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.

 

Understanding Creation.

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
To understand any of this, you have to accept it first, and then ask questions about it.

I'm talking about accepting God into your life and he will show you everything there is to know.


I can't accept any of it without asking questions first, because it doesn't make sense without further explanation. Also, I cannot accept deities into my life because there doesn't appear to be any around. Surely you see the quandary here...




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
To understand any of this, you have to accept it first, and then ask questions about it.

I'm talking about accepting God into your life and he will show you everything there is to know.


I can't accept any of it without asking questions first, because it doesn't make sense without further explanation. Also, I cannot accept deities into my life because there doesn't appear to be any around. Surely you see the quandary here...


Deities are basically personifications of archetypal forces.. Or at least that's what I've gathered. So in a way they exist, but people need to understand that it's not the Deity themselves, but rather the idea that they represent.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Not necessarily, and context plays a heavy role here. Usually when referring to the universe as a "creation" it is tacitly implied that it was intentionally created by some deity.


Okay, well take the "deity" part out of it because there can be nothing more intelligent than men such as yourself.


Exactly, and if that's the case then the universe didn't "pop out of nothing", either by deity or by natural processes. Hence, it couldn't justly be called a "creation", at least in the context I described above.


So you're agreeing that all the energy that exists, in whatever form it currently exists, has always existed in some form, and will always exist in some form? I agree with that.
edit on 9-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


If you don't understand how you experience the universe, how can you know how it works, or if it was created? If we don't understand our own consciousness and what it is, then how can we determine anything that exist within that realm of consciousness?

Unless we have an all encompassing theory, then any theory besides that is just a building block and is incomplete.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
To understand any of this, you have to accept it first, and then ask questions about it.

I'm talking about accepting God into your life and he will show you everything there is to know.


I can't accept any of it without asking questions first, because it doesn't make sense without further explanation. Also, I cannot accept deities into my life because there doesn't appear to be any around. Surely you see the quandary here...


Again, this is philosophy. I am a philosopher, and this is how I come to conclusions. You are obviously a scientist, and that's okay. The world needs scientists too. You base acceptable information on a body of facts and evidence. I base my information on "inner knowledge"(observations of interrelationships of various concepts and how they apply to reality).

If you could believe me when I say that in a higher dimension that is still you, you create your existence here in 3d, you would see how inner knowledge is a very logical approach to learning. If you exist outside of space and time, then you already know everything there is to know and only need to look within to find the answers.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Everything is you.

edit on 9-6-2011 by smithjustinb because:




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


great post. All of our ideas are just us accessing the boundless amounts of information we already know in the first place.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


great post. All of our ideas are just us accessing the boundless amounts of information we already know in the first place.


Well put.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I would like to hear you explain the act of observation, not the affects of, but the actual act of which. How does "observe" happen objectively outside of perception and subjective experience? How does this, observe, happen, where does it come from, what defines it?

What i mean is, how are you interfacing and experiencing all of these scientific facts, and all of this trajectory and latitude? How are you able to know that you are seeing this?
edit on 9-6-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)


The one thing that even the most powerful and perfectly cloaked dynamic presence is incapable of hiding is the impact it has on whatever it is that it has affected. A good analogy is the invisible wind. It's absolutely undetectable by the human eyes, but the effect it has on leaves, dust, water, clouds, rain, your skin - you name it - is very obvious, and so we don't really think of wind as being completely invisible. Much of what I know, I've learned from examining the impact of what exists on what I can perceive. I have a very simple logic statement that I refer to, when someone asks me what that means. It's pretty common:

"A+B=C therefore C-B=A"

What this suggests is that we can know some things to be true as a direct consequence of what we've already proven to be true. In the statement above, we declared "A+B=C" to be true, and since this is the foundational premise of the statement (establishing the fundamental "real" for the rest of the statement) then all determinations emerging from that establishment must either align with the reality of that statement or be considered to be untrue. The emerging determination that "C-B=A" does align with the foundational premise as declared by the opening statement, and even though we didn't base the entire declaration on the premise that "C-B=A", because it aligns logically with the foundational premise "A+B=C", we can be confident that it is a true statement.

