Time - and what is 'now'?

[electrosonic]

That's good stuff Woodsman.

It just raises more and more questions in my mind though - the next one being (and I will look into it first) what exactly are nature spirits? Ethereal 2D?
It'll give me something to think about - to add to the rest I already have lol.

While we're still on the subject of time, I suppose its fairly obvious to presume that 2D consciousnesses will see time in an entirely different manner than ourselves.

 

[Zee Ley]

[T]he Terran scientists have been programmed to believe that nothing can exist unless it can be measured, estimated, calculated and represented in some way in the physical material plane. Not true!!!!!!! For example: We are in NO WAY physical.

I am eager to stay for a while on this statement.
The time could be measured, isn't it? We have numbers and counting, we have such a devices as clocks, we also have whole lot of calendars for this purpose...

Some object situated in space already has the idea of time attached to it. Otherwise how can you say that it is near or far(distance); above or under(direction); long or short(size); old or new(age) etc...

In some sense our idea of Time is something that could be measured. Or our idea is that Time could be measured:)

Did you know that there is no "right" or "left" in 4th density through 7th density? If you can picture this exactly, then you may be able to understand the responses to all the questions you are asking. If not, best "give it a rest."

So what I am proposing here is to give a rest for the Time as we know it and start from a blank sheet:)

What is the Time?
[Do we actually know] what is the Time?
What is "correct", accurate, objective conception of Time?
Is there any?
Could Time be fit in any kind of conception or, should I say, measured?
Well the time could be measured, that's for sure...
But while doing this what are we actually measuring?
What does it change?

Time has quantity so maybe - just maybe - it also has a quality?
I think it has...
I'm sure that most of you guys had experience in being late to work... or standing in the long line. Imagine, remember yourself being "in need" in front of the toilet which is engaged/occupied:)
What is Time while you wait? What is Time while you play? What is time while you're in rush or lazy?

Just think about it!

 

[Woodsman]

[T]he Terran scientists have been programmed to believe that nothing can exist unless it can be measured, estimated, calculated and represented in some way in the physical material plane. Not true!!!!!!! For example: We are in NO WAY physical.

I am eager to stay for a while on this statement.
The time could be measured, isn't it? We have numbers and counting, we have such a devices as clocks, we also have whole lot of calendars for this purpose...

In some sense our idea of Time is something that could be measured. Or our idea is that Time could be measured:)

I'm sure that most of you guys had experience in being late to work... or standing in the long line. Imagine, remember yourself being "in need" in front of the toilet which is engaged/occupied:)

When we need to use the toilet but are prevented from doing so immediately, why do we choose to make our awareness crawl through every moment a full-bladder body has to offer rather than just shift ahead to the moment where we can be relieved?

If 'time' is just the illusion of moments passing in sequence, why not speed up the illusion, or skip past them altogether?

I think it's just how our genetics are wired; we are simple creatures which, by design, crawl through our lives from birth to death in one direction, placing awareness into each moment in sequence, because that's just how our brains work. -And we are so ego-centric that we believe that the resulting illusion of "time" passing (which we create by our own activity of moving) is actually how things work for the whole of creation, and we set forth to measure everything accordingly. Typical human thinking, filled with projection.

-The ticking clock is not a measurement of time.

-The ticking clock is nothing more than a predictable series of action/reactions of a spring winding down, but the speed at which we choose to experience those tick/tocks is up to us. For instance, how would you know that my "Second" represents the same length of experience as your "Second"?

-What if I've been wired since birth to spend a qualitative "Minute" of awareness for each "Second" you experience, and because that's always just how I've done things, that seems normal. You might say, "Gosh! Did you see that? That was really fast! The whole thing was all over in less than five seconds!" And not having any other reference, I might respond, "Wow! Under five seconds? That IS quick!" -And both of us would be fully satisfied that we were talking about the same subjective experience.

 

[obyvatel]

Chapter6 of the Wave ( link ) contains an extended quote from Ouspensky's Tertium Organum which deals with possible perception of time by animals and then compares to our time perception.

To summarize, Ouspensky discusses the possibility that animals can only perceive surfaces and live in a 2-dimensional world. Since they cannot perceive or sense the third direction in space that humans are capable of perceiving, this third dimension appears to them as having a temporal character.

[quote author=Tertium Organum]
Animals see two dimensions. They constantly sense the third dimension but do not see it. They sense it as something transient, as we sense time.

