Thread: Let's Study Sacred Geometry

Dannon, if your father asked you to go get a glass of water for him, too see how much you love him. You do it, but you go to a neighbor and ask what that means.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Thoughts are the lies.

I think unconditional love, is entirely different than what most people think love is.

For instance a friend came to my house one day and told me he got an xbox360..I was like cool, we talked fr a minute. I offered him to borrow one of my games, Nba 2k9, he didn't take it but he offered me 2 cigarettes...and that's just what I wanted because I didn't have any.

Acting off your intuition is being free.

THIS is what I'm talking about: http://www.personaldevelopment.ie/20...our-true-self/

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Dannon, if your father asked you to go get a glass of water for him, too see how much you love him. You do it, but you go to a neighbor and ask what that means.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Thoughts are the lies.

I think unconditional love, is entirely different than what most people think love is.

For instance a friend came to my house one day and told me he got an xbox360..I was like cool, we talked fr a minute. I offered him to borrow one of my games, Nba 2k9, he didn't take it but he offered me 2 cigarettes...and that's just what I wanted because I didn't have any.

Acting off your intuition is being free.

THIS is what I'm talking about: http://www.personaldevelopment.ie/20...our-true-self/

Sorry, I don't know what you're getting at.

Does this have to do with sacred geometry?

Yes, people DON'T know what love is. So many things get confused with love. Sentimentality, lust, attachment, addiction, habit. Real love IS unconditional, which means it doesn't matter who or what the object of love is. Real love is for everyone, just like the sun shines on everyone, not just the righteous. Only a few people in all of history have known real love.

Dannon, I think your idea of Utopia in the perfect society thread is amazing.

I can't imagine a world where we all get along, and create art and music, live in bliss, and share lucid dreams every night and day. It feels like a fantasy compared to the world we're living in now.

We can't be our truest deepest selves in this world, our truest deepest self couldn't possibly live in this world or within it's rules. But listening to your intuition is being closer to it.

And unconditional love is my example with my friend coming over telling me about his xbox.

No this doesn't have anything to do with sacred geometry, but concentrating on mandalas or being in a building constructed using sacred geometry can make you be more in tune with your higher self or intuition.

I want to compose some of my music using sacred geometry, but all I know is what the keys stand for, I don't have any idea what cadences are and I have to study the "Circle Of Fifths".

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

So do you believe that consciousness is a by product of the brain? Where's the evidence? Scientists have been puzzling over this forever.

No they haven't. Consciousness implies a degree of self awareness. Humans have consciousness. Dogs have consciousness. Bacteria do not. You don't have consciousness without animal life. Rocks and trees aren't conscious. The individual neurons and glial cells of your brain aren't conscious by themselves, but the network they form is. It is an emergent property of the collective network.

Notice how where ever your brain goes your consciousness seems to be there? You don't have consciousness without a brain present (don't invoke OBEs or spirits - neither has been proven, lets stick to facts). You can swap out any other organ in the human body and the personality remains intact. Let me repeat that - you can replace ANY ORGAN IN THE BODY BUT THE BRAIN and the personality of a person remains the same. Brain transplants are not viable. Why? Limited technology for a start, we can't play with nerves like that (yet). All of your long term memories are located in the hippocampus (we know this because people with damage to this area of the brain can no longer form permanent memories). Your personality is the emergent property of the collection of memories and experiences that are stored and retrieved from that lump of pink matter in your skull.

Do you believe in good music? What is the evidence why some noises are good music, some is bad music, and some is just noise? And why is some noise music? What is the evidence for melody and harmony?

Our brains are pattern recognition masters. So good infact, we see patterns that aren't even there. We're extraordinarily good at seeing faces in clouds, mountains, sidewalks, anything really. We've all played that game as kids 'what can you see in the clouds?'.

Music is no different. Our brains hear 'patterns in noise' that we call music. There are literally thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of combinations of two or more notes to play on a guitar, called a chord. However, only 200-400 of these can be played without sounding like absolute shit. This has to do with the resonance frequency that the strings vibrate at with respect to the other strings, as well as whatever came before or after it in the musical piece. Pacing also has a part to play. Typically you don't get high pitched notes played in a long drawn out fashion, and you don't make a guitar solo out of low pitched notes either.

