Blueyedlion

What i would say to clarify my position, is that both emotional and mental stress throughout the body create these issues in the head, where these issues then become triggered into diseases.

https://medlineplus.gov/fungalinfections.html You are more likely to get a fungal infection if you have a weakened immune system or take antibiotics.

That would be a great follow up study haha

Well that's due in part to a weakened immune system which again starts with issues within the head.

This is speculation on my part, though i believe this because this is where the hormones are triggered in the body. This is where emotions come to rest. They rest in the head, so they can be analyzed. They may be created throughout the entire body, but I feel that they come to the head to rest so that the thoughts can define why you feel this way, to absorb the status or the structure of the body and because the emotions come here and the thoughts are generated here and our belief systems lie here and our hormones are directed from here and, because we don’t fully understand how the brain functions, we’re not capable of rewiring it for optimum health. Would anyone care to speculate on this further?

For any of you scientists educated in this field out there reading this, all you need to do is follow through with this hypothesis and you will find out this is indeed the case. Please do the necessary research and experimenting to find out how this could be possible and you will find that it is. Cheers

When you step into a house, do you not feel the 'energy' or the presence of the house as distinct from your own? Different houses give off a different vibe, why do you think? Sometimes it feels negative, sometimes positive, but either way you can actually feel that sensation what ever you would like to call it. That vibe comes from the people living there, for you will notice that people who seem good to you and make you feel comfortable and relaxed, that feeling will radiate throughout the house. Even when they leave the house you can still feel it. Have you ever felt like you just needed to get out of a place and you couldnt really identify why? "i just dont like the feel of this place" Try it out yourself. Test it, experiment. That depends, often based off what? Your intuition is the most important thing there is when trusting anything. However, those that arn't very sensitive to their intuition will rely on their intellect to figure things out and that will mostly be mistaken, yes. You're mind goes through a series of filters in order to make sense of things, and as it does this distortion happens, because the naked experience you just had did not exist as a distortion, but the mind complicates it. When your gut and heart sense something, that is an automatic reaction to it, there's no filter, it's immediate. That's apart of your intuition and there's no distortion because what's being sensed is only a reflection reacting back from what is affecting you. Your gut and heart are just a mirror of sensations telling you what's going on outside. If you truly don't give much weight to your perceptions, then why are you trusting what you see as you read this sentence? Or when you talk to another person, or just in your everyday life? You rely constantly that the reality you're in is real in order to react as you do to them in earnest. You have to rely on your own moment to moment experiences, or your logically saying that your senses aren't good enough, but another person's is. Except that you've already placed the human experience in your mind as faulty, so whose senses are you relying on if science is based on the senses of those you cant trust? That would meant the entire scientific establishment has no merit in understanding reality because our scientific instruments are made by faulty brains in the first place. Please identify what are these sensory mistakes so we can discuss the importance of how significant they are in the human experience.

