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: 12
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Epsillion70
 


Well, by that explanation then, reality is only what a person is able to perceive and or sense right?

I mean, in all honesty, such a thing is just pure BS in it's purest form, we all know it. Look at it this way, atoms and the myriads of configurations they can form always exist regardless of them configuring together in our particular form and giving rise to our self awareness. The brain is a particular set of atomic structures arranged into molecular structures that we have dubbed 'organic'. Our brain functions through various electrochemical processes in such a way with various systems that allows us to have complex thoughts and language. Basically, it's nature's super computer.

Regardless of all that explanation, the atoms still exist, space still exists, the electromagnetic spectrum still exists. Our biological electrochemical super computer and the various (5) sensors attached to it interpret the surroundings only enough to procreate and pass on it's genes. If you attach only an infrared sensor to a computer, it will only 'sense' infrared wavelengths. Same thing occurs with our eyes, it only 'sees' a small set of wavelengths. This doesn't mean that other wavelengths don't exist. It's just a poorly designed detector; depending on how you look at it.

Our particular species has only existed for a very short amount of time compared to the history of the universe; And before someone brings up other 'alien observers', there was also an immense amount of time before the universe was cool enough for atoms to arrange into more complex configurations. Point is, the universe existed without any sentient observer.

Reality isn't what you or I can or can't, reality is just the physical universe. How our brains, or the brains of other species process the immense amount of information it receives is moot, it's like saying reality is determined by our computers with microphones and infrared sensors attached to it. That just sound idiotic doesn't it?




posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Thank you for your reply Sirnex. It did make me think through carefully and thoughtfully of what you are saying.
From my own understanding and I admit I am still to find more of the peices to the puzzle of it all of and in life itself.
Though with certainty I do know that what we think we know on some levels may only be a certain "tip of the iceberg "aspect to the whole of it all. Hence we have CERN out there with their LHC looking for more understandings of the Universe and its sub-moloecular environs etc.
So what I am trying to say is that, "the reality" that we think we know may not be the reality that really is. So to my analogy again of the Television set again.
If you were a Television set made in the 1950's "reality," then your whole experience would be only seen through a "Black and white" viewing. Then your view of the world back then and even know without an"upgrade" to the better understandings of Color viewing would be rather different and maybe less understood would you not agree?
So my point is that one must always keep an "open mind "to different understandings. So one can adjust there perceptions accordingly, whether it is what works or dosent work in ones experience accordingly.






posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Epsillion70
 


Well, using the television analogy which I loath to be honest, as it is a poor analogy imo; Our brains are similar in a way, but operate much differently. In 'reality', colors don't exist, our brains interpret varying wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum to have certain "colors". So, red is red because our brain processes that wavelength differently than it processes the wavelength for green. Yet at the same time, red is red because we used our capacity for language to label that processed wavelength as red. We could have easily said red was green and green was red. Doesn't matter what we called it.

No matter how much we want there to be something magical about our universe, there just isn't. Every so called mystical aspect has ended up having a natural explanation behind it, including consciousness. It's funny, because some people think we don't know what consciousness is, but if you look it up, we do. We just don't understand how all the various systems of the brain come together to make it work the way it does, or why we even evolved it in the first place. We have more evidence for it being a part of the electrochemical brain than we do for it existing outside the human body. Some people just refuse to accept it.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I do understand the points you made in your previous posts and looking at it from your standpoint it is wrong to say that reality doesn't exist, but you have to agree our perception of it is incomplete.




In 'reality', colors don't exist, our brains interpret varying wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum to have certain "colors".


Here you are actually saying yourself that our perception of reality is indeed an illusion.




Our particular species has only existed for a very short amount of time compared to the history of the universe; And before someone brings up other 'alien observers', there was also an immense amount of time before the universe was cool enough for atoms to arrange into more complex configurations. Point is, the universe existed without any sentient observer.


Point is you have no way of knowing that. Who says consciousness has to have a physical body of some sort?




Every so called mystical aspect has ended up having a natural explanation behind it, including consciousness


I haven't seen any satisfactory explanation for phenomena like ghosts, telepathie, telekinesis etc., except for some form of consciousness that is greater than the body.



We have more evidence for it being a part of the electrochemical brain than we do for it existing outside the human body. Some people just refuse to accept it.


Jeah, off course we do, because we live in a human body with a brain, and are conditioned to it.

But as you say, there still is evidence that consciousness exists outside of the human body. Some people just refuse to accept it.

So two things:

-our perception of reality is an illusion, or at least it is an incomplete version.

I think noone can argue with that.

