~Speaking of Seth~

Hi All,

Here's a new topic, the creation of the natural world.

How does this happen and who exactly creates it?

Any thoughts?

-jbseth

jbseth, that is a good topic. Here is a starter:

"Directly, so to speak, beneath this personal material in the subconscious, is racial material which could be of great value to psychologists in their study of racial histories, and resulting psychological differences of the various races. Underneath this is material dealing with the species as a whole, with its background, evolution and inner knowledge. Beneath this, pure and simple, undistorted, there for the searching, absolutely free for the asking, is the knowledge inherent in the inner self pertaining to the inner universe as a whole, its laws and principles, its composition. Here you will find, undistorted, uncamouflaged, the innate knowledge of the creation of the camouflage universe, the mechanics involved, much of the material that I have given you, the method and ways by which the inner self as a basic inhabitant of the inner universe, existing in the climate of psychological reality, helps create the various planes of existence, constructs outer senses to project and perceive the various apparent realities or camouflages, how the inner self reincarnates on the various planes. Here you will find your answers as to how the inner self transforms energy for his own purposes, changes his form, adopts other apparent realities, and all this free for the investigation." (from "The Early Sessions: Book 2 of The Seth Material" by Jane Roberts, Robert Butts)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/b2x7iqP

How I understand Seth is that the inner self of each individual is involved in the creation of the natural universe. To imagine that "God" created the natural world 15 billion years ago is nonsensical. Science may be just as deluded as Christian theology.

It seems to me that this topic is relevant to the topic of synchronicity. How I understand synchronicity is that an event in the external world occurs at roughly the same time as an event in one's own internal world, so that there seems to be a connection between the internal and the external. Although Seth does not use the word synchronicity very often, his ideas are entirely consistent with synchronicity. If the inner self of each individual is involved in creating the natural world, it is not at all surprising that coincidences occur between inner and outer events.

This is the story of Carl Jung's patient which gave him the idea of synchronicity:

"A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab (beetle). While she was telling me this dream, I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from the outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to a golden scarab one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetonia aurata), which, contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt the urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment. I must admit that nothing like it ever happened to me before or since."

http://jungcurrents.com/synchronicity-the-golden-scarab-beetle

Hi Sena, Hi All,

In your Seth quote, it seems to me that, among others, Seth is making the following 2 points:

1) Beneath the subconscious, we'll find the innate knowledge of the creation of the camouflage universe.

2) The inner self helps create the various planes of existence.


From this, I take it that within us, we do have the "knowledge" of the creation of the camouflage universe. However, having this knowledge doesn't necessarily mean that we created it all, all by ourselves. "Others", whoever they are, may also have had a hand in creating it.

Furthermore, even though the inner self "helps" create the various planes of existence, this also doesn't mean that the inner self creates them all, all by themselves. Again, "others" also may have participated, whoever they are.



In regards to the creation of the natural world, I find the following Seth quote from NOPR, to be very intriguing. Especially in regards to both, "All consciousness creates the world" and the topics of both "feeling–tones" and "aspects" that he's talking about here. 

This seems to get really esoteric and it's not really clear to me what he means by these "aspects".

Jane talks about "aspects" in her book "Adventures in Consciousness" but I'm not sure if her and Seth are both talking about the same thing.


NOPR, Ch1, S610:

All manner of insects, birds and beasts cooperate in this venture, producing the natural environment. This is as normal and inevitable as the fact that your breath causes a mist to form on glass if you breathe upon it. All consciousness creates the world, rising out of feeling-tone. It is a natural product of what your consciousness is. Feelings and emotions emerge into reality in certain specific ways. Thoughts appear, growing on the bed already laid. The seasons spring up, formed by ancient feeling-tones, having deep and abiding rhythms. They are the result, again, of innate creative aspects that are a portion of all life.

These ancient aspects lie, now, deeply buried in the psyches of all species, and from them the individual patterns, the specific blueprints for new differentiations, emerge.



-jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
Furthermore, even though the inner self "helps" create the various planes of existence, this also doesn't mean that the inner self creates them all, all by themselves. Again, "others" also may have participated, whoever they are.

jbseth, I agree that the creation of the natural world is a collaborative effort of ALL conscious entities, including animals and probably plants as well. Making species of animals and plants extinct may have dire consequences.

Seth is clear on this, but I wonder whether he said anything about plants:

QuoteNOPR, Ch1, S610:

All manner of insects, birds and beasts cooperate in this venture, producing the natural environment.