Feelings are not meant to be objective in our current evolution as a species, that's why we have empathy at an individual level. If feelings were objective we wouldn't need science to tell us about the external world because would know it all through our own intuitive knowing. Our limitations within empathy tell us that in order to understand the external, we need to feel how we are internally first before we can apply that to others, just in the same way we must understand our minds before we can work out the minds of others. But if you are applying your mental efforts only, on the side of intellect, then your limiting what you know when you're assuming everything follows mental understanding. But, you already know that there is a knowing in feeling, so why remove that from the importance of inquiry? Feelings are perfectly applicable to know and to seek within science. When you look within yourself and feel what you are, some may call that meditation, or just being in tune with your environment in being apart of the flow, you are dealing with a reality just as significant and real as the external. Otherwise Phi for all, what you're essentially saying, is that you dont understand yourself and how you exist without validation from others. So you're looking for others outside of yourself to tell you what and who you are. But you already know you more than anyone else ever could, because you're literally the one, the only one having the experience of you, as you. You will find with in a second of internal inquiry that non of the concepts of the external world will really apply to you either physically, mentally or emotionally, because ask yourself - are you a male, or is a male just a body image, are you your body or are you experiencing your body? If you are experiencing your body then that's not you. The actual you, is the one that isnt experiencing a sensation of itself, for to experience something is to connect to it. What ever you want to call it, the mind, the consciousness or the soul, it is the part of you that all your experiences are being fed back to. You are the conscious observer, so when thoughts come into mind, you're observing those thoughts, you are not those thoughts. You are the one listening to the thought, reflecting off it to experiencing the sensation of thinking. But you cant do that to yourself can you? The observer cant observe itself. All you can find is that this experience is a shell. Find somewhere quiet and see for yourself. If you're so interested in what reality is, try it out. What's more important in understanding reality then your own. And you have yourself every second of your life to experiment on yourself. So think about it, how can anyone else but you ever figure out this core self, when you're the only one doing the observing of you? No one else can meditate for you, or think for you as you, so why are you reading science journals and articles from someone else relying on them to tell you what experience you're having when you're the one having the experience for yourself? That's like asking someone else to read the newspaper for you when you've got your own eyes. Only direct your 'eyes' inward. What you're really doing is surrendering your ability to think for yourself and perform true inquiry into reality when asking someone else to tell you what you're experiencing. But you're the experiencer, how can you rely on someone else to tell you what you experienced? You can most definitely receive validation from a shared experience, but you are not sharing you as you. That's the point. Of course in the laboratory or in the meeting room environment your experiences are being shared collectively. Question and test he external with others, but you will still know what is your experience much more of who you are within your experience as you, then if you didnt and just surrendered your understanding to someone else whose not undergoing the part of experience you are. Be the scientist towards yourself. Well in terms of the after life, why dont perform you own experiment and try and communicate with your past loved one, if you don't believe in spirits. (Everyone here reading this do this too) Sit in a pitch black room with your eyes closed where you dont have a lot to distract your eyes with, then softly open them, kinda keep them a little unfocused, because you cant keep them focused on one particular item. It’s almost like testing our five senses and putting them in strained situations. Wave your hand over your face and if you don’t see it happening, that’s what you want. You’re used to opening up your eyes and seeing depth perception where you are in a room, a horizon line. So your eyes have the expectation to feed you that information. You’re used to it, now you’re in the dark and you’re opening your eyes you can’t see the horizon; you can’t see what’s in around you. So you eyes are going to look harder. They’re going to look in a different way. This is the time that you can use your sense of sight in a different way. So if you keep your eyes open and softly gazing into space, it’s not on something because you can’t see an item, so it’s softly gazing into space. call on a past loved one and no one else. You'll start to see subtle light energy in the darkness which is what your loved one has just became to communicate with you. It has no body and now has become subtle light energy. Of course some of what you'll see looks like squiggly things and cells, but that’s actually very low light shining on the cells in the back of your eye and projecting. If you move your eyes and those squiggly things go with it, that’s not subtle light energy. That’s you seeing the reflection of your cells, flakes and things like that in the back of your eye. But if you see blobs of light and you turn away and they stay in place and you look back and they’re there, that’s subtle light energy. For lack of noticing time it’s triggering your brain to listen and behave outside of its usual, “I’m hearing a sound, and it’s this way 15 feet away at this pitch.” So, it activates different parts of the brain. What you'll get from spirits is sometimes a sound in the back of your head. You have this internal voice. They may use that spot where your internal voice is to generate conversation. They can throw some words in there and get you to think about it and help guide you. Now, the difference would be, you stop and go, “That’s odd.” Maybe that’s not a word you use, or it sounded like your voice, but it was talking to you in a way that you really don’t do with yourself. So you get this curiosity. The doubt. The “Huh?” That’s when you can say, “Okay, so I’m having an intuitive moment. It’s not clear, but I’m going to go ahead and acknowledge that it’s not 100% me. If you don't believe in it and your logical brain goes, “ I need this kind of proof three times" That’s not going to happen. If you’re not having the experience, it’s you having demands. You have to figure out the way that you can get your information the easiest. Are you a good listener? Are you a good feeler? Are you a good seer? Pick one of those and ask your loved one to use that to give you a sign or message. Then take away the expectation. Don’t tell them how to perform in that way. Like if you’re a good feeler, don’t say, “Okay, come and mess with my hair.” They might not be good at messing with your hair, but they’re absolutely great at giving you hugs and getting your chest all tight and you'll feel like you’re having an anxiety attack. So if you don’t put an expectation on it, they can perform better according to your needs. If you like, pick a hand that represents yes and you pick a hand that represents no. Keep your hands separate from each other, don’t keep them next to each other and after you get a sensation in your hand, acknowledge it so that they know to stop so you can go back to feeling normal, and you can begin the next question.

