If you take these arguments and put them in context of reality.
Main Entry: re·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: rE-'a-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
3 : television programming that features videos of actual occurrences (as a police chase, stunt, or natural disaster) -- often used attributively <reality TV>
- in reality : in actual fact
"the sensory world that is the reality which we as human beings experience, is only a shadow of a higher realm"
The "higher realm" would therefore be beyond sensation which would make it beyond perception.
First of all, that is the interpretation of wikipedia. If you have evidence directly from Plato's actual theories, I'd like to hear it.
Are you familiar with Plato's Allegory of the Cave? Are you familiar with the implications it entails regarding human beings awakening to higher levels of awareness, whereupon they can perceive more and more of the "real" reality? And how in comparison the "cave-reality" is a pale imitation of the "real" reality?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
No, exactly the opposite, thus reality is that which exists independant of the mind. You are discussing your perceived version of reality, but it is not reality it's self.
People often discuss the subjective reality or qualia, and refer to it as a form of reality, but this is an oversimplification, there is only one version of reality.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
All you're discussing here is attributes of individuals. Two individuals with a different set of attributes does not justify different realities. It simply justifies different individuals.
We're simply using the term "reality" differently. To you, reality is whatever is perceived. To me, reality is whatever exists, regardless of perception.
then what is reality to you? you're describing what you precieve to be reality.
and OT somewhat but I thought Id share. Falling to earth on one of two rocket boosters from the shuttle.
Space is black, and Earth is white in the beginning, but it will all become apparent. Pay attention to the sounds of the metal groaning as earth's gravity grips the rocket, and the hot metal cooling sounds after going through the atmosphere. Trippy
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
No, exactly the opposite, thus reality is that which exists independant of the mind. You are discussing your perceived version of reality, but it is not reality it's self.
People often discuss the subjective reality or qualia, and refer to it as a form of reality, but this is an oversimplification, there is only one version of reality.
it is now 74F here and that is seperate from the mind. it is determined by the local weather monitoring station. using scientific monitoring devices. so that is reality. so if it is not 74F there; you are out of touch with reality. because as you say; there is only 1 version of reality.
then what is reality to you? you're describing what you precieve to be reality.
Where colour represents a light wave reflectancy.
The American Flag is Red, White and Blue
The Canadian Flag is Red and White
Those are true in reality. Everyone may experience the colours slightly different, colour-blind people may not see the red as red, but regardless of all perceptions, the flags still absorb and reflect a specific amount of light in reality.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
it is now 74F here and that is seperate from the mind. it is determined by the local weather monitoring station. using scientific monitoring devices. so that is reality. so if it is not 74F there; you are out of touch with reality. because as you say; there is only 1 version of reality.
Reality isn't constrained by physical lengths. Don't you think this view is awefully ego-centric, or myopic?
Reality doesn't extend to the bounds of your city, or even your country (*cough*). Reality extends to all that is, beyond our solor system, to all the depths of the universe and whatever may lay beyond. Reality does not take shape.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No, exactly the opposite, thus reality is that which exists independant of the mind. You are discussing your perceived version of reality, but it is not reality it's self.
People often discuss the subjective reality or qualia, and refer to it as a form of reality, but this is an oversimplification, there is only one version of reality.
you're stating what you precieve to be reality. in countless threads we've seen countless others that disagree with your perception of reality as it pertains to several subjects. as you're human and thus flawed; how can you determine reality when you are flawed? you're perception is YOUR reality and exists in your brain or thoughts. you are stating your OPINION or parroting the opinion of another flawed human.
It seems like some people think the beliefs people hold--especially the "unacceptable ones"-- are independent of reality. And the fact is that even with delusions, also known as obviously false beliefs, they are firmly entrenched in reality. Someone isn't in their imagination, but rather their thoughts are colouring everything they look at. Again, most people have a split consciousness: they believe that what they see is real, and then judge other people's "reality" against their own "real" one. The majority of people I have known do not recognize that the reality they see is based on unconscious decisions they make in their brain/mind.
Now you're getting into judgement, and that implies a host of other concepts. A judgement is either right or it is wrong. The judgement "angelica is a woman", is right. The judgement "angelica's beliefs are independent of reality" is wrong. Two judgements, just because they are judgements, are not equal.
