Q: Now that's just disrespectful.
A: Now Q, we've rehearsed this.
Q: Sorry. I was supposed to ask 'what do you mean?' It's like that's all I ever get to ask.
A: I don't mean anything. Least of all disrespect. Interesting that Angelica didn't reply.
Q: Perhaps she considered it unworthy of reply?
A: She is Obedient, that is for sure.
Q: Now that's just disrespectful.
A: I don't think so.
I will gladly answer the question "What do you mean" if you want clarification and are specific about what you refer to, so I can be sure I understand.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I will gladly answer the question "What do you mean" if you want clarification and are specific about what you refer to, so I can be sure I understand.
Scroll up, you missed my post, or scroll down and check what I asked justam.
wisdom. I'm not a wise man, but sometimes wisdom visits me.
You're slowly but surely becoming part of the dialogue.
Hey! since you're here, any thoughts on:
What if they had an ego, and nobody came?
Obviously this is a take on..."what if they had a War, and nobody came?"
There's some wisdom in this, can you see it?
Take your time.
I think war and what drives war is very complicated.
You have the people who are aggressively trying to take something from other people and then you have people who are defending themselves... It seems to me that the only people who might choose to not come would be the defenders, maybe?, but I don't have much faith that the people wanting to steal/take/get something will voluntarily not show up.
If greed and desire for what others have could be eliminated, you might be able to keep everyone from showing up.
wisdom. I'm not a wise man, but sometimes wisdom visits me.
Q: I think you're wise.
A: Sometimes I want to be the guy at the top of the mountain that people seek for truth. I love the mountains, afterall.
Q: And you hate society. You would rather be a primitive.
A: I like communication. I like these internet gadgets, these computers.
Q: blah. you could do without it.
A: I could.
I think war and what drives war is very complicated.
You have the people who are aggressively trying to take something from other people and then you have people who are defending themselves... It seems to me that the only people who might choose to not come would be the defenders, maybe?, but I don't have much faith that the people wanting to steal/take/get something will voluntarily not show up.
If greed and desire for what others have could be eliminated, you might be able to keep everyone from showing up.
Interesting.
I replaced 'war' in the equation with 'ego'.
It's unfortunate that at this very moment I'm supposed to be getting the kids ready to go out for the day.
Can I reply when I get home this afternoon?
I'm honored that you're even considering to take the time to think about it.
I remember reading an interview with Ed. To me, he articulated something in that interview better than I had verbalized to myself, or anyone else up to that time. In fact, if I remember right, he didn't even use that many words. He used his thumb and forefinger to signify the time that Christianity had been around, then spread his arms apart to show the time that humans had been around. He was making a point about evolution, perhaps. Maybe moreso, he was speaking in terms of human ideas.
"The reality of wave function collapse has always been debated...Note also that the physical significance ascribed to the wave function varies from interpretation to interpretation, and even within an interpretation, such as the Copenhagen Interpretation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse
If this is the case--that this is something that is debated, has numerous interpretations of the facts, and is not at all considered absolute within science, I wonder how you can so strongly pick a side and state is like it's absolute fact, when it's not known to be. Facts are one thing, but in the case of this subject, there are many different interpretations. By picking a side, you entitle yourself to denounce those who interpret it a different way, demonizing them with good/bad, right/wrong thinking made of judgment, which is no longer about fact.
These are the various interpretations according to wikipedia, alone. And we know wikipedia only touches the surface of subjects:
-the Copenhagen interpretation
-the so-called transactional interpretation
-in a "spiritual interpretation" in which consciousness causes collapse.
-interpretations based on consistent histories
-the many-worlds interpretation
-the Bohm interpretation
-the Ensemble Interpretation
"One of the paradoxes of quantum theory is that wave function seems to be more than just information (otherwise interference effects are hard to explain) and often less than real, since the collapse seems to take place faster-than-light and triggered by observers."
In order for something to be quantum it must be in the order of plank's constant.