The surfaces which animals see possess for them many strange properties; these are, first of all numerous and varied movements.

It has been said already that all illusory movements must be perfectly real for them. These movements seem real to us also, but we know them to be illusory, as for instance the turning round of a house as we drive past, the springing up of a tree from round the corner, the movement of the moon among the clouds and so on.

In addition, many other movements will exist for animals, which we do not suspect. Actually a great many objects, completely motionless for us — indeed all objects — must appear to animals as moving. And it is precisely in these movements that the third dimension of solids will be manifested for them, i.e. The third dimension of solids will appear to them as motion.
[/quote]

Extrapolating this hypothesis for us, humans, it would make sense that additional dimensions of space (beyond the 3) which we cannot sense will appear to take on a temporal character for us. If we are able to reach the state of perception where there is "no right and no left" in space, then "time" would very likely be different for us as well. If we consider the 3 spatial dimensions we can sense, even though we may not know exactly what lies in each of the dimensions in a certain area in space, we can choose to focus our awareness on it and find out. It seems similar to the analogy of power point presentation with slides and focusing on the particular slide to access the information at will. We cannot do this for what we call "time".

While we are in the state that we are, here is a model of time from Susie Vrobel's "Fractal Time" that I found interesting. In order to account for the internal (subjective) and external (clock ticks) perceptions of time, she models time with a "length" or succession, a depth or simultaneity, and a "density" in keeping with fractal dimensions.

Simultaneity indicates how many things are perceived by us to happen together. There are a number of experiments done to check the external time window within which sensory inputs coming at us is perceived as "simultaneous". Visual, auditory, tactile,olfactory - all these have different time thresholds. For example, within an interval of 20-30ms, visual impressions are regarded as simultaneous; tactile - roughly 10ms; auditory - about 6ms. Beyond these respective windows, the impressions will be perceived as successive. What we end up perceiving as "simultaneous" is a Gestalt; an integration of various sense impressions, thoughts and feelings. This is possible due to an integration of various inputs in a nested context. This Gestalt is our "now". How much our "now" can hold depends on many factors; after the "now" or simultaneity horizon expires, we move to the next or successive "now".

To take an example, when we are feeling bored in the "moment", subjective time seems to drag on. In this model, it would mean that the simultaneous/depth aspect of time is minimal, close to zero. The successive/length aspect of time goes forward. Our "now" is thin. On the other hand when we are engaged in stimulating interesting activity, subjective time seems to fly. The simultaneous/depth aspect of time here is more; more seems to happen and the "now" is thick in texture.

When we recollect events from the past, we focus more on the "thick nows" which seem to last longer in retrospect compared to the "thin nows". When trying to capture one "thick now" in language, we will probably write or say "During this time, I saw... I heard ... I felt ... I thought ...". Authentic mystical insights often try to capture the content of experience of time composed of very thick nows - or even a single thick now with depth approaching a very high number (infinity in theory) - in book length descriptions.

 

[casper]

It was said once that there is no time, only memory of moments.

The unconscious mind is permanent memory, it's like a video camera.
All that we have lived, experienced, tasted, heard, smelled, learning and so on., Is permanently locked in the vault of memories of our subconscious mind. We never forget anything at the level of the subconscious, forget about the level of consciousness.
On this level, a habit, good and bad, create the emotions that often lead us to a problem.

 

[Zee Ley]

If 'time' is just the illusion of moments passing in sequence, why not speed up the illusion, or skip past them altogether?

Woodsman, to be honest it's your words not mine. Otherwise where did I said that?:) I don't seek to shift, skip, speed up or in some other way manipulate Time.
Let me arrange it this way: the Time how we perceive it is an illusion. Is there any other Time?

The ticking clock is not a measurement of time.

Allright than lets stop on a statement that the time as we perceive it could be measured.

The ticking clock is nothing more than a predictable series of action/reactions of a spring winding down, but the speed at which we choose to experience those tick/tocks is up to us. For instance, how would you know that my "Second" represents the same length of experience as your "Second"?

How would you know that I am experiencing the same "Second" as you do? That's how I would read your question. I hope you don't mind:)
Anyway, answering to both... From my point of view the only way I can experience your time is to be you.

 

[Woodsman]

Chapter6 of the Wave ( link ) contains an extended quote from Ouspensky's Tertium Organum which deals with possible perception of time by animals and then compares to our time perception.

