Dimensions of consciousness

[*~PriNcesS~*]

"All five dimensions exist within, are a portion of, and emanate from, our third dimensional body. We are a vessel that we fill with our own multidimensional universe."
-From understanding dimensions of consciousness

if we assume that consciousness as a dimension(I personally believe and assume this based on my experience and have no intension of proving it to anybody!)

"12th dimension=consciousness, thought without consciousness is like us thinking and not knowing it. Consciousness is the 12th dimension, unfolding from nothing itself. (curve consciousness into itself and u get...infinity, which is also 0)""But wait...there are also 26 interdimensions that unfold out of the 13 dimensions"
-Posted by Jozen-Bo(I've quoted this as something interesting now I don't know if this is true or not) but If I was to say hypothetically was true then the *QUESTION* is:

can the levels of consciousness be considered as interdimensions that unfold out of the 12th dimension itself? how many are they?
(there are 5 dimensions of consciousness).<<<<<I believe this as well.although I always thought there could be more than 5 weather is nonsens or not I'll be the judge of my reality you'll be the judge of your own. k?!)(now don't get all fired up about physics k ppl chill!this is not referring to physics dimension although I'm sure scientists would know more than one meaning to the word: Dimension rather than assuming it's referring to physics dimensions).

I apologize for not explaining my question clearly I thought I was going to get answers by those who are familiar with this subject.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The first quote is nonsense.
The second quote is utter nonsense.

can the levels of consciousness be considered as interdimensions that unfold out of the 12th dimension itself? how many are they?
(there are 5 dimensions of consciousness).

Please show that there actually are "levels of consciousness".

I can see why you posted this in Pseudosci - no one is allowed to post directly in the Cesspoool.

 

[woowoo]

The first quote is nonsense.
The second quote is utter nonsense.


Please show that there actually are "levels of consciousness".

I can see why you posted this in Pseudosci - no one is allowed to post directly in the Cesspoool.

Have you never experienced an altered state of consciousness? i think there are possibly
infinite levels, no more crazy than the concept of
a multiverse.

As the OP was in Pseudosci i don't understand the need for the insults.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Have you never experienced an altered state of consciousness? i think there are possibly infinite levels, no more crazy than the concept of a multiverse.

Altered state is "another level"? In the meaning of the OP?

As the OP was in Pseudosci i don't understand the need for the insults.

It's quite simple.
Apart from the fact that cranks should be stopped at the earliest opportunity there's also this.

 

[woowoo]

Altered state is "another level"? In the meaning of the OP?


It's quite simple.
Apart from the fact that cranks should be stopped at the earliest opportunity there's also this.

an altered state may be a good approximation.

exactly which rule, the one about being polite perhaps, who's to say you're
a crank?

 

[Dywyddyr]

an altered state may be a good approximation.

Hmmm, okay. Yet it's also stated that we should "assume" that "that consciousness is a dimension". Why?

exactly which rule, the one about being polite perhaps, who's to say you're a crank?

Oh dear.
How about:
C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.
As opposed to the OP (which gives two quotes from cranks) and assumes that whatever is given as "data" is factual.
I mean:

(there are 5 dimensions of consciousness).

Really?
What are they? How do we know? Where's the evidence?

As for being polite Sci has a long tradition of being anything but towards cranks.

 

[woowoo]

Hmmm, okay. Yet it's also stated that we should "assume" that "that consciousness is a dimension". Why?


Oh dear.
How about:
C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.
As opposed to the OP (which gives two quotes from cranks) and assumes that whatever is given as "data" is factual.
I mean:

Really?
What are they? How do we know? Where's the evidence?

As for being polite Sci has a long tradition of being anything but towards cranks.

dimensions, abstract spaces not restricted to science.

"crank" is an opinion.

the evidence is inside your head.

 

[Dywyddyr]

dimensions, abstract spaces not restricted to science.

Not restricted to science?
Yet the term hasn't been defined in the non-scientific way. So we're left to assume what the meaning is?

"crank" is an opinion.

"Crank" is someone who posts unsupported rubbish that contradicts known facts.

the evidence is inside your head.

Or, more correctly, inside the OP's head.
It's specious crap.

 

[woowoo]

that's another opinion.

 

[Dywyddyr]

that's another opinion.

Not quite.
There is NOTHING to support these contentions, and actually evidence that contradicts them.

 

[woowoo]

Not quite.
There is NOTHING to support these contentions, and actually evidence that contradicts them.

sources were cited.

if there is evidence that contradicts that's fine as well.

 

[Dywyddyr]

sources were cited.

