I think I am narrowing down what I need to know...

[Songtsan]

Supposedly, the center of consciousness in the brain is located in the thalamus. I know that describing what consciousness is from a mental point of use not the real thing, yet I'd still like to and understand how it works from a conceptual point of view. The thalamus is located about 4 to 5 inches inward from the third-eye area. It basically acts as a relay station. All the incoming information goes there in a kind of back and forth rapid energy cycling maneuver. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is from a scientific point of view, what exactly is that center of awareness? How does it work? Is it just energy? Is energy aware? Or is energy itself awareness? When we focus I assume that the focus is initiated from this point… Does anyone else think the center of focus, the center of 'I'ness is located within the brain or somewhere within the body? Or, is it perhaps on some alternate dimension, some level of inmaterial plane? A point of emptiness/awareness that is constantly filled with sensory/perception information? I know that this is the age-old conundrum that the Buddha refused to answer.

I'm trying to explain the center of consciousness from an intellectual/theoretical point of view. If anyone knows any biological explanations for it that would be awesome. I'm just seeing if someone can bump me a sand-grain of knowledge upwards.

Consciousness/center of consciousness is 'reflexive.' Is energy just becoming aware of itself? Is it just that energy is being fed back into itself, and that's where it becomes aware of itself?

If matter and energy are the same (meaning that matter is basically crystallized energy, or slowed-down energy), then it seems that there are really only two things in the universe: energy and space (… Or space/time if we incorporate movement). So yes, here we have Yin/Yang.

So is one side awareness and the other side the object that one is aware of?

Can awareness exists without something to be aware of? Or are they inexorably intertwined?

re·flex·ive (r -fl k s v)

adj.

1. Directed back on itself.

2. Grammar

a. Of, relating to, or being a verb having an identical subject and direct object, as dressed in the sentence She dressed herself.

b. Of, relating to, or being the pronoun used as the direct object of a reflexive verb, as herself in She dressed herself.

3. Of or relating to a reflex.

4. Elicited automatically; spontaneous

That brings me to the next question:

When we use our focusing ability, i.e. as in one-pointed meditation, it seems that what's happening is that the energy is basically being rapidly cycled and intensified between the thalamus and the area of the brain (mind-map/mind-palace/mind-matrix) that contains the object of our focus. For example, let's say I am focusing on a flower… It seems that somewhere in our neural net lies all the associated IS-ness of flower-ness, combined with the specific shape of the flower we're visualizing. So the way I view 'absorption' is that all the other parts of the brain that aren't necessary shut down, and basically only certain neural nets are activated in an intense bioelectrical/bliss-state. The flower, the watcher of the flower, and the act of watching the flower become one, almost in a holographic kind of way. Every square picometer of energy juice/stuff = flower-ness/bliss. So it seems that, although energy= bliss, something else is experiencing the bliss.

Can anyone describe what this something else is? How do we describe something that apparently has no form, cannot be measured, cannot be observed (although it is the observer), etc. etc.

I am not looking for experiential advice; I am basically looking for a scientific explanation of what that seemingly empty space of consciousness is… Or is it just that the thalamus is where consciousness lies?

Is this consciousness something beyond the matter/energy that makes up the thalamus?

Buddha says that there is no self and I agree, yet it seems that there is a Super-Self AKA 'Self' - which is basically awareness wherever it is at...

I guess the whole point of this post is how can we describe awareness from a conceptual point of view, i.e. in a scientific way, instead of just saying 'It is what it is,' 'Just this,' 'Suchness,' etc.

By the time I got down to this point I realize that I was basically trying to describe that which cannot be described, and can only be directly known - which is futile, and so this whole post is pointless lol... I swear I didn't plan this! haha...oh well, better luck next time.

Oh wait… Here is a question I've always been wondering about: is Nirvana itself just a perception attainment? Is there really a self that can go into Nirvana? Still that same age-old question I know.…

Sometimes I wonder if this whole meditation thing is all just about finding bliss in the end…

Is it all just about bliss?

It makes me blissful to know stuff.

It makes me blissful to have a nicely-shaped body, health, etc.

So is it all about being in bliss?

Is it basically Satchitananda?

Being knowing feeling-bliss?

If there is something you need to know then - go out there and know it!

If there is something you want to be then - go out there and be it!

If you want to be blissful, see the first two and you will probably do alright, but if you want to be especially blissful, learn mental cultivation skills to make it so.