To summarize, Ouspensky discusses the possibility that animals can only perceive surfaces and live in a 2-dimensional world. Since they cannot perceive or sense the third direction in space that humans are capable of perceiving, this third dimension appears to them as having a temporal character.

[quote author=Tertium Organum]
Animals see two dimensions. They constantly sense the third dimension but do not see it. They sense it as something transient, as we sense time.

The surfaces which animals see possess for them many strange properties; these are, first of all numerous and varied movements.

It has been said already that all illusory movements must be perfectly real for them. These movements seem real to us also, but we know them to be illusory, as for instance the turning round of a house as we drive past, the springing up of a tree from round the corner, the movement of the moon among the clouds and so on.

In addition, many other movements will exist for animals, which we do not suspect. Actually a great many objects, completely motionless for us — indeed all objects — must appear to animals as moving. And it is precisely in these movements that the third dimension of solids will be manifested for them, i.e. The third dimension of solids will appear to them as motion.

Extrapolating this hypothesis for us, humans, it would make sense that additional dimensions of space (beyond the 3) which we cannot sense will appear to take on a temporal character for us. If we are able to reach the state of perception where there is "no right and no left" in space, then "time" would very likely be different for us as well. If we consider the 3 spatial dimensions we can sense, even though we may not know exactly what lies in each of the dimensions in a certain area in space, we can choose to focus our awareness on it and find out. It seems similar to the analogy of power point presentation with slides and focusing on the particular slide to access the information at will. We cannot do this for what we call "time".

[/quote]

That tract of Ouspensky contains some fascinating ideas, and I feel like he's on the right track, but I've always found certain aspects of it catch in my throat as I try to swallow them;

That is, I had difficulty with the contention that animals cannot see 3 dimensions, (arguably, the very point his whole theory turns on). His logic seems clean, and I see how he arrived at the conclusion, the third dimension being a purely conceptual thing, and dogs and cats appear to operate without the memory necessary to hold concepts and classifications. However...

I find this to be observationally at odds with the fact that a dog can run, jump and catch in its mouth a flying frisbee, or that a cat can leap up and snag a house fly from the air, -both far better than I am able to with my supposedly superior conception of the 3rd spatial dimension.

Ouspensky was aware of this problem...

How then to explain the fact that, living in a two-dimensional world, or seeing themselves in a two-dimensional world, animals orientate perfectly well in our three-dimensional world? How to explain that a bird flies up and down, straight ahead and sideways, in all three directions; that a horse jumps fences and ditches; that a dog and a cat seem to understand the properties of depth and height together with length and breadth?

His explanation as I can make it out, essentially states that the qualities and behavior of each object is remembered separately from every other object by an animal, and it is this memorized set of qualities for each object which allows the dog or cat to interact with it successfully -in only 2 spatial dimensions. A frisbee would be an object which grows larger and smaller, not nearer or farther. When the frisbee is a certain size, presumably, the dog would know that it can be seized from the air.

I find that unconvincing.

By the same logic, a horse running at a log would only know how to jump over it when that log has attained a certain size, which would mean that the horse will have had to memorize that log's characteristics before attempting to jump over it. And yet, horses can jump over new logs which have never before been encountered.

-I remember an interactive exhibit at a science museum where the guest was invited to peer with one eye down the length of a long model road way with little colored cars on it. With a set of knobs, the guest could move the cars closer and further away from the observation portal, and was challenged to line them up all at the same distance. When done fiddling with the knobs, the guest could walk around the exhibit and see from the side how well s/he fared at the task. Everybody who tried found it impossible to line up the cars beyond random luck.

Perhaps this is because we are untrained in the art of pure 2D navigation, spoiled by our second eye, but I seriously doubt that a dog or a cat would have done any better.

Dogs and cats have two eyes, after all. Why would evolution remain so insistent on that occular arrangement if it didn’t proffer the advantage of depth perception as well as up/down, left/right? Why not have single-eyed cats and cyclops dogs if their internal processes as described by Ouspensky would work just as well?

Trying to follow Ouspensky's reasoning which built upon this assumption left me frustrated and annoyed.

-And yet I still feel like he's on to something important. The C's gave his explanation a thumbs up, as it were, so I've never rejected it completely, and it was partly due to this that I've been plugging away at other variations of how perception might work at lower densities.

Q: (L) But I thought that time perception was an illusion?

A: YOUR perception of it is an illusion. Remember the example of the dogs and cats riding in a car?

