Thread: My Ghost Story
View Single Post
Old 21st November 2015, 02:31 PM   #591
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
I'm not certain how I'm supposed to read your words any other way than what the words actually mean.



My belief that there are other dimensions is based on the observations related to cosmology. This is where the mathematics was derived to explain the phenomena, which indicated the other dimensions.

Consciousness, as far as what it is, and how it might exist in these theoretical other dimensions is strictly my belief with no evidence to back it up.



It was in the context of being accused of lying and making the dream up, not that the dream was a factual piece of evidence for my theory.



I've said repeatedly that my idea of non corporeal consciousness that exists simultaneously in other dimensions is based strictly on my speculation.



What pretending?



I have to say Song being a fundamentalist, at least that's the impression I got, could have his own religious bias influencing his conclusions.



Not exactly. I think he was looking for proof of a soul and trying to shoe horn that into consciousness. I tend to use the word consciousness to signify awareness and how that might exist outside the physical body. I guess it's splitting hairs, there might not be any major difference in how we are using the term "consciousness".



It was demonstrating perspective, and as applied to time, it is related to what I am claiming.



I think you missed my point. If the brain works as a receiver you need to understand how the receiver works in perceiving the 4 dimensions that we live in. Our individual consciousness very well could be a material manifestation that is only applicable here and have absolutely nothing to do with consciousness as a whole. I still think his research is relevant to my theory.



I don't think so.



The math supports the theory of other dimensions. If the experience of consciousness as individual people is an illusion then that single awareness/being would have to be somewhere else besides here. The place where that could exist is supported. What isn't supported is that we aren't really individual people, but exist outside of our existence here as a singular being, if we exist at all.



Maybe you didn't understand his research??? When Tegmark speaks of integration he is referring to how we feel as we process a multitude of incoming information. Tegmark says if we ever invent a computer that is conscious, then cut off any input from the outside that could affect it's processing, then that computer will subjectively perceive itself as existing in a parallel universe completely separate from ours even though we can probe its internal state from outside. I think that's what is happening with us and why we perceive ourselves as separate entities. If we are not all one, and are truly separate individuals, then it would explain why you wouldn't necessarily be aware of the rest of yourself existing in these other dimensions.



I think your comment illustrates your lack of understanding of what I'm trying to describe. I admit that it is sometimes hard to find the words to represent what I feel to be true, or my belief, and that I am doing a very poor job here of trying to explain myself.



The only significance that the dream really had was the message, and then only because it actually happened several decades after the fact.



As my theory evolves here, the dream does become irrelevant.



I don't think it's important in the grand scheme of things. Whatever shape or form that reality actually takes may or may not be dependent on the single independent observer such as you or me.
Time is limited for me lately, and the ever-expanding point-by-point responses can wear after a while, and as far as logical and scientific validity (or their lack) in your arguments, JayUtah is speaking far better to the points than I can, so I will defer to him.

So I will limit this post to some short comments.

Reference the first part I highlighted, your point rings hollow when you do not hold your own words to the same standard, asking us alternately to accept your claims as speculation, to accept them as founded in science, to accept them as something in between, or whatever suits your mood.

Reference the second part I highlighted, there is no issue as far as you have stated it here. Speculation is speculation, and it can be both enjoyable and worthwhile to discuss it. Where you go astray is your separate assertions that the speculation is backed up by math unrelated to it.

Reference the third part I highlighted, it was the dream that you began by asserting as fact, and the reason you did so was primarily that we could not positively prove it untrue, despite never once posting any details. Regardless, you may want to look at the fact that the apparent verification occurred so long after the apparent prophecy. It would be interesting to know by what manner and at what time you recorded the details of the dream, how your kept it preserved and uncontaminated over time, and by what standards you judged it so specific a match to a decades-later event that you reached the conclusion that prophetic dream was the most parsimonious explanation.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top