Good point Quantum:



Yes, Tom touched on this perspective in Book 1 about how conscious entropy discards old values for continually progressive ones. Of course we see this in 3D actions all the time. But I'm not clear on how one can actually be *consciously mature* by supposedly "out growing" the physical form and yet not have the ability to be physically immortal volitionally?

And the other thing which *cautions me* is the notion that internal values are set above other states, or vice versa. Who's deciding what constitutes conscious entropy?

Surely, (hey don't call me Shirley...), we are beings with complex attributes. We measure value based on many factors - our senses, emotions, mind/intellect, intuition, spirit, and the list goes on...

NOTE: Ingo Swann (The Father of Remote Viewing) once presented a paper to the UN about our 17 senses http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages ... enses.html

Thus we conclude that if we limit "value" to confining parameters, such as only using the five physical senses, then we are surely bias (last time...don't call me Shirley...). Similarly who's to say that we aren't always missing something of ourselves in the evaluation of our experience and environments (stimuli and phenomenon)? As such, it almost seems more reasonable to conclude that when determining conscious entropy ALL is valuable.


Excellent points Kevin:



Let me preface by saying I skimmed the borders of one of my big "no-no's". That is to say, often in discussions when unclear on a functional or practical application people will generalize using "infinite or absolute" terminology to either sustain or give credence to their point. Such as when I used the expression "master utterly".

Anyway, my "master utterly" point was actually meant to be practical and not sophist absolutism. For instance, a normal intact and healthy person can replicate the ability to open and close their hands at will. This denotes control (mastery), albeit transient. So as long as we live and don't have some factor interrupting this ability (such as disease, accident or death) we have this control/mastery.

Similarly, it seems reasonable to conclude that there could be removal of certain constraints whereby allowing one to remain in body indefinitely while in 3D. In this case, such an individual would not cease to evolve but only be performing a volitional function not dissimilar to opening and closing a hand. It's just that it seems like an incredible ability compared to the hand analogy.

Hi bette



It is my understanding that there are both Sequential and Simultaneous frames of existence.

Sequential = Linear time, A + B = C. (This creates the premise that such a thing as "progress" exists.)

Simultaneous = All things are happening right NOW. (This literally includes "ALL", such as dimensions, densities, etc...)

This beckons two general considerations for how we define Consciousness.

1. Consciousness can never reach ALL-NESS since it is by design Infinite. In which case, no one, no thing, etc, is more right, progressive, etc, than any other. (a.k.a. Sequential - but whereby limited perspective is the cause of ideas like "progress")

2. IT already KNOWS ALL and there is nowhere left for IT to go. Which means IT's fragmented attributes (ALL beings, things, etc) are playing out their predetermined parts. (a.k.a. Simultaneous)

Ok, I have more I can comment on and add but I'm signing off for now...

Happy Mother's Day weekend everyone!

Thank you nowiam.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

I wish to add that both of these types of Consciousness are actually more or less the same in *theory*. That is, whether consciousness can "never reach ALL-NESS" or "already KNOWS ALL" both considerations are equally beyond the ability to validate while being observed/experienced from any sub-state.

An example in TOE which substantiates this point can be found in the last paragraph of Book Two page 90 continued onto page 91. In this section Tom is stating how NPMR has its own Chief Executive Officer, Supreme Being, etc. And that this Being nevertheless makes errors, etc.

The obvious question is how Tom knows this to be true unless he IS equal to or beyond this Supreme Being?

And if we can't KNOW the actual status of a Supreme Being then all we are doing is guestimating based on our sub-state experiences. In other words, we see the patterns in our sub-state and assume that they hold relevancy in the larger states, etc.

Hence, my stated (no pun intended) conclusions and definitions of "consciousness" would merely seemed based in a form of absolute philosophical ambiguity. Which I touched upon earlier in this thread when I stated that this was one of my "no, no's".

Oh what tangled webs we weave...

It all seems to come down to...you can either do something (volitionally wield power, love, etc) or not. All else is idle speculation or conceptual white noise...


So, has anyone discovered if it is possible to become Physically Immortal yet, and if so how it's achieved?

Transcend the "rule set": stop believing in inevitability. Stop believing that you're mortal. Learn everything that you can possibly learn about what it means to be human, and what it means to be "more" than a mere human, and do all of this with out a shred of selfishness, or attachment- and who knows? Maybe you'll find physical 'immortality.' :)


Cole

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

That would be a good tee shirt, Transcend the Rule-Set.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

1. How does one STOP beLIEving, while at the same time avoid the beLIEf trap?

2. How do we get pass these "no, no's" or "absolute philosophical ambiguities", such as when you said "Learn everything that you can possibly learn about what it means to be human." . How is it possible and what does it mean to "Learn everything" about being human, or anything else for that mnatter? Isn't saying such a thing just perpetuating the age ol' paradox of - defending an argument based on "infinite" considerations...