This is Seth on the consciousness of trees:

"To your way of thinking some lives are lived in a twinkling, and others last for centuries, as some huge trees. The perception of consciousness is not limited ... I have told you, for example, that the consciousness of the tree is not as specifically focused as your own. To all intents and purposes, however, the tree is conscious of 50 years before and 50 years hence. Its sense of identity spontaneously goes beyond the change of its own form. It has no ego to cut the "I" identification short. Creatures without the compartment of the ego can easily follow their own identities beyond any changes of form. The inner self is aware of this integrity of identity, but the ego focused so securely in physical reality cannot afford this luxury." (from "The "Unknown" Reality, Volume Two (A Seth Book)" by Jane Roberts, Robert F. Butts)

From the Kindle edition: https://amzn.eu/4wJypND

I am so curious about the origin of the Universe.
thank you for starting this thread jbseth.
and thank you and Sena for your interesting posts.

my understanding of the scientific currently accepted model, which is the Big Bang taking into account inflation is in this article:

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

just talking about the first second, is wild, wooly and very busy. alot happens and its crazy sounding stuff, quite beyond comprehensibility.
from time zero until 10^-43 second, we don't have any idea.
then at time 10^-43 second, the Observable Universe begins to expand.
the details are in the article.
but here's some of it:

at that fraction of a second (which is a decimal point followed by 42 zeros and then a 1), the Observable Universe is a sphere which is 10^-35 meters in diameter.
also the temperature is 10^32 degrees C.
all of the energy and matter in our current Observable Universe was in that sphere at that time.

all of it.
does that sound possible to you?

then from 10^-36 to 10^-32 second, inflation happened. the OU (Observable Universe), expanded to the size of a grapefruit.
when the Universe was 1 second old, the OU was a sphere of 2 light years in diameter.
the expansion continues to the present. (spacious as it is    .

ok, thats the current scientific theory.
people who are way smarter than I, accept it as making sense.
I find it utterly mystifying.

my understanding of Seth's explanation (and I only know the tiniest amount about what he said, and I'm not totally sure of that), is that there was no beginning, as we normally think about time.
we create the Universe anew in each moment.

thats all for now.
peace,
Charlie

Quote from: chasman
my understanding of the scientific currently accepted model, which is the Big Bang taking into account inflation is in this article:

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

just talking about the first second, is wild, wooly and very busy. alot happens and its crazy sounding stuff, quite beyond comprehensibility.
from time zero until 10^-43 second, we don't have any idea.
then at time 10^-43 second, the Observable Universe begins to expand.

chasman, yes that website gives the "majority view" of the beginning of the universe. It is the current dogma. If anyone wants to pass an exam, they have to parrot the dogmatic view.
There are scientific objections to the big bang theory:

"It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there's no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.
Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.
Some astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory."

https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm

Seth's version makes sense to me.

awesome.
all very interesting.
thank you very much Sena!!   

Quote from: chasman
when the Universe was 1 second old, the OU was a sphere of 2 light years in diameter.

This suggests that elements of the Universe traveled a distance of 1 light year in 1 second. This must be another example of the laws of science not applying at that time.

Quote from: LarryH

Quote from: chasman
when the Universe was 1 second old, the OU was a sphere of 2 light years in diameter.

This suggests that elements of the Universe traveled a distance of 1 light year in 1 second. This must be another example of the laws of science not applying at that time.

Larry, the laws of science are biased. In certain circumstance they decide not to act.

Hi All,

What I've always thought was interesting is that according to scientific theory, you can't go back and ask what happened 1 second before the big bang because time didn't exist until some time after the big ban occurred.

Now there's an idea that'll warp your mind. 

-jblair

Quote from: jbseth
time didn't exist until some time after the big ban occurred.

My understanding is that time was supposed to begin at the moment of the big bang. You can't have time not exist until "some time after", as that requires time to pass before time exists.

Hi LarryH, Hi All,

LarryH, I can't say that I disagree with you, because what you say here that makes sense to me.

However, what I seem to recall, and I'll openly admit that I could be wrong here, is that time didn't begin until some time after the Big Bang.

Now this time period between the Big Bang and Time starting, may have been incredibly short in duration, something like Chasmans comment that, after 10^-43 seconds, when the observable universe began, and that may have been the issue here.

-jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
Now this time period between the Big Bang and Time starting, may have been incredibly short in duration

It still doesn't compute. You cannot have "duration", no matter how short, before there is such a thing as time. The Big Bang, being the alleged first event, would be the beginning of both space and time, the beginning of spacetime.

Quote from: LarryH
It still doesn't compute. You cannot have "duration", no matter how short, before there is such a thing as time. The Big Bang, being the alleged first event, would be the beginning of both space and time, the beginning of spacetime.

Hi LarryH, Hi All,

Nice discussion here.

Yes. I hear what you are saying, but to be honest, there's not a lot about quantum physics that makes much sense. It's not at all like classical or Newtonian Physics.

All I can tell you is that up until perhaps 5 years or so, it's always been my understanding that time started at the precise moment, the precise instant, that the Big Bang occurred.

Then, sometime, maybe 5 years ago or so, I came across a book, an article or something (this was not a Seth thing; it was something relating to quantum physics) that made me think that I wasn't correct about this.