Q: (L) Yes. Ouspensky and the horse. So, time, as an essential thing, does exist?

A: But not as you know it. When we refer to “timelessness,” we are speaking from the standpoint of your familiarity only.

While we are in the state that we are, here is a model of time from Susie Vrobel's "Fractal Time" that I found interesting. In order to account for the internal (subjective) and external (clock ticks) perceptions of time, she models time with a "length" or succession, a depth or simultaneity, and a "density" in keeping with fractal dimensions.

Simultaneity indicates how many things are perceived by us to happen together. There are a number of experiments done to check the external time window within which sensory inputs coming at us is perceived as "simultaneous". Visual, auditory, tactile,olfactory - all these have different time thresholds. For example, within an interval of 20-30ms, visual impressions are regarded as simultaneous; tactile - roughly 10ms; auditory - about 6ms. Beyond these respective windows, the impressions will be perceived as successive. What we end up perceiving as "simultaneous" is a Gestalt; an integration of various sense impressions, thoughts and feelings. This is possible due to an integration of various inputs in a nested context. This Gestalt is our "now". How much our "now" can hold depends on many factors; after the "now" or simultaneity horizon expires, we move to the next or successive "now".

To take an example, when we are feeling bored in the "moment", subjective time seems to drag on. In this model, it would mean that the simultaneous/depth aspect of time is minimal, close to zero. The successive/length aspect of time goes forward. Our "now" is thin. On the other hand when we are engaged in stimulating interesting activity, subjective time seems to fly. The simultaneous/depth aspect of time here is more; more seems to happen and the "now" is thick in texture.

When we recollect events from the past, we focus more on the "thick nows" which seem to last longer in retrospect compared to the "thin nows". When trying to capture one "thick now" in language, we will probably write or say "During this time, I saw... I heard ... I felt ... I thought ...". Authentic mystical insights often try to capture the content of experience of time composed of very thick nows - or even a single thick now with depth approaching a very high number (infinity in theory) - in book length descriptions.

The idea of thick and thin "nows" makes a lot of sense.

I particularly find interesting the idea of experiments to determine how many discrete events happening one after the other we can distinguish before they appear to become simultaneous. When everybody reports a video going from a set of staccato images to a smooth animation at 30 frames per second, indicates certain biological perceptive boundaries. Some human concepts of time are probably experienced in very much the same way between different people.

That's useful to know!

 

[Zee Ley]

obyvatel,

From Ouspensky

Speech consists of words; every word expresses a concept. A concept and a word are really the same thing, only the one (the concept) stands, as it were, for the inner aspect, while the other (the word) stands for the outer aspect. The word is the algebraic sign of a thing.

In our speech words express concepts or ideas. Ideas are broader concepts; they are not a group sign for similar representations, but embrace groups of dissimilar representations, or even groups of concepts. Thus an idea is a complex or an abstract concept.

At the present moment an average man, taken as a standard, has three units of mental life — sensation, representation and concept.

The thing that puzzles me here is how conception could "work" with Time. Is concept able to comprehend the Time?

For example, in the same excerpt Ouspensky writes:

On the whole the psychology of animals is very obscure to us. The infinite number of observations made of all animals, from elephants to spiders, and the infinite number of anecdotes about the intelligence, perspicacity and moral qualities of animals change nothing in this respect. We represent animals either as living automatons or as stupid human beings. We are too shut up in the circle of our own mentality. We have no idea of any other mentality and involuntarily we think that the only kind of mentality possible is the one we possess. But this is an illusion, which prevents us from understanding life. If we were able to enter into the inner world of an animal and understand how it perceives, understands and acts, we would see many extremely interesting things.

So I don't understand why by being aware of this assumption. He uses the same pattern and as a matter of fact is speaking about some additional dimensions and the time as a plane. Wouldn't it be the same nonsense if a cat or a dog would decide to speculate about our world with the means of their own limited perception?

And regarding everything else, I need to "digest" the info:)

 

[obyvatel]

Hi Woodsman,

Regarding the difference in vision between cats/dogs/horses and humans, research shows that humans are able to sort of "add" the perception of depth to 2d objects through a more sophisticated post-processing apparatus. Animals "see" similarly but are unable to add in the 3rd dimension. For humans, it is a learned skill which becomes automatic and operates out of conscious awareness.

