[
Replying to post 84 by Justin108]
Can you perhaps summarize the confirming and conflicting data?
It is the same for most people and I am assuming it is the same for you. Think of the data stream which is the greater part of your subjective experience as a human being and therein notice what confirms and conflicts with that data of experience.
How do you know that what you attribute to communication with the planet is not perhaps something else?
Please give an example as to what you mean by the 'something else'.
Explain 'Makes you think' and explain 'your own thoughts'.
What's there to explain...? If you're going to start asking me to define every word in the English language, then let me know so I know not to waste my time with this discussion any further.
Well it is not simply a matter of English language, but also how it is used and in that, what meaning is
meant to be conveyed.
I will set that to one side for now, and perhaps - if this interaction proves to be going somewhere interesting for both parties, we might revisit it at another time.
Not knowing where our thoughts come from and assuming our thoughts come from some sort of planet god are two very different things.
That is an interesting claim.
But are they really two different things?
Remember where I stated this:
This is because I understand my self as an aspect of the local GOD (Earth Entity) and I recognize the EE as an aspect of an even vaster entity - it is all the same really - just at differing levels of experience, and as such it sees all of its aspects as part of itself rather than separate from itself.
Therein, the overall consciousness represents the 'vaster entity' and the EE -in regard to the size of the universe is, in relation to that, 'merely' "a speck of dust suspended in a beam of sunlight", yet from the position of consciousness within a human being, that speak of dust is an awesome thing to behold and a complexity in and of itself - a vast thing to comprehend and in that comprehension, to fully understand. We as human beings are attempting to understand it, but largely as a 'thing' and consideration for the possibility of it being a 'someone' is mostly overlooked in that process of understanding it.
Now I will remind you of what I stated at the opening statement in answer to your question directed to JW.:
As a Panpsychist who understands GOD as a conscious self aware intelligent creative entity which permeates the whole universe and divests itself into form for the purpose of experience, I understand that all consciousnesses are aspects of the overall Consciousness and are part of GOD (rather than separate from GOD).
In relation to communication between me and GOD,this involves the local aspect of the overall consciousness which resides within our planet and is the reason why life forms evolve and exist on our planet.
I see planet entity as the local GOD and one to which a constructive relationship can be achieved with.
I have used bold to accentuate the relevant-to-your-claim aspects in order to answer as concisely as I find possible.
When consciousness creates form and then divests an aspect of itself into those forms for the experience, that aspect of consciousness becomes a lens through which its experience is then transmitted back to the overall entity, for analysis etc...meanwhile the consciousness experiencing - in this case - being a planet - is autonomous unto itself (a natural enough state since it is the default state of the overall consciousness) and in that, it perceives its existence, not only in the context of having a beginning, but also as it evolves as a seeming independent entity, as in relation to its position and experience of being a planet with the capabilities of being able to use the planet to create forms, and its abilities to divest an aspect of itself (consciousness) INTO those forms, again, for the experience...
Those are the capabilities of the Earth Entity. GOD-like.
The thread which runs through these processes of creating and using the creation for conscious experience throughout the
different layers, is that the consciousness is THE SAME THING, just having different experiences and those experiences act as a lens by which the consciousness within said different forms, are seeing the experience as different rather than understanding it as similar.
The Categories:
1: The
same though the lens perspective of the Source Reality (overall consciousness);
2: Similar through the lens perspective of those who are being enlightened by diligent observation and investigation - no matter what form they are within, other than any form which is unable to be used for that purpose - and;
3: different though the lens perspective of those who
can go there but who
chose not to do so.
So back to your claim;
Not knowing where our thoughts come from and assuming our thoughts come from some sort of planet god are two very different things.
Someone who thinks these are from different sources belongs in category
3
I am category
2: which is also the default category of
1:
Our thoughts come from consciousness. They are formed through the lens of our perceptions. Thus our perceptions create the form that the thoughts take.
In your case, the thoughts see 'difference' and in my case the thoughts see 'similar/same'
I have seen no reason why my ability to see sameness is erroneous and/or egregious.
Can you please highlight where in this paragraph you answered my question of how you know your inner voice is anything other than your own thoughts? Or to be more specific, what makes you think your inner voice is some sort of god?
See my above explanation.
