Raven Dana: The Most Riveting ET Contactee Story I’ve Ever Heard

[Golden_Vimana]

Hey all...

So, if you’re anything like me - which must be some sorta true judging by the fact that you’re reading this - when it comes to UFOs you feel like you’ve heard it all. This doesn’t mean I’m tired of the subject, far from it. Hearing the same stories over and over again with or without tangible evidence does two things. One, it adds to the “smoke = fire” idea. Two, the more dubious tales can serve as a nice contrasting agent to help fine tune our BS meters. While hearing the same details repeated case after case can add to the perception that there must be a real phenomenon, wholly unique cases can offer a an equally potent sense of validation.

I was introduced to Raven Dana on a podcast called Aliens & Artists. Excellent show btw - links to the interview are below. For some reason it’s title instantly gave me the impression that it’s host would be some naive internet educated type who just believes everything. Turns out that assumption was light years away from the truth. Anyway, she was interviewed on the show sometime last year.

Raven is a licensed forensic handwriting analyst and practicing Witch. When it comes to the astonishingly nuanced details of ET contact that she’s claimed, I can truly say they’re one of a kind. Beyond that - there’s a grounded sense of honesty and realness that is more than tangible as she expresses herself. She gives a very elaborate breakdown of contact experiences she says she’s had since childhood. She speaks of some of the most uniquely strange things I’ve ever heard as if they were something as mundane as a trip to the supermarket. So much content that it took two episodes. I vouch for her at the risk of coming across as a naive internet educated believe everything type myself.

Listen to it for yourself. I’m extremely discriminatory in who I lend credibility to, questioning this woman for some reason feels like questioning my mom. Whether she’s the best liar in the world, or recounting real events - there’s something there that spoke to me on a unconscious level - like the hero’s journey or Jungian archetypes.

I’ll leave the more grounded (although intimate and engrossing) stories for you to hear directly from her. Here’s instead a summary of one of the more avant-garde concepts she proposed. Essentially, she states that one of the things she’s become convinced of through her experiences, is the idea that for Greys, what we call everyday waking life is for them a dream state. According to her they have to exert effort to remain in our narrow band of perception. What they experience as normal waking consciousness is what we would then perceive as a dream state.

I’m not sure I’m ready to reveal it to the public just yet, but I’ve actually have had some up close and personal experiences of my own. What I find interesting is that, as unique as Raven’s proposal is - something about it rang true for me. I instantly felt as though she had described something that I already knew. Saying that about something that’s so unorthodox and yet so specific is in itself extremely unusual.

Links to the episodes:

Episode 1

Aliens & Artists - Raven Dana Part One

Stuart interviews Raven Dana Part One Show Notes: The Liminal Muse https://theliminalmuse.com Stuart Davis Patreon https://www.patreon.com/stuartdavis Lyn Buchanan https://www.amazon.com/Lyn-Buchanan/e/B001IR3DUI%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share Robert Moss, Way of the Dreamer...

podcasts.google.com

Episode 2

Aliens & Artists - Raven Dana Part Two

Stuart interviews Raven Dana Part Two Show Notes: The Liminal Muse https://theliminalmuse.com Stuart Davis Patreon https://www.patreon.com/stuartdavis Lyn Buchanan https://www.amazon.com/Lyn-Buchanan/e/B001IR3DUI%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share Robert Moss, Way of the Dreamer...

podcasts.google.com

 

[Randall]

Hey all ...

If there's stuff you think we should listen to, I suggest that you include a link in your post to make it easier. Without the link I'd have to search it out, and then can't be sure it's what you were specifically referring to, so chances are, I just won't bother, and if I feel that way, I imagine others are probably the same way. It's just the way the Internet works. If it takes more than 3 clicks to get there, you've lost virtually all your audience.