I am pointing out that the way the human psyche generally works for people, before they begin to awaken to increased consciousness, is that they believe their perceptions and what they see to be real. They believe they are independently observing the truth of life all around themas it exists in a raw state. They don't realize that what they are really viewing is their perceptions interacting with and transposed onto reality. Do you agree?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Actually, if you watch the full clip, I think it's available on ebaumsworld.com killsometime.com youtube.com or shoutfile.com, they discuss the scientific basis for their work. Just like chinese martial artists, these men condition their bones by striking solid objects, it cause the bones to strengthen. There is a real biological explanation for the strengthening of bones, and ultimately it leads to bones that are harder or as hard as bricks.
It should also be noted that the physics of striking do not require the striking object to be harder than the struck object for the struck object to break.
Physics of Striking
That large objects moving at high speeds hit harder than smaller objects movingmore slowly goes without saying. In attempting to break a board, a karateka seeks to hit the board as hard as possible. It therefore follows that the karateka should move his or her weapon (for the purpose of this paper, the hand) as quickly as possible in order to hit as hard as possible. But what makes for a “hard” strike? Two ways exist to answer this question, both equally accurate. The first looks at the collision in terms of force and momentum; the second looks at the collision in terms of energy. Force (F) is acceleration (a) times mass (m): F = m· a. Momentum (p) is mass times velocity (v): p = m· v. Since acceleration measures change in velocity over time (t) (put another way, acceleration is the derivative of velocity with respect to time), force is the derivative of momentum with respect to time. Equivalently, force times time equals change in momentum, or impulse (∆p): ∆p=F· t. This is significant because momentum is a conserved quantity. It can be neither created nor destroyed, but is passed from one object (the hand) to another (the board). The reason for this conservation is Newton’s third law of motion, which states that if an object exerts a force on another object for a given time, the second object exerts a force equal in magnitude but opposite in direction (force being a vector quantity) on the first object for the same amount of time so the second object gains exactly the amount of momentum the first object loses. Momentum is thus transferred. With ∆p a fixed quantity, F and t are necessarily inversely proportional. One can deliver a given amount of momentum by transferring a large force for a short time or by transferringsmall amounts of force continuously for a longer time
I will add that if the initial force transfered to the struck object isn't sufficient enough to transfer momentum, say the object is too elastic or resistent to the force given, that force will then bounce back into the striking object, causing a broken hand no doubt. I've played around with breaking boards, and not the cheap, softwood boards you order from karate supplies, but real hardwood 2x4s. If struck lightly, the pain is incredible, however, if struck with maximum velocity and minimal surface area, the board will break, and in that case all momentum is transfered through the board and no pain is suffered by the striking object (hand).
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
you're stating what you precieve to be reality. in countless threads we've seen countless others that disagree with your perception of reality as it pertains to several subjects. as you're human and thus flawed; how can you determine reality when you are flawed? you're perception is YOUR reality and exists in your brain or thoughts. you are stating your OPINION or parroting the opinion of another flawed human.
I'm not saying that. Certainly they are my perceptions of reality, but reglardless what I think, reality exists in a version independant of my thoughts.
There are many things that can easily be proven to exist in reality, where interpretation is left out. For example is a smiley face.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
First of all, that is the interpretation of wikipedia. If you have evidence directly from Plato's actual theories, I'd like to hear it.
Are you familiar with Plato's Allegory of the Cave? Are you familiar with the implications it entails regarding human beings awakening to higher levels of awareness, whereupon they can perceive more and more of the "real" reality? And how in comparison the "cave-reality" is a pale imitation of the "real" reality?
Of course. But all Plato has effectively demonstrated here is that a blind person sees the world differently than a seeing person. It simply states that an incomplete view of a complete world will seem complete to a perceptive being. But this fact does not prove his "higher realm". It just proves that things can exist beyond our perception.
It is both plausible and highly likely that realms exist beyond our perception. But first there is no guarantee of that fact. Secondly, I tend to find the entire concept superfluous and silly. One may look at a jellyfish, for instance, and say that there are realms beyond that jellyfish's perception. But an interesting question arises: so what? Is there then something fundamentally flawed about the jellyfish's existence? I'd argue no. The same is true for people. We are creatures who have evolved for specific reasons into what we are. And that reason is life, driven by happiness. Does a failure to perceive "higher realms" preclude life or happiness?