-our reality only forms itself because we observe it.

Well that one is open to debate, but you know my standpoint.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 





I do understand the points you made in your previous posts and looking at it from your standpoint it is wrong to say that reality doesn't exist, but you have to agree our perception of it is incomplete.


Incomplete in regards to what exactly?



Here you are actually saying yourself that our perception of reality is indeed an illusion.


No, reality isn't the illusion. The wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum that get's processed into what we see as color still exist. Reality isn't that red is red because our brains and language process it as red.

Your looking at it half assed backwards here. Our visual sensors pick up a certain wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum and for whatever reason we evolved the particular informational processing that interpreted that specific wavelength to be red is beyond the point of what reality is.



Point is you have no way of knowing that. Who says consciousness has to have a physical body of some sort?


Biology does. Physics does. Common sense does. But not every enjoys those explanations either. Everything we have learned about how our universe works, how our bodies work, all point at consciousness as being a by product of biology. We have nothing that show's otherwise.



I haven't seen any satisfactory explanation for phenomena like ghosts, telepathie, telekinesis etc., except for some form of consciousness that is greater than the body.


And in retrospect, I haven't seen any reproducible scientific evidence for any of the above. Every time scientists try and have a controlled study on these phenomenon, nothing happens.



Jeah, off course we do, because we live in a human body with a brain, and are conditioned to it.


Horrible logical conclusion there. If we were inherently spiritual beings and not the other way around, then we should technically be conditioned naturally towards that. We aren't, we have to have people constantly tell us we are. And if history has taught us anything, refusal to believe such an idea ends up in silly little 'holy wars'.



our perception of reality is an illusion, or at least it is an incomplete version.


It isn't an illusion in the truest sense of the word illusion and what it means. I also don't see how it is an incomplete version either. Incomplete in regards to what exactly?



-our reality only forms itself because we observe it.


This isn't true either. Red doesn't become red because we observed it as being red. Red is just one of many ways a particular wavelength could have been processed. That same wavelength could easily have been green. Again, this has just as much validity behind it as saying reality only forms when a computer with various sensors are attached to it.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Incomplete in regards to what exactly?


Well for instance, we can't see infrared light, but it is there, so what we see is not the complete picture.




No, reality isn't the illusion. The wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum that get's processed into what we see as color still exist.


I didn't say that, I said our PERCEPTION of reality is an illusion.




Biology does. Physics does. Common sense does.


Biology:

The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions.


Biology doesn't deal with consciousness.

Physicysts also don't have a clue when it comes to consciousness. Most just assume it is a result of the brain, but there is no proof either way.

What is common sense to you now, was ridiculous a hundred years ago, you just stay in your little box, where it is safe.

Common sense means what most people think, this is not an indication for truth, only ignorance.




And in retrospect, I haven't seen any reproducible scientific evidence for any of the above. Every time scientists try and have a controlled study on these phenomenon, nothing happens.


Is that so? I know there have been studies about remote viewing, it actually works, remote viewers even work for the FBI and such.

There have been experiments regarding telekenisis, where it was shown that humans could statiscally influence the direction of a little jet of water, just by focusing intention.




If we were inherently spiritual beings and not the other way around, then we should technically be conditioned naturally towards that. We aren't, we have to have people constantly tell us we are. And if history has taught us anything, refusal to believe such an idea ends up in silly little 'holy wars'.


This is more for another thread but here goes. It's the fact that we are being controlled, indoctrinated and lied to from birth. It's been happening since the dawn of men.

We are forced to forget our real power, so we can be conrolled and taken advantage of.

I know this sounds ridiculous to you, but I have noticed that you still have a lot of things to learn about the world and especially spirituality.

How old are you, if I may ask? 22? Just finished your education? Probably some exact science, am I right?

All I can tell you is, don't limit yourself by hiding behind science and "common sense", it will get you nowhere.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 





Well for instance, we can't see infrared light, but it is there, so what we see is not the complete picture.


So by your reasoning, your trying to say incomplete as in our organs can't perceive every possible thing in the universe? We only need to process what information we need to survive long enough to procreate. Now, just because we don't have an organ to process infrared light doesn't detract from the reality that infrared exists.




I didn't say that, I said our PERCEPTION of reality is an illusion.


Looking at the word perception from a biological standpoint, considering that this is how we perceive the world surrounding us:

sensing: becoming aware of something via the senses

How are you defining the word perception? Mind you, every organ we use to sense the surrounding world is akin to an instrument attached to the computer, it only senses what it was designed to sense and it only processes as it was designed to process.



Biology doesn't deal with consciousness.


