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.

 

Religious people: You all tend to have the same reasons for believing...

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion1
 


Hi Conclusion,

you wrote:

["The reason I believe in Christ is because of my experience with Christ. How do I explain that experience? I can't. The experience has to be lived through in order to understand it."]

As I don't know, how familiar with my former scribblings you are, it's probably better to repeat at least some of it.

It may come as a surprise for some people, that I have an extensive, detailed and rather 'well-evidenced' (as far as such things can be said to be 'evidenced') background with experiences of anomalies (para-normal) and some 'mystic' experience also (which is besides the point now).

Everything happened at my farm, and an additional factor is, that five other people besides me separately have experienced anomalies here also (and in one case together with me). Furthermore a neighbour living some kilometers away also had such an experience, practically identical to a regurlarly recurrent phenomenon I had for a year or so.

I saw, heard, talked with, otherwise communicated with and touched entities/beings, who 'are not supposed to be there'. And while such usually better would belong to the sub-forum of meta-physics etc., my own approach to this is such, that it in many ways fits well on this thread.

You see, like many religionists who base their religion/faith on experiences similar to mine, I don't doubt, that 'something' happened (I have ofcourse been checked medically, and I don't seem to be bonkers or suffer from any hallucination-creating illness).

But contrary to the potential religionist, I was already before my experiences familiar with both the subject of anomalies and I also have an academic background in 'soft science', from where I have a 'procedure' (methodology) easily adapted to evaluation of what happened.

What I consider the first reasonable step in such a situation is ofcourse to gather more general information, from which a comparative analysis can be made. And I concentrated on the perceptually straight experiences. Not 'gut'-feelings, which I from other contexts know to be practically worthless, as they almost always are induced imaginations. I have made experiments with consenting people on that, and I have no doubts. Besides it's a common psycho-therapeutic technique, known as guided imagination, giving these results.

And, not much to my surprise, I learned (from many firsthand accounts), that these perceived anomalies manifest in any old way. There's an enormous spectrum from 'UFOs' (not of the nut-and-bolt type) to assorted 'aliens', hyperdimensional beings (coming and going through 'portals'), fairies, goblins, demons, angels, 'half-gods', messengers from this or that and whatever. (I have only used examples from people I consider serious, non-over-exitable and non-sensationalists.)

That many of these beings/entities also are able to shape-shift doesn't make things easier to classify or finding discernable patterns in. And when 'messages' are part of the situation, these 'messages' are confused, practically always contradictory and seem to have no or little purpose.

Dearie me, this is going to be long. I hope readers will bear with me.

The immediate potential answers/conclusions can naturally be arranged in several distinct categories.
Our planet has dozens of non-human species as residents. That these non-human species appear to be complex intelligences existing in a field-form (rather than in matter/particle form), that they have agendas of their own (usually outside human comprehension), that mankind and matter-existence is as strange to them, as non-corporeal existence is to us, and that they normally aren't that keen on mankind, but consider us as somewhat hostile and dangerous, possibly something to be 'used' (e.g. as sources of 'bio-energy'). This appears presently to be the only level of finding a pattern in these circumstances.

But basically wanting to approach the situation with a rational, analytical method, there's ofcourse first the 'Occam's razor' option of the situation: That external stimuli influence our perception-processes to the extent, that we start 'hallucinating'. It's fairly certain, that e.g. low frequency sounds can lead to this. But as in my recent post on solipsism, I will at least partly discard this idea. There was, in my case and that of others, too much 'information' with obvious 'intent', which could not have originated from me. I experienced much of what was to be expected, but also much so alien, that even my wildest imagination couldn't have cooked it up in a thousand years.

I believe, that I now can arrive at some tentative conclusions, associated to this thread.