In the wikipedia below, there are several places where they indicate that during the initial phase after the Big Bang (the Planck epoch) the laws of physics, the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics do not apply and that space and time "lose their meaning". I suspect that this is what I came across.

If space and time both lose their meaning during this Planck Epoch, then I take this to mean that "time" has no meaning during this epoch. Does a time that has no meaning exist? Maybe, but I have no idea what kind of time that would be.




Extrapolating this cosmic expansion backwards in time using the known laws of physics, the theory describes a high density state preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning.[


However, the physical theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics as currently realized are not applicable before the Planck epoch, and correcting this will require the development of a correct treatment of quantum gravity.[17] Certain quantum gravity treatments, such as the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, imply that time itself could be an emergent property.[125] As such, physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang.[




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang




-jbseth
 

enjoying all of your comments.
thanks for starting the thread jbseth.

good observation LarryH, regarding the expansion.
I like this article.   
I mixed it up with the other one I linked to.
at the end this astrophysicist says that at 1 millisecond, we could see 1 light year in all directions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/02/26/how-did-the-universe-expand-to-46-billion-light-years-in-just-13-8-billion-years/#6845409e5c04

I like a lot of this guy's articles.

jbseth,
  1 more thought.
the next question that comes to my mind is: how did life begin?
the scientific view compared to the Seth view.

I will be very glad to start a new thread on this.
would you please tell me if you would like for me to do that?   

Hi Chasman,

Thanks for asking.

That's a good question too.  Either way works fine for me. 

-jbseth

Hi All,

I think I found a Seth answer to this question. In TES9, S509, it appears that Seth says that it's the inner self (or inner selves) that creates the natural world.




-jbseth
 

Quote from: Seth
It is the inner self, termed here the inner ego, that organizes, initiates, projects, controls the EE units of which we have been speaking lately, transforming energy into objects, into matter.

Perfect, I'm glad you found that. I'd still been mulling over that question because I remember Seth talking in the earlier books about our thoughts/beliefs sending out the message and then F2 gets busy working on manifesting for us. My understanding is the inner ego is the interface between F2 and the outer ego. Then my mind went to CUs and EEs forming matter... but didn't have time to follow through.

I thought that bit about "the inner self cooperating with all inner selves to form and maintain physical reality" made perfect sense.

I have to admit I've not kept up with Seth-related stuff as much I'd like lately, I've been busy working hard at becoming unemployed (or somewhat retired, Monday may be the day) thanks to the virus and my gradual decline into being less than enthusiastic than usual about things in general. Rona fatigue, I think. Just tired of hearing about it and constantly walking on egg shells. I bet I'm not alone.

Quote from: chasman
  1 more thought.
the next question that comes to my mind is: how did life begin?
the scientific view compared to the Seth view.

I love Seth's explanation of how life, as we know it, began. I'd take it over science any day! Go for it!

As far as the Big Bang and the origin of the universe, that's way over my head. We did have a topic here back in November about an article in which Stephen Hawking shared his ideas of how things began:

https://speakingofseth.com/index.php?topic=1364

Quote from: Deb
I have to admit I've not kept up with Seth-related stuff as much I'd like lately, I've been busy working hard at becoming unemployed (or somewhat retired, Monday may be the day) thanks to the virus and my gradual decline into being less than enthusiastic than usual about things in general. Rona fatigue, I think.  Just tired of hearing about it and constantly walking on egg shells. I bet I'm not alone.

Hi Deb,

It sounds to me like maybe you're a little burned out. I know you were working on Rich's last book and then he passed. Then more recently you shared with us that you've been worried about your son and the concern about how his friend went back to Florida, I believe, and may have had CV-19 and you were worried for your son; and who wouldn't be.

It sounds like its time for you to find some way to take a break. A break for yourself, where you can get away from all of this for awhile and recharge your batteries. I don't what that would look like for you, but for me, that would be a day or so, at the shore, the beach.

Perhaps in writing your comments above, your inner self, is trying to communicate to you that it's time for a break.

Just a thought.

- jbseth

thank you jbseth.
thank you Deb. I wish for you the happiest retirement ever.

here are some of my thoughts about this and that.

I think I'm kind of seeing a connection between the scientific view
of how the natural world began,
and the origin of life.
I have great respect for science, the brilliant scientists who have done and do, such amazing work.
they have figured out so much.

but when you get to the simple basic questions how did the natural world begin, and what is the origin of life,
I think they don't know.
they have tried very hard. noble efforts.
but they don't know.

as for Seth, he said he DID know.

as for the origin of the natural world, no beginning (as I posted above).

as for what Seth says about the origin of life, I think he says that the exterior universe emerges from the interior universe.

science doesn't like this answer. its not empirical. you can't see or measure the interior universe with rulers and clocks. you can't prove that the interior universe exists.

so, short and sweet, there are a couple of my thoughts.
I like the Seth view. alot.

any thoughts/comments most welcome.
and thank you again jbseth for letting me post this in your thread.
and thank you again Deb, for saying its ok.
you are both very kind, thoughtful and generous.   

and here for science lovers are a couple links.
the first to abiogenesis on wikipedia.

the second to a live q and a on youtube today, about cosmology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#:~:text=In%20evolutionary%20biology%2C%20abiogenesis%2C%20or,such%20as%20simple%20organic%20compounds.&text=Many%20approaches%20to%20abiogenesis%20investigate,their%20components%2C%20came%20into%20existence.

