Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

I have a view on Awareness... (*grins* Bet nobody is surprised...?)

We live in Spotlight Awareness - we are trained in it from birth and it continues in school. "Look at me!" "Pay attention" "Focus now" And mostly, that's not a bad thing - Spotlight lets you see the oncoming bus.

But there is another Awareness and it is something I think we once had but now barely recognise. Floodlight Awareness - most of us have experienced it but we are so Spotlighted we don't realise it or think of it. Think of a trip you've been on with friends or family. You're driving along, carrying on a conversation and when you arrive at your destination you might (or might not) realise you have very little memory of the trip itself. You obeyed all the signs, stopped at the lights etc, but you weren't really in the NOW for driving.

You drove on Floodlight Awareness while your Spotlight self was busy with the social part of the trip.

But Floodlight is where almost ALL the information is. Spotlight vision is about equivalent to 2 or 3 pixels on your 24 inch computer monitor - out of all those thousands. We compensate by flicking attention around, tiny eye adjustments to move the intense focus of the very centre of our vision rapidly across a scene.

But all the rest is still 'flooding' in, getting into our sensorium. It may be that the reason we need to dream is to run through all the floodlight data and associate it and map it into the hologram that is Mind.

I think the older tribes were more aware of the Floodlight world and we can, by teaching ourselves, learn to be more aware of when our Floodlights trigger a need for response. I think also many of the so-called intuitive feelings or fleeting emotions come from Floodlight Awareness input of which we are not consciously aware.

But Awareness is a trait, or as I see it here, a sense. It doesn't actually explain Consciousness. Consciousness USES the awareness we have, just as it uses the body and the Mind. Consciousness sits behind the Mind Hologram - unless we wish to suppose the Mind field itself is somehow aware.

Harry Oldfield has invented ways to 'see' a field that we don't normally see. This is NOT the Kirlian field, but rather something different. He has moved on into using crystals as energy sources to alter the patterns of those fields to heal - one of the videos has him change the pattern of a dog to fix his hip problems, but that's later.

The videos of life are fascinating, particularly when he sees the field pop out of a crystal and look around then duck back inside.

To relate this back - messenger molecules are not the only way a cell can react to outside input. Fields also trigger cell responses - electric fields, magnetic fields and radioactivity can all cause cells to function, sometimes effectively and sometimes destructively.

And we are a number of different fields.

Here's a part of a post I wrote quite some time back on another forum...

Looking at a body as just a bunch of cells is a very simplistic view. And even with only that limited view, there are mysteries.

Why do some cells suicide for the benefit of others? (tree trunks) It is against the precepts of Evolution for such to happen - we can kind of look at the collection of cells in a body working together to let the body function, although as yet we have no rationale for why any given cell would give up reproductive rights for the benefit of other cells, but for a cell to die for the larger whole?

How do you think a tree trunk cell passes along the willingness to die? And remember, DNA is NOT a controller, it is a stack of blueprints. The CELL is what mediates function according to input. Where does the input originate that says, 'you, you and you, die now so the tree can grow'?

That almost demands a control mechanism orchestrating who does what.

And remember, according to standard Evolution there is NO control mechanism - it is all just random and coincidental happenstance across time.

I see where you're heading now... It's all starting to fit.

Looking for these...?

Yeah couldn't find a "short" about the mice...

Douglas may have been onto something though - if Consciousness is causative in the Universe then maybe us little tiny chunks of it have/had something to say in the making of it... Even if not specifically US chunks.

And there are larger units of Consciousness - I have been in 2 very large rally type groups (circa 100,000) and felt the power of mob consciousness - when I tried to leave it was like trying to wade through molasses to get to the edge of the crowd - once near the edge it got much easier until I was out of it altogether and only then could I look back at it and see a crowd as something different to me.

Having been through that, and it is a different feeling to being at the MCG with about the same number screaming at the umpires, I am quite convinced there is a connectivity that links people. A common purpose seems to open channels that are not present at the footy (for example) where the focus is 'over there' where the game is going.

Mind you, that might just be that I don't have the level of committment to footy that others have.

So it seems to me that Consciousness is not something easily explained by looking in any amount of detail at the physical universe. I'm no Tibetan monk so I can't talk with any authority about what they or a zen adept might think, but from the little I know of such practices, I don't think they see awareness as the same thing as Consciousness - after all, there needs to be an 'I' who can be aware. Their thrust (if I can use such a term) is more about just learning to BE that 'I' and to simply be aware without imposing 'I' on the awareness.