No no, i do in fact believe in spirit, but right now we're talking about extra-sensory perception. Dont confuse extra-sensory perception with spirituality. They're relate deeply but can be of their own heading. Met? no, but it's a fact that plants feel pain. They react as we would in fear most definitely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGLABm7jJ-Y Ok 1) The brain's vast networks of chemicals are the aperture by which emotions pass through to allow us to experience them. Realize that the sensation you have of an emotion cant turn back into physicality can it? no. Think of it this way, your brain produces certain chemicals through its networks, your mind as the self becomes conscious of those feelings. The mind is now experiencing the sensation of those chemicals as not the physical rush of nerve signals of pleasure or pain, but of a sensation that is not physical experience. When you feel pain you feel the physical effects of it from your body. Go ahead and eat something you like that will make you really happy, be sensitive and listen to where the happiness is being experienced. What physical part can you place it? I'm sure you can locate the physical sensation your body is making to produce the emotion but you cant locate the feeling and place it in your hand can you. Physicality is just the wheels of a car that allow consciousness and emotions to move through. Physicality doesn't create more physicality, it just changes form, so what form is that state of matter taking when you feel it? plasma? gas? When you look at a physical process and say "ah! that protein is reacting to that chemical bond in that way so that's the reason why, that's the initial cause." No, it's that those physical processes are the means by which conscious moves through to allow those functions to work out. There is an awareness guiding it because there is a pattern. Once you notice a pattern you notice logic. We are only acknowledging in recognition that what is logical, is so, because we are seeing something that's operating logically independent of us. When you see logic in the behavior of solar systems or atoms or animals, that's not you creating a logic out of nothing as to only makes sense to you or us as humans. That's you seeing something your mind is reflecting in logic that's already in existence. Your mind is making sense of something because there is already logic operating and you are now understanding it through your own logic in acknowledgement. 2) For the same reason the damage in radio wiring messes up the signal. The brain is a receiver of conciseness, damage it enough and the consciousness changes. Dull it and it slows. Where is that consciousness coming from? Ask and i'll tell you. 3) Not a physical space, but with the lack of vocabulary the human language has to describe reality, the best is space. Only in the same sense that your mind has it's own mental space but you know within yourself that it's not physical, but it's still a 'space.' It's not about being identical. Their experience is theirs to be had, conveying sympathy is all most of us can know and do. The point is, that emotional connection between the close friend and you is what's important. Because understanding someone on an intellectual level is about how smart you are, on a physical level is how great your body is, but when you give sympathy, when you're compassionate neither of those other things mean anything anymore because how you feel will always identify you more than anything else. And that importance of feeling is an identification of the human experience, if not life is really about. When you feel sad, that affects contagiously, as does happiness, our emotions spirituality potent because of how they affect ourselves and our relationships with others regardless of how well we know them. That's something very noticeably significant as black holes or quarks. The way the universe connects with its self within the level of the human experience is most strong when emotional. That should tell you something. Atoms connect with negative and positive charges, humans with negative and positive emotions - not wrong or right thoughts... There are true mind illusions yes. However, things that are of fear will always be illusory simply because fear isnt tangible. It's first created in the mind due to the perception of things. But what is actual fear, where is the experience of fear that can be studied? there is the reaction of it only. There are two types of fear, the fear from the mind and the fear coming from adrenaline. Your patient was not in any physical real world danger so it was mind based. We both know that. Physical fear is there out of protection, it's an intuitive ability to identify we're in harms way without actually seeing the harm. His mind and his heart were out of sync. That's what intuition is for, you listen to that more and more and then you don't need other opinions as much. Just your own guidance No but my point is, what you feel is more truthful then what science in it's intellectual sense can ever be because we're more than our intellect, we're a whole body. Actually the whole point is that the general attitude in science is that our mental representation of the world is the only approximation worth considering as truth. The distinction is there, for science explores reality through collectively agreed upon thoughts through symbols, but not any other sensory experiences. There's no science meditation. There's no science of feeling because no one but the person experiencing it can agree that's the actual matter of fact. For this reason, science says - you may very well be feeling some thing, but we cant verify outside of yourself what that thing truly is, so we dont really know if what you're feeling is real. That puts your own personal experience under questioning when you rely on it every second of your life to to understand who and what you are. And it's also why we're still debating if animals outside ourselves can even feel, thats how far back in science we still are, because we're using logic without the empathy. We are using our intellect to measure reality when we have emotions to measure reality inside of everyday but we dont use it at the same level even though the human experience is always more deep and important when emotions matter. One might say, "well the human experience is just egocentric thinking, that what is important to us is universal to the rest of the cosmos." Well name one example of science where something so deep didnt have an affect on everything else? Once we understood the depth of matter we understood the reality of subatomic particles. Once we understood the depth of space we understood a cosmos of billions of galaxies, black holes, planets and suns. Looking at the human experience as the universe being aware of itself, thinking, feeling, crying, loving - there's no journey of depth there besides our mental efforts, and yet even though emotions may not look like much they are what make the biggest impact in our lives and it is what makes people change over night. In understanding that in itself is to understand that the universe is feeling love and joy and depression through us. That isnt something to be ignored and yet science does, simply because it cant verify to others what we already know we experience more intimately than anything else.depression through us. That isnt something to be ignored and yet science does, simply because it cant verify to others what we already know we experience more intimately than anything else.