I believe that I have used a idea like this, learning or experiencing all the different ways of being human as the use of/reason for reincarnation, in my before MBT concepts of reality. How can this be done, what can be learned by all that experience, what is the bottom line, the lesson in common to it all human experience? Now nowiam, you'll love this, it is love. It is seemingly infinite so there is always room for improvement. We are learning love, the apex if you will, of quality of consciousness. As I see it.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Yes, Tom states that love is synonymous with low entropy. So, as long as there is disorder (entropy) there is a need for expanding our love. This for all intents and purposes would seem to be a very long journey.

Practically, though, I am still curious how this is achieved in regards to physical immortality. Anyone have any examples or theories on this?

p.s. I'm a bit wary of perspectives which would devalue achieving physical immortality and superseding it with inner (emotional or spiritual based qualities of "love", etc) or with NPMR states (so-called higher dimensions, etc).

p.p.s. I do LOVE you bette and everyone/thing else. Although I'm sure some being/things are diametrically opposed to that love. Maybe that is what death (unconsciousness) is, on all levels - that is to say, it's diametrically opposed to life (consciousness)...

nowiam,

You need the perspective of having read My Big TOE to then understand that you cannot have physical immortality because physical reality as you perceive it around you is really a virtual reality that appears physical because that is the way the rules that set up the virtual reality make it seem. It is a virtual reality that is created within your mind by an incoming data stream. Even if the physical reality were 'real' as it is perceived, your perception of it would be a virtual reality of this same type as your mind, presumed to exist within your brain, does not perceive it directly. If you do not presume your mind to exist within your PMR brain, then you are not describing a physical reality to begin with. The physical body you perceive senses it's reality, in the PMR VR model, as the result of the data streams coming over nerve channels from sense organs or sensory nerves. You still can never be perceiving reality directly with your mind. You are chasing something that is only words, a creation of words. You cannot have a 'physical immortality' simply because you cannot have a 'real' and 'physical' reality. This is the bottom line.

One of the problems with baldly equating love with low entropy and understanding the concept correctly is this same problem of words. We are using the single English word love to equate to low entropy while the version of love that is really meant is not encompassed by the common usage of the English word love. It is more a spiritual version of love than the typical meaning of eros of the English word love in the cultural consensus. Just like the eskimo(Inuit) supposedly have something like 20 words for snow depending on it's properties, we would be able to use a better word for this concept if we had one. Since our common language amongst us is English, Tom says love. This has all been discussed before. There are no absolutes in this PMR virtual reality. All concepts expressed in language are derived, relative, depending upon a consensus of what the words mean. That is, all of the words used in defining a given word must have consensus definitions also. So many chances for understanding to go astray.

Physical immortality as a goal is really like a dog chasing it's tail as if it were something separate from itself. It may be amusing for a while, although exhausting, but the reality that the tail is part of the dog, supersedes and negates the reason for the chase.

Ted

Ted: well said.

I'd further like to add- who would want to live in the physical body "forever?" (Even if you could.) It seems pretty damn obvious to me that this thing is a temporary form; packs a certain punch; and seeks- to "move on" as well. By this I mean (and this may or may not have any basis in 'reality') that each individual cell/consciousness that composes my body cries out for freedom and evolution- who am I to try to take that from them? Your body serves a valuable purpose for your experience here in PMR; so just do your best to age gracefully! It's not so bad... You'll probably be ready to get the hell out of here in 80 or 90 years anyway!

Also; I've been/am still in the same boat as you are, as far as questions like this are concerned. I at one time was holding out a lot of hope for "modern medical technology" to prolong our life space indefinitely within the next 20 years or so... Once I examined my reasons for such a hope, I found that they were quite egocentric.. This may or may not be the case with you; but if it is- it's worth examining. If you seek "physical immortality" out of something like fear- then you've already made your goal that much more impossible. Fear is one of the greatest stumbling blocks to development (as I'm sure you're well aware) and as such, should be one of the first things we address and overcome.

Anyway- best of luck to you my friend. I hope you find the peace and courage to let go of your fixation with physical immortality. :)

Cole

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

Ok then, I've made up a new term for the love of MBT, evolove. Tom?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Re: Ted's and Cole's thoughtful comments.

Yes, I'm working on finishing TOE. But even though I haven't finished reading it yet I can recognize what has been said and would like to respectfully respond if I may. I am not trying to challenge anyone or be argumentative. I just feel that I were to disappear, while I finish reading TOE, that readers may come to false assumptions regarding my post.

Assumption #1: That I don't recognize and consider the Virtual Reality model

I am aware of the Virtual Reality (VR) model and do not feel it negates anything I have proposed regarding physical immortality. If anything it enhances it validity.

For example, if we rationalize that consciousness attaches itself to virtual-structures in order to gain specific experiences, (Book 2, page 109-110), then we must also note that there is no limitation to the virtual-structures constraints, or lack thereof. This means that physical immortality is just as probable of a reality and as valid of an experience as any. And it is nothing like a dog chasing its own tail. Of course I'll clarify what I mean by this with responding to the following assumptions.

