Nobody can specify what is outside the universe but I know that there are infinite things outside it towards the absence of nothing/nothingness.
In other words,it is impossible for NOTHING to exist!!!

HellVictorinho:
Nobody can specify what is outside the universe but I know that there are infinite things outside it towards the absence of nothing/nothingness.
In other words,it is impossible for NOTHING to exist!!!

One must listen to hear oneself.

"No one can specify", but HellVictorinho specifies that "there are infinite things outside it towards the absence of nothing/nothingness" because HellVictorinho specifies that "it is impossible for NOTHING to exist".

Can you tell what you understand from the above if I say, some one must obviously exist to be specifying or there would be no specification. Therefore, "no one" must exist, since someone specified, twice?

You might need to not think Gods, and disbelieve, as in let your mind do the work to get a meaning for you from what is said above. If you can, tell us what your mind tells you it understands.

P.s. Anyone may participate in this exercise.

With my deepest apologies. I do not mean to seem rude.

gensteejay:

Personally, I have had dreams over the years where I saw some dead relatives and got some information from them.

These are some of my personal experiences that convinced me that there's life after death and that consciousness (soul) is immortal.

buda often dreams that buda has a million dollars in the bank. Therefore buda is convinced that buda is a millionaire.

gensteejay:
I also follow scientific research on consciousness-related issues and know their limitations.

I agree that you know. You have clearly shown the "limitation of research on consciousness-related issues". I hope that is why you therefore endeavour to do further "research on consciousness-related issues".

gensteejay:
However, I'm aware that for others to take this personal experience of mine as a fact, it needs to be verifiable (by others).

Don't you mind those others. I have the same problem with them. Whenever I go to shop with my personal experience of mine as a fact million dream dollars, I'm having trouble convincing anyone to sell anything to me. They stupidly insist that my dreams are not facts, as if they know what they talking about, and I always return home empty handed with nothing!

gensteejay:
A person might see past humans like Sango, Osun, and co, who were deified in the past as god/goddess, in a dream or meditation, but he/she could choose to call them other names like ETs or beings in other dimensions (parallel worlds).

I think a person might think they saw the past humans like Sango, Osun and co, though those who know the Yoruba Gods will tell you Sango and Osun do not have human forms because they are spirits, but since me myself is a dream dollar millionaire, can I possibly say they did not see the "facts" they saw in their dreams?

gensteejay:
OtemAtum is one guy I find very interesting. Having read his book, I can say there are many historical facts in it.

But there are many parts of the book that I can't say whether they're real or fictional.

However, 3 important reasons why I can't consider the histories in the book as a mere personal experience is due to the Seriot language he brought, the local histories in the book, and the etymology of various names in the Bible, Qur'an, and other historical figures.

The Seriot language is wondrous and looks like a natural language. I first learned the language in 2018 and am still learning it.

I think Otem is not writing what is real. Nor is Otem writing fiction or history or personal experience. Otem is writing Atum, and Otem is using Words to open eyes and minds.

gensteejay:
I don't honestly think the brain of one guy can manufacture the histories in that book with that depth and the natural language (Seriot). It looks highly impossible.

They say, the person at the bottom of a mountain can not see as far as the person at the top.

I, buda, bow to the Great Mind of OtemAtum!

Again, I apologise.

budaatum:
[s]With my deepest apologies. I do not mean to seem rude.


buda often dreams that buda has a million dollars in the bank. Therefore buda is convinced that buda is a millionaire.[/s]


I agree that you know. You have clearly shown the "limitation of research on consciousness-related issues". I hope that is why you therefore endeavour to do further "research on consciousness-related issues".


Don't you mind those others. I have the same problem with them. Whenever I go to shop with my personal experience of mine as a fact million dream dollars, I'm having trouble convincing anyone to sell anything to me. They stupidly insist that my dreams are not facts, as if they know what they talking about, and I always return home empty handed with nothing!


I think a person might think they saw the past humans like Sango, Osun and co, though those who know the Yoruba Gods will tell you Sango and Osun do not have human forms because they are spirits, but since me myself is a dream dollar millionaire, can I possibly say they did not see the "facts" they saw in their dreams?


I think Otem is not writing what is real. Nor is Otem writing fiction or history or personal experience. Otem is writing Atum, and Otem is using Words to open eyes and minds.


They say, the person at the bottom of a mountain can not see as far as the person at the top.

I, buda, bow to the Great Mind of OtemAtum!