The American Flag is Red, White and Blue
The Canadian Flag is Red and White
Those are true in reality. Everyone may experience the colours slightly different, colour-blind people may not see the red as red, but regardless of all perceptions, the flags still absorb and reflect a specific amount of light in reality.
I think of light and colors in terms of temperature. When you turn a dimmer switch up or down in a room all the colors change...eventually to black.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
it is 72F here and that is reality. that is true. it in no way crosses over to false. that is reality NOW. but reality is constantly changing.
reality's boundries are the mind. we can be in the same room yet i can feel warm while you feel cold. so which is real? a third party walks in and is comfortable. that's 3 different realities in one room.
you can talk in circles all day but reality to you is different from anyone else. you can point to facts but facts are constantly changing. science contradicts itself and is then left to general opinion. that opinion may change with the addition of new facts.
Reality is that the temperature is 72F.
These three different people have different perceptions of reality, there aren't different realities. There's one reality (T=72F), which people perceive differently.
The facts are not constantly changing, it isn't 50F for person A, 99F for person B and 72F for person C, it's 72F for all three of them, some experience this as cold, some as hot and some as comfortable.
I am pointing out that the way the human psyche generally works for people, before they begin to awaken to increased consciousness, is that they believe their perceptions and what they see to be real. They believe they are independently observing the truth of life all around themas it exists in a raw state. They don't realize that what they are really viewing is their perceptions interacting with and transposed onto reality. Do you agree?
Yes I agree, at least to some extent. Forgetting the separation between perception and reality and the independence of those two elements is both common and dangerous. But at the same time, I tend to believe that most people, despite their flaws, are more in tune with reality than out of tune with it. Perhaps I'm just overly optimistic though.
I don't see how, something that is shapeless, must be thought. Therefor unless God is an old man sitting on a cloud, God is merely a thought. Or is this like Intelligent Design, where the argument only applies to that which you want it to apply?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not saying that. Certainly they are my perceptions of reality, but reglardless what I think, reality exists in a version independant of my thoughts.
There are many things that can easily be proven to exist in reality, where interpretation is left out. For example is a smiley face.
but you said reality does not take shape. if is a smiley face; then it's 74F here. you can talk about the universe but you've never seen it. comets are real. we can see them. they take shape.
i really would like to understand but i can't grasp what you're saying when you contradict yourself.
You are NOT a mathematician, are you Cosmo? Firstly, "one apple plus one apple makes two apples" does NOT mean that "1+ 1= 2" divorced of any specific objects- that's a completely different definition. There are many arguments to dispute your stance that "math translates into and represents the real world". There are many areas of theoretical physics & manthematics that have no basis in the observed data of the real world.
As for other things: category theory was not developed with the intent of doing anything for the real world.
Non-euclidean geometry was developed without recourse to the real world, it was an attempt to see if the parallel postulate was independent of the other axioms, and its models were a long time in being invented.
Just because something has now got a use modeling the real world doesn't mean that it started off with that intention.
...
Correct... I am NOT a mathematician... never claimed to be. I'm just some guy out here trying to make by... that's all.
All I ask is this:
1 + 1 = 2
Is this a true statement?
If No... why not?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
but you said reality does not take shape. if is a smiley face; then it's 74F here. you can talk about the universe but you've never seen it. comets are real. we can see them. they take shape.
i really would like to understand but i can't grasp what you're saying when you contradict yourself.
An apple is a real object, existing within reality. The apple has shape, reality does not.
Time does not have shape (fuck Einstein)
Speed does not have shape
Solidity does not have shape
There may be shapes associated with these things, but they themselves do not take shape.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
are you absolutely sure that the truth re: humans is relative?
Truth is absolute. Now, people may believe something to be true, but when it is found out to not be true, it becomes a belief or an opinion or wrong.
...
I'm saying 'The Truth' is absolute... but, truth is relative based upon the person.
When it comes to religion... which 'truth' applies? Who's religion is the truth? If they are conflicting ideologies... they cannot all be true. The truth is relative to the person who believes their truth is absolute... when in fact, it may be false.
