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.

 

The need to fill the void of ignorance

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 


Do you see on the cellular level when you look at your body? You must understand your own cells have digestives systems and saline support structures that allow them to independently function. Have you ever sized up human birth and what individual cells do in response to new life? How about researched the suicide cell?

There are levels of awareness you're not privy to. To make an even wider case... You don't recall the time when you born, so your self-awareness likely begin the instant you were exposed to wrong-doing. It's a pretty unique challenge debating what you don't know you don't know.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
If the universe is a non-local (Bell's Theorem) interconnected whole not unlike a hologram (Bohm and others) made of *information* at the most fundamental level - then the materialist monists are attempting to stand on very shakey ground, all in the name of atheism. That's contempt, prior to investigation, or a preconcieved bais, founded on only one presupposition, namely, that the universe (one song) is WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get), as if their own very limited POV, via the five senses, defines in absolute terms, reality (as perception), when all the while, the immense ocean of truth extends itself unexplored before them, beyond the confines of their own subjective isolation chamber, imprisoned in ignorance based on nothing more than what they THINK they know and presume to be true.


edit on 12-1-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



...the immense ocean of truth extends itself unexplored before them, beyond the door of their own subjective isolation chamber, imprisoned in ignorance based on nothing more than what they THINK they know and presume to be true.


Oh, so you KNOW that there's some sort of universal mind or consciousness? Your assertion is ENTIRELY based on nothing more than what you THINK you know and presume to be true. How much more ridiculous can your argument get?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


I was talking about atoms and subatomic particles lacking consciousness, not cells. You really should retain everything I state if you even want to make your response look decent.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
If the universe is a non-local (Bell's Theorem) interconnected whole not unlike a hologram (Bohm and others) made of *information* at the most fundamental level - then the materialist monists are attempting to stand on very shakey ground, all in the name of atheism. That's contempt, prior to investigation, or a preconcieved bais, founded on only one presupposition, namely, that the universe (one song) is WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get), as if their own very limited POV via the five senses, defines in absolute terms, reality, when all the while, the immense ocean of truth extends itself unexplored before them, beyond the door of their own subjective isolation chamber, imprisoned in ignorance based on nothing more than what they THINK they know and presume to be true.


Not a whole lot to add to your statement other than saying we are the equivalent of antennas or bio-acoustic receivers. Our hearing is tuned to certain frequencies the same as our other senses. What happens outside those wave-lengths is where definitions tend to leave off. Apparently some minds tend to leave off too.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by Americanist
 


I was talking about atoms and subatomic particles lacking consciousness, not cells. You really should retain everything I state if you even want to make your response look decent.


I expect more from you. That was indeed a cop out. I cite one level down to illustrate a valid point. If you're able to peer into the atomic/ sub-atomic level, enlighten us will you? Furthermore, please answer what drives cellular structure? I'll restate my point... You have vague comprehension skills of what happens at the cellular level much less the atomic/ sub-atomic level because you're not a direct observer. The fact remains... The more our technology advances, the smaller and smaller aspect ratios we find. Hence, how reasonably certain are you that consciousness doesn't exist on all scales? That's the end-all question here. One you're not going to find in any reference material for the time being.

edit on 12-1-2011 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 

It's more plausible, that it's all information at the ground level, than dead, inanimate, purposeless and without cause, then again if your Cognitive Relativism is THE truth, where nothing at all can be known that is not readily available to the five senses exclusively within a materialist monist frame of reference, then maybe perception alone defines the universe you inhabit, but all the weight of modern science is now tipping in favour of the type of universe I'm describing, which would mean that there is nothing now hidden which will not be made known and brought to light and thus nowhere to hide in the fullness of time and history ie: we can't actually get away with murder, no matter how we may justify it.
Courage then, and honesty, is the only way to go, to get clear, and perhaps in the process create a clearing not only for ourselves, but for our fellow man, that he too might enjoy authentic freedom even in the space of nothing and everything, and that's freedom, provided we realize that for everything there is a price that must be paid (law of correspondance).
We can be sure that our sins find us out, in the final analysis, a good thing, to avoid cataclysm and all corruption, and btw, Jesus was a rebel who RIPPED into those guys, who he called "whitewashed sepulchres, clean on the outside, but filled with dead men's bones and all corruption on the inside". And I think he also asked them in the exclamatory "when will you learn how to cry?!"


edit on 12-1-2011 by NewAgeMan because: typo



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


How reasonably certain are you that consciousness does exist on all scales? You and NewAgeMan don't have to be pricks about it, indirectly suggesting that I "live in ignorance" just because I don't see reality the way you see it. How can you be certain that you're right? Why do you believe a concept that is not supported by evidence? Why are you jumping into it and believing it without even analyzing it in the first place? Don't try to turn the tables on me. You're apologetically arguing about something that has never been demonstrated by anyone, and then you act like a total prick about it when I reject it due to its lack of evidential support.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Law of correspondence? Prove it. Sin? Prove that as well.


