all it takes for something to exist is...

Ahnimus · April 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

yeah but there is a way to get another person to grow muscle outside your body. You tell them!

Hey when you said light has no shape, how can it not have shape when it can be distorted. I see time as product of vibration like a point on a guitar string.

Now hold on, I didn't say light has no shape, light absolutely has shape.

For many things in reality, shape is of the utmost importance. Molecular biology is largely concerned with the shape of enzymes that allows them to bind with cells.

On the other hand, solidity does not have shape. What creates solidity is an assortment of atoms who's electron force causes the collection of atoms to be impenetrable by which ever object considers it solid. However, solidity it's self cannot be represented by a geometric shape. The shape is in the electrons and the array of atoms as a whole. Which is why solidity is the most common example of ontological subjectivity, philosophically solidity is subjective, but objectively solidity is objective.

hodge · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Countless experiments of "thoughts affecting reality" have been performed and all conclusively show that our thoughts have no effect on physical reality outside of our bodies. There have been non-scientists and fringe scientists who've made such claims, but empirical skepticism has weeded them out.

at the quantum level, physicists have discovered that their attempts to measure phenomena they were studying affected that phenomena, a complete disregard for the rules of classic physics

angelica · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Main Entry: per·cep·tion
Pronunciation: p&r-'sep-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin perception-, perceptio act of perceiving, from percipere
1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT
2 obsolete : CONSCIOUSNESS
3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception> b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience
4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : a capacity for comprehension
synonym see DISCERNMENT
- per·cep·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective

You haven't answered the question.

onelongsong · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Doing LSD is an incredible experience too. Another one that I stay away from.

The "whole other world" is probably just in your mind.

not if practiced with someone else with the same abilities.
the invention of LSD only opened a door. it showed us the mind can do more. research taught us we don't need LSD to access the inner mind. similar to transendental meditation.

timothy leary left way too soon.

Ahnimus · April 2007

hodge wrote:

at the quantum level, physicists have discovered that their attempts to measure phenomena they were studying affected that phenomena, a complete disregard for the rules of classic physics

Hodepodge, that is a misrepresentation of quantum physics.

For example.. heat is measurable, yet if I put my thermometer in the freezer and then pull it out and measure my kitchen temperature, it's going to be wrong. What happens in quantum mechanics is, the measuring device affects the quantum particles. It is the measuring device that causes the change in sub-atomic behavior, not the idea to measure.

Ahnimus · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

not if practiced with someone else with the same abilities.
the invention of LSD only opened a door. it showed us the mind can do more. research taught us we don't need LSD to access the inner mind. similar to transendental meditation.

timothy leary left way too soon.

Actually research showed us that LSD is a hallucinagen.

Timothy Leary was wrong.

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

You haven't answered the question.

I don't know how else to explain it, I'm not going through this. I'm not going to keep explaining until I say a word that can be manipulated or something.

The light reflectancy of a red object is reality, red is perception.

angelica · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I know that the brain correlates with mind. That's all that really matters. It's been objectively proven by Francis Crick and Christof Koch.

You can choose to believe it's like a soul, or something that objectively does not exist and enters the body at some time during life. But it's all speculation, it's like waving a knife around in the dark. I choose not to blindly believe in things. If you do, that is fine, but it's hardly a leg to stand on in a debate.

I'm actually saying we are immersed in soul at all times and have never been outside of it. We are always one with soul. We are merely for the most part unconscious of it, while the brain occupies us with "reality". That's okay, though. Soul is always conscious of us.

The term enlightenment is related to awakening to the truth of this.

Thankfully Jeanie has embraced and is taking good care of yours.

angelica · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I don't know how else to explain it, I'm not going through this. I'm not going to keep explaining until I say a word that can be manipulated or something.

The light reflectancy of a red object is reality, red is perception.

Fair enough. Let me just say that obviously your point was lost on me.

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

I'm actually saying we are immersed in soul at all times and have never been outside of it. We are always one with soul. We are merely for the most part unconscious of it, while the brain occupies us with "reality". That's okay, though. Soul is always conscious of us. The term enlightenment is related to awakening to the truth of this.

Thankfully Jeanie has embraced and is taking good care of yours.

lol, again, that's complete speculation, and/or subjective experience, which is merely an interpetation or perception of what actually is real, and is void of objective empirical evidence to support it. While I respect your view, it's not a valid basis for debate.

Can we debate that which is true, knowingly true by physical observance, thought experiment and so on? I've no desire to debate that which cannot be proven/disproven, it's a waste of time.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Doing LSD is an incredible experience too. Another one that I stay away from.

The "whole other world" is probably just in your mind.

Dude, if you aren't careful it'll be like Martin Sheen in Apocalypse now:
http://www.timemachinego.com/linkmachinego/images2/sheen.jpg

And if you are out of whack (depending on how much you take) it's can be, as Joseph Conrad put it: a "Journey into the heart of darkness."

LSD can be a pretty big deal for some people. Ahhhhh... Panic......PANIC!!!! ...whoa. Guess what? It's a buzz you cant turn off or stop for 8 hours (maybe if you go to a hospital - that would be a pretty crazy ass trip

).

