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.
Originally posted by InfaRedMan
reply to post by KrypticCriminal
A skeptical mind is a healthy mind. When no empirical evidence is available, 'belief' is merely a proxy for faith. The second someone makes up their mind about what it is that they have experienced, the mind becomes closed. Faith is for the closed minded individual. An open mind also entertains the option that they may be wrong in their perceptions or thinking.
IRM
"Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled." — The Kybalion.
Originally posted by bogomil
At a motivational/explanatory level, I have for years been using the same model as Robert Anton Wilson: We live with relative realities, which may contain smaller or greater amounts of 'truth' (as compared to an ultimative, possibly imaginary, truth). Such 'local truths' can be quite functional in their own localities, but useless outside.
An example: Most people probably believe, that what we experience as physical matter through the sense of tactile touch is, well...matter. It isn't. It's the reprocial repulsion of the outer shells of electrons in atoms. In other words electromagnetic fields. Matter is, insofar matter exists, the quarks at the center of atoms, and our only sensory experience of them lies in the gravity of 'mass'.
The first category are those persons who have accepted some "Facts", and stay firm to those "Facts" no matter what.
In my experince these tend to be trouble on threads. They've got a limited knowlege of a subject and they hold firm to what they have found out. I cant understand why they refuse to take other things on board though. They usualy just argue with you and miss the point of what your trying to say. Even when your agreeing with them.
The Second Category are those persons who have accepted some "Facts"stay firm, but they are always searching for new " Facts".
This probably describes most people on forrums. They enter them with thier belifs and are only interested in expanding on those beliefs. In my experience they generaly enjoy a good debate but are rarely open to new ideas.
The Third category are those persons that still searching for "facts", in order to verify the "facts" that they already known
This ones basicly the same as the third i think. If i was to add another category to your list it would be those who know nothing about anything in particular and are just curious. People like this are interesting because often they give impartial points of view that can often force you to question your beliefs, or at least look harder at them in order to make them understand it better. Then eventually they join one of the above groups.
Fresh meat
Only joking, i know i will come across as sounding judgmental but im just putting it the way that i see it. Nobody needs to agree. Although aparently some like yourself do.
Thanks. .
Originally posted by bogomil
Hi NorEaster
my repeated respect.
You wrote:
"Then you have to allow for the potential of other forms of unitary existence that have collected to form other types of matter that we, as carbon-centric molecular wholes, have no ability to perceive. Well, I suppose you could completely reject the possibility of such a potential, but how responsible would such a rejection be?"
Quite the contrary, I most likely agree with you. I'm slowly trying to go in the direction of 'unitary existence' (sentient complexity?) even beyond particle manifestation. Presently I'm working with the idea of 'intelligence' (intent) based on pure energy-manifestations; energy-fields.
As the 'others' (non-humans) are experienced as being able to pass through solids and to move spatially instantaneously, they can't be even gaseous. And while many such entities in my experience are holographic projections (or the equalent in a psi-technology: Mental projections), some are 'objects' in space and time, the same way cars, trees and humans are 'objects'.
As the vague concept 'mind' nowadays is my best candidate for a higher 'reality', I see no problems with considering 'intelligence' in an energy-field, capable of transferring information/signals, as matter-energy just are two different perspectives of 'mind'.
You wrote:
"What amazes me is that as we exist from instant to instant, our corporeal structures change constantly (atoms and sub-atomic elements shifting, spinning and changing relative position)"
I have on another thread presented my hypothesis on that: The cosmic form is somewhat separate from chaos-'reality'. When chaos pops in and out of this form (figuratively speaking), it would have to do this simultaneously synchonized for all manifested existence to change from moment to moment and be completely 'new'. If the 'popping' is spaced/timed-out separately, non-simultaneously, there would be a 'cosmic' memory created by the particles/energies in present momentary manifested existence, leaving pre-arranged 'moulds' for chaos to adapt to. So you understand, I'm not so keen on trousers of time, or individually observer-created universes. Cosmos has according to my hypothesis a certain elasticity, but tends to revert to 'historical memory'.
But at cosmic level, inside cosmic form, changes do take place due to small asymmetries between the various manifested components (remember gravity was a candidate for asymmetry some years ago). Particle/energy constellations do change, and thus also eventually leads to changes in complexities. Random mutation or evolution.
edit on 23-10-2010 by bogomil because: spelling