...but all the weight of modern science is now tipping in favour of the type of universe I'm describing


Yeah, that's what christians say about their holy babble. "Science actually proves that the bible is true! Science is in favor of the existence of a god!"

I guess you're not ready to quit arguing in circles, huh?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by Americanist
 


How reasonably certain are you that consciousness does exist on all scales? You and NewAgeMan don't have to be pricks about it, indirectly suggesting that I "live in ignorance" just because I don't see reality the way you see it. How can you be certain that you're right? Why do you believe a concept that is not supported by evidence? Why are you jumping into it and believing it without even analyzing it in the first place? Don't try to turn the tables on me. You're apologetically arguing about something that has never been demonstrated by anyone, and then you act like a total prick about it when I reject it due to its lack of evidential support.


I hardly think I'm being a prick about it... I'm making subtle points. I found supporting evidence in the form of programming language, cosmology, and practical evolution. The evidence I found stands on its own. Have you spent time researching? I'll check your sources, if you check mine... This isn't a difficult challenge for you. Perhaps a couple of days out of your schedule.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


You've already wasted much of my time with your circular reasoning. You haven't proven anything, you haven't presented even a semblance of proof and you definitely haven't even considered that you may be wrong.

Give me your "evidence" so I can review it.
edit on 1/12/2011 by Condemned0625 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 


The Universe is circular, so we're not going get around certain issues...

www.myspace.com...

You'll find information inside those blogs (click on the Celtic fingerprint as well).

As additional reference (youtube or google video search terms):

Dale Pond - Keely, SVP
Marko Rodin - (look for a 44pt Lecture Series) Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein - Vector Based Geometry



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I already indicated that the only resolution to the quantum paradoxes resides in a re-frame of our undestanding of the fundamental nature of reality and existence, and I referenced a source by a modern phycisist, more than one, to support the claim that materialist monism is dead in the water, so to speak.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Law of correspondence? Prove it. Sin? Prove that as well.


...but all the weight of modern science is now tipping in favour of the type of universe I'm describing


Yeah, that's what christians say about their holy babble. "Science actually proves that the bible is true! Science is in favor of the existence of a god!"

I guess you're not ready to quit arguing in circles, huh?

Have you ever read the babble..?

Bear in mind you're not dealing with a fundamentalist literalist here.. we're not all idiots you know, fools worth murdering because we pissed you off..



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


I found no evidence in your blog and none of it even proves the claims about universal consciousness.

I'm not about to watch a 44 part series that tries to explain your belief with mathematics. I had to stop it when I saw 'Gravitons'. Attempts to extend the Standard Model with gravitons have run into serious theoretical difficulties at high energies (processes with energies close to or above the Planck scale) because of infinities arising due to quantum effects (in technical terms, gravitation is nonrenormalizable). Does this guy even realize the problem there?

Mathematics can be used to attempt to explain a lot of things, especially gods and angels. Believe it or not, there are christian mathematicians who think they can prove the existence of a god with math. To me, this guy is no different.

I'm still curious as to why you so desperately want me to adopt your belief about consciousness. Don't expect me to watch such a long and time-wasting series. I'm sure I would still remain skeptical at the end of it, which is why I didn't even bother. I'm not going to sit here and watch all of this **** when I know full and well that I won't be convinced by it, plus I have other things that I would like to ####ing do today, such as eating and maybe playing a game.

Link me to a short video that can actually explain and prove your belief straightforward, not a bunch of long videos that will flush my time down the toilet.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Yes, I've read it and guess what... It doesn't convince me and it doesn't prove anything. Have you any idea how many contradictions, inconsistencies, inaccuracies and outright impossibilities are in that book? Besides all of that, the worst parts are the atrocities that are openly advocated by the god character in the book, such as rape, slavery, genocide, deception, favoritism, infinite punishment for finite "sins", dictatorship, sexism, and a whole lot of other absurdities.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 

Yes indeed it's got it all, and all manner of controversy, murder, sexual slavery, heck even king David comitted the gravest of sins, and Soloman would have had more concubines than you can shake a stick at, Abraham had sex while drunk with one of his own daughters (as if he didn't know), and Jesus himself was very possibly a rape child.

Have you read "The Self Aware Universe"..?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Can you stop asking me if I read that book? I don't need to read opinionated and unofficial material to understand a conceptual proposition. I need proof, not personal arguments from "personal experiences" or "personal proof". If it's real, I should be able to analyze it and confirm it. I can't count how many times I've asked for evidence and all you've done is refer me to a book that is based on what the author believes to be evidence and hasn't even confirmed it for all to see. If you're absolutely certain it is real, I need to see a demonstration and I need to see all scientists agreeing that it exists.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Condemned0625
 

I was just trying to be funny, keep it light.


Text based communication leaves a lot of gaps I guess.

But that author is a phycisist, and the problem.. ah never mind.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


There is a problem. Not all physicists will agree with that one. A book certainly can't prove such a thing. It needs to be found and confirmed (in a laboratory) like everything else was.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join