It most certainly does. Neuroscience is a branch of biology that deals with the brain and how it works. This also includes how a species develops and makes use of self-awareness, amongst other things.



Physicysts also don't have a clue when it comes to consciousness. Most just assume it is a result of the brain, but there is no proof either way.


Biologist, not physicists. Regardless of the misuse of terms again, there are many laws discovered that wouldn't really allow for an outside source of self-awareness.



Is that so? I know there have been studies about remote viewing, it actually works, remote viewers even work for the FBI and such.


Really? Link to an FBI or scientific report or perhaps a remote viewing application from the FBI website?



There have been experiments regarding telekenisis, where it was shown that humans could statiscally influence the direction of a little jet of water, just by focusing intention.


Care to provide an reproducible scientific peer reviewed research papers?



This is more for another thread but here goes. It's the fact that we are being controlled, indoctrinated and lied to from birth. It's been happening since the dawn of men.


Yes, it does sound ridiculous as there is no evidence for such a thing. At least not in the capacity that your trying to say this has happened. And no, much older. Need not matter the exact specifics of my age, it's moot to the point of the argument, we both know that. If you want fuel for debate, find something else.

We as a species have no 'special' powers. The universe isn't magical, has never been magical, and never will be magical. In fact, many things that were seemingly magical in the past have now been explained. This seems like pretty good evidence that what we see or think may be magical, just really isn't. Because we don't have a good explanation for WHY we are self-aware isn't a good enough reason to say self-awareness exists outside the body. If your going to say the capacity of a species to be self-aware exists outside all know parameters of biology, then you need to SHOW it.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





So by your reasoning, your trying to say incomplete as in our organs can't perceive every possible thing in the universe? We only need to process what information we need to survive long enough to procreate.


No, apparently that is your reasoning.

If we could all see infrared light, wouldn't our reality look different? Isn't our PERCEPTION of reality just an interpretation based on what we can pick up with our senses?

An interpretation wich is based on only a part of the spectrum, and therefore incomplete.




It most certainly does. Neuroscience is a branch of biology that deals with the brain and how it works. This also includes how a species develops and makes use of self-awareness, amongst other things.


I didn't find any links to it dealing with consciousness. it deals with how the brain works technically.

So let's play along with your game. Care to provide an reproducible scientific peer reviewed research papers?




Really? Link to an FBI or scientific report or perhaps a remote viewing application from the FBI website?


en.wikipedia.org...

Here's Wiki, wanna know more, do your own research. Plus you know damn well I don't have acces to FBI reports.

I can't find any links about the waterjet experiment right now, I did see it on Discovery Channel, a few years ago.




Biologist, not physicists. Regardless of the misuse of terms again, there are many laws discovered that wouldn't really allow for an outside source of self-awareness.


Wow, I'm not saying biologists are physicysts. You were talking about biology and physics and I adressed the biologists first and then I said: "Physicysts ALSO don't have a clue when it comes to consciousness"

And you say I am a bad reader.




Yes, it does sound ridiculous as there is no evidence for such a thing.


LOl, this whole freaking site is full of evidence of exactly that, but off course you probably don't even look at that stuff, because you will only consider things like that if they are backed up by reproducible scientific peer reviewed research papers.

I pity you, because people like you are the ones that will have the most difficult time in the upcoming global events. Man, are you in for a surprise, lol.
.




Need not matter the exact specifics of my age, it's moot to the point of the argument, we both know that. If you want fuel for debate, find something else.


You're right it doesn't matter in our discussion, I was just trying to see if my views of you were correct and see where you're comming from.

No harm intended at all. I don't want fuel for debate, I actually don't even want to debate you anymore, like I said a few posts before, but still I did.

Let's just leave at this, we are not improving this thread with all this sidetracking.




We as a species have no 'special' powers. The universe isn't magical, has never been magical, and never will be magical. In fact, many things that were seemingly magical in the past have now been explained. This seems like pretty good evidence that what we see or think may be magical, just really isn't. Because we don't have a good explanation for WHY we are self-aware isn't a good enough reason to say self-awareness exists outside the body. If your going to say the capacity of a species to be self-aware exists outside all know parameters of biology, then you need to SHOW it.


Here this is why I pity you, and people like you. You have been succesfully stripped of your spirituality, your connection to the collective, your divinity, leaving you unable to react to anything that's out of your box, in a way other than demanding "reproducible scientific peer reviewed research papers".

Me, and others still have the ability to know and feel truth. Some of us have memories of past lives. We just know with every fibre and cell of our body.

It sounds ridiculous to you so
.