Yeah you're right, i dont think i knew what i was talking about at all concerning argumentative logic. Lol cheers for the schooling

Where have i identified in sentence anything that's anything spirit related in what you just responded to? I'm talking about an experience that can feel the presence of another that's not tactile, it's not a feeling felt as your body, it's the type of feeling you have of your own self's presence you have of yourself right now, that energy of presence can be felt from others as distinguishable from yourself. You dont need to mix anything that's non-physcal as to do with spirit. Your awareness of self is in mind is not physical so there's a clue right there. In reply to your statement that people can communicate their subjective experience, it is more clearer to say that what is being communicated is both in part personal and collectively shared. However, what you see coming out of the personal experience is the outward appearance of what is still being experienced within and of the individual. That is to say, when a person cries in sadness, the inward emotional experience for that person is not the same experience of what is expressed emotionally outwards on the surface body for others to see. It is only the physical bodies interpretation or expression of it, it is not the same experience of sadness being felt inward. What happens is a person can bring their attention of their sadness to the outwards surface and then focus on how they are feeling physically, this steps into ego because the person is now mixing how they feel as who they are, with how they look and what's happening to their body. The sadness is not originating as physicality, it is an inward sensation that has no organs or any bodily functions working like clockwork cogs allowing the emotions to flow throughout. Instead there is a sensation that is not a fixed location designated as whole or part of the body, though we feel it as the space our body lives in. Your heart does not generate sadness, nor does your brain, there is non-physical property that encompasses your self that you know as the space you're in as you. Whether you would like to locate that down to the subatomic level is up to you, but that does not solve the origin, it only moves it to a different physical space. To clarify, what ever you outwardly communicate in any form, will not be the actual experience you are having, it will be the wrapped up presentation of it, sliced and diced for export and without you there to experience it as the actual experience. When you convey to another that you just walked over to them from another place, you can use your two fingers to give the impression of two legs walking. But you are not walking in that experience of using your fingers to convey it. Communication is not the actual personal experience, for when you are sad with tears running down your face, that is a natural biological communication to others that you are feeling that way, but the sadness is not the drops of tears running down your face, it is not the act of crying - that physical expression of it. And in just the same way your internal organs are not the sadness, they are expressing physically how you feel just as your eyes do when you cry. They are the body expressing the emotion inward as the body expresses it outward. But they are not the origin of the feeling, when you cry, when your heart beats fast, your sadness is not that heart beating or that crying. Is physicality an illusion? no. You feel it, that's a real experience. You don't need to confirm to yourself you feel something by asking others if they feel something similar. Sight and sound only allow our minds to re-affirm that what we are and what we're doing through the comparison of others. That need to be provided evidence for anything is a result of an insecurity of who you are, that you need the confirming experience of others to make sure yours is on track, that's a good or real, or a correct experience. When you trust yourself in who you are within your own experience, there's no questioning and there's no doubt, no fear. Science is a question for the search for knowing, but why question yourself once you already know who you are? Once you rely on others to tell you who you are, what you are, why you are, how you are and where you are, you're robbing yourself of your own reliance of ability to know the reality of yourself through the use of reason and feeling. You're giving your power of self to someone else. No, the best approximation is your own experience. You can apply your own experience through the process of science, but without science you still know what you're feeling and thinking is real. Yes you can be tricked into seeing things, and you can be manipulated to feeling things, but those tricks and manipulations are still real experiences to be had and to embrace. What the truth of the matter is beyond them - for example how many smaller triangles are really in the larger triangle or if the tv food advertisement is really making you feel hungry, they all comes back to yourself in, what are you learning about yourself in this experience, what is there to be gained in understanding yourself, trick or not. For once you reject an experience because it made you feel foolish or wrong or was something that didn't please you and put you in an agreeable position, you're simply wanting an escape. Because your ego is telling you, all your experiences should be pleasant and assured in understanding and if they're not then why have them. But you had those experiences that were 'bad 'as you, you were those things for those times. So there's nothing to run from but your idea of them for how you want to see yourself. You live in a reality where things break apart and come together, you are of that existence, so why only embrace half of that experience? It is best to understand that nothing can unify without it first being separate, and nothing can separate unless it was first unified. They are the same exact force seen in a different perspective. Treat everything you experience as something to embrace and you wont need others to tell you what you already know as you, for you wont be second guessing your experience once you embrace all of it. Well yeah i agree, i mean, what's the point in anyone embracing a spirit if they dont know what a spirit is in the first place. Embrace yourself completely and then you can embrace others completely and then you'll know what spirit is. I was being sarcastic. i was identifying the nonsense of him saying if it can be felt there should be a device to sense it. As if all feeling is physical in nature to be picked up by a device or even a device that doesnt feel.

