It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can't see what you don't believe?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
i can vouch for this. the brain is taught from when your a little kid to accept reality as everyone accepts. but you can train your brain, to not accept certain things, and it will not accept them. hard for lay people to understand.
we are all part of a collective, we experience reality as a whole, but our perceptions, is unique to us. how we process this information is ours and ours alone. most people do not even consider that another persons perceptions can be totally different than another person. for example, one person may thing that a cold day to some is warm to him or her. we all have our own worlds in our own heads, where no one else can even understand how another person thinks.

reality can be very weird, and if yu do not accept reality like others(in the sheep following the sheep model of life), then you would be classed as someone starnge etc...

but back to the thread starter i believe it is possible, for the brain not to accept certain things that the majority of us accept as reality.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by andy1033]




posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
gemwolf, you are right about all that from our general point of view.

I didn't argue the point "Can you see an object without knowing what the object is.."
I tried to take an example of how children are adapted to the world when they are born. In that age you learn all you need to, to form your interpretation of the world - this interpretation stays with you your whole life - and obviously its the same interpretation everyone else gets.

- If a grown-up with his interpretation would be set in a room like you said - with unknown objects around him, he will indeed see the Weird Objects, because he's used to interpret things as material objects.
- If you are a baby and you are put in a room with some objects - will you recongnize certain things as material stuff(objects)? Well you can't say can you..?
You don't remember how it was like when we were 2-3 years old. Noone can state that a baby sees the object before it is introduced to him as an object.

its hard for me to show the point I want to make..


well actually, when I first saw a cellphone, it was in a TV commercial, also people were talking about them before.. By the time I saw an actual cellphone in reality, there was no mistery to it and it was NO different in shape than everyone expected it to be.
.. cellphone is not a good example either, because telephones existed before, and we knew everything about phones before, etc..
A cat is a better example. Do you remember how a cat looked like the first time you saw it? Before anyone told you about it? Can't..- we were all to young to remember.
"To young to remember" or was it that we didn't interpret the cat like we were later tought?
Maybe our childhood memories start when you first start to see things like everyone else sees them -when you first experience the world through the same viewport as all other people. Before that your memory can't be confirmed because it did not exist in the viewport we see it.


sorry, can't really show my whole thoughts on this.
..argh..english...

[edit on 23/6/06 by Urizen]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Urizen
gemwolf, you are right about all that from our general point of view.

I didn't argue the point "Can you see an object without knowing what the object is.."
***Snip***
- If you are a baby and you are put in a room with some objects - will you recongnize certain things as material stuff(objects)? Well you can't say can you..?
***Snip***
its hard for me to show the point I want to make..
***Snip***
sorry, can't really show my whole thoughts on this.
..argh..english...

[edit on 23/6/06 by Urizen]

LoL. I feel your pain. Sometimes I'm frustrated with the English as well. Would anyone mind if I were to speak Afrikaans?
(But I hear what YOU are trying to say.)

Anyhows, that was the point... We're almost debating two different things here. But as you say... Difference between babies and adults. What I'm calling nonsense is the fact that the Natives supposedly couldn't see the ships. They were all adults, yes? An object won't be "invisible" just because it's the first time an adult see it or/and because it doesn't fit into his/her frame of reference...



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf

Originally posted by Urizen
gemwolf, you are right about all that from our general point of view.

I didn't argue the point "Can you see an object without knowing what the object is.."
***Snip***
- If you are a baby and you are put in a room with some objects - will you recongnize certain things as material stuff(objects)? Well you can't say can you..?
***Snip***
its hard for me to show the point I want to make..
***Snip***
sorry, can't really show my whole thoughts on this.
..argh..english...

[edit on 23/6/06 by Urizen]


LoL. I feel your pain. Sometimes I'm frustrated with the English as well. Would anyone mind if I were to speak Afrikaans?
(But I hear what YOU are trying to say.)

Anyhows, that was the point... We're almost debating two different things here. But as you say... Difference between babies and adults. What I'm calling nonsense is the fact that the Natives supposedly couldn't see the ships. They were all adults, yes? An object won't be "invisible" just because it's the first time an adult see it or/and because it doesn't fit into his/her frame of reference...


how can we say how the natives first saw ships etc... we cannot tell, if there perception was totally different than ours today. all we can say is that from birth we are really given strict guidelines on what this is and what that is. if we see something new today, we know it is a 3d object, we can understand it may be manufactured or maybe organic in nature, because of the way we are taught.

how the natives were to build there reallity we do not know. but one thing is for sure, they would have been just as much part of the human collective as we are today. they must of then shared some information with those in europe etc... not by just seeing it but by being part of that collective. studies have shown with the 100 monkey syndrome that the same group of animals just need a certain amount of them to learn something, and it seems they all know how to do something.

so we must all share in reality together even though we may be thousands of miles apart. but i do understand how like the thread starter says, if some people would see a ghost or something they may not want to believe it, and there mind might just pretend it was there imagination.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by andy1033]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Trying to argue with someone who supports this story is like trying to tell someone the world isn't flat. This isn't a matter of having an "open mind," it's a matter of having basic reasoning skills. I bet this story originated either from the fact that the Native Americans didn't understand what the purpose of the ships was (although they could in fact see them), or from the fact that the early European explorers were somewhat racist and expected the Native mind to be vastly inferior.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
[ with all due respect ]

what a crock of crap

please tell us you are
just playing with us to
see who is a gullible
fool and who is not.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   
none taken.
I think the natives could see the ships.
There no point in arguing that because nobody really knows.
But thats not what i am thinking about.....

My whole thing was that there are things that we can not think about
because they arent thought about yet. I mean jesus christ....if we all
could do this then we would all be millionaires...I mean havnt you guys
ever saw something on tv or a new invention and gone.....OHHHHHH !!!!

Well thats what im talking about. It ussually does take a person
with a diffrent type of mind to think of stuff like this.

Try and make a new color up in your mind.
If you cant make one up then why not .....thats my question.

And the easiest answer to this is because it hasnt been given/made yet.
Or you could argue that it dosnt exsist. For me, I just cant accept that a new
color dosnt exsist.



[edit on 25-6-2006 by imbalanced]

[edit on 25-6-2006 by imbalanced]



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 02:33 AM
link   
sorry pal , I'm still on the side
that thinks this is clever trickery
bafflegab , bullcrap.

and a new color ?

maybe in another dimension !?



I gotta ask you a question.

ever see monsters under your
bed or in the closet as a kid ?

we all have , but what do YOU
believe that you saw ?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join