Again, I apologise.

Your opinion. I didn't type that post for you to believe or disbelieve the claim I made or the personal experience I had.

What I stated is something I have experienced a number of times over the years. Whether you believe or disbelieve that is none of my business.

I don't have any business with whatever dreams you had. You can keep your dreams out of my mention. I don't know how "some information" is related to making money in a dream when I never mentioned anything related to finances in the post.

As for your comment about Otem, he's in the best position to talk about that.

gensteejay:

Your opinion. I didn't type that post for you to believe or disbelieve the claim I made.

What I stated is something I have experienced a number of times over the years. Whether you believe or disbelieve that is none of my business.

I don't have any business with whatever dreams you had. You can keep your dreams out of my mention.

I did not expect you would philosophise, gensteejay. Nor was I mistaken enough to consider that you would ask buda to believe or disbelieve.

In your dreams do you get to dictate who mentions you, gensteejay, because in your personal experience your dreams is fact.

budaatum:

I did not expect you would philosophise, gensteejay. Nor was I mistaken enough to consider that you would ask buda to believe or disbelieve.

In your dreams do you get to dictate who mentions you, gensteejay, because in your personal experience your dreams is fact.

Perhaps the nature of the dream I stated is shocking to you.

It's actually a very common experience among many people around the world: Many people see their dead friends, parents, guardians, partners, etc. in dreams at one time or the other.

That's nothing strange (no big deal there).

And then, dreams are a powerful tool for humans, especially if you've studied your dreams over the years and know for a fact that a number of them have come to pass.

The power of dreams is even a well-documented fact in psychoanalysis (based on Sigmund Freud's contributions in that field).

gensteejay:

Perhaps the nature of the dream I stated is shocking to you.

It's actually a very common experience among many people around the world: Many people see their dead friends, parents, guardians, partners, etc. in dreams at one time or the other.

That's nothing strange (no big deal there).

And then, dreams are a powerful tool for a humans, especially if you've studied your dreams over the years and know for a fact that a number of them have come to pass.

The power of dreams is even a well-documented fact in psychoanalysis (based on Sigmund Freud's contributions in that field).

Everything you say above is true, though Freud was like the beginning. Try Jung. He will show you the amazing powers of dreams. And perhaps one day I will show you my dream million dollars.

budaatum:

One must listen to hear oneself.

"No one can specify", but HellVictorinho specifies that "there are infinite things outside it towards the absence of nothing/nothingness" because HellVictorinho specifies that "it is impossible for NOTHING to exist".

Can you tell what you understand from the above if I say, some one must obviously exist to be specifying or there would be no specification. Therefore, "no one" must exist, since someone specified, twice?

You might need to not think Gods, and disbelieve, as in let your mind do the work to get a meaning for you from what is said above. If you can, tell us what your mind tells you it understands.

P.s. Anyone may participate in this exercise.

I never specified!!!!!!!
I only stated!!!!!
If you think "specified" and "stated" mean the same thing,then you're really thinking fantastically!!!(sarcasm)
Furthermore, the unspecified doesn't require specifications to exist.
It just exists in the presence of the chance to be specified.

HellVictorinho:

I never specified!!!!!!!
I only stated!!!!!
If you think "specified" and "stated" mean the same thing,then you're really thinking fantastically!!!(sarcasm).

Your sarcasm sounds like someone wiggling, but since you want English lessons. See below.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/12881159_notable02347_jpegc318627ee1b5f3ef37afaa44af20154f

www.nairaland.com/attachments/12881160_notable02348_jpeg16dcba224b8ee0628de9f6e0cc75ef4f

HellVictorinho:
Furthermore, the unspecified doesn't require specifications to exist.

Yes, that's true. If a tree falls in the forest, it still crashes down though no one heard it.

HellVictorinho:
It just exists in the presence of the chance to be specified.

Yes, the tree. Whether you heard it or not, it grew, it fell, with a very loud crash. But the one who begins adding the things to the tree that fell, like nothing, something, no one etc, despite never being there to witness it, that person is a stater. And their specification is not usually valid. Not literally, anyway.

You avoided the questions, hell. Saying so we both know you did.

budaatum:

Your sarcasm sounds like someone wiggling, but since you want English lessons. See below.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/12881159_notable02347_jpegc318627ee1b5f3ef37afaa44af20154f

www.nairaland.com/attachments/12881160_notable02348_jpeg16dcba224b8ee0628de9f6e0cc75ef4f


Yes, that's true. If a tree falls in the forest, it still crashes down though no one heard it.