Space and content are the same thing, the content creates the space or in other words, space is both the room and stuff that moves within it. Look at any 'empty' space around you, that's a physical environment with denser properties we call objects and stuff within it. If space wasn't tangible nothing could move through it. Enough said.

You just said the space around us is absolutely nothingness... There's no such thing as nothing, there is always something. On object cant move into nothingness. There has to be something filling up a volume of space to give it space.

What is spirit in any measurable description? let's not go there. Have you ever felt you were being watched? Where does that feeling do you think come from? I'm saying yes there is a feeling of knowing of another beyond the physical. That everyone gives of a presence that can be sensed, but like everything else they come in degrees. Some people smell more noticeable than others, some can smell better than others, some can be seen in appearance more noticeable than others via attraction, some can visually see better then others. Etc Etc. So why not allow yourself the mind that there is a presence of another that some of us can receive better than others and some people's presence can be produced better than others? What that presence is, is highly personal because we are talking about an individual experience that cant be shared. How do you convey and share an experience of you how you feel about the presence of your partner to them? You can say, well you are making me feel excited and comfortable, but they cant feel what you're feeling. It's your own feeling. It's a real factual feeling but science cant touch it. But does that remove the reality of it? What you're telling me is you think reality is completely physical based? Dare i ask you... if you didnt have the scientific evidence for why a girl liked you, why you feel for her as you do and why are you now both going out together, (moving forward in time) now you're in love with her.. would you question it and put your relationship through a battery of scientific evaluation? Or would you trust how you feel and act upon it? And even if you were to try and engage in some scientific measure of love for each other or just your love for her, where's the scientific device to measure infatuation, desire, lust and most importantly love? Are you going to study every single time your brain lights up in an MRI when you love her whats going on within the brains wiring? all the chemical processes? What happens when you love her more some days then less or more one hour and less the next? are you going to live in an MRI machine? And how would you even translate what your brains is doing when you feel in love as your brain actually in love? which parts? for how long? Lol and even if you to some how measure your love for her, that will be the measurement of then at the fact of the moment in which it was felt, not later when you are reading the results. Truly, there's no way to apply science to the feeling of love in any way but i'm sure you believe in love anyway. Just like you love yourself and your family. Where's the detector to measure how you feel about yourself and them? Science can not touch personal experience and yet it's absolutely real. Once you begin to put your own experience to the side because it is not corroborated by others, you're essentially becoming less human. Think about it. Feeling is more important than seeing or anything else.