Can you perhaps demonstrate in any way that whatever it is that you believe communicates with you is in fact this "Earth Entity"? If I understand correctly, we are all connected to this "Earth Entity"? If so, should one not be able to use this Earth Entity to read minds? Can you maybe ask your Earth Entity what my last name is? I'm expecting some sort of excuse for why you can't.
Fallacy.
Lets break that down.
Q: Can you perhaps demonstrate in any way that whatever it is that you believe communicates with you is in fact this "Earth Entity"?
That is not possible because we would have to be together in the same room and I could use a mediation device for that purpose.
Even if we could be in the same room, and having used the device and through that, getting conformation, for example:
Q: "Are you, the entity we are speaking with, the Consciousness of the Earth?"
A: (spelled out through the device) "Yes, I am"
This would not constitute evidence that it was in fact the Earth Entity communicating with us through that device.
What it does constitute is that someone (a conscious entity) is communicating with us through the device and wants us to think that we are interacting with the Earth (planet) as an conscious self aware intelligent entity.
Or: You are free to add your own belief as to what it is which is really communicating with us.
Q:If I understand correctly, we are all connected to this "Earth Entity"?
A: Through the lens perspective of the Earth Entity, yes indeed we are. Through the lens of the individual, as I have explained above, no - we are not all
consciously connected to the Earth Entity.
Q:If so, should one not be able to use this Earth Entity to read minds?
A: From my own perspective, having been in an ongoing relationship with the EE for the better part of my life, I find the question hilarious, as does the EE.
Let me ask you this. As an individual conscious self aware intelligence, would you like to be used simply because you have abilities which might be useful, but prove not to be, time and again?
Q:Can you maybe ask your Earth Entity what my last name is? I'm expecting some sort of excuse for why you can't.
A: [lol]
Problem: Expectations and anticipations formed through the bias of individual autonomous thought processes, act as dysfunctional devices inhibiting the process of coherent and useful dialogue between those individual aspects of overall consciousness.
Potential solution: Understanding and agreeing together that is the case and working around that in order to attempt to find solution.
Lets say that I ask the entity and the reply is 'Smith' and I say so and lo and behold, that is the correct answer to the demand-for-evidence-constructed-as-a-question.
Then what?
How would you respond?
The nature of your response will determine the reply I then give.
One way you could answer is, 'that was just a coincidence' or explained another way - such as - that I conceivably might have access to your details and can ping back the correct answers to your questions regarding your personal details, none of which can satisfy that...:
A: The entity IS indeed, the conscious self aware intelligence within the planet.
B: That there is an entity who is communicating with me correct personal information about you, cancelling out "A",
...are indeed evidence which can be linked positively to my claims.
Therefore, you are correct when you state "I'm expecting some sort of excuse for why you can't." and if you look closely at the reasoning behind my excuse, you should be able to agree that, in any case, the request was a pointless one for that and needn't have been asked in the first place.
Not to leave it hanging there, it is every reason WHY it is necessary for the individual to make their own investigations into possibilities related to the experience they are having within this reality rather than to expect that others should provide them the evidence. In this case, if YOU want to know if there really IS an all enveloping consciousness pervading the universe, you simply
cannot see just by looking at what is see-able, because in fact there is so much more to the universe than what meets the eye, and you won't ever know that if you insist on experiencing it through any second hand lens of hearsay or the erroneous demand for 'evidence'.
The reason for this being necessary is in the process itself, so understanding the process is critical to that.
You
personally need to seek in order to find. Hearsay along the way can help or hinder and thus has to be challenged but never should be used as an excuse not to make all personal effort to do so. It simple cannot be done FOR you.
So, whomever YOU are, the EE does know all about you, but if YOU want
me to know all about YOU, that is YOUR job to tell me. My relationship with EE has no direct interest in finding out about YOU through IT. Indeed, IT likely sees you for who you are, not for how you might presently see yourself, so therein the data would be
different anyway, and debatable for that.
I experience someone
How do you know? Have you ever considered the possibility that the voices in your head may be attributed to schizophrenia or some other delusion?
You have conflated my actual words with something existing in your own mind which is not what I said.
I have not ever mentioned hearing 'voices in my head'. You have me confused with someone else perhaps, but whatever, the delusion is yours regarding that.
) 
."