This is the core essence of how you can examine and figure out the existential basis of physical reality. There are many "A+B=C" statements that litter our world and our lives. There are also many statements that obviously don't align with these statements. Eliminating these "truths" is the easy part. The hard part is dealing with the nature of existential imperative expressions and Identity qualifiers (basically why things are the way they are, and what real means and how we can know it when we "see" it). This is where a person can get seriously turned around, but if you keep it simple, and always reduce your contextual complications - regardless of the sophistication of the manifestation under examination - to the only true imperative (survival), and limit all shadings to overtly Masculine and Feminine expressions of survival, then the relative gradient between the two will never take you off track.

As to how the perceiver perceives, here's a short explanation. I apologize for excerpting again, but I'm a little pressed for time and the thing is right here on my hard drive. Due to the absence of a lot of established informational foundations, I've adjusted some of the terminology that I normally use, and toss in a few easier-to-immediately-access bits of jargon. It's just so that I don't have to waste anyone's time with withering digressions. One other note is that this entire premise is based on the idea that the event is the substructural driver, and that information (basically) provides "guidance" to the event (it's not that simple, but for here, that's as good as I can do as an explanation). When we roll a ball across the floor, we demonstrate this symbiotic relationship at a variety of levels - linear, redundant and matrixed. Anyway, here's how the brain brings, what (for the human being) has become the mind, into physical existence. I have a more comprehensive overview, but it's 20,000+ words long.


This genius of sheer will to exist, that’s resulted in the amazing elemental complexities that we find in even the most basic building blocks of physical mass, inevitably drives The Matrixed Event Trajectory (MeT) to a point where a need for a breakthrough in holistic event management becomes the difference between further developmental advancement and a complete dead end, due to levels of organizational layering that have literally hit their survivability potential.

Of course, the Event/Information partnership isn't going to allow for such a developmental shutdown, and the first-ever dedicated information center - devoted exclusively to only one event matrix whole - is brought into existence to deal with these extreme levels of organizational complexity, as an actual event subset within the matrix being served. We refer to this data management event subsets as the corporeal brain, and the matrix event whole that features this revolutionary breakthrough in trajectory survival is what I call the Epitome MeT (EMeT), the very first intelligent event-centric being.

Now, you need to keep in mind that the reason for the brain has always been to isolate the management of survival-specific information production, ensuring a much more robust response capacity regardless of the need or threat posed to the event matrix whole. The brain gives its matrix whole an overwhelming competitive advantage over the matrix whole that exists under the blanket dictates of simple DNA protocols. Initiation and dynamic response can now be selective; an enormous advancement in the arena of holon survivability. The fact that the brain’s production of unique data clusters (Informational Existence, in its own right) creates a brand new existential hybrid that combines the Event and Information is beside the point.

In fact, the MeT (in general) never even notices; being simple activity, regardless of how sophisticated the structure it’s placed within. But the fact of this new form of information becomes part of the contextual slurry that defines the environment as a whole, and as with all advances, when Truth awards its “yes”, that “yes” adjusts the foundational real forever. The instant that it becomes true that this new form of information is a dynamic hybrid of both the MeT and Informational Existence - displaying essential physical attributes of both - the definition of physical existence itself is forever transformed.

The emergence of this matrix whole that can actually launch event trajectories of Informational Existence is more than a simple existential breakthrough. Information can now be both eternal and dynamic. This is something that’s never existed before, and with this revolution, the environment’s Residual mass (the Informational Continuum) is immediately flooded with new and deeply textured waves of information in response to this new existential hybrid - the dynamic informational whole - as it acts and reacts of its own volition within the environment.

