Transcendental Meditation

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, do you mean, a distinction between normal phyiscal matter (Physiosphere) and Self-replicating Organisms (Biosphere)?

Yes, therefore I'm talking about something beyond tables.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Yes, therefore I'm talking about something beyond tables.

Essentially you are saying organic or non-organic. I don't think physiosphere is widely recognized as being a real word.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Essentially you are saying organic or non-organic. I don't think physiosphere is widely recognized as being a real word.

Fortunately for the subject matter, wikipedia has a page for biosphere:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere

Essentially, yes, I'm referring to organisms or the level of life that is about living beings.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Fortunately for the subject matter, wikipedia has a page for biosphere:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere

Essentially, yes, I'm referring to organisms or the level of life that is about living beings.

Yea, I got the biosphere, it's physiosphere, I don't get.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=physiosphere
http://m-w.com/dictionary/physiosphere
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physiosphere

The problem with the term physiosphere, is that it implies a sphere that acts as a habitat for physical things. Problem being, the whole universe is a habitat for physical things, and we have no idea what shape it is.

Ahnimus

Anyway, so you were talking about the universe and the biosphere...

Continue

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, I got the biosphere, it's physiosphere, I don't get.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=physiosphere
http://m-w.com/dictionary/physiosphere
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physiosphere

The problem with the term physiosphere, is that it implies a sphere that acts as a habitat for physical things. Problem being, the whole universe is a habitat for physical things, and we have no idea what shape it is.

For me physiosphere means that there is a physical universe and all that is physical within it. Then a departure happens whereupon life forms and replicates itself. This sphere is beyond the physiosphere but it also includes it. So the biosphere is both biological and physical. It transcends the physical in that it has a dimension that goes a step farther than phsyical alone, being "life". Past the physiosphere and biosphere, there comes the noosphere whereupon life became aware of itself and entered the realm of mind/though. The noosphere includes both life and physical reality while also going beyond them--transcending them. For example, humans are physical, and they are part of "life", and beyond that they also developed cognition. Without the physiosphere, the biosphere or noosphere cannot exist. Without the biosphere the noosphere cannot exist. It is a natural hierarchy, where each one goes beyond the other but includes the other/s.

You could use geosphere, but that does not cover all physical matter that precludes life, which is the meaning I had with physiosphere--geosphere refers to the earth only, I believe.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

For me physiosphere means that there is a physical universe and all that is physical within it. Then a departure happens whereupon life forms and replicates itself. This sphere is beyond the physiosphere but it also includes it. So the biosphere is both biological and physical. It transcends the physical in that it has a dimension that goes a step farther than phsyical alone, being "life". Past the physiosphere and biosphere, there comes the noosphere whereupon life became aware of itself and entered the realm of mind/though. The noosphere includes both life and physical reality while also going beyond them--transcending them. For example, humans are physical, and they are part of "life", and beyond that they also developed cognition. Without the physiosphere, the biosphere or noosphere cannot exist. Without the biosphere the noosphere cannot exist. It is a natural hierarchy, where each one goes beyond the other but includes the other/s.

You could use geosphere, but that does not cover all physical matter that precludes life, which is the meaning I had with physiosphere--geosphere refers to the earth only, I believe.

So basically, the biosphere cannot exist outside the universe and life could not exist outside the biosphere and consciousness could not exist outside of life?

I don't see how any of that stuff is supervening or transcending the other. They exist within each other and are dependent on each other.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

So basically, the biosphere cannot exist outside the universe and life could not exist outside the biosphere and consciousness could not exist outside of life?

I don't see how any of that stuff is supervening or transcending the other. They exist within each other and are dependent on each other.

Do you see that if we have physical matter without life, it is lacking life? Therefore, when life arrives, that is beyond just being phsyical. It is physical with something extra.

edit: if the word "transcend" is too weird, we can use "beyond" for the same purpose.

Abookamongstthemany

I've been reading up on meditation for a few weeks now. I've wanted to start practicing it for some time now but wanted to have a firm grasp on the subject and what was needed of me before I actually got started.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Do you see that if we have physical matter without life, it is lacking life? Therefore, when life arrives, that is beyond just being phsyical. It is physical with something extra.

edit: if the word "transcend" is too weird, we can use "beyond" for the same purpose.

That's correct, without physical matter there is no life.

Without molecules creating friction, there is no heat.

Without matter, there is no gravity

Without the earth, there is no biosphere.

The problem is with words like "transcend" and "beyond" is implying that life can transcend or go beyond matter. It can't. We can't even leave the biosphere, we die, then our consciousness dies with the rest of us.

If matter can not exist beyond the universe, the biosphere can not exist beyond matter, life can not exist beyond the biosphere, consciousness can not exist beyond life. Consciousness is contained within the organism.

Ahnimus

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I've been reading up on meditation for a few weeks now. I've wanted to start practicing it for some time now but wanted to have a firm grasp on the subject and what was needed of me before I actually got started.

You need a few thousand bucks!

Or just sit down, close your eyes and don't think.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, normal in terms of brain-consciousness study.

That lecture at the University of Washington was like no other lecture I've ever seen. There was maybe 5 mins of actual scientific representation. The rest (1:25:00) sounded like mysticism or new-age psychobabble. Just listen to David Lynch talk for a few minutes and you will want to turn it off.

It's important for forum communication that we use concise descriptive words.

if you'e the communication god maybe. but brain-consciousness study is not the only way to talk about the experience or effects of transcendental meditation.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

That's correct, without physical matter there is no life.

Without molecules creating friction, there is no heat.

Without matter, there is no gravity

Without the earth, there is no biosphere.