Laugh it up!

Good luck! And I mean it to.

[edit on 25/9/08 by enigmania]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 





No, apparently that is your reasoning.


Nah man, not my reasoning at all. See, I don't think our 'perception' is incomplete in any way whatsoever. As I said, we perceive only what we need to survive. We don't need the infrared wavelength to catch our food and procreate, so why evolve the ability to see it? What purpose would it serve in our survival?



If we could all see infrared light, wouldn't our reality look different?


Not really. Think about it, we use night vision which uses infrared light, and yet a tree still looks like a tree under this wavelength. The atomic structures that make up that tree still exist in the same form regardless of what wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum is bouncing off of it.



Isn't our PERCEPTION of reality just an interpretation based on what we can pick up with our senses?


See, this is exactly why I want to know how your defining the word perception. I'm looking at the word from a biological standpoint as this is the only way we perceive the world surrounding us. From that standpoint, everything is just fine. A tree is still a tree because the atoms are still arranged in the form of a tree. The atoms exist regardless of us being around to see them.

Now, the color of the bark and the leaves may appear to be an illusion, but it is moot to the point of reality. It need not matter how the brain processes the wavelengths as the wavelengths still exist regardless of how our brain processes them. And they will still exist regardless of us ever existing.



An interpretation wich is based on only a part of the spectrum, and therefore incomplete.


But again, incomplete in regards to what? A tree is still a tree regardless of which wavelength of light in bouncing off of it and regardless of us seeing that wavelength. You need to explain incomplete a little better.



I didn't find any links to it dealing with consciousness. it deals with how the brain works technically.


Really? Your either lying or don't know how to google. Would explain a lot actually...



So let's play along with your game. Care to provide an reproducible scientific peer reviewed research papers?


Will do so tomorrow. Drinking right now.



Here's Wiki, wanna know more, do your own research. Plus you know damn well I don't have acces to FBI reports.


I'm sure there's another conspiracy site out there who says the government is out to get us through remote viewing too.



Wow, I'm not saying biologists are physicysts. You were talking about biology and physics and I adressed the biologists first and then I said: "Physicysts ALSO don't have a clue when it comes to consciousness"


Not only are you a bad reader, but I'm pretty sure I made mention to how you take thing's out of context. Including your own words apparently. That is just flipping amazing little buddy!

Here is what you said. Note the bold text.



Physicysts also don't have a clue when it comes to consciousness. Most just assume it is a result of the brain, but there is no proof either way.



Your right, you did say that about physicist. But then you just had to add that physicists assume it stems from the brain. Physicists don't assume that at all, biologists do. Please don't take your own post out of context to argue with me. You look rather idiotic doing that.



LOl, this whole freaking site is full of evidence of exactly that, but off course you probably don't even look at that stuff, because you will only consider things like that if they are backed up by reproducible scientific peer reviewed research papers.


Yea, and this site also has so called 'evidence' that Bill Clinton is a reptilian
from the constellation Draco who is hell bent on making soup out of tasty humans. There is no evidence for a lot of what is said on here, hence the phrase 'conspiracy theory'.



I pity you, because people like you are the ones that will have the most difficult time in the upcoming global events. Man, are you in for a surprise, lol.


Actually, the surprise is more so on you. For many years now we've had our doom sayers and end of the world preachers. Damn, I can't even count how many times the world was supposed to have ended by now. SURPRISE!



You're right it doesn't matter in our discussion, I was just trying to see if my views of you were correct and see where you're comming from.


And since you were wrong .... what does that tell you about your views



Here this is why I pity you, and people like you. You have been succesfully stripped of your spirituality, your connection to the collective, your divinity, leaving you unable to react to anything that's out of your box, in a way other than demanding "reproducible scientific peer reviewed research papers".


And this is why I pity people like you. People who blindly and gullibly believe anything they hear. Use your head. There is no strong evidence for a spiritual world. You have people who tell you there is without showing there is. That isn't evidence, that's heresy.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Epsillion70
 


Well, by that explanation then, reality is only what a person is able to perceive and or sense right?


Reality in the conventional sense is this, for example, if we can touch something, it is real, or hear something, it is real, based on our senses. Now perception is different, we may not be able to percieve this phenomena (in this case, a field concsiousness), yet it doesn't mean it isn't there. Perception is based on our opinion, and IMO a field consciousness is very possible.