I don't see what this has anything to do with consciousness however. Music is a beautiful thing, but that doesn't make it god-given, esoteric, or spiritual in any way. It's just mathematics in sound-waves.

Do you believe is love? What is the evidence?

I do accept that love exists because I have felt it in the past, as I would hope we all have at some point or another. Such a universal concept is hard to disprove, as there are very few individuals (sociopaths for a start) that are incapable of love or have never felt it. Whether it's love for your parents, your partner or your mythical religious icon makes no difference.

As for evidence, I read a study a year or two ago of putting people into an MRI, and having them view pictures or think intensely about the people they love most in their lives, and another group of people were told to think intensely about their love for their god or gods. Both sets of MRIs showed the same area of the brain lighting up.

We're no longer living in a time when 'prove you loved your father' is a philosophical road block or conversation stopper such as 'do you see the colour red the same way I see it?'. We live in a time where I can show you the same physiological effects of 'love' on separate people in an MRI.

Furthermore, love is a by-product of our mammalian evolution. If you actually care to learn more about this, research attachment theory in a psychology journal.

What is the evidence that this is not a dream?

Perform several reality checks. Pretty good indication there. Unless you're invoking Descartes 'evil demon' scenario in which I'm going to say you're being asinine.

Alex, so you think love is just brain patterns.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe Love CAUSES synapses in the brain and not the other way around....have you ever thought of that

Originally Posted by Alextanium

No they haven't. Consciousness implies a degree of self awareness. Humans have consciousness. Dogs have consciousness. Bacteria do not. You don't have consciousness without animal life. Rocks and trees aren't conscious. The individual neurons and glial cells of your brain aren't conscious by themselves, but the network they form is. It is an emergent property of the collective network.

Notice how where ever your brain goes your consciousness seems to be there? You don't have consciousness without a brain present (don't invoke OBEs or spirits - neither has been proven, lets stick to facts). You can swap out any other organ in the human body and the personality remains intact. Let me repeat that - you can replace ANY ORGAN IN THE BODY BUT THE BRAIN and the personality of a person remains the same. Brain transplants are not viable. Why? Limited technology for a start, we can't play with nerves like that (yet). All of your long term memories are located in the hippocampus (we know this because people with damage to this area of the brain can no longer form permanent memories). Your personality is the emergent property of the collection of memories and experiences that are stored and retrieved from that lump of pink matter in your skull.



Our brains are pattern recognition masters. So good infact, we see patterns that aren't even there. We're extraordinarily good at seeing faces in clouds, mountains, sidewalks, anything really. We've all played that game as kids 'what can you see in the clouds?'.

Music is no different. Our brains hear 'patterns in noise' that we call music. There are literally thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of combinations of two or more notes to play on a guitar, called a chord. However, only 200-400 of these can be played without sounding like absolute shit. This has to do with the resonance frequency that the strings vibrate at with respect to the other strings, as well as whatever came before or after it in the musical piece. Pacing also has a part to play. Typically you don't get high pitched notes played in a long drawn out fashion, and you don't make a guitar solo out of low pitched notes either.

I don't see what this has anything to do with consciousness however. Music is a beautiful thing, but that doesn't make it god-given, esoteric, or spiritual in any way. It's just mathematics in sound-waves.



I do accept that love exists because I have felt it in the past, as I would hope we all have at some point or another. Such a universal concept is hard to disprove, as there are very few individuals (sociopaths for a start) that are incapable of love or have never felt it. Whether it's love for your parents, your partner or your mythical religious icon makes no difference.

As for evidence, I read a study a year or two ago of putting people into an MRI, and having them view pictures or think intensely about the people they love most in their lives, and another group of people were told to think intensely about their love for their god or gods. Both sets of MRIs showed the same area of the brain lighting up.

We're no longer living in a time when 'prove you loved your father' is a philosophical road block or conversation stopper such as 'do you see the colour red the same way I see it?'. We live in a time where I can show you the same physiological effects of 'love' on separate people in an MRI.