One related example is that of a Pygmy Kenge who spent most of his life till the time of the incident in the dense forests of Congo where visibility is limited due to foliage. He was taken to the plains where there were a group of buffaloes grazing so far away in the distance that they looked like small insects. Kenge insisted they were insects and tried to compare them with those insects he knew. He did not believe they were huge animals looking small due to the distance. Even when taken close enough to appreciate their size, he speculated that they might have grown bigger ( bringing in the temporal aspect) - but he doubted how they could have grown so fast, so wondered if witchcraft was involved.

As for us who live in a shared modern culture, there are visual illusions about depth perception that gets us. One example is the "corridor illusion". There are some good images available on the web to show this. The thing is the limitations of our perceptual abilities are often masked by learned heuristic rules which operate out of conscious awareness and work for most situations.

Regarding dogs catching frisbees or baseball players chasing balls in the air, experiments indicate the possibility that a particular heuristic rule, the "gaze heuristic" is at work. I wrote about this in another thread.

There is a dog I see in a park who unerringly chases down a frisbee thrown in the air by his owner. He runs behind it and times his jump exquisitely to catch the frisbee in mid air. Every time I see this I am impressed. The dog is not a trained circus dog. How does he sense where the frisbee is going in the presence of unpredictable air currents and effortlessly follows the complex trajectory? Similar examples exist in other areas of our experience.

One view is that the unconscious mind performs a series of very complex calculations - the dog knows calculus and more but is not consciously aware of it. Gigerenzer provides another explanation - the gaze heuristic. The dog runs after the frisbee in a way that the angle of gaze remains constant. The dog runs adjusting his speed and direction such that the image of the frisbee moves in a straight line at a constant speed. Baseball players use the same heuristic to chase down balls. This skill can be taught easily.

[quote author=Gut Feelings by Gerd Gigerenzer]
The gaze heuristic exemplifies how a complex problem that no robot could match a human in solving —catching a ball in real time— can be easily mastered. It ignores all causal information relevant to computing the ball’s trajectory and only attends to one piece of information, the angle of gaze. Its rationale is myopic, relying on incremental changes, rather than on the ideal of first computing the best solution and thereafter acting on it.

[/quote]

 

[John G]

Extrapolating this hypothesis for us, humans, it would make sense that additional dimensions of space (beyond the 3) which we cannot sense will appear to take on a temporal character for us. If we are able to reach the state of perception where there is "no right and no left" in space, then "time" would very likely be different for us as well. If we consider the 3 spatial dimensions we can sense, even though we may not know exactly what lies in each of the dimensions in a certain area in space, we can choose to focus our awareness on it and find out. It seems similar to the analogy of power point presentation with slides and focusing on the particular slide to access the information at will. We cannot do this for what we call "time".

Ark uses a conformal spacetime metric with 4 space-like and 2 time-like dimensions. This also allows for circular dimensions. Our perception of time would certainly be the "slides" idea since for example going back to a past time coordinate would still be your personal future slide. As for no right and left I tend to relate it to this:

November 4, 1995

A: Then going to 4th density: road seems straight as seen in 4th density, when curved in 3rd....

A: Picture driving down a highway, suddenly you notice auras surrounding everything.... Being able to see around corners...

Seeing around corners kind of sounds like photons taking a circular path and if they can do that both clockwise and counterclockwise, it I think would really mess up left vs right with curves to left or right seeming to be both thus straightening out sort of.

 

[Woodsman]

Hi Woodsman,

Regarding the difference in vision between cats/dogs/horses and humans, research shows that humans are able to sort of "add" the perception of depth to 2d objects through a more sophisticated post-processing apparatus. Animals "see" similarly but are unable to add in the 3rd dimension. For humans, it is a learned skill which becomes automatic and operates out of conscious awareness.

One related example is that of a Pygmy Kenge who spent most of his life till the time of the incident in the dense forests of Congo where visibility is limited due to foliage. He was taken to the plains where there were a group of buffaloes grazing so far away in the distance that they looked like small insects. Kenge insisted they were insects and tried to compare them with those insects he knew. He did not believe they were huge animals looking small due to the distance. Even when taken close enough to appreciate their size, he speculated that they might have grown bigger ( bringing in the temporal aspect) - but he doubted how they could have grown so fast, so wondered if witchcraft was involved.

As for us who live in a shared modern culture, there are visual illusions about depth perception that gets us. One example is the "corridor illusion". There are some good images available on the web to show this. The thing is the limitations of our perceptual abilities are often masked by learned heuristic rules which operate out of conscious awareness and work for most situations.