Consciousness is not homuncular, it's dispersed in different regions of the brain.
Brain damage causes loss of consciousness.
No one has ever demonstrated an ability to alter matter with their thoughts.
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
The problem is with "inner resolutions" or intuition. Is that reality is often times counter-intuitive.
You have at least partially misunderstood what I meant here. An inner resolution is when you resolve your own inner contradiction, inner conflict or problem and come to a higher level of understanding within, which resolves issues in your life. It's learning. It is not "intuition".
For example, I'll use my situaiton with you. My chaotic relationship and conflict at the beginning with you has led me to resolve some of my own personal inner issues, and it has resulted in my resolving outer issues with you. This is not "intuition". This is learning and growth. People solve their issues of existence or their problems all the time. It's our evolution within our lifespan. This growth is indicated by the solution working in terms of the individual's purposes. In this sense, it is very much in synch with reality.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I guess he/she who has not ever shot the messenger can cast the first stone.........
What?? No takers? Oh, that's right, we all have been petty and small-minded from time to time, when lacking the maturity to focus on the information, itself. There are no victims here. We're all on the even playing field, and when we step out of line in our minds, and in our thoughts, words and deeds, into the victim/rescuer/persecutor stances, we are imbalancing ourselves and creating the vaccum that draws opposition to us.
Consciousness is not homuncular, it's dispersed in different regions of the brain.
Our awareness of consciousness is in it's infancy. You are talking of physical correlates of consciousness and what we know about physicality does not determine what happens beyond physicality.
I wanted to demonstrate that although there are numerous reputable, scientific interpretations of the collapse of the wave function, and how consciousnessness plays a role, you've pigeon-holed yourself into one, and are willing to demonize other reputable theories with personal judgment.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Our awareness of consciousness is in it's infancy. You are talking of physical correlates of consciousness and what we know about physicality does not determine what happens beyond physicality.
I wanted to demonstrate that although there are numerous reputable, scientific interpretations of the collapse of the wave function, and how consciousnessness plays a role, you've pigeon-holed yourself into one, and are willing to demonize other reputable theories with personal judgment.
Our awareness of time is in its infancy. Consciousness is nothing.
"First we should make sure something is not within this world, before we go looking outside of this world."
I found a good article on the movie
Don’t believe me? You don’t have to because David Albert, the professor from the Columbia University physics department who was featured in the film, is quoted in Salon.com saying:
I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed.
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 are stating this honestly, I believe you. I've had odd time experiences, too, and therefore don't take time in the same way the average person does. I think it's an illusion.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If you are stating this honestly, I believe you. I've had odd time experiences, too, and therefore don't take time in the same way the average person does. I think it's an illusion.
I think time is the mystery. Time, in a way, is the higher power.
Our experience of time is kind of dependent on consciousness, right?
Like when you sleep you don't experience time?
I've had black-outs when I was younger and performed behaviors without my conscious awareness. It seems that time jumps passed everything, but that's simply not the case.
Likewise if I am waiting the last hour of my work to go home, it seems a lot longer than the first hour. Because of the behavior of my access consciousness.
Subjective experiences like this are evidence for the fallaciousness of consciousness, not some fanciful explanation of time.
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 understand there are numerous ways to look at the movie, and that you and I, largely due to processing preference, see it differently.
I deal with the goal of obtaining truth, no matter how counter-intuitive it may be. I'm not about to believe this shit, it ignores known facts.
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
"The premise of the film is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality. The conclusion is we literally create reality with our thoughts...This is an explanation to help understand what might be going on, but it is not part of the theory [edit--of quantum physics] because it is not falsifiable: it cannot be tested in such a way that, if it were false, it would fail the test (without falsifying the whole of quantum mechanics, and therefore all the other interpretations too)."
It looks like this person is admitting the interpretation of the observer aspect of "What the Bleep" may well be true, but that it's not scientifically proven because it cannot be--it's beyond the parameters of science.