Some of us, e.g. Mysticnoon, Madness and myself, start from different basic positions. I doubt, that Madness would accept my idea, that there exist non-human, 'invisible' species around us (maybe you would agree to the option of extern stimuli creating 'hallucinations, Madness), but that's actually rather irrelevant. What I consider relevant here is how to relate to these rather unusual circumstances. And to the best of my knowledge, I have no conflict with Madness et al on this. We all want to START from whatever 'evidence' there is, no matter how weird this 'evidence' appears to be and then work our way towards answers, which are in accordance with rational, scientific/logic principles (though science would need a good epistemological spring-cleaning, long overdue, to be able to encompass this).

To emphasize it, the rational approach originates with facts, evidence, information and a sound systematic methodology. Hopefully and eventually arriving at increasingly conclusive answers.

To be somewhat nasty, I believe that there at the bottom of this lies a rather simple psychological explanation. Some mindsets are so integrated, that the lack of existential straws to cling to (e.g. an ideology/religion) don't bother them. Such mindsets can live with a certain amount of 'knowledge vacuums'.

While other mindsets find the idea of 'knowledge vacuums' so scary, that they rather take the first reasonably suitable idea, which can fill out the vacuum. And as such a method really isn't based on anything especially solid, a lot of time and energy is consequently used to bolster up this existential straw at whatever cost, be it skipping any sense of rational approach, inventing or adapting circumstances to support the straw and in some cases even enforcing other individuals into your own 'straw' club, because there's safety in numbers.

I've said it to terminal boredom (that's my way of 'preaching') and as long as it's necessary, I will say it again: Anyone feeling the need of premature answers, fitting facts to 'prove' these answers...feel free. It's your individual right in the functional context of liberal society.

But give everybody else the right to THEIR optional choices (inside the perimeters of liberal society), and don't even think about pushing your subjective preferences on mankind.

There are a limited and relatively uniform amount of rational/scientific/logic 'answers'. There are some 50.000 varieties of religion etc and 3.500 gods. Now there's something to consider, and I think this is an important aspect of this thread.

I apologize for the longwindedness.



edit on 15-5-2011 by bogomil because: spelling




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Hi Itsnowagain,

I prefer to relate to the post you addressed to Madness, as it is more to the point, than what you have answered to me. Besides Madness is imo a kind of ringmaster here, and has a certain amount of privilege in deciding on topic direction and relevance.

You wrote to Madness;

["Like you say : "The only reasonably method we have for examining reality is reasonable inference based upon evidence. Experience is only a facet of evidence."
This sentence doesn't make any sense, however i will try to respond the best i can."]

I hope, it will not sound derogatory, but to me Madness' statement is clear as springwater.

Quote: ["Reality is not a method and there is no method required to see what reality is."]

That's the alleged ultimate aim of the 'mystical' experience. But then.....

....why do you constantly introduce doctrinal elements from e.g. pauline christianity into the situation. If there's anything so much a 'method' (albeit irrational and confused) as the rigid doctrines of pauline christianity, it would only be found in similar abrahamic religions.

I have regularly asked you about this self-contradiction in your world-view, and sofar never had a straight answer.

Quote: ["A method is a process where we cut reality into bits and try to explain it."]

Maybe you should rely on rational/scientific/logic methodologies, which aren't 50-100 years outdated. E.g. we have these days something called science of complexity, which looks at relations/interaction.

Quote: [" If you believe someone can tell you 'reality' (or what reality is) you are deluded."]

I can only wholeheartedly agree in an ultimate sense. But then it's rather surprising, that you yourself try to do this constantly.

In a limited sense, locally (concerning defined areas of the existential map), it's perfectly possible to present answers suitable the the situation/perspective. Madness has already mentioned computers. Computers are 'local' quite functional answers.

Quote: ["Reality is what is happening.
What do you consider reality?"]

Hmmm. In some buddhism reality is what's NOT happening.

Quote: ["Accuracy of inductive inferences:
The process by which a conclusion is inferred from multiple observations is called inductive reasoning. The conclusion may be correct or incorrect, or correct to within a certain degree of accuracy, or correct in certain situations. Conclusions inferred from multiple observations may be tested by additional observations."]

