Mod+ 260. MIAMI ATTORNEY REY HERNANDEZ SUPPORTS UFO CONTACTEES

#21
This is Idealism, and I agree it is probably the ultimate explanation of reality. However, I am not sure it is viable to jump there in one go - that would be as if Newton had come up with General Relativity! It would have been atrociously hard for people to use to explain the solar system, because they might not even realise that the theory reduces to the inverse square law in the right conditions. I get the feeling that science has to progress in manageable steps, and I think dualism (with some unspecified interaction between the two realms) is a good temporary view of reality. Subsequently, there is nothing to prevent a move to a theory where the material realm is also generated by the mental realm - and the interaction then becomes obvious.

Bernardo argues for Idealism, but IMHO that makes his arguments rather vague and full of metaphors.

David
It is not idealism, because I say that the physical produced is actually material, not merely the idea or perception or concept of the material. There actually are weighty objects in physical space, just as materialists think!
It is just the production of these from the mental and spiritual is conditioned on previous states of the material, so we do not have a 'free for all', or 'you make your own reality'. Rather, all the production of the physical is in to the shared physical space of 3 dimensions + time.
I do not think Bernardo would accept such a reality as this physical.
 
Last edited:
#22
So something not-mind comes to being because of mind? Do you mean something akin to the Scholastic position that God is pure actuality creating a world that has actual things with potential to be other things?
A little like that.
But you have to remember that, in Scholasticism, the 'actual' includes all powers and capabilities and energies.
I generalize the view, so there are intermediate discrete degrees in the production of the world, in the order spiritual > mental > physical. God (if you accept that part) starts of the whole show.

I think that a scheme like this is much better at explaining the causes of Rey's experiences than the idea of 'quantum holograms' which no-one knows what they really are.
 
#23
What I stated is the same as what you're responding with - "the physical is generated by consciousness." I have been stating that since my first week on this forum. It is fundamental!

Given that linear time is a part of those physicals (there are myriad), means those physicals are an aspect of consciousness. There is no "coming into being" as they always are in being.
Your first line says we agree. The second line says we disagree. Which is it?
I take 'generation' as a real 'coming into being', ymmv.
 
#24
I think idea this has a lot of merit. It would explain why natural laws are simple, intelligible, mathematical relationships and why physical constants are fine-tuned to precisely those values needed for the universe to support life: because a mind conceived or is conceiving them. Mathematics can describe nature because nature is conceived by a mind, but this also makes it dubious that consciousness itself can be described by mathematical relationships (ie physics will not explain consciouses).
Exactly!
Consciousness certainly cannot be 100% described by mathematical relationships, even though conscious can think of mathematical relations!

In fact, I think the true understanding of consciousness will only come when we understand spiritual and mental realities, the substance of which are loves and intentions respectively. Then thoughts are the particular forms that these loves take, and consciousness is a feature of the the operation of loves and intentions. When we act we are conscious of that action. Even perceiving is an action.

I think 'consciousness' has been given a fundamental role by mistake. The real fundamental role should be 'love', since that is the whole inner reality of mental and spiritual life. It is analogous to energy in the physical, but only because it produces energy in the physical. Many people say that 'love is spiritual energy', but really it should be 'energy is physical love' since that was the way it was produced.

Rey talks about consciousness and quantum physics, but his real transformation in the last 2 years is to accept the reality of spirits and the spiritual. It should be us too.
 
#25
Your first line says we agree. The second line says we disagree. Which is it?
I take 'generation' as a real 'coming into being', ymmv.
Hmm . .what it is seems to be that you are not understanding what I posted. The second line is based on the first. Perhaps you are getting caught on the semantics - which is a tough hurdle in discussing things beyond the physicals. The best I can offer is that - outside the linear time perspective - generating does not equate with "coming into." It does equate with a quality of being. Does it help if I use the term "expressed by" rather than "generated"?
 
#26
Hmm . .what it is seems to be that you are not understanding what I posted. The second line is based on the first. Perhaps you are getting caught on the semantics - which is a tough hurdle in discussing things beyond the physical. The best I can offer is that - outside the linear time perspective - generating does not equate with "coming into." It does equate with a quality of being.
I take 'generating A' to be: first A did not exist, then later it did exist.

