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: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
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. ;-)


As we've been trying to show, it doesn't matter how 'real' it is, it can still exist in a form that we can't comprehend, yet. I am trying to show that it could be energy, expressing itself infinitely, yet we percieve it in a certain way, as it is how we were meant to, in our 3 dimensional reality, this doesn't mean it doesn't exist in it's other forms, only that we percieve forms we can comprehend.

EMM




posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 





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. ;-)


No, colors are an interpretation by the brain of certain wavelengths of light. Color is an illusion created by the brain.

I have a friend who's colorblind. He once asked me, "could you pass me that pink ashtray", it was a green ashtray.

To his brain it was pink, in mine, it was green, in reality it is neither, just a certain wavelength of light.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 





I like you. You make sense.


No, if he made sense, he wouldn't post in threads that drive him insane, and neither would you.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Just found this on this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Most simplified unified theory, incredibly interesting, I suggest giving it a read.

But anyway, I found this:


Let's repeat : this wave shows all of the electron's properties. Judge for yourself :

This wave contains energy. When immobile, this energy is constant, which explains quanta. Otherwise, its energy increases according to the gamma factor: this was predicted by Lorentz. Moreover, this wave can move. Its speed and direction do not normally change, which explains Newton's inertia. But they can, because of the radiation pressure. This leads to mechanical properties exerted from a distance. This wave also exhibits a spin as a result of its phase rotation.

This wave spectacularly conforms to the Lorentz transformations. It seems at rest as seen by an observer moving along with it. It even seems to act and react in every frame of reference as if it were at rest. From its perspective, another standing wave system seems to undergo the Doppler effect only according to its relative speed. This explains Relativity.

Thus, the presence of a "solid" particle is no longer needed to explain matter. It is even excluded. An electron isn't a metal marble covered in chrome. An electron cannot be made of matter. This site shows that it is rather matter which is solely made out of electrons.


My bold

Theres a very good animation, that actually shows this as a standing wave, or a 'moving standing wave' as the author puts it, if anyone can show me how to link vids (do you have to host them, like on photobucket, same as images?), I'll post it, very interesting, if not, it's on the website up top.

Here for direct link to animation: www.glafreniere.com...

I'm looking for an image of a electron now, I saw one a while ago, Someone was using it to prove that the solar system isn't like an atom, but it showed something far more interesting. The shape of the electron was like butterfly wings, OR, like the van allen belts around our planet. now this wasn't the electron obviously, it was a camera used to capture it's energy I think. Could it be this field, and it's interactions with the other fields in the atom that cause attraction/repulsion? The forces that bind us together aswell as keep us apart?

This guy thinks so.

EMM

Edit: Found 'a' picture of an electron, but not the same, still, shows similar principles.



edit to add: from the aforementioned author:


"...it should be emphasized that Relativity, while it proves to be true, is nevertheless the result of our errors while recording any phenomenon."


[edit on 28-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 28-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 28-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Can anyone help me with this, I need an 'outside perspective'.


"The Lorentz transformations indicate that a "local time" takes place inside any moving system. Actually, this means that the electron wave phase should vary along the displacement axis. The phase is retarded forward according to the distance to the center. Waves are rather pulsating in advance at the rear.

The effect on the moving electron is obvious. Its standing waves no longer pulsate everywhere simultaneously. So a phase wave whose velocity is 1 / beta wavelength per period becomes visible. The normalized beta speed equals v / c, hence c = 1 here.

And because the local time is the same everywhere on a transverse plane, this phase wave is plane. It is clearly noticeable (see the animations below) in the form of vertical stripes moving forward, always faster then the speed of light.


Is this discussing the wave function collapsing on an electron? to reveal the 'particle'? or as it says, "Its standing waves no longer pulsate everywhere simultaneously. So a phase wave whose velocity is 1 / beta wavelength per period becomes visible"

EMM


[edit on 28-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
 


Jeah, it does appear to be talking about just that.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


Haha. An "illusion" created by the brain. There's nothing about this reality that is an illusion. It's all real. Then is your brain an "illusion" created by the universe?!
No.

If you understood how and why this "illusion as you call it is created, then you'd understand why it's real. I suggest doing some research. Everything about this reality is real, the way your senses intercept, recept and interpret the physical world is real, because your senses are created by and a by-product of the physical world and your senses are not an illusion either.

Colors are not an illusion. There is no illusion, it's all real, it is just seen differently through different spectrums, but nonetheless it's always there.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Interesting points SteveR. I don't believe reality is an Illusion, but I do feel that reality has many states and properties that we as Humans do not understand.

And reality is also a perception based phenomena in that sentient Humans have a notion that reality exists, but can only experience reality through a subjective framework of sensory perception, and in that, the observer becomes a sub-system, or sub-reality within a greater reality.

Reality is real imo. But may also branch into other sub-systems, such as personal reality.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


If you would be colorblind and only able to see in black and white, colors wouldn't exist for you. The different wavelengths would still be there, but your mind wouldn't create the color.


In most colorblindness, the person has a different mixture of cones from normal. The cone cells on the retina are the crucial physical components in seeing color. People with normal color perception have three different cones, each cone is tuned to perceive mostly either Long wavelengths (reddish), Middle wavelengths (greenish), or Short wavelengths (bluish), referred to as L-, M-, and S- cones. Our minds determine what "color" we are seeing by determining the ratio between signals from different types of cones. In people with colorblindness, either a type of cone is missing, or the cone has a different peak absorption from normal.


There is no color, just wavelengths. Colors are an interpretation created by the brain.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


Yep. I don't deny that.

However, that doesn't make colors an illusion. I understand that colors are the frequency of electromagnetic wavelength, but this doesn't make color any more fake than the wavelength its associated with. Do you know how the eyes work?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 





I understand that colors are the frequency of electromagnetic wavelength, but this doesn't make color any more fake than the wavelength its associated with.