Regardless of all that explanation, the atoms still exist, space still exists, the electromagnetic spectrum still exists. Our biological electrochemical super computer and the various (5) sensors attached to it interpret the surroundings only enough to procreate and pass on it's genes. If you attach only an infrared sensor to a computer, it will only 'sense' infrared wavelengths. Same thing occurs with our eyes, it only 'sees' a small set of wavelengths. This doesn't mean that other wavelengths don't exist. It's just a poorly designed detector; depending on how you look at it.


(my bold) Exactly, just because we can't percieve something, doesn't mean it's not there, we can only see a small fraction of light, therefore a small fraction of energy, our perception is limited to this 'reality', yet it doesn't stop there from being a bigger reality we are unable to percieve.


Our particular species has only existed for a very short amount of time compared to the history of the universe; And before someone brings up other 'alien observers', there was also an immense amount of time before the universe was cool enough for atoms to arrange into more complex configurations. Point is, the universe existed without any sentient observer.


IMO, this is all a matter of opinion, whether you consider sentience or consciousness, is expressly reserved for 'humanoids' or if it is expressed by everything, at verying levels, the atoms observed each other, aswell, as planets, stars and the very ether that it floats in. I think it's a little closed minded to assumed that sentience is strictly found in 'humanoids' or 'evolved' forms, the level of sentience may have evolved, but was not 'born'.


Reality isn't what you or I can or can't, reality is just the physical universe. How our brains, or the brains of other species process the immense amount of information it receives is moot, it's like saying reality is determined by our computers with microphones and infrared sensors attached to it. That just sound idiotic doesn't it?


Reality can't just be the physical universe IMO, as you said earlier, just because we can't percieve it, doesn't mean its not there. Reality, currently is considered the physical universe as this is the common ground we all have, a physical existence, but I can't bring myself to assume it is the only 'reality' of form thereof, it is one of many facets of our 'reality', IMO, of course.

Can it not be our reality is made up of more than we can percieve? Afterall, its only detecting the infra red, yet there is alot more its not detecting, or can't detect, and this is only in the EM spectrum of light, there are many more forms of energy, are we to assume they don't exist as we can't detect them? (using your analogy), doesn't sound so idiotic now, must be in the wording.

Sorry if I've jumped in, went away for a while, thread was getting a but petty, but it seems to have sorted itself out now.

EMM

Edit to add:


"Every so called mystical aspect has ended up having a natural explanation behind it,"


Of course, mystical pertains to mysterious, not understood, when it becomes 'natural' it is understood, and it's place in nature found. Currently, the 'ether' is gaining crediblity 'in nature', this would change our entire outlook on the world, impossiblities would become probabilties, IMO, its a matter of time.


"And if history has taught us anything, refusal to believe such an idea ends up in silly little 'holy wars'."


Wars are caused by conflicting belief systems and their inability to accept another sides point of view, they have to be right, science is no different. In 200 years time, if there is no religion, only schools of science, I'll bet my life that they will be warring over who is right.


"I don't think our 'perception' is incomplete in any way whatsoever. As I said, we perceive only what we need to survive. We don't need the infrared wavelength to catch our food and procreate."


I don't know if your doing this on purpose, but you keep contradicting yourself:


"Same thing occurs with our eyes, it only 'sees' a small set of wavelengths"


Does this sound 'complete' to you? We are not talking about the humans need to survive, we are discussing reality as a biproduct of our consciousness and using the example that, if we are able to percieve only a small portion of the 'light' by which our world is constructed, through our eyes, then who are we to say these things can't exist because we can't percieve them.

And stop using the word magical, you are doing it to undermine our beliefs, you know aswell as I do, anything we don't understand can be banded around as 'magic', until we understand it, then it becomes a law of nature.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 27-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 27-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I would like to add that the viewpoint that our perception of reality is incomplete, is a viewpoint on it's own, and doesn't have anything to do with my viewpoint that reality forms itself because it is observed.




I do understand the points you made in your previous posts and looking at it FROM YOUR STANDPOINT it is wrong to say that reality doesn't exist, but you have to agree our perception of it is incomplete.


Just to clear that up.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 





Reality in the conventional sense is this, for example, if we can touch something, it is real, or hear something, it is real, based on our senses. Now perception is different, we may not be able to percieve this phenomena (in this case, a field concsiousness), yet it doesn't mean it isn't there. Perception is based on our opinion, and IMO a field consciousness is very possible.


Reality in the conventional sense to me is our universe. It is the atoms that make up all objects, the electromagnetic spectrum, the quantum strangeness of the fabric of space itself. While we may not understand how it all comes together to give rise to self-awareness in a species, that doesn't mean that reality is only what our organs are able to or unable to sense.