Be the bliss

Know the Bliss

Bliss the Bliss

Bliss Bliss Bliss

Bliss-cubed

Cube-bliss...no cube? huh?

Edited July 12, 2013 by Songtsan

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Consciousness has no size, shape or location. It is not a thing of form.

 

It connects to the brain not in terms of spatially hooking up the brain like a plug in a socket, but ontologically as matter and mind are expressions of Tao. That's another way of seeing yin and yang. Look up 'dialectical monism'.

 

So this is why energy, brain and mind/consciousness connect and affect each other, IMO. It is not that they are actually plugged into each other, it is that they reflect each other as they come from the same source, like particles in quantum entanglement.

 

This also fits neatly into karma and rebirth, suggesting the state of a person's mind-stream determines what brain/body it 'quantumly entangles' on to next after death. It also fits with the observations of neuroscience, without leading to the absurd materialist conclusion that an object can somehow produce a subject.

 

Consciousness/awareness is NOT the Self/Tao. The Tao is the reality beyond consciousness and matter.

 

I used to think consciousness was the Tao too, but one day I had a flash of insight and realised what I've been writing in this post.

 

Then it was easy to see the logic.

 

By definition, the Tao cannot be affected by any of the phenomena it produces. The waves don't make the ocean move. Consciousness is clearly affected by goings on in the brain and body. If consciousness is the Tao, why can its vividness be altered by meditation, drugs, tiredness and so on?

 

It's been argued that this is the mind allowing more or less consciousness in or out, but how can Tao be something that 'moves' if it is the absolute?

 

Tao is either recognised or not recognised. It is always there, beyond cause and effect, consciousness and matter, dualism and non-dualism, empty and substantial.

 

Awareness, then, is not Suchness or Tao or whatever you want to call it. Consciousness is the subject, that which perceives, and awareness is the function of perception.

 

Yes, awareness can't exist without something to be aware of. Otherwise, how would it be functioning? Just another reason consciousness is NOT Tao. It doesn't exist alone. Even in the jhana of infinite consciousness, there is an object - a faint trace of conceptual discrimination saying 'oh, it seems like there's only consciousness'. Wrong!

 

There is form, sensation, conception, volition and consciousness, but no 'I' who owns them. They just revolve around and create the illusion of there being a substantial core there.

 

As for nirvana, I would consider it a state of being. But trying to describe it is really a bit pointless. 'Mind like fire unbound' is a good attempt. Still just words though.

 

[C T]

Kudos, S.o.t.S !! _/\_

 

(especially like the 2nd last para.)

[zanshin]

No one has scientifically been able to pinpoint consciousness in the brain. Thalamus receives sensory inputs from all parts of the body and starts to interpret them to form our perceptions. Thalamus is largely responsible if we find something beautiful or spiritually meaningful. A part of the brain with complex expansion in people is association areas within the thalamus and cerebral cortex. These areas associate, interpret and act on perceptions in complicated and often unpredictable ways. No wonder we misunderstand each other so often.

 

Bliss and mental cultivation might have more to do with brain waves. Perhaps, we should distinguish between bliss and exuberance though, exuberance lacks consistency and precision.

Edited July 12, 2013 by zanshin

[Songtsan]

These are all great points...

 

Sometimes I wonder if it is emptiness itself that is awareness, but that it must also be accompanied by energy in order to be fully Tao...without the energy of fullness, there is nothing for the awareness to be aware of. Yin Yang includes both emptiness/fullness and would not be complete without both. If it is the combo of energy+emptiness, where energy = fullness, then this would make sense...

 

I still tend to think that consciousness has at least a general location on the individual level, although quantum physics indicates that all energy exists everywhere in the universe at once, so that would indicate that my consciousness exists everywhere as well. However, there is at least the illusion of locale - a sort of hot spot if you like. A place of 'most likely location' which in quantum physics I believe they call something specific that isn't coming to my brain yet.

 

I think that the Tao does move, but that it merely moves within itself, sort of like a bubble which contains a swirling, everchanging mass/energy within. I dont believe the Tao could be the Tao without the addition of fullness/energy, so therefore the Tao does include movement/space/energy, where movement = time for the conceptual mind.

 

I haven't had time to really sit down and grok the posts you guys made...I will get back to you, as I just woke up.

[idiot_stimpy]

Though darkness gathers for a thousand eons.

A single light dispels it all.

Likewise, one moment of sheer clarity

Dispels the ignorance, evil and confusion of a thousand eons.