Hi Chasman,

Hey that was a really good link on abiogenesis.


I always find it odd, that these scientists always seem to focus on the "bacteria" such as the those that exist near the underwater sea vents and those existing in the "Phylogenetic Tree of Life", but they never seem to want to talk about viruses. 

To me, both viruses and crystals seem to both have properties of life. Viruses move and reproduce, but they also seem to exist in a dormant / crystalized state.  Crystals grow and form in larger crystals (such as in how rock candy is made with sugar water).

I agree with you Chasman, I don't think that scientists actually know the answer to how life started.


One of the differences that I see between Scientists and Seth is that Seth says that "consciousness" forms matter, its not the other way around.   And while Seth says that a nail has consciousness, and he talks about the gestalts of consciousness, I don't think that most scientists view consciousness in this way.

For many scientists, consciousness is a result of some fundamental chemical / reaction that occurs in the brain.

- jbseth

thank you jbseth.

I think the consciousness concept is key.

in my humble opinion, I repeat, science does not know what the origin of the natural world is.

and after thinking about it for a bit,
science REALLY does not know what the origin of life is.
indeed, after I add in the consciousness concept, it quickly becomes
super complicated.
I do want to learn more about it.

Quote from: chasman
fascinating reply. I just spent a half hour writing a reply and deleted it.

Hi Chasman, Hi All,

Yeah, I've done that more than once myself. 


Another big issue I see is that Seth says that all time is simultaneous. There is no past, present or future. Time just appears to be a sequence of events one after the other. This becomes a problem when someone asks, "when" did life begin or when did the "Big Bang" occur.

And then there's Seth's ideas on probable realities.  At least there are some physicists who believe in the possibility that there may in fact be, probable universes. 


-jbseth

thank you jbseth.
I edited my post and pressed save, and just now see your newest post.

I think we could have a fascinating conversation about all of this verbally.

but I can see that me trying to type out my thoughts, is not going to work.
too much to say. too bad at typing.
change my mind about how to articulate thoughts.
too many questions.
there are many facets, aspects here.
if you want to talk on the phone about it let me know.
I would give you my number in a PM.
not tonight though. its almost bedtime for bonzo here at
stately chasman manor. 

Hi Chasman,

Thanks for the phone call invitation, but I'll probably pass on that right now.

One of the conveniences of the internet, is that I can read it and post a thought or comment whenever I have the time. Depending upon what's going on in my life, sometimes, it's early in the morning, sometimes it's late at night and sometimes, it's in the middle of the day. It depend upon when I've got a few moments.

I know what you mean about this topic. There's a lot here and I could probably write a book on any number of issues.

I was hoping that others here in the forum would also participate in this discussion as well but I haven't heard anything from anyone else yet. Maybe they're just busy right now.

-jbseth

very good jbseth.

all very good. 

I am very happy to talk about this with you here on this lovely forum, on the internet. and if anyone else wants to join in, thats good too.


I will be very glad to hear any and all of your thoughts.
I do not know much about any of this.

do you know how science explains how consciousness originated?

certainly animals like dogs, cats, horses, monkeys, apes, whales and dolphins, and many others have consciousness.
I believe they have emotions.

but how does science say that that started?

a few billion years ago,
how do a bunch of chemicals, elements and chemical reactions somehow get consciousness?


does science say that consciousness is just a myth?
its just a mental game? semantics or whatever?

I'm trying to ask deep big questions, and not be afraid to explore all of this.

at the same time, I do continue to be super extra interested in all things Seth.
I like the Seth material alot!!

but I want to be intrepid.
I think Jane and Rob were.

Just some random thoughts:

The Big Bang does not have to start at a point. If the moment of the Big Bang was the beginning of both time and space, why not allow matter to come into existence already widely spaced apart at the start? That gets around the contradiction of stuff traveling faster than the speed of light. The universe can still expand for whatever reason without having started as a single point.

Seth said somewhere that the expanding universe was an illusion. Perhaps what we are actually seeing is expansion of consciousness when we think we are seeing physical expansion.

Presumably, the Big Bang came out of Framework 2, where the idea was formed. Consciousness wanted a particular type of playground and Thought spacetime into existence. Consciousness then inserted Itself into that potential in a variety of ways and created the myriad ways of of experiencing Itself, including the illusion that It was separate from Itself as well as the possibility of dissolving that illusion.

interesting thoughts LarryH.

