all it takes for something to exist is...

Cosmo · April 2007

baraka wrote:

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?

Ahnimus · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

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.

Cosmo · April 2007

chopitdown wrote:

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.

onelongsong · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus · April 2007

"[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

Ahnimus · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

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.

Ahnimus · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

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.

onelongsong · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

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?

farfromglorified · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

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.

angelica · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

The way I see it, we don't disagree on interpretaton--we have the consensual reality with that smiley face. Interpretation still goes on in each one of us beneath the surface, or above, in assessing the yellow smiling symbol.

The consensual reality is easy! Hence why people love the norms they hold so dearly.

onelongsong · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

and there it is. you've closed your mind to other experiences and thus limited your reality to your mind. if man had refused to reach beyond the earth; we would have never walked on the moon. we wouldn't know what we now know about the universe.

if you limit what you'll accept as reality; how can you find reality? how can a closed mind know what reality really is?

Ahnimus · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

and there it is. you've closed your mind to other experiences and thus limited your reality to your mind. if man had refused to reach beyond the earth; we would have never walked on the moon. we wouldn't know what we now know about the universe.

if you limit what you'll accept as reality; how can you find reality? how can a closed mind know what reality really is?

We've objectively proven that (in reality) people hallucinate, are delusional and a large majority of people have psychotic experiences.

I know that if I was able to reproduce your results that I would be in a position to believe it is real, but that doesn't mean it is, it could just be a self-induced psychotic episode, which is why I choose the opinion that it is probably not real. Mainly because it exists only within your mind and cannot be studied objectively.

Ahnimus · April 2007

angelica wrote:

The way I see it, we don't disagree on interpretaton--we have the consensual reality with that smiley face. Interpretation still goes on in each one of us beneath the surface, or above, in assessing the yellow smiling symbol.

The consensual reality is easy! Hence why people love the norms they hold so dearly.

Right, which is why we have "reality" and "perception" two different things. In conversation, you and I, often refer to perception as internal reality, because internally it's what one perceives as real, but it is not a reality independant of our minds and therefor is not reality, only a perception of what is real.

onelongsong · April 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

WTF...

Can you go check on Hitler for me? I have a sneaking suspicion he's up to no good.

then explain time? what is it the measurement of? who decided what time it is? when the very first clock was invented; who decided what time it was? who decided how fast a clock ran?

in my life; time is not relevant. most of the time i couldn't tell you what day it is. when i wake; i feed the animals; and check email for orders. i'll process them and go about the day. some time mid-day; i'll give the horses and llamas a treat for lunch; and when it starts getting dark; i'll feed again. if i sleep till noon; lunch may be 4:00 pm. if i'm up at 5:00 am; lunch may be 11:00 am. time has absolutely no meaning here. there is no need to measure it.

Ahnimus · April 2007

onelongsong wrote:

then explain time? what is it the measurement of? who decided what time it is? when the very first clock was invented; who decided what time it was? who decided how fast a clock ran?

in my life; time is not relevant. most of the time i couldn't tell you what day it is. when i wake; i feed the animals; and check email for orders. i'll process them and go about the day. some time mid-day; i'll give the horses and llamas a treat for lunch; and when it starts getting dark; i'll feed again. if i sleep till noon; lunch may be 4:00 pm. if i'm up at 5:00 am; lunch may be 11:00 am. time has absolutely no meaning here. there is no need to measure it.

Exactly what you are speaking of is the measurement of time, not time it's self.

angelica · April 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

angelica wrote:

Do you know that reality does not spring from consciousness? If so, how?

Because I cannot shape reality from consciousness. I cannot think food into existence. I cannot think myself immortal. I cannot think God into being. I cannot think my mind into being both a mind and not a mind at the same time. I must think of these things and then act in order to make them real, even then often failing to achieve my desires.

What you have shown me is that you may not understand the importance of the thought "I am hungry" when you manifest food for yourself numerous times per day. Besides that, if the law of manifestation is real, and you continue to focus on what you cannot do, you have created a self fulfilling prophecy packed with the limits that bind you. Did anyone read you "The Little Engine that Could" when you were a little boy?

However, we can remove volition and reason from consciousness and we could simply say that perception is a "joke" and we would be philosophically consistent. Yet such a contention would be completely unproveable since it would require perception to prove. It woud be nothing more than a philosophical statement of plausibility. The words true, false, right, and wrong would could no longer apply in any meaningful way.

I do not understand your point.

It's entirely possible. Look, we can go back to the solipsism and say that I am the only one who exists and everyone and everything else is simply a manifestation of my consciousness. If approached correctly, it's a perfectly logical concept. Yet I doubt we'll find a solipsist who, when discovering a car driving the wrong way in his or her lane on the highway, would simply scream at the other driver "you don't exist".

You obviously don't understand the mindset of truly believing everything is a manifestation of one's consciousness.

onelongsong · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Right, which is why we have "reality" and "perception" two different things. In conversation, you and I, often refer to perception as internal reality, because internally it's what one perceives as real, but it is not a reality independant of our minds and therefor is not reality, only a perception of what is real.

and each person perceives reality different; therefore there is no reality. you may agree on facts; but each perception is different.
for example: you stated the

was a smiley face. i call it a happy face. now this is a happy face

in my perception.
many will agree with me so what does that do to your reality? your thought tells you

is a smiley face and perceives it to be reality. to others it's a happy face. thus reality is confined to the mind. what the mind sees as real.

onelongsong · April 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Exactly what you are speaking of is the measurement of time, not time it's self.

time doesn't exist. you can't prove it does. time is only a method used by man to measure a section of distance that has no beginning or no end.

angelica · April 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

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 certainly support your right to embrace your view as is. I however se quite differently. The point between Aristotle vs. Plato is not about right/wrong, but rather about two separate opinions/perspectives.

Do you realize you see realms that exist beyond those seen by someone with the average IQ of 100? It sounds to me that you have a straw man stereotype of these "realms" you speak of that you've created to be fallible within your mind. And with this straw and fallible man distracting you, you are overlooking the various realms that normally occur in awareness between individuals. Don't look for me to be saying something unnatural and impossible, because when you do so, that is what you will find. When you look to understand what I am seeing, then you will come to see it.

all it takes for something to exist is...

Comments

Categories