Regarding dogs catching frisbees or baseball players chasing balls in the air, experiments indicate the possibility that a particular heuristic rule, the "gaze heuristic" is at work. I wrote about this in another thread.

There is a dog I see in a park who unerringly chases down a frisbee thrown in the air by his owner. He runs behind it and times his jump exquisitely to catch the frisbee in mid air. Every time I see this I am impressed. The dog is not a trained circus dog. How does he sense where the frisbee is going in the presence of unpredictable air currents and effortlessly follows the complex trajectory? Similar examples exist in other areas of our experience.

One view is that the unconscious mind performs a series of very complex calculations - the dog knows calculus and more but is not consciously aware of it. Gigerenzer provides another explanation - the gaze heuristic. The dog runs after the frisbee in a way that the angle of gaze remains constant. The dog runs adjusting his speed and direction such that the image of the frisbee moves in a straight line at a constant speed. Baseball players use the same heuristic to chase down balls. This skill can be taught easily.

[quote author=Gut Feelings by Gerd Gigerenzer]
The gaze heuristic exemplifies how a complex problem that no robot could match a human in solving —catching a ball in real time— can be easily mastered. It ignores all causal information relevant to computing the ball’s trajectory and only attends to one piece of information, the angle of gaze. Its rationale is myopic, relying on incremental changes, rather than on the ideal of first computing the best solution and thereafter acting on it.

[/quote]

Check this out!

So I got to wondering: "Can a dog with an eye-patch still catch a frisbee?"

-The contention being, if a dog with no possibility of stereoscopic depth perception can still catch a frisbee, then Ouspensky's theory is granted a good deal of weight.

So I hunted around and found this video:

http://archive.11alive.com/news/article/163664/79/One-Eyed-Jack

Is that cool, or what?

-I also remember meeting a fellow years ago who had a condition whereby he was unable to sense depth; all objects appeared to him to be on the same plane. (He had use of both eyes, but his neural wiring was limited somehow). I was fascinated, and remember asking him a bunch of questions about what it was like. He indicated a bunch of ships out on the harbor and said they looked like toys he could reach out and touch. -He was able, however, to navigate the world quite easily, and had not been hindered in his life in any real way; held a productive job as a field engineer for a mining company and lived quite happily.

Given that, and "One-Eyed Jack's" frisbee-catching ability, I can accept that 2D animals really do see the world in 2 dimensions. That's helpful.

 

[Woodsman]

I'm glad somebody else started a discussion thread about that dress, the color of which nobody can settle on. I think it's relevant here.

From that discussion thread, RedFox notes...

Personally I love optical illusions, because they are good reminders that what we believe may be the truth is not always the case - it's all based on our biases (biological, psychological, emotional etc).

From the article I linked earlier:

Both squares are grey, but you see one as yellow and one as blue. It happens because in both cases you unconsciously correct for what colour you think the source of light is.

We do that all the time to get by in the world: the reason you see a piece of white paper as white regardless of whether you're outside (under the blue sky) or inside (under red-tinted candle light) is because you shift the colour of the paper in your mind back to white – you white balance it. Or in technical terms, you "discount" for the "colour of the illuminant".

In the illusion above, on the left you correct for a light source you think is yellow, making the grey square appear blue. And on the right you do the opposite.

So now to that dress. The key thing is that we are correcting for an imagined light source, just as in the example above. But there are two features of this picture that make it very difficult to interpret, which means people are likely to see it differently.

So here are the two colours from the dress shown on there own - what do those who saw white/gold see now? What happens if you go and look at the dress on the first page?

I didn't dis-believe (I've seen this sort of illusion before), but I still opened it up in Photoshop to measure the colors. It's an amazing thing our brains are doing here. -I'm somewhat annoyed that I cannot see the true grey as it is represented by my monitor; the wavelength which is *actually* there, not the one my mind is inventing for the sake of convenience.

The dress image didn't trick me. -I see the actual colors; light blue and that goldy brown. But still...

In further ruminating over what it means to perceive reality from higher levels of density, -where "right" and "left" no longer hold relevance...

Arguably, subbing in Yellow instead of Gray is a very complicated trick performed by a brain trying to create as accurate an impression of reality as possible despite limiting factors. -Our stereoscopic depth perception is a similarly artificial construct; a gymnastic move performed by our brains to better inform us of reality using limited information. Most of the work is in the 'after-processing' not in the raw data.