 

 

What joy!

With the ways of the intellect you won’t see beyond intellect.

With the ways of action you won’t know non-action.

If you want to know what is beyond intellect and action,

Cut your mind at its root and rest in naked awareness.

 

 

http://www.naturalawareness.net/ganges.html

[Songtsan]

http://www.naturalawareness.net/ganges.html

 

Mahamudra

 

I posted a different version of the Song from Tilopa to Naropa in another post: http://thetaobums.com/topic/28055-a-tale-of-daoist-sexual-interests/page-2 message #27 if you'd like to see it...

[Gypsy]

Here's a discussion between 2 familiar characters. And the topic possible found online: "Death has very little meaning"

Krishnamurthi and David Bohm:

K-Are we still saying that human beings are still behaving with the animal instincts?

D.B.-Yes, and that the animal instincts, it seems, may be overpowering in their intensity and speed, and especially with young children. It may be that it is only natural for them to respond with the animal instincts.

K- So that means, after a million years, that we are still instinctly behaving like our ancestors?

D.B- In some ways, probably, our behavior is also complicated by a product of time-which is thinking thoughts, things. Survival. The animal instinct in time and getting worse.

D.B- One of the difficulties is when ppl and animals come together as hatred becomes directed and substained by thought, and more subtle and dangerous.

K-Many centuries we haven't found a way, a method, a system-something that will move us away from that track.

D.B-Yes. One of the difficulties, surely is when ppl begin to be angry with each other their anger builds up and they can't seem to do anything about it. They may try to control it, but that doesn't work. Under collective society, as it is, it cannot be accommodated, society is organized under assumption that pain-pleasure are going to rule. Age of Reason, when man can be rational, could choose to be rational, in order to bring love and harmony everywhere.

K-But he hasn't done that!

D.B.-So things got worse, leading to the French Revolution, to the terror and so on. But after that, ppl didn't have so much faith in reason as a way of getting anywhere, or coming out of conflict.

K-So where does that leave us? We were talking about insight that actually changes nature of the brain itself.

D.B-Yes, by dispelling the darkness in the brain, insight allows the brain to function in a new way.

K-Thought has been operating in darkness, creating it's own darkness and functiong in that. And insight is, as we said, like a flash which breaks down the darkness. Then when that insight clears the darkness, does man act, or function, rationally?

DB- Yes, man will than function rationally, and with perception, rather than by rules and reason. You see, some ppl identify reason with certain rules of logic which would be mechnical. But there can be reason as a form of perception of order.

Question: Is insight perception?

D.B. It is a flash of light which make perception possible.

K-Right, that's it.

D.B- It is more fundamental than perception.

K-So insight is pure perception, from that perception their is action, which is then substained by rationality. Is that it?

D.B.Yes!

K-That's right. And the rationality is perception of order.

K-So, would you say there is insight perception and order?

D.B. Yes.

K.But that order is not mechanical, becuz it is not based on logic.

D.B.There are no rules.

K-No rules. Lets put it that way, it's better. This order is not based on rules. This means insight, perception, action, order. Then you come to the question is insight continuous or is it by flashes?

D.B.It isn't time binding~

K-Yes, that insight is the elimination of the darkness which is very center of the ego self, the darkness that self creates? Insight dispels that very center.

D.B.-Yes, with that darkness, perception is not possible. It's blindness in a way.

K-RIght, then what next? I am an ordinary man, with all my animal instincts, pleasures and pain and reward and punishment and so on. I hear you say this, and I see what you are saying has some kind of reason, logic, and order.

DB-Yes, it makes sense so far

K-Than how am I to have reason in my Life? How am I to bring it about? You understand these words which are difficult are all of them time binding. But is that possible?

DB-Yes, without time, you see.

K-Is it possible for man with his narrow mind, to have this insight, so that pattern of life is broken? We have tried all this, tried every form of self-denial, and yet that insight doesn't come about. Once in a while there is a partial insight but that partial insight is not the whole insight, so there is still partial darkness, the creator, the sustainer of it, is still there.

K-We have stated the general plan, right? And I have to make the moves, or make no moves at all. I haven't the energy. I haven't the capacity to see it quickly. Becuz this is immediate, not just something that I practice and eventually get. The light doesn't shine within 100%. Outer darkness remains to throw it's punches, tests, trials, challenges. I haven't the capacity, I haven't the sense of urgency, of immediacy. Everything is against me: my family, my wife-husband, society. Everything. And does this mean that I eventually have to become a monk?