Furthermore, love is a by-product of our mammalian evolution. If you actually care to learn more about this, research attachment theory in a psychology journal.



Perform several reality checks. Pretty good indication there. Unless you're invoking Descartes 'evil demon' scenario in which I'm going to say you're being asinine.

Very well said.
Indeed.
You argued that very intelligently.

Have you thought that the brain is the radio receiver for thoughts but the mind is the radio waves?

Your explanation of music is more like a definition than evidence, but I don't expect anyone to be able to prove it.

Reptilian love isn't love as we define it, it is sexual gratification. Birds and mammals have the sentimental emotional binding type of love. And humans usually fall into that category but some humans are capable of an initiatory love or unconditional love. I haven;t read about attachment theory. and I don't know what Descartes' evil demon scenario is. Because I think that Descartes was an idiot.

Reality checks don't prove that you are not dreaming, they only prove if you are dreaming.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Alex, so you think love is just brain patterns.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe Love CAUSES synapses in the brain and not the other way around....have you ever thought of that

So you're proposing that some external force (we know not what) influences the brain and only the brain from 'somewhere else' (we know not how) for the purposes of making us feel love (we know not why).

This hypothesis postulates too many unknowns. Unknowns for which there is no evidence.

Whereas, if you view love as the product of chemical and electrical processes (that's the what) stimulating the pleasure centers of the brain by releasing endorphins, dopamine, seratonine plus others (that's the how) for the purpose of creating strong attachment between two individuals so they may remain in a partnership together long enough to rear an infant to an age where it can look after itself (that's the why), you get a naturalistic explanation of love. Not one full of pixies and magic.

If I take your view to it's next logical conclusion, then all emotions are just floating around in the aether of the universe and the brain is relegated to being an emotional antennae that plucks them out of the air. By what mechanism do these emotions 'travel' or 'exist' in space? By what mechanism do they interact with brains to produce effects? Is anger and jealousy floating around in the cosmos as well? What about envy, pride, sexual lust, disappointment, lethargy, euphoria, depression, and excitement?

So I looked up the evil demon theory. Yeah, Descartes is an idiot.
However, all you did was prove what you believe, you didn't give evidence. I am not trying to argue with you or say that you are wrong. I am just pointing out that we all have beliefs and assumptions about this world we are confronted with and we all have evidence for our beliefs and assumptions. There is no right way. reality is bigger than we can ever imagine and it includes seemingly paradoxical truths. I am not saying science is wrong, I am saying that to rely on science more than your own experience is foolish.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Very well said.
Indeed.
You argued that very intelligently.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I don't know what Descartes' evil demon scenario is. Because I think that Descartes was an idiot.

The evil demon scenario is that you can't be sure of anything in the universe because there might exist an evil demon with powers of trickery so great, he is fooling your senses into believing that this is reality. You might actually exist as (insert who the hell knows what) but the evil demon is tricking you into thinking you're a human being, sitting at a desk, reading a post on the internet. And there is no way for you to be certain of your reality.

From this stand point, he tried to figure out what can be known to actually be true. This is where he comes up with 'cogito ergo sum' (I think, therefore I am). Your awareness is the only thing you can prove to yourself exists, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to ask the question. From that one axiom, he tried to build a foundation of knowledge of the universe (like how you prove a triangle has three sides and 3 angles that add up to 180 degrees based on the Euclidian axioms of mathematics). Unfortunately he commits an epic fail here by assuming the existence of God as his second principle axiom, something which is completely unprovable.

The whole point of this is that if I'm going to doubt my reality, and my reality checks fail (or succeed, depending on whether I'm dreaming or not), then the evidence stacks up that I'm in either one or the other. I'm either dreaming, in which case my reality check will 'work' and I'll become lucid. Or I'm awake and my reality check will 'fail'. This is evidence that I'm awake. I have no reason to assume that evidence is wrong without invoking the evil demon.

This hypothesis postulates too many unknowns. Unknowns for which there is no evidence.

So let's close our minds to the possibility then.
Is it scientific to not imagine? Is it scientific to say "we don't know about that so it can't be true" ?

So you're proposing that some external force (we know not what) influences the brain and only the brain from 'somewhere else' (we know not how) for the purposes of making us feel love (we know not why).