Sorry, but it sounds like you're presenting platitudes, without any obvious relevance to the subject. Everybody familiar with the methodology of science/logic are aware of the limited value (if any) of inductive reasoning run amok. Half of my time quibbling with extremist christians is spend on trying to cut through their endless stream of the worst possible kind of inductive arguements it's possible to fabricate.

Present a creative answer to the dilemma, and you will gain my respect.

Quote: [" A conclusion is not reality."]

Ofcourse not. Not ultimate reality anyway, but neither you, Madness nor I know ultimate reality (though you sometimes pretend; a claim I utterly reject).

In the meantime, local conclusions (see above) can be rather handy. You are hopefully not so arrogant, that you e.g. scorn the technology bringing food on your table (I have a rather manually run ecological farm, and I can assure you that it would be living hell completely without technology), medicine, transport and communication.

Quote: ["If the primary fact is wrong no matter what you do with them you will not get truth."]

As above. But with the addition, that science/logic, contrary to the religionists, have rather strict premises concerning 'facts'. The whole system resulting in what's defined as 'objectivity' is a rather big and functional unit, which goes a long way, not least demonstrated pragmatically.

Quote: ["The primary fact is consciousness."]

A theory which I personally find rather attractive. But it's not 'verified' (Mysticmoon's thoughts on giving the 'mystical' experience some respectability, could be a step in such a direction).

And in any case, I'm extremely wary of anyone claiming to have reached a level of ultimate consciousness. Sofar such claims have exclusively been an expression of megalomania (and believe me, I've met quite a few).



edit on 15-5-2011 by bogomil because: clarification



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Again, more sophistry. Get this straight, we have no proper access to 'real' reality. We can only make reasoned conclusions. The best conclusions come from times when we get confirmation of our experiences from external sources. Why do you think people say: "Did you hear that?" when they hear a spooky noise?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Originally posted by Conclusion1 reply to post by madnessinmysoul Yes, but those smells very immensely between people. And? They still smell them. What I'm saying is that numbers don't actually have the property of having a 'smell', as smell is a chemical reading produced by our nose. These people have an odd 'wiring' in their brain that perceives smell alongside sight and that is not consistent.


Whether it is inconsistent or not. It exists. So I disagree.





Straw man. You don't know that they're beautiful as beauty is a subjective interpretation of items. You can think they're beautiful, you can feel that they're beautiful, it can be your opinion that they are beautiful, but beauty is a subject that cannot be known. Of course, there's the other problem. You're missing the whole idea of evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now, if you claim to look up at the night sky...well, it doesn't take a whole lot of evidence to support that claim. Unless I knew you lived in an area where there was too much light pollution to see any stars, you were blind, or a whole host of other things that would prevent you from doing that, the claim doesn't require all that much evidence. It's mundane.


Lol. Strawman? I was using an illustration of the type of logic you suggested about evidence. You don't speak well of your own logic. Beauty cannot be known? I disagree yet again. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You see I have no evidence to support the claim that I looked up at the sky. Not the slightest bit. You will have to take my word for it. So yes. I disagree with your evidence logic.




Well, you're merely pointing out the logical contradiction in your argument. If your deity is not caused, then how can it exist? If you can only reconcile causality with something that violates it then there is clearly something wrong with the idea. And possibly the universe exists without a cause as we know the term.


No contradiction in my argument. I am merely stating he is the cause. You ask what caused him? He did. I AM I AM. So He did not violate causality, He created it.




Again, how? Logic has nothing to do with meaning, it has to do with assessing the validity of statements.


Yes. We gave meaning to Logic. If we had no done so it would have no meaning. Assessing the validity of statements is your claim to the MEANING of logic. So it does have meaning....whew.. I don't know how much longer I can do this. Maybe you need to question other people. Obvious I do not have the answers you are looking for. I just have the one's that I found.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Hello bogomil.

