Folks theres a whole quantum field show going on right before your eyes. A play of data. If you look at your vision with eyes closed or even open you can see that its made of tiny dots or pixels in a huge orchestration of interplay. Indeed the "data stream" itself.

About these dots:

With eyes closed the fields created by these dots has a decidedly blue or blue/purple hue.

With eyes closed, try attempting to pin down one of these little dots. It's pretty much impossible. But you'll see all sorts of behaviors like fizzing, twinkling, groups of the dots, light and dark areas.

Try looking at a light and then closing your eyes. As most people realize, there'll be an after image of the light or luminous area you were looking at (for instance a window). I've noticed that this after image has some kind of periodicity. It flashes or undulates.

With eyes open look out and about at the room you're in .If you become aware of it You'll see the same swirling see (sea) of dots. Watch with steady attention how they appear to form the objects you're looking at. You'll see currents, vibrancies, superimpositions of where you looked at bright things then moved your eyes to another location, all kinds of things. In a strange way you I also feel these things. I feel it with my body.

This stuff is subtle enough that it escapes notice but if you look it's very obvious.

With eyes closed again: feel horizontalness, then feel verticalness. You'll see that the sight dot seas respond. you get the impression a roughly horizontal current, then a roughly vertical one.

I've noticed that merely thinking a purely mental image doesn't necessarily affect the sight dots with eyes closed. But there seems to be some sort of intermediary space between the visible closed eye darkness/sight dot sea and the mind's eye pure imaginary images.

This is kinda like the space where you get images when you're in the "hypnagogic" or falling asleep state. Those images from the dream world may imprint themselevs on the sight dot sea in a somewhat similar way that objects in the waking world imprint themselves on it.

Try focusing not on what you see specifically in the object world but the phenomenology of the sight dot sea. Notice any and all subtleties of it and don't try to get anywhere or force anything to occur. Just observe it. You may find it begins to alter your state.

Will

Will,

Before getting a lot of confusion going here, please look into the physics of vision and some of the phenomena that go with it. Do a search on visual field disturbances as a possible starting point. In particular, look for references to the macula which is the central field of vision, roughly speaking and the fovea which is the very most central field where light sensing nerves are most dense. There are conditions under which you can see the capillaries on the retina of the eye by internal reflection. You can also see "floaters" which can be internal and you can also see things that might look like bacteria which are irregularities on the outer surface of the eye in the film of tears/fluid lubricating the outside of the eye and move relatively quickly. With a history of 60 years going to ophthalmologists and wearing eye glasses for nearsightedness and now for farsightedness after cataract surgery, I have run into all of these things. You cannot see the effects of individual rod or cone cells. There is considerable illusion involved in the generation of your visual field. The density of sensing cells varies from the fovea to the macula and to the peripheral visual field areas. You think it is uniform, but that is illusion. Then there are effects from migraine or migraine equivalents without the headache, based upon blood circulation anomalies. If you have degeneration of the peripheral field area as from glaucoma, the brain tends to fill this in. What you 'see' is ultimately based upon the visual areas at the back of the brain. This is a complicated situation and I don't claim to be any kind of expert but you should look up full details in references before thinking that you are seeing something new or special.

Ted

You might find something interesting in this thread Will, viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4624.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

I think this might be relevant:

"The most basic form of CEV perception that can be immediately experienced in normal waking consciousness involves a seemingly random noise of pointillistic light/dark regions with no apparent shape or order.

This can be seen when you close your eyes, but try to actively look with your eyes at the back of your closed eyelids. In a bright room, a dark red can be seen, owing to a small amount of light penetrating the eyelids and taking on the color of the blood within them. In a dark room, blackness can be seen. But in either case it is not a flat unchanging redness/blackness. Instead, if actively observed for a few minutes, one becomes aware of an apparent disorganized motion, a random field of lightness/darkness that overlays the redness/blackness of your closed eyelids.

For a person who tries to actively observe this closed-eye perception on a regular basis, there comes a point where if you look at a flat-shaded object with your eyes wide open, and try to actively look for this visual noise, you will become aware of it and see the random pointillistic disorganized motion as if it were a translucent overlay on top of what is actually being seen by your open eyes.

When seen overlaid onto the physical world, this CEV noise does not obscure physical vision at all, and in fact is hard to notice if the visual field is highly patterned, complex, or in motion. When you stop trying to actively observe it, it is not obvious or noticeable, and seemingly disappears from normal physical perception. Individuals suffering from visual snow see similar noise but experience difficulty blocking it from conscious perception.

