to say was this: all you people who believe in religion--old ladies and wishful thinkers-- you've got a big daddy up there, and you want comfort, but life is rough. Life is tough, as success goes to the most hard- headed people. That was a very convenient theory when the European and American worlds were colonizing the natives everywhere else. They said 'We're the end product of evolution, and we're tough. I'm a big strong guy because I face facts, and life is just a bunch of junk, and I'm going to impose my will on it and turn it into something else. I'm real hard.' That's a way of flattering yourself.

And so, it has become academically plausible and fashionable that this is the way the world works. In academic circles, no other theory of the world than the fully automatic model is respectable. Because if you're an academic person, you've got to be an intellectually tough person, you've got to be prickly. There are basically two kinds of philosophy. One's called prickles, the other's called goo. And prickly people are precise, rigorous, logical. They like everything chopped up and clear. Goo people like it vague. For example, in physics, prickly people believe that the ultimate constituents of matter are particles. Goo people believe it's waves. And in philosophy, prickly people are logical positivists, and goo people are idealists. And they're always arguing with each other, but what they don't realize is neither one can take his position without the other person. Because you wouldn't know you advocated prickles unless there was someone advocating goo. You wouldn't know what a prickle was unless you knew what a goo was. Because life isn't either prickles or goo, it's either gooey prickles or prickly goo. They go together like back and front, male and female. And that's the answer to philosophy. You see, I'm a philosopher, and I'm not going to argue very much, because if you don't argue with me, I don't know what I think. So if we argue, I say 'Thank you,' because owing to the courtesy of your taking a different point of view, I understand what I mean. So I can't get rid of you.

But however, you see, this whole idea that the universe is nothing at all but unintelligent force playing around and not even enjoying it is a putdown theory of the world. People who had an advantage to make, a game to play by putting it down, and making out that because they put the world down they were a superior kind of people. So that just won't do. We've had it. Because if you seriously go along with this idea of the world, you're what is technically called alienated. You feel hostile to the world. You feel that the world is a trap. It is a mechanism, it is electronic and neurological mechanisms into which you somehow got caught. And you, poor thing, have to put up with being put into a body that's falling apart, that gets cancer, that gets the great Siberian itch, and is just terrible. And these mechanics--doctors--are trying to help you out, but they really can't succeed in the end, and you're just going to fall apart, and it's a grim business, and it's just too bad. So if you think that's the way things are, you might as well commit suicide right now. Unless you say, 'Well, I'm damned. Because there might really be after all eternal damnation. Or I identify with my children, and I think of them going on without me and nobody to support them. Because if I do go on in this frame of mind and continue to support them, I shall teach them to be like I am, and they'll go on, dragging it out to support their children, and they won't enjoy it. They'll be afraid to commit suicide, and so will their children. They'll all learn the same lessons.'

So you see, all I'm trying to say is that the basic common sense about the nature of the world that is influencing most people in the United States today is simply a myth. If you want to say that the idea of God the father with his white beard on the golden throne is a myth, in a bad sense of the word 'myth,' so is this other one. It is just as phony and has just as little to support it as being the true state of affairs. Why? Let's get this clear. If there is any such thing at all as intelligence and love and beauty, well you've found it in other people. In other words, it exists in us as human beings. And as I said, if it is there, in us, it is symptomatic of the scheme of things. We are as symptomatic of the scheme of things as the apples are symptomatic of the apple tree or the rose of the rose bush. The Earth is not a big rock infested with living organisms any more than your skeleton is bones infested with cells. The Earth is geological, yes, but this geological entity grows people, and our existence on the Earth is a symptom of this other system, and its balances, as much as the solar system in turn is a symptom of our galaxy, and our galaxy in its turn is a symptom of a whole company of other galaxies.

[chump]

Nordic said:

Not to harsh the mellow but I'm trying to find if this is an actual Tesla quote and so far I'm empty handed.

I was kinda excited when I saw that "quote", because I've read a lot about Tesla, and didn't remember that particular passage, but it sounded like something he might've said...