And if Consciousness has anything at all to do with the Universe, it cannot be left out of the explanations of development of it. Evolution has become diametrically opposed to any idea of Consciousness being involved which is why it is almost impossible to get them to disengage from Creationists long enough to talk about any other view.

But if we are a set of fields that interact with matter (I call it The Solid) and we have systems in our bodies that make nerves look like carrier pigeons (and we do) and other systems that let us (even if unconsciously) choose what genes are expressed and how (epigenetics) then we have an opportunity to see the development of Life from a whole new perspective.

And changes of the paradigm open up entire worlds to play in. Swiss watchmakers were offered the first of the electronic watch designs - makes sense right? You have a new idea about watches and clock so you go to the people that make them to sell your idea?

Well the watchmakers, vision blurred by their paradigm about watches and quality and what people wanted, turned the inventor down - the Japanese on the other hand saw a new industry and Timex was born. Within a decade Swiss watches were obsolete except for the very expensive and as status symbols. But even the $3 cheapy keeps better time than any Swiss watch under about $2000.

The problem with Consensus Science is it makes the old paradigm into a rigid boundary beyond which nobody is allowed to go. And by having politics driving where Science is allowed to look, all we ever get is confirmation of what the political and Corporate types want to see.

Well, I think we will not reach any consensus here. As I have stated before elsewhere, the most dangerous people are the ones with just enough brains to think they are intelligent. Einstein once said "knowledge brings you from A to B, imagination brings you everywhere." I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to say that "everywhere" should be at the same moment and place.

I'm sure, JM, you will find many like yourself in the scientific world. Maybe a good idea to bring your ideas over there to discuss it?

Believe it or not, Science forums are distinctly NOT good places to discuss anything non-orthodox. Not only are many of them not willing to discuss possibilities outside the consensus, the use of grant, tenure and publishing weapons leave them unable to even be seen to be considering anything non-Consensus.

Once people are signed onto a program it is extraordinarily difficult to get them to step out of it - you cannot reason someone out of a position s/he wasn't reasoned into.

Plus, given the lack of any progress demonstrable from Consensus Science, I find I get more stimulus from talking to people less restricted in their views. Someone who has an investment of decades in a specific stream is unlikely to be able or willing to digress from what they consider themselves expert in and the educational system tends to isolate streams so effectively few are able to cover even the minor range of subject matter contained in this thread.

Non-specialists do far better.

I also have found that definition of dangerous doesn't apply to people who know they are not 'expert' in a subject - I doubt anyone here thinks they know enough on this subject to be dangerous, although some do hold rather tightly to the Authority figures who have told them what to think.

And if only one person is encouraged to think outside their programming by what I write, it has been worth it. So thanks for your kind invitation to go away, but while there are people here willing to talk I will converse with them.

I know, you will not quit until everyone is in consensus with you. Good luck.

I'm still willing to discuss your "theory" Journeyman....

I'm just still struggling to actually understand exactly what it is....

Several years ago I had a serious problem with rabbits biting holes in my irrigation pipes, typically the small diameter tubing that attached the sprinklers to the lateral lines. This happened every day for months during summer and I spent up to two hours, some days, replacing tubes or binding them with tape to reduce water leakage. It is very hot and dry here in summer and I can only assume that the rabbits had discovered that biting black tubing meant that they would get water to drink. (I would not negotiate with the rabbits and refused to put out bowls of water for them.)

Around this time the rabbit calicivirus disease (RCD) went through the area and wiped out most, if not all, of the resident rabbits. When the local rabbit population began to restore itself, presumably from neighbouring localities, I was very relieved to learn that, unlike Rupert Sheldrake's dutch blackbirds, the new ones had 'lost the knowledge' of their predecessors and did not know how to bite pipe and get easy water during summer!

I am enjoying this thread and hope that, before very much longer, a worthwhile idea will evolve in my holograph of a mind and I will be able to make a meaningful contribution.

Now that's just nasty - if you've read anything I have written here you would know my opinion of 'consensus.'

You don't ahve to click on the thread if you don't like broadening your horizons. Since you clearl think AP people should be madatorily restricted to only talking AP subjects, you might actually want to stay away from the General Banter forum altogether - it's only going to be a constant annoyance.

@Rupert and everyone else interested...

I don't really have a theory per se as yet; developing a new way to see things has been an ongoing process, but I have learned that we are being short-changed in Education. Have a read of John Taylor Gatto or Charlotte Thompson-Iserbyt for more info on our (mis)Education system...

