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.

 

Why must you insist reality is illusion?

page: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

Bingo, good explanation, but the question is, is the 'Sun' actually there? EMM


The sun IS actualy there.
Much of the population leans towards the 'scientific', 'proof' etc. For that we simply need to verify that many people (including people who were not near each other at the time of 'seeing the sun', nor hearing about it) - actualy believed they say something. Not to mention the shadows, warmth etc that it emits and other things like photo's and tangable what-nots.

But for those who not only like proof and science, but can also understand that some things are unexplainable and not tangable in a scientificly measured manor.... still, the answer is a resounding YES - the sun is still there. Reality, remember, is only a word that we use to discribe something. Maybe we gave the word a wrong definition?




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

This is not true, cause if we don't watch, the particle behaves as a wave.



Were we do NOT watch (observe) that's were the true ' action' is ......



[edit on 9/18/2008 by Melyanna Tengwesta]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 





I think planets are conscious to a degree, same as stars and right the way down to microbial life. Just because we don't understand it yet, doesn't make it wrong, just different and because we believe it, doesn't make us idiots.


Consciousness is just another way of saying self-aware. It isn't a "one thing" that exists outside the body. We know what consciousness is, we just don't understand the mechanics behind the various systems of the brain that gives rise to it, which is understandable.



It is sweet, not because we labled it as 'sweet', it is a sensation, a feeling that we labled, but the 'sweetness' is interpreted by the brain,


I disagree, regardless of how the brain processes the information, we still have the need to label the sensation using our language. We could have labeled that "sweet" sensation as being sour. We could have called green, red. The brain will still process the information just the same, all that has happened is the label has changed. This doesn't "change reality".



SCIENTIST'S DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS


I don't think anyone is saying they do, even the scientists themselves.



You probably won't agree, but at least accept the possibility.


I glossed over it till I hit the 'tv' analogy. It's just such a really bad analogy of trying to show that consciousness is outside the brain.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 





The wave/interference pattern collapses because there is "wich path" information present.


Taking text out of context and attempting to redefine it doesn't help your argument much.

Read the whole thing.

The advantage of manipulating the entangled partners of the photons in the double-slit part of the experimental apparatus is that experimenters can destroy or restore the interference pattern in the latter without changing anything in that part of the apparatus. Experimenters do so by manipulating the entangled photon, and they can do so before or after its partner has entered or after it has exited the double-slits and other elements of experimental apparatus between the photon emitter and the detection screen. So, under conditions where the double-slit part of the experiment has been set up to prevent the appearance of interference phenomena (because there is definitive "which path" information present), the quantum eraser can be used to effectively erase that information. In doing so, the experimenter restores interference without altering the double-slit part of the experimental apparatus. An event that is remote in space and in time can restore the readily visible interference pattern that manifests itself through the constructive and destructive wave interference. The apparatus currently under discussion does not have any provision for varying its time parameters, however.





And our perception is our reality.


False, conscious perception is not the source of everything.



But if you take the notion that reality, or particles, behave according to our expectations, experiences and knowledges, this "one" reality only seems one great reality, it is only the result of the fact that everybody has more or less, the same experiences, knowledge and expectations, because that's what we're tought.


The problem with this is that particles do not and have never been shown to behave accordingly to our whims.



No the "wich path" information does not mean unquestionablly taking one of the two paths.

There are only two slits to go through, so "wich path", means literally wich path the particle took through the slits.

It's not called "this or that path" information.

The fact that you don't even understand that is either a cop out, because you know you're wrong, or you don't understand the experiment at all.

Or a mix of both.

Anyways, it says a lot.


It's a shame I can't insult you for this post.... It really is ....

Read it again. Again, this time slowly also.


Your right it does say that there is a definitive(conclusive, unquestionable) 'which path' available. Meaning that it is unquestionably taking one of two possible routes.


[EDIT] here's your post that I replied to with the above text. Hopefully reading this also will help you work out why I wish I could make fun of you right now.


This says that if there is definitive "wich path" information available, the interference/wave pattern is destroyed.





What I really think and feel is, we are the flux, we created the flux, and we all agreed to forget about that, to some level, in order to experience consciousness on this level.

There is your contradiction.

Only the "forgetting" has gotten out of hand, I think.


Ah ha! ... Now we're getting to the nitty gritty of the whole problem. You have this weird belief that we made everything and then we all agreed to forget that we did this. wtf... lmfao your too much man. Can't read, can't elaborate your thoughts properly, can't make proper use of analogies. And now this. wow.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by sirnex]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melyanna Tengwesta

This is not true, cause if we don't watch, the particle behaves as a wave.



Were we do NOT watch (observe) that's were the true ' action' is ....


Yes because in that realm every possible scenario, now matter how unthinkable happens, at the same "place" and at the same "time".