A: [...] Did you know that there is no "right" or "left" in 4th density through 7th density? If you can picture this exactly, then you may be able to understand the responses to all the questions you are asking. [...]

This raises a few thoughts for me, (they are not wholly complete thoughts, I'm afraid. Such is the nature of this kind of speculative territory)...

1. Seeing reality without Left and Right might be a function of more 'after-processing', in the same way we see yellow which isn't actually yellow.

The Objective Reality (of the photograph) is that the spot "color" is Gray; not Blue or Yellow. Yet, if that cube existed in real space under similar lighting conditions, we would thank our interpretive after-processing powers for giving us a useful reading of the actual colors present.

2. Wishful Thinking at 4th Density STS is reportedly cripplingly easy. If we cannot see gray instead of yellow, (even when I grit my teeth and glare at the image with all my might), then perhaps this implies that extra layers of 'after-processing' may be both useful and detrimental at the same time.

3. If reality actually has no left or right, if such designations are merely artifacts created by our limited perceptive abilities, then what does this suggest?

Here's my current thought process on that, and on how it might be possible to see an object from all sides at once...


3a. Say you are driving down a road and there is an object in your path.

3b. You approach, and then pass the object, allowing the opportunity to see the object from all sides.

3c. Because you are not limited to being aware of only a singular, linear point on your "life-line", your memory and awareness of the 360 degree visual data of the object is immediately accessible and processable. Your 4th Density brain has no trouble synthesizing a useful, all-angles picture of the object for your cognitive convenience.

3d. If this process was a constant, automatic feature of the 4th Density brain, then "Left" and "Right" would naturally cease to exist.

I can *just* about picture that...

 

[Deleted member 9511]

Lot's to get into in this thread. It's one of my favorite topics. I'd like to respond to several of the posts here. Until I have time to do that thoughtfully, I offer the following for consideration. I wrote this short "proof" maybe ten years ago.

Spiritual Calculus

Life is experience over time. IOW
Life = experience/time
Calculus is the mathematics of the infinite. To break down a difficult problem, like the curvilinear motion of objects, you have to look at each point on the path, breaking that path into infinitely many points. Remember from calculus class, those of us who took it, that weird statement:
dx/dy
So, back to spiritual calculus. If we divide up our life into infinitely many experiential moments, it's the equivalent of having a single moment with zero time. Here's the math.
infinity/any_real_number = infinity
any_real_number / 0 = infinity
So, live your life defined by discrete moments or memories or future plans, and you have limited life.
x_number_of_experiences / y_time_increments = a real number < infinity
Live only in the now, where time doesn't exist, and you have eternal life even if it is only a single experience.
1_experience / 0_time_NOW = infinity
L = life
t = time of an entire lifespan
dL = incremental life experiences
dt = incremental time within that lifespan
When dt = 0 (right.....NOW), dL/dt = infinity, regardless of how you define your incremental life experiences.
Life_in_the_NOW = infinity
Eternal life is found in the infinitesimal moments that we savor. Savor them all, truly finding joy (where time flies...away), and WHOA! Infinite possibility.

One quick thing to add, before I get back to client-duties, is that 3-D and 3rd density are not the same, though perhaps analogous. With respect to 2nd density animals being able to see and operate in 3-D, Ouspensky's description of animals seeing surfaces makes sense. I believe that what they lack is not the ability to see in 3-D, nor that it matters much for "One-Eyed-Jack", but that they lack the ability to see "interiors". Ken Wilber's work and his so-called map of consciousness and the four quadrants is helpful to understand what I mean by "interiors". Crudely, access to interiors, as I understand it, is access to self-awareness. That is what 2nd density beings lack, so they see surfaces in 3-D.

This inspired me to pick up some Wei Wu Wei that I haven't touched in many years. He has lots of good stuff on how we conceptualize time, which I will share in time. :)

 

[Henchman 21]

For a good life, death always comes too quick. For a life of hardship (depending on the infinite varying degrees), death cannot come fast enough.
Good times fly away within an instant. The bad times are like pushing a car for a mile. All within time is purely subjective. Even the judgements on it.
Time cannot be defined without using the subject in the definition, making it.....as we all know....nonexistent. It's that time for me.

 

[LIV]

time

Liv:Can someone help me understand how time can be "fluid"?