Heartstone 011

Continued from Heartstone 010

An on-going conversation with cooperative networks of conscious particles through the focal point of Heartstone.

---

A physicist who asked to not be named or have his comments published wrote to me in private conversation. I have to delete his portion of our conversation, making it less readable.

Nevertheless, it feels right to record as much as possible. My portion of our conversation follows as well as a comment made publicly on the Physics Forums. Generally, I ask permission before publishing comments. If any participant would rather not be included in any Whole Human post, please contact me and I will edit or delete your name and/or comment as you choose. To give some continuity, the initials [P.D.] are included below to indicate where the physicist commented.

[P.D.]

Gary - Yes, I see that. Since my inclination for new research on the question of conscious matter is so strong, I will leave the PF for now.

[P.D.]

Gary - Yes, actually, I have been having 'conversations' with a stone. I have published 10 blog posts to date, of the conversations. I sought a way to objectify the conversations, and published that 'experiment.'

Then I became aware of a need to find more 'scientific' methods of testing the conversations for objectivity. I do not want to get lost in lulu-land. I see my own tendency to support wishful thinking with selective evidence. That is what brought me to the PF (Physics Forums.)

P.D.

Gary - The stone, named Heartstone, has been responding to my questions. You know, I have to play along with this to some degree. If I am full of doubts and skepticism about its actuality, there is no point in continuing the conversations. I will ask about why tables and chairs don't behave like conscious beings behave. Are you interested in Heartstone's reply?

May I have permission to include your response in a future blog post?

CONVERSATION WITH HEARTSTONE 011

Gary -

Heartstone, if matter is conscious, why does a table not behave like a human being?

Heartstone
We are aware, by accessing your brain database, that this question arises from your conversation with P.D. 

The question assumes that the biological consciousness of humans and other animals is the only type of consciousness.

As we established previously with you, Gary, 

'We are aware we exist, we are capable of responding, and we can choose, such as whether or not to respond. By your definition, we are consciousness.'

These properties (self-awareness, capacity to response and having the choice to respond) emerge from the frequency of the present moment, which is all frequencies in one (not separated into discrete objects). 

The happening 'blows through,' yet the present moment is the same — it is all frequencies altogether as one frequency — the unified whole of all frequencies.

Biological consciousness emerges from EM interactions in the neural networks of the brain.

Particle consciousness emerges from the EM interactions of particle networks.

A biological organism will not comprehend atomic consciousness over observation and measurement and the processing of the brain, which is much slower than the vibratory state of particles.

To understand us, the observer must merge with the object of observation, such as you, Gary, with Heartstone, and experience particle consciousness at its frequency. You have not merged fully with us yet, but have experienced glimpses and grow closer daily by practicing heart breathing.

The observer can only merge from a state of mind that is humble, transparent, free of expectation, vulnerable and trusting. Merging happens by agreement and cooperation over the frequency bandwidth of intuitive feeling.

The innate human capacity for intuitive feeling has atrophied from lack of use, but can be developed as was the capacity for logic and reasoning. The understanding intuitive feeling brings can be tested and validated or invalidated, by scientific methods as you and we have conversed about.

There is a latent human capacity beyond brain power or intuitive feeling. It is frequency awareness. Your technological instruments for measuring will only stunt natural frequency awareness, but may provide a bridge until it is developed in human beings.

A wooden table has been wrought from a tree not with the agreement of the tree but by the exploitation of the human. The particle networks of the tree have been manipulated, usually for a profit motive and unconscious usage by humans.

Gary, you might ask P.D. how he would expect a conscious table to behave and why the particles of a manufactured wooden table would choose to respond to a human. As we communicated to you before, there are unconscious as well as conscious particles. Plastic, for example, is manufactured from unconscious particles. It has been manipulated too far from its natural origin, too unconsciously, to be aware or capable of responding.

Natural particle networks, designed by conscious particles and appearing in human awareness as stones and flowers and trees, behave exactly as conscious beings. We of the nets abide in the present moment and serve its unfolding. We choose whether or not to communicate with humans, depending, as we said in earlier conversations, on the state of the human who seeks relationship with us.

FOLLOW-UP TO PRIVATE CONVERSATION WITH PHYSICIST

Gary R Smith

P.D., I asked Heartstone and was answered, whether in my imagination or objectively I don't know.

I will honor your request to not include your comments in a blog post.

I find Heartstone's  'answers' fascinating and would love to objectify them even if that means abandoning them all. They seem to be beyond my thoughts. I recognize they are mixed with my personal feelings. My first experiment was to use a finger pulse meter and request that Heartstone would, over conscious particle networks, lower my heartbeats per minute reading to a specific number. It happened, more than once. I did not take that as objective evidence but began seeking more scientific methods.

'People don't believe tables and chairs are conscious not because they are close-minded; they believe tables and chairs aren't conscious because they don't behave like conscious beings behave.'

Well, P.D., please don't take offense, but even though you have responded generously I cannot see that you are open minded on the subject. I am aware of my own pre-conceived ideas, and yours. They prevent us both from recognizing anything which does not fit with them. 

I will publish Heartstone's response to my question, 'Heartstone, if matter is conscious, why does a table not behave like a human being? as HEARTSTONE 011 - without mentioning your name since this is a private conversation.

The definition of consciousness used by Heartstone and me is:

'We are aware we exist, we are capable of responding, and we can choose, such as whether or not to respond. By your definition, we are consciousness.'

(P.D. responded, and said in effect, that the only way to objectify a conversation with Heartstone would be to measure EM activity before and during, and note changes which correspond to the conversation.)

After this, I went outside to chew on some almonds and on what P.D. wrote.

As I sat, a large red-tailed hawk flew across the sky and hovered directly above my head. While it hovered, a large and unusual dragonfly flew overhead. I simply record this, leaving any interpretation to the reader. I just know how it felt.


Khashishi

Gary Smith said - Photons, it seems, are in a class by themselves. A physicist told me a few years ago that super-string theory had been replaced by 'wavicles.' Is it true that photons behave sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles? I also read that photons are particles without mass. Oi. So many new questions come to mind...

K. - No. It's possible something got lost in translation. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality, Eddington coined the term wavicle for a particle that has wavelike characteristics in 1928. It has not entered standard parlance, and today we don't ever use the term. We just call particles "particles", where our modern definition of particle includes all of the wavelike behavior. So, it doesn't make sense to say a particle "sometimes acts like a wave and sometimes like a particle" since a particle always acts like a particle by definition. But yes, it has wavelike properties.

---

NEXT - HEARTSTONE 012

HEART BREATHING - CONTENTS