I wondered today if our bodies are composed 100% of quarks.

googled and found this:

https://www.energy.gov/articles/particle-physics-you

Quote from: chasman
do you know how science explains how consciousness originated?

Charlie, the great scientist Daniel Dennett EXPLAINED consciousness, There is nothing more to explain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained

"Critics of Dennett's approach, such as David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel, argue that Dennett's argument misses the point of the inquiry by merely redefining consciousness as an external property and ignoring the subjective aspect completely. This has led detractors to nickname the book Consciousness Ignored and Consciousness Explained Away.[7][8] Dennett and his eliminative materialist supporters, however, respond that the aforementioned "subjective aspect" of conscious minds is nonexistent, an unscientific remnant of commonsense "folk psychology", and that his alleged redefinition is the only coherent description of consciousness.

However, John Searle argues[9] that Dennett, who insists that discussing subjectivity is nonsense because it is unscientific and science presupposes objectivity, is making a category error."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Quote from: LarryH
Just some random thoughts:

The Big Bang does not have to start at a point. If the moment of the Big Bang was the beginning of both time and space, why not allow matter to come into existence already widely spaced apart at the start? That gets around the contradiction of stuff traveling faster than the speed of light. The universe can still expand for whatever reason without having started as a single point.

Seth said somewhere that the expanding universe was an illusion. Perhaps what we are actually seeing is expansion of consciousness when we think we are seeing physical expansion.

Presumably, the Big Bang came out of Framework 2, where the idea was formed. Consciousness wanted a particular type of playground and Thought spacetime into existence. Consciousness then inserted Itself into that potential in a variety of ways and created the myriad ways of of experiencing Itself, including the illusion that It was separate from Itself as well as the possibility of dissolving that illusion.

Hi LarryH, Hi All,

Interesting thoughts on the Big Bang. In thermodynamics, when you compress a gas such as air, it gets hot. The heat of all the matter of the universe, compressed down into a small point, would be incredibly hot. I'm not a quantum physicist, but I would think that this extremely hot point, might be the reason for the explosion of the Big Bang.  If matter was already widely spaced apart, then it seems to me that there probably wouldn't have been a Big Bang.



In "Seth Speaks", Ch 14, S560, Seth says that this was no beginning and there will be no end.

There have been parables told, and stories of beginnings. All of these have been attempts to transmit knowledge in as simple terms as possible. Often answers were given to questions that literally have no meaning outside of your own system of reality.

For example: There was no beginning, and there will be no end, yet parables have been given telling you of beginnings and endings simply because with your distorted ideas of time, beginnings and endings seem to be inseparable, valid events. As you learn to turn the focus of your attention away from physical reality and therefore experience some slight evidence of other realities, your consciousness will cling to old ideas that make true explanations impossible for you to understand. Multidimensional awareness is available to you in your dreams, however, in some trance states, and often even beneath ordinary consciousness as you go about your day.




I'm curious about this comment that "the Big Bang came out of Framework 2". Do you or anyone else here, know where that comment came from? I'm not sure that Seth ever said this.  I didn't see it in the Seth Search Engine, when I did a search on "Big Bang".


- jbseth

Hi Sena, Hi Chasman, Hi All,

Hey Sena, thanks for posting that information on science and consciousness. Nice catch.


So according to Daniel Dennett, we don't have to worry about all this "consciousness" stuff; it's all just a result of, "various events of content-fixation occurring in various places at various times in the brain."

I see that he's also solved the issue of, "the hard problem of consciousness." He did this by claiming that "qualia" do not exist, because they are incompatible.

Is that, incompatible with his scientific belief system?      Do I sense an Ostrich here, with his head buried in the sand.   


Instead of "Consciousness Explained" his detractors have nicknamed his book Consciousness Ignored and Consciousness Explained Away. That's funny. 

I've seen this book in either a local bookstore or library, maybe a year ago and after looking at it, I didn't feel any great desire to read it.

I really do like the point that John Searle made at the end.





Hey Chasman, there are some people, scientists, like Mario Beauregard, who is a neuroscientist, who do believe that consciousness exists and is not just some function of the brain.  Here's a link to his book, "Brain Wars".

https://www.amazon.com/Brain-Wars-Scientific-Battle-Existence-ebook/dp/B0070XAZDW/ref=sr_1_2?crid=12DYRWVJN8NZO&dchild=1&keywords=mario+beauregard&qid=1597491458&sprefix=marion+beaure%2Caps%2C229&sr=8-2


- jbseth

Quote from: jbseth
I'm curious about this comment that "the Big Bang came out of Framework 2". Do you or anyone else here, know where that comment came from? I'm not sure that Seth ever said this.  I didn't see it in the Seth Search Engine, when I did a search on "Big Bang".

