I'm a computer telephony engineer. I'm interested in what makes the mind tick and spend a great deal of time trying to deepen my understanding. I've studied Yoga and Tibetan Buddhism - I set up a medical aid station in the Himalayas at the base of Everest. I enjoy swimming and body surfing when I have the opportunity. Love to hike BBQ. I walk to a good coffee house for my first cup in the morning, then chat with the boys for a while to resolve galactic problems before heading for work.
You are not connected to Charleswant to grow your network?
You have to download this little program, save it and run it (requires Windows). Focus on the center of the image for 20 or 30 seconds. Don't freak, it's just an animated graphic.Sat, September 27, 2008 - 3:02 PM permalink - 1 comment
scooter - be careful!
from a post...Tue, May 13, 2008 - 1:49 AM permalink - 3 comments
In a very crude sense you might consider that we reside within an immense spherical cloud composed of waves, all of which pass through and act upon one another. Interestingly, this process continues its expansion at the outer edge of our observable galaxy at the speed of light. With respect to us, regions beyond the periphery likely recede at speeds exceeding the speed of light, and this may be what we currently consider as being the outer edges of our universe. But, in fact, what we think of as our universe many be billions or trillions times larger than we currently realize. So, first envision for the sake of simplicity – a spherical cloud growing with its contents slowly over time dispersing and becoming less dense, something that’s essentially over time being torn apart. Of course, our time scale as humans might have a bit of a problem getting their minds around this – nevertheless, it is happening right now.
Now this cloud consists of waves of various amplitudes and frequencies that pass through one another in every which way. Some junctures produce wave configurations that resonate with one another and these are what we refer to as the elementary particles that form matter. Each of these infinitesimally small standing wave junctures (some more stable than others) are strongest at their centers and also radiate their own waves, which we refer to as the electromagnetic spectrum. Any point produced within this grand matrix is but the deterministic wave configuration at a given moment of time.
What we have is deterministic wave propagation over time, which is completely independent of locality because any point within the wave matrix could be considered a reference point unto itself. We as people are composed of an infinitude of these tiny junctures, and it is the electromagnetic waves that are reflected by these junctures that produce the phenomena which we experience as the material world. What we perceive as objects stationary and in motion are merely second generation wave phenomena animated by underlying deterministic patterns. Incoming waves making their way toward us, are in our futures and may possibly enter our present. Those that have passed through us are in our pasts never again to be experienced. It is only those that are in the process of passing through us that may ultimately produce the experience we refer to as the sensation of awareness.
We are simply second generation high-density interference patterns. No point is local to any other because each point is contained in every other point’s past or future; each object is but a suspension of wave patterns. Our thoughts and perceptions are deterministic rivers of instantaneously evolving waves, of whose origins are possibly light years away. The universe expands each moment and the fields that compose it dissipate over time, and this process is deterministic evolution. From our point of view – a momentary construct which for us becomes a continually transforming intellectual projection.
Again, there is no point that is local to any other point as all points are separated by time and space - and this includes the points we consider to be parts of our mind or our brain. Points in space-time are local only unto themselves. What I’m trying to get at – at least from a theoretical perspective is that at everything is non-local, though what we consider as our perception and awareness is so coarse-grained, it appears to us as being local. Locality appears to be at the very root of what we require for our survival, but again, this is an illusory concept because it only appears that we have some say in the matter, and our thought processes, which ride atop the malleable liquid-like underlying structure is what we hold as our crowning glory.
tribes.tribe.net/willfulig...882d572239Fri, May 2, 2008 - 10:22 AM permalink - 1 comment
It’s been proposed that all matter down to the smallest of particles is but the location of intersections of waves, their fleeting material characteristics emerging only when our awareness (itself a complex wave configuration) finds itself attuned to the frequencies of the material object(s) in question.
So, the whole of the material universe might be seen as our sympathetic yet deterministic responses to waves approaching and leaving us (in and out waves).
Now, if there’s even a shred truth to this description, it just might be a possible answer to the paradox of non-locality, in that everything
could in a sense be framed as being non-local, and that our observations and interpretations of these non-local phenomena may only ppear from our vantage points as being local.
The text was lifted from a thread in WIWed, March 12, 2008 - 9:55 AM permalink - 2 comments
Peoples perspectives differ with relation to states. Many have the idea that states are a clarification of perception, that they can be developed, enabling one to more vividly, more deeply appreciate experience. I think I see a state as more of a deterministic form of genetic expression as it mates with our environment. Rather than actively choosing to be in a state, we naturally gravitate toward people, groups, ideas and locals that provide the opportunities for us to express the conditions of our inner worlds, conditions we find ourselves in rather than create. The rational mind instantaneously configures our thought processes about our states ‘after-the-fact’, causing us believe we’ve made the decisions, when in actuality – all situations could not have unfolded other than they did. It seems that our minds stitch together stories so blindingly fast as to the 'whys' and ‘hows’ that they appear to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt – at least to us.
Some people are naturally inclined to induce a state of meditation, and are literally experts from the time they are children, and they generally find themselves (without really a say) in situations that promote and foster these innate tendencies. Others simply can't effectively meditate regardless of their apparent desire or the amount of assistance they might receive from others. The cultivation of the art for some is just not part of their nature.
It would appear that our states, from the grossest to the most rarefied, are all superposed upon one another, and the perspective a person finds their self residing is but their life playing itself out at a given moment. Again, I don’t think this is something we have under our immediate control – as in, ‘could you have responded to that last sentence in any other way than you did at that moment’? And, you alone, experienced that now-fading moment as it then was in whatever state you happened to be immersed. So, of course, someone that does not share your experiences will not know exactly what you are talking about, nor will they understand what you are saying from your particular point of view. None of us share each others’ unique perceptions and the thoughts and feelings that they spawn, and in this sense, at least to some degree, we are all isolated. And all the same.
At times I've reflected about love, what it is exactly, and the more I consider it, the more I realize how little I understand exactly what it is. There's a love between two people in a close bond that ebbs and flows around a mutually accepted understanding, and this in a sense can be applied to animals as well to some degree, I guess. There's the characterization of love of an activity, either to watch or be a participant in. And of course there's 'I love chocolate'. And those times I find myself in a state where I'm more receptive, more sensitive to people and things in my environment, and less likely to react in a way that might be interpreted as conflicting - sort of a general sense of love or connectedness in relation to the world around me.Mon, February 11, 2008 - 11:03 PM permalink - 12 comments
There are so many ways I use the word love, each applied differently to so many different experiences, which themselves operate in concert across a variety of anatomical locations. It seems in a certain respect, categorizing or commenting about the experience or the feeling I was having during an experience, just by the very nature of this process occurring throws me out of the world of immediate experience and into the world of after-the-fact analysis. Though, this might be a necessary and integral part of the process.
The more I think about love, the wider the umbrella grows, covering a vast range of experiences and characterization of those experiences. Come to think about it, the more I consider about what love is, the more nebulous the concept of what it is becomes.