What I mean is, we are taught, very carefully, to segregate out subjects, isolate them from each other. There is a true story about the development of radar - we could have had it MUCh earlier, but the people coming up with the theory couldn't talk the language of the people designing the vacuum tubes and so the engineers putting it together had to keep using off-the-shelf tubes. When someone finally explained to the tube designers what was needed, they had them in production in short order.

Archaeologists don't know Biology and very few of them know Geology - vis-a-vis the Sphinx. The first time a Geology team went and surveyed it (look up Robert Schoch) the paradigm changed. The Sphinx can NOT have been built when the Egyptologists tell us it was, because the Geology disagrees.

Climatologists use statistics to show us how we're doomed by the CO2 we produce, but they don't actually know the basic rules of stats and so they are wrong, as are their computer models - they also don't know anything about Chaos Theory and so they keep modelling a Chaotic system using binary computers and logic. Doesn't work for reasons obvious to anyone who HAS an inkling about Chaos.

So we are in a world where 'experts' keep telling us how things are, and 90% (being generous) of the people out there simply believe them because they wear white coats of carry a clipboard (you should see some of the penetration of site results from computer security experts, using just a clipboard as a weapon) or because they have a position at University.

Most people do not realise that most Academic records are built by tearing into other people's works while sitting in a room far from the reality they are masticating. Reputations are made by someone who has never visited or been to the place being talked about by someone who HAS been there.

So, I am a sceptic. When SciAm and Nature started presenting Scientific papers that even I could see other possible explanations for, even using just the data presented in the paper, I slowly began to realise the wheels were coming off Science.

Science and Sanity began the journey for me - Count Alfred Korzybski present a view of what a human SHOULD be based on the then-known facts (he wrote it in the 30's I think) and it is far from where (mis)Education is taking us. With the capability of the human mind there is no reason to lock down the subjects so tightly one discipline cannot talk to another.

And the view that there is an ultimate good or bad, black or white, right or wrong as is presented almost daily to us as fact is just plain wrong.

So... if I have anything approaching a theory, it is that Evolution is, at best, a blind man's elephant, simply because the people promoting it as 'settled Science' are not practicing Science nor do they have enough knowledge outside their speciality to see the full picture.

Not that it is their fault - they are products of a system designed to leave us lacking in achieving what we are capable of doing.

The fact that cells cannot initiate anything is a strong clue that we have to address more than just the merely physical. The ability to leave a body is a clue that we are more even than just a Mind, hologram or not. The vast complexity of a body that makes the latest super-computer look like a kid's Speak'n'Spell suggests there is far more going on than just random changes, as does the presence of so-called 'Junk DNA' - Evolution should not produce a system where 97% of the genome does not code. And that 'Junk DNA' should NOT, under any circumstances, be responsive to analysis as a language - and it is. 1/f analysis, Zipf's Law and redundancy analysis all point to Junk DNA having meaningful structure - if Evolution is about genes and tiny alterations to them, WTF is going on with the 97% that is NOT genes?

And, that isn't just the human genome; the Zipf's law analysis works in everything from viruses up.

Until Evolution can give us both reason and explanation of process for the fact that 97% of DNA appears to have nothing to do with the development of species, it remains, at best, an approximation.

When we begin to add in other fields, the picture gets even murkier.Note that none of this has led me any closer to Creationism - it's just opened other avenues to explain what we are finding in the record. The fact that I see gaping holes in Cosmology doesn't lead me to say 'God did it' but it does lead me to take a closer look at people like Halton Arp, and to question the dogma of Redshift.

And as soon as one does that, the house of cards falls apart.

It seems to me there needs to be an explanation that fits into other explanations so that we work towards an overall picture of the Universe. One sign that a field of knowledge is finding answers is things become simpler. As we approach the correct formula or reach an understanding of how something functions, the puzzles fall out into answers and we tend to find it much simpler to understand - too many 'Science' subjects are becoming ever-increasingly complex and complicated - to me that suggests something basic is wrong.

The comments I made on Maxwell, Michelson & Morley, for example are indicators of where I see we might have gone astray, and so many other subjects depend on those sort of basics being correct that I don't think we can work from where we are back to some real understanding of how things are - we need to back up out of this alley and get back onto the highway.

In my view, there are far too many 'verboten' areas where Science backs away shaking its collective head for us to blindly accept the money-making hypotheses they are presenting as 'Settled Science' and if they will not do true Science then others need to start learning what they can to make sense of it all.

This thread is just one attempt of mine to provoke discussion and hopefully, sort out errors and misconceptions. Conversation is how we learn from each other and there are starting to be too many laws, too many 'Authority says' statements for my liking. Too many of the people I know are willing to let others tell them what to think and the Sense of Wonder is dying out as so-called 'Reality TV' kills brain cells by the millions.