I based that comment on the idea that the events in our physical reality originate as a Framework 2 idea, just expanded to include the entire physical universe. As you mentioned, Seth said there is no beginning and no end, so my use of the term 'Big Bang' is meant to represent the continuous manifestation of physicality. I have begun to consider time as circular, in which the opposite of our experienced moment in time is the illusion of the time-distant Big Bang (as opposed to the immediate and continuous Big Bang as mentioned in the previous sentence). Circular time would have no beginning or end.

Quote from: jbseth
So according to Daniel Dennett, we don't have to worry about all this "consciousness" stuff; it's all just a result of, "various events of content-fixation occurring in various places at various times in the brain."

I see that he's also solved the issue of, "the hard problem of consciousness." He did this by claiming that "qualia" do not exist, because they are incompatible.

Is that, incompatible with his scientific belief system?      Do I sense an Ostrich here, with his head buried in the sand.   

jbseth, it may be that Dennett simply lacks imagination.

Quote from: LarryH
I based that comment on the idea that the events in our physical reality originate as a Framework 2 idea, just expanded to include the entire physical universe.

Larry, I agree with you. Would you agree that "nothing comes from nothing"? No creatio ex nihilo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

William Lane Craig (the Christian philosopher) is wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

Craig's argument goes like this:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I agree with Craig up to this point. Where I disagree is with his further argument that the "cause" is "Almighty God". We Sethians might say that the cause is the joint decision of the consciousnesses in Framework 2.

Where Craig says "begins to exist", he is assuming that every consciousness experiences "time" in the same way that we do. Seth has pointed out that this is not the case.

P.S. On further consideration, I think I must disagree with Craig's statement "(2) The universe began to exist.". I shall go along with Seth's teaching that the universe is being created from moment to moment. There was no beginning.

Sena, jbseth and Larry H,

     thanks for all of your excellent posts.

jbseth, I will read your link. 

Sena, fascinating.
I am a little familiar with the category error concept.

my understanding of it is that there is the objective world that we can measure with clocks and rulers and such.
it is empirical.
then there is metaphysics.
I think I have a soul.
but I can't sense it with my physical senses.

also, your post reminds me of Karl Popper and the concept of falsifiability, (about which I know also just a little).
are any of you familiar with this?:



"Popper believed that there was a contrast between the theories of Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler, which he considered non-scientific, and Albert Einstein's theory of relativity which set off the revolution in physics in the early 20th century. Popper thought that Einstein's theory, as a theory properly grounded in scientific thought and method, was highly "risky", in the sense that it was possible to deduce consequences from it which differed considerably from those of the then-dominant Newtonian physics; one such prediction, that gravity could deflect light, was verified by Eddington's experiments in 1919.[40] In contrast he thought that nothing could, even in principle, falsify psychoanalytic theories. He thus came to the conclusion that they had more in common with primitive myths than with genuine science.[14]

This led Popper to conclude that what were regarded as the remarkable strengths of psychoanalytical theories were actually their weaknesses. Psychoanalytical theories were crafted in a way that made them able to refute any criticism and to give an explanation for every possible form of human behaviour. The nature of such theories made it impossible for any criticism or experiment—even in principle—to show them to be false.[14] When Popper later tackled the problem of demarcation in the philosophy of science, this conclusion led him to posit that the strength of a scientific theory lies in its both being susceptible to falsification, and not actually being falsified by criticism made of it. He considered that if a theory cannot, in principle, be falsified by criticism, it is not a scientific theory.[41]"

"To say that a given statement (e.g., the statement of a law of some scientific theory)—call it "T"—is "falsifiable" does not mean that "T" is false. Rather, it means that, if "T" is false, then (in principle), "T" could be shown to be false, by observation or by experiment."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Falsifiability_and_the_problem_of_demarcation


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Quote from: chasman
This led Popper to conclude that what were regarded as the remarkable strengths of psychoanalytical theories were actually their weaknesses. Psychoanalytical theories were crafted in a way that made them able to refute any criticism and to give an explanation for every possible form of human behaviour

Charlie, thanks for your interesting post. There are in fact two main varieties of psychoanalytical theories, the Freudian and the Jungian. I have recently become quite interested in Jung's observation of synchronicity, which is in fact an observation and not a theory.

As for Karl Popper, I would speculate that there are many more who read Freud these days compared to the few who read Popper. A hundred years from now, who will be remembered?

thank you Sena.

I want to read about Jung's Collective Unconscious.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-collective-unconscious-2671571


and interesting speculation about Freud and Popper.
I wonder what Seth would have said about Popper's falsifiability concept.

Quote from: chasman
I want to read about Jung's Collective Unconscious.

