Luna Bliss

But on to why I posted Jill's story in the first place, I share your fascination with understanding how the brain works, and Jill is explaining her experience in terms of right-brain/left-brain differences (not talking about clearly delineated areas of the brain, but rather processes -- left brain being more linear and right brain more holistic. While more holistic processes happen in the right brain there is crossover, and likewise for linear processing. Frequently left-brain/right-brain is used to describe the processes now and not where they're always located in the brain). Anyway, it is interesting how her initial damage to the 'left-brain' caused her to have these more 'right-brain' mystical experiences described by mystics/meditators and psychoactive drug users. Like Jill, I believe that religion is a story we tell ourselves, but that does not mean an 'unseen' aspect of reality does not exist -- it only means we make up things, imagine stories, about what this 'unseen' world consists of. I think Jill was alluding to this view of religion, and in no way denigrating the 'right' side of her brain or the paranormal after she began experiencing her reality in a more mystical way after the 'left' side of her brain was damaged by the stroke. I think the Western world in particular has an imbalance and relates to reality too much through the 'left-brain', and that if they felt more connected to the world outside their ego they would be more inclined to value and protect that world. Hence my frequent denigration of left-brain processes when they exclude right-brain processes.

I saw Jill's story some years ago too, but did not uncover the following info about her connecting to the paranormal until now. Reading a reviewer of Jill's book who is not too fond of new-age stuff (on the Goodreads site), the reviewer said she almost didn't read the book due to Jill mentioning starting her day doing Angel Card Readings. Apparently Angel Card readings are: "At first glance Angel cards seem to be another form of tarot cards, but aside from using cards the similarity ends. Tarot cards are a very definitive type of divination, based on metaphysical concepts such as alchemy, esoteric symbols, and numerology. Angel cards, on the other hand, rely on channeled information from the etheric realms. The reading is produced by the interaction of energies of the seeker and the response of the angels to the querent's questions." So yeah, pretty paranormal-ish. I have no idea if Jill felt she was contacting actual angels, or how she would define an 'angel', but for sure card readings can help one contact the subconscious. And then, does it matter what you call what you're contacting? (what's in a name really). The important aspect is to get information one needs. I'm just not hung up on what people call things, or believe, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. However, I have to admit, this is a little too strange even for me! lol It's probably because of my fears -- I like to feel alone and safe when I'm in my house Basically, if there are spirits lurking in this 'unseen' side of reality I don't want to meet them! lol

I had not heard of that, but will pass the info on to a friend suffering the ravages of fibro...

I prefer milder, slower avenues to ego-dissolution -- however it's possible some might need a type of electro-shock therapy if in a very pronounced ego rut!

So as an atheist are you atheist-izing against spirituality in general (a non-material reality that is part of our material one), or only the kind that would include 'spirits' in its definition?

A fun and artistic video on the discovery of LSD -- Alberts bicycle trip as he began to trip:

Haha I've got to watch this tonight. I love Apocalyptic movies, I think because I want to see how humankind might survive the coming climate change crisis. But this one has a fun twist on the Apocalypse -- people are dying because they're committing suicide in order to get to the 'heaven' that has recently been discovered to actually exist.

Lots to think about... I am simmering for awhile...

For newbies, maybe they think griefing looks fun and want to try it. True, for some newbies...but I thought we're talking about people who are not newbie griefers, but are instead others who have usually been inworld awhile, experience a problem, and come to the forum with this problem.

What is it you don't like about the mesh hills you've viewed?

And here's an article by the same scientist: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/fashion/25brain.html I like how she resolves the issue, saying that both sides of the brain have validity rather than asserting one side has all the truth.

An interesting TED talk pertaining to the 'what is reality' discussion:

What underlies the desire to exact revenge? Usually, someone who has been harmed by another wants the other to understand the pain their actions caused for them. The attitude is "you caused me pain, now I want you to feel the pain too"! Most people are not sadistic, wanting to cause others pain. They just want understanding for their pain. Bringing this to those forum posters who post about a perceived slight, I can guaranfeckingtee you that if you sympathize with their pain FIRST, and then educate about the realities of what can be done the need for revenge will subside for MOST people and they will be more open to the reality of solutions. Why? because we have provided the understanding for their pain they are seeking from their offender, and this lessens the need for revenge.