D.B-No. Becoming a monk is the same as becoming anything else.

K-That's right. Becoming a monk is like becoming a businessman. I see all this, verbally as well as rationally, intellectually, but I can't capture this thing. Is there a differnt appoach to this issue? I am caught in the same pattern-Is the old way of life's patterns the only way? On a collective society way, yes. Life functions from habit.

K-As long as the "me", "I", centers is creating darkness, and thought is operating in that darkness, there must be disorder, and society will be as it is now. To move away from that, you must have insight. Insight can only come when there is a flash of wisdom-knowledge on the inner-dual-play skits and scripts connecting with Earthbound entities. Flash, meaning a sudden light, which abolishes not only darkness but the creator of darkness.

DB-Yes.

K-Is there a different approach to this question all together, although an old response seems so absolute.

DB-well possibly. When you say it seems absolute, do you want a less absolute appoach?

K- I am saying that if that is the only way, than we are doomed.

DB-You can produce this flas at 'will'

K-No, it cant' be produced through Me-I will, if you try darkness remains and stronger. Or through sacrifice, through any form of human effort. That is out, we know we have finished with all that. And we agreed that to some ppl-to "X"-this insight seemed so natural and we asked is it not natural to others?

DB-If we begin with the child, it seems natual to the child to respond with his/her animal instincts(to survive), with great intesity which sweep him/her away. Darkness arises becuz it is so "OVERWHELMING".

K.-Yes. But why is it differnt with "X"?

**END**

So is darkness-lightness created by One ConsciousAwareness Creator? I do believe so. Western education curriculm is based on dual-2 opposite words, helpers for each other. Ex: head-tail on One Coin. We wouldn't know Heads without it's tails, or hot without cold, on without off, etc. Words-Thoughts are a product of time. And our true nature is timelessness!

 

Supposedly, the center of consciousness in the brain is located in the thalamus. I know that describing what consciousness is from a mental point of use not the real thing, yet I'd still like to and understand how it works from a conceptual point of view. The thalamus is located about 4 to 5 inches inward from the third-eye area. It basically acts as a relay station. All the incoming information goes there in a kind of back and forth rapid energy cycling maneuver. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is from a scientific point of view, what exactly is that center of awareness? How does it work? Is it just energy? Is energy aware? Or is energy itself awareness? When we focus I assume that the focus is initiated from this point… Does anyone else think the center of focus, the center of 'I'ness is located within the brain or somewhere within the body? Or, is it perhaps on some alternate dimension, some level of inmaterial plane? A point of emptiness/awareness that is constantly filled with sensory/perception information? I know that this is the age-old conundrum that the Buddha refused to answer.

I'm trying to explain the center of consciousness from an intellectual/theoretical point of view. If anyone knows any biological explanations for it that would be awesome. I'm just seeing if someone can bump me a sand-grain of knowledge upwards.

Consciousness/center of consciousness is 'reflexive.' Is energy just becoming aware of itself? Is it just that energy is being fed back into itself, and that's where it becomes aware of itself?

If matter and energy are the same (meaning that matter is basically crystallized energy, or slowed-down energy), then it seems that there are really only two things in the universe: energy and space (… Or space/time if we incorporate movement). So yes, here we have Yin/Yang.

So is one side awareness and the other side the object that one is aware of?

Can awareness exists without something to be aware of? Or are they inexorably intertwined?

re·flex·ive (r -fl k s v)

adj.

1. Directed back on itself.

2. Grammar

a. Of, relating to, or being a verb having an identical subject and direct object, as dressed in the sentence She dressed herself.

b. Of, relating to, or being the pronoun used as the direct object of a reflexive verb, as herself in She dressed herself.

3. Of or relating to a reflex.

4. Elicited automatically; spontaneous

That brings me to the next question:

When we use our focusing ability, i.e. as in one-pointed meditation, it seems that what's happening is that the energy is basically being rapidly cycled and intensified between the thalamus and the area of the brain (mind-map/mind-palace/mind-matrix) that contains the object of our focus. For example, let's say I am focusing on a flower… It seems that somewhere in our neural net lies all the associated IS-ness of flower-ness, combined with the specific shape of the flower we're visualizing. So the way I view 'absorption' is that all the other parts of the brain that aren't necessary shut down, and basically only certain neural nets are activated in an intense bioelectrical/bliss-state. The flower, the watcher of the flower, and the act of watching the flower become one, almost in a holographic kind of way. Every square picometer of energy juice/stuff = flower-ness/bliss. So it seems that, although energy= bliss, something else is experiencing the bliss.