I won't speak for HW but I don't think it is an external force. What? It is the Self. How? Through energetic compatibility and intention. Why? Because we crave it and it makes us happy.

Whereas, if you view love as the product of chemical and electrical processes (that's the what) stimulating the pleasure centers of the brain by releasing endorphins, dopamine, seratonine plus others (that's the how) for the purpose of creating strong attachment between two individuals so they may remain in a partnership together long enough to rear an infant to an age where it can look after itself (that's the why), you get a naturalistic explanation of love. Not one full of pixies and magic.

And without the Love either.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I am not saying science is wrong, I am saying that to rely on science more than your own experience is foolish.

We're going to have to disagree here. Ones own experience can be one of delusion. One of my best lucid dreams was a WILD in which I met my grandfather who has been dead for 8 years. I had a very emotional farewell with him that finally gave me closure on his death. Had I been a religious person with no knowledge of lucid dreaming, I would have perhaps interpreted that as a communion with his soul/spirit or what have you. But armed with the knowledge that science has given me from researchers such as Stephen LaBerge (who was in turn verifying the experiences related to him from native American tribes as well as Buddhist monks) I am able to make the rational judgement that what I experienced was entirely illusionary and took place within my own mind. Not some other realm or dimension. That knowledge doesn't make the closure I have feel any less real however.

We experience the world through a combination of electrical signals coming into our brain from our skin, eyes, ears, nose and tongue. All experience can be defined as a coded series of electrical impulses. If our brain were to experience impulses from outside those five avenues of input, we would begin to see, hear, taste, smell and feel things that weren't actually there. Recall the stories of brain tumour suffers that smell burning feathers or other phantom smells. Or someone that has their hand amputated but still 'feels' a phantom hand clenching its fist so hard the phantom nails dig into the phantom palm, causing pain (another electrical impulse).

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

So let's close our minds to the possibility then.
Is it scientific to not imagine? Is it scientific to say "we don't know about that so it can't be true" ?

I'm not closing my mind to any possibility. I took that hypothesis, and I weighed it accordingly. For a hypothesis to have any merit, it has to explain something adequately without bringing in more unknowns than competing theories. HW's hypothesis basically amounts to assertion without evidence. Things that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It is scientific to say 'we don't know about it, so until we do, we have no reason to believe it is true'. If it were true you then have the added burden of explaining all the other phenomena associated with emotions as well as love.

I won't speak for HW but I don't think it is an external force.

So we agree that it is an internal phenomena common to lifeforms with a certain degree of cerebral development.

What? It is the Self.

Define this. Do you mean the soul? The personality? How do you make the distinction between the effect of love coming from within the soul but not from the biological brain?

How? Through energetic compatibility and intention.

Explain this concept please. I can't make sense of it.

Why? Because we crave it and it makes us happy.

You're putting the cart before the horse here. How would we know to crave love before we'd ever experienced it? Does this mean we also crave to feel hungry, thirsty, angry, depressed, grateful, proud, sexual attraction or excitement? By what mechanism does it make us feel happy if not through giving us dopamine and other endorphins which are known pleasure inducing chemicals.

And without the Love either.

Baseless assertion. Just because I can break a rainbow down as being the result of the refraction of light in the back of millions of rain drops doesn't make it any less beautiful to look at it. Just because I know why and how I feel the emotion of love doesn't make my heart beat any less crazy when I see someone I am in love with.

When people are assaulted at knife or gunpoint, their eyewitness testimony of their attackers features are often vague and unclear. This is because 90% of the time they are under duress, their vision is fixated on the weapon being held at them. Adrenalin is great for making your muscles contract faster, increasing your blood oxygen levels and increasing your hand eye co-ordination but it has a deleterious effect on memory synthesis. What your brain doesn't remember, it makes up. There are blind spots in both of your eyes where the retina feeds the optical nerve that leads to your brain. Your visual cortex 'colours in' the missing two circles of your vision so you don't notice them. And this occurs 24/7 for your entire life. Your brain is giving you a controlled hallucination so you don't have big blind spots in your view.