In the meantime, the idea that one being's dreams are another being's conscious perceptions is dubious at best. The closest any dream world could come to anything other than something purely subjective is if the dreamer was receiving external sensory input via some kind of ESP, in which case it wouldn't actually be a dream, but some sort of remote viewing, in which case there'd be no reason to think anyone other than the dreamer could perceive it, unless the dreamer and the perceiver were psychically linked.

It makes for some interesting conjecture that might add to a sci-fi plot line, but there are some gaping explanatory holes. For example, unless the dreamer is psychically linked at all times to some being connected to conscious perception of the external world, the world of the dreamer is entirely subjective ( without any connection to objective reality ), and in the case that the dreamer cannot verify that their perceptions correspond to objective reality, there is no way for them to know the difference.

This of course brings up a number of philosophical points about the nature of reality itself, some of which have been covered on the Consciousness and The Paranormal and Philosophy Science & The Unexplained threads. Whatever the case, it's all sounds worthy of further discussion. Post up a couple of links.

 

[Golden_Vimana]

If there's stuff you think we should listen to, I suggest that you include a link in your post to make it easier. Without the link I'd have to search it out, and then can't be sure it's what you were specifically referring to, so chances are, I just won't bother, and if I feel that way, I imagine others are probably the same way. It's just the way the Internet works. If it takes more than 3 clicks to get there, you've lost virtually all your audience.

In the meantime, the idea that one being's dreams are another being's conscious perceptions is dubious at best. The closest any dream world could come to anything other than something purely subjective is if the dreamer was receiving external sensory input via some kind of ESP, in which case it wouldn't actually be a dream, but some sort of remote viewing, in which case there'd be no reason to think anyone other than the dreamer could perceive it, unless the dreamer and the perceiver were psychically linked.

It makes for some interesting conjecture that might add to a sci-fi plot line, but there are some gaping explanatory holes. For example, unless the dreamer is psychically linked at all times to some being connected to conscious perception of the external world, the world of the dreamer is entirely subjective ( without any connection to objective reality ), and in the case that the dreamer cannot verify that their perceptions correspond to objective reality, there is no way for them to know the difference.

This of course brings up a number of philosophical points about the nature of reality itself, some of which have been covered on the Consciousness and The Paranormal and Philosophy Science & The Unexplained threads. Whatever the case, it's all sounds worthy of further discussion. Post up a couple of links.

(Good observation, I added direct links to each episode)

Before 1807, the general consensus amongst academia and the scientific community was that any story of a rock falling from the sky was completely fictitious. The brightest minds recognized by society at the time were 100% sure that such a thing was impossible, it simply didn’t fit into their understanding of nature and celestial mechanics.

We’re obviously in full acceptance now as to the reality of meteorites, and they fit in easily in the inventory of known phenomena. What’s funny is since people have been observing meteorites for many thousands of years, there we’re already recordings of their existence throughout history. There were people who thought that the sun was pulled across the sky by chariots, who simultaneously had a more accurate depiction of meteorites than astronomers to be born thousands of years later.

History is riddled with constant examples of us having to completely reframe our perception based on an increasingly expanding understanding of reality. And yet at times, those thought of as “primitive” actually do a better job at describing our world than us. This isn’t a blanket statement, I emphasize “at times”.

Rejecting this concept proposed by Raven Dana is a direct byproduct of the persistent materialist reductionist model. Quantum physicists are continually proving that reality is fundamentally different than what we perceive on the macro level, and yet many of us still address the universe in terms of “physical” and “non-physical”. What you really mean though when you force reality into that binary framework is real and not real. You would then naturally categorize a dream as not real.

Strangely though, you’d accept that a dream in actuality is “real” in the sense that it would involve the firing of electrical impulses in your brain - but going any further than that would be outside the realm of a reductionist worldview. The concept Raven’s proposed isn’t really related to the subjective vs objective - it’s more along the lines of shifting the relationship between consciousness and reality.