Can anyone describe what this something else is? How do we describe something that apparently has no form, cannot be measured, cannot be observed (although it is the observer), etc. etc.

I am not looking for experiential advice; I am basically looking for a scientific explanation of what that seemingly empty space of consciousness is… Or is it just that the thalamus is where consciousness lies?

Is this consciousness something beyond the matter/energy that makes up the thalamus?

Buddha says that there is no self and I agree, yet it seems that there is a Super-Self AKA 'Self' - which is basically awareness wherever it is at...

I guess the whole point of this post is how can we describe awareness from a conceptual point of view, i.e. in a scientific way, instead of just saying 'It is what it is,' 'Just this,' 'Suchness,' etc.

By the time I got down to this point I realize that I was basically trying to describe that which cannot be described, and can only be directly known - which is futile, and so this whole post is pointless lol... I swear I didn't plan this! haha...oh well, better luck next time.

Oh wait… Here is a question I've always been wondering about: is Nirvana itself just a perception attainment? Is there really a self that can go into Nirvana? Still that same age-old question I know.…

Sometimes I wonder if this whole meditation thing is all just about finding bliss in the end…

Is it all just about bliss?

It makes me blissful to know stuff.

It makes me blissful to have a nicely-shaped body, health, etc.

So is it all about being in bliss?

Is it basically Satchitananda?

Being knowing feeling-bliss?

If there is something you need to know then - go out there and know it!

If there is something you want to be then - go out there and be it!

If you want to be blissful, see the first two and you will probably do alright, but if you want to be especially blissful, learn mental cultivation skills to make it so.

Be the bliss

Know the Bliss

Bliss the Bliss

Bliss Bliss Bliss

Bliss-cubed

Cube-bliss...no cube? huh?

[Gypsy]

meditation is an emptiness numbing, true nature. meditation isn't a means to arriving anywhere. Consciousness is aware of thought thinking things, but consciousness isn't a thing, person, place. consciousness is as close to knowing space without a second or a first, even consciousness isn't the true tao.

[ion]

 

Supposedly, the center of consciousness in the brain is located in the thalamus. I know that describing what consciousness is from a mental point of use not the real thing, yet I'd still like to and understand how it works from a conceptual point of view. The thalamus is located about 4 to 5 inches inward from the third-eye area. It basically acts as a relay station. All the incoming information goes there in a kind of back and forth rapid energy cycling maneuver. I guess what I'm trying to figure out is from a scientific point of view, what exactly is that center of awareness? How does it work? Is it just energy? Is energy aware? Or is energy itself awareness? When we focus I assume that the focus is initiated from this point… Does anyone else think the center of focus, the center of 'I'ness is located within the brain or somewhere within the body? Or, is it perhaps on some alternate dimension, some level of inmaterial plane? A point of emptiness/awareness that is constantly filled with sensory/perception information? I know that this is the age-old conundrum that the Buddha refused to answer.

I'm trying to explain the center of consciousness from an intellectual/theoretical point of view. If anyone knows any biological explanations for it that would be awesome. I'm just seeing if someone can bump me a sand-grain of knowledge upwards.

Consciousness/center of consciousness is 'reflexive.' Is energy just becoming aware of itself? Is it just that energy is being fed back into itself, and that's where it becomes aware of itself?

If matter and energy are the same (meaning that matter is basically crystallized energy, or slowed-down energy), then it seems that there are really only two things in the universe: energy and space (… Or space/time if we incorporate movement). So yes, here we have Yin/Yang.

So is one side awareness and the other side the object that one is aware of?

Can awareness exists without something to be aware of? Or are they inexorably intertwined?

re·flex·ive (r -fl k s v)

adj.

1. Directed back on itself.

2. Grammar

a. Of, relating to, or being a verb having an identical subject and direct object, as dressed in the sentence She dressed herself.

b. Of, relating to, or being the pronoun used as the direct object of a reflexive verb, as herself in She dressed herself.