Art, as in movies, is entitled to take license with possibilities, and does so all the time. And all art ideas are meant to expand the human perception of what is possible, which precedes what we find is scientifically accurate. As a matter of fact, art generally challenges fixed closed-ideas. Fiction, even, constantly challenges our ideas of what is possible. Look at the example of Star Trek--note that since that show aired decades ago, it has inspired the advent of the personal computer and "telecommunicator-like" cell-phones. "What the Bleep", again, does not claim to be hard science, but rather to weave in an interpretation of science* with the wholeness of life, which is how it exists in reality. All of life does not flow from science.
For the record, Ahnimus, you like to present determinism as though it is THE factual truth, and meanwhile, it's merely one way people interpret reality.
*Author/speaker/lecturer and well-known physicist, Fred Alan Wolf, who received his degree almost 50 years ago, and who appears in the movie, discusses the physics from the movie all over the world. He constantly states that the movie's assertions come down to the complementarity principle which is accepted within physics, by physicists, and interpretation that stems from it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"The premise of the film is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality. The conclusion is we literally create reality with our thoughts...This is an explanation to help understand what might be going on, but it is not part of the theory [edit--of quantum physics] because it is not falsifiable: it cannot be tested in such a way that, if it were false, it would fail the test (without falsifying the whole of quantum mechanics, and therefore all the other interpretations too)."
It looks like this person is admitting the interpretation of the observer aspect of "What the Bleep" may well be true, but that it's not scientifically proven because it cannot be--it's beyond the parameters of science.
Art, as in movies, is entitled to take license with possibilities, and does so all the time. And all art ideas are meant to expand the human perception of what is possible, which precedes what we find is scientifically accurate. As a matter of fact, art generally challenges fixed closed-ideas. Fiction, even, constantly challenges our ideas of what is possible. Look at the example of Star Trek--note that since that show aired decades ago, it has inspired the advent of the personal computer and "telecommunicator-like" cell-phones. "What the Bleep", again, does not claim to be hard science, but rather to weave in an interpretation of science* with the wholeness of life, which is how it exists in reality. All of life does not flow from science.
For the record, Ahnimus, you like to present determinism as though it is THE factual truth, and meanwhile, it's merely one way people interpret reality.
*Author/speaker/lecturer and well-known physicist, Fred Alan Wolf, who received his degree almost 50 years ago, and who appears in the movie, discusses the physics from the movie all over the world. He constantly states that the movie's assertions come down to the complementarity principle which is accepted within physics, by physicists, and interpretation that stems from it.
Maybe I've held back too long, I dunno. I think you're a mind control freak.
I deal with the goal of obtaining truth, no matter how counter-intuitive it may be. I'm not about to believe this shit, it ignores known facts.
It ignores known facts in the same way Star Trek ignored the fact that we did not yet have personal computers or tiny cell-phones back in the sixties.
Just like the book I'm writing ignores the basic known psychiatric and psychological facts about mental illness.
You told me yesterday to stop following the theories of those dudes re: consciousness. I don't follow their theories. I've been shown these concepts spiritually. I know they exist. I don't know whether facts/details etc are always accurate--for that I must rely on science. I understand some universal truths in the way the average person does not, and I am writing a book to challenge prevalent thought, so that people, including the mental health care field, when exposed to expanded thought, expand their horizons and our awareness of what is possible. I well know--like the makers of this movie--that I can dramatically affect people by influencing the masses. This is how our evolution works. Certain people bring new thought to the masses.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It ignores known facts in the same way Star Trek ignored the fact that we did not yet have personal computers or tiny cell-phones back in the sixties.
Just like the book I'm writing ignores the basic known psychiatric and psychological facts about mental illness.
You told me yesterday to stop following the theories of those dudes re: consciousness. I don't follow their theories. I've been shown these concepts spiritually. I know they exist. I don't know whether facts/details etc are always accurate--for that I must rely on science. I understand some universal truths in the way the average person does not, and I am writing a book to challenge prevalent thought, so that people, including the mental health care field, when exposed to expanded thought, expand their horizons and our awareness of what is possible. I well know--like the makers of this movie--that I can dramatically affect people by influencing the masses. This is how our evolution works. Certain people bring new thought to the masses.