The noise probably originates from Thermal noise exciting the Photoreceptor cells in the retina"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye ... sual_noise

How do these explainations account for the portion of the report that the disturbances seem to respond to the observers thoughts? How would one be able to induce an apparent upward flow of "noise" with a thought in a system that owes its cause to temperature fluctuations on the photoreceptors, or to other physical aberrations within the structure of the eye itself?

The information on that thread bette. Im am familar with that phenomenon also. It is easy to induce with eyes open looking at the ceiling with the gaze relaxed. Usualy reddish or blueish hues, creating a pattern in which collapses to a point in my feild of vision before repeating. That might be similar to the phenomenon posted by sapientia.

WILL!

I remember experiencing this phenomenon every once in a while throughout my childhood. I realized that something similar to a "television screen" was going on with my eyes/vision. It's cool you pointed this out, as I still notice it every once in a while. Definitely can be a trip if you focus on really noticing.

Ted,

Just one question: what good does all that information about the physical mechanics of sight serve once you realize that all of that stuff is virtual in the first place? Also- why do you have to be the self-proclaimed "party pooper" and "grumpy old guy" all the time? Did Will ever claim that this was something "new" that he just "discovered"? What is the point of saying something like that if such was never even claimed? Bored? Annoyed? ...Sometimes it's helpful to be nice/friendly/warm in your responses- even to claims or statements you may disagree with, is it not? I love ya like an uncle Ted, and you're probably an awesome guy in person- but jeepers! Ya tend to be a bit blunt/harsh/critical and you've got to expect that eventually people are going to point that out.

-cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.

Hey thanks for the cool responses. yeah Ted I didn't really say it was new or special - thanks Cole for pointing that out there. Clearly its very accessible, anyone can see it, etc. But interesting response anyway Ted, s_s, JackITB, Cole, Bette.

Dalace - yes it does seem to respond in some sense to thought, though I notice that this seems to get more and more the further you go from the ordinary waking state. i.e. fall asleep. That's when you get images coming through from the subconscious or whatever you want to call it, some different data source and they seem to imprint it more markedly the deeper into sleep you get.

It definitely responds in some energetic, generalized way to thought intentionalities even in the ordianry waking state. You can even entertain that it's in some way like the wave function giving form to the particle probability patterns. For instance I just tried closing my eyes and thinking of a circle - sure enough the noise field began to look like it was swirling in a circle. Or was it my ATTENTION that was taking on a circular form? It was both - like an expectation attention pattern that the dots then conformed to.

There's really a lot of room for experimentation here. When I was high on mushrooms in a forest in France [a trip out camping trip with a French girl named Estelle and her dog - you can actually order psylocibe mushrooms in the mail from Holland and have them sent to France with no hassle or problem] I saw incredible things in the closed eye field. I was amazed. They were like mandalas, branching incredible trees, "fractal patterns," geometric exponential processes, color interplay, etc. So clearly that altered chemical state was doing something to the way I was INFORMTERPERCIEVING. The psylocybin and psilocin were setting up different electro-chemical and synaptic vibration patterns that caused me to informterpercive the available visual data fields in corresponding weird new formal ways.

So here you see this same ontological pattern - some "informational" form - like the quantum physics wave function - informing some medium - the matter field itself. The feeling of it is something like the thought of it. Try FEELING the dots and feeling everything (rather than, per se, thinking about it). You'll see it's that - whatever it is - that has the SHAPING, the plasticity quality. But its no more "subjective" somehow, its just the YOU part of the objectivity.

You see its all a totality, a holism - chemical material - ingested - sets up different bio-energetic and cellular vibrational patterns - obviously traceable down to the quantum scale or up to macro as chemical reactions, thermal changes, different synaptic brain states and periodicities - also allows as dream symbol of altered state - i.e a drug experience.

Its ok to look at it as "all physical" or "all mental." In some sense "physical" corresponds to objective and I feel there's something in that direction which can easily be ignored by dreamy tripped out type logics. We need to see what's going on physically and it somehow grounds the whole thing. This is a place where a lot of confusion occurs. Think, for instance, of the "physical side of mental" or the 'mental side of physical" in a way somehow similar to "two sides of the same coin." Anybody see what I'm getting at here?

The sight dot feild is a good place to play around with this stuff. Experiment around and tell me what you come up with.

Will

Cole,

The point of mentioning known science and physiology is to mention known science and physiology. That this is a virtual reality is significant in a larger understanding and thus dealing with the VR based upon that larger understanding. That does not mean that there is not a known science and physiology within the PMR VR. It has been pointed out that VR or not, this is the reality that we have and must be considered and dealt with as such.