Sources?
A crank internet site* (that also makes claims with no verification) and Jozen-Bo, a known SciForums crank?
Wow!
You miss the point.
If a claim is made that is outside of accepted and known "reality" then those claims should be substantiated. Merely quoting an internet site that says exactly the same thing (with equally scant substantiation) is NOT valid.

if there is evidence that contradicts that's fine as well.

See: crank.


* As another example this site ALSO refers to

HUMAN'S 5 PHYSICAL SENSES

Um, how dumb (or cut off from reality) do you have to be to think we only have five senses?

 

[woowoo]

Sources?
A crank internet site* (that also makes claims with no verification) and Jozen-Bo, a known SciForums crank?
Wow!
You miss the point.
If a claim is made that is outside of accepted and known "reality" then those claims should be substantiated. Merely quoting an internet site that says exactly the same thing (with equally scant substantiation) is NOT valid.


See: crank.


* As another example this site ALSO refers to

Um, how dumb (or cut off from reality) do you have to be to think we only have five senses?

this is a pseudoscience forum and the link was to a pseudoscience
site i don't see anything wrong in that, no surprise then if there claims
are outside conventional known reality. please stop using the word
crank if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Dywyddyr]

this is a pseudoscience forum and the link was to a pseudoscience site i don't see anything wrong in that, no surprise then if there claims are outside conventional known reality. please stop using the word
crank if you want to be taken seriously.

Yet the OP couldn't be bothered to explain (or support) the contentions.
I think you misunderstand the point of this sub forum:
it's not to promote pseodoscience but to get at the the reality (if there is any) behind it, or expose it for the nonsense it is.
And, FYI, since "crank" is the appropriate term then that's the term I will use.
Wanting to "be taken seriously" is not MY problem so much as it's the cranks' problem.
They post unsubstantiated rubbish and then complain when their arguments are shown up as the specious crap they truly are.

 

[woowoo]

Yet the OP couldn't be bothered to explain (or support) the contentions.
I think you misunderstand the point of this sub forum:
it's not to promote pseodoscience but to get at the the reality (if there is any) behind it, or expose it for the nonsense it is.
And, FYI, since "crank" is the appropriate term then that's the term I will use.
Wanting to "be taken seriously" is not MY problem so much as it's the cranks' problem.
They post unsubstantiated rubbish and then complain when their arguments are shown up as the specious crap they truly are.

by all means put forward the evidence and expose it as nonsense if that indeed is the case,
but please do it without being unpleasant and insulting. Thank you. OM

 

[Dywyddyr]

by all means put forward the evidence and expose it as nonsense if that indeed is the case, but please do it without being unpleasant and insulting. Thank you. OM

Again you're in error.
It's up to the OP to validate and support THEIR claims rather foist nonsense upon us as if were incontrovertible fact.
And, again FYI, as far as "unpleasant and insulting" goes I submit that the topic is both.
It's baseless nonsense without the slightest pretence or attempt at being scientific.

If you consider the term "crank" when aimed at cranks to be insulting or pointing out that specious crap actually is specious crap to be unpleasant then I further submit that you take a reality check.
Or find another forum to frequent.

 

[woowoo]

Again you're in error.
It's up to the OP to validate and support THEIR claims rather foist nonsense upon us as if were incontrovertible fact.
And, again FYI, as far as "unpleasant and insulting" goes I submit that the topic is both.
It's baseless nonsense without the slightest pretence or attempt at being scientific.

If you consider the term "crank" when aimed at cranks to be insulting or pointing out that specious crap actually is specious crap to be unpleasant then I further submit that you take a reality check.
Or find another forum to frequent.

the OP was a question, I trust someone will find my answer helpful or not.
actually this forum is rather fun.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The OP was a question based on unsupported crap.
It assumed from the start that the quotes given were factual.
It assumed that the premises on which it was based was valid.

What it should have done was ask how valid were the quoted comments before rambling off into further nonsense.

 

[woowoo]

The OP was a question based on unsupported crap.
It assumed from the start that the quotes given were factual.
It assumed that the premises on which it was based was valid.

What it should have done was ask how valid were the quoted comments before rambling off into further nonsense.

So why not explain it like that from the start rather than work yourself
into an unnecessary sweat?

anyway we have two answers now, yours and mine, that's some progress.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So why not explain it like that from the start rather than work yourself into an unnecessary sweat?

Stating that the quotes are utter nonsense doesn't point out that they are unsupported?
And I think you're assuming too much. "Unnecessary sweat"? Pfft, hardly.

anyway we have two answers now, yours and mine, that's some progress.

Um no. You've answered nothing.