For the record, Ahnimus, you like to present determinism as though it is THE factual truth, and meanwhile, it's merely one way people interpret reality.
*Author/speaker/lecturer and well-known physicist, Fred Alan Wolf, who received his degree almost 50 years ago, and who appears in the movie, discusses the physics from the movie all over the world. He constantly states that the movie's assertions come down to the complementarity principle which is accepted within physics, by physicists, and interpretation that stems from it.
I actually disprove free-will and propose determinism as the best theory.
As I stated before, if free-will is the same for everyone it cannot be the source variation in human behavior. If it is different, then the variation must be explained and such variation would be caused by something external to the free-will and thus would not be free. The theory of free-will does not work.
Fred Alan Wolf is but one person, and to say that it "is accepted within physics, by physicists" is factually wrong. As stated above, one of the most prominent Physicists in the film was misrepresented. If it was such an accepted interpretation, they would not need to misrepresent, or lie about it.
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
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You're slowly but surely becoming part of the dialogue.
Hey! since you're here, any thoughts on:
What if they had an ego, and nobody came?
Obviously this is a take on..."what if they had a War, and nobody came?"
There's some wisdom in this, can you see it?
Take your time.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Scroll up, you missed my post, or scroll down and check what I asked justam.
wisdom. I'm not a wise man, but sometimes wisdom visits me.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I think war and what drives war is very complicated.
You have the people who are aggressively trying to take something from other people and then you have people who are defending themselves... It seems to me that the only people who might choose to not come would be the defenders, maybe?, but I don't have much faith that the people wanting to steal/take/get something will voluntarily not show up.
If greed and desire for what others have could be eliminated, you might be able to keep everyone from showing up.
Q: I think you're wise.
A: Sometimes I want to be the guy at the top of the mountain that people seek for truth. I love the mountains, afterall.
Q: And you hate society. You would rather be a primitive.
A: I like communication. I like these internet gadgets, these computers.
Q: blah. you could do without it.
A: I could.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Interesting.
I replaced 'war' in the equation with 'ego'.
think.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It's unfortunate that at this very moment I'm supposed to be getting the kids ready to go out for the day.
Can I reply when I get home this afternoon?
I'm honored that you're even considering to take the time to think about it.
I remember reading an interview with Ed. To me, he articulated something in that interview better than I had verbalized to myself, or anyone else up to that time. In fact, if I remember right, he didn't even use that many words. He used his thumb and forefinger to signify the time that Christianity had been around, then spread his arms apart to show the time that humans had been around. He was making a point about evolution, perhaps. Maybe moreso, he was speaking in terms of human ideas.
So, that's your clue.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
In order for something to be quantum it must be in the order of plank's constant.
Consciousness is not homuncular, it's dispersed in different regions of the brain.
Brain damage causes loss of consciousness.
No one has ever demonstrated an ability to alter matter with their thoughts.
For example, I'll use my situaiton with you. My chaotic relationship and conflict at the beginning with you has led me to resolve some of my own personal inner issues, and it has resulted in my resolving outer issues with you. This is not "intuition". This is learning and growth. People solve their issues of existence or their problems all the time. It's our evolution within our lifespan. This growth is indicated by the solution working in terms of the individual's purposes. In this sense, it is very much in synch with reality.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Do you like beisbol?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I wanted to demonstrate that although there are numerous reputable, scientific interpretations of the collapse of the wave function, and how consciousnessness plays a role, you've pigeon-holed yourself into one, and are willing to demonize other reputable theories with personal judgment.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I accept both determinate and indeterminate systems in harmony.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Maybe not.
I've experienced that thing in the Matrix, where, in my field of vision, 24 hours later, actions repeated themselves, like a videotape recording.