What are you talking about arguments for? Logic is the topic of discussion... Yes you can apply logic to your position when arguing in conversation, but no one's talking about the application of logic in argumentative communication. What's being discussed is the merit of logical thinking in deducing what reality is. If you were to apply logic to 'why are you feeling hungry?' The answer would most likely be that your body needs nutrition to keep itself going. That would make sense. However, if you were the type that ate until you were full to the extent that you ate more than your body required and you ate at selected times such as let's say breakfast 8 am, lunch 1 pm and dinner 6 pm every day, then you would be feeling hungry based off your mind telling your stomach when to feel hungry at certain times and not based on what your stomach is actually telling you. And so your hunger would not be based on a feeling but your opinion of yourself that would be telling your stomach when to be hungry. In this example, logic plays no part in understanding your body when you apply common sense to it, because you're applying trends of others to inform you when is best to conduct your dietary needs. Instead of listening to your body, to which it does not operate in mental logic, but sense feeling. And so here we have a perfectly good example of how why we should question the capability of logic. Logic isn't going to tell you when your hungry, for feeling is not a thinking. Just to reinforce my point, logic is not arguing. When you think of a premise to a conclusion, only when you are in conflict with anothers premise you wish to counter is that then an argument. And so of course concluding a premise is the function of logic, but for some strange reason you're thinking you have to involve an element of conflict between you and another for logic to be used. To have a premise, you have to have a foundation of what makes sense to you, which comes firstly from real world experience. Logic is you making sense of reality because you can only understand something based off the foundations of what you know and understand. It really does though. You can apply logic to your imagination and say - in my story i'm thinking up, the set rules are that physics don't apply and i can do anything outside what is considered logical and possible. Here, you are creating your own set of conditions (or if you like no conditions and all) of what is logical and everything is abstraction. With the use of your imagination, the logic we use to understand reality has no merit. Your logic is of your own making but it is still logic - what makes sense to you. In this understanding of logic, there is no room for arguments, there is no common ground of experience to discuss. Now when using imagination to create what is logical, the use of abstract thought is the same mechanism used when in argumentative discussion, the only difference is that you have to bring your premise back down to reality in order be on the same level of accepting what is possible. You have to have a common ground and that common ground must be our shared experience of reality, not your own imagination of abstraction the other whom you are arguing with cannot relate to. And how can anyone else relate in understanding of that premise that's yours is, unless they had some sort of commonly shared experience of understanding from which to draw from in order conclude from? And what is truth? I'll tell you, when you are using imagination you are in your own truth as much as you are when you feel a physical or emotional experience. Reality exists in part in your mind as a state of mind. What you think is in fact a real experience for your mind. But sharing truth means sharing an agreed upon physical experience, to which your mind must draw from past or current memorable experiences from. Well im pretty sure i just explained pretty damn well otherwise. I'l be looking forward to your reply

Who said it had to be constant? i never said it had to be, where are you getting the idea that you have to be happy all the time? What's being asked is, can you be happy without others and im saying you can be very easily. Explain to me what part of what ive expressed doesnt make sense? Self happiness doesnt mean you have to be in that state all the time, but it means if you need others to feel happy, then there's something you're rejecting about yourself that's stopping yourself from allowing you to enjoy you as you truly are. Of course we can feel disappointed and frustrated and sad ourselves at times, but they are states to welcome for the human experience is meant to teach you about who you are and you cant do that if there's no emotional, physiological, physical nor spiritual work to do on yourself. Of yourself - 'Happiness boils down to how much people care about themselves in respect and love.' I explained the answer to your question in the very question you asked. Did you not read the entire sentence?

Since non of us can recall our baby days, lets move to how we feel about sharing and happiness now in our adult lives shall we. Happiness boils down to how much people care about themselves in respect and love. When these qualities of self-love and self-respect don't apply to people's emotional state of how they feel, happiness wont be felt. As a result of a person lacking them, they look to others to show and give them love and respect in order to fill in what they dont give themselves. A person may enjoy the company of another in order to feel cared for, and that enjoyment may indeed make the person more happy than they were prior to being in the other's company, but once that person has a respect for themselves of who they are in all ways - mental, physical, emotional, and even spiritual (who they are in relation to others) then they don't need the others company to feel happy because they have self acceptance of their state of being. Once one can accept that it's perfectly ok to love oneself in all ways, and not feel inferior in comparison to others, then happiness follows. The process is to live outside of judgement of others and yourself by comparison, for to compare is to compete. Don't compare your past actions with your current actions otherwise your competing with yourself, and not to compare yourself with others, again pointless competition. If you respect and love yourself, you dont need to compare because you already accept who you are. Learning without judgement is true growth.

I don't follow your example one bit. You are creating a proposition based off what you think you're experience of the world is. It is in fact a testing of your reality, an exploration of how you experience the world. What game are you paying here?? "If the world is a disc" Is a direct posit on the inquiry of reality. Your proposition will always come out of how you think reality works - 'i propose something is like this' and that 'something' will be a segment of reality you are testing through a logical evaluation of it. You're taking what you know of experience and trying to making sense of it. You're telling me im doing something wrong and then doing the exact same thing yourself. What i just did is point out logically that your view is illogical.