My point in all this, is that an individual can not always trust their subjective experiences to be factual and accurate. However, several independently verified experiences under properly controlled conditions (ie: science) can begin to build a picture of what's going on, accounting for the bias that we attach to the significance of our own experiences.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

We're going to have to disagree here. Ones own experience can be one of delusion. One of my best lucid dreams was a WILD in which I met my grandfather who has been dead for 8 years. I had a very emotional farewell with him that finally gave me closure on his death. Had I been a religious person with no knowledge of lucid dreaming, I would have perhaps interpreted that as a communion with his soul/spirit or what have you. But armed with the knowledge that science has given me from researchers such as Stephen LaBerge (who was in turn verifying the experiences related to him from native American tribes as well as Buddhist monks) I am able to make the rational judgement that what I experienced was entirely illusionary and took place within my own mind. Not some other realm or dimension. That knowledge doesn't make the closure I have feel any less real however.

There is evidence that there are no other realms or dimensions or an afterlife?

We experience the world through a combination of electrical signals coming into our brain from our skin, eyes, ears, nose and tongue. All experience can be defined as a coded series of electrical impulses. If our brain were to experience impulses from outside those five avenues of input, we would begin to see, hear, taste, smell and feel things that weren't actually there. Recall the stories of brain tumour suffers that smell burning feathers or other phantom smells. Or someone that has their hand amputated but still 'feels' a phantom hand clenching its fist so hard the phantom nails dig into the phantom palm, causing pain (another electrical impulse).

So are you saying that there is no evidence of a physical reality out there but just electrical impulses in the brain?

When people are assaulted at knife or gunpoint, their eyewitness testimony of their attackers features are often vague and unclear. This is because 90% of the time they are under duress, their vision is fixated on the weapon being held at them. Adrenalin is great for making your muscles contract faster, increasing your blood oxygen levels and increasing your hand eye co-ordination but it has a deleterious effect on memory synthesis. What your brain doesn't remember, it makes up. There are blind spots in both of your eyes where the retina feeds the optical nerve that leads to your brain. Your visual cortex 'colours in' the missing two circles of your vision so you don't notice them. And this occurs 24/7 for your entire life. Your brain is giving you a controlled hallucination so you don't have big blind spots in your view.

My point in all this, is that an individual can not always trust their subjective experiences to be factual and accurate. However, several independently verified experiences under properly controlled conditions (ie: science) can begin to build a picture of what's going on, accounting for the bias that we attach to the significance of our own experiences.[/QUOTE]

I agree that you cannot always count on your subjective experiences being accurate. I believe we should be brutally honest with ourselves.
That is why we should experiment over and over again with our consciousness and prove to ourselves things which science is not able to prove yet.

But man, how did I get off the topic of sacred geometry again! Is this a conspiracy? Why don't we have this discussion at the awareness awareness thread?

I mean are we trying to prove that there is no sacred geometry? This thread is called 'let's study sacred geometry' not let's debate about materialism vs. mysticism

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

There is evidence that there are no other realms or dimensions or an afterlife?

We have no evidence that there is, therefore no reason to believe that there is.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

So are you saying that there is no evidence of a physical reality out there but just electrical impulses in the brain?

In a word, yes. Everything anyone that is conscious knows about this universe was experienced via their senses in the form of electrical impulses. Your brain interprets these impulses and creates a model of the world around you. Dreaming is a by-product of this model-building software. When we go to sleep, we withdraw from our world and shut down external stimuli sources. But the brain is hungry for information to churn. So it turns inwards on itself for a source of stimuli to build a model from. This is why dreams don't have rules or laws of reality like the waking world, because it's entirely arbitrary what your mind wants to take as fact or fiction in the confines of your internal model.

I mean are we trying to prove that there is no sacred geometry? This thread is called 'let's study sacred geometry' not let's debate about materialism vs. mysticism

I agree, this has drifted off course from the central topic.

and I don't know what Descartes' evil demon scenario is. Because I think that Descartes was an idiot.

Right, so, you have no idea what his greatest philosophical achievement was, but you do know that whatever it was, it was crap, because Descartes was an idiot... for some reason.

'Open mind' my ass.

