John Page

The test of reality is what's outside your mind, not what's inside it. Mind Experiment: Try smacking one of your buddies with a baseball bat and see what it does to their reality.
Reference? Measurements?
That minds are similar does not prove that there is a way, as yet undetected, that broadcasts thoughts directly between minds. ESP-type experiments under controlled conditions indicate there's nothing exceptional going on.
Copernicus had observations, data, factual analyses. Where's yours?
No.
This doesn't mean that just because you make something up its possible and therefore actual.
A contract has at least two parties - with whom are you supposing I might have entered into this fictitious contract?

Cheers, John

emphryio

Malai
I think laughing at others and laughing at yourself is essentially the exact same thing.

Although laughing at others may occasionally appear cruel or rude, the underlying process which produces it is exactly the same as laughing at one's self.

We laugh at ourselves when we finally realize a wrongness that was "unexpected" or totally not taken into account as a possibility.

We only laugh at others (their misfortunes, etc) exactly because to some degree we are able to imagine ourselves in their shoes. Because we are able to recognize them as representing "mankind." Because we are able to empathize. (Even if this results in an outwardly rude behavior.)

By your understanding the "true self" would have no or at least less empathy. (Although it would be more polite. shrug)

But it doesn't discount the rest of your ideas necessarily.

excreationist

John Page:
I like the MWI (multiple worlds interpretation) theory of quantum physics too. I'm not certain that it is how reality is though. Apparently most leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists in a poll of 72 believe in it, including Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman. Hawking doesn't like the name MWI... I think he prefers "multiple histories interpretation".

I've actually heard about "the hundredth monkey phenomenon" before - it even has an entry in the skeptic's dictionary. It is about an experiment that was done in the 1950's. (I guess it wasn't true or something) Here is the (full?) text of the book called "The Hundredth Monkey". (It's very short - like Ken Keyes's books sometimes are)

malai5

Dear Lady Shea.

The information, articles we post are transmitted to us, as is. To offer proofs about concepts which are out of the 3D proof system is impossible. It's a bit like asking a for a proof for ''String Theory''.
The information posted, you may treat as theories, concepts, philosophical or scientific, or none of the above.
However, the information relating to living in the universal way, ''bigger'' self way, is provable by personal experience and your ability to connect, through your higher self to the universal mind , gives results that again, are provable in the individual experience.

Cheers.

Malai5.

malai5

Dear Amos.

We can only concur with what you have said.

Cheers.

Malai5.

malai5

Dear John Page.

1) The baseball bat and the hit in the head and the pain associated with it, is still part of the 3D hologramatic experience.

2) The PEAR research at Princeton University.
Koestler Parapsychology unit, Edinburgh University UK.
Just 2 of many where you can research the information you are seeking.

3) We are not talking about ''similar'', information, we are talking about the same information being received.

4) Whatever proof Copernicus had, he was dismissed out of hand by ignorance.

5) No dreams, Hmm.

6) None of what we post, is ''made up'' by us. We receive the information and pass it on as is.

7) The other party, in the contract is your true self. Contract between the eminated self/3D self and the true self.

Cheers.

Malai5.

John Page

Yes, speculative debate drives innovation and discovery. Regarding the monkeys, though, compare that situation with 1 million computers running the same program and arriving at the same result. Not a direct analogy, but in the computer example no collective unconscious or universal mind is required.

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

Malai5 said:
The whole 3D experience is an ''illusion'', but an illusion where you are meant to experience and feel what your ''vehicle'' was designed to do, the experience was designed for for the express purpose of growth. How would you know what it is like to be pain free, if you didn't experience pain, etc, etc.
To give you an example, when you are ''dreaming'', especially lucid dreams, you feel as if you are living a life. Are you aware that you are in another existence, in bed asleep?
Have you ever been dreaming about being in a ''life'' and then woken up and realised that you have accessed another ''dream life'' and then woken up in the one you have now. Those ''dream'' lives are as every bit as real to you, as the one you are consciously aware of now. Think about it.

Fear of death, is a taught response. One is taught to fear what one does not know. Primal society stuff.
The temporal life is seen as ''real'' the eternal ''life'', in comparison is seen as unreal. Another taught belief.

The universal mind, is infinite. We are ''seeded'', so we have a beginning, but no end, we are then eternal. The eminations from the true self, the seeded self. the temporal selves are finite in their ''lives'' and as you said have access to their higher self for guidence, to better themselves and the world they find themselves in. The relationship is a symbiotic one between the true self, the higher self and the 3D eminated self, be it in big or little mode.

The end 3 statements we know to be correct and yes, temporal life IS an illusion, a hologram.

You see Amos, your understanding of how it works is just your collective memory kicking in to triggers. This we have been informed is how it works."

Well, that first reading of Dianetics affects everyone differently...

Keith.

John Page

...which is your conception of reality.
I'm sure they do much fascinating work. Remind me, what is the information you think I am seeking?
I know what broadcasting is, I am not convinced you know how it works.
So, what proof do you offer?
Not what I posted. I'm not interested in asking you about dreams.
So your brain has zero added value?
You're making this up.

Cheers, John

Viti

I didn't ask for proof, I asked for evidence...there is a distinction. So far everything you have offered sounds like the insane ramblings of a person living in a fantasy world...I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Provide me with any kind of evidence or demonstration that you are not just making all of this up...I can then weigh the evidence and determine its veracity for myself.