The "Now" is all there is. Perception merely strings together continuity of "nows" so we can make sense of the physical arena in which consciousness is taking play.

I'm not sure there is a "now" any more "a priori" than there is an "everywhen" ; the infinite "number line" is as valid as the "point" upon it.

If the "now" is defined as "this point,...just this point,...Oh,...and everywhen/everywhere else,.....well now,.....you may have a point.

Fun with metaphysics ; this IS a good holiday ! HUZZAH !

Yep, metaphysics is awesome. What I meant by the "now" was that we can break down time to the Planck second (the amount of time required by a photon to cross 10^-33cm, the planck length). As the human vision system strings together images at a rate of around 24 frames per second, I am suggesting that our consciousness strings together a continuum of physical reality at the frame rate of the planck second. At each frame, our personal consciousness resonates with the quantum hologram/ zero-point vacuum at a certain frequency dependent on how our beliefs structure our neurophysiology (tuning the receiver). Once that frame of reality is brought into existence, just like a virtual particle, it recedes back to the quantum source. Then the next frame appears and recedes... and so on. I refer to each frame or "now' as a steady-state holomovement. It is yogic adepts, mystics,shamans, and the enlightened, who can focus their consciousness down to that frame of reference. In doing so allows them to gain awareness of the process of creation and manifestation of physical reality from the source of all potentiality (the quantum hologram). This ability has allowed any of the spiritually adept to do what seems "miraculous" to the normal perceiver. That's my take on how there is only the "now". So at every moment, if you can become aware of the process, you allow your innate abilities as a true creator to manifest, controlling and shaping which reality you choose to perceive in the next "now".

You got your terms and logics and beliefs mixed up mate, be wary in what you say is the truth.

No, I definitely do not have my terms or logic mixed up. It is a nobel prize (1954, I believe) winning fact that all energy is derivative from the the zero-point vacuum. That is undebatable. The issues of a scientific approach to understanding consciousness is basically all I read about. I am describing consciousness from a monistic idealism and is not something generated by the brain but received and interpreted by the brain. There is a lot of scientific evidence now, (I'll send you plenty of papers on this type of research if you are interested) suggesting that consciousness, in terms of its origin, has nothing to do with the brain. When I refer to consciousness I refer to a field that penetrates all realities, physical and beyond. What I just described is basically what Edgar Mitchell is researching at the Institute of Noetic Sciences. In no way, do I consider that an absolute truth, but one very different way of looking at things that tend to make a little more sense of mystical and transcendant experiences. I am deifintely among a growing number of scientists who are thinking in this manner (Edgar Mitchell, Ervin Laszlo, Amit Gotsawmi, Roger Penrose, Karl Pribram, Thomas Campbell, Nassim Haramein, Stan Tennen, Richard Hoagland, Tom Bearden, Carl Jung, Fred Ala Wolfe .... the list goes on for a while). It takes a very open mind and a huge leap in rational at first to even consider the possibility of a meta-paradigm of consciousness, like I am suggesting. But a body of growing evidence has come about from this work that has a consilience with the notions of time, space, and the material world in general, that many ancient adepts spoke of.

Best post!

What's it like?

+^'d.
You reminded me about something I read a while ago. I think it was ancient eastern philosophy, and it said that the mind exists on it's own without the brain, while the brain is merely a decoding vessel for the mind, because the mind is a higher power. If that is true, then this is indeed a bit pointless. It is interesting to try and understand things at a human level though, which I guess is what the scientists are doing.

very well said

I have to clean my screen because my mind exploded!

Absolutely! All of the new science I have been reading is confirming ancient mystics ideals such as all that exists is the One consciousness or mind. We are just one of its infinitude of manifestations. Our brains are just very intricate frequency tuners, able to resonate with a larger frame of reality, the Quantum Hologram (check out the work of Edgar Mitchell, 6th man to walk on the moon). this resonance defines out personal consciousness. Our state of being determines how time is experienced. Time and space, are relative and malleable, all dependent on ones state of mind and perceptions, formed by their belief structures.

Also relating to one's ability to shape the subjective experience of time, one should check out the "Yoga of Time Travel" by Fred Alan Wolfe, a physicist.

Yep. Consciousness is a compltey subjective phenomena and can only be experienced. No amount of literature or studying will allow one to begin to comprehend what it is. Experience is necessary to grasp what it is. Then you can attempt to describe that through language, but such a perceptual framework can never encompass such vast amounts of information.

Th3 mind is vast but always grounded. The mind is limitless, compared to what we can actually perceive. So try to fill it up as much as possible.

consciousness is both subjective and objective depending on which form of consciousness youre speaking of. primary or direct consciousness is objective because it can be picked up on functional-MRI scans (you think of something and it flashes a spot in your brain), however the unconscious (or sometimes referred as subconscious) is subjective because that is running 24/7 and you can't control it or pick it up...we just know its there. You would love Freud and Jung.

heres food for thought, if the brain creates the mind than what happens to the mind when the brain ceases to be.

I enjoy Carl Jung a lot, but Freud does make some valid points but I do not agree with several of his ideas. I just can't trust cokeheads, I guess. Yes, I understand how modern psychology describes states of consciousness. I get that brainwave states (frequencies ie. alpha, beta, theta, delta) can be correlated to certain cognitive states. I use binaureal beats and several other techniques for meditation that exploit this principle. Mdern psychology since the days of Behaviorism with Watson, has thrown the subjective experience out the window, far away from scientific scrutiny. It has followed a path of material reductionism and epiphenomenalism, and now it is completely stuck in trying to figure out what consciousness is. This is where the physicists are stepping in now. In my opinion and the research is beginning to support this, that what we are measuring (in terms of brainwaves) is not consciousness itself, but the manner in which the brain is interpreting and resonating, with the consciousness field. That make sense at all? the brain, as the amazing poiece of hardware it is, can tune into any of the infiinite amount of frequencies emitted by universal consciousness. What I mean by the subjectivity of consciousness is that to understand its true inherent properties, its qualia, since it is a non-physical phenomena, it takes the desire and intent to delve into ones own psyche and beyond through mediation, visuazliation, concentration and introspesction. We cannot understand the qualia of consciousness through physical means. Science can show us how the brain picks up this field, but thats about as far as pscyhology can go right now. The rest is up to subjectively experience varying levels of consciousness and learn to methodically report your experiences (just like the Tibetan yogis, the true psychonauts of the planet). Are you beginning to see where my viewpoint is coming from? Let me know if you are interested in some sources, because I have plenty to back up what I am saying.