[edit on 18/9/08 by enigmania]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Your right it does say that there is a definitive(conclusive, unquestionable) 'which path' available. Meaning that it is unquestionably taking one of two possible routes.


If you put it like this it seems like you are saying that the "wich path" information only says that the particle has gone through either one slit or the other. But not wich slit.

And that's the difference with what I said, and it matters a lot. Knowing wich slit the particle went through is not the same as knowing it went to either the one or the other.

Because if you know WICH slit it was, it couldn't have been any other option.

So, while you think my post was so funny, you didn't understand, again.




It's a shame I can't insult you for this post.... It really is ....


It's a shame you feel the need to insult ANYONE you're debating with, or in real life for that matter.

It doesn't even matter that you "can't" insult me because your posts keep getting deleted
, and your points get messed up even more
,

because you have already shown your true colours, let's see how long you last here.

:


Ah ha! ... Now we're getting to the nitty gritty of the whole problem. You have this weird belief that we made everything and then we all agreed to forget that we did this. wtf... lmfao your too much man. Can't read, can't elaborate your thoughts properly, can't make proper use of analogies. And now this. wow.


You're as predictable as a particle that's being watched, I knew you'd drag this into our ongoing discussion.

Well good for you.

I'm done talking to you, I've provided all the evidence I could, repeated it lots of times, some people seem to agree, others don't. Fair enough.

Good luck on your journey, your soul still has a lot to learn.


[edit on 18/9/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 18/9/08 by enigmania]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Consciousness is just another way of saying self-aware. It isn't a "one thing" that exists outside the body. We know what consciousness is, we just don't understand the mechanics behind the various systems of the brain that gives rise to it, which is understandable.


Would you consider a planet self aware? Best analogy I could give would be, do you think head lice, or tics, are aware we are self aware? Again, it's a matter of opinion?


I disagree, regardless of how the brain processes the information, we still have the need to label the sensation using our language. We could have labeled that "sweet" sensation as being sour. We could have called green, red. The brain will still process the information just the same, all that has happened is the label has changed. This doesn't "change reality".


I was refering more to people tasting varying degrees of 'sweet', rather than the label it's self. We can call sweet, sour, but it would still be 'sweet', I just think people sense varying degrees of stimulation, for some, it's too sweet, for others, not sweet enough.



I don't think anyone is saying they do, even the scientists themselves.


Unfortunately, I see it quite alot that they do.


I glossed over it till I hit the 'tv' analogy. It's just such a really bad analogy of trying to show that consciousness is outside the brain.


Agreed, it's a terrible analogy, as it suggests there is 'hardware' projecting the image, and that is a very human way of thinking about it, basing the idea in the physical, when, IMO, it is so much more. I see it as software running without the hardware, energy manipulated by energy and vibration, to create what we percieve, it may seem physical, but that is merely repulsion between the objects.

May not be better analogy, but it helps me think.


EMM



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 





If you put it like this it seems like you are saying that the "wich path" information only says that the particle has gone through either one slit or the other. But not wich slit.


You still missed it... my frigging god...

DEFINITIVE.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 





Would you consider a planet self aware? Best analogy I could give would be, do you think head lice, or tics, are aware we are self aware? Again, it's a matter of opinion?


I wouldn't say it's a matter of opinion really. The head lice need not be aware of our self awareness, just the same as we need not be aware of a planet being self aware. Regardless of the poor logic behind this, a planet isn't alive. It doesn't eat, doesn't reproduce, doesn't grow, doesn't contain any genetic coding to pass on to future generations. It can't even come into close contact with another planet in order to reproduce else it be torn apart.

A planet contains no central nervous system, no brain in order to process information. Even if we were to play with the analogy and assume the 'brain' to reside within the center, the pressure there is to intense and the temperature to high, basically it's a violent chaotic place.



I just think people sense varying degrees of stimulation, for some, it's too sweet, for others, not sweet enough.


Right, this isn't because something is either to sweet or not sweet enough in and of itself, it due to how each individual brain is processing that information and how we apply our defined terms for those sensations using our language.



Unfortunately, I see it quite alot that they do.


Name one and quote him/her saying this.




May not be better analogy, but it helps me think.



No, even that wasn't any better. If anything, the whole thought of it just complicates the universe even more and does nothing to explain anything. To me, these ideas are more like a cop out. I mean, why even bother trying to understand the "physical universe" if it isn't real? Kind of reminds me of some religious folks argument towards atheists and morals.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Your right it does say that there is a definitive(conclusive, unquestionable) 'which path' available. Meaning that it is unquestionably taking one of two possible routes.





You still missed it... my frigging god...

DEFINITIVE


In the first quote you are still saying that the "wich path" info means that it is "definite" that the particle goes through one of two slits.

That's what you literally said there.

But that's wrong, it's definite WICH of two paths the particle goes through.

You're the one that's still missing it.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I think some think reality is an illusion because of the fact that the only way we can even perceive reality the way it is is only after the information we gather with our senses is then processed by the brain.