It's easy enough to explain it like this - what is logical is what a person thinks should make sense based on what they think reality is for them. So the logic of awareness of someone who lived a thousand years ago wont be able to apply to what a person now knows of reality. It wouldn't be logical to think a person can travel around the world in over a day, or that you can break both your legs and then end up walking in just a year. Anything in the future will happen anyway, regardless of whether it would make sense based on our current understanding of reality. In this way of thinking, anything is possible, we just haven't seen the evidence for it yet. Science does not reveal what is truth, science reveals truth's process, how truth can eventuate. The laws of physics are not rock solid, for the beginning of the universe expanded faster than light, so we know what we think something is as fact, will always be momentary. What stops both progress of thought and what is truly logical in deduction, is the presumption that without substantial evidence something can not be. However, everything that can exist and can be, and already does in some form, we're just discovering them out for ourselves and then claiming everything outside of those limited handfuls of discoveries can't exist and it's not logical to because of the lack of supporting evidence. Until more evidence is found, we don't know and it's not worth the mind - this is dishonest thinking. The person is saying, i am uncomfortable to use my imagination outside what is already known because i could discover I'm wrong, and if I'm wrong I'm made a fool to myself and perhaps others, so I'll just go along with whats established. This amounts to - everything in this pitch black room the flashlight touches is real and everything it doesn't touch is not real. However, everything is energy, nothing can’t divide away from it. The problem is, when you look at what is possible and what isn't, we think that reality is completely separate, that what's possible has an identity of its own. What is possible of reality is the room whether the light’s off or the light’s on. When the light is off, isn’t the room still there? It’s just different variations of light to darkness. Some things like to be in the room with the lights on. Some things live in total darkness, but they’re still inside the room.

I think you're missing the point, I'm saying there's a good chance that the mind isn't something we should identify as an illusion or something outside of physics that only the brain can tell us about. But as to say, something physics can definitely define as an energy that has cause and affect. Something physics has all the room in the world to explore, if it just didn't isolate reality to what it is known as physical. In art we call this the negative space - the shape of your computer is the positive space, and the background empty space around it is the negative. So if you like, imagine all of physicality is the positive space and the mind is negative space. It's still there, apart of the same whole, but it acts in a way we don't notice because it requires the physicality or positive space to be pushed to the front to be noticed. Imagine if we addressed emotions and the mind as we do with physics, as aspects of energy onto themselves overlapping with our 3D reality. In this way of thinking, what a dimension is, isn't just points and lines represented in three dimensional space, but a variety of realities within the same 'space' but in different layers. Layers we only know in part as the mind and emotions. What this can also tell us about time, is that time would no be something linear like an arrow, because your mind doesn't operate like an arrow, it expands, maybe time expands and contracts in awareness. When you're depressed time feels like it's slowing down, when you're happy it speeds up. Time adjusts to your very experience. But when we look at time through the narrow lens of what is physical, it gets very limiting. Science knows what it is in part. Here's something fun to think about - realize that what ever is defined as singular will always be apart of something else in both a larger construct or a smaller one. An apple is a smaller part of a tree and a bigger part of it's atomic equivalence. Just in the same way the apple, a human and a planet are the atomic equivalence of the universe. As soon as you try to define something as is, you're misidentifying it because you're not including the other parts it's apart of related as everything else. Because nothing is isolated from anything, everything is connected. When science tries to put down labels to grasp reality, the problem is as soon as they go by labeling something as a thing, they are now disconnecting its relevance from something else it's already apart of by saying this thing is separate. So when we define what is - be aware that knowing and accepting a definition does not then place it as a fully knowing now then by registered as all it can ever be. That would be immature and arrogant.

Well i was putting the idea across that what the definition of a dimension is, does not facilitate a much larger understanding of what a dimension can be, such as beyond the physical locations. Is your mind a location? Are your emotions locations? etc. To fix a dimension to a position, is to allow movement, your mind only expands and contracts in awareness. Does awareness physically move? Or your emotions, they only get stronger or weaker. Is the feeling of happiness into euphoria or sadness into depression a physical movement? Science needs to look at these things and figure out what a dimension really is, because i think it makes more sense to say, a point in space is a point symbolizing energy. You have 2 points in space equaling a line, but in reality that's two points of energy, two atoms, two something that's tangible. And when talking about non-physcal things, where's the line in them? if there's no line to draw there's no measurement. But it's still real so how are they quantified. You can also flip this - for within the mind, where is the physical experience? When you think, or to simply be and observe, that's not the same as feeling the touch of your keyboard which is a physical experience. Mental experience has no physical properties but you know your thinking - your knowing of self as the observer is more real then anything else, so what are your mind's dimensions? Since the most real thing there is of you is your knowing of self as you are now, to which you can not measure, then perhaps a dimension is much more than a physical property, and is more to do with the nature of energy outside physicality. Imagine your mind could expand in awareness, engulfing the entirety of all of the universe all as one moment of experience from the very beginning to the end. You would no longer be a passenger riding along one linear time frame going from one moment to the next, like watching a movie in sequence, but you would have the awareness of all the film frames playing all at the same time happening as a whole experience. In this concept, you can imagine this being a dimension could you not? There would be energy but not as solid. There would be 'points' but not as locations.