If you entertain the view that consciousness IS reality, you could then start entertaining the idea that differing states of consciousness would equal different states of reality. She’s basically saying that there are potentially levels/types of consciousness that interact with what we label as “objective reality” in a much more fluid and direct way, where there’s really no perceivable barrier.

Referring back to my mention of “primitive” civilizations getting some things right, it’s long been held in almost all indigenous worldviews that the “dream world” is just that, a world. A state no less real than the chair you’re sitting in right now. A simple analogy may be, is ice any less real when it shifts into a liquid state?

 

[Randall]

(Good observation, I added direct links to each episode)

Much appreciated ?

... History is riddled with constant examples of us having to completely reframe our perception based on an increasingly expanding understanding of reality. And yet at times, those thought of as “primitive” actually do a better job at describing our world than us. This isn’t a blanket statement, I emphasize “at times”.

Although the above is a valid observation, we can just as easily ( in fact even more easily ) turn the whole argument around and look at witchcraft, wizardry, and mediumship as being the long outmoded methods of analysis and investigation that have since been replaced by the far more accurate modes of critical thinking and the scientific method. It also doesn't logically follow that all contentious examples in the present suffer from the same sorts of misinterpretations as those in the past. We are much better educated these days and less likely to make the same mistakes.

Rejecting this concept proposed by Raven Dana is a direct byproduct of the persistent materialist reductionist model. Quantum physicists are continually proving that reality is fundamentally different than what we perceive on the macro level, and yet many of us still address the universe in terms of “physical” and “non-physical”. What you really mean though when you force reality into that binary framework is real and not real. You would then naturally categorize a dream as not real.

Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the two types of reality we're dealing with here. With the exception of things like virtual particles, quantum objects are as objectively real as macro objects ( but that's a whole other discussion ). Subjective reality is a whole other type that is generated by the mind. This gets philosophical. Ultimately, if you are a subjective idealist, then there is no distinction. I'm not. Neither position can be proven to be true with 100% certainty.

Strangely though, you’d accept that a dream in actuality is “real” in the sense that it would involve the firing of electrical impulses in your brain - but going any further than that would be outside the realm of a reductionist worldview. The concept Raven’s proposed isn’t really related to the subjective vs objective - it’s more along the lines of shifting the relationship between consciousness and reality.

The relationship between consciousness and external reality is the relationship between the subjective and the objective.

If you entertain the view that consciousness IS reality, you could then start entertaining the idea that differing states of consciousness would equal different states of reality. She’s basically saying that there are potentially levels/types of consciousness that interact with what we label as “objective reality” in a much more fluid and direct way, where there’s really no perceivable barrier.

Consciousness is a type of subjective reality.

Referring back to my mention of “primitive” civilizations getting some things right, it’s long been held in almost all indigenous worldviews that the “dream world” is just that, a world. A state no less real than the chair you’re sitting in right now. A simple analogy may be, is ice any less real when it shifts into a liquid state?

Those examples need some refining. Ice and water can both be subjective or objective realities. To express it in more precise terms: Subjective realities may or may not correspond to objective realities, and objective realities may or may not correspond to subjective realities.

Therefore, simply because one is having a subjective experience e.g. a dream, in no way means that the content of that experience has anything to do with the external ( objective ) world.

The only way to verify that it does, is to be able to establish a direct correlation between the subjective experience and the objective world. But even then it could be sheer coincidence. The phenomenon would need to be consistently reproducible under controlled conditions before it can be safely assumed to be the situation, in which case everything I said in my first response would still apply.

Notice here that I haven't written-off the phenomenon. I've simply identified some of the issues that surround it. It's interesting to contemplate. I'll post some more after listening to the episodes.

 

[Golden_Vimana]

Yea I get where you’re coming from. There’s obviously infinite directions that a conversation like this could go. But here’s what’s on my mind at the moment.

Consciousness is a type of subjective reality.