Like... Is there God? If you truely believe.... it is your truth. Nothing wrong with that. But, it does not mean it is true. There's a 50/50 chance there.
I don't know for sure... so my answer is, 'I don't know if there is God'. That is my truth... I don't know. There is no arguement to negate. If you have one... please, let me know.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I don't see how, something that is shapeless, must be thought. Therefor unless God is an old man sitting on a cloud, God is merely a thought. Or is this like Intelligent Design, where the argument only applies to that which you want it to apply?
if you can; imagine an 'OUT OF BODY" EXPERIENCE. i'm sure you don't believe in it but just imagine. you're mind stays behind but your thoughts are seperate from your body. this is death. or at least the death experience. check out an asteral projection tape/dvd and it will guide you through the experience. go into it believing you can do it. once you can seperate body from being; you'll understand.
God isn't an old man sitting on a throne. he is the being seperate from the body. he made us in his image; then put that image in a body conducive to life on earth. once you experience life without body; it's easier to understand.
"[Free will is] a bit like the whole dance of Shiva thing, that you think you're an aloof spectator watching the universe, but actually you're just a part of the cosmic ebba nd flow of the world... You're a part of this grand scheme of things." - V.S. Ramachandran
"Imagine riding around a very complicated robot that has billions of circuits inside that's doing all kinds of interesting things... That's really the position we're in with our own minds." - Daniel Wegner
"It's not just about the behavioural disposition that I go and rub my mouth and moan... Right now, you really have a bad toothache and you don't have pain medication because you're out there in the mountains. It's not very convincing to tell me 'Sorry, you're just linguistically confused'. It just doesn't cut it." - Christof Koch
"What we would eventually like is an explanation. That is, we would be able to look at the physical processes in the brain and say 'Aha! Now I see why this gives rise to a subjective experience of this kind.' Right now nobody has a clue baout that." - David Chalmers
"I think in years to come we'll be able to download our personalities onto computers and have them live in virtual worlds after we die. Then our consciousness will survive death." - Kevin O'Regan
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
if you can; imagine an 'OUT OF BODY" EXPERIENCE. i'm sure you don't believe in it but just imagine. you're mind stays behind but your thoughts are seperate from your body. this is death. or at least the death experience. check out an asteral projection tape/dvd and it will guide you through the experience. go into it believing you can do it. once you can seperate body from being; you'll understand.
God isn't an old man sitting on a throne. he is the being seperate from the body. he made us in his image; then put that image in a body conducive to life on earth. once you experience life without body; it's easier to understand.
I'm not interested in that. That is a psychotic experience IMO. I'd like to avoid those. I can appreciate life and all that you do without hallucinations and such.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
if you can; imagine an 'OUT OF BODY" EXPERIENCE. i'm sure you don't believe in it but just imagine. you're mind stays behind but your thoughts are seperate from your body. this is death. or at least the death experience. check out an asteral projection tape/dvd and it will guide you through the experience. go into it believing you can do it. once you can seperate body from being; you'll understand.
God isn't an old man sitting on a throne. he is the being seperate from the body. he made us in his image; then put that image in a body conducive to life on earth. once you experience life without body; it's easier to understand.
Which is shapeless, and therefor (by your logic), merely a thought.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
An apple is a real object, existing within reality. The apple has shape, reality does not.
Time does not have shape (fuck Einstein)
Speed does not have shape
Solidity does not have shape
There may be shapes associated with these things, but they themselves do not take shape.
time and space is relative only to the human experience. man created time and speed. time is not real. in human measurement; it's 1:36 pm here. it's 8:36 in london. if time existed it would be absolute. time and speed are man's invention.
time and space is relative only to the human experience. man created time and speed. time is not real. in human measurement; it's 1:36 pm here. it's 8:36 in london. if time existed it would be absolute. time and speed are man's invention.
So, if we uninvent time and speed, everything will stop moving, energy will no longer exist at all, every second will be identical to the last and basically the universe will stop functioning?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
time and space is relative only to the human experience. man created time and speed. time is not real. in human measurement; it's 1:36 pm here. it's 8:36 in london. if time existed it would be absolute. time and speed are man's invention.
WTF...