No, colors are the result of the brain interpreting these wavelengths. I thought the text I quoted made it pretty clear.

How do you explain why the colorblind(black and white colorblind) can't see color?

The associated wavelengths are still there.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
We are stating that our current notion, i.e the physical reality is merely an illusion masking a greater reality, that transcends the 'physical'. I'll say we, to include others in this thread (enigmania for one), but if they don't agree, then please corret me and I'm very sorry.

We don't believe that there is 'nothing' and then everything is created by us, the observer. We are simply suggesting that what we currently know as 'our reality' is merely a 'refraction' of a much more complex system, we only percieve a very small amount of it.

Hopefully this will clear some confusion.

EMM



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


That's why I asked you if you understood how the eyes work.

Color is not an illusion. Neither is the brain, neither are the eyes.

The wavelength is always there, yes. Just because the wavelengths always exist and some people are color blind doesn't mean that colors are an illusion. If that is the case for you, then you must also agree that the brain is an illusion and so are the eyes, and since light is what the eyes and brain are interpreting as color, then light must also be an illusion. Therefore the only thing that exists are electromagnetic wavelengths... but this isn't true. There's much more than this to existence. The perception of color is not an illusion just as the perception of wavelengths is not an illusion, they are both interpretations from the brain and they are both real. Your senses are real and your being is real. Your tongue tastes flavors because they are real and because your tongue is real. Whether its only a receptor or not doesn't matter, it's as real as the apple you're tasting.

It sounds like you're trying to deny the Human aspect of existence. If that's the line of thinking that you're going for, then it's fine. I'm just saying, don't make the mistake of then calling it an illusion, because either way it's still not. You should study the Human aspect of existence (anatomy etc.) just as you do the "non-Human" aspects of existence. Because if it wasn't for the Human aspect of existence you wouldn't be here to study anything. If you deny yourself as a part of reality then you're going to miss out on a lot of research information.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Sofar you have only told me I'm wrong, just because I'm wrong. Please answer my question.

How do you explain why the colorblind(black and white colorblind) can't see color?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


I'm not going to do your research for you (I just don't have the time right now), and no I am not telling you that you are wrong. I'm giving you suggestions and facts to help expand your mind if you decide to accept the suggestions I'm giving you.

I said if you are only going for the study of the universe devoid of the Human aspects, then that's fine, but just don't make the mistake of calling it an illusion, because we're very real, just as the electromagnetic spectrum and its wavelengths is very real.

I can't say you're wrong because I don't really know what point you're trying to prove yet. Perhaps you ARE just trying to explain things outside of the Human element. I don't know yet. I haven't seen you be wrong about anything yet, only in saying that the aspect of sight is an illusion.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Jeah, it get's a bit confusing, I am reasoning from two different theories:

-We, as observer create our physical world by observing, making the waves of potential of the universe collapse into solid matter.

This based on several double slit quantum experiments. This is JUST A THEORY.

-The reality we perceive is an incomplete version of the "real" reality.

This not just a theory, I think we have proven that in this thread.

Still colors don't really exist, outside the brain.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
-We, as observer create our physical world by observing, making the waves of potential of the universe collapse into solid matter.


We see an example of this through scientific evolution. The idea of flight most probably came from observing birds, through observing this and gathering and experimenting with data, we collapsed the potential of flight into solid matter and actual reality; airplanes.

I agree. But not only through observing, also gathering data from those observations. We can't manifest any imagination into solid matter if we don't record and compress data and then follow through with physical experimentation.

We don't necessarily "create" the physical world, it's here regardless. We do manifest physical objects through industry and science through observing and gathering knowledge from those observations. Scientific progress.


-The reality we perceive is an incomplete version of the "real" reality.


If you mean "naked perception", yeah. Without technology we can't see many things the way that they are.


Still colors don't really exist, outside the brain.


Okay, I see what you're saying. You're looking at electromagnetic wavelength, not the perception of the light that we perceive through vision.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 





If you understood how and why this "illusion as you call it is created, then you'd understand why it's real. I suggest doing some research.


Does this not imply that you think I'm wrong?




I'm not going to do your research for you


That's ok, no need to. I just wanted you to answer the question, so I could prove to you that color is created by the brain, and exists only in the brain.


Our minds determine what "color" we are seeing by determining the ratio between signals from different types of cones. In people with colorblindness, either a type of cone is missing, or the cone has a different peak absorption from normal.


So because of a physical deviation in the eye, the persons brain can't produce color vision. The wavelengths are still there.

So is the color not a result of a physical process?

There are also cases where people lost vision of all color, after suffering brain damage.


Colorblindness is primarily a congenital defect. However, colorblindness can also be acquired, as a result of disease or accident (as in the painting at right). In this case, the color vision deficiency is caused by disruption to the neural pathways between the eye and the vision centers of the brain, rather than by loss of cone function in the eye. For example, achromatopsia, the loss of all color vision, can be acquired as a result of brain damage, and Parkinson's disease commonly induces symptoms that are similar to tritanopia.


The person can still see, but no colors, because of brain damage. The wavelengths are still there.

If he didn't have brain damage he could still see colors.

Are colors not the result of a process in the brain?

[edit on 28/9/08 by enigmania]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


Yes, they are. But they are also a cause of electromagnetic wavelength.

We know what things are a product of the brain, but what is the brain a product of? Is it not also all of those things in return? Newton's laws.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
Does this not imply that you think I'm wrong?


Yeah. Only about sight. It's very real. What collapsed the potential of your brain and visual optics into solid matter and the mechanics that they carry out? Their functions and their matter are just as real as anything else.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join