Whats more substantial to you, what you feel or what you see? For example, have you ever felt the presence of someone close as comforting or is seeing them with your eyes more so?

Hold on there, where is the point by point coordinate in the mind? In emotions? These are all non-physical properties. When you refer to dimensions as points of space, you're implying everything is physical in nature, but since it's not, that then implies a point in space does not properly describe reality as is. Dimensions need to encompass things that aren't measurable from one moment to the next. For example, think of time, where is the point by point coordinate where you were say, walking 5 minutes to where you are now? You may say well very simply 'i drew a line on the ground from where i was then until now' i would say back, but you as you are now arent there now 5 minutes ago to experience the drawing of the line, you can only see the past effect of it which gives you the indication that it happened. So what im saying, is that we can 'measure' physical things but where was the mind in this drawing of its own line from the past? You might say memory, but memory is not the actual experience, its a new creation trying to recreate or 'trace' what has seemed to have happened. The mind exists monument to moment, so you as the conscious observer can not experience your point to point coordinate of how your mind was any further in the past or future, than your mind is reading this right now. What does that tell you? Same thing with emotions, you cant recreate a feeling, you can create a new feeling that may appear similar, but it wont be the same one. Emotionally we cant recreate what was felt in the past, we can only create new emotions in the futile attempt of trying to recreate what was felt. Where are the mathematical dimensions there? Could be, but you have to have an observer for there to be an experience of reality. Which implies the experiencer is creating the reality for nothing can happen unto itself without an act upon it. For there to be an action there must be participants, and so the reality can only happen within those that are experiencing those actions, for it is only those participating that are there to act for the reality to be played out. We cant reflect what isnt happening already to us. If it's happening outside of us, then we are not participating are we? What you are participating in right now, is a continuous now moment, that's all we can experience. So how can reality be passed and future if we cant experience the involvement of them?

The best way to explain what you're experiencing is to stop recognizing time as linear, but instead circular where time speeds up and slows down. It’s like a breath. You can breathe in deep and hold it and slow down your heart rate, or you can breathe quickly and bring up your heart rate. This happens, say, when we get in a car, and we know we’re running late, but we don’t speed, but we still get there on time, maybe even a little early. And then we wonder how that happened. Because you hit the red lights like you always do; you stop at the traffic signs; you let people in front of you, and you still made it on time. And there are those that think they have plenty of time. They gather their items together, which should take just a minute, but ten minutes is gone. Time speeds up. Or like when you’re working on a project and you’re really “in the zone,” completely immersed in it, then you look at the clock, and what seemed like an hour ends up being three, because that’s an emotional state of being. With joy what do you think time does, speed up or slow down? There’s expansion and in that expansion, time feels elusive, but it speeds up.Think of a wedding. You’re getting married, your walking down the aisle, everything just seems larger than life. And then when the night’s over, you feel like you only had thirty minutes. Now think about grief. The grief state-of-mind. time moves very slowly. It’s really narrow-minded. That’s our emotional state of being affecting time, emotions can expand or contract it. Don’t you notice how when people grieve or they have hardships or challenges how they age so fast, because they've aged ten years in the past year. And look at all the presidents and how they get so gray so quickly. But when people are joyful, their bodies stay youthful. That’s a measurement of time. Emotions expand and contract time.

But a dimension is energy. Dimensions are fields of energy. What do you think a dimension is...? It has to have properties right? But anyway... I find it makes sense to see that 'time' is more like an ongoing circle instead of a thread of time where you go, ‘Oh, I’m hungry, it’s lunchtime,’ or ‘oh, I’m tired, it’s must be bedtime.’ It’s the construct or constraints we have to be able to deal with things like that, it helps us conceptualize changes in state, sequences, and other time-related things that are a necessary part of the human experience. For example, It would make more sense to say time is really an illusion, at least in a linear sense. It’s a human construct that’s created by movement through a string of creations. One moment is created, then another, then another, and the consciousness, the energy that is consciousness moves from one creation moment point to the next. That’s how the time illusion is created. Let’s take language. It’s through the very linear human language that sequences are possible. It allows us to arrange events and actions sequentially. With that sequential language, present moments become surrounded by past moments and future moments. So it’s a human fabrication. Think about all the tenses we use: past, present and future. So time exists only in consciousness, it's a function of language, motion, where motion and language create your perception of time.