First off....that was a Great post.
Very informative so thank you for that.




What I consider the first reasonable step in such a situation is ofcourse to gather more general information, from which a comparative analysis can be made. And I concentrated on the perceptually straight experiences. Not 'gut'-feelings, which I from other contexts know to be practically worthless, as they almost always are induced imaginations. I have made experiments with consenting people on that, and I have no doubts. Besides it's a common psycho-therapeutic technique, known as guided imagination, giving these results.


No gut feelings here, it was a strait on mental/physical experience. Since the experience pertained to Christ. I did a lot reading about him. I asked people of different religions and denominations questions. Common psycho-therapeutic technique? Never heard of it. Guided imagination? Okay I am a little questionable here. What do you mean by that? Are we guiding our imaginations or is someone/something else?




And, not much to my surprise, I learned (from many firsthand accounts), that these perceived anomalies manifest in any old way. There's an enormous spectrum from 'UFOs' (not of the nut-and-bolt type) to assorted 'aliens', hyperdimensional beings (coming and going through 'portals'), fairies, goblins, demons, angels, 'half-gods', messengers from this or that and whatever. (I have only used examples from people I consider serious, non-over-exitable and non-sensationalists.)


Hmmm. I am not so sure about this paragraph. I am a UFO buff. I have never seen one. I would love to see one. Now if guided imagination is real and/if I am the one guiding it, wouldn't I have seen one by now? And my experience before only happened once. That suggests that it was not guided imagination.




I've said it to terminal boredom (that's my way of 'preaching') and as long as it's necessary, I will say it again: Anyone feeling the need of premature answers, fitting facts to 'prove' these answers...feel free. It's your individual right in the functional context of liberal society. But give everybody else the right to THEIR optional choices (inside the perimeters of liberal society), and don't even think about pushing your subjective preferences on mankind.



I cannot agree more with this. Or as I like to say. Live and let live. I do not push my beliefs on anyone, but I will defend my beliefs, which is all I have done in this thread.




There are a limited and relatively uniform amount of rational/scientific/logic 'answers'. There are some 50.000 varieties of religion etc and 3.500 gods. Now there's something to consider, and I think this is an important aspect of this thread.


I have to disagree with the rational/scientific/logic answers sentence. It seems that quantum physics is having a hard time explaining what is happening in their field of study. With trying to relate it to relativity. Also with the scientist saying how a particle can be in two different places at once does not seem "rational" unless it is trying to describe science. Now you use that rationality in a religious point of view and they say you are stupid for believing that crap. lol Talk about circular arguments. Also I hate the term religion. It is a way for people to try and put all belief in a god/gods/goddess/goddess's in the same stew pot. It just doesn't taste right. They are all different. Some may resemble others, but still they are different. Why did I pick Christ? Because of my experience. Before that I thought I was agnostic. "By the way Maddness was right when he said that Agnostics are really Atheists. In another thread." So to me that is where the truth is found. That is how I find the truth. As with anything else you study it becomes more clear to you the more you study it.

So once again, that was a very good post and I did learn from it.

Conc.
edit on 15-5-2011 by Conclusion1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I would prefer it if you answer the post that i sent to you;
You wrote:

You wrote:

["Until a 'wave of what ever it is' (potentiality) hits an eardrum, it can not be considered sound/noise."]

That's the postulate, I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation for from you. Just repeating it doesn't unfortunately make it more plausible.

Quote: [" You have a pc that plays music, if it has no speakers does it make a sound?
Equipment is needed to enable the 'waves' to become some 'thing' (sound)."]

We were talking about the recieving end of the phenomenon. Why do you jump to the producing part of the sound-process? End quote.