Can you go check on Hitler for me? I have a sneaking suspicion he's up to no good.
Comments
thus reality is in the mind of the beholder.
Are you familiar with Plato's Allegory of the Cave? Are you familiar with the implications it entails regarding human beings awakening to higher levels of awareness, whereupon they can perceive more and more of the "real" reality? And how in comparison the "cave-reality" is a pale imitation of the "real" reality?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No, exactly the opposite, thus reality is that which exists independant of the mind. You are discussing your perceived version of reality, but it is not reality it's self.
People often discuss the subjective reality or qualia, and refer to it as a form of reality, but this is an oversimplification, there is only one version of reality.
then what is reality to you? you're describing what you precieve to be reality.
Space is black, and Earth is white in the beginning, but it will all become apparent. Pay attention to the sounds of the metal groaning as earth's gravity grips the rocket, and the hot metal cooling sounds after going through the atmosphere. Trippy
anyway's it's a buzz to watch (high)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d14fc9811e
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
it is now 74F here and that is seperate from the mind. it is determined by the local weather monitoring station. using scientific monitoring devices. so that is reality. so if it is not 74F there; you are out of touch with reality. because as you say; there is only 1 version of reality.
Where colour represents a light wave reflectancy.
The American Flag is Red, White and Blue
The Canadian Flag is Red and White
Those are true in reality. Everyone may experience the colours slightly different, colour-blind people may not see the red as red, but regardless of all perceptions, the flags still absorb and reflect a specific amount of light in reality.
Reality is what exists, regardless of my perception of it.
Reality isn't constrained by physical lengths. Don't you think this view is awefully ego-centric, or myopic?
Reality doesn't extend to the bounds of your city, or even your country (*cough*). Reality extends to all that is, beyond our solor system, to all the depths of the universe and whatever may lay beyond. Reality does not take shape.
you're stating what you precieve to be reality. in countless threads we've seen countless others that disagree with your perception of reality as it pertains to several subjects. as you're human and thus flawed; how can you determine reality when you are flawed? you're perception is YOUR reality and exists in your brain or thoughts. you are stating your OPINION or parroting the opinion of another flawed human.
I am pointing out that the way the human psyche generally works for people, before they begin to awaken to increased consciousness, is that they believe their perceptions and what they see to be real. They believe they are independently observing the truth of life all around themas it exists in a raw state. They don't realize that what they are really viewing is their perceptions interacting with and transposed onto reality. Do you agree?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Actually, if you watch the full clip, I think it's available on ebaumsworld.com killsometime.com youtube.com or shoutfile.com, they discuss the scientific basis for their work. Just like chinese martial artists, these men condition their bones by striking solid objects, it cause the bones to strengthen. There is a real biological explanation for the strengthening of bones, and ultimately it leads to bones that are harder or as hard as bricks.
It should also be noted that the physics of striking do not require the striking object to be harder than the struck object for the struck object to break.
I will add that if the initial force transfered to the struck object isn't sufficient enough to transfer momentum, say the object is too elastic or resistent to the force given, that force will then bounce back into the striking object, causing a broken hand no doubt. I've played around with breaking boards, and not the cheap, softwood boards you order from karate supplies, but real hardwood 2x4s. If struck lightly, the pain is incredible, however, if struck with maximum velocity and minimal surface area, the board will break, and in that case all momentum is transfered through the board and no pain is suffered by the striking object (hand).
I'm not saying that. Certainly they are my perceptions of reality, but reglardless what I think, reality exists in a version independant of my thoughts.
There are many things that can easily be proven to exist in reality, where interpretation is left out. For example
thus making it thought.
Of course. But all Plato has effectively demonstrated here is that a blind person sees the world differently than a seeing person. It simply states that an incomplete view of a complete world will seem complete to a perceptive being. But this fact does not prove his "higher realm". It just proves that things can exist beyond our perception.
It is both plausible and highly likely that realms exist beyond our perception. But first there is no guarantee of that fact. Secondly, I tend to find the entire concept superfluous and silly. One may look at a jellyfish, for instance, and say that there are realms beyond that jellyfish's perception. But an interesting question arises: so what? Is there then something fundamentally flawed about the jellyfish's existence? I'd argue no. The same is true for people. We are creatures who have evolved for specific reasons into what we are. And that reason is life, driven by happiness. Does a failure to perceive "higher realms" preclude life or happiness?