It seems like a useful thing to separate out what is known and explained within the science of vision from a discussion which is not starting out as based upon that known science. Have you ever heard the phrase, reinventing the wheel? It is much easier for Will to read up on the field of visual science and known visual phenomena and adjust what he is saying based upon his increased understanding thereby as opposed to everyone else attempting to understand what Will is seeing and experiencing and trying to relate that to know visual science. It is practically impossible to understand precisely what Will or anyone experiences from a verbal description. Even when two people can look at the same view, they do not necessarily 'see' the same thing. There are many kinds of color blindness and differences in visual perception up to the point of actual aberrations. The discussion was clearly headed for very subjective experience that would be difficult to share.

You are of course welcome to skip anything that I post. If I don't see specific errors of understanding or a discussion going in non useful directions or know something of value myself to contribute, I say nothing. I don't have time to just chat.

Ted

Well I appreciate your stabilizing presence, and pertinent historical data that allows the "mind-storming" that us chatty types dig to be grounded in good data, to have some stability with probable creative synergistic emergent quality flow. aka in some circles as "diarrhea of the mouth", but if looked at differently can be useful even if just for the fun and offload it provides.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Ted,

Understood. And I don't want to give the wrong impression- I think you are generally very, very helpful but you, like everyone (including me) who has set their sights on spiritual growth- deserve feedback as to how your (perceived) attitude/choice of words affect others. Seems like that is the only way to really improve the quality of our statements in order to more accurately respresent our intent. And I really didn't mean to come off as sounding like a jerk- that was my bad.

Thanks again,

Cole

_________________
Never live so certainly as to confuse your own convictions with what is true.

Ooh the blue dots thing.

I've nothing useful to say, but I still love this topic. When I was a kid, whenever I used to wake up from a vivid dream, I'd see a haze of little dots in my room. I asked my Mum what it was and she answered "Ozone".

They disappeared from my sight for years. It's not 'till I started opening back up to something other than Science that they came back. Even if they can be explained by Biology (which I LOVE that Biology can be explained along side MBT), it still teaches me the lesson "we only see what we want to, and ignore that which we don't believe exists".

Teds answer is a very objective one.

I posted a thread a while back regarding "tracers" in my visual field that started with a psychedelic trip. Over the years, they have gone from large neon tracers, so almost solid objects that seem to manifest into dust or other odd and very small objects. The tracers used to be a worry of mine, because I didnt want them to be frequent enough to get in the way of my everyday life. But after a while, I just stopped worrying and took them as part of me.

I'm not saying what they are, because I honestly do not know. But in sometimes trying to process them, I try and answer them in a way that I could describe them to everyone else, which causes more intellectual confusion. I use the VR model (along with "pixelation" and quantum mechanical manifestation of matter and light), but I'm not quite sure that actually makes sense. In all reality, I think they are more than just tricks of my physical brain, and more intuitively know they are a personal manifestation of maybe my guides or other NPMR anomalies.

Just another opinion in the mix.

Now hang on everybody. Just hang on. I see here in some of these responses assumptions about "subjectivity" and "objectivity" that are at the core of what I'm talking about.

"The discussion was clearly headed for very subjective experience that would be difficult to share." - Ted.

In certain ways Ted has the closest to the right idea here in that he brought in, here and in the last post, physical-general (general info) - i.e. "objective"- considerations concerning vision. But part of his error may have been in assuming I wasn't going there with it. Indeed this sight dots topic I introduced just because it is right there at a point where we can "look at" issues of "subjectivity and objectivity" or "mental - physical" like this in a "graphic" accessible way.

Bette - you're describing yourself in your message. "Fun and offload" and "chatty" may the way you often see YOUR communication, but don't assume others on the board have that idea about it.

"Even if they can be explained by Biology (which I LOVE that Biology can be explained along side MBT), it still teaches me the lesson "we only see what we want to, and ignore that which we don't believe exists". - Bumblebee, on the "blue dots of Ozone." [by the way you must be English because you said the word "mum" rather than "mom." - right?]"

That's, again, what I mean by issues of subjective objective mental physical. And don't assume Bumblebee that they HAVE been explained explained in any closed book way.