Objectivity and subjectivity aren’t necessarily at odds with each other. If the only reason you can’t see a cow on the other side of a hill is because of said hill that’s blocking your field of vision - it obviously in no way shape or form makes the cow any less real. Might seem like an oversimplification - but stick with me. What if the only reason we experience a sense of “objective” and “subjective” reality is simply because of our tendency to operate within the parameters of filters that obstruct our awareness? The hill between us and that cow. In that sense, objective reality is really just a bird’s eye view. Perspective. But according to your “subjective” viewpoint, from the other side of that hill, that cow doesn’t exist. It’s existence isn’t something you deny, it’s something you have no way of comprehending in the fist place simply because of that damn hill. So - remove the hill, or even easier yet, scale it - and voila. Something that was previously relegated to the “objective” is now all of a sudden subjectively available because of a shift in perspective. Or because of the removal of an obstruction, however you want to frame it. The point is - the distinction we naturally make between the objective and subjective may just be an illusion. A forced narrowing of stimulus that’s just a result of evolutionary programming - and (primarily Western) societal norms.

It can all really be summed up in one term. Non-locality. The results from the God Helmet experiment and the Ivy League studies on the effects of intention on random number generators are pretty good expressions of this idea. Specifically with the God Helmet experiment, one subject was put into a faraday cage, and another outside of it. They were instructed to focus on one another. Light was flashed into the eyes of the subject who was outside of the faraday cage. Their brain activity was being monitored - and although below his awareness, there were spikes in brain activity in the one subject whenever light was flashed into the eyes of the other. What’s funny is that - Newtonian materialist reductionism would automatically posit that maybe some yet undiscovered signal was being sent from one to the other. Well the faraday cage rules that out. Non-locality. And don’t even get me started on quantum entanglement.

One of the now pseudo cliche observations about the universe that we hear tossed around is: what was there before The Big Bang. Well if “consciousness” for lack of a better word is fundamental to reality, and everything else emerges from it, that may just answer the question.

I mentioned the connection between Western society and our proclivity to contextualize things in terms of separateness. Eastern metaphysics jives with the idea of non-locality far better than Abrahamic belief systems. Notice that certain faiths position God as “above” and outside of you. Whatever the creative force behind the universe is, some systems label it as being as separate from you as you are from your refrigerator. Two distinct “things”. I’ve actually heard the idea put forth that much of religion exists not to connect us to the transcendent, but to protect us from it. Anyway, you go thumb through the tenets of Buddhism and you see that one of the core ideas is that this plane of separateness is an illusion. From a Buddhist perspective, by improving myself I’m in turn improving the world - because there is literally no difference. I’m not a Buddhist. Im only saying they may have just happened to get at least a B+ on that quiz.

Although the above is a valid observation, we can just as easily ( in fact even more easily ) turn the whole argument around and look at witchcraft, wizardry, and mediumship as being the long outmoded methods of analysis and investigation that have since been replaced by the far more accurate modes of critical thinking and the scientific method. It also doesn't logically follow that all contentious examples in the present suffer from the same sorts of misinterpretations as those in the past. We are much better educated these days and less likely to make the same mistakes.

We definitely seem to have far better instrumentation now than throughout history. There’s a lot of variables to this though that should be considered. The expansion of our understanding of the world isn’t exactly linear. The common thinking is obviously that somewhere around 7-10,000 years ago, agriculture began and that started a domino effect that eventually produced iPhones and Nike Sneakers. Prior to that, we toiled as hunter gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years. A lot of people never really stop to acknowledge the fact that - hunter gatherers never went anywhere. The aboriginal lineage amongst others is unbroken from prehistory. The world around the indigenous ungulates in its ability to manipulate the physical world. And yet, they continue on. A true linear progression would preclude their demise, to then give rise to a “more advanced” civilization. But they’re just chillin. A technological plateau that spans countless thousands of years. It’s not a straight line, it’s moving in every direction simultaneously. I’m constantly seeing evidence of us getting better than we’ve ever been and worse than we’ve ever been and different than we’ve ever been - at the same exact time. And in some cases there’s no change at all. There are definitely things we understand now, that people of the past knew nothing of. And conversely, I’m certain that there are aspects of the universe that in the distant past were in a way easier (for some) to perceive.