I searched and found the quote at Lunatic O, from where it was apparently repeated from a FB post... Along with at least two videos and maybe dozens of threads - including this one. Furthermore, I also found an improbable long lost "1899 Tesla interview" making the rounds for the FE crowd. So, whatever...

I can't find where Tesla wrote those words, and curious to see if somebody does...

I did see this - some of which I'm sure I've seen before:

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles ... ew-physics
...

The Structure of the Ether

On a body as large as the sun, it would be impossible to project a disturbance of this kind [e.g., radio broadcasts] to any considerable distance except along the surface. It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

– Nikola Tesla3 (???)

... One area where they (Tesla and Einstein) were in some agreement, however, had to do with the speculations of the German physicist Ernest Mach. Taking his ideas from monotheistic and Buddhist teachings, and from Isaac Newton, who suggested that all material bodies attract one another through gravity, Mach postulated that the mass of any material body, such as the earth, was dependent upon some type of gravitational force from all the stars. In other words, all effects in the universe were related to all others. Einstein wrote Mach to tell him that this idea was intrinsically related to his formulation of the Theory of Relativity.9

I have yet to find a direct quote by Tesla of Mach’s Principle, but in an article Tesla wrote in 1915, clearly based upon his writings of 1893, he states exactly this position.

There is no thing endowed with life – from man, who is enslaving the elements, to the nimblest creature – in all this world that does not sway in turn. Whenever action is born from force, though it be infinitesimal, the cosmic balance is upset and universal motion results.10

It seems to me that the interconnectedness between all of the stars in the universe (related to Einstein’s curved space/time) is the ether.11 Similarly, Tesla’s view of the ether aligned itself with that of the Theosophists:

Long ago [I] recognised that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, of a tenuity beyond conception and filling all space – the Akasa or luminiferous ether – which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles, all things and phenomena.

The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.12

Removing the spiritual component from “Akasa,” Tesla postulated that everything in the universe derived its energy from external sources. This corresponded to his model of the automata or remote controlled robot, which received commands from the electrician, and also of himself, that is, of the human condition itself. Denying the Platonic concept of intrinsic motivation, as an Aristotelian, and thus a believer in the idea of the tabula rasa, Tesla assumed that all of his ideas came from external sources even though, paradoxically, his life was the very essence and expression of self-determination and the power of the will. Each hierarchical entity in his system was not endowed with a soul, per se, but rather, a self-directed electrical component which moved by attraction or repulsion.

As a non-psychologist, Tesla also negated, by necessity, the concept of the unconscious, the archetypes, and also the Freudian id, as primary motivators. So, for instance, a dream would always ultimately derive from some extrinsic factor, never from a completely inner source. However, unlike Einstein, who negated the mental component from his model concerning the primary forces of the universe, Tesla addressed this factor with his construction of the first prototype of a thinking machine, his telautomaton or remote controlled robot which was in the form of a wireless activated boat that the inventor displayed before the public at Madison Square Garden in 1898.13 In essence, for Tesla, the mind was at its basis, a binary electrical system of attractions and repulsions, stimulated from an outside source, and wholly compatible with Pavlov’s stimulus-response reflex model for cognitive processes...

[coffin_dodger]

But isn't there way more dark matter than matter?

Yikes - I genuinely have no idea if this will make any sense to anyone but myself.

Current (and historical) scientific theory, process and terminology muddy the waters so rigorously, it's difficult not to conclude deliberate - probably even malign - intent. The prevailing mindset at the cutting edge of 'understanding' is itself so far down a rabbithole of theorized complexities, that the very notion of a simple concept has become almost impossible to conceive. One can but begrudgingly admire the irony of it.

I have to use some scientificish terms to describe my understanding, but by using these words I may confuse the issue. Apologies in advance.

There are 3 fundamental properties, states or 'elements' to our existence: These three properties are evident everywhere, within everything, including consciousness. They are, broadly - and for want of better terminology:

one state -
or, an equal and opposing state -
or, in-between.