The problem is with words like "transcend" and "beyond" is implying that life can transcend or go beyond matter. It can't. We can't even leave the biosphere, we die, then our consciousness dies with the rest of us.

If matter can not exist beyond the universe, the biosphere can not exist beyond matter, life can not exist beyond the biosphere, consciousness can not exist beyond life. Consciousness is contained within the organism.

Okay, this whole transcend and include thing is a theory of everything. For example, people say atoms are the building blocks of the universe. But is consciousness made up of atoms? Is thought made of atoms? These are things we know are real by our experience. Due to this type of non-everything theory, the concept of holons was invented. This is the idea that the universe is made up of wholes that are individual in themselves while they are also parts of other wholes.

Like: atoms are wholes unto themselves. They are also part of wholes called molecules. Molecules are wholes in of themselves. They are also part of organisms. And so on. These are natural hierarchies in our universe. There is depth to these levels. For example, a human has more depth than a rock, because a human, as life, has advanced beyond mere physical reality.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

But is consciousness made up of atoms? Is thought made of atoms?

Atoms? Maybe

Here is the problem. How we perceive consciousness. Typically we perceive it as being separate from our brains. This leads us to think it exists via some other matter, or outside of physical reality.

However, we can perceive consciousness as a feature of the brain. Which eliminates any confusion about it's nature. In that case, consciousness is made out of atoms or electrons.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

For example, people say atoms are the building blocks of the universe.

Actually, atoms are the building blocks of physical matter, protons, neutrons and electrons are the building blocks of atoms. Quarks and Hadrons are the building blocks of protons, neutrons and electrons. All stuck together with gluons. If I remember correctly.

At CERN, they take two protons, which are one piece of a nucleus inside an atom, and they smash them together at 99.999~% the speed of light. What they get is a whole mess of other particles, named Quarks which stick together via some Gluons in a black hole like phenomena. Or something to that effect.
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html

Edit: My bad, I meant fermilab. CERN isn't operational yet.
http://www.fnal.gov/

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Atoms? Maybe

Here is the problem. How we perceive consciousness. Typically we perceive it as being separate from our brains. This leads us to think it exists via some other matter, or outside of physical reality.

However, we can perceive consciousness as a feature of the brain. Which eliminates any confusion about it's nature. In that case, consciousness is made out of atoms or electrons.

Is philosophy made of atoms? See atoms are not universal to everything.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Is philosophy made of atoms? See atoms are not universal to everything.

Not to subjectivity no.

However, things that we perceive as subjective aren't always subjective. The solidity of a table is ontologically subjective. But is still very objective to our observation. Just as heat is ontologically subjective to atoms, it should be that heat is comprised of even smaller particles, perhaps quarks, in some amazing configuration.

When our brains operate, we generate an Electromagnetic Field of energy supervening our brain and contained within our cranium. This is comprised of electrons. Whether thought is a product of electrical and chemical synapses or the EM field is irrelevant to the question. Philosophy is a train of thought and therefor ontologically subjective, metaphysically.

When we learn enough about anything, it becomes objective and it becomes science. Prior to that it's just philosophy. We are at the dawn of an era understanding consciousness scientifically.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Not to subjectivity no.

However, things that we perceive as subjective aren't always subjective. The solidity of a table is ontologically subjective. But is still very objective to our observation. Just as heat is ontologically subjective to atoms, it should be that heat is comprised of even smaller particles, perhaps quarks, in some amazing configuration.

When our brains operate, we generate an Electromagnetic Field of energy supervening our brain and contained within our cranium. This is comprised of electrons. Whether thought is a product of electrical and chemical synapses or the EM field is irrelevant to the question. Philosophy is a train of thought and therefor ontologically subjective, metaphysically.

When we learn enough about anything, it becomes objective and it becomes science. Prior to that it's just philosophy. We are at the dawn of an era understanding consciousness scientifically.

As I was saying earlier, new paradigms are needed to have theories of everything. Science is a mode of study, of questioning. The idea of holons give a theoretical structure to concepts of any sort. Everything.

But, my original point from way back, regarding life, was that life itself is universal to all life. Therefore life is universal to yourself, to myself, and to a horse. It is that universal nature that is the stream of life I referred. You called the stream of life a hallucination. The stream of life is not a hallucination to all organic matter. It's very real.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

As I was saying earlier, new paradigms are needed to have theories of everything. Science is a mode of study, of questioning. The idea of holons give a theoretical structure to concepts of any sort. Everything.

To me, a theory of everything would have to be some kind of automaton or string theory. It would have to be represented mathematically, and I think it can be done.

But, my original point from way back, regarding life, was that life itself is universal to all life. Therefore life is universal to yourself, to myself, and to a horse. It is that universal nature that is the stream of life I referred. You called the stream of life a hallucination. The stream of life is not a hallucination to all organic matter. It's very real.

Sounds a lot like Chi(Ki), which is positively charged ion particles if I remember correctly. Or the theory of Psychic Matter which refers to positively charged Kaon (K+) and Pion (Na+) particles. Essentially potassium and sodium. Which have a half-life of 1.4 ms.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

To me, a theory of everything would have to be some kind of automaton or string theory. It would have to be represented mathematically, and I think it can be done.

The problem when you are talking about the physical sciences is that you are leaving many aspects of life out, which is why so-called authentic theories of everything must take into consideration objective studies, subjective ones, and inter-subjective ones (sociocultural). Physical sciences only map observable surfaces. There is more to life than observable surfaces, for example the depths that are the interior to the exteriors. For example, the differences in the conscious awareness of a one year old and a 25 year old cannot be covered by string theory--on the subjective level.