User talk:Ryans.lewis3365

Perpetual Consciousness
Perpetual Consciousness- phrase- Aspect of commulative properties regarding conscious decision making. What is "Perpetual Consciousness"? An example of perpetual motion is a good metaphor while you make a sign language hand sign of “crazy” (pointer finger moving in circular motion while pointed at side of ones head) and say- “perpetual motion of your conscious mind” The irony is that the sign language is saying crazy while the mind is thinking progress. The relationships between the conscious and subconscious portions of the human mind seem somewhat synonymous although, this is debatable; because, The conscious self isn't always aware of when the subconscious will make contact. Why is this description important? From a mathematical perception I can also compare the "theory of relativity" in respects to the ability to understand reality because reality is dependent on the quantum mechanical motion of your thought patterns, or understanding of associations between the relationships of all the aspects and combinations of theories acting as one. The super cyclical motion of thought patterns... or The universal motion of your mind... "Perpetual Consciousness" Used in a sentence- I would love to remain perpetually conscious of my life so that I could use the phrase "perpetual consciousness".

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to learn to sign your posts & indent properly. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A summary of some guidelines you may find useful
That's a good set of links that Ian has provided for you above. I highly recommend reading them, especially the third one. Just thinking out loud what a word might mean is not the best use of Wikipedia, but if you have reliable sources that you can point to, then that's very useful. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Always cite a source when adding any new information to an article, using, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject (such as a view on religion) is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)