Annnnnd back to aliens..

Here were are, going back & forth on the mysteries of the universe. Meanwhile, there are likely beings out there who not only know the answers to all this but somehow figured out how to leverage it as technology.

The wealth of 1st world countries could put an end to the suffering of countless people on Earth if the priorities of some were replaced by empathy. In that same sense - what does it say about “them” that they choose to just hover around and watch? Could it be though that their perception is so different than ours that they exist outside of what we typically sense - and we’re just seeing a vestige of their existence? I know it seems like I’m all over the place, but I’m saying all this for a reason. For a second, assume consciousness = reality, and our sense of separation is solely due to blockages in our awareness. If the universe is as teaming with life as we think it is, statistically there’d be at least a few races who have less “blockages” than us, or none at all. Biology then being an end result of consciousness and not the other way around would then have to tie in with what we perceive as death. Body or not, the awareness would be uninterrupted. It could possibly even be thought of as if the human body itself was the only thing standing between you and the universe. This is a very Whitley Strieber kind of idea - but maybe at least some of the non-human beings visiting Earth perceive reality in such an expansive way that they’re here while simultaneously experiencing whatever plane of existence our awareness shifts to when our illusory shell gives up. And, I know, big if, but, if that’s the case - there’s no reason for them to, say, save human lives from something like Covid - because death isn’t what we perceive it to be in the first place. Maybe it’s nothing more than a shift in perspective.

Ok I’m done.

 

[Randall]

Yea I get where you’re coming from. There’s obviously infinite directions that a conversation like this could go. But here’s what’s on my mind at the moment.

Yup.

Objectivity and subjectivity aren’t necessarily at odds with each other. If the only reason you can’t see a cow on the other side of a hill is because of said hill that’s blocking your field of vision - it obviously in no way shape or form makes the cow any less real. Might seem like an oversimplification - but stick with me. What if the only reason we experience a sense of “objective” and “subjective” reality is simply because of our tendency to operate within the parameters of filters that obstruct our awareness? The hill between us and that cow. In that sense, objective reality is really just a bird’s eye view. Perspective.

Things are getting a little fuzzy there. If we're in the camp that believes there are such things as the subjective and the objective, then we don't ever "experience" the objective. We only experience the subjective ( This goes back to Plato's Cave ). So a "bird's eye view" is always subjective.

But according to your “subjective” viewpoint, from the other side of that hill, that cow doesn’t exist. It’s existence isn’t something you deny, it’s something you have no way of comprehending in the fist place simply because of that damn hill. So - remove the hill, or even easier yet, scale it - and voila. Something that was previously relegated to the “objective” is now all of a sudden subjectively available because of a shift in perspective. Or because of the removal of an obstruction, however you want to frame it. The point is - the distinction we naturally make between the objective and subjective may just be an illusion. A forced narrowing of stimulus that’s just a result of evolutionary programming - and (primarily Western) societal norms.

That view would fall into one of the subjective idealist camps. There's no way to prove that there's anything objective. It's a belief based on what seems reasonable given the evidence. But ultimately all of that could simply be something conjured up as well. When then do I choose to stay in the camp of believers in the objective?

Maybe you're right and it's just Western norms. But not simply social norms. For me it's more the norms of Western science and logic. For example, according to that paradigm, the universe is far older than humans are, so how could we have dreamed up a universe before we existed? One might argue that all the evidence for that has also been cooked-up in our imagination, and we can't prove it's not. But is it really reasonable to think it is? And that's only one example.