So do you believe that consciousness is a by product of the brain? Where's the evidence? Scientists have been puzzling over this forever.

Well, there's the fact that the 'location of our stream of consciousness' corresponds to specific regions of the brain. So thinking about language causes a language region of the brain to function. There's the fact that taking drugs effects biochemistry and the rate of firing of neurons, and that this affects consciousness. There's the fact that people who suffer brain damage can often have their consciousness impaired. There's the fact that the brain consists of an extremely intricate network of neurons which send signals to each other in order to carry out cognitive functions.

Do you want more..? :l

Originally Posted by Alextanium

We have no evidence that there is, therefore no reason to believe that there is.

Actually, if you take a look at string theory/M-theory, it says that there are 10, 11, or 12 dimensions, with the last dimension encompassing all the dimensions before it. Physicists recognize that there are at least 12 dimensional levels to the universe all existing simultaneously along side our own. Each level vibrates to its own vibrational tones and overtones of sound, light, color.
--------------

Those dimensions are different levels of awareness. The extra dimensions we can't understand right now because our brain some how only limits us to the first three dimensions ).



The 12 dimensions have a metaphysical explanation to it.

Some people that experiment with Psychedelics( specifically talking about Salvia D. ) automatically skip to and experience that last dimension, the oneness, the unconditional love, the bliss, and return to normal consciousness and get depressed..they can't take it. It's like being on a heavy dose of heroin for 2 weeks straight and having the opiate substance taken away from you.

INDIVIDUAL consciousness to ~
GROUP consciousness to ~
COMMUNITY consciousness to ~
NATIONAL consciousness to ~
COLLECTIVE consciousness to ~
PLANETARY consciousness to ~
GALACTIC consciousness

THIS is what the Mayans were talking about.

Scientists want to know who lives in the 10th dimension and what's there, well if they give spirituality a chance, they'll know. It's inevitable for science and spirituality to come together and understand. It's like a left-brain and a right brain thing, they both need to come together.

There are 7 planes of existence, just like there are 7 colors in a rainbow, just like there are 7 scales in a musical note, There are 7 continents and 7 seas of the Earth. There are 7 Biblical days of creation, 7 laws of Noah, and in the book of Revelation there are 7 churches of Asia Minor, 7 seals, 7 vials, and 7 trumpets. In fact, both the Old and New Testaments are saturated with the number 7. There are 7 openings in the human head and 7 endocrine glands in the human body. A circle cannot be divided into seven equal parts by any known geometric construction.

7 is the starting point of plane and solid geometry. For example, the first plane figure is a triangle. It has 3 vertices, 3 sides, and 1 face. 3 + 3 + 1 = 7. From the triangle, we can produce the first solid figure, the tetrahedron.

That's sacred geometry from what I understand it.

If there are 7 planes of existence/awareness, what's after the 7, is it the end? No, the 7th isn't the end, it's the end of that octave and the beginning of the next octave. The universe is self aware..there is no beginning or end, it's all a hologram. It's actually been scientifically proven that the universe is a hologram. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is possible, every world you can imagine, every being you can create or imagine, every world every reality, every concept, every idea, every dream and every thought. Creativity is infinite.

We can create anything we want in this world with the Law of attraction because, Thought+feeling equals manifestation.

No, Harwired. This is three dimensions:

{∀v: v = lA + mB + nC, [A, B, C] =! 0}

and this is twelve dimensions:

{∀v: v = mA + nB + oC + pD + qE + rF + sG + tH + uI + vJ + wK + xL, [A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L] =! 0}

What on Earth does the above have to do with consciousness?

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Actually, if you take a look at string theory/M-theory, it says that there are 10, 11, or 12 dimensions, with the last dimension encompassing all the dimensions before it. Physicists recognize that there are at least 12 dimensional levels to the universe all existing simultaneously along side our own. Each level vibrates to its own vibrational tones and overtones of sound, light, color.

String theory is internally consistent but is inherently untestable. The technology to test it won't be developed for at least another hundred years. The extra dimensions you think you're referring to aren't separate planes of reality - they're spatial dimensions like height, width and length. Absolutely nothing to do with spirits, souls or extra-dimensional beings.