On LSD Forget about sleeping...not a chance. Forget about closing your eyes even.

When you get to those "uncomfortable" feelings you need to start thinking about laughing and happy and good times as your first gut instinct. Otherwise...baad trip :(

anyhow, this is a lot off topic now... There's an LSD thread in AET... Doh!!

catefrances · April 2007

angelica wrote:

I overlooked something here: my spiritual experiences happened to me on a level that was not external or physical, even though they were woven within the physical level that everyone perceives. These empirical experiences did not come from society, or outside influence. In this sense, your assumption was not true in this case. The nature of spiritual experience in general is that they don't come from the commonly-accepted 3-d plane of experiences, but are generated from a different level that some apparently do not perceive.

i did not say it was my assumption. therefore i am wrong about nothing.

onelongsong wrote:

no; not you. the fact is that many people that have had brain injuries actually become more intelligent; IQ speaking. just as left handed people are more intelligent because they opperate from the right side of the brain. the brain will opperate in it's normal function until an injury occures. like when someone becomes blind; their other senses sharpen which helps compensate.
we say the brain heals itself; but the reality is that the being heals the brain.

you're left handed aren't you OLS.

angelica · April 2007

hodge wrote:

at the quantum level, physicists have discovered that their attempts to measure phenomena they were studying affected that phenomena, a complete disregard for the rules of classic physics

I know what you mean. It's called complementarity and it's basically agreed on by physicists in general. They discovered that the quantum world cannot be studied without the act of our study, itself, changing the outcome of the experiment. In other words, we are inextricably entwined with what we see. You are correct, that this principle itself invalidates the idea that we can be truly objective observers, a concept that classical physics rests upon.

angelica · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

lol, again, that's complete speculation, and/or subjective experience, which is merely an interpetation or perception of what actually is real, and is void of objective empirical evidence to support it. While I respect your view, it's not a valid basis for debate.

Can we debate that which is true, knowingly true by physical observance, thought experiment and so on? I've no desire to debate that which cannot be proven/disproven, it's a waste of time.

This is my philosophy. I see you disagree. For sure, you are 100% free to choose any points you will or will not debate, as I do also.

Abookamongstthemany · April 2007

angelica wrote:

I know what you mean. It's called complementarity and it's basically agreed on by physicists in general. They discovered that the quantum world cannot be studied without the act of our study, itself, changing the outcome of the experiment. In other words, we are inextricably entwined with what we see. You are correct, that this principle itself invalidates the idea that we can be truly objective observers, a concept that classical physics rests upon.

Exactly! Just by us observing things, we change them. So, you can't very well trust your own eyes. You gotta dig a bit deeper than that.

angelica · April 2007

catefrances wrote:

i did not say it was my assumption. therefore i am wrong about nothing.

Then I refer to the words you used wherein you stated an assumption. The assumption did not apply.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Now hold on, I didn't say light has no shape, light absolutely has shape.

For many things in reality, shape is of the utmost importance. Molecular biology is largely concerned with the shape of enzymes that allows them to bind with cells.

On the other hand, solidity does not have shape. What creates solidity is an assortment of atoms who's electron force causes the collection of atoms to be impenetrable by which ever object considers it solid. However, solidity it's self cannot be represented by a geometric shape. The shape is in the electrons and the array of atoms as a whole. Which is why solidity is the most common example of ontological subjectivity, philosophically solidity is subjective, but objectively solidity is objective.

Actually I meant when you were saying time has no shape...where did heck did I get light from.

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

I know what you mean. It's called complementarity and it's basically agreed on by physicists in general. They discovered that the quantum world cannot be studied without the act of our study, itself, changing the outcome of the experiment. In other words, we are inextricably entwined with what we see. You are correct, that this principle itself invalidates the idea that we can be truly objective observers, a concept that classical physics rests upon.

It does not invalidate classical physics. The measuring device affects the things being measured.

Like measuring the stillness of a pond by dropping a big device in it, you upset the water and the results are then flawed.

We are not in direct contact with these quantum particles, the measuring device is the intermediary that acts on our behalf and it is responsible for altering the behavior of the quantum particles. Quantum particles <-> measuring device <-> Humans. That's the relationship, you are making the mistake of ignoring the intermediary.

onelongsong · April 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Actually I meant when you were saying time has no shape...where did heck did I get light from.

when he doesn't know the answer he ignores the question or modifies it.
i'm still waiting for proof that time exists.

Ahnimus · April 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Exactly! Just by us observing things, we change them. So, you can't very well trust your own eyes. You gotta dig a bit deeper than that.

wikipedia wrote:

The emergence of complementarity in a system occurs when one considers the circumstances under which one attempts to measure its properties; as Bohr noted, the principle of complementarity "implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear." It is important to distinguish, as did Bohr in his original statements, the principle of complementarity from a statement of the uncertainty principle. For a technical discussion of contemporary issues surrounding complementarity in physics, see, e.g., [2] (from which parts of this discussion were drawn.)

It's not as mysterious as is common interpretation.

all it takes for something to exist is...

Comments

Categories