Saying that just because we can't perceive a 'field consciousness' is no more valid than me claiming to be god. It is no more valid than enigmania there trying to claim that we created the universe and then made ourselves forget about it. It's no more valid than me visualizing a pink elephant doing some rather naughty things to you and telling you it is really happening to you because I am able to 'perceive' it utilizing my imagination.




(my bold) Exactly, just because we can't percieve something, doesn't mean it's not there, we can only see a small fraction of light, therefore a small fraction of energy, our perception is limited to this 'reality', yet it doesn't stop there from being a bigger reality we are unable to percieve.


And yet, all claims to this so called 'larger reality' (I'm assuming your talking about the possibility of an afterlife of sorts), have been met without proof. Sure you have your NDE reports, but they are all heresy. There is nothing controlled to back them up. Just a poor understanding of how the brain works when it is near death. Not one single dead person has come back to life to report about the afterlife. Only people who were still alive have done this, and only a very tiny fraction of the population at that.



IMO, this is all a matter of opinion, whether you consider sentience or consciousness, is expressly reserved for 'humanoids' or if it is expressed by everything, at verying levels, the atoms observed each other, aswell, as planets, stars and the very ether that it floats in. I think it's a little closed minded to assumed that sentience is strictly found in 'humanoids' or 'evolved' forms, the level of sentience may have evolved, but was not 'born'.


See, that just sounds like poor utilization of critical thinking skills. In a way, atoms do observe each other by interacting with each other. This is woefully different than the act of sentience observing in the self-aware capacity that we observe. An atom doesn't think, we do.



Reality can't just be the physical universe IMO, as you said earlier, just because we can't percieve it, doesn't mean its not there. Reality, currently is considered the physical universe as this is the common ground we all have, a physical existence, but I can't bring myself to assume it is the only 'reality' of form thereof, it is one of many facets of our 'reality', IMO, of course.


Ok, in your best explanation and opinion, why can't it be just the physical universe?



Can it not be our reality is made up of more than we can percieve? Afterall, its only detecting the infra red, yet there is alot more its not detecting, or can't detect, and this is only in the EM spectrum of light, there are many more forms of energy, are we to assume they don't exist as we can't detect them? (using your analogy), doesn't sound so idiotic now, must be in the wording.


Actually, it does sound idiotic. What is energy? Let's look it up.

www.uwsp.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...

Your right, there are many forms of energy all dealing with only physical properties. We have no measure for non-physical energy systems, no definition for it, and no evidence for it. So, using the term energy to describe that which has never been shown to even remotely be possible to exist either on paper or in experiment does sound a bit idiotic. You can't just demand that something exists and demand people accept its existence without showing evidence for it's existence. It sounds like religion for crying out loud.


In 200 years time, if there is no religion, only schools of science, I'll bet my life that they will be warring over who is right.


That opinion is unfounded as there is not one single incidence of scientists instigating wars over which theory is more correct. No where in history do we see this. We have plenty of petty border issues and religious issues.



I don't know if your doing this on purpose, but you keep contradicting yourself:


Poor reading comprehension on your part. I concede to the fact that you just came back into the conversation, but let me explain the two quotes in which you feel are contradictory to each other.

As I said, our eyes only see what they need to see in order for us to survive long enough to procreate. In that capacity, it doesn't detract from reality itself and doesn't make our understanding of it any more or less incomplete. The reasoning for this is quiet simple IMO.

Does the universe deteriorate or change in any fundamental way when a person is blind? A person who loses the ability to process pain still get's burned due to the fundamental physical interactions taking place. The universe/reality hasn't changed in one instance due to the loss of a sensory organ. The only thing lost is our ability to process the information.


Does this sound 'complete' to you?


Yes, it does sound complete to me. The body uses immense amounts of energy just to process only what we need to survive as it is. The energy requirements to run every possible sensory organ to process every possible physical attribute is just insane from a biological standpoint. We'd have wiped ourselves out long ago trying to fuel our bodies for that.




And stop using the word magical, you are doing it to undermine our beliefs,


I'll stop as soon as people stop thinking of consciousness as a magical thing. We know what it is, just not why we have it in such a highly evolved way.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 





Just to clear that up.


You didn't really clear up much there. Are we to assume that we must be able to physically sense everything to have a proper understanding of the entire electromagnetic spectrum? Or that we must be able to sense gravitational waves in order for them to exist? I asked you earlier, how exactly are you defining perception?



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

Reality in the conventional sense to me is our universe. It is the atoms that make up all objects, the electromagnetic spectrum, the quantum strangeness of the fabric of space itself. While we may not understand how it all comes together to give rise to self-awareness in a species, that doesn't mean that reality is only what our organs are able to or unable to sense.