Assumption #2: That I consider the physical "real"

Hopefully people will grasp what I'm saying here although it may look paradoxical at first glance.

I perceive everything as "Real" in the context that everything Exist. "Nothing real can be threatened, Nothing unreal exist" (A Course in Miracles).

However, this is not the type of "real" I think Ted was speaking about. I think Ted might be speaking about things that are perceived "real" but are in fact transitory. As such, Ted's "real" has no bearing on my take regarding physical immortality because you can still be physically immortal and transitory simultaneously in the model I'm proposing.

Let us be clear. All VR structures, beings, states and dimensions could be considered unreal if for no other reason than their transitory status. However, we still use these unreal virtual states as a catalyst for experience.

Assumption #3: That I consider physical immortality a "forever" state of existence

I've already expressed that one wouldn't necessarily want to live in the physical body forever (refer to my post #8 in this thread). To me this has never been the point of physical immortality.

The point is, (using TOE lingo), whether or not one's fragmented individuated consciousness can transcend the constraints of physical death while existing in a physical virtual-structure form. Thus producing a state of lower entropy and more profitability.

Final comments:

a) I have no desire for medical or technological based physical immortality. As I can see the egocentric reasons for wanting these "unconscious or external" modes of assistance. Nor is "luck" a valid consideration since it presupposes that something occurs without ones individuated conscious will-volition.

b) I also am not seeking physical immortality because of fear.


p.s. "evolove"...good one Bette (LOL)

nowiam,

If you recognize the virtual reality model of MBT, then you must recognize that "physical immortality" is not part of the rule set under which a, or specifically this, PMR type VR operates. The reference to 'real' is that it is a virtual reality in which the physicality is perceptual. That physical immortality is not a "forever" state of existence is a contradiction in the meaning of the words by normal consensus, so then what special meaning are you placing on immortality and forever to make this a sensible statement that we can understand? That being said, you do already have as much 'immortality' as your real individuated being as anyone else does so where is the gain? The system for entropy reduction is based upon a continued NPMR type VR existence with periodic PMR VR type 'incarnations' for intensive 'development' work. What you are considering is contrary to this design which makes it unlikely although not an impossibility. In Consciousness Space, what you are asking about is not an impossibility, but is highly improbable as unlikely to advance your development, contrary to the normal operation and requiring a great deal of concealment by the Psi Uncertainty Principle. It would require periodic creation of a new identity as in some science fiction stories that have been written in order to conceal the fact that you are too long lived. As our PMR is developing into a global society with the probability of the requirement for clear identity methods and their technological availability, this would get harder and harder versus a fragmented society with local isolation. Where is the gain in real development of the individuated being? This would merely substitute a lot of new and artificial problems for the normal problems faced in old age and a normal termination of a PMR existence. It seems to amount to the suggestion that pigs be given wings in order to enhance their development potential as individuated beings. Neither this, nor the reference to dogs chasing their tails, is a putdown but rather a comment upon the sense of the situation proposed put into concrete terms.

Ted

NOWIAM,


Just start eating a raw foot diet, juice and relax. You will live as long as needed.

The immortality you speak of is not viable in this reality. I would think that once achieved, a certain state of consciousness, will become immortal in the sense of the bigger NPMR. Hence, not having or needing to fragment into the PMR life cycles anymore. A become continuous state of being in NPMR, but then there is more growth (beyond our scope to know, maybe Tom Knows).

Although, there is the fellow (he,she) from Monroe's book who was 1800 years old. We have not solved that riddle yet. Maybe Tom can.

OM

NowIAm,

Thanks for the response. It's good to know that only one of us was concerned about physical immortality for egocentric reasons. (Me) ...This has got me thinking again about what we mean by "forever." Time, as it is perceived in linear fashion, is an illusion. System states existing within consciousness change - and this change is recorded/remembered. Consciousness is the very definition of "forever." Forever/immortality are all existing as ideas within an ineffable consciousness system of maddening "proportions." Yet, by the very nature of the immanent 'presence'- NOW is ever-persisting. It seems that we simply can't wrap our heavily PMR influenced minds (truly) around this idea... of "No-Time." This gives Consciousness enormous freedom: because it is All That Is. As such: it is the very definition of "real" and as you said: cannot be threatened (other than 'by its self'). Within this seemingly infinite (or seemingly finite ;) ) system of interaction and awareness- what you speak about MUST be possible/happening some"where".

That fact is, I think I've heard Tom mention this in the London lecture or on one of the radio interviews. He said that it's been "tried" before- and that the "immortal" living within a PMR environment "tends to work itself into a hole." Makes sense to me... I've also come across information from other sources suggesting that more often than not: we do seem to retain our "virtual form" ..at least for a while, after the transition known as death. I would imagine that some, with the help of sheer will-power, have opted to remain in a virtual body that very much resembled (it's all virtual anyway, so what's the difference?) the body that they "had" while "living." It would seem that low entropy beings tend not to opt for this choice- but who knows?

Good questions anyway :)


Cole

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