I use it in this context: the successive states (sustaining) of physical objects are generated by the mental/spiritual, so that they (more or less) are continuous with their previous states.
Without this generation, physical objects are no longer themselves after any change, and hence would not exist. So continual generation (actually re-generation) is needed.
(I agree that this relies on a particular philosophical interpretation of change and causation).
"Perpetual existence is perpertual re-creation", we might say.

This is outside the linear time perspective, because clocks are not involved. I talk only of changes of state, such as occurs in the spiritual worlds which are outside physical time.
I say this does occur, except at the very inmost (eternal) level. In the spiritual world, we do have successive thoughts and feelings! We are not stuck or frozen!
 
#27
Based on the ideas above, it is clear that Rey is seeing, as ufos, not views of the quantum hologram, but productions from spiritual beings that give rise to either
  1. individual mental projections (as Bucky said above), or
  2. group projections in the the outer mental world, or
  3. objective projections in the outer mental world, or
  4. physical productions into the inner realms of the physical (where gravity and light are produced).
Option 1 would not allow perceptions by neighbors and children, so appears to be not the case. Options 2, 3 and 4 remain possible.
Option 2 would mean no biological or physical effects: only memories in the minds of the participants.
Option 3 would mean that local plants and animals may be affected. Plant damage and upset animals are common in UFO reports.
Option 4 would give physical effects even on inanimate objects.

I leave off any Option 5 for 'nuts and bolts craft' as many think must occur. But not in these cases!
 
#28
I take 'generating A' to be: first A did not exist, then later it did exist.
You're merry-go-rounding. What about "outside the linear time perspective" do you not understand? "First, then later" is a framework imposed using linear time.

:D This reminded me of DS9 when Sisko first encounters the Prophets. They distrust him because he's (in their view) trying to trick them into thinking that there's something termed "that was then" - something that doesn't exist now. Finally Sisko finds the key and explains that's how humans perceive things.
 
#29
You're merry-go-rounding. What about "outside the linear time perspective" do you not understand? "First, then later" is a framework imposed using linear time.

:D This reminded me of DS9 when Sisko first encounters the Prophets. They distrust him because he's (in their view) trying to trick them into thinking that there's something termed "that was then" - something that doesn't exist now. Finally Sisko finds the key and explains that's how humans perceive things.
An example outside of fiction would be more convincing.
 
#30
An example outside of fiction would be more convincing.

1 - I think that it would be good if you understand what's posted bother responding. It was not an example. As clearly stated, the discourse reminded me of that scene.

2 - If you view what is outside of what is considered fiction to be the only source for insight, I doubt you'll get very far with glimpsing the nature of existence outside of the physical. Fiction and "fiction" - like transcendent art - at times offers a much clearer glimpse that what you consider reality by most.

3 - I have little interest in convincing you of anything. I'm sharing some of my perspective. I fully support your freedom to reject it as you please.
 
#31

1 - I think that it would be good if you understand what's posted bother responding. It was not an example. As clearly stated, the discourse reminded me of that scene.

2 - If you view what is outside of what is considered fiction to be the only source for insight, I doubt you'll get very far with glimpsing the nature of existence outside of the physical. Fiction and "fiction" - like transcendent art - at times offers a much clearer glimpse that what you consider reality by most.

3 - I have little interest in convincing you of anything. I'm sharing some of my perspective. I fully support your freedom to reject it as you please.
  1. I do understand, but do not agree that abolishing all time (including the ideas of 'before' and 'after') is necessary in order to understand what is beyond physical time.
  2. Certainly fiction can be written to correspond to spiritual truths. Very useful.
  3. I thought we were trying to discuss what was true and what could explain experiences of the many kinds that happen outside the physical.
 