All that about colours, lights, sound and vibration is just New Age mumbo jumbo with no evidence to back it up. You can talk about kundalini rising, chakras, energy centres and the pineal gland until you're blue in the face. Without one shred of evidence for any of it, you just sound like a crazy person.

Directed towards an Alex, you stole my namesake, en guarde...?

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.
Alice: And how do you know that you're mad?
The Cat: To begin with, a dog's not mad. You grant that?
Alice: I suppose so,
The Cat: Well, then, you see, a dog growls when it's angry, and wags its tail when it's pleased. Now I growl when I'm pleased, and wag my tail when I'm angry. Therefore I'm mad.

Crazy or sane, some need others to prove things for them, some prove things for themselves. Some are in an illusion, some are in a delusion. We all can agree on what is easily testable, but their are some strange things in life that I won't bother to try and prove, you may think him crazy you may think I'm crazy.. But I think we're all just a little bit mad.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Crazy or sane, some need others to prove things for them, some prove things for themselves. Some are in an illusion, some are in a delusion. We all can agree on what is easily testable, but their are some strange things in life that I won't bother to try and prove, you may think him crazy you may think I'm crazy.. But I think we're all just a little bit mad.

HaHaHa! I like! LOL

Originally Posted by Xei

Right, so, you have no idea what his greatest philosophical achievement was, but you do know that whatever it was, it was crap, because Descartes was an idiot... for some reason.

'Open mind' my ass.

So, speaking of Descartes's philosophical theory of the evil daemon is his greatest philosophical achievement? Or his "I think therefore I am"? Both are just intellectual masturbation. He is one who thinks too much without living. He thinks about life without living it.

Sure, you can propose that the physical world may be just the result of a conspiracy by a daemon to delude you into believing in an external world, like the Matrix, but we know that this is not true. It could be fun to think about as an exercise in intellectuality, but basically philosophical intellectuality is ego masturbation.

His famous quote "I think therefore I am" goes to prove my point. It shows that he never had a glimpse of life beyond his intellect. He never had a moment of life where he could say "I am therefore I am". "I am therefore I am " would be the truth.

He missed when he concluded that thought and the self are one.

You've completely missed the point.

'I think, therefore I am' represents the ONLY thing you can know to be true in the universe - your own existence. This is a fundamental tenant of existential philosophy, and an important part of the history of philosophy.

You display grave amounts of ignorance by dismissing it so haphazardly.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I am therefore I am

Semantics. Nothing but semantics. The meaning of this sentence is the same as the cogito - I exist, because I am able to question my existence.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

'I think, therefore I am' represents the ONLY thing you can know to be true in the universe - your own existence.
You display grave amounts of ignorance by dismissing it so haphazardly.

I agree that the ONLY thing I can know to be true is my own existence. But thoughts are not necessarily true. People mistake thoughts for consciousness. Actually thoughts are anti-conscious. Observing your own beingness is the point, but believing in your thoughts will delude you.

So, here we are off topic again!!! Jesus! Atheist materialists take turns engaging in debate then philosophers, but who wants to talk about sacred geometry?

I think that philosophy is a mind trick and a counterfeit meditation. I am just for lucid consciousness. I don't want to debate philosophy on this thread. Tell me to meet you on another thread. I started one actually, meet me there: http://dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=85088

Originally Posted by Alextanium

All that about colours, lights, sound and vibration is just New Age mumbo jumbo with no evidence to back it up. You can talk about kundalini rising, chakras, energy centres and the pineal gland until you're blue in the face. Without one shred of evidence for any of it, you just sound like a crazy person.

I've provided scientific evidence, but you, and many others like Xei, just choose to ignore because It challenges your belief system..beyond that there's not much more I, nor anyone else can do for you. Modern science science says that nothing is even solid. You know, it so sad that people like you refuse to think outside the box.....fear....it's like an invisible prison cell that surrounds you. I actually feel sorry for you. FREE YOUR MIND NEO.

Anecdotes and ignorant interpretations of relatively trivial sections of mathematics and science do not count as evidence, Hard Wired.


Does the fact that a tesseract is made up of cubes and that a cube is made up of squares prove any divinity?