Yes, the tree. Whether you heard it or not, it grew, it fell, with a very loud crash. But the one who begins adding the things to the tree that fell, like nothing, something, no one etc, despite never being there to witness it, that person is a stater. And their specification is not usually valid. Not literally, anyway.

You avoided the questions, hell. Saying so we both know you did.

The issue is that we can use the same words in different ways because they have different meanings.
I don't use ''specify' except it has to do with identification.
I was expecting you to use it the same way.
But I can see that I shouldn't have had such an expectation.

HellVictorinho:

The issue is that we can use the same word in different ways because they have different meanings.
I don't use ''specify' except it has to do with identification.
I was expecting you to use it the same way.
But I can see that I shouldn't have had such an expectation.

No, you shouldn't. Especially not with buda you will find. I try not to assume words mean the same to everyone. As I say, beans is not same beans for everyone. As my mama cook her own no be so your mama cook your own.

It's why I'm asking for a definition. We may not be talking about the same thing.

budaatum:

No, you shouldn't. Especially not with buda you will find. I try not to assume words mean the same to everyone. As I say, beans is not same beans for everyone. As my mama cook her own no be so your mama cook your own.

It's why I'm asking for a definition. We may not be talking about the same thing.

I have defined it as that which involves practices that are done towards the expression of a belief in spirits/God(s).

Merry Christmas to all you heathens! LoL! Have a good one, drink your favourite brew and throw a salute on my behalf.

What is beauty? While ruminating on this question, I came up with this definition: beauty is the emotional response we have to a conglomeration of characteristics we find attractive/attention-grabbing. This definition acknowledges the subjective nature of what we seem to find beautiful. It explains why we can call a person beautiful and use the same adjective for a sunset. However it seems in our money dominated world, we cannot find beauty without money in the equation. I want to break that cycle, I want to find beauty without thinking of money first. I want to create beauty without thinking of money first.

CC: budaatum, johnydon22

Thoughts:

All the brain is is a scenario generator and simulation processor or rather this is what the higher functions of the brain do. The lower functions of the brain do not require scenario generation or simulation, they function autonomously. This ability to generate scenarios and do simulations is what began to put us ahead of other animals and what gave birth to our creativity. It also explains why we dream at night, the brain doesn't stop functioning even in a state of sleep.

Those who excel in business and other fields are those whose scenario generations and simulations more closely match reality, they are indeed lucky, pulling the winning numbers out of the randomness of the universal lottery. And apparently one can increase how frequently your scenario generation and simulations approach reality by gathering more data about reality.

CC: budaatum, johnydon22, gensteejay, HellVictorinho, Hakeem4,

LordReed:
Thoughts:

All the brain is is a scenario generator and simulation processor or rather this is what the higher functions of the brain do. The lower functions of the brain do not require scenario generation or simulation, they function autonomously. This ability to generate scenarios and do simulations is what began to put us ahead of other animals and what gave birth to our creativity. It also explains why we dream at night, the brain doesn't stop functioning even in a state of sleep.

Those in who excel in business and other fields are those whose scenario generations and simulations more closely match reality, they are indeed lucky, pulling the winning numbers out of the randomness of the universal lottery. And apparently one can increase how frequently your scenario generation and simulations approach reality by gathering more data about reality.

Subconscious is the first levels just above the autonomic level in which data about our surroundings is collected by the body and processed in a continuous loop. Several layers of this piled up begin give rise to consciousness.

It thus explains mental illness. Mental illness is a severe break in the process by which data about reality is obtained and processed into scenarios and simulations. Errors are being introduced by faulty data gathering or data processing due to faults in the neuro-chemical structure of the brain. In some case it must be possible to bypass the faults by artifical means like drugs or other mental aids.

LordReed:
Thoughts:

All the brain is is a scenario generator and simulation processor or rather this is what the higher functions of the brain do. The lower functions of the brain do not require scenario generation or simulation, they function autonomously. This ability to generate scenarios and do simulations is what began to put us ahead of other animals and what gave birth to our creativity. It also explains why we dream at night, the brain doesn't stop functioning even in a state of sleep.

Those in who excel in business and other fields are those whose scenario generations and simulations more closely match reality, they are indeed lucky, pulling the winning numbers out of the randomness of the universal lottery. And apparently one can increase how frequently your scenario generation and simulations approach reality by gathering more data about reality.