#32
It is not idealism, because I say that the physical produced is actually material, not merely the idea or perception or concept of the material. There actually are weighty objects in physical space, just as materialists think!
It is just the production of these from the mental and spiritual is conditioned on previous states of the material, so we do not have a 'free for all', or 'you make your own reality'. Rather, all the production of the physical is in to the shared physical space of 3 dimensions + time.
I do not think Bernardo would accept such a reality as this physical.
I disagree with this, Ian. There are certainly phenomena that we can perceive and model mathematically that we call weight/space/time or whatever, but I don't believe that they have existence independent of a universal consciousness: to assert they do seems to me inherently dualistic and implies that consciousness can create something that is outside itself.

Take a "distant object" like the moon. Saying that it's x far away and takes y amount of time to get there using means z could be viewed as a way of quantifiably expressing the perception that it's a more difficult exercise than, say, visiting another country or going to do some shopping at a nearby store. In ordinary states of consciousness, some things seem easier than others. In other states, so it is reported, only an act of will is sufficient to accomplish instantaneously what would normally appear to be difficult or impossible. Having the explanatory framework of time and space, etc. is specifically related to ordinary experience, and I'll grant it works very well in that circumstance for a lot of purposes.

IMO, the issue is that ordinary perceptions present us with overwhelming impressions of time/space etc., and we have the greatest difficulty in these ordinary states to think differently about them. I think Almaas touches to some extent on what I'm trying to say in the following video (see from about 1:19:25 to about 1:25:00):

 
Last edited:
#33
It is not idealism, because I say that the physical produced is actually material, not merely the idea or perception or concept of the material. There actually are weighty objects in physical space, just as materialists think!
It is just the production of these from the mental and spiritual is conditioned on previous states of the material, so we do not have a 'free for all', or 'you make your own reality'. Rather, all the production of the physical is in to the shared physical space of 3 dimensions + time.
I do not think Bernardo would accept such a reality as this physical.
First, I think it is important to point out that Idealism doesn't really imply a free for all. Clearly under Idealism, much of reality would be produced by mental structures that would be unlike our minds.
I think you should explain your idea in greater length. What does it mean to state that physical state 6 is wholly dependant on physical state 5, and yet is produced by the mental level?

What advantages do you see for this model?

David
 
#34
I disagree with this, Ian. There are certainly phenomena that we can perceive and model mathematically that we call weight/space/time or whatever, but I don't believe that they have existence independent of a universal consciousness: to assert they do seems to me inherently dualistic and implies that consciousness can create something that is outside itself.
And I disagree with you (!)
Do you think it is obvious that consciousness can never create something that is outside itself?
That similarly, and conscious God can never create something outside itself?

I agree that if 'consciousness' was all we knew, that it would be doubtful.
However, I think that the foundation is love as propensity or substance, and that consciousness derives from love.
Do you think that might make a difference?
 
#35
First, I think it is important to point out that Idealism doesn't really imply a free for all. Clearly under Idealism, much of reality would be produced by mental structures that would be unlike our minds.
Do you have any way of finding out what would be the 'mental structures that would be unlike our minds' ??
Would it be like a person you ask questions of?

I think you should explain your idea in greater length. What does it mean to state that physical state 6 is wholly dependent on physical state 5, and yet is produced by the mental level?
It took me a book to explain: see http://www.generativescience.org/books/pnb/pnb.html

What advantages do you see for this model?
We have both actual physical objects and actual minds and actual spirits, and an actual Divine that we can talk to.
 
#36
Do you think it is obvious that consciousness can never create something that is outside itself?
Yes.

That similarly, and conscious God can never create something outside itself?
No need. No point. Not parsimonious.

However, I think that the foundation is love as propensity or substance, and that consciousness derives from love.
Can love exist prior to consciousness? What it is it that does the loving, what is it that is loved, and how does that give rise to consciousness? Loving implies a lover and a beloved: a primal duality. IMO, that's projecting the human experience of loving something thought of as separate on an entity that is a unity and has no-thing to love, but is simply what it is. It's only in localised conscious perspectives that the concept of love can arise: it's the longing for something commonly, though erroneously, conceived of as separate.