3. Of or relating to a reflex.

4. Elicited automatically; spontaneous

That brings me to the next question:

When we use our focusing ability, i.e. as in one-pointed meditation, it seems that what's happening is that the energy is basically being rapidly cycled and intensified between the thalamus and the area of the brain (mind-map/mind-palace/mind-matrix) that contains the object of our focus. For example, let's say I am focusing on a flower… It seems that somewhere in our neural net lies all the associated IS-ness of flower-ness, combined with the specific shape of the flower we're visualizing. So the way I view 'absorption' is that all the other parts of the brain that aren't necessary shut down, and basically only certain neural nets are activated in an intense bioelectrical/bliss-state. The flower, the watcher of the flower, and the act of watching the flower become one, almost in a holographic kind of way. Every square picometer of energy juice/stuff = flower-ness/bliss. So it seems that, although energy= bliss, something else is experiencing the bliss.

Can anyone describe what this something else is? How do we describe something that apparently has no form, cannot be measured, cannot be observed (although it is the observer), etc. etc.

I am not looking for experiential advice; I am basically looking for a scientific explanation of what that seemingly empty space of consciousness is… Or is it just that the thalamus is where consciousness lies?

Is this consciousness something beyond the matter/energy that makes up the thalamus?

Buddha says that there is no self and I agree, yet it seems that there is a Super-Self AKA 'Self' - which is basically awareness wherever it is at...

I guess the whole point of this post is how can we describe awareness from a conceptual point of view, i.e. in a scientific way, instead of just saying 'It is what it is,' 'Just this,' 'Suchness,' etc.

By the time I got down to this point I realize that I was basically trying to describe that which cannot be described, and can only be directly known - which is futile, and so this whole post is pointless lol... I swear I didn't plan this! haha...oh well, better luck next time.

Oh wait… Here is a question I've always been wondering about: is Nirvana itself just a perception attainment? Is there really a self that can go into Nirvana? Still that same age-old question I know.…

Sometimes I wonder if this whole meditation thing is all just about finding bliss in the end…

Is it all just about bliss?

It makes me blissful to know stuff.

It makes me blissful to have a nicely-shaped body, health, etc.

So is it all about being in bliss?

Is it basically Satchitananda?

Being knowing feeling-bliss?

If there is something you need to know then - go out there and know it!

If there is something you want to be then - go out there and be it!

If you want to be blissful, see the first two and you will probably do alright, but if you want to be especially blissful, learn mental cultivation skills to make it so.

Be the bliss

Know the Bliss

Bliss the Bliss

Bliss Bliss Bliss

Bliss-cubed

Cube-bliss...no cube? huh?

Whats your source on there being a biological basis as a foundation for consciousness?

[Songtsan]

Whats your source on there being a biological basis as a foundation for consciousness?

 

I didn't mean that it is the foundation, just that it is one of the foundations. Everything inter-relates, co-exists, etc. I can't talk much more..I am backing out of general forum usage for personal reasons.

[Stosh]

I really dunno the answer to where the mind is specifically. I'm not sure it makes a difference. But I would say, that it strikes me as clear , that the possibility for life lies in every square bit of space , every atom has at least the potential to be part of a living thing, whether or not it does, depends on the situation of the partcle. Situation itself , relies on matter or energy , differentially distributed in real space. Therefore if life itself is a function of relative distribution of those phenomena, then mind may also be. Mind then is a ubiquitous potential throughout the universe , it may not have distinct location. As Lao theorizes about, there really are no definative divisions between things, the divisions are arbitrary mental confabulations, so mind may have no limit in dimension either. It may be thT there are only concentrations of mind centered upon the situations of greatest complexity.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Stosh

[ion]

Its very important to understand that there is no seat of consciousness, that there is no biological basis at all let alone a bio logical foundation for an ego/self.

 

If I were one who fancied the idea that ego was soul or spirit and that "I am god" or egos should be well fed and pumped up, then because there is no materiel/biological basis for it, I might say that it didn't matter that there is none.

 

It makes a difference. I mostly believe that "as above, so below" so to speak, and since there is no "self" biologicly, that is a point of interest. If there were biologicaly a self or an ego, a point in the brain where it was centered and came from, then I would have to question my beliefs as to the concept of self being a reality.

 

Stosh, I would agree with most of what you said, except Id take it further and say that every square bit of space IS sentient, and DOES have awareness.

 

Awareness and sese of being are not products of form or time, they pre-exist and trancend time matter and the physacal senses. They have their root in the stillness before time.

[Stosh]

That may very well be the case, ion.

For me the jury is still in sequester though,

Till I find out if the universe is " analog or digital"

The idea being that there are actually discrete components

Of space ( like a bag of marbles) which I believe there is

Some evidence for , as well.

[Stosh]

See avatar for a visual depiction