It can all really be summed up in one term. Non-locality. The results from the God Helmet experiment and the Ivy League studies on the effects of intention on random number generators are pretty good expressions of this idea. Specifically with the God Helmet experiment, one subject was put into a faraday cage, and another outside of it. They were instructed to focus on one another. Light was flashed into the eyes of the subject who was outside of the faraday cage. Their brain activity was being monitored - and although below his awareness, there were spikes in brain activity in the one subject whenever light was flashed into the eyes of the other. What’s funny is that - Newtonian materialist reductionism would automatically posit that maybe some yet undiscovered signal was being sent from one to the other. Well the faraday cage rules that out. Non-locality. And don’t even get me started on quantum entanglement.

I think Persinger was onto something for sure. I've tried to contact some of his colleagues following his death, but they're hard to reach, and seem to want to stick to themselves. I should try again.

One of the now pseudo cliche observations about the universe that we hear tossed around is: what was there before The Big Bang. Well if “consciousness” for lack of a better word is fundamental to reality, and everything else emerges from it, that may just answer the question.

Like I was saying above, if there was a consciousness around before the Big Bang, all evidence suggests that it could not have been human, because we evolved much, much, much, much, later. Even if we assume there's such a thing as reincarnation, the very first human to attain a consciousness that could be reincarnated didn't come along for billions of years.

I mentioned the connection between Western society and our proclivity to contextualize things in terms of separateness. Eastern metaphysics jives with the idea of non-locality far better than Abrahamic belief systems. Notice that certain faiths position God as “above” and outside of you. Whatever the creative force behind the universe is, some systems label it as being as separate from you as you are from your refrigerator. Two distinct “things”. Then you go thumb through the tenets of Buddhism and you see that one of the core ideas is that this plane of separateness is an illusion. From a Buddhist perspective, by improving myself I’m in turn improving the world - because there is literally no difference. I’m not a Buddhist. Im only saying they may have just happened to get at least a B+ on that quiz.

I like the concepts in there, but we need to be careful not to conflate cause with effect. For example, if you improve yourself and in turn improve the world, there are still two distinct things in the equation, "you" and "the world". If there were no differentiating you from the world, then there would be no cause and effect and it would make no difference if you suddenly vanished from existence. But that's not how it works. If you suddenly vanished, the world would suddenly missing something completely unique ( you ! ).

We definitely seem to have far better instrumentation now than throughout history. There’s a lot of variables to this though that should be considered. The expansion of our understanding of the world isn’t exactly linear. The common thinking is obviously that somewhere around 7-10,000 years ago, agriculture began and that started a domino effect that eventually produced iPhones and Nike Sneakers. Prior to that, we toiled as hunter gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years. A lot of people never really stop to acknowledge the fact that - hunter gatherers never went anywhere. The aboriginal lineage amongst others is unbroken from prehistory.

The world around the indigenous ungulates in its ability to manipulate the physical world. And yet, they continue on. A true linear progression would preclude their demise, to then give rise to a “more advanced” civilization. But they’re just chillin. A technological plateau that spans countless thousands of years. It’s not a straight line, it’s moving in every direction simultaneously.

I’m constantly seeing evidence of us getting better than we’ve ever been and worse than we’ve ever been and different than we’ve ever been - at the same exact time. And in some cases there’s no change at all. There are definitely things we understand better now, that people of the past knew nothing of. And conversely, I’m certain that there are aspects of the universe that in the distant past were in a way easier (for some) to perceive.

Very good observations.

Annnnnd back to aliens..

Here were are, going back & forth on the mysteries of the universe. Meanwhile, there are likely beings out there who not only know the answers to all this but somehow figured out how to leverage it as technology.

The wealth of 1st world countries could put an end to the suffering of countless people on Earth if the priorities of some was replaced by empathy. In that same sense - what does it say about “them” that they choose to just hover there and watch? Or maybe their perception is so different than ours that they exist outside of what we typically sense and we’re just seeing a vestige of their existence. I know it seems like I’m all over the place, but I’m saying all this for a reason. For a second, assume consciousness = reality, and our sense of separation is solely due to blockages in our awareness.