You were really eager to get an explaination so i repeat:

You have a microphone in your hand and you want to record yourself singing, it doesn't record you wonder why, when you do checks you realize that the microphone was not connected.
The microphone is like a loudspeaker but opposite, it has to recieve movement (of waves). Waves that are not sound until it makes a noise. The microphone may vibrate when you sing in it but if the cable is not connected to the other electrical equipment it will not make a sound. The microphone does not make a sound any more than your eardrum does. It is not the loudspeaker that makes noise either. The loudspeaker moves which create waves (still not sound though), the eardrum vibrates and a consciouness experiences 'sound'.



edit on 16-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


It is you who introduce words like 'pauline christianity'. I speak from what is known here and you come along and slap on a word i have ever heard of and the demand why i have used the terminology.
Again you go to the inside of 'your' head instead of seeing and hearing the words in front of you.

Quote: why do you constantly introduce doctrinal elements from e.g. pauline christianity into the situation. If there's anything so much a 'method' (albeit irrational and confused) as the rigid doctrines of pauline christianity, it would only be found in similar abrahamic religions. End quote.
You also say 'In some buddhism reality is what's NOT happening. '
None of this ever comes from you, it's what pauline says or what abrahamic or buddhism says.
Why do you constantly introduce doctrinal elements????

I know it is impossible for you and madness to understand my posts.
I know it infuriates you both.
It is not my mission to make you understand.
I can sow seeds, but if the soil is dry and arid...........

edit on 16-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


You live your life from conclusions and i will carry on living mine in direct contact with reality.
You believe that you can not know reality, it is this belief that prevents you knowing it.
Reality will not be known when we believe the stories in our heads more than direct experience.

You hear a spooky noise. This is the act of hearing, do you really need anyone else to confirm that you heard a noise? Is your own direct hearing not evidence enough?
I really don't know why people say 'did you hear that?'.
Do you know.

edit on 16-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


It is you who introduce words like 'pauline christianity'. I speak from what is known here and you come along and slap on a word i have ever heard of and the demand why i have used the terminology.
Again you go to the inside of 'your' head instead of seeing and hearing the words in front of you.

Quote: why do you constantly introduce doctrinal elements from e.g. pauline christianity into the situation. If there's anything so much a 'method' (albeit irrational and confused) as the rigid doctrines of pauline christianity, it would only be found in similar abrahamic religions. End quote.
You also say 'In some buddhism reality is what's NOT happening. '
None of this ever comes from you, it's what pauline says or what abrahamic or buddhism says.
Why do you constantly introduce doctrinal elements????

I know it is impossible for you and madness to understand my posts.
I know it infuriates you both.
It is not my mission to make you understand.
I can sow seeds, but if the soil is dry and arid...........

edit on 16-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



I'll start answering this post of yours first, as it is the easiest.

Whether you have heard of pauline christianity or not, you use elements from it. On a former thread you used the word 'sin', and recently Jesus and 'God' are included in your posts. So the connection is there.

A 'terminology' is hopefully something, which is not only a set of rhetoric labels without any meaningful relevance to anything, but verbal symbols describing 'things'/phenomena as accurately as possible. So by using e.g. 'sin' and 'Jesus' this will refer to the christian constellation of original sin/redemption doctrines.

If you have your own special way of using/interpretating this sin/redemption concept, you've had several possibilities of explaining it, as I repeatedly have asked you for its inclusion in your other speculations.


Quote from your post to me: ["Again you go to the inside of 'your' head instead of seeing and hearing the words in front of you."]

I don't go inside MY head to find whatever I get out of your words. I rely on the commonly accepted version of 'God', 'Jesus' and 'sin'...UNTIL you inform me of YOUR meaning. WHEN I have your meaning, I can relate to that.


Quote: ["You also say 'In some buddhism reality is what's NOT happening. '"]

I'm not a buddhist, and the reference to buddhism is not necessarily a precise expression of my opinions on the matter. It is an example of the various options of what 'reality' can be or is said to be.


Quote: ["I know it is impossible for you and madness to understand my posts."]