IMO, love is simply the recognition (however dimly grasped)--from a localised conscious perspective--that there is but the one conscious source of all, which is found irresistibly attractive. We may associate it with a conceptualised beloved like a friend, child, or spouse, but its true object is the unified consciousness that's all there is.
 
#37
No need. No point. Not parsimonious.
You seem to be in a bubble of consciousness, beyond which you cannot imagine escaping.
Can love exist prior to consciousness? What it is it that does the loving, what is it that is loved, and how does that give rise to consciousness? Loving implies a lover and a beloved: a primal duality. IMO, that's projecting the human experience of loving something thought of as separate on an entity that is a unity and has no-thing to love, but is simply what it is. It's only in localised conscious perspectives that the concept of love can arise: it's the longing for something commonly, though erroneously, conceived of as separate.

IMO, love is simply the recognition (however dimly grasped)--from a localised conscious perspective--that there is but the one conscious source of all, which is found irresistibly attractive. We may associate it with a particular beloved like a friend, child, or spouse, but its true object is the unified consciousness that's all there is.
If love is "the longing for something commonly, though erroneously, conceived of as separate", then love is essentially love of oneself. Because there is only one, by you, it must be true.

That makes it a selfish love. Is that the best moral guidance you can give to everyone: at the highest level there is only selfish love? Most people who have a daily life to life have come to the practical, moral, spiritual and even religious conclusion that unselfish love is of higher importance than selfish love. And the more one approaches the source, they find, the more unselfish they become. Witness the Buddha in the Bodhisattva form.

But not in your idealism.
 
#38
You seem to be in a bubble of consciousness, beyond which you cannot imagine escaping.
I can imagine it, and in fact for a long time did imagine it; but I gave it up as a dead loss. There is nothing but the one great bubble of consciousness.

If love is "the longing for something commonly, though erroneously, conceived of as separate", then love is essentially love of oneself. Because there is only one, by you, it must be true.
Yes. There's only the one consciousness, but many conscious perspectives. As one one of those, I'm seeking unity with my (true) self. There is nothing at all to love--or perhaps more accurately to seek to unite with--except that self. All true love is in that sense selfish, but this is a rather different take than the selfishness that derives from considering an "other" as separate and threatening.

That makes it a selfish love. Is that the best moral guidance you can give to everyone: at the highest level there is only selfish love?
Yes, provided that they bear in mind the difference between the technical sense in which I am defining selfishness from its more usual definition.

Most people who have a daily life to life have come to the practical, moral, spiritual and even religious conclusion that unselfish love is of higher importance than selfish love. And the more one approaches the source, they find, the more unselfish they become. Witness the Buddha in the Bodhisattva form.
This is has some weight when viewed from the usual perspective. But I'm not coming from that perspective.

But not in your idealism.
I agree, but you need to think about what I mean by the words I am using rather than applying the usual connotations to them.
 
Last edited:
#39
I can imagine it, and in fact for a long time did imagine it; but I gave it up as a dead loss. There is nothing but the one great bubble of consciousness.

Yes. There's only the one consciousness, but many conscious perspectives. As one one of those, I'm seeking unity with my (true) self. There is nothing at all to love, or to seek to unite with, except that self. All true love is in that sense selfish, but this is a rather different take than the selfishness that derives from considering the other as separate and threatening.

Yes, provided that they bear in mind the difference between the technical sense in which I am defining selfishness from its more usual definition.

This is has some weight when viewed from the usual perspective. But I'm not coming from that perspective.

I agree, but you need to think about what I mean by the words I am using rather than applying the usual connotations on them.
I am sure that you have convinced yourself of the truth of idealism, and adjusted your idea of what is 'good' or 'unselfish' to fit in with that view. I hope that you find it enjoyable.
 
#40
I am sure that you have convinced yourself of the truth of idealism, and adjusted your idea of what is 'good' or 'unselfish' to fit in with that view. I hope that you find it enjoyable.
And you haven't convinced yourself of something different? Haven't adjusted your own ideas to fit in with that? It's a question of which conviction is correct, and which adjustments are justified. I can't say for sure whether my conceptions are correct; I can only say that this is my current view on things. Feel free to take it or leave it.
 
Top