Charlie, yes that is very Sethian. How I understand it is that we (including Jung) label Framework 2 as the Collective Unconscious, but for those residing in Framework 2 it is consciousness. Something like that anyway.

thank you Sena. excellent.   

as for Popper and falsifiability, I see the Seth stuff as not really falsifiable.

so, to me, it is a category error, to try to prove that it is true, scientifically.

metaphysics is one category. and it is not falsifiable. (because its not possible for this kind of stuff to be proven false, or to not exist.)

thats as compared to the category of scientific stuff. (which does have falsifiable concepts and theories, that ARE possible to be proven false.)

I value your opinion, and thats why I'm asking you what you think about all of this.

Hi Chasman, Hi All,


Chasman, thanks for your awesome posts on Popper and his concept of "falsifiable". This is the first time that I recall ever coming across that concept. Thanks. 



To say that a given statement, call it "T", is "falsifiable" does not mean that "T" is false. Rather, it means that, if "T" is false, then (in principle), "T" could be shown to be false. The statement "All swans are white" is falsifiable because one can observe that black swans exist. 



I agree with you. Using Popper's definition, much of what Seth talks about is not falsifiable.

Although some of it may be falsifiable. I know that there are parapsychologist who have done studies and have claimed to have statistically demonstrated using ESP cards (Zener Cards) that ESP does exist.

I also suspect that while some of what Seth talks about is not falsifiable today, it may very well be falsifiable at some point in the future, when we learn more.



Years ago, there was a man named Yuri Gellar, who claimed to be able to psychically bend spoons, by just lightly touching them and slightly rubbing their handles. I think that what Yuri Gellar said that he was able to do here was not falsifiable. 

Then, another person came along. A person by the name of James Randi, who was a magician. He went around and demonstrated that he too, could bend spoons. He did this using a slight of hand trick. He didn't actually bend the spoon, he just used a slight of hand trick to make it appear that he bent the spoon. His act was really pretty good. It really looked like he bent the spoon.

The problem was that he then came out and said that Yuri Gellar was a fake. He said that Yuri Gellar was doing the same thing that he did. This was his "proof" to the world that Yuri Gellar was a fake.


What I always found to be bothersome here, was that James Randi never seemed to get this idea that his "proof" wasn't actually "proof". I always felt that James Randi's, apparent inability to reason this out, made his claims to be very suspect. To be blunt, either he was not intelligent enough to figure this out (which I didn't think was true) or he was intentionally being deceptive and sweeping this issue under a rug (which I felt was probably more likely).


-jbseth

Hi Chasman, Hi Sena, Hi All,

I'm not a psychologist but I find the subject of psychology to be very fascinating.


One of the concepts that I find interesting between Freud, Jung and Seth is that Seth talks about so many other concepts that neither Freud nor Jung ever seem to mention. Like them, Seth also talks about the ego and the subconscious. However, he also talks about other concepts like "inner self", the "Entity", Seth II, our reincarnational selves, our probable selves, Framework 1 and Framework 2, just to name a few.   

He also mentions that the inner self and the Entity are not only conscious, but they are very much more consciously aware, than the ego.

It seems to me that neither Freud nor Jung had any clue about many of the concepts that Seth talks about.



Seth doesn't say a lot about Jung in his books, but he does say some things about him. See the link below.

https://findingseth.com/q/jung/

-jbseth

thank you jbseth.
I very much appreciate your thoughts about Popper and falsifiability.

and that is so interesting to hear, what you said comparing Freud, Jung and Seth.

I wanted to be a psychologist when I was young.

in fact, the guy who introduced me to Seth was a psychologist.

when I was 17 or 18.

I am amazed at how much stuff you  know.
really, just phenomenal.   

Quote from: chasman
as for Popper and falsifiability, I see the Seth stuff as not really falsifiable.

Charlie, I agree that the Seth teachings are not falsifiable. The reason is that the basic Seth teaching is that one's thoughts and beliefs have an influence over external reality, including physical reality. If I believe, as many do, that physical reality is totally determined by the laws of physics, then that is how my life will unfold.

The theory of evolution is NOT falsifiable, but I still accept it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Evolution.

It seems to me that falsifiability is a red herring  created by Popper. "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

hi Sena,

         thank you for your reply.
its good for me to hear different perspectives.
I have long believed that Popper's falsifiability concept is correct.

and I am totally respectful that you do not.

your thoughts are indeed very helpful to me.
I think it is good for me to think some more about all of this.
with an open mind.
thanks again,
Charlie

Hi Chasman, Hi All,

Hey Chasman, I just got, "Pity the fool", Mr. T's book, "The Power of Now" from the library and I just started reading it. So far I'm only up to the first few pages of Chapter 1.

His story about the powerful experience that he had at age 29, kind of reminds me of what some psychologists might call a psychotic break. It sounds to me like he may have been suicidal just before this, for lack of a better word, "conversion" experience.



Have you finished this book yet? What do you think so far?