From the point of view of Universality/Cosmology, matter (i.e. visible reality (and one of the opposing sides of the three states) is counterbalanced perfectly by inverse-matter* (the other opposing side of the three states) with the two; matter and un-matter, in constant simultaneous communication with one another through the 'central' third state - what I call 3state. These are the three states of being. (Burnt Hill: There is a lot more inverse-matter simply because it physically weighs massively less than matter. And I mean massively)

e.g. matter -> 3state -> un-matter -> 3state -> matter -> 3state -> un-matter -> 3state -> etc. ad infintum (always passing through 3state from one state to another)

Everything is subject to 3state. It is the point of absolute equilibrium that everything must pass through, from one moment to the next, in order to retain the stability of reality that Nature demands. 3state is so dominant in our Universe / Existance / Reality that consciousness itself is a poster-girl for 3state. It became obvious to me that consciousness is 3state through the following extrapolation:

past -> present -> future

the present is the bridge between past and future and is where our consciousness resides. Within 3state.

3state drives time forward, as each opposing side of the binary (e.g. matter and inverse-matter, past and future, etc) pass through 3state to balance the opposing state. I believe that our consciousness, due to the fact that it exists, here, - in our Solar system, may directly affect our localised time. After all, our Sun is just as subject to 3state as everything else. Consciousness is a 'specialist' part of 3state unexperienced by inert matter - so wherever there is consciousness, there will be difference. That's not to deny that 3state itself may have different localised characteristics throughout what we term the Universe.

Incidentally, 3state has led me to conclude that our reality is composed of - you guessed it - 3 things:

Light - all matter and inverse-matter is a combination of what we call light, conditioned into existance by interaction with seen and unseen (what we call) electrical fields (which 'tune' the light to form the elements we can observe i.e. carbon (which, again incidentally, is the central and pivotal element of our Universe, with all other elements being 'uptuned' or 'downtuned' by the Unified Field, from the carbon 'blueprint') - all of which receives instruction from the fundamental point between - the bridge - 3state.

There is more - so much more - but I don't wish to be mentally institutionalized by my fellow RI'ers at this moment in time. Oops, too late. I am fully aware that there are billions of realities (consciousnesses) present on this planet - all I can do is present my own. Agreement or concurrence is not obligatory, nor of importance.

* I dislike the term anti-matter, it has negative connotations because of the word anti. It is not 'anti' - against - it is opposite.

[jakell]

Your last sentence here is humourously reminiscent of my deconstruction of anti-fascism. I won't expand on that though because I have overdone that a bit, even in its native context.

Here though, 'anti' is appropriate, it is 'against' matter in the sense that one automatically annihilates the other, they don't counterbalance though, or rather they didn't, and this is one of the mysteries about the early stages of our Universe; that there was slightly more matter than anti-matter meaning that, once the bulk of these two had cancelled each other out, there was still some matter left over, which is what we see today,

[coffin_dodger]

Jakell said:

Here though, 'anti' is appropriate, it is 'against' matter in the sense that one automatically annihilates the other, they don't counterbalance though, or rather they didn't, and this is one of the mysteries about the early stages of our Universe; that there was slightly more matter than anti-matter meaning that, once the bulk of these two had cancelled each other out, there was still some matter left over, which is what we see today,

It's appropriate if one subscribes to the Big Bang and subsequent theory, which I most definitely do not.

[jakell]

Jakell said:

Here though, 'anti' is appropriate, it is 'against' matter in the sense that one automatically annihilates the other, they don't counterbalance though, or rather they didn't, and this is one of the mysteries about the early stages of our Universe; that there was slightly more matter than anti-matter meaning that, once the bulk of these two had cancelled each other out, there was still some matter left over, which is what we see today,

It's appropriate if one subscribes to the Big Bang and subsequent theory, which I most definitely do not.

I'd need a better theory in order to disregard that one.

Putting aside any baggage attached to it (which may be what you are thinking of), all that BB theory boils down to is an extrapolation of the movements of galaxies away from each other. Most of the other stuff rests upon that.
In order to put this aside it is necessary to find an alternative explanation for the red shift of galaxies.

ETA: Really though, the behaviour of matter and anti-matter is quite independent of the origin of the Universe (that was an aside), it can be observed in the present day.