Saying that just because we can't perceive a 'field consciousness' is no more valid than me claiming to be god. It is no more valid than enigmania there trying to claim that we created the universe and then made ourselves forget about it. It's no more valid than me visualizing a pink elephant doing some rather naughty things to you and telling you it is really happening to you because I am able to 'perceive' it utilizing my imagination.


As I said before, it all depends on your perception of the world, on its composition, I see the physical aspect, as one of many, an effect rather than a cause. Has this been proven yet? Well, its all a matter of perspective.

Consider physicality, a solid object. It is composed of molecules, which are in turn, composed of atoms. Atoms are not matter/physical,they are like 99% empty space, they are energy, the force of this energy, it's repulsion and attraction, is what creates, or should I say, propagates these forces, that shape our world/reality. When you touch a physical object, you aren't physically touching it, it is the repulsion effect between the energy that composes you, and the energy that composes the solid object.

As far as I know, nobody can altar their 'reality' with their mind, not to say we never can, just we can't now. Then again, we have tales like Jesus composing fish and bread for people to eat, and turning water into wine. We have MPO, claiming to be able to create things from nothing, hearsay and rumours, but still mentioned.


And yet, all claims to this so called 'larger reality' (I'm assuming your talking about the possibility of an afterlife of sorts), have been met without proof. Sure you have your NDE reports, but they are all heresy. There is nothing controlled to back them up. Just a poor understanding of how the brain works when it is near death. Not one single dead person has come back to life to report about the afterlife. Only people who were still alive have done this, and only a very tiny fraction of the population at that.


A narrow minded assumption, but accurate to a degree. It entails an afterlife, but it is not to explain an afterlife, more to incorporate the things I have researched into a cohesive thought train, you may not agree, but it is my perspective on the world, my perception of it.



See, that just sounds like poor utilization of critical thinking skills. In a way, atoms do observe each other by interacting with each other. This is woefully different than the act of sentience observing in the self-aware capacity that we observe. An atom doesn't think, we do.


We have no idea what sentience is, you may think we have a handle on it, but I believe it is much more, the evidence is thin on the ground atm, but the ideas are there, and they are the seeds of the future. You have never been an atom, or at least, remember being an atom, to make that supposition, so you saying it is woefully different is just as ignorant as me saying they are as sentient as us, yet I embrace my ignorance, I accept that I can never truly know anything about this world, I can only make suppositions on 'evidence' I see, but I can percieve it, I can look for answers, and in turn, more questions to this reality.



Ok, in your best explanation and opinion, why can't it be just the physical universe?


Ok. Physicality, as I've mentioned above, is no more physical than the 'cushion' effect you get by pushing + + magnets together, it is a repulsion effect between the energy of the solid object, and yourself, the 'touch' sensation is merely the electrical stimulation (interaction?) of this. Our physical world, IMO, is merely a refraction of a much more... diverse reality, in form. We are the body we inhabit, it is again, a refraction of the energy we give out, but this is merely a concentrated form of energy, a form we are able to percieve, as is our 'physical reality' it is in a 'bandwidth', if you will, that we can percieve, similar to our perception of the varying lightwaves.


Actually, it does sound idiotic. What is energy? Let's look it up.

www.uwsp.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...

Your right, there are many forms of energy all dealing with only physical properties. We have no measure for non-physical energy systems, no definition for it, and no evidence for it. So, using the term energy to describe that which has never been shown to even remotely be possible to exist either on paper or in experiment does sound a bit idiotic. You can't just demand that something exists and demand people accept its existence without showing evidence for it's existence. It sounds like religion for crying out loud.


So because we can't percieve it, it doesn't exist? We do have evidence of it, we have ZPE, energy that seems to come from nowhere (although we both know it doesn't come from nowhere, it is another form of energy), we have the Casimir effect, a force, acting at sub atomic levels, we are discovering more and more, this will not bring us conclusive answers, but it will give people the oppurtunity to build their own perception, of our current understanding. I am not demanding anyone accept its existence, I am asking you to stop saying it doesn't exist, lol. I don't mind you believing what you want, I encourage it, yet telling people they are wrong, based on your own assumptions is idiotic.


That opinion is unfounded as there is not one single incidence of scientists instigating wars over which theory is more correct. No where in history do we see this. We have plenty of petty border issues and religious issues.


Religions have been around alot longer than science, and their belief systems are alot more engrained, to say it won't happen, because it hasn't happened is a bit idiotic, IMO.