-jbseth

Popper certainly sounds like a materialist, and a negative one to boot. I've been listening to Dawson Creek's Mind to Matter and contains an amazing amount of information (I'll do a full book review when I'm done). One thing I found surprising is that proving things scientifically by repeating results is not as consistent and reliable as we are told. So maybe Popper was right in thinking that it's much more practical to rely on the falsifiability test. I agree that metaphysics and Seth cannot be proven to be false, since the gold standard for these tests is the material world.

Briefly, Dawson covers such concepts as everything is made of energy, energy waves and their effects, the observer effect, the "field," brain waves, meditation, the non-locality of consciousness, thoughts being energy that become things, spontaneous recoveries from fatal illnesses, energy healing, and my two new favorites, the expectancy effect (this one is a big deal with scientists' beliefs and expectations affecting experiment results) and the "replication crisis":

Quote from: Chapter 5: The Power of the Coherent MindWhen they publish their papers, scientists are required to provide a "methods" section. This outlines how the experiment was set up and does this so clearly that other scientists can run the same experiment in an attempt to replicate the previous study's findings. A discovery published in a single paper may represent an actual effect. But when an independent research team comes up with the same result, it's likely that the effect found in the first study is real. For this reason, replication studies are important in science. So much so that before it approves a new drug, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires two studies demonstrating the drug's efficacy. When formulating standards for "empirically validated therapies," the American Psychological Association borrowed the same standard, requiring a replication of a study before declaring the therapy evidence based (Chambless & Hollon, 1998). In the early 2000s, a giant biotech company, Amgen, set out to replicate some important studies. The company was pouring millions of dollars into research on cancer biology based on earlier research. If the effects found in the original studies were robust, then the next stage of development of cancer drugs would be built on solid ground. They asked their scientists which previous studies were most important to their work and came up with 53 "landmark" studies. In 10 years of work, Amgen was able to replicate only 6 of the 53 studies. The researchers called this "a shocking result" (Begley & Ellis, 2012). A few months earlier, another giant pharma company, Bayer, had published a similar analysis. This led to a sustained effort to determine how many key studies were replicable. An attempt to replicate five cancer biology trials was successful for only two (eLife, 2017). Epidemiologist John Ioannidis of Stanford University summarized the findings by saying, "The composite picture is, there is a reproducibility problem" (Kaiser, 2017).

What about the soft sciences? An international group of 270 researchers set out to replicate 100 studies published in 2008 in three top psychology journals. They found that they were able to replicate fewer than half of them (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). The journal Nature conducted a survey of 1,576 researchers to identify their experiences with replication. It found that over 70 percent of them had failed when attempting to reproduce another scientist's research findings. Over half could not even replicate their own research (Baker, 2016). There are many roots to the "reproducibility crisis" in science. A variety of factors stand in the way of successful replications. Among them are haphazard laboratory management, sample sizes too small to provide a high degree of statistical power, and the use of specialized techniques that are uniquely hard to repeat. Selective reporting plays a big role, too, as positive results are usually reported while negative ones are swept under the rug. These are called file drawer studies because, metaphorically, they are thrown into the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet, never to see the light of day. An analysis of psychology studies estimates that 50 percent are never published (Cooper, DeNeve, & Charlton, 1997). Another factor making studies hard to replicate is that beliefs can influence the results. Scientists have beliefs. They're human. They are not godlike intellects immune from glory seeking, egotism, jealousy, and territorialism. They have whims, preferences, and needs. They need successful research to obtain grants, jobs, and tenure. They fall in love with their work, the "Pygmalion effect" immortalized in the musical My Fair Lady. Scientists approach their work with as many presuppositions as any other demographic group has. Scientists believe in what they're doing and look for effects they expect to find. The strength of their beliefs may skew their results, a phenomenon called the expectancy effect. To control for this, most medical research is carried out blind. The statisticians analyzing two groups of data don't know which sample is from the experimental and which from the control group.

Church, Dawson. Mind to Matter (pp. 193-194). Hay House. Kindle Edition.

I'm enjoying this book so much that I may read it a second time. There's so much information in there and as far as I'm concerned it explains on a scientific level what Seth was explaining decades ago on a more metaphysical level.

Quote from: Deb
What about the soft sciences?

Deb, I think the definition of science should be broadened. Many "hard" scientists would consider Carl Jung's books as unscientific. I consider him scientific because his ideas are based on what he observed in himself and his patients. His books, however, are hard to read. I recommended on another thread, "Cosmos and Psyche" by Richard Tarnas, as this helped me understand Jung's ideas.

thank you for your very interesting post Sena. and thank you very much for recommending the Tarnas book.

Deb, fascinating, the Dawson Church book sounds utterly fascinating.
thank you for what you wrote about it so far. and I look forward to your review.

jbseth, I am not done with it yet. I'm very glad that you got it.
and very much look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I think I'll not say anymore about it, until you read it. I don't want to influence you any more.