It’s important to note that the symbiotic relationship between the EMeT event whole and The Residual is not affected by this survival-specific development. This new arrangement simply allows for more efficient and stable control of the multi-layered event trajectory. The Informational Continuum’s imposition of established DNA directives for this new data center remains intact and ongoing, with EMet’s brain translating those directives into arrays of more specific management processes, and those direct response information configurations (or bursts, as I like to call them) as they become necessary. We recognize this heavy DNA influence as natural (animal) instinct when we note its impact on the behavior and character of more advanced EMeT beings.

What has changed, however, is that the event trajectory initiated by the animal brain, as it organizes and configures bursts of stored and perceived information clusters, now includes those bursts of information as fully associated integral event units within that trajectory. Event units that will never cease to physically exist. This means that every event unit that contributes to an entire matrix whole will have permanent Identity survival within the contextual whole of this new form of information if such a trajectory is initiated as an identified event subset of (is “generated” by) that matrix event whole.

For the MeT as an existential whole, the only development that could be more significant would be a complete and total eradication of all physical existence. This unexpected hybrid, a direct ramification of the event matrix creating its own isolated survival management process, has literally reinvented what it means to be an event.


Now, when it comes to the human version of the EMeT, the difference is in the sophistication of the informational event trajectory. It's not merely reactive to external stimuli (external to the brain, that is). This informational event trajectory is capable of rumination, and this is where the realization of self emerges to force the informational event trajectory itself to feel the Masculine survival imperative expression Identity as a primordial impetus, even to the point of choosing self over the EMeT whole that brought it into existence. This sense of self - and inevitable drive for unique and inimitable Identity it brings with it - is what we call the human mind, and this is what observes the brain as that poor thing churns out more and more of the mind in direct response to the effort it's engaged in to delay the EMeT's inevitable decline and ultimate failure.

Meanwhile the mind considers it own eternal nature, and may even makes its own plans for when its corporeal EMeT gestational placenta will no longer be a burden to it. No other EMeT whole (on this planet anyway) experiences this odd transition in holon focus, but then, this is why the rest of the planet is more in tune with its corporeal essence. Corporeal humanity is a perfect example of advancing beyond your own usefulness within a specific application. The truth is that the human being doesn't even take its first fully viable "breath" until the corpse hits the floor. It's a dynamic informational being. The body and brain merely bring it into physical existence in the manner that I just described.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Scientific theories explain the why and how.


Not true. We don't know why gravity exists; we only know that it does exist and how it works.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Consciousness and sentience are by-products of the mind. If you claim otherwise, show us another source and, if you can, an example.


That's quite an assertive statement. Have you investigated theories of consciousness other than materialistic explanations? I recommend David Chalmers' work, which definitely contrasts with materialist philosophers' work like Daniel Dennett's.

As for an example, research the "hard problem" of consciousness.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaZero

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Scientific theories explain the why and how.


Not true. We don't know why gravity exists; we only know that it does exist and how it works.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Consciousness and sentience are by-products of the mind. If you claim otherwise, show us another source and, if you can, an example.


That's quite an assertive statement. Have you investigated theories of consciousness other than materialistic explanations? I recommend David Chalmers' work, which definitely contrasts with materialist philosophers' work like Daniel Dennett's.

As for an example, research the "hard problem" of consciousness.


I imagine it might be impossible to identify consciousness as something other than a product of mind since it is always your mind that is doing the indentifying.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Okay, well take the "deity" part out of it because there can be nothing more intelligent than men such as yourself.


Sigh. Really?

This is the kind of discourse you wish to engage in?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


If you don't understand how you experience the universe, how can you know how it works, or if it was created? If we don't understand our own consciousness and what it is, then how can we determine anything that exist within that realm of consciousness?


If you don't understand how everything in a combustion engine works, how can you drive a car?

You're playing on the fallacious argument from ignorance. "We don't know "X", therefore my proposal, "Y", is valid".