7 years before that movie came out. It kinda freaked me out that that was in the movie.
Maybe I shouldn't have told anyone that.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I accept bonobo monkey fucking.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Our awareness of time is in its infancy. Consciousness is nothing.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
"First we should make sure something is not within this world, before we go looking outside of this world."
I found a good article on the movie
This article explains most of what is wrong about the film. I.e the science.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html
Ahnimus?
This happened.
Angelica?
I experienced time like few others have.
Totally drug and alcohol free, btw.
I was driving.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I think time is the mystery. Time, in a way, is the higher power.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Our experience of time is kind of dependent on consciousness, right?
Like when you sleep you don't experience time?
I've had black-outs when I was younger and performed behaviors without my conscious awareness. It seems that time jumps passed everything, but that's simply not the case.
Likewise if I am waiting the last hour of my work to go home, it seems a lot longer than the first hour. Because of the behavior of my access consciousness.
Subjective experiences like this are evidence for the fallaciousness of consciousness, not some fanciful explanation of time.
I deal with the goal of obtaining truth, no matter how counter-intuitive it may be. I'm not about to believe this shit, it ignores known facts.
"The premise of the film is that quantum mechanics proves a conscious observer is necessary to create reality. The conclusion is we literally create reality with our thoughts...This is an explanation to help understand what might be going on, but it is not part of the theory [edit--of quantum physics] because it is not falsifiable: it cannot be tested in such a way that, if it were false, it would fail the test (without falsifying the whole of quantum mechanics, and therefore all the other interpretations too)."
It looks like this person is admitting the interpretation of the observer aspect of "What the Bleep" may well be true, but that it's not scientifically proven because it cannot be--it's beyond the parameters of science.
Art, as in movies, is entitled to take license with possibilities, and does so all the time. And all art ideas are meant to expand the human perception of what is possible, which precedes what we find is scientifically accurate. As a matter of fact, art generally challenges fixed closed-ideas. Fiction, even, constantly challenges our ideas of what is possible. Look at the example of Star Trek--note that since that show aired decades ago, it has inspired the advent of the personal computer and "telecommunicator-like" cell-phones. "What the Bleep", again, does not claim to be hard science, but rather to weave in an interpretation of science* with the wholeness of life, which is how it exists in reality. All of life does not flow from science.
For the record, Ahnimus, you like to present determinism as though it is THE factual truth, and meanwhile, it's merely one way people interpret reality.
*Author/speaker/lecturer and well-known physicist, Fred Alan Wolf, who received his degree almost 50 years ago, and who appears in the movie, discusses the physics from the movie all over the world. He constantly states that the movie's assertions come down to the complementarity principle which is accepted within physics, by physicists, and interpretation that stems from it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Maybe I've held back too long, I dunno. I think you're a mind control freak.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Just like the book I'm writing ignores the basic known psychiatric and psychological facts about mental illness.
You told me yesterday to stop following the theories of those dudes re: consciousness. I don't follow their theories. I've been shown these concepts spiritually. I know they exist. I don't know whether facts/details etc are always accurate--for that I must rely on science. I understand some universal truths in the way the average person does not, and I am writing a book to challenge prevalent thought, so that people, including the mental health care field, when exposed to expanded thought, expand their horizons and our awareness of what is possible. I well know--like the makers of this movie--that I can dramatically affect people by influencing the masses. This is how our evolution works. Certain people bring new thought to the masses.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You aren't one of them.
Get used to it.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I actually disprove free-will and propose determinism as the best theory.
As I stated before, if free-will is the same for everyone it cannot be the source variation in human behavior. If it is different, then the variation must be explained and such variation would be caused by something external to the free-will and thus would not be free. The theory of free-will does not work.
Fred Alan Wolf is but one person, and to say that it "is accepted within physics, by physicists" is factually wrong. As stated above, one of the most prominent Physicists in the film was misrepresented. If it was such an accepted interpretation, they would not need to misrepresent, or lie about it.