"The point of mentioning known science and physiology is to mention known science and physiology. That this is a virtual reality is significant in a larger understanding and thus dealing with the VR based upon that larger understanding. That does not mean that there is not a known science and physiology within the PMR VR. It has been pointed out that VR or not, this is the reality that we have and must be considered and dealt with as such." - Ted

Now that's more like it, like what in my opinion we should be getting at. It's the right "issue level." It doesn't resolve anything but it points at the right question. i.e. pmr science - our physical sense of cause and effect - and how it fits with more "mental" or "subjective" or "consciousness - oriented" views. Just go carefully here. This is anything but a closed book or fully understood. There are no "two views" and clarifying how that's an apparency will be to clarify a lot.

"virtual" is being connected in many ways here with the "consciousness" angle, or the "mental" one. And "pmr science" and "physiology" obviously with the general "physical" one. To see the latter as a subset, a constrained rule set of a larger virtual superset is the right direction because it accounts for both and how they seem to interact.

The logic of this digital stuff as Tom's defining seems to go basically like this: reality cells of a "virtual" nature - i.e. "mental" collected together and evolving into more and more complex structures, under the pressure of the "fundamental process" over a finite time have led to the world, the pmr we know (as well as npmr and all that).

If you look closely at what these reality cells must be they are some "subjective' experience AUO was having. They were not little "things" little space time granules in a literal sense that AUO somehow began churning out. They had to be experiential states. AUO having the (you could say mental or abstract or "subjective") experience of being this, then of being that. Then this - this - that. Then This - that - this. Then this - that - that - this. Then this-that-this-that. And so on.

So in this scheme [and I'm still viewing it with open minded skepticism but following the logic], it's the above built up and patterned and re-patterned over time that leads to the world we know. It's what we're dealing with even when we're talking about pmr science. It's almost as though at the core of all objectivity is subjectivity. But clearly that's just another dualistic misnomer. There is no objectivity just total subjectivity. Or you could as easily say; there is no subjectivity just total objectivity. There's just jectivity. THE ONE, the being is exact and it's the one in control, not really the evolving data assemblage known as "you" as an iuoc. But in a certain deep way yes, it's you.

The sight dots seeming granular is neat because you can see "info bit like" stuff right there. Obviously the patterns of what you're seeing correlate in various ways with patterns of what we call the physical and the physiology. But they're built up again from nothing but some hard to imagine "experience" of state changes in some distant strange epoch.

The dots are probably fairly macro if you can see them - i.e. huge groupings of tinier dots. The whole thing couldn't be different from molecules, atoms, quanta in the quantum field. Reality cells are information and QM was already seeing that matter is information quite a while ago. Both the matter in your eye and that of the object world you're looking at are there phenomenologicing along when you're seeing the sight dots. So really the sight dot behavior is just a question of scale and interrelations of various structural considerations - the physical is nothing but a certain "objective mental" structure and the "physiological" is part of that. [seems kinda general but you see what I'm getting at]. Tom's description puts this all in a certain interesting context, but I don't think of it as a closed book. More like an open book.

Will

Will,

Now that I can see more clearly where you are going, I can tell you that you are not seeing the reality cells as these dots that are visual phenomena of some kind. The description of the development of the reality that we experience is orders of magnitude different and this is not just a mixed metaphor. The reality cells are the basic 'bit' containers of the digital reality that is the reality field of Consciousness Space. These cells contain in effect either 0s or 1s as in digital logic and they interact in some kind of rule set. This rule set permits the interactions that through the evolutionary process has resulted in The One Consciousness. Within that One Consciousness we all exist as IUOCs and I will not attempt to go into that depth of detail here. You can look on this as an analogy where the description of what we are, the reality of what we are, is like letters written on a piece of paper where the letters are composed of the dots within the reality cells. We can't see those dots as they are orders of reality different from us and comparable in a sense to the letters on a piece of printed paper trying to look at the dots they were printed from by the laser printer.

This digital logic and interaction layer eventually developed consciousness as The One Consciousness and ourselves as integral parts of this one consciousness. In order to develop consciousness further, The One develops our consciousness further by providing for long term conscious interactions within NPMR type realities and short term, high intensity interactions within PMR type realities. They are virtual realities by which our digital beings/digital consciousnesses experience themselves as if we were within those realities. It is a digital data stream created to provide that experience being interpreted within our individual consciousnesses in something analagous to our sitting in a theater and watching a movie. Of course it is better that our movies, even 3D movies with stereo surround sound as it also includes the sense of feel, smell and taste.

So our PMR experience is again like an order of reality above our existence as individuals which is an order of reality above our existence as data recorded and interacting within the digital media of reality cells. This is not an easy concept to catch on to and I don't know where exactly you are in terms of reading it now. It is not surprising if it takes multiple readings and asking questions to catch on fully.

Ted