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Again, this is philosophy. I am a philosopher, and this is how I come to conclusions. You are obviously a scientist, and that's okay. The world needs scientists too. You base acceptable information on a body of facts and evidence. I base my information on "inner knowledge"(observations of interrelationships of various concepts and how they apply to reality).


Subjective experience has no value when imparting your findings to others. Only a small segment of people will accept your revelations at face value and likely all would do so for irrational reasons.


If you could believe me when I say that in a higher dimension that is still you, you create your existence here in 3d, you would see how inner knowledge is a very logical approach to learning. If you exist outside of space and time, then you already know everything there is to know and only need to look within to find the answers.


"Higher dimensions" and especially "outside of space and time" are useless metaphysical concepts unless they can be demonstrated to exist.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaZero


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Consciousness and sentience are by-products of the mind. If you claim otherwise, show us another source and, if you can, an example.


That's quite an assertive statement. Have you investigated theories of consciousness other than materialistic explanations? I recommend David Chalmers' work, which definitely contrasts with materialist philosophers' work like Daniel Dennett's.

As for an example, research the "hard problem" of consciousness.


Yes, I've investigated some of the current research on consciousness by Dennett and others. But, I'll pose to you the same question: can you show me an example of consciousness existing somewhere other than a mind?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Again, this is philosophy. I am a philosopher, and this is how I come to conclusions. You are obviously a scientist, and that's okay. The world needs scientists too. You base acceptable information on a body of facts and evidence. I base my information on "inner knowledge"(observations of interrelationships of various concepts and how they apply to reality).


Subjective experience has no value when imparting your findings to others. Only a small segment of people will accept your revelations at face value and likely all would do so for irrational reasons.


If you could believe me when I say that in a higher dimension that is still you, you create your existence here in 3d, you would see how inner knowledge is a very logical approach to learning. If you exist outside of space and time, then you already know everything there is to know and only need to look within to find the answers.


"Higher dimensions" and especially "outside of space and time" are useless metaphysical concepts unless they can be demonstrated to exist.



For any particle small enough for quantum effects to be significant—electron, proton, etc.—, where it will arrive at the screen is highly determinate (in that quantum mechanics predicts accurately the probability that it will arrive at any point on the screen). However, in what sequence members of a series of singly emitted things (e.g., electrons) build up the final distribution pattern is completely unpredictable. The experimental facts are so highly reproducible that there is virtually no argument about them, but the appearance of there being an uncaused event (because of the unpredictability of the sequencing) has aroused a great deal of cognitive dissonance and attempts to account for the sequencing by reference to supposed "additional variables."



For example, when electrons are fired at the target screen in bursts, one might account for the resulting interference pattern by assuming that immediately neighboring electrons are interfering with each other[citation needed] because they arrive at the screen at the same time; but when a laboratory apparatus was developed that could reliably fire single electrons at the screen,[35] the emergence of an interference pattern suggested that each electron was interfering with itself, and therefore in some sense the electron had to be going through both slits.[36] For something envisaged as an unimaginably small particle to be able to interfere with itself would suggest that this single "sub-atomic particle" was in two places at once, but that idea contradicts our everyday experience of discrete objects. It was easier to conceptualize the electron as a wave than to accept another, more disturbing implication[citation needed] (from the viewpoint of our everyday notions of reality): that quantum objects are able to exist and behave in ways that defy classical interpretation.


Source: Double Slit Experiment

The second paragraph is the main one i wanted to emphasize.
edit on 10-6-2011 by smithjustinb because: eherhqer



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Yep. Lots of weird things at the quantum level.

What does that have to do with your claims?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Yep. Lots of weird things at the quantum level.

What does that have to do with your claims?


The electron was observed in two places at once. Same electron. Two different places. Imagine you are in two places at once. The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.


Nope.
Space does have meaning and is real.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The only way something can be in two different places at once is if space has no meaning and is therefore not real.


Nope.
Space does have meaning and is real.


Not to the electron that was in two places at once.


It's all a matter of perspective.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join