I can ofcourse only speak for myself, and my first (impertinent) answer could be, that this is because there is nothing to understand from an overall consideration. The 'here-and-now' and the 'observer-created-existence' concepts I'm rather familiar with, having spent some time on both their actual basis, validation and possible consequences.

It's the mish-mash of seemingly incompatible components you present and your own (questionable) claims of knowing 'reality', I'm extremely sceptical about.

A more polite answer would be, that you're often trying to use information and methods you're not overly familiar with, so your communication basis is confused.

Quote: ["I know it infuriates you both."]

Speaking about Madness, not for him, I can only say, that he's one of the most polite and balanced persons, it's ever been my pleasure to meet on a debate-forum. Personally I'm both grumpy and querulous, but the last time I got 'infuriated' was years ago, when my (now divorced) alcoholic wife waved a big kitchen knife at me in one of her drunken rages.

Where do you get such ideas from?


Quote: [" It is not my mission to make you understand.
I can sow seeds, but if the soil is dry and arid........... "]

I know that already, and I have commented on it earlier, when I said you're here to preach. But preachers must also be prepared to meet criticism and requests of validation for their preachings on a public forum.

edit on 16-5-2011 by bogomil because: vocabulary



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Why will you not answer the first 'not so easy' post bogomil?

Each and everytime i reply to you i wonder what am i doing.
It is you who makes arguments.
I have no argument and nothing to prove.


If you would like to know anymore, i suggest you ask madness as he is the ring master of this particular circus.



edit on 16-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I try to explain my terminology like this:

God is aliveness itself.
God is being.
Being is what this is.
This existance is god.
This eternal now is it.
What is happening is god.

Can you see and hear, do you experience sensation?

Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
Where it says 'I' in this statement read it as 'I' as in your own self. Presence.

Without you 'being', there would be no things seen.
No things (objects) exist with out you, you are the light that allows all things to be.
Whatever is under the stone can not be known unless you are present, until it is seen.
The seen and the seeing is one.

It is the Presence that allows everything to appear.
Be present, consciously, with this eternal now and you will feel god.
Know god.
He never has left you because he is always right here, right now.
We leave him when we play in the shadows of yesterday and tomorrow.
He can't live then or there.
He lives now.
Walk with him now and always.
Now is always the time, just notice it.

Remember as often as you can.
Say 'I am here I am now'.
Just notice you are.
You are the 'I am'.
You are the 'now'.
You are the 'hereness'.
This is home, this is heaven.


Do you have anything to say on the matter besides what you don't like or agree with in other peoples posts?
You say i am here preaching. What is it that you consider you are doing?
edit on 16-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


I would prefer it if you answer the post that i sent to you;
You wrote:

You wrote:

["Until a 'wave of what ever it is' (potentiality) hits an eardrum, it can not be considered sound/noise."]

That's the postulate, I'm eagerly awaiting an explanation for from you. Just repeating it doesn't unfortunately make it more plausible.

Quote: [" You have a pc that plays music, if it has no speakers does it make a sound?
Equipment is needed to enable the 'waves' to become some 'thing' (sound)."]

We were talking about the recieving end of the phenomenon. Why do you jump to the producing part of the sound-process? End quote.

You were really eager to get an explaination so i repeat:

You have a microphone in your hand and you want to record yourself singing, it doesn't record you wonder why, when you do checks you realize that the microphone was not connected.
The microphone is like a loudspeaker but opposite, it has to recieve movement (of waves). Waves that are not sound until it makes a noise. The microphone may vibrate when you sing in it but if the cable is not connected to the other electrical equipment it will not make a sound. The microphone does not make a sound any more than your eardrum does. It is not the loudspeaker that makes noise either. The loudspeaker moves which create waves (still not sound though), the eardrum vibrates and a consciouness experiences 'sound'.



edit on 16-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



I really shouldn't complain, as my own quoting system is rather primitive, but your paragraphing did present some problems for me. Possible misunderstanding can be ascribed to that.