To me, the logic of trying to provoke discussion in a place where people are already rejecting the orthodox views in one sense seems quite rational. AP'ers in general are showing they have stepped away from the programming and 'Consume at all costs' (I like puns ) prevailing mantra of our society.

If I range too widely (or wildly) for some and they run for comfort levels, so be it - that same ranging might bring others here who have specific interests and can give a less rigid PoV.

That's my point. Did you read anything that was written by others here? I don't think so. I see you waving away others opinions or ideas, based upon a rudimentary knowledge of the subjects they bring up. Consequently you return to what keeps you busy. Hardly an open conversation, or even a wild association program.

The plain fact that you were not (yet) able to find an explanation for consciousness, does not mean there is non. It only means you didn't find it yet.

I suggested you should bring it to the scientific world, the more or less serious one of course. Not to 'Science fora'.

True, if they realize it. Not true if they don't.

Tibetan buddhism is different from Zen. A generalization of all Buddhism is not a good start for understanding the issue. From the little you know about 'such practices' you come to a conclusion solely based upon your assumptions, not facts.

Erm, it wasn't Hitler personally who pushed the whole Arian ideal through. Most of what he wrote about it in his book, was whispered into his ears by his 'friends' Himmler, Eichmann etc. They were the real architects behind the "endloesung" and the ones that executed the plan. Good old Adolf couldn't care less about the so called "Jewish problem". He just wanted to be in charge and become a famous leader. In which he succeeded. Any discussion about that man is too much blurred by propaganda and emotions to be useful to any.

And so you dismiss the possibility that there might be no meaning to life. Frightening isn't it?

I do, but if you show a narrow mind about the "Number Forty Two" and other subjects outside your scope, I doubt if you could contribute to "broadening horizons" for anyone.

I could go on and on. But what's the point? Chances are slim it would make any difference in your approach.

By the way, the blackbirds of Sheldrake were not the ones in Holland but in some small village somewhere in England. I've read his book, about twenty years ago, when it just came out. Interesting theory, morphogenetic fields. Especially the part about influencing growth of plants remotely! Unfortunately, straight copied from the ancient Taoists with a Western flavor sauce.

Know your facts, man!

Reading list (as a beginning, not complete);
Freud, Jung, Fromm, Oliver Sacks, Capra, Lao Tzu, Twzang Tzu, Kung Fu Tzu, Sun Tzu, Hakuin, a proper translation of the words of Buddha, JW van de Wetering about Zen, D.T. Suzuki, relevant parts of the bible quoting Jesus (not all are relevant), Kabala, Madame Blavatsky, Rudolf Steiner. Novels with insight: Richard Bach, Arthur C. Clark, Frank Herbert (Dune series), Robert M. Pirsig (ZAMM).

You will find enough links in these books to broaden your horizon truly. It will also help to find answers to many of the questions you have and which will not be answered on fora.

Good luck, again!

If you're going to correct people you should actually check your facts... and theirs. From sheldrake.org...

Well it was a bluetit, not a blackbird, but my comment quite clearly was about the WW2 refernce which, from Sheldrake's own words, is about Holland, not Britain.

Maybe Sheldrake didn't mention the war in your book?

I might have had blackbird wrong but then, so did you, and I was quoting from memory while you were busily reading a thread you clearly don't like and taking pains to correct details you then got wrong. le sigh...

As for waving away others' ideas I don't - I simply add what I know, have read or experienced. So far nobody has actually gainsaid what I have written with anything other than the same level of conversation I have been using.

Mind you I have no idea what got up your nose about 42 - there was a humorous comment from Joel to which I replied - near as I can tell there wasn't anything for you to be offended by so I am unsure why you would mention it - trying for overkill perhaps? Looking for allies? Who knows?

If you actually read what I say you will find less to be disgagreeable about - e.g. it is clear from my sentence I separate out Tibetan and Zen (that would be the OR in my comment...)...yet you choose to see what I say as some kind of generalisation. Instead of entering into a conversation you decide to throw rocks from a distance. At least I am honest about acknowledging my expertise in subjects or the lack of it.

If you don't like the subject, the writing or the writer, feel free not to click on it next time. Or you could do what others have done and contribute to what some have seen as an interesting conversation.

Got to go pick up the missus but later I'll have a read back and see what it was got up your nose. I'm presuming from other posts you don't normally just go off like this...

this thread is like waiting for a flock of Galahs to discover nuclear physics!

A waste of time,

get a life Journeyman?

I'd rather be doing something interesting like watching my fish grow.