Some believe that there is alteration that happens during this process and so we cannot perceive what reality REALLY is if we cannot see it in it's pure form without going through a number of processes first.

For instance we don't actually see colors. What we are seeing are the pigments of a given object that reflect a certain color of the light spectrum.

The only reason we see the sky as blue is because the blue end of the spectrum is scattered more as the sunlight enters our atmosphere due to it's shorter wave length. All the colors of the spectrum are present in sunlight but we only see the blue and even at that what we should really be seeing is violet but our eyes can't see that part of the spectrum as well as blue. So IN REALITY the sky is violet.

Think about this...How do you know that YOUR color red is MY color red? There is absolutely no way to tell this. How do you know broccoli tastes the same to you as it does to me? You don't.

For this reason, because we have no absolute way to tell, we cannot assume that we are actually tasting what broccoli REALLY tastes like. We only know it's green because the pigment reflects the green part of the light spectrum. But what color is it REALLY? Is it even a color at all?

What if we could here all the levels of sound. Elephants can hear extremely low frequencies. We can't. What would life be like if we could here every single sound on all frequencies?

So we have to imagine what the world would REALLY look like if we didn't have all these processes to go through first. If we could see beyond what our brain tells us to see.

Think also of the fact that nothing is truly solid. Relatively there is a vast amount of space between molecules and even the molecules themselves have vast amounts of space between the atom and the electrons/protons. But we don't fall through floors and we can't walk through walls.

Experiments have been done with protons ( I believe their protons) when no one is looking at them they are bouncing around in a seemingly chaotic manner and ONLY when someone focuses on it, does it stay in one place.

This brings to question what happens when NO ONE is looking at an object? Is it just bouncing around all over the place? If you're answer is no, then you would have to then logically conclude that there is an infinite observer, i.e. God.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Here is a wonderful example of what I'm talking about.

Our eyes don't even really see everything there is to be seen and our brains are responsible for making up the rest of what is 'thrown away'.

Source


science education science & culture guest exhibitions TRICKS OF THE EYE, WISDOM OF THE BRAIN Most people assume that what you see is pretty much what your eye sees and reports to your brain. In fact, your brain adds very substantially to the report it gets from your eye, so that a lot of what you see is actually "made up" by the brain (see Seeing more than your eye does). Perhaps even more interestingly, the eye actually throws away much of the information it gets, leaving it to the rest of the brain to fill in additional information in its own ways. A characteristic pattern of connections among neurons (nerve cells) in the eyes of most animals (including humans), termed a "lateral inhibition network", is a significant way information is thrown away. Lateral inhibition helps to explain a number of "optical illusions" and, more importantly, provides an excellent example of how the brain is organized to actively "make sense" of the information it gets, rather than to simply absorb and respond to it. In so doing, it provides some valuable insights into the sources of our sense of "reality".



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nunya13
 


Yes, also from that standpoint it seem that our perceived reality is, in fact, an illusion.

Great post!

I think it is inescapable, our reality is determined by our five senses, so it has to be an illusion, it's a fact that theres lot's of phenomena outthere that we can't perceive, so our reality is incomplete, and therefore, an illusion.

It even seems that our reality is not only determined by our five senses, but also by our knowledge, experiences, and expectations, wich have been created by our five senses.

[edit on 19/9/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 19/9/08 by enigmania]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would
appear to man as it is, infinite." William Blake



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I am now formally unsubscribing to this thread.

I found a parachute stashed behind the coils of data cable at the back of the helicopter.

I think the hijackers are too busy to notice me.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Make sure you don't bump your head on the way out.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Define "reality." What is "reality?" Is it what we can see? Well,if that's the case, then there is ample proof that what we "see" is not really there at all. Does that not qualify as an illusion? Yeppers, I believe it does.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


What's this "ample proof" you speak of? I haven't heard of any such evidence or research showing that 'things' aren't really there or don't really exist.

What I do hear is new age type misunderstanding of certain scientific experiments that try to redefine what the results are showing to fit those particular beliefs.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Define what is, "Reality" Sirnex?
The premise that reality can be defined in a set sensate adjectival metaphor is somewhat an insular understanding.
Because from my own understanding and to make an analogy here;
I liken an individual to a television set that receives the signals of, "Reality" so to speak. Hence if the television is not working or tuned in properly to the signals then nothing but, "distorted" and "fuzzy" understandings will be the outcome.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


The fact that you only will consider a certain notion if it has been pre-chewed by research or scientists, shows your limitations.



What I do hear is new age type misunderstanding of certain scientific experiments that try to redefine what the results are showing to fit those particular beliefs.


This has absolutely nothing to do with the things SpeakerofTruth said.


Also, maybe certain people have partly based there views on the results of said experiments, not the other way round.

[edit on 23/9/08 by enigmania]




top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join