Pricey books following. I have not read them specifically but have read similar and it's fun to read the comment sections until I decide if I'll really cough up the money for them. These are referenced a lot by scientists researching consciousness: https://www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Mind-Toward-Psychology-Century/dp/1442202068/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546796922&sr=8-1&keywords=Irreducible+Mind%3A+Toward+a+Psychology+for+the+21st+Century Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates empirically that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms. Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence, memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical' states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an alternative 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover, ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind. ~~~~~ https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Physicalism-Reconciliation-Science-Spirituality/dp/1442232382/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546797098&sr=8-1&keywords=Beyond+Physicalism%3A+Toward+Reconciliation+of+Science+and+Spirituality The rise of modern science has brought with it increasing acceptance among intellectual elites of a worldview that conflicts sharply both with everyday human experience and with beliefs widely shared among the world’s great cultural traditions. Most contemporary scientists and philosophers believe that reality is at bottom purely physical, and that human beings are nothing more than extremely complicated biological machines. On such views our everyday experiences of conscious decision-making, free will, and the self are illusory by-products of the grinding of our neural machinery. It follows that mind and personality are necessarily extinguished at death, and that there exists no deeper transpersonal or spiritual reality of any sort. Beyond Physicalism is the product of an unusual fellowship of scientists and humanities scholars who dispute these views. In their previous publication, Irreducible Mind, they argued that physicalism cannot accommodate various well-evidenced empirical phenomena including paranormal or psi phenomena, postmortem survival, and mystical experiences. In this new theory-oriented companion volume they go further by attempting to understand how the world must be constituted in order that these “rogue” phenomena can occur. Drawing upon empirical science, metaphysical philosophy, and the mystical traditions, the authors work toward an improved “big picture” of the general character of reality, one which strongly overlaps territory traditionally occupied by the world’s institutional religions, and which attempts to reconcile science and spirituality by finding a middle path between the polarized fundamentalisms, religious and scientific, that have dominated recent public discourse. Contributions by: Harald Atmanspacher, Loriliai Biernacki, Bernard Carr, Wolfgang Fach, Michael Grosso, Michael Murphy, David E. Presti, Gregory Shaw, Henry P. Stapp, Eric M. Weiss, and Ian Whicher

I think you are taking the fact that humans can and do delude themselves in a myriad of ways (believing a specific paranormal experience as real when it's not, for example) as an excuse to then say that all paranormal experiences are a delusion. It doesn't follow that because SOME, or even most, could be proven to be delusional that ALL are. You even use your beliefs of 'numerous paranormal experiences determined to be false = all paranormal experiences false' as a possible explanation for why Love (and me too, I guess, since I'm the one who made the statement that Love agreed to) would believe in paranormal realities (so you're assuming he hasn't seen delusions in others if he believes in the paranormal, as well as not considering other reasons he might believe in a non-materialist view of reality). But it's possible he's seen others being deluded yet STILL believes in the paranormal due to his experience and realizing SOME being deluded does not equal ALL are being deluded. Taking the case of telepathy (transfer of information on thoughts or feelings between individuals by means other than the five classical senses) there have been numerous studies that reach the conclusion that telepathy does not exist. However, telepathy occurs between people who are emotionally bonded and usually when important information is being conveyed. It does not happen when two strangers sit across from each other in a lab and make guesses about symbols on cards. In other words, those experiments were not designed correctly. There are better experiments in more recent years however -- I'll list some books later. Most likely the reason paranormal experiences are so hard for a many traditional scientists to stomach is because one has to believe in a non-materialist structure of consciousness itself. Presently, many traditional scientists believe consciousness arrived via chemical processes in evolution -- our brain kind of 'squirted out' consciousness as it evolved. In this theory of consciousness, minds are separate from other minds due to physical boundaries. Another theory of consciousness is becoming more popular among scientists where consciousness is viewed as fundamental vs derivative -- as a kind of omnipresent 'force', and our minds (and the minds of all other animals and elements of the world) are like radio or TV receivers that tune into this 'force' to varying degrees, depending on how they developed during evolutionary processes. If this is how consciousness is structured then we are not limited by our physical bodies to the degree we once imagined. This allows for paranormal experience and the type of energy 'fields' which structure reality like Sheldrake posits in his morphic resonance theory. The key is how to lessen this 'ego' we developed as humans (where our mind was structured to tune into consciousness in a specific way) that forces us into a rut of seeing through only 'human eyes' -- meditation and certain psychoactive substances can help us achieve a new way of perceiving.

It's as if you're saying, "There there, little one, you can have your feelings but they are not accurate". lol Well this is the problem...how we define "accurate". For anyone with a materialist world view only experiences which fit within what THEY determined is reality can be reality. You see the problem. You've set your definition of reality (materialism) as the default that everyone else is supposed to go by. But the fact remains...a reality beyond the material has never been disproven. The materialist world view with its mechanistic, reductionist ways of looking at reality decides anything that does not fit into its BELIEF is false, and it touts this BELIEF as ultimate truth. This is Scientism, dogmatism.

I saw a video related to that on YouTube and will have to check it out, as I've always been interested in what denotes beauty in the minds of others (related to design or art especially).

Oh believe me theres still plenty of things they could do with SL if only they kept their focus on it instead of deviating into hopeless projects that dont go anywhere Indeed, much could be done...but would it bring in new people is the question...as well as would it actually cause greater retention for those already here. If not, I can't see why they would do it.

Message a creator and tell them something they created is bad -- are you tryin to get me killed? ;0

Do psychotropic drugs have the potential to take one to another 'real' place not normally accessible, or a way to experience reality in a different state of consciousness that is as valid as our typical one?…….. or are they simply creating a feeling with no basis in reality as you're implying here? BTW, I astral projected to your home last night...did you see me? ;0

I am 100% certain that the main reason why most of the mesh that seems to cost inconceivable amounts of LI is because nobody makes proper (read: simple) physics shapes for their mesh. Please test that out and report back. In other words, do all the work for us ;0

BTW, I do have a lot of mesh elements in many of my skyboxes -- it's just not practical to make them entirely with mesh.

Mesh has been a disappointment to many nature builders. If you make it the size needed the LI is just too high Even if not especially large the mesh version almost always outweighs the sculpt/prim version in terms of LI. * talking about complex nature environments