I think of light and colors in terms of temperature. When you turn a dimmer switch up or down in a room all the colors change...eventually to black.
Reminds me of the term "color of white".
cool article:
Energy=light=radiation=temperature
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM53AR1VED_index_0.html
.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Reality is that the temperature is 72F.
These three different people have different perceptions of reality, there aren't different realities. There's one reality (T=72F), which people perceive differently.
The facts are not constantly changing, it isn't 50F for person A, 99F for person B and 72F for person C, it's 72F for all three of them, some experience this as cold, some as hot and some as comfortable.
naděje umírá poslední
Yes I agree, at least to some extent. Forgetting the separation between perception and reality and the independence of those two elements is both common and dangerous. But at the same time, I tend to believe that most people, despite their flaws, are more in tune with reality than out of tune with it. Perhaps I'm just overly optimistic though.
I don't see how, something that is shapeless, must be thought. Therefor unless God is an old man sitting on a cloud, God is merely a thought. Or is this like Intelligent Design, where the argument only applies to that which you want it to apply?
but you said reality does not take shape. if
i really would like to understand but i can't grasp what you're saying when you contradict yourself.
Correct... I am NOT a mathematician... never claimed to be. I'm just some guy out here trying to make by... that's all.
All I ask is this:
1 + 1 = 2
Is this a true statement?
If No... why not?
Hail, Hail!!!
An apple is a real object, existing within reality. The apple has shape, reality does not.
Time does not have shape (fuck Einstein)
Speed does not have shape
Solidity does not have shape
There may be shapes associated with these things, but they themselves do not take shape.
I'm saying 'The Truth' is absolute... but, truth is relative based upon the person.
When it comes to religion... which 'truth' applies? Who's religion is the truth? If they are conflicting ideologies... they cannot all be true. The truth is relative to the person who believes their truth is absolute... when in fact, it may be false.
Like... Is there God? If you truely believe.... it is your truth. Nothing wrong with that. But, it does not mean it is true. There's a 50/50 chance there.
I don't know for sure... so my answer is, 'I don't know if there is God'. That is my truth... I don't know. There is no arguement to negate. If you have one... please, let me know.
Hail, Hail!!!
if you can; imagine an 'OUT OF BODY" EXPERIENCE. i'm sure you don't believe in it but just imagine. you're mind stays behind but your thoughts are seperate from your body. this is death. or at least the death experience. check out an asteral projection tape/dvd and it will guide you through the experience. go into it believing you can do it. once you can seperate body from being; you'll understand.
God isn't an old man sitting on a throne. he is the being seperate from the body. he made us in his image; then put that image in a body conducive to life on earth. once you experience life without body; it's easier to understand.
"Imagine riding around a very complicated robot that has billions of circuits inside that's doing all kinds of interesting things... That's really the position we're in with our own minds." - Daniel Wegner
"It's not just about the behavioural disposition that I go and rub my mouth and moan... Right now, you really have a bad toothache and you don't have pain medication because you're out there in the mountains. It's not very convincing to tell me 'Sorry, you're just linguistically confused'. It just doesn't cut it." - Christof Koch
"What we would eventually like is an explanation. That is, we would be able to look at the physical processes in the brain and say 'Aha! Now I see why this gives rise to a subjective experience of this kind.' Right now nobody has a clue baout that." - David Chalmers
"I think in years to come we'll be able to download our personalities onto computers and have them live in virtual worlds after we die. Then our consciousness will survive death." - Kevin O'Regan
I'm not interested in that. That is a psychotic experience IMO. I'd like to avoid those. I can appreciate life and all that you do without hallucinations and such.
Which is shapeless, and therefor (by your logic), merely a thought.
time and space is relative only to the human experience. man created time and speed. time is not real. in human measurement; it's 1:36 pm here. it's 8:36 in london. if time existed it would be absolute. time and speed are man's invention.
So, if we uninvent time and speed, everything will stop moving, energy will no longer exist at all, every second will be identical to the last and basically the universe will stop functioning?
WTF...
Can you go check on Hitler for me? I have a sneaking suspicion he's up to no good.