As I often experience when opposing religionists and similar, there's a strong tendency of upgrading metaphors/allegories from just being illustrative examples to being 'facts' or 'information' from the religionist/metaphysical etc side.

So in this answer I will try to stay with examples, which are as down-to-earth practical as possible.


When a guitar-string is set in motion, it vibrates with a specific basic frequency (overtones are disregarded here), and this agitates whatever the surrounding air consists of, thus forming waves.

The producing end of the process, the origin.


When coming in contact with other objects, the waves will create a reaction in those objects. And it's qualitatively irrelevant what such an object is (while some quantitative qualities will make the wave effect negligible).

On a citar, the underlaying (not touched) strings will start to vibrate also, from the impact of the main-strings. Even a deaf person will be able to verify this by observing the secondary strings.

If the recieving part (of the waves) is a functional eardrum, that will start to vibrate, and through the perception mechanisms be interpretated partly as 'just' a sound and partly as expressing a pattern (according to former experince).

In the final process of perception, any discerned pattern will, from various sets of conditioning, give some 'meaning' (this is the sea, this is wind in the forest, this is a classical sympony, this is my wife complaining when she has PMS) and it will be part of the more or less solipsistic tunnel-reality everybody lives in (some very much, some less).

This final part of the perception process, the 'interpretation', has nothing to do with the origin of the wave in the air. That will be there as long as there is any air around to carry it, and whether it's labelled a 'sound', because it has passed human interpretation or not, is completely unimportant.

There are similar processes going on around us, including all of the known forces and interaction methods the universe contains. E.g.the socalled (hypothetical because never observed, but generally accepted) transmittor particles 'gravitons' are such, where mass reacts with mass.

In NONE of all the cosmic interactions, is there any reason to expect a specific level of 'consciousness' to be THE conclusive factor for any process of interaction. All that's needed is a point of origin and a medium to carry the signals.

And that's where the 'observer-created existence' model runs amok, when in the hands of over-enthusiastic religionists and cottage-industry philosophers. The crucial point in the universal (cosmic) process of existence through interaction, does not depend on any 'higher' consciousness being part of the process or by any 'higher' consciousness interpretating the process.

Cosmic interaction takes place at a rather simplistic level, and is not to be confused with the options complexity (e.g. 'higher' consciousness) have in influencing cosmic processes (e.g. can some processes be reversed by complexity, but not by 'mechanistic natural laws').

Cosmic interaction is not to be confused with possible religious/philosophical questions of cosmogonic type either, at least not before the positions are very clearly defined and examined (and even then it's difficult to say the least). But that's another cup of tea.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


Why will you not answer the first 'not so easy' post bogomil?

Each and everytime i reply to you i wonder what am i doing.
It is you who makes arguments.
I have no argument and nothing to prove.


If you would like to know anymore, i suggest you ask madness as he is the ring master of this particular circus.



edit on 16-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


As you see, I did answer it. It only took some time to compose, as I must 'translate' the logic/science into more ordinary language.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 

You wrote:
(This final part of the perception process, the 'interpretation', has nothing to do with the origin of the wave in the air.)

The word perception means that there is a conciousness.
Something has to be conscious to be able to verify whether some 'thing' is happening. The some 'thing' we are speaking about is 'sound'. 'Sound is a 'thing'. 'Things' only appear when a human has put a imaginary border around a wave of potentiallity and collapsed it into a separate 'thing'. This separate 'thing' is given a name. All the names, labels, concepts, ideas and beliefs can not exist without the namer of 'things'.
How would anyone know if air or waves exist if there was no one there. Waves and air are secondary to the perciever.
One has to be, before one can know.
To be or not to be? This is the question.
What is Shakesphere asking??? Why is he asking this question? i think it is a relevant question, one to be considered.

Waves may or may not exist independant of the observer, however, until they impact an eardrum that is connected to a conscious person they will only be waves, not sound.