I already assume conscious = reality ( subjective reality ). Whatever is actually going on out there in objective reality is anybody's guess, but whatever it is, it's a whole lot bigger than we are.

If the universe is as teaming with life as we think it is, statistically there’d be at least a few races who have less “blockages” than us, or none at all. Biology being an end result of consciousness and not the other way around would then have to tie in with what we perceive as death. Body or not, the awareness is uninterrupted. This is a very Whitley Strieber kind of idea - but maybe at least some of the non-human beings visiting Earth perceive reality in such an expansive way that they’re here while simultaneously experiencing whatever plane of existence our awareness shifts to when our illusory shell gives up. And, I know, big if, but, if that’s the case - there’s no reason for them to, say, save human lives from something like Covid - because death isn’t what we perceive it to be in the first place. Maybe it’s nothing more than a shift in perspective.

Ok I’m done.

Death being a "shift in perspective" sounds nice on the surface, but someplace in here I'm pretty sure I wrote an article on why afterlives are impossible. It's a bit much to get into in a couple of short sentences, but no matter how you distill it down, anything that seems like it's someone who has attained existence in some sort of afterlife, can at best, only be a copy of their original selves. There is only one "you". And there will never be another one when you're gone. You are ( we all are ) unique and irreplaceable.

 

[Golden_Vimana]

Like I was saying above, if there was a consciousness around before the Big Bang, all evidence suggests that it could not have been human, because we evolved much, much, much, much, later. Even if we assume there's such a thing as reincarnation, the very first human to attain a consciousness that could be reincarnated didn't come along for billions of years.

This observation is born out of a misunderstanding of what I mean when I say consciousness is probably fundamental to the universe. Also, it infers the opposite, it infers that consciousness is proprietary to biology instead of the other way around. The simplest way to describe it would be - underlying literally everything, and outside of time, all there is - is a conscious field of awareness. At our core that’s what we are - but we wear human suits for 70-80 years, and then shed it like a snake sheds it’s skin.

 

[Randall]

This observation is born out of a misunderstanding of what I mean when I say consciousness is probably fundamental to the universe. Also, it infers the opposite, it infers that consciousness is proprietary to biology instead of the other way around. The simplest way to describe it would be - underlying literally everything, and outside of time, all there is - is a conscious field of awareness. At our core that’s what we are - but we wear human suits for 70-80 years, and then shed it like a snake sheds it’s skin.

Thanks for placing your comment about consciousness into perspective. We've been discussing this same idea off and on over on the Consciousness thread for literally years now, but I'm fine reviewing some of it here.

The main problems are ( in no particular order ) coming to consensus on:

1. What is meant by "fundamental".
2. Can something be both fundamental and emergent?
3. Is consciousness the same as subjective experience?
4. If so, what is required in order to have a subjective experience. For example:
   • Can something with no eyes have a visual experience?
   • If not, can something without sensory data gathering systems have any sensory experiences at all?
   • If you believe so, what reasoning can you offer to support that position?

By reflecting on the above, you'll soon find yourself down the same path I always end-up on, which is that the universal consciousness theory lacks coherence. It's a nice New Agey feel good sort of notion, but it just doesn't hold together. It's more complex than that. But by all mean feel free to discuss. Here's a re-post of a popular David Chalmers talk on the subject.

David Chalmers On Consciousness

 

[andrewgarrett]

There's danger to what we value in believing what Raven has said about the Grays as they're called. I have seen an alien probe, met others who have seen such and craft as well, and have other experience most have difficulty understanding.
We don't know what we're dealing with as a race. People like Raven are convincing but deceived. I know this unfortunately well because I was too. Read this to understand more what is going on: alliesofhumanity.org