Religion is also explained by this. Religion is the substitution of the symbols and stories the simulations throw up as representations of reality with reality itself. While the stories and symbols have connections with reality, they are not reality. This causes a feedback loop that makes these symbols and stories take on a larger than life meaning even appearing to supercede reality itself.

This is why visions and dreams feature so prominently in religion. It is where this substitutions are strongest. It is why people can become terribly agitated by their dreams or place so much value in visions.

See my dear budaatum, the fruit of the tree of knowledge is blossoming.

LordReed:
Thoughts:

All the brain is is a scenario generator and simulation processor or rather this is what the higher functions of the brain do. The lower functions of the brain do not require scenario generation or simulation, they function autonomously. This ability to generate scenarios and do simulations is what began to put us ahead of other animals and what gave birth to our creativity. It also explains why we dream at night, the brain doesn't stop functioning even in a state of sleep.

Those who excel in business and other fields are those whose scenario generations and simulations more closely match reality, they are indeed lucky, pulling the winning numbers out of the randomness of the universal lottery. And apparently one can increase how frequently your scenario generation and simulations approach reality by gathering more data about reality.

CC: budaatum, johnydon22, gensteejay, HellVictorinho, Hakeem4,

Exactly.
There is no excellence in the absence of luck.
But some people have had more luck than others.

LordReed:
What is beauty? While ruminating on this question, I came up with this definition: beauty is the emotional response we have to a conglomeration of characteristics we find attractive/attention-grabbing. This definition acknowledges the subjective nature of what we seem to find beautiful. It explains why we can call a person beautiful and use the same adjective for a sunset. However it seems in our money dominated world, we cannot find beauty without money in the equation. I want to break that cycle, I want to find beauty without thinking of money first. I want to create beauty without thinking of money first.

CC: budaatum, johnydon22

But there are things we shouldn't debate.
Imagine someone saying that the sun is too cold!!!
Should we argue with such person concerning such nonsense?

HellVictorinho:

Exactly.
There is no excellence in the absence of luck.
But some people have had more luck than others.

I don’t understand your concept of luck. As I do not believe in it

HellVictorinho:

But there are things we shouldn't debate.
Imagine someone saying that the sun is too cold!!!
Should we argue with such person concerning such nonsense?

yes we should. We help to dispel ignorance from the society

HellVictorinho:

But there are things we shouldn't debate.
Imagine someone saying that the sun is too cold!!!
Should we argue with such person concerning such nonsense?

LoL! Yeah that's why it's important that we acquire the best tools for figuring out what our shared reality is.

LordReed:


Religion is also explained by this. Religion is the substitution of the symbols and stories the simulations throw up as representations of reality with reality itself. While the stories and symbols have connections with reality, they are not reality. This causes a feedback loop that makes these symbols and stories take on a larger than life meaning even appearing to supercede reality itself.

This is why visions and dreams feature so prominently in religion. It is where this substitutions are strongest. It is why people can become terribly agitated by their dreams or place so much value in visions.

You have defined religion as a mental process.
I defined it as a physical process the other day.
The most important characters in most religions are spirits/Gods.
But your definition also implies or suggests that religions like Buddhism that don't involve Gods can also be associated with concepts that have nothing to do with reality.

HellVictorinho:

Exactly.
There is no excellence in the absence of luck.
But some people have had more luck than others.

Actually, you have it backwards. Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. The more prepared you are, the more lucky you become. Like I said in my post, those who gather more information about reality become more successful in figuring out what works.

HellVictorinho:

You have defined religion as a mental process.
I defined it as a physical process the other day.
The most important characters in most religions are spirits/Gods.
But your definition also implies or suggests that religions like Buddhism that don't involve Gods can also be associated with concepts that have nothing to do with reality.

The mental process is based on physical processes, there is no escaping that.

Yes even Buddhism does this substitution albeit they understand better what they are doing. Buddhists don't take all the stories as statements of reality, they understand that those stories are "caricatures" of reality and aids to understanding. However, some Buddhist concepts still accept a belief in things that have no basis in reality.

LordReed:


Actually, you have it backwards. Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. The more prepared you are, the more lucky you become. Like I said in my post, those who gather more information about reality become more successful in figuring out what works.

I disagree.
Luck has nothing to do with preparation.
Luck is the chance/opportunity of being exposed to something that is useful.
In other words,you come across something useful by chance.
Your preparation to meet 50 million dollars doesn't mean you will meet 50 million dollars.