I never use the terminology 'higher consciousness'.
What do you mean when you use the term?



edit on 16-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


When ever i use the word 'god', i use it because we are on a forum generally talking about god.
I also use the word 'consciousness' and 'being'.
But god also means reality.
'This' is a word that represents god.
'Christ' means consciousness.
I am that i am.
The Atman is this.
Isness.

All these words are pointers, descriptions of something that is not an object but is present.
Presence.
It can not be taught, it is not magic, it is the natural state.

edit on 16-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["The word perception means that there is a conciousness."]

Possibly. I wouldn't know if an atom 'perceives' or not, or if it has a 'consciousness'. That's why I formerly have asked you to clarify the level of consciousness, you are using as a basis for your speculations.

What I DO know is, that atoms interact with other parts of the universe, and thus are part of the overall reciprocial dynamics, which is the most likely 'explanation' for universal existence. 'Observation' made by the consciousness of higher complexity is only one small part of this process.

Quote: ["Something has to be conscious to be able to verify whether some 'thing' is happening."]

Why? If one stone bumps into another stone, they are both 'verified' in cosmic terms. This is a postulate, you need to validate.

Quote: ["'Things' only appear when a human has put a imaginary border around a wave of potentiallity and collapsed it into a separate 'thing'."]

I have spent, or seemingly wasted, two posts on this. Sounds are there, whether anyone 'conscious' ('conscious' still undefined on your part) register them or not.

Quote: ["This separate 'thing' is given a name. All the names, labels, concepts, ideas and beliefs can not exist without the namer of 'things'."]

Sounds sound. Names can't exist without namegivers. And....?

Quote: ["How would anyone know if air or waves exist if there was no one there. Waves and air are secondary to the perciever."]

Does 'anyone' need to 'KNOW', before thing s can exist. If 'anyone' can include particles, atoms. molecules, stones, trees, badgers...then there is an endless amount of 'anyones'. (You know, it's not without reason I sometimes ask you for definitions, specifications or clarifications. You get lost in your own semantics ever so often).

And why are waves and air secondary to the perciever?

Quote: ["One has to be, before one can know."]

Please, skip the guru-rhetoric.

Quote: ["Waves may or may not exist independant of the observer, however, until they impact an eardrum that is connected to a conscious person they will only be waves, not sound."]

Hang on to that, and you may eventually be able to communicate. And what makes a wave less (meaningful, significant, important, whatever) than the human construct 'sound'.

Quote: ["I never use the terminology 'higher consciousness'."]

No, I do. Hypethetically in the context of complexity. See how much un-necessary babbling we could have avoided, if you had answered my far from idle or manipulative questions from the start.

Quote: ["What do you mean when you use the term?"]

I operate on terms of complexity, That is, at least inside the perspective called cosmos.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


When ever i use the word 'god', i use it because we are on a forum generally talking about god.
I also use the word 'consciousness' and 'being'.
But god also means reality.
'This' is a word that represents god.
'Christ' means consciousness.
I am that i am.
The Atman is this.
Isness.

All these words are pointers, descriptions of something that is not an object but is present.
Presence.
It can not be taught, it is not magic, it is the natural state.

edit on 16-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


I can only suggest, that you refine your semantics then.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion1
 


I must say, that I have warmed to you. In spite of your (what I consider absurd) religion, which, when it somes to the point is none of my business, as you also share the 'live and let live' ideal, you're not so bad.

Unfortunately age, a bad health and presently some practical obligations prevents me from answering you today. My energy is rather fluctuating. But I promise you an answer soon, and should too much time elapse, then I will send you a U2U telling about it.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I conclude that you have indeed wasted your time educating me.
I need not your education or your condescending attitude.
I have answered your questions with love.
However, it is seen that they are not to your taste.


edit on 16-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


You wrote:
('conscious' still undefined on your part)

This has finally convinced me that i am also wasting my time.
It seems that you do not know what it means to be conscious. It is clear to me now that you have not understood anything that i have written.

Namaste.







 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join