EMM



[edit on 27-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   


Poor reading comprehension on your part. I concede to the fact that you just came back into the conversation, but let me explain the two quotes in which you feel are contradictory to each other.


Thats your explanation everytime for people who 'misunderstand' what you are saying, and it only seems to happen to you, you are the common denominator, could it be you?!?!

Edit to add: Enigmania pretty much summed it up on his last post, they don't contradict each other, merely your opinion of your perception of reality being complete.


As I said, our eyes only see what they need to see in order for us to survive long enough to procreate. In that capacity, it doesn't detract from reality itself and doesn't make our understanding of it any more or less incomplete. The reasoning for this is quiet simple IMO.


See, I agree with you here, but only in part. It desn't affect our reality now, it is as it is, that won't change, it is our perception of it that changes, the impossible becomes possible, things that we think of as science fiction, or myth could become possible. Our understanding of it is incomplete, but that doesn't detract from our experience, it adds to it. Because we don't no whether it's there or not, doesn't mean it's not, it could be, I lean towards it is.


Does the universe deteriorate or change in any fundamental way when a person is blind? A person who loses the ability to process pain still get's burned due to the fundamental physical interactions taking place. The universe/reality hasn't changed in one instance due to the loss of a sensory organ. The only thing lost is our ability to process the information.


I have no idea, I am not blind. Answering this would be like you saying atoms aren't concsious, it would be an assumption on something, one could only know through experience.

Edit to add: I was thinking, being blind from birth and being blinded through your life could be different. Afterall, with one, you have percieved colours, shapes, forms, motion, life, the other, you have never percieved anything in your life, ever.


Yes, it does sound complete to me. The body uses immense amounts of energy just to process only what we need to survive as it is. The energy requirements to run every possible sensory organ to process every possible physical attribute is just insane from a biological standpoint. We'd have wiped ourselves out long ago trying to fuel our bodies for that.


The energy humans give out is alot more than currently believed IMO, we just don't have the ability the measure it, if you're talking about the food we eat, then IMO, this is an expression for the transference of energy, from one body of energy to another, we see this transference as eating.


I'll stop as soon as people stop thinking of consciousness as a magical thing. We know what it is, just not why we have it in such a highly evolved way.


Lol, you arrogance is astounding, why do I consider it magical? because I believe something different to you? you believe it is created in the brain through some 'magical' process, that you are yet to understand, you can claim you do all you want, I don't kid myself into thinking I know everything. I believe it is anchored 'physically' in the brain, but not restriced to the brain.

I'm sorry if my opinion is different than yours, but your gonna find that alot round here.

EMM

[edit on 27-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 27-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





I asked you earlier, how exactly are you defining perception?


I assumed it would be obvious but here you go:

The views/interpretation we have of reality, based upon the info our senses provide us with.

So sight, smell, hearing, touch, and taste.

If any of these sense would be improved or downgraded, our perception of reality would change.

The blind man's perception of reality, definately changes, because he can't see.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Poor reading comprehension on your part. I concede to the fact that you just came back into the conversation, but let me explain the two quotes in which you feel are contradictory to each other.


Those quotes don't contradict each other, they both contradict your point that our perception of reality is "complete", and not "imcomplete'.




"I don't think our 'perception' is incomplete in any way whatsoever. As I said, we perceive only what we need to survive. We don't need the infrared wavelength to catch our food and procreate."


If you say "we perceive only what we need to survive", you are saying that there is more to perceive, and so, our perception of reality is incomplete.




"Same thing occurs with our eyes, it only 'sees' a small set of wavelengths"


Here you say: " it only 'sees' a small set of wavelengths", admitting that there are more wavelengths, so our preception of the reality of all the wavelengths, is incomplete.

See, the contradiction?

And to think that you keep accusing people of bad reading skills.




posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I insist nothing. Why must you insist that I insist? These psyhco threads drive me nuts. And don't insist that I insist anything.

You don't know me.



[edit on 9/27/2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I think what is being stated in the statement is that how were living, thinking and behaving is flawed to the condition of our destination which would likely be advancement, soul and space searching, and general enlightenment.?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 


I like you. You make sense.

These psycho threads drive me insane, too. Talking about the reality of illusion as if they can't decipher between the two.

What exists is what is, what doesn't is what isn't. You'll never experience what isn't, only what is.

Everything here is reality, and no, it's not just illusion. It's very real in all of its forms. Regardless of how you explain it, it's all real. Electro-chemical, etc. etc. etc. wavelengths, colors, light colors, paint colors, crayon